Originally Posted by mattg
I dont know what the go was realy. i deal with i5 i7 builds daily through work majority with samsung pro and hyper x ssd's decided to build a FX build because i hadnt used amd for 10 years , straight after boot it just felt so lethargic and laggy compared to even the i5 builds we usualy do (comparing it directly to hundreds of i5/i7 builds) im talking stock i5 i7 here no overclocks as they are usualy for bussines use. 3rd 4th 5th gen intel. so anyway booted up my 8350 on a hyper x pred ssd, and thought to myself that it was broken. like i have i3's that boot quicker and feel more responsive. in saying that since then i have overclocked the FX to 4.5ghz on air and it made it notably better but id have to say it still feels about the same as a stock second gen i5? i know these are budget orientated and the price i paid is less then a stock 5th/6th gen i5 but i was just expecting more. i see alot of you people that talk them up are running 4.9-5ghz. does there speed dramatically increase after 4.6? just curious to see if its worthwhile to put in a water loop and try OC it more before i replace it with a tryed and proven i7. (would probably be similar priced to going water cooled as it would be to change over?)
i notice the lag the most in photoshop even against my third gen laptop i5 it struggles
Maybe you run Win7 without the 2 microsoft Bulldozer patches or maybe the CnQ of FX is "less snappy" than Intel? I know for a fact, that AM3s feel laggy with CnQ compared to FX. BUT, if you use K10State and change the up and down timers to 100/200ms, you can't tell the difference. Also boot time is influenced by any kernel drivers (3rd party software) is loading.
Anyway, here's a program to eliminate bias or placebo effect (at least to a degree):
It would be interesting for people who have both FX and Intel to run this. And also ponder at the end, if it's humanly perceptible the difference or only placebo.
Originally Posted by cssorkinman
The I7's I have "feel" closer to my 6800K in the desktop, I'd have a hard time telling between them if it were a blind test.
Funny you say that, it was mentioned the same thing lately in a post in my local forum. Whether one could tell the difference between FX and Intel if he was to play a game without FPS counter and without being told what's inside. Everytime you know what you do, there is a bias. That's why in medicine, for drug trials they do "double blind trials", where both the patients and the doctors don't know what's the real drug and what's the placebo. They 've found that even a researcher that tries to follow an objective methodology, if he anticipates subconsciously a result, he will steer the end result to match his subconscious expectation. He will interpret the result in a way, to deviate from truth, as much as his personal bias allows, to match his original expectation.
I don't have a lot of faith in the Asrock motherboards, my 990 Extreme 3 is painfully slow by comparison to my GD 80 or CHV-Z's. I don't have a clue as to why it behaves this way. ( sata controller perhaps?? )
I don't know if it's a coincidence, but i stopped using AMD SATA due to the Asrock 970 extreme3. Every now and then, in the event viewer it will throw an event about SATA (like SATA reset or something else, i don't remember). Which you otherwise don't detect. This goes away if you use MS AHCI drivers.