Thoughts on AMD + FM

I've had an AMD processor in my computers for the last five or six years.

Over the last few days, i had what I would call a cataclysmic failure of my processor, which led to me needing a new motherboard + CPU. This time, i went for an Intel (best offer I could find).

Wow.

The game works so poorly with AMD processors. I had a 955 Black Edition (quad core) - which is a solid processor. When playing, the game would take upwards of a second to react to what I asked it do, making playing it such a chore.

My new processor is an i5 2400 - stil quad core. Yes it's a step up, but the change is more drastic than it should be. Everything is instantaneous.

This should not be the case. I'm glad it works so well on the new processor, but the gap in performance between the two processors is not so huge that it should feel like I've just upgraded from a single core processor to a quad core.

I can't say that a similar performance increase has been noticed with other games - there's a slight boost, but nothing so drastic.

I think there is some work to be done by Si for those that have AMD processors - whether the engine doesn't know how to thread for them properly, or it doesn't make proper use of the processor caches I'm not sure. One thing I have noticed is that Fm will use all 4 cores on the i5, but on the old one it never used more than 2.

Not that I know much about these things, but it could be that the fact that FM took a second to react and your AMD processor had what you call a cataclysmic failure are related??? Often the easiest answer is the correct answer ;-)

I'm using a 965 and it is better than my E8200 (dual I know) and Q9000 (laptop I know) put together, much faster. It's probably the RAM/HDD the causes it.

Not that I know much about these things, but it could be that the fact that FM took a second to react and your AMD processor had what you call a cataclysmic failure are related??? Often the easiest answer is the correct answer ;-)

No, because it was working fine for months and months before that - plus FM was the only application of its size that would be so slow.

Also, I have the same RAM and HDD that I had before. Just a new motherboard and processor. It's even the same install of Windows.

There were also of course the issue with FM09 and it freezing up for seconds/minutes at a time (which persisted all the way to FM11, only no where near as severe) - the majority of people who had this problem had AMD processors. This issue has also gone away since I installed the new CPU.

I'm happy with my AMD

I don't have any problems... strangely I did have the FM09 problem on my Celeron powered laptop... owait, that's an Intel..

It's not at all unusual for software to run better on one company's processors than another's, especially when the game is as processor heavy as FM. If memory serves Civ 5 performs much better on Intel processors as well, or at least it did at launch. You'll often see a similar pattern with AMD and Nvidia when it comes to graphics cards as well.

Unfortunately, it almost always seems to be AMD that comes off worse - I assume because Intel are so market-dominant.

Hmm weird i use a phenom 840 which is poorer than your black edition 955 and i have never had any delay or freezing, FM also seems to be using all 4 cores aswell.

The difference it how it processes information, AMD has slow clock for clock speed compared to Intel but for the money you pay AMD are much better value.

@ Ronnie

I didn't realise it was a problem with AMD until I had swapped processors - I expected it to be sluggish on the new one too but it just isn't at all.

There are a whole host of factors that could be involved aside from just the chip maker. Though I've always preferred Intel processors over AMD, for any brand of quad core you should not be seeing long processing delays. I bet other factors were at work, like driver issues/incompatibilities, background applications, etc.

There are a whole host of factors that could be involved aside from just the chip maker. Though I've always preferred Intel processors over AMD, for any brand of quad core you should not be seeing long processing delays. I bet other factors were at work, like driver issues/incompatibilities, background applications, etc.

Considering that it's the same windows install, the same background processes are still running. It's the processor, quite obviously.

The processing in between matches was not an issue, that was snappy enough. It was mainly the interface that was sluggish and the odd moment of freezing in the match engine.

There were no driver issues present - everything was up to date.

The i5-2400 is miles - miles - better than the X4 955.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+%40+3.10GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

In addition, the i5-2500K is a stupidly-good processor and the i5-2400 is slightly slower than that and doesn't have that much overclocking potential. None of AMD's processors can touch the i5-2500K at the moment.

AMD Bulldozer is coming out next month which should hopefully change all that (at the very least, will pull prices down). But I would not expect many AMD processors that are around a year old to come close to Sandy Bridge at the moment. Possibly next month, of course.

Also, remember that AMD's "cores" aren't really equivalent to Intel's "cores" - AMD's 6 cores is roughly the same as Intel's 4 cores because Intel's are more independent. So a quad-core AMD processor isn't actually close to the same parallelism to Intel's quad-core variants around the same age. This is why the i5-2400 is actually closer to an X6.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if there are major differences because of the way both companies have treated threading - disappointing perhaps, but then again for heavily-threaded applications (i.e. miles more threaded than Football Manager), the X6s can hold their own against Intel's quad-core variants, so it's a trade-off.

Your paying nearly twce as much for well under twice the performance, my argument stand. Also Intel boards cost £20-£40 more for a decent one

Also look at this: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+965

The simple matter of fact is, at this moment in time AMD are more along the lines of 'budget' and intel are the 'premium' the i3, i5 & i7's have the QPI which allows the cores to communicate a lot faster than AMD and their equivalent. In time it could change but currently the iSeries processors are very much at the pinnacle of what we can generally purchase. One of the reasons why intel prices are getting higher and higher (an i7 920 D0 is more expensive now than when I bought mine a year ago, quite possibly also due to the monstrous overclocking capability it seems to have) is because AMD just can't produce something to compete at the moment - at least in terms of gaming processing. The AMD cores are much better suited to other tasks than intel processors from what I've read, such as code compiling and whatnot. Just what the difference is I'm unsure as I only look into things from a gaming perspecting.

The QPI is much better at handling higher speed RAM and HDD's though which enables more performance across the board with games like FM.

Your paying nearly twce as much for well under twice the performance, my argument stand. Also Intel boards cost £20-£40 more for a decent one

Also look at this: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+965

If that's a response to me, these benchmarks are largely synthetic so it isn't necessarily linear. So it's not necessarily the case of buying processors that have the highest CPU Mark/Cost ratio - otherwise you'd be looking at ancient Pentium 4s that are probably free right now.

The "CPU Mark/Cost" ratio for the X4 955 is around 32.925 while the i5-2400 is around 32.026 which is roughly the same anyway.

The simple matter of fact is, at this moment in time AMD are more along the lines of 'budget' and intel are the 'premium' the i3, i5 & i7's have the QPI which allows the cores to communicate a lot faster than AMD and their equivalent. In time it could change but currently the iSeries processors are very much at the pinnacle of what we can generally purchase.

Agreed. X4s are really good for mid-level gaming, more value-for-money so than first-generation i5s. None of the X6s really touched the first-generation i7s except for specialist applications - so none of the X6s are going to touch Sandy Bridge. It's been a bad few years for AMD - I miss the days when AMD Athlon 64 was stomping Intel's Pentium 4 to the ground, and both companies were having a good go at each other.

From what I remember, Intel basically took the top spot through corporate espionage a few years ago, were let off with a slap on the wrist and AMD never really recovered.

Another thing is that Intel's i5/k7 processors draw very little power compared to their speed. Depending on how much and how often you're running your PC, and what you are being charged for power, you could be saving money on the wrong end of the bill by going ultra-high-clocked AMD processors still somewhat able to compete with Intels range of i7 processors. (AMD X6, I'm looking at you).

IWhen playing, the game would take upwards of a second to react to what I asked it do, making playing it such a chore.

I have this too, particularly when accessing player's profiles, big lists of data (all the world's managers) etc. but figured it was down to FM catching up with my four years old system: At its core, it is powered by a rather low-key AMD X2 5200+, after all.

I'm planning to upgrade in the next coming months, but I'm not sure wether to wait on Bulldozer and the inevitable price drop or whether I'd hop over to an AM3 platform. AMD still is a decent choice for budget rigs that can do anything you want it to - like it was four years ago when I bought my current built. That also is the case for the most demanding areas gaming, in particular as most titles are multiplatform, and unless cheaply ported the current generation of high-end hardware just isn't tickled by games meant to run on PS3 too - 2007's Crysis is still a benchmark even untouched by its sequel. A sequel that doesn't support any DirectX11 features current video chips are capable of. Decent AMD boards can be had for ultra-cheap, and there is a wide range of perfectly decent processors to be had from AMD for less than 100€. Can anybody confirm this issue, and whilst we're at it: Has it ever been officially confirmed how many cores FM is able to utilize? If so, provide a direct link please.

I have this too, particularly when accessing player's profiles, big lists of data (all the world's managers) etc. but figured it was down to FM catching up with my four years old system: At its core, it is powered by a rather low-key AMD X2 5200+, after all.

Is that not more a HDD/RAM thing?

Is that not more a HDD/RAM thing?

Not likely, as the HDD isn't being accessed and I've got about 1GB of RAM not being utilized at any given time.

Well I had got FM using 4 cores at 70-80+% when crunching

I would think that bringing up data would have been a RAM thing, it the game and save not loaded into the RAM when you open it? It could also be a really bad de fragmented HDD, like my laptop... (which is on an intel quad)

Open resource manager, FM access the HDD all the time. I just checked mine

Well I had got FM using 4 cores at 70-80+% when crunching

I would think that bringing up data would have been a RAM thing, it the game and save not loaded into the RAM when you open it? It could also be a really bad de fragmented HDD, like my laptop... (which is on an intel quad)

Open resource manager, FM access the HDD all the time. I just checked mine

Are you sure it's not just the page file?

There is inevitable hard disk access by the game but it is negligible since everything ends up in memory for Football Manager.

It could be but it's only 17KB/s so that seems like too little for pagefile, it only spikes when I look at histories

When I upgraded my PC I was 50/50 between an i5 and an AMD. I've had mostly AMD's in the past as they're usually reliable but for this brand-new built PC I wanted something that could run most programs and FM (prolly the only 'demanding' game I play on PC now, courtesy of PS3).

I'd read about the brilliant power consumption and quiet running of the i5, but most of the benchmark sites I'd been on (I think Tom's Hardware is the best of the lot) said in a straight power race, certain Phenom's would easily win and the power usage actually isn't that great a jump, so I went with a Phenom X4 965 in the end and haven't regretted it since.

FM11 runs buttery-smooth on my PC with lots of leagues selected, it could be one of a 100 reasons why yours is going slow sadly (one of the main reasons I now play my games on consoles.. ), but I can say that the Windows CPU usage shows all 4 cores are operating when I play FM on my PC, I just find it very rare that it ever actually needs all 4 for many operations in my experience with it.

The i5 is very efficient at what it does though certainly, so I'm certainly not ruling out the slight increase in processor power being managed better or AMD's havent been optimised yet by SI.

When I upgraded my PC I was 50/50 between an i5 and an AMD. I've had mostly AMD's in the past as they're usually reliable but for this brand-new built PC I wanted something that could run most programs and FM (prolly the only 'demanding' game I play on PC now, courtesy of PS3).

I'd read about the brilliant power consumption and quiet running of the i5, but most of the benchmark sites I'd been on (I think Tom's Hardware is the best of the lot) said in a straight power race, certain Phenom's would easily win and the power usage actually isn't that great a jump, so I went with a Phenom X4 965 in the end and haven't regretted it since.

FM11 runs buttery-smooth on my PC with lots of leagues selected, it could be one of a 100 reasons why yours is going slow sadly (one of the main reasons I now play my games on consoles.. ), but I can say that the Windows CPU usage shows all 4 cores are operating when I play FM on my PC, I just find it very rare that it ever actually needs all 4 for many operations in my experience with it.

The i5 is very efficient at what it does though certainly, so I'm certainly not ruling out the slight increase in processor power being managed better or AMD's havent been optimised yet by SI.

How long ago was this? Sandy Bridge's power consumption smacks the X4s into oblivion. In fact, it even beats first-generation i5s...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-efficienct-32-nm,2831-7.html

I've never had a problem with my AMD processor.

How long ago was this? Sandy Bridge's power consumption smacks the X4s into oblivion. In fact, it even beats first-generation i5s...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-efficienct-32-nm,2831-7.html

Yeah, considering that even the smallest chips (the sub 100 bucks Core i3-2100 and thereabouts) can outperform the X4s whilst drawing much less power it's too bad that going Sandy Bridge rather than an AM3 platform costs 30-50 bucks more straight off the bat. And in that price range that means a lot. But then if Intel boards were cheaper AMD would be in serious trouble even in the market segment they are still doing fine in.

Still, the Core i3-series of chips are a real threat to them, much much more so than the over-priced Core 2 Duo chips Intel used to have in that price range prior:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2011/test-intel-core-i3-2100-2120/23/#abschnitt_winrar_40_reales_packen

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2011/test-intel-core-i3-2100-2120/24/#abschnitt_pcmark_vantage

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2011/test-intel-core-i3-2100-2120/29/#abschnitt_f1_2010

Sigh, options, options. ;-)

edit: Also, disabling Cool&Quiet, so that my CPU is always clocked at maximum speed shortens the delay. Not that it is a HUGE issue, but since I also deleted FM's cache, it is likely the processor's fault, four years old and all.

I've never had a problem with my AMD processor.

I second this. Perhaps this is the worst thread I've read today.

People never said there was a problem with AMD processors. The OP didn't experience troubles (ie bluescreens with FM or crashes) just sluggishness. There is no denying however, that right now Intel are producing the better processors for gaming. This is simply how the market is at the moment. It all depends on who comes up with the new way to do something and implements it best. One could just as easily say your post is the worst they've read today arijit because it completely misses the point.

The original post is coming from someone who has had both an AMD and an Intel processor. Some people feel as though this is an attack because their choice sees them have an AMD processor in their PC and for some reason the fact it was their decision means that it is right. It's not something to get precious and sensitive over, people make decisions based on their budgets and whats available. FM will play perfectly fine on an AMD processor. There is a good chance, with an i5 or i7 processor however that you will see better performance.

If you take this further and use 2200Mhz RAM there will be better performance than DDR2 800Mhz RAM. Just like on other titles if you line up an AMD/ATI 5850 against a GTX 580 you'll notice a performance difference, but then if you load in a 6990 the GTX 580 probably looks the weaker in some cases. Different hardware has different performance, some performs better than others at specific tasks. Right now Intel generally is better for gaming.

I have run both, alternating pretty much every time I have changed. Going from a 3800+ X2, E7400, Q9000, now to a 965. The AMD's are much cheaper and not much drop in performance IMHO

I second this. Perhaps this is the worst thread I've read today.

Then perhaps you should actually attempt to comprehend the content of the post, because i think it went straight over your head, as well as a couple of others. There was no problem with my old processor, save that it is disproportionally bad at handling FM compared to my new one.

I'm learning so much from this thread, although I still don't understand any of it. I will figure it out... Hopefully

How long ago was this? Sandy Bridge's power consumption smacks the X4s into oblivion. In fact, it even beats first-generation i5s...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-efficienct-32-nm,2831-7.html

I got mine just under a year ago, in time for FM11.

For pure tech power, the reviews and tech sites usually pointed to my AMD being faster than the i5 (and the i7 was way too dear for a processor), and it was cheaper, which is why I got it. The i5 may well have optimisation tricks it can use to be faster, and I've said already that it's got better power consumption than the Phenom, but the AMD works darn fine for me.

santy001, I agree with some of what you're saying and I've certainly no intention of getting into an arguement about a processor! They're both great pieces of kit and I would own either of them.

But I think when the OP makes such blase statements as "The game works so poorly with AMD processors." (and he's not been alone in these sort of statements), they probably are asking for a bit of hostility! lol

Interesting read. Currently running an AMD Athlon II X4 620 2.6Ghz and it does alright. I'll be looking to upgrade though later this year. If money wasn't an issue, would I be better off going over to an i7 rather than upgrading to an AMD hex-core then?

Yes. I7s are quite a bit ahead of the current X6 AMD offerings in terms of performance.

I would wait to see what the Bulldozer chip does though. I'm not expecting it to be competitive to be honest, but might be decent value.

If money wasn't an issue buy the $1000 Intel processor

yeah just seen that on Amazon I'll probably be going for £163 i7 quad 3.06Ghz seeing as I'd have to change my board and buy 4GB (or maybe 8GB) of DDR3 RAM. Probably cost me around £300 total seeing as I'll need to upgrade my PSU as well. Running off a 300W at the minute, will bump that up to 700W.

What graphics card?

Got an NVidia GForce 9500 with 512MB of Video RAM. Picked it up a couple of years ago for £50. Does quite well, can run every game I've got in high detail graphics. Maybe next year I'll look at getting something more high-end if I have the money.

GTX 460 SE, got mine for under £100. Runs Crysis 2 maxed in 1080p at 30 FPS+ I was asking cos you don't want it going pop when you stress it

Yeah definitely not. I managed to get Crysis 1 going at near full spec though so my setup isn't bad, just could be better.

I want to bench Crysis 1, I can't until I get home :@ Damn uni net!

Never really got into Crysis, borrowed it off a mate and gave it back after a few days. Only games I tend to play on my PC are FM (the reason for the i7) and the Knights Of The Old Republic series.

I am a big fan boy

Hopefully AMD will release Bulldozer in two weeks time. Can't wait to see how FM will run on these processors.

So when would be the best time to upgrade to a new PC then? Will there be an i8 anytime soon? Just don't want to splash the cash only to have my hardware made redundant within 6 months.

Still chugging away with the old 32-bit Duo-Core with 2GB of ram, and a 256mb video card Does everything I want except perhaps play shogun 2 battles. Never had any issues running FM.

I have a AMD Phenom 2 Hexacore 3ghz/8gig ram. FM is so fast that i have hard time keeping up.

I still use my AMD FX-60 processor and FM works fine!

So when would be the best time to upgrade to a new PC then? Will there be an i8 anytime soon? Just don't want to splash the cash only to have my hardware made redundant within 6 months.

Sadly there is never 'a good time' to upgrade your PC. There will always be something new and more powerful just on the horizon to make your shiny new bit of kit obsolete.

However, generally speaking now is a pretty good time as there are some cracking mid-range stuff available and RAM is dirt cheap too.

On topic, I'm using a Phenom x2 and while I appreciate there are quicker systems out there it runs everything nicely. The new career mode should be a boon for us non-power users too.