Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 21  

post #201 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post


in order for that to be true it would have to provide 2.5 times the performance of the $99 8320 . in the case of cinebench 15 that would require a score of around 1500 at stock speeds for both processors. No difficulty in refuting that claim in the slightest smile.gif

8320 is $150-$160.

Perfectly acceptable price for the sake of this discussion, the stock score have to be in the neighborhood of 1000 for the1230 at that price point. For the majority not fortunate enough to live near microcenter smile.gif
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #202 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Ok, time to bring up something that pretty much obliterates any opposing viewpoints on price to performance ratio.

No... Just, no.

Even this LOCKED i7 is still as much as $150 MORE than an Unlocked FX-8320. Have you not learned anything in the past 20 pages!?!?!?

They say ignorance is not having the correct data to draw an accurate conclusion, and stupidity is having the inability to reason or understand that data. The data has been provided, so are you choosing not to understand it, or are you just trolling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

8320 is $150-$160.

It's called Microcenter. You know, that place that the intel camp likes to point to whenever trying to refute AMD price advantage? You stand corrected.
Edited by 2advanced - 3/4/14 at 12:30am
The Beast
(12 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8120 Gigabyte 990FX-A UD5 Diamond HD 7970 G-Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 Lite-On Blu Ray Burner XSPC Raystorm Water Block, and custom Bucket Wa... Win 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HannsG 24' HD Monitor Logitech MK700 OCZ ModExtreme 750 Fatal1ty Series Fractal Design Arc Midi 
  hide details  
The Beast
(12 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8120 Gigabyte 990FX-A UD5 Diamond HD 7970 G-Skill Sniper 1866 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
OCZ Agility 3 Lite-On Blu Ray Burner XSPC Raystorm Water Block, and custom Bucket Wa... Win 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HannsG 24' HD Monitor Logitech MK700 OCZ ModExtreme 750 Fatal1ty Series Fractal Design Arc Midi 
  hide details  
post #203 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2advanced View Post

No... Just, no.

Even this LOCKED i7 is still as much as $150 MORE than an Unlocked FX-8320. Have you not learned anything in the past 20 pages!?!?!?

They say ignorance is not having the correct data to draw an accurate conclusion, and stupidity is having the inability to reason or understand that data. The data has been provided, so are you choosing not to understand it, or are you just trolling?
It's called Microcenter. You know, that place that the intel camp likes to point to whenever trying to refute AMD price advantage? You stand corrected.

yet an unlocked 8320 stands no chance against a locked intel. the 4770K is however unlocked.....and since the Xeon v3 is essentially a 4770.....you're essentially trying to compare an 8320 against something just as good as, if not better than a 9590....while trying to make the 8320 sound like a better deal. But once you factor in longevity and energy costs, the 4770 and Xeon ends up costing the same, if not, less than the 8320 before or by end of life! Go figure!

So let's get this straight....Intel offers you a "9590" performance level or higher that runs at ~80 watts, for as much or less than an 8320.....and all you can do is scoff?
Edited by AMDATI - 3/4/14 at 12:55am
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #204 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2advanced View Post

It's called Microcenter. You know, that place that the intel camp likes to point to whenever trying to refute AMD price advantage? You stand corrected.

You shouldn't be comparing in store only prices that aren't available to most people.

Why are you two so hostile in your defense of AMD? They don't care, I promise you.
post #205 of 1593
I've never even heard or laid eyes on a Microcenter smile.gif

However the Xeon's are not that much cheaper where I am. Same price as the I5-4670K. Just for reference really.


Also about gaming what's that new measurement we are starting to see now? Not frame rates, is it called frame time variation? Measured in milliseconds. The delay between frames?

Anyway that's quite important we are starting to see smile.gif CPU A may put out 30 FPS and CPU B may put out 30 FPS. However CPU A may "feel" smoother as there is less delay between outputting the frames, i.e. "Lag".

Someone will probably brush up on this smile.gif thought it's worth mentioning, as it's not always about our bog standard FPS.



Either way I think the overall summing up on this whole thread is simply this: Intel are great in some situations, AMD are great in some situations. I don't think it's right to call one "All round rubbish" because it isn't the case. Users have shown benchmarks and results showing the performance of chips however it may not apply. Also for the majority of users an SSD will probably make 100x the difference than a brand new CPU smile.gif

Other than that it's down to budget and pure preference. Unless you need something that can handle tasks, i.e. what was mentioned, VMs. Now Virtual Machines worked wonderfully on my Thuban, I mean butter smooth (as for security testing - higher loads). But that same setup ran just that little tad smoother on my I7 as Intel has their virtualisation acceleration. So no doubt an I7 would work wonders here, or even a 4C/8T Xeon.

Bottom line: For tasks it depends on how well a single core can pump out data. Sure multi-cores can really speed things up if the application allows it but most data being worked on is incredibly small and enjoys higher IPC.

Example if your task involves managing multiple users, and you have the choice between an I3 and a FX-8320, you'd choose the FX-8320 purely because it can handle more threads (for all those users). However, if you require (oh no I don't have an example) an application that basically runs on one core you'd probably benefit from the I3.

Depends what the task utilises which makes your decision smile.gif E.g. the FX-8320 comes close to the I7-3770K in mutli-threading applications. But in single threaded that's where Intel runs away. It doesn't make the FX-8320 look rubbish it just shows that weakness.


Also look at the features the chipsets bring, Z77 allows for what, 2-3 SATA III, AMD enjoys all of them. You have chipset limitations on an Intel system which means maybe person A cannot afford. There's from the business class to enthusiast; some people literally cannot afford it so a cheaper AMD based system with their highest end chip may work for them.

Budget, performance, tasks at hand and personal preference come into place smile.gif

/essay biggrin.gifthis is personal people
post #206 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeo01 View Post

What's being compared here is the I7s and I5s. What about lower end Intel chips which cost similar to a single FX-8320 rolleyes.gif Intel's I5s and I7s are the only thing that's considered "better" than AMD's highest end. And even that costs more.

You can buy the fastest I3 processor for a FX-8320, but that doesn't make the I3 look like the better choice.

Considering the thread title it's pretty understandable why i3s aren't being discussed here. Just like HD 7850s wouldn't be discussed in a thread about the $500+ GPU market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Yes but most of those MMOs are played on old archaic hardware, laptops even and then most of these arguments are moot. I have played WoW for 8 years, stopped a year ago, and it played great on my AMD systems. No lag in 40man groups with a 965BE nor my 8350, both paired with a XFX 6770.

Juniper as a GPU is comparable to a 4870, from those days GPU performance has gone up something like 250%. I also have a 5770 and I'm pretty sure that if I used that thing to game it would pretty much always be the bottleneck.

However with modern GPUs this isn't the case. Per core performance on the AMD side has only marginally gone up from the Phenom IIs but GPU performance has gone up by ~250%.

I'm sure that we can run almost any game on archaic hardware and get somewhat good frame rates. However the experience will be much better with hardware that's faster and fits the purpose.

Guild Wars 2 or SC2 for example will see easily noticeable gains in performance even when going above 4.5GHz on a 4770K. Both of those games have parts in them that will tank any system to low fps and at that point you're going to want to have the fastest thing you can get.

For example back in the day with my little gtx 670 in SC2 OCing a 3930K would bring minimums from the 35fps range to 50fps range. A huge and very noticeable difference. And the same OC also brought average fps from ~60 to ~90. Again a huge difference, especially on 120hz monitors.

The "all games run just fine on any CPU" isn't a real argument. Yes the games do run but for the best experience overall in all kinds of titles you're going to want a new-ish intel CPU.

If you're sure that you only play BF4 and crysis 3 (and similar) then sure, save the $50 and get an FX. Other than that, the better experience is with the consistently well performing choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2advanced View Post

http://www.g4tv.com/games/top-100-pc-games/

Looking at this list above, WOW ranks 10th and Star Craft ranks 12th. The top 5 titles are;

-Need for Speed Most wanted

-Star Wars: The Old Republic

-Defiance

-Call of Duty Black OPS 2

-and Diablo 3

All newer titles (2011-2013). IIRC, AMD CPUS handle all these games well.

Yes and after those you have stuff like:

-SC2
-Wow
-Guild Wars 2
-Far cry
-bioshock infinite
-far cry
-AC3
-Borderlands 2

All of the games above perform noticeably better on intel's current gen CPUs.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Quote:
But the point remains; even in situations where people have come in here asking for advice on a gaming rig, (even Gaming Evolved Titles) you're usually in there kicking, screaming, and hollering "INTEL." Usually without taking into consideration the more significant part of any gaming rig..... THE GPU!

What's there to talk about? Overall platform costs between an i5 and an FX system aren't very different.

If spending $30-$50 more will give you much better performance in MMOs, RTSs, and many other non gaming evolved titles then I don't see an issue.

And even the gaming evolved titles are very hit and miss sometimes on AMD CPUs:



^ Assume that you got a better GPU for that (let's be generous) $50 you saved from going with an FX. Would that GPU upgrade really be clearly more important? No it wouldn't. It would completely depend on the games. And today with ever more powerful GPUs the CPU bottlenecked games are more and more common.
Quote:
I wouldn't expect someone who desperately clings and resorts to hand picked benchmarks, as the end-all be-all, to be open minded and/or rational. But don't you think it means something when you have many-a-members here telling you that Intel is simply NOT worth the extra cash in most cases (myself included)? Why do you chose to make a conscious decision to not place any value in the Users experience? Is it an ego thing? There is a "real-world experience" value to damn near everything from cars to smartphones. I don't see why it is so difficult to comprehend.

User experience can't be measured easily and it hasn't been measured when it comes to these things.

We could all shout that our platform "feels" the best until we're red in the face but it wouldn't benefit anyone actually looking to buy a system because no proof would be offered, no objective information or testing.
Quote:
Using your rationale, Porsche and Apple should have seized to exist a long time ago, and frankly, have no place in society because, on paper, they just dont have anything to offer over the competition.

Cars are a completely different market and frankly I have no idea why you would choose to compare AMD to porsche or Apple.

Just proves my point. CPU-Z and superpi 1M scores. Neither of those put much stress on the board.

Now try cinebench or wprime 1024m at 1.8v+ and 7GHz+
Quote:
Actually..... YES..... Just yes.

Again, you can't generalize all FXs and say that they're all as capable as yours. Many of them have horrendous leakage and the heat output goes completely crazy after 4.6ghz or so. Some don't, but many do.

As I said, about my 4770K. It can keep 4.5ghz under 90C on the stock cooler in the aida stress tests. However that's clearly not representative of 4770Ks in general.

On average you cannot buy a UD3 and a $20 cooler and go for near 5ghz frequencies with an FX. It's possible if you get lucky with your silicon but it's not happening in most cases. Just like you can't go and buy a 4770K, not get any aftermarket cooling and still get 4.5ghz. Possible, but again, not likely or representative of the average results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Ok lets be REAL. Fact as has been noted by so many over so many of these threads is that everyday gaming and usage it is nearly impossible to tell the difference. You bench mostly and yes there is a difference there, in results mostly, seeing how there is no productivity involved.

I always keep it real and honest so let me show you guys how. Seeing most use a single monitor @1080p then any, yes ANY current CPU will suffice. The bigger issue, especially for gamers is the GPU. And stay honest, 60hz is the refresh rate of most of these monitors. A 43xx AMD or i3 can give a great experience in gaming with these qualifiers. And these apply to most, the lions share, of gamers.

Now lets speak to the extreme gamers and the like. Yes then it becomes a bit smaller as far as options. These guys run multi-monitors with multiple GPUs to run them and generally multiple programs while playing. At this point only the top AMD offerings of 8350/20/9590 will do and even then they have their limits. Intel has the better options but the 4770/3770 and the other 20 that sit in that range for Intel are in the same boat as the aforementioned AMDs, leaving just the 6cores from Intel as the only options (could be more, my knowledge of all Intel offerings are limited).

For business Intel becomes the only option, but it isn't their arch so much that makes it so but the software ie:ICC. And the power usage does become a factor here and obviously Intel is a no brainer for that as well.

THIS IS THE REAL AND HONEST ANSWER.

3770K and 4770K definitely are not in the same boat as the 8-core Visheras when it comes to gaming.

The intel i7s beat them handily in pretty much anything, when a game is well multithreaded the difference is usually smaller, and when it's badly multithreaded the i7s win by a landslide. And to top it off the i7s have more overclocking potential than a 8350 what they're usually compared against.

Yes any part will suffice. But we're not here in search of "good enough". That's not what enthusiasts are about. Even small differences matter (and I'm not saying the differences between FX and i7 are small) and if you're deciding on what to buy then why wouldn't you go with something that's better?



So once again without cherry picking results or anything of the sort.

Can we agree that:

i5 vs. FX:

1) i5 clearly beats the FX in badly multithreaded games
2) i5 and FX trade blows in well multithreaded games
3) If going with a 8320 the FX is a bit cheaper (if 8350, 9370, 9590 then the savings are almost zero)

User is left with two choices:
-sacrifice performance in RTS, MMO etc. and save ~$50
-Get consistent performance across the board and spend ~$50 more.

i7 (quad) vs. FX:

-Clear win for the intel part in 97% of cases, however it costs more.
 
Benching
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i7 5960X @ 4.8GHz] [Rampage V Extreme] [Titan 1400MHz (1500MHz bench)] [Various] 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
[250GB 840EVO +2x SpinpointF3 1TB RAID0] [LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change] [XSPC X2O 750 pump/res] [Monsta 360 full copper + EK XT 360 + XT 240] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
[Crossover 27Q LED-P 1440p+ASUS 1200p+LG 1080p] [Corsair AX1200] [Dimastech Easy v3.0] [Sennheiser HD558s] 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
FX 8320, FX 8350, Phenom II x2 555BE i7 3930K, i7 860, i7 4770K, 68x Celeron D CVF, commando, 2x RIVE, Z87X-OC Asus 4870x2, Sapphire 4870 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
2x 5870, 5850, 5830, 5770 2x 3870x2, 3870 GTX Titan, GTX 480, GTX 590 GTX 285, GTX 260, 4x 9800GT, 8800GTX 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
4x4GB vengeance, 2x4GB predatorX, 2x1GB OCZ DDR2 Intel X25-M 80GB LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change OCN Marksman 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
2x old tek slims (GPU) Various watercooling stuff win7, winxp AX1200 
Case
test bench / cardboard box 
  hide details  
 
Benching
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i7 5960X @ 4.8GHz] [Rampage V Extreme] [Titan 1400MHz (1500MHz bench)] [Various] 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
[250GB 840EVO +2x SpinpointF3 1TB RAID0] [LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change] [XSPC X2O 750 pump/res] [Monsta 360 full copper + EK XT 360 + XT 240] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
[Crossover 27Q LED-P 1440p+ASUS 1200p+LG 1080p] [Corsair AX1200] [Dimastech Easy v3.0] [Sennheiser HD558s] 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
FX 8320, FX 8350, Phenom II x2 555BE i7 3930K, i7 860, i7 4770K, 68x Celeron D CVF, commando, 2x RIVE, Z87X-OC Asus 4870x2, Sapphire 4870 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsGraphics
2x 5870, 5850, 5830, 5770 2x 3870x2, 3870 GTX Titan, GTX 480, GTX 590 GTX 285, GTX 260, 4x 9800GT, 8800GTX 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
4x4GB vengeance, 2x4GB predatorX, 2x1GB OCZ DDR2 Intel X25-M 80GB LD PC-V2 SS Phase Change OCN Marksman 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
2x old tek slims (GPU) Various watercooling stuff win7, winxp AX1200 
Case
test bench / cardboard box 
  hide details  
post #207 of 1593
I don't know how that site posted such poor framerate, there is clearly something terribly wrong with their AMD rig. I never experience anything THAT bad on my rig when playing those games. I play Starcraft 2 and other RTS among other FPS in that list but I never seen any bad performance to the point I'm throwing my rig out because of it's poor performance. This isn't Celeron s478 FFS.
NZXT Phantom 240
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4670k AsRock Z87 Extreme4 Intel HD 2x8GB Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1600 @ 1866MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung EVO 840 120GB 2TB Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001 2TB Seagate Surveillance ST2000VX003 CoolerMaster Seidon 240M 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Professional x64 23" LG Flatron W2343T CM Storm QuickFire Pro Cherry MX Black keys Cosrsair CX750M 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 240 Logitech G400 gaming mouse Razer Goliathus Omega Speed Edition Creative X-Fi Titanium HD (2xLME49720HA + 2xLME... 
Other
Rotel RA-820 amplifier + Mission 760i SE booksh... 
  hide details  
NZXT Phantom 240
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4670k AsRock Z87 Extreme4 Intel HD 2x8GB Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1600 @ 1866MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung EVO 840 120GB 2TB Seagate Barracuda ST2000DM001 2TB Seagate Surveillance ST2000VX003 CoolerMaster Seidon 240M 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Professional x64 23" LG Flatron W2343T CM Storm QuickFire Pro Cherry MX Black keys Cosrsair CX750M 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 240 Logitech G400 gaming mouse Razer Goliathus Omega Speed Edition Creative X-Fi Titanium HD (2xLME49720HA + 2xLME... 
Other
Rotel RA-820 amplifier + Mission 760i SE booksh... 
  hide details  
post #208 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by nX3NTY View Post

I don't know how that site posted such poor framerate, there is clearly something terribly wrong with their AMD rig. I never experience anything THAT bad on my rig when playing those games. I play Starcraft 2 and other RTS among other FPS in that list but I never seen any bad performance to the point I'm throwing my rig out because of it's poor performance. This isn't Celeron s478 FFS.
You have to understand these guys live by benchmarks on review sites. These reviews are terrible and 100% of the time you will get better results. Alatar clings to them because fortunately they work to his advantage. And others like him care little for reason or when other have experiences, with proof, that contradict what they hold to be sacred. My FX 8350 with 7770x2 get better FPS than these reviews with 7970 which is way better than my 7770x2.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1458927/home-review-amd-fx-8320-4-5-vs-intel-3570k-4-5 This will give an idea of how bad reviews are. Most reviews are not done as a side by side but rather using old reviews for the stats. Unfortunately that means one is with updates and the other not. But here in that thread you see with gaming a lot of those numbers you see are a single instance of min/max/avg and not really indicative of gameplay.

And unlike most of the nay sayers in here I have yet to bash Intel or Nvidia and never use words like obliterate or leave behind or such baseless qualifiers. I have stated facts in my previos post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian

Ok lets be REAL. Fact as has been noted by so many over so many of these threads is that everyday gaming and usage it is nearly impossible to tell the difference. You bench mostly and yes there is a difference there, in results mostly, seeing how there is no productivity involved.

I always keep it real and honest so let me show you guys how. Seeing most use a single monitor @1080p then any, yes ANY current CPU will suffice. The bigger issue, especially for gamers is the GPU. And stay honest, 60hz is the refresh rate of most of these monitors. A 43xx AMD or i3 can give a great experience in gaming with these qualifiers. And these apply to most, the lions share, of gamers.

Now lets speak to the extreme gamers and the like. Yes then it becomes a bit smaller as far as options. These guys run multi-monitors with multiple GPUs to run them and generally multiple programs while playing. At this point only the top AMD offerings of 8350/20/9590 will do and even then they have their limits. Intel has the better options but the 4770/3770 and the other 20 that sit in that range for Intel are in the same boat as the aforementioned AMDs, leaving just the 6cores from Intel as the only options (could be more, my knowledge of all Intel offerings are limited).

For business Intel becomes the only option, but it isn't their arch so much that makes it so but the software ie:ICC. And the power usage does become a factor here and obviously Intel is a no brainer for that as well.

THIS IS THE REAL AND HONEST ANSWER.

And anytime one claims as I did above they will always claim This is OCN, extreme, yet here we have discussions about the 750Ti or i3 on this site, even a my little pony thread with a huge following. Unfortunately it is hard getting through to some of the posters when all they do is bench and that is all they know. I don't bench at all, well a little for stability and performance testing of new clocks/hardware but that's it. I am either on here or I am gaming and gaming is a great deal of my free time.

Oh and WOW and Guildwars2 I never had an issue with either being extremely playable on either my 965BE or this FX 8350. Wow ran at 120 FPS, 80FPS in 40 mans with a 6770. They cant explain that or understand it, they would rather believe a reviewer who spent all of 5 min trying to setup.

You really want to know how they run ask the ones who use them . And if someone posts a review it means they don't know and only wish to further the ignorance.
post #209 of 1593
AMD Is certainly a viable option. It has been for quite some time, too.
They're just not good for certain things compared to equally priced Intel chips.

Comparing the following CPUs
AMD FX8350 - $200 - 9053 CPU Score - 45.2 CPU Score / Dollar
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core
Intel i7 4670K - $240 - 7810 CPU Score - 32.5 CPU Score / Dollar
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+%40+3.40GHz&id=1921

Apparantly the AMD FX8350 owns the i7 4670K and costs less. Surprise, right? No. Not at all.
Here is the performance that actually matters, for most users.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
(To find specific CPUs, press Control + F, and type in the name of the CPU)

Compare the scores. Here, I put them here for you.
AMD FX8350 - 1512 - 7.5 ST-CPU Score / Dollar
i7 4670K - 2244 - 9.35 ST-CPU Score / Dollar


Not only does the Intel give you a better single-thread performance, it gives you better single-thread performance per dollar as well. AMD is the opposite of Intel. Better overall/multi-thread performance per dollar.


If you plan to use all 8 cores of the 8350, then it is a good buy. If you're looking to game then I'd recommend going with an Intel Celeron instead. You'll get better single-thread performance, with only a fraction of the price.

Here, take a look at this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116973
Intel Celeron G1830 - $59 - 2905 CPU Score
G1830 - 1666 ST- CPU Score - 27.7 ST-CPU Score / Dollar (Great deal)

$200 FX vs $60 Celeron
FX8350: 1512 - 7.5 ST-CPU Score / Dollar
G1830: 1666 - 27.7 ST-CPU Score / Dollar



Try and find me an AMD Chip under $80 that scores almost 3K Total CPU Score. I couldn't.

The point I'm trying to make is AMD is not a low end system builder's dream, it's good for middle and borderline high end. Intel owns the low budget, and high end market in both fields, but AMD comes out on top in the middle for everything but single-thread(Game/other)performance. If I were to build a computer to use for strictly encoding and rendering to do work while I play, I would definitely consider AMD and hope that others would too.

AMD < Intel - Low Budget performance
AMD > Intel - Mid Level performance (Multi-Threaded, Encoding, Rendering)
AMD < Intel - Mid Level performance (Single-Threaded, Gaming, Simulations)
AMD < Intel - High Level performance


TL;DR: AMD is more than viable, and quite oftenbetter than Intel in the mid/high end market depending on your intended usage.
Edited by Shadow11377 - 3/4/14 at 4:14am
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
post #210 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2advanced View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

No... Just, no.

4.5 maybe. 4.8 if all you play is lightly threaded games and don't do any actual work. But that cooler is crap and will not do 4.8 IBT AVX without starting a fire... Motherboard is fine, but trying to say a shoddy single-tower single-fan 120mm air cooler can do 4.8 is just wrong... I've seen a lot of people try to claim this and they've all ended up wrong when true load was applied to the CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

No, not IBT. You'll need IBT AVX. Way more stressful, and way hotter. At least 10 runs on Very High.

IBT AVX

At 4.8 if you get under 80GFLOPs or a negitive result, you're unstable/throttling. I should say 90GFLOPs which is the norm, but I'm being generous. Don't forget to run HWiNFO64 and include it in the screenshot showing CPU speed, voltages, and CPU/Motherboard temps.

That's the standard we hold.

Ambient temps were a little warmer than usual at the 2advanced household, but temps remained stable (54-56, 57 Peak). I also needed a little extra on the voltage to get it to pass 10 times (0.020V). And I managed between 91 - 92.6 Gflops. Like I mentioned earlier, this Cooler + PK-1 Tim combination is a BEAST. Not bad for a $10 Cooler right? Please tell me I turned you into a beleiber! biggrin.gif
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)









Believer that the golden chip gods favor the strangest people anyway. Of course, now I'm going to urge you to get some real cooling and make it do 5.2. tongue.gif
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?