Originally Posted by Cyro999
Depending on your point of view, the singlethreaded performance of Piledriver ranges from a slight annoyance to a crippling hindrance. The result is Intel holding a 50% or more lead in some performance starved games, while not really losing any benchmarks with i7. If you happen to play those games and seek performance, it would be silly to get FX. If you don't play any of them or care about singlethreaded performance, you can pocket your saved money and be within a few hairs of i5/i7.
As someone who prefers high framerates to graphical effects, i've found myself being unable to satisfy myself with performance recently in many of the games i played, long time sc2 player, was thinking of buying rome 2 with some friends, meanwhile looking at Natural Selection 2.. Friend of mine spent like $200 on Planetside 2, i played gw2 for a few hundred hours, and now in bf4 beta, a lot of my frametimes were far worse than what i wanted. On 720p low settings, quite a few frames longer than 15-20ms, as much as 3-5% of them slower than 16.7ms (slow enough to miss a 60hz refresh) so i'm more inclined to get the best CPU available (4770k or 4930k, depending on the game) even if it costs extra, rather than saving money on something that is "good enough" for "most" applications. I do like the FX design though and if Steamroller is close enough in singlethreaded performance to not get completely destroyed in some of my favourite games (or lets be honest, if engine development standards improve) then it will be a very interesting fight!
As you say, it varies by game...But most either run fast enough on a Core 2 Quad to be maxed out already, let alone an FX, or make use of enough threads to still ensure the AMD CPU offers good enough performance. Clearly people should base their purchases purely off what they play alone and not from benchmarks that mean nothing to them.
For you (Playing SC2 among others) single-threaded/dual-threaded performance is what matters and Intel is by far the best choice but if SC2 was able to use up to 8 threads and used Microsoft's compiler (Not sure if it uses ICC or not) then I'd wager an FX would be faster than an i5 3570k, but slower than an i7 3770k and matching an i5 4670k.
Originally Posted by sdlvx
Also this is for IPC, not overall clockspeed. I don't get how you Intel guys can rant and rave about IPC and then there's an AMD benchmark which shows significant
IPC increase in a certain area and you dismiss it? It's an ES, there have been TONS of PD and BD ES that ran at 1.8ghz or lower. An ES at 1.8ghz doesn't mean anything in regards to overall clockspeed.
Because the IPC argument has always been complete crap from start to finish, IPC matters as much as clock speed does on its own.
The general lack of knowledge by people going on and on about IPC for AMD is further proven by how many of them assumed IPC = Single-threaded performance too...You could have a single-threaded CPU with ultra low IPC but high clock speeds (Pentium 4, for example) or a highly-threaded CPU with high IPC and low clock speed. (Xeons at stock speeds)
A lot of Intel owners seem to not realize that AMD isn't as far behind as plenty of people make it seem and that all in all, an FX 8 core is faster than an i5 3570k due to its extra cores and will last longer than one too.
Originally Posted by maarten12100
Intel might have ditched P3 derivatives and made a fresh arch though I doubt it they rather money grab and just shrink that die more than innovate without reason(for them).
There's little reason for them to do so, though. Besides, while the current ones are P6 (Architecture name, actually was introduced with the Pentium Pro, rebranded into the Pentium II then the III, reworked into the III SSE models and finally nearly completely reworked into Pentium M) they're nearly completely redesigned since being a Pentium 3 or the like, you could probably trace the heritage back by going from Haswell to Sandy to Nehalem to Conroe etc but likely looking at a Pentium III die shot next to a Haswell die shot you would see very little in common.
Originally Posted by Seid Dark
My previous AMD chip was Opteron 144 (Athlon 64), really great performance and oc potential. Hopefully Steamroller will finally deliver, Intel has been dominating since Conroe. It's boring that for last 6 years Intel has been the only option for enthusiasts.
Dominating the high-end, yes, but Phenom II and the recent APUs have been great budget CPUs even for enthusiasts.
And besides, not everyone games...There's a few tasks where an FX-8350 matched or beat a i7 3770k, especially if you use Linux where the ICC advantage is null and void.Edited by Brutuz - 10/28/13 at 5:11pm