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

Chevron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last cpu & first intel i purchased was the q6600. Next one will be amd I reckon.
 
Chevron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that AMD cannot die without it causing Intel to be split into multiple smaller companies. Intel actually has a vested interest in keeping AMD around.
 
Chevron said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that's happening already with the single-digit performance increases between generations thanks to a focus on power efficiency (forgetting all the performance increases in other areas for both companies), so why keep this myth going? AMD won't die anytime soon, their APU tech is ahead of Intel's implementations (though Broadwell-M changes this significantly) and the licenses and patents they hold in chip design will ensure that they still get their trickle of funds from Intel regularly.
 
CataclysmZA said:
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.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense for Intel to have a R10k processor that's only slightly better than their 2nd best which costs a lot less. Performance isn't everything. If you can't match the performance for the same price it doesn't actually make your product any better. AMD can also do the same and put more money into development and there's nothing wrong with their motherboard selection. Intel actually has too many motherboard and socket options that causes confusion. I will also not support a company that got there through dirty tactics. Some of their designs are even their own.

sybertiger said:
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,
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense to have to buy lower end components just to pay the same. Let's compare apples to apples, buying lower end components for an AMD rig will then work out to less.

Zenthrax said:
Only worthwhile outperformance that springs to mind was back when they made the k6-2 chips :P 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.
Click to expand...
And what about the original Athlon 64's? They led the industry for quite some time and if you had the memory back then they outperformed the equivalent Intel ones and for less still. Then there's the system on a chip solutions from AMD that simply smashes those from Intel.
 
Not to even mention all the money AMD is making from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Intel is really loosing out on all the consoles sold.
 
beans100 said:
Not to even mention all the money AMD is making from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Intel is really loosing out on all the consoles sold.
Click to expand...

Those console margins are razor thin. What is does do though is help with volume.
 
What a useless/pointless test. That is a specialized CPU made for specific people in the server and audio industry.

The follow up test, posted by someone else in this thread dated 10 October vs 6 October from OP tells a better story.

What's even more sad, is they might as well used an i3 and have gotten close to the same results vs the 8350.
i5 might of even done better than the i7.
 
CataclysmZA said:
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.
Click to expand...

AMD pricing is a bit absurb, works out around R15 to the dollar and more for South Africa.
 
beans100 said:
Not to even mention all the money AMD is making from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Intel is really loosing out on all the consoles sold.
Click to expand...

Not that much, really. NVIDIA has better technology for it, Intel has unmatched resources, AMD got the deal because they were happy with the TINY margins.
 
Oj0 said:
Not that much, really. NVIDIA has better technology for it, Intel has unmatched resources, AMD got the deal because they were happy with the TINY margins.
Click to expand...

Actually it was because they could offer a complete solution. No one else beside maybe qualcomm can do that.
 
Chevron said:
Those console margins are razor thin. What is does do though is help with volume.
Click to expand...
Razor thin how? Sony and Microsoft lose out on the consoles to make money from the games but where do you think the money goes? To the manufacturer.

HideInLight said:
What a useless/pointless test. That is a specialized CPU made for specific people in the server and audio industry.

The follow up test, posted by someone else in this thread dated 10 October vs 6 October from OP tells a better story.

What's even more sad, is they might as well used an i3 and have gotten close to the same results vs the 8350.
i5 might of even done better than the i7.
Click to expand...
And even being specialised it had a poor race. Says a lot.
 
Swa said:
Razor thin how? Sony and Microsoft lose out on the consoles to make money from the games but where do you think the money goes? To the manufacturer.


And even being specialised it had a poor race. Says a lot.
Click to expand...

It's not a gaming CPU, point.
6 Cores, 12 threads.
It's designed for video/audio and image processing and even has slightly different features than a normal i7, which makes it significantly faster for the tasks it was designed for, but sacrificing it's performance in other areas like gaming.

It's also an enthusiast card, so it's an enthusiast specialized card making it rather completely pointless as an example because gamers are the last person that would be interested in such a card.

All that article proves is that it's stupid to buy an overly expensive CPU for the wrong purposes.
 
HideInLight said:
It's not a gaming CPU, point.
6 Cores, 12 threads.
It's designed for video/audio and image processing and even has slightly different features than a normal i7, which makes it significantly faster for the tasks it was designed for, but sacrificing it's performance in other areas like gaming.

It's also an enthusiast card, so it's an enthusiast specialized card making it rather completely pointless as an example because gamers are the last person that would be interested in such a card.

All that article proves is that it's stupid to buy an overly expensive CPU for the wrong purposes.
Click to expand...

All I hear is butthurt :D
 
AMD is better bang for buck, has been and probably always will be.

I remember back in the day, frying my brand new Thunderbird because AMD doesn't include the auto cut off on overheat that Intel chips did. But these are the sort of things they do to bring price down and if you're experience in hardware (something I was lacking back then and paid school fees for) its not a problem.
 
Shard said:
AMD is better bang for buck, has been and probably always will be.

I remember back in the day, frying my brand new Thunderbird because AMD doesn't include the auto cut off on overheat that Intel chips did. But these are the sort of things they do to bring price down and if you're experience in hardware (something I was lacking back then and paid school fees for) its not a problem.
Click to expand...

That's a motherboard feature, not CPU feature. So blame gigabye/asus/msi whoever.
 
Rudimental said:
'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:

View attachment 178067

Mmm, dat 60 min fps at 4k.
Click to expand...

Just for those who missed it.

4770k, that's a gaming CPU and it wrecks the FX8350 everywhere. And it's not 10k...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X