How a R3k AMD CPU can keep up with a R8k Intel CPU :)

[Chevron]

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

Just a taste:

 

[CataclysmZA]

Now, ladies and gents, before you take the clickbait, please note that platform and CPU differences become less of an issue as the rendering resolution of the games you're playing is increased. At 4K on a game that is GPU-reliant, the most you'll see in terms of scores are platform differences. AMD does still hold a lot of promise especially when it comes to multi-thread scenarios, but the FX-8350 isn't nearly worth the R3000 asking price. Something a lot saner, like R2300, is a better price point for the kind of performance it offers outside of GPU-limited workloads.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

Now, ladies and gents, before you take the clickbait, please note that platform and CPU differences become less of an issue as the rendering resolution of the games you're playing is increased. At 4K on a game that is GPU-reliant, the most you'll see in terms of scores are platform differences. AMD does still hold a lot of promise especially when it comes to multi-thread scenarios, but the FX-8350 isn't nearly worth the R3000 asking price. Something a lot saner, like R2300, is a better price point for the kind of performance it offers outside of GPU-limited workloads.

You're a joker, right?. Intel isn't worth their asking price IMHO. I have an FX-8320, bought for R2000, totally worth it.

 

[CataclysmZA]

You're a joker, right?. Intel isn't worth their asking price IMHO. I have an FX-8320, bought for R2000, totally worth it.

Nope, I'm being completely straight-faced here.

AMD FX-8320 3.5-4.0GHz @ R2370
AMD FX-8350 4.0-4.2GHz @ R3161

Considering both chips are identical under the hood, both unlocked, with the same TDP, it makes no sense why they are almost R800 apart. It also makes no sense to price the FX-8350 so high when Intel's Core i5-4690K is appreciably faster in almost every benchmark/workload that doesn't scale beyond beyond four threads and isn't GPU-limited. Better yet, clocking that chip up to 4.5GHz (easily doable on air cooling) extends the performance/watt ratio even further.

Nabbing an FX-8320 for R2k is a steal and I'm happy that you got such a good deal, but the current price of AMD's chips isn't good enough to allow for some competition with Intel locally, especially given that the motherboard selection is mostly meh.

 

[Magnum]

Nope, I'm being completely straight-faced here.

AMD FX-8320 3.5-4.0GHz @ R2370
AMD FX-8350 4.0-4.2GHz @ R3161

Considering both chips are identical under the hood, both unlocked, with the same TDP, it makes no sense why they are almost R800 apart. It also makes no sense to price the FX-8350 so high when Intel's Core i5-4690K is appreciably faster in almost every benchmark/workload that doesn't scale beyond beyond four threads and isn't GPU-limited. Better yet, clocking that chip up to 4.5GHz (easily doable on air cooling) extends the performance/watt ratio even further.

Nabbing an FX-8320 for R2k is a steal and I'm happy that you got such a good deal, but the current price of AMD's chips isn't good enough to allow for some competition with Intel locally, especially given that the motherboard selection is mostly meh.

The 8350 is a binned CPU. meaning it was in the center of the silicon wafer.
Higher quality meaning better performance and higher clock speeds can be achieved whilst still stable.
9590 is the same. with only a few available.

 

[Gtx Gaming]

I love amd cpu's for this reason!

Keep in mind some games like, GW2 and WOW where the fx8350 just cannot keep up.
A lot of MMO's are coded badly and do not make use of all the cpu cores at it's dispose.

 

[CataclysmZA]

The 8350 is a binned CPU. meaning it was in the center of the silicon wafer.
Higher quality meaning better performance and higher clock speeds can be achieved whilst still stable.
9590 is the same. with only a few available.

You can have a FX-9590 that was near the edge of the wafer that performs just as well as another FX-9590 that was near the center. Its actual location has some effect on performance, but so long as it holds its base and boost clocks, AMD will label it as a FX-9590.

In fact, almost every FX-8350 and FX-8370 can also be labeled as a FX-9370 or FX-9590, but motherboard designs, power draws and temperature concerns are all things that forced AMD to underclock the chips. With AMD on a 32nm process with Piledriver, their initial intention was to release a chip like the FX-8350 that would boost from 4.0-5.0GHz.

Keep in mind some games like, GW2 and WOW where the fx8350 just cannot keep up.
A lot of MMO's are coded just fine and are geared for single-thread performance.

FTFY. Even the Planetside 2 devs have been commenting on AMD's lacking single-thread performance as the limiting factor for their port over to the PS4. In many games, a FX-8350 may perform on the same level as a Core i3-4330. Increasing clock speeds does help somewhat, but it's no replacement for good single-thread performance.

 

[sybertiger]

i dont mind AMD,
they just run to hot and used to much power for my taste

but comparing price,there is a huge difference ,and gaming performance,and u can use the leftover money to get a better gpu that really matters

but,when u compare the raw cpu performance ,a intel quad core beats a amd octa core,

so it alll just depends on what u gonna do with it
or u can just get a i5 for gaming works great

[video=youtube;JA_2KAL3Pe0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_2KAL3Pe0[/video]


may cost cheaper,but then add a cpu cooler,a monthboard that can handle the power etc
a big psu,does the price in the end make it worth it?

where u can get a i7 for higher,but can get a lower psu and more monthboard options witch can save you money in the end,so to build it may cost the same in the end,

 

[Rudimental]

'E' chips are based on server-architecture, and so it isn't a surprise that they may perform worse than desktop chips when it comes to gaming, especially in GPU-limited scenarios.

When we look at desktop vs desktop, we find what everyone already knows:



Mmm, dat 60 min fps at 4k.

 

[Chevron]

i dont mind AMD,
they just run to hot and used to much power for my taste

but comparing price,there is a huge difference ,and gaming performance,and u can use the leftover money to get a better gpu that really matters

but,when u compare the raw cpu performance ,a intel quad core beats a amd octa core,

so it alll just depends on what u gonna do with it
or u can just get a i5 for gaming works great

[video=youtube;JA_2KAL3Pe0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA_2KAL3Pe0[/video]


may cost cheaper,but then add a cpu cooler,a monthboard that can handle the power etc
a big psu,does the price in the end make it worth it?

where u can get a i7 for higher,but can get a lower psu and more monthboard options witch can save you money in the end,so to build it may cost the same in the end,

N8ce video, but assuming because the top end chip is hot, that they all are is retarded. Band for buck AMD has always beaten Intel. And that includes when you take everything into account from motherboard to power supply.

If I had to get a CPU for gaming now the fx6300 and fx6350 by far other the best band for buck and use almost 150w less than the cpu in the video you cherry picked.

 

[Exaelea]

I love amd cpu's for this reason!

Keep in mind some games like, GW2 and WOW where the fx8350 just cannot keep up.
A lot of MMO's are coded badly and do not make use of all the cpu cores at it's dispose.

And that's why most people just buy an intel, no need to make excuses for why it underperforms in this or that.

 

[Chevron]

And that's why most people just buy an intel, no need to make excuses for why it underperforms in this or that.

Actually no. Most people buy Intel because of branding and marketing. Even when AMD outperformed Intel in all cases, people still bought Intel.

In general for people that know a lot about PCs they buy Intel, because that's all they know.

 

[Exaelea]

Only worthwhile outperformance that springs to mind was back when they made the k6-2 chips The rest tended to always have some sort of drawback.

And as this was a comparison to a k-series core i7 with a sli setup for gaming, no point bringing up the lower end intel chips which are not used for gaming.

 

[Chevron]

Only worthwhile outperformance that springs to mind was back when they made the k6-2 chips The rest tended to always have some sort of drawback.

And as this was a comparison to a k-series core i7 with a sli setup for gaming, no point bringing up the lower end intel chips which are not used for gaming.

You forgot how terrible the P4 was. But anyway that's not the point. Just showing how advertising beats logic for Intel fanboys. "Intel Inside" was one of the best advertising campaigns of all time and the effect still lasts today.

 

[Exaelea]

Wasnt there a fx series chip back then.. which was compared to the extreme editions from intel, which ended up performing like the top end non-extreme edition chip from intel, was Intel Pentium 4 Socket LGA 775 P4 670 Prescott 3.8 Ghz.

I remember how I turfed my amd fx setup for this "presshot" 670 as it worked much better with the gtx 780's ( think it was 780's cant remember but they were moerse expesnive )I had back then ( first one gfx, later added a 2nd unit when i replaced the intel board with an Asus sli board to add the 2nd gfx card ), I still receive free crap from nvidia for being within the first 250 to register their sli setup worldwide. Later on people modded certain MSi and Intel board bios' to accept both sli/xfire...heh the crappy xfire using the external cable to link them, sad times.

Good old days when a p4 "presshot" idled at 76c aircooled. Also the northwood p4's were the better choice for gaming back then from the intel side till this 670/extreme edition came out, the northwoods couldnt overclock that high and stay stable for long periods of gaming.

Anyhoo, dumped nvidia now for amd graphics as its not worth it for me to spend 2x more for a minor 2-5% performance boost

 

[Progenix Oj101]

Only worthwhile outperformance that springs to mind was back when they made the k6-2 chips The rest tended to always have some sort of drawback.

You're forgetting how the Athlon beat the Pentium 3, the Althon XP beat the Pentium 4, the Athlon64 beat the Pentium 4, the Athlon64 X2 beat the Pentium D...

Wasnt there a fx series chip back then.. which was compared to the extreme editions from intel, which ended up performing like the top end non-extreme edition chip from intel, was Intel Pentium 4 Socket LGA 775 P4 670 Prescott 3.8 Ghz.

I remember how I turfed my amd fx setup for this "presshot" 670 as it worked much better with the gtx 780's ( think it was 780's cant remember but they were moerse expesnive )I had back then ( first one gfx, later added a 2nd unit when i replaced the intel board with an Asus sli board to add the 2nd gfx card ), I still receive free crap from nvidia for being within the first 250 to register their sli setup worldwide. Later on people modded certain MSi and Intel board bios' to accept both sli/xfire...heh the crappy xfire using the external cable to link them, sad times.

Good old days when a p4 "presshot" idled at 76c aircooled. Also the northwood p4's were the better choice for gaming back then from the intel side till this 670/extreme edition came out, the northwoods couldnt overclock that high and stay stable for long periods of gaming.

Anyhoo, dumped nvidia now for amd graphics as its not worth it for me to spend 2x more for a minor 2-5% performance boost

There was an FX back then - several in fact. The FX-51, FX-53, FX-55 (winner of a chip), FX-57 (another winner of a chip), FX-60 (not bad) and FX-62. The Northwood C CPUs were killer overclockers, some of the best Pentium 4s.

 

[AthenianOwl]

Brace yourselves! Skylake is coming!

 

[ponder]

You're forgetting how the Athlon beat the Pentium 3, the Althon XP beat the Pentium 4, the Athlon64 beat the Pentium 4, the Athlon64 X2 beat the Pentium D...

+1

I ran AMD from the k6-2 up to the athlon 64, after that I switched to intel. Intel were lagging in those days. I'm not a brand junky, I'll buy whatever delivers the best bang for buck.

Unfortunately when it comes to GPUs I stick to nvidia simply due to their linux driver support, amd GPUs are still a no go when it comes to linux.

 

[Chevron]

+1

I ran AMD from the k6-2 up to the athlon 64, after that I switched to intel. Intel were lagging in those days. I'm not a brand junky, I'll buy whatever delivers the best bang for buck.

Problem with doing that blindly is once AMD dies Intel will go back to doing what they did in the P4 days and you'll pay more for less performance.

As long as I can run my games on high I will buy AMD every time.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

+1

I ran AMD from the k6-2 up to the athlon 64, after that I switched to intel. Intel were lagging in those days. I'm not a brand junky, I'll buy whatever delivers the best bang for buck.

Unfortunately when it comes to GPUs I stick to nvidia simply due to their linux driver support, amd GPUs are still a no go when it comes to linux.

I had a few problems, years ago. Was fixable. Don't have any problems the last 7 or 8 years.