Originally Posted by PachAz
If you are on a phenom II rig with a am3 motherboard why would you choose the fx 8320/8350 anyways? You will still have to buy a new cpu and mobo and in that case the i5 4670k is better as all test have shown, and it will cost as much considering you need a more expensive am3+ 990fx motherboard to be able to clock good. In the intel case, you dont need it since most motherboards as as good in terms of relatively high OCs. I say it again, I had a am3 system with a Phenom II 965, going intel was equal or cheaper than amd during that time. A nobrainer according to me.
Your 3570K cost as much as your Phenom II? I haven't found one that cheap,unless you're getting Microcenter deals. A 990FXA-UD3 or a Asus M5A99X evo R2.0 oc's a 8320/8350 to within a few hundred Mhz that a expensive Sabertooth board would,unless you want to squeeze as much Ghz out as possible on either an Intel or an AMD,you have to buy the more expensive board.
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
Intel has error generating subroutines to decrease the performance of competing processors. Although it's minimal. It's why older Intel processors will run even worse. This was a CEO decision back when VIA and AMD were outperforming them. It's not in the x86 but the various instruction sets used to today designed by Intel. I'm not a conspiracy nut as it might seem but AMD knows that the Instruction sets created by Intel are unfair and to a point they have to reserve some of their processor space for error resolution. We get a glimpse of how much better the cores are when they operate in Mantle using only AMD's instruction sets.
That has been proven before,but of course those threads get shot down. It's exactly why people love posting benchmarks that skew towards Intel.
Originally Posted by mikeo01
Oh yes definitely, Bulldozer
No honestly a FX-6100 was terrible choice for myself.
The 6300 and 8320 fairs a lot better though. Piledriver is a lot better thank God.
Well because I didn't use it to it's full potential. It wasn't *that* much of an upgrade from my Thuban @ 4.0Ghz.
Bare in mind that I7 cost 3x as much as my Thuban when I bought it. I didn't feel the justification of it; so I sold it.
The FPS difference was minimal and definitely not worth the extra cost in my experience.
I went from a Thuban 1045T @ 4.0Ghz -> I7 3770 -> Athlon 760K -> Now back to Thuban. It does say something.
I had a Thuban 1090T,ran it at 3.8Ghz/2800Mhz NB as it required better cooling for anything more,I then sold it and bought an 8320,at just 8350 spec it plays games just as well,if not better on BF4 64 man servers. Believe it or not,it actually runs cooler than my old 1090T as well But I feel kinda sad for not keeping the 1090T as it handled that OC for years and never overheated on a cheap CM hyper 212+.
How do you feel about the 760K? I have a 5800K as a second machine,it runs really well even though it's technically a dual core CPU.Edited by Heavy MG - 3/31/14 at 12:35pm