Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Tom's Hardware] FX Vs. Core i7: Exploring CPU Bottlenecks And AMD CrossFire
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Tom's Hardware] FX Vs. Core i7: Exploring CPU Bottlenecks And AMD CrossFire - Page 18

post #171 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Vanelay View Post

You can't fold, encode or 3D render as well on an 8350 as an i7, so it is inferior to the i7. You're paying more for the i7, so it's obvious that it's going to be faster for some things.
If you have to encode your porn before you watch it, an i7 will make you a lot happier than the 8350. tongue.gif

There are benefits to both processors; I prefer the i7, personally. If one wants to game, I would recommend Intel, as the core speed matters most in games, currently.
There's also power efficiency and all that, which I am not really the biggest fan of; power in Canada is pretty cheap.

i never said anything about the capacity of doing a task, I meant to ask if it prevents you from doing the task altogether
post #172 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by kishagi View Post

i never said anything about the capacity of doing a task, I meant to ask if it prevents you from doing the task altogether
I can video encode on a pentium 4 and game on a GT210; not that it will be pleasant. I don't understand the point of your comment.
post #173 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by kishagi View Post

i see no reason for an argument. is there anything you can do on an ivy bridge/ sandy bridge that you cant do on a vishera?
does one prevent you from gaming comfortably?
does one prevent you from watching pr0n?

i didnt think so...

lul this is so ridiculous it's like saying "can't you do everything you can do already on a pentium 4 rather than a core i7?" i mean it would still run all the x86 programs right you'd only have to wait a few minutes longer. sure go play games at 15 fps meh the eyes only see 24 fps anyway 60 fps is overrated. rolleyes.gif
"why the hell do we upgrade anyway? can't we already 'run' everything on a pentium? screw performance! if it the program runs then the cpu doesn't need upgrade!"
it's surprising i'm reading comments like yours on OVERCLOCK.net are you sure you didn't log in to the wrong forum?

btw comparing FX to core i7 is like comparing Intel lifting 100 lbs with one arm in 2 seconds vs AMD lifting 100 lbs with two arms in 1.8 seconds and saying "AMD's good enough!" when it takes 2X of AMD to match 1X of intel
Edited by james8 - 1/24/13 at 7:58pm
Dream PC
(17 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL Core i7 6700K ASUS Maximus VIII Hero Z170 MSI Geforce GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 series 16GB DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG SM951 NVMe 512GB SAMSUNG 850 EVO 1TB COOLER MASTER Nepton 280L MICROSOFT Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ XL2420TE DELL UltraSharp U2415 WASD V2 custom CORSAIR HX850i 
CaseMouseAudioOther
NZXT H440 white CORSAIR Vengeance M95 CREATIVE Sound Blaster Z CPU Delid 
Other
LED Lighting 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4300U Microsoft Surface Intel HD Graphics 4400 8 GB DDR3L 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardMouse
256 GB SSD Windows 10 Pro x64 Surface Pro 4 Type Cover with Fingerprint ID Microsoft Arc Mouse Surface Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
Dream PC
(17 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL Core i7 6700K ASUS Maximus VIII Hero Z170 MSI Geforce GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 series 16GB DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG SM951 NVMe 512GB SAMSUNG 850 EVO 1TB COOLER MASTER Nepton 280L MICROSOFT Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ XL2420TE DELL UltraSharp U2415 WASD V2 custom CORSAIR HX850i 
CaseMouseAudioOther
NZXT H440 white CORSAIR Vengeance M95 CREATIVE Sound Blaster Z CPU Delid 
Other
LED Lighting 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4300U Microsoft Surface Intel HD Graphics 4400 8 GB DDR3L 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardMouse
256 GB SSD Windows 10 Pro x64 Surface Pro 4 Type Cover with Fingerprint ID Microsoft Arc Mouse Surface Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
post #174 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by james8 View Post

btw comparing FX to core i7 is like comparing Intel lifting 100 lbs with one arm in 2 seconds vs AMD lifting 100 lbs with two arms in 1.8 seconds and saying "AMD's good enough!" when it takes 2X of AMD to match 1X of intel
That is probably the best analogy for the comparison of FX and Intel that I have seen.
post #175 of 595
So to sum this thread up..as it's been since the introduction of FX am3+ series... if you are on a AM3+ board already, the FX-8 is a great option. If you are starting from scratch for gaming, no question go Intel.

/thread.
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
Reply
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
Reply
post #176 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

See my answer above, even if you divide that number by three, you still have the usual timeframe for system ownership, which is 3 years, and the FX-8350 will do worse. Combine that with the fact the FX will be worse with future GPUs that will take advantage of PCIe 3.0, like Nvidia's Maxwell and AMD's HD 9000 series in 2014, and it quickly becomes clear that the FX-8350 is not such a value proposition in the long run as it seems.

I remember discussing not long ago that more than 1 GB of VRAM was useful back in 2011, even for 1050p, and many people disagreed, now 2 GB of VRAM is the standard and nobody argues anymore. Things change a lot in 2 years and they will change even more now with the next generation of consoles being released soon.

3 years? I've gone through 2-3 CPUs in 3 years, and we're talking about gamers here, not normal users who would never, ever reach full load and thus never, ever notice a difference between either CPU, most would be lucky to have a CPU for 3 years, and even then your numbers do not add up unless the person in question is stress testing their CPU for 8 hours a day, every day for 31 days assuming my maths is correct.

How do you know it will do worse? In terms of single GPU performance, PCIe 2.0 8x is enough and the FX-8350 has 4 cores sitting there mostly idle in games, the i5 3570k doesn't, the FX-8350s performance can only go up from AVX, XOP, etc and the extra 4 cores while the i5 3570ks performance will only go up so far as AVX, etc are used more and that's it.

One of those changes will be a much bigger dependence on CPU performance, it's obvious that physics and AI will be the next thing developers work on as graphics are getting harder to innovate with due to the law of diminishing returns, both of those can scale to multiple cores fairly well too. (Physics should be obvious considering how well it works on GPUs, as for AI..well, how many times do you fight more than one enemy in an FPS, for example? Give each one a thread to themselves.)

Also, you're completely forgetting/ignoring that TH were testing all 8 cores at full load, games do not do that...At least for 2 of those years you'll only be loading 4 of the cores at full speed, I reckon...As for higher ambients, you're not talking that much of a difference, I can't speak for an 8 core but compared to my i5 the FX I own doesn't raise temperatures more than the i5, hell, my Xbox 360 raises temperatures more than both when I game...I also live in Australia, it is summer right now and we're getting bushfires locally, if anyone was going to complain about heat output of a product right now it would be me, power usage has some legitimate concerns for those who live in areas with high rates (Even then, you're talking a long life-time to make it up) but heat? That's just a complete BS cop-out to get another point against AMD, I bet half the people who complain about heat have ran a 125w CPU happily at one point in their lives.

Power costs are also fairly expensive here, although not as bad as Denmark at 0.25c per kWh, yet I happily ran a Fermi and now a Bulldozer (I would have an 8 core, if I'd not gotten this for free) because generally people own the CPUs/GPUs for such little time that it really doesn't make that much of a difference, also there is a significant drop in costs when you compare 24/7 vs when you're at the computer/however many days you're at home each week, assuming you work 9-5 and then come on the PC after dinner (Lets say 6-6:30) and then go to sleep around midnight, that's only 5 and a half hours, out of that how much is going to be checking your email? Going on Facebook, Reddit, OCN, etc? An FX-8350 is using 2w extra than an i7 then.
Also, why are you complaining about power usage? You're running a GTX 480 that sucks more power than any Bulldozer CPU does on its own, if you truly cared about power usage you'd have gone to a more efficient GPU. (After all, the cost of a HD5850 over time vs a GTX 480 would be significantly lower in Denmark..Right? thumb.gif)

If you're planning on keeping it for another year, you could get a new HD5830 for ~$90 and probably still spend as much as you would on the Fermi without the heat output considering the difference in power consumption between the two is more than the 130w between BD and an i7, standing at 111w peak for a HD5830 and 257w for a GTX 480. (By the way, my GTX 470 was much more noticeable in terms of heat output than any CPU I've ever owned bar a P4 I was mucking around with.) Your arguments tend to stand up better when you're not arguing for something you don't follow yourself.
I could go ahead and find a GPU worth $180 that not only beats your GTX 480, but uses less power but I really can't be bothered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Look at it this way.

Q6600 vs E8400

3.6GHz vs 4.0GHz,
IPC difference was ~ 10%

Its not even close to FX 8350 vs 3570K
3570K has much much higher IPC. At least 25%+

Also Q6600 case. Its too slow for todays games if you have a descent GPU with it. I have in my bothers PC. SC2 tanks it, BF3 tanks it.
What i mean with 8 Core CPU is that 1 core alone is way to close compare to Intel. Even if FX 8350 ends up faster in 8 core optimized games both will be trash in 2-3 year.

Yes, and the FX-8350 also has 100% more cores than the 3570k..It won't be ahead by as much as the Q6600 but it will eventually end up ahead, especially since the i5 clocks 100Mhz slower on average than the FX-8350. Not much, but to say that the 3570k is faster and will always be so is just plain dumb when it already gets beaten in applications that use 8 cores by the FX-8350, neither will be trash in 2-3 years either, the i7 920 is still a very capable gaming CPU and it came out in Q4 2008...The Q6600 is fine for a lot of games still, or all games if you're fine with lowering settings and came out 6 years ago.

I have no idea what settings you run BF3 on, but I was able to run it on medium with a GTX 470 and a stock E6700...Maybe it's become less optimized as of late or something, it was definitely useable although my FX was a hell of a lot faster there. (That's also comparing MP, I played BF3 SP like...once and haven't touched the MP in a few months)
Quote:
Originally Posted by james8 View Post

even if games were to support 8 cores in the future AMD wouldn't win. we're comparing AMD's highest end to Intel's performance line.
AMD can't touch any 6-core LGA 2011 right now and they will not be able to anytime soon with the pending release of Ivy-Bridge-EP

remember, you are comparing a 8-core AMD CPU to a 4-core Intel CPU. when these are ~equal that in itself shows AMD's fail because it takes 2X of AMD's cores to match 1X intel's core.
also if AMD's so great they wouldn't be crying over financial losses right now.

Oh, naturally...Except Intels cheapest 6 core costs $300-$400 more than AMDs most expensive 8 core, along with an extra $100 for a decent motherboard; guess which is going to be faster out of an FX-8350 with two HD7970s or an i7 3930K with one HD7970...The FX in nearly all scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Vanelay View Post

IMO, getting an 8 thread processor for gaming makes no sense. The 3570k is the best processor for games, based on it's single threaded performance, but the FX CPUs will be fine for games, unless you are running Xfire or SLI, or are trying to get to 120 FPS in a couple of the very CPU intensive games.

It's decent if you want to risk future proofing, but for the most part I'd recommend getting an Intel over AMD if you exclusively game anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

So to sum this thread up..as it's been since the introduction of FX am3+ series... if you are on a AM3+ board already, the FX-8 is a great option. If you are starting from scratch for gaming, no question go Intel.

/thread.

Assuming your CPU budget is ~$230. (Any higher is just go Intel)

If you only game? Go Intel.
If you plan to fold or run stress tests on your CPU whenever you use it? Go Intel.
If you plan to game, and do a bit of video encoding, etc on the side? Go Intel.
If you plan to do video encoding, etc and game a bit on the side? Go AMD.
If you plan to do video encoding, etc? Go AMD.
If you have an AM3+ board? Go AMD.

That's how it ends up.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #177 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Vanelay View Post

That is probably the best analogy for the comparison of FX and Intel that I have seen.


Yeah bro cuz a 60+ FPS difference in games is comparable to .2 seconds in lifting weights. Best analogy ever.
post #178 of 595
@ Brutuz

I play BF3 @ 1680x1050 @ High Setting with HD 5850 @ 975/1200 and Q6600 @ 3.6GHz. GPU is more then enough but CPU is really struggling in some map where fps drop to 30s and GPU usage goes down. It has changed quite a bit since initial launch and depending what maps you play.
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
post #179 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3st3r View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Vanelay View Post

That is probably the best analogy for the comparison of FX and Intel that I have seen.


Yeah bro cuz a 60+ FPS difference in games is comparable to .2 seconds in lifting weights. Best analogy ever.

Complaining about FPS differences when you're nearly always above 60fps or GPU limited anyway is like complaining about car quality when you already own a Ferarri, just nitpicking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

@ Brutuz

I play BF3 @ 1680x1050 @ High Setting with HD 5850 @ 975/1200 and Q6600 @ 3.6GHz. GPU is more then enough but CPU is really struggling in some map where fps drop to 30s and GPU usage goes down. It has changed quite a bit since initial launch and depending what maps you play.

I ran it at 1080p @ HIgh-Medium (I can't remember the exact settings) on my GTX 470 @ 830/something for the memory.

I mostly played the BF2 maps which as far as I knew were fairly CPU intensive, too, I definitely got way better FPS with even a Tri-Core Phenom II but it certainly was playable on the E6700 @ 2.66Ghz.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #180 of 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

3 years? I've gone through 2-3 CPUs in 3 years, and we're talking about gamers here, not normal users who would never, ever reach full load and thus never, ever notice a difference between either CPU, most would be lucky to have a CPU for 3 years, and even then your numbers do not add up unless the person in question is stress testing their CPU for 8 hours a day, every day for 31 days assuming my maths is correct.

How do you know it will do worse? In terms of single GPU performance, PCIe 2.0 8x is enough and the FX-8350 has 4 cores sitting there mostly idle in games, the i5 3570k doesn't, the FX-8350s performance can only go up from AVX, XOP, etc and the extra 4 cores while the i5 3570ks performance will only go up so far as AVX, etc are used more and that's it.

One of those changes will be a much bigger dependence on CPU performance, it's obvious that physics and AI will be the next thing developers work on as graphics are getting harder to innovate with due to the law of diminishing returns, both of those can scale to multiple cores fairly well too. (Physics should be obvious considering how well it works on GPUs, as for AI..well, how many times do you fight more than one enemy in an FPS, for example? Give each one a thread to themselves.)

Also, you're completely forgetting/ignoring that TH were testing all 8 cores at full load, games do not do that...At least for 2 of those years you'll only be loading 4 of the cores at full speed, I reckon...As for higher ambients, you're not talking that much of a difference, I can't speak for an 8 core but compared to my i5 the FX I own doesn't raise temperatures more than the i5, hell, my Xbox 360 raises temperatures more than both when I game...I also live in Australia, it is summer right now and we're getting bushfires locally, if anyone was going to complain about heat output of a product right now it would be me, power usage has some legitimate concerns for those who live in areas with high rates (Even then, you're talking a long life-time to make it up) but heat? That's just a complete BS cop-out to get another point against AMD, I bet half the people who complain about heat have ran a 125w CPU happily at one point in their lives.

Power costs are also fairly expensive here, although not as bad as Denmark at 0.25c per kWh, yet I happily ran a Fermi and now a Bulldozer (I would have an 8 core, if I'd not gotten this for free) because generally people own the CPUs/GPUs for such little time that it really doesn't make that much of a difference, also there is a significant drop in costs when you compare 24/7 vs when you're at the computer/however many days you're at home each week, assuming you work 9-5 and then come on the PC after dinner (Lets say 6-6:30) and then go to sleep around midnight, that's only 5 and a half hours, out of that how much is going to be checking your email? Going on Facebook, Reddit, OCN, etc? An FX-8350 is using 2w extra than an i7 then.
Also, why are you complaining about power usage? You're running a GTX 480 that sucks more power than any Bulldozer CPU does on its own, if you truly cared about power usage you'd have gone to a more efficient GPU. (After all, the cost of a HD5850 over time vs a GTX 480 would be significantly lower in Denmark..Right? thumb.gif)

If you're planning on keeping it for another year, you could get a new HD5830 for ~$90 and probably still spend as much as you would on the Fermi without the heat output considering the difference in power consumption between the two is more than the 130w between BD and an i7, standing at 111w peak for a HD5830 and 257w for a GTX 480. (By the way, my GTX 470 was much more noticeable in terms of heat output than any CPU I've ever owned bar a P4 I was mucking around with.) Your arguments tend to stand up better when you're not arguing for something you don't follow yourself.
I could go ahead and find a GPU worth $180 that not only beats your GTX 480, but uses less power but I really can't be bothered.

1. You are not the average computer user, you are not even the average gamer, not everyone here has the money to go through 2-3 CPUs in 3 years.

And even then, if you did, it's because you want to, not because you need to. People who bought a 2600K in 2011, two years ago, have zero reasons to upgrade. Heck, they don't even have much reason to upgrade to Haswell when it is released in June, unless they plan to use the IGP, and by then the CPU will have lasted two and a half years.

2. I don't know if the FX-8350 will do worse, but it's the natural progression, the HD 7970 (not the Ghz Edition) with the launch drivers already showed a 9% performance difference in compute applications using PCIe 3.0 16x versus PCIe 2.0 16x. Now take into consideration updated drivers, the Ghz Edition, the HD 8000 series which is around the corner, which will increase that performance difference even more, and then consider the HD 9000 series, which will be out next year, which will probably be even more of a difference as it will be on a wholly different manufacturing process, a whole node better. Now take into consideration that games will use more and more GPU compute resources, as that is what the next generation consoles will also rely on to extract more performance from, and it's not hard to imagine the bottleneck.

3. Why are you comparing the FX-8350 with the i5-3570K ? We are talking about the i7-3770K which competes in multi-threaded tasks against the FX-8350. The FX-8350 will not start winning in multi-threaded tasks against the i7-3770K in the future.

4. Your usage patterns varies, I specifically mentioned that the math was for 24/7 load, and then even divided that by three. Of course many people won't be use all 8 cores even for 8 hours, but if you're folding, you will more than that, as we all agree. If you transcode a lot, you will also take full advantage of the CPU cores, whereas with the i7-3770K you will use it less given you can use QuickSync to speed it up and use less power.

5. You don't know how much I paid for my GTX 480, nor is there any card on the market that justifies its price versus what I paid for it, nor do I game with it often, so I am not using it at all times - but when I do, I want good performance, hence why I bought it. For the record, I paid € 227 for the card brand new in the box in April of 2011, when the inferior GTX 570 was selling for € 350. Now you tell me this wasn't a good deal. I am planning on buying one of the new GTX 700 series when they are released, I'm not buying any card from the GTX 600 series as they are not well suited for the future, especially with the limited memory bus and compute performance.

6. The HD 5850 is worse than a GTX 480, in general and in tessellation it is much worse. The GTX 480 is better than the HD 5870, in fact it is just as good as the HD 6970, so your comparisons are way off. I'm not even sure where you got the HD 5830 from, that card is supposed to compete against the GTX 460, not the GTX 480.

7. I don't live in Denmark, so none of this applies to me. I wasn't making an ad hominem argument anyway, I was just stating a fact that for some people electricity costs are a factor.
Edited by tpi2007 - 1/24/13 at 9:52pm
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Tom's Hardware] FX Vs. Core i7: Exploring CPU Bottlenecks And AMD CrossFire