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 29  

post #281 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatman811 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Cheapest newegg combo for that chip as of today.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It's a lot of chip for the money on ebay, but for comparison's sake new vs new at the same vendor , stock vs stock is more relevant. The purchase is a known commodity being sold for a certain price at a certain level of capability. Just my opinion

EDIT: Comparison of that chip against the 8350 in an AMD friendly bench
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1304&cmp[]=1780

Ok so if I am interpreting this correctly a $1000 Intel CPU is being out preformed by a $200 AMD CPU? This is an honest question, not a slight against Intel in any way shape or form. I understand that the Intel Xeon is for server use and the AMD FX is for desktop/gaming, so how can this comparison be valid? If this question seems stupid be patient as I am still learning. biggrin.gif

It did , in this very very isolated , esoteric example .
It speaks more to the importance of understanding what you want to do with your rig and what equipment is best for that task. That's the takeaway here.

EDIT: I would also add that it speaks to how poorly benchmarking programs are equipped to measure across such different platforms
Edited by cssorkinman - 3/6/14 at 10:10am
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 #282 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Cheapest newegg combo for that chip as of today.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It's a lot of chip for the money on ebay, but for comparison's sake new vs new at the same vendor , stock vs stock is more relevant. The purchase is a known commodity being sold for a certain price at a certain level of capability. Just my opinion

EDIT: Comparison of that chip against the 8350 in an AMD friendly bench
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1304&cmp[]=1780

Since when do we isolate ourselves from outlets to acquire our hardware? I believe you like to use newegg only because it is convenient for the sake of discussion. You do not need a server motherboard for this particular chip, it is not a requirement. This is why plenty of 1366 users have been making the jump to hex on a overclocking motherboard and hitting anywhere from 4.6-5.2Ghz which would ultimately render that benchmark useless for this community as we push the limits of said hardware. This hardware has been tested and benched and used for real world scenarios even today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatman811 View Post

Ok so if I am interpreting this correctly a $1000 Intel CPU is being out preformed by a $200 AMD CPU? This is an honest question, not a slight against Intel in any way shape or form. I understand that the Intel Xeon is for server use and the AMD FX is for desktop/gaming, so how can this comparison be valid? If this question seems stupid be patient as I am still learning. biggrin.gif

Yep, the Vishera beat out the 5 generation old platform at stock. Whats important to note is the chip itself is 140 on avg after shipping today. As well as comparing a workstation to a server.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

It did , in this very very isolated , esoteric example .
It speaks more to the importance of understanding what you want to do with your rig and what equipment is best for that task. That's the takeaway here.

EDIT: I would also add that it speaks to how poorly benchmarking programs are equipped to measure across such different platforms

It shows me that the methodology and scenario does not apply here, you benched a workstation against a server. Try benching a workstation with a workstation and see how both measure up

There are a load of CPU only benchmarks to choose from on the thread I linked earlier.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
post #283 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Cheapest newegg combo for that chip as of today.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It's a lot of chip for the money on ebay, but for comparison's sake new vs new at the same vendor , stock vs stock is more relevant. The purchase is a known commodity being sold for a certain price at a certain level of capability. Just my opinion

EDIT: Comparison of that chip against the 8350 in an AMD friendly bench
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1304&cmp[]=1780

Since when do we isolate ourselves from outlets to acquire our hardware? I believe you like to use newegg only because it is convenient for the sake of discussion. You do not need a server motherboard for this particular chip, it is not a requirement. This is why plenty of 1366 users have been making the jump to hex on a overclocking motherboard and hitting anywhere from 4.6-5.2Ghz which would ultimately render that benchmark useless for this community as we push the limits of said hardware. This hardware has been tested and benched and used for real world scenarios even today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatman811 View Post

Ok so if I am interpreting this correctly a $1000 Intel CPU is being out preformed by a $200 AMD CPU? This is an honest question, not a slight against Intel in any way shape or form. I understand that the Intel Xeon is for server use and the AMD FX is for desktop/gaming, so how can this comparison be valid? If this question seems stupid be patient as I am still learning. biggrin.gif

Yep, the Vishera beat out the 5 generation old platform at stock. Whats important to note is the chip itself is 140 on avg after shipping today. As well as comparing a workstation to a server.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

It did , in this very very isolated , esoteric example .
It speaks more to the importance of understanding what you want to do with your rig and what equipment is best for that task. That's the takeaway here.

EDIT: I would also add that it speaks to how poorly benchmarking programs are equipped to measure across such different platforms

It shows me that the methodology and scenario does not apply here, you benched a workstation against a server. Try benching a workstation with a workstation and see how both measure up

There are a load of CPU only benchmarks to choose from on the thread I linked earlier.

After initially using a microcenter price for my comparison, a moderator in this thread suggested I use newegg pricing for my comparisons instead, as it relates to a wider group of customer , I agree with him . smile.gif

EDIT: As for beating a 5 year old platform, well you were the one that brought it here for comparison's sake. Is it valid or isn't it. No choosing which is more "convenient" please


The non server motherboard used in the comparison you cited is still being sold for $250 used , on Ebay.

I benched a workstation against a workstation in my cinebench comparison, AMD scored better in 2 of the 3 tests despite the simulated 9370 in the test having a $100 advantage in pricing over the 3770k. What about that is not valid?
Edited by cssorkinman - 3/6/14 at 11:37am
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 #284 of 1593
The difference is mainly in the benchmarks, its like running ram in dual channel vs single channel. Benchmarks show half the performance, but "real world" performance has marginal difference if any..

you can get a 8320 for 150$ which is a great price and will do well in the real world
post #285 of 1593
I'm not even going to address the "it feels faster" arguments since the same argument could be made about absolutely anything. However the argument would not change the facts. Me saying that my GTX 480 is faster than my R9 280X doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

Since the main part of this discussion has been about gaming and since I was bored I made this:



Every single bench from gamegpu.ru that has a 4670K, 4770K and an 8350. (this means everything from the last 6 months)

-fps numbers are for average fps
-23 most recent games listed
-percentage differences and averages from those on the right
-no cherry picking at all, nothing left out

Raw data:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



All articles from here: http://gamegpu.ru/

Every game bench from first 3 or 4 pages.


Conclusion:

On average in games:

i5 4670K is 20% faster than an FX 8350

i7 4770K is 24% faster than an FX 8350

To answer the question in OP:

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

Answer: If i5 4670K is considered the lowest end CPU in "mid-high end" then no, AMD can't match the performance of "mid-high range" anymore.

If i5 4670K isn't the cut-off point for "mid-high range" then someone needs to decide what is.

Cold hard facts and simple math.
Edited by Alatar - 3/6/14 at 11:34am
 
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 #286 of 1593
Lol way to show your bias. Users show results and experiences and you jump right back into benches from reviews.
post #287 of 1593
You have way too much free time..
post #288 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I'm not even going to address the "it feels faster" arguments since the same argument could be made about absolutely anything. However the argument would not change the facts. Me saying that my GTX 480 is faster than my R9 280X doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

Since the main part of this discussion has been about gaming and since I was bored I made this:



Every single bench from gamegpu.ru that has a 4670K, 4770K and an 8350. (this means everything from the last 6 months)

-fps numbers are for average fps
-23 most recent games listed
-percentage differences and averages from those on the right
-no cherry picking at all, nothing left out

Raw data:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



All articles from here: http://gamegpu.ru/

Every game bench from first 3 or 4 pages.


Conclusion:

On average in games:

i5 4670K is 20% faster than an FX 8350

i7 4770K is 24% faster than an FX 8350

To answer the question in OP:

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

Answer: If i5 4670K is considered the lowest end CPU in "mid-high end" then no, AMD can't match the performance of "mid-high range" anymore.

If i5 4670K isn't the cut-off point for "mid-high range" then someone needs to decide what is.

Cold hard facts and simple math.

What makes those facts more valid than my cinebench comparsion?
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 #289 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Lol way to show your bias. Users show results and experiences and you jump right back into benches from reviews.

3rd party benchmarks without cherry picking is the exact opposite of bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by felon View Post

You have way too much free time..

I've been studying all day, it's 10pm here. I was listening to a podcast while reading the thread so I figured why not. tongue.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

What makes those facts more valid than my cinebench comparsion?

Large amount of results from a huge number of games?

Your results are valid if the user is interested in Cinema4D performance. The ones I listed are if you're interested in games launched in the past 6 months.
 
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 #290 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I'm not even going to address the "it feels faster" arguments since the same argument could be made about absolutely anything. However the argument would not change the facts. Me saying that my GTX 480 is faster than my R9 280X doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

Since the main part of this discussion has been about gaming and since I was bored I made this:



Every single bench from gamegpu.ru that has a 4670K, 4770K and an 8350. (this means everything from the last 6 months)

-fps numbers are for average fps
-23 most recent games listed
-percentage differences and averages from those on the right
-no cherry picking at all, nothing left out

Raw data:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



All articles from here: http://gamegpu.ru/

Every game bench from first 3 or 4 pages.


Conclusion:

On average in games:

i5 4670K is 20% faster than an FX 8350

i7 4770K is 24% faster than an FX 8350

To answer the question in OP:

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

Answer: If i5 4670K is considered the lowest end CPU in "mid-high end" then no, AMD can't match the performance of "mid-high range" anymore.

If i5 4670K isn't the cut-off point for "mid-high range" then someone needs to decide what is.

Cold hard facts and simple math.

That's a seriously great chart for future reference thumb.gif although what's great is there's only a couple of games that AMD's chips actually get impacted by; most are over the 60 FPS mark (majority have 60 Hz monitors) paired with an R9 280X.

There are a few games where AMD's highest end chips dips in the minimum FPS.

The FX-6300 seems to be pumping out reasonable performance there smile.gif

So from those graphs bottom line is the games that AMD's chips cannot cope with are in the minority rather than the majority; especially with the transition to multi-threaded gaming.

Considering the 4770K is almost 50% more expensive than the FX-8320 and about 40% more than the FX-8350 for an average of 24% more performance in terms of gaming.

UPDATE: It isn't biased as there's some good results from both sides smile.gif
Edited by mikeo01 - 3/6/14 at 11:50am
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?