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 31  

post #301 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

See, this is kind of inaccurate. As I said before, you could get a Xeon equivalent of the 4770 for $250. that makes the price difference between that performance level and an 8350 about $50. That will all be more than justified by the energy saving and extra performance you get with Intel, longer time between a CPU upgrade, not to mention lower wattage power supplies are quite a bit cheaper, I could easily save $40 by going with a 400-500w PSU rather than an 600-800w PSU.

Now if we forget that there's a cheaper Xeon eqiuvalent of the 4770K (not to mention there's also a cheaper 4770 minus the "K" and the 4670, and others available) let's compare the 4770K and the 8350 then.


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350


The 4770K makes an average gain of around 30% and as high as 40%, and even has high as 75 percent if you include single core tests (which I just don't think matter soo much anyways, but still).

At around $100 more than the 8350, the 4770K also costs about 30% more.....So 30% more performance, 30% more cost, that's about on par right?

BUT that's before you take energy savings into account, or the lack of a need for a higher power PSU, which all costs the consumer money. The 4770K will have a longer usable life than the 8350, which means less money spent in your life time on CPU's over all.

Then if you take overclocking into account, the clear winner will be the 4770K in terms of extent and performance gains from overclockability.

So all of these factors, really do make the 4770K a better price to performance ratio in the long run, despite it costing $100 more initially. That cost is technically already offset by the performance gains from the start, so if you include all of those other savings and performance increases, you're essentially getting a 4770K level of performance for the cost of an 8350 (or less) in the end.

Then if you take all of these considerations and apply them to the Xeon version of the 4770 that sells for only $250, you definitely can't ignore that it's an even better buy over both




Heck, even the 4670K shows some pretty significant FPS increases over the 8350.....and it's only $40 more.

example:

Enslaved odyssey to the west
4670K: 190
8350: 136

While both are respectable FPS, more than enough.....you have to think about how this translates into future performance and hardware longevity.

Most of these FPS increases of the 4670K over the 8350 are at least 10-30%

At $200 for the 8350, and $240 for the 4670, that's a price difference of just 17%!

This means the performance gains far outweigh the price difference. And that's before you factor in other things I've brought up time and again, like energy savings, etc.


Will you quit harping about energy savings? It is a computer not a refrigerator. No one in this thread cares. Even Intel advocates. If you are using your computer six hours a day the over a year the amount of money is under $20 as someone did the math earlier in the thread.
post #302 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.
First I want to thank you for this. It gave me an idea.

We are attacking this from the wrong angle. So I am going to ask some questions and I warn you, they are loaded.

1. Since you have concluded AMD is not viable, then is it correct to assume you mean they are low end and barely making medium?

2. Being that they are low end, does that mean that they can only run on low to medium setting in games?

3. All those guys running CF up to Quad fire, and what the hay, SLI and Tri-SLI on FX 8350s wasted their money and time with subpar CPUs?

Now with more ME questions.

Using, for those on phones and cant see my Rig:

FX 8350 @4.84Ghz 220 FSB with 22 Multi C&Q enabled No turbo
16Gb Ram @1466 7-8-8-22-30 1T 2420 CPU-NB
XFX 7770 x2 1150 core 1450 Memory voltage locked 2860 HT link
1Tb HDD no SSD
Acer S231HL 23" 1080p 60Hz

4. So with Skyrim and full 2K textures 80+ mods run with 4eq SSAA High FXAA and SMAA Capped to 75FPS ( weird glitch with Vsync only running with 120FPS fixed with last driver but not rerun Skyrim) and I get high quality Gameplay with fine textures and run at average of 73 FPS for a 3hour session ( load screens are 30 FPS so depending on how many fast travels you do your FPS will be impacted slightly). So am I cheating or am skewing the results to my favor?

5. I browse the internet, mostly this site, and it moves flawlessly and smooth with no hitches. Is it a fluke and not what I should expect as an 8350 user?


Truth be told, some here work harder than necessary to make the situation look worse than it actually is. I have yet to see the ones sticking around to make the argument on the AMD side ever once say AMD was the top performer and bash Intel in any way. rather as they and I have done is make a much better case for Viable=yes than any naysayer.

ALATAR what most displeases me is that you have these chips in question in your possession and like Cssorkinman can bench and test both side by side (unless you have since sold them). Now it is just a guess but either you know what we say as fact and don't wish to let on you would know because of your ownership or you fear what we say may very well be correct ( or as mentioned above you no longer have the opportunity).

My fear is that others looking to buy the FX 8350 searching the web is going to find these negative posts based on reviews only and not see the real reviews that we gave. That is a great disservice to honesty.
post #303 of 1593
OK just a quick mention, not everyone can get an I7 4770K for as cheap as the links provided.

Some countries pay a whack, some don't. In the UK the 4770K is around 150% more expensive than the FX-8320.

Also energy prices vary, some areas within different countries have very different energy bills.


Also, AMD's chips aren't hugely different in terms of power consumption, lower energy states are getting better. Although if looking at gaming your graphics card will pump up your power consumption than any chip could reduce.


Gaming aside I think the cheaper Xeons offer the best price; the quad cores 8 threads Xeons are good value and are very good for rendering and definitely power consumption. Personally the "I7 Series" is overpriced and awful for their price.


Again, I also don't like how Intel as a company are, they win people over with money and are very self centred. That's only issue I have with them and that's another reason I don't like parting my money with them.


As a bottom note AMD are good for budget CPUs, Celerons and Pentiums are alright, however AMD's offerings are pretty good here.


Depends on the task at hand, I don't think saying Intel is better or AMD is better is the right thing to think. Both are good for different reasons.
Performance isn't everything.
post #304 of 1593
UPDATE: Because a lot of people simply look at benchmarks, look at other user's comments and agree.

The amount of users who essentially say "Go with Intel" has a profound effect; in that eventually (as we've seen) a lot of users get this mindset and believe in it.


Everyone, just post some good things about AMD we want to hear the good. If you can't post any good comments about AMD it says it all smile.gif biased is bad.

Look:
FX-8350: It can run any game out there, some intense scenes make it cough. It can render, few minutes slower than some I7s. It's measured in milliseconds when we look at processing time, because we know it has a weaker IPC, but it can multi-task just fine. Yes it can compress, encode, decode and convert files easy, Xeons and I7s do it just that little bit quicker. It's remarkably cheap, and you don't have to overclock it if heat or power consumption is a concern, it's not overly bad.

I7/Xeon: It's expensive but you get an onboard GPU if you don't have graphics, efficient, strong IPC means its great in single threaded applications, multi-tasking is great because that's down to it's strong IPC (that's why 6 core Xeons are very strong at multi-threading).


The simple fact is this: Both systems are high end.


Now how long did that Pentium take to render again? How's that Athlon II hanging on? Yes, they are much slower at rendering, compressing, encoding yada yada. Because they are lower end parts that take considerably longer.


It's high end because it gets the job done, e.g. Rendering is better on an 8 core FX than an I3 or I5. Opteron's are pretty darn good against the Xeons.


Doesn't mean AMD is not viable if you compare the available chips.
post #305 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

We can play that game, but it ultimately leads no where.

I got the X5660 for 100 and bought EVGA Tri SLI from a local partout for 100.

Which is the better value?

EDIT: I will leave the thread at this point, as I dont think its going anywhere and I have too much personal drama going on at the moment that will impede my ability to discuss from a professional and respectable manner. Ill check back on this when I have the chance or you can PM me if you like.

AMD is viable for gaming. OP title is flamebait. However there are better offerings out there.

If you picked up an X5650 for $100 please tell me where.

Neither one of those is currently available so that's kinda apples and oranges.
post #306 of 1593
Quote:
The simple fact is this: Both systems are high end.

As someone who spent a lot of time on starcraft forums: The amount of people buying "high end" systems that ran the game literally half as well (3570k vs fx8150) as overclocked intel did because AMD sponsored a few events, and then came to the forums confused about why there FPS was so bad in fights was really, really painful ;/

^It's because of this, that i shy away from the "high end" branding. It's confusing to too many people - they expect to be buying something that's up there, the best, and what they actually get is a specialist chip which has great price/performance in certain loads but is brought to its knees in some other loads that they may encounter, and that some people buying these cpu's who are mis-informed, run all of the time.

I think they're decent CPU's, especially at some of the crazy prices we've seen. I just think the i5 is a better, more well-rounded mid-range gaming/encoding CPU. Out of the CPU bound games.. you'll find a lot that choke on older CPU's and bulldozer/piledriver, but few that give you poor performance in comparison with a 4670k, once you're at midrange (which i'l define as etc 8320/4670k+760/270x, as this means something completely different to everyone) it just seems hard to have such a liability for a somewhat big range of games
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #307 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

As someone who spent a lot of time on starcraft forums: The amount of people buying "high end" systems that ran the game literally half as well (3570k vs fx8150) as overclocked intel did because AMD sponsored a few events, and then came to the forums confused about why there FPS was so bad in fights was really, really painful ;/

^It's because of this, that i shy away from the "high end" branding. It's confusing to too many people - they expect to be buying something that's up there, the best, and what they actually get is a specialist chip which has great price/performance in certain loads but is brought to its knees in some other loads that they may encounter, and that some people buying these cpu's who are mis-informed, run all of the time.

I think they're decent CPU's, especially at some of the crazy prices we've seen. I just think the i5 is a better, more well-rounded mid-range gaming/encoding CPU. Out of the CPU bound games.. you'll find a lot that choke on older CPU's and bulldozer/piledriver, but few that give you poor performance in comparison with a 4670k, once you're at midrange (which i'l define as etc 8320/4670k+760/270x, as this means something completely different to everyone) it just seems hard to have such a liability for a somewhat big range of games

That's true but it's classed as high end. Otherwise we all really should be pointing towards server grade Xeons, that's high end stuff. E5s etc.

Strategy games are not in AMD's court no, as single threading and high IPC is necessary, but the fact is a FX is still better equipped than say a Pentium or Athlon II. That's why people recommend them; both platforms are given.

It is a bit misleading I agree but FX do excel in a lot of areas, just like the I5s. Completely depends on the task and also depends on how that program is developed (well multi-threaded or heavily single threaded).


I think one of the best bang for buck CPUs from Intel at this moment would be the I5-4440 or Xeon E3-1230V3, they are nicely priced.


FX-8350 on the other hand isn't so greatly priced, not even mentioning the FX-9000 series (just why!).


I think the FX-6300 is a very well priced chip that goes against an I3 whilst the FX-8320 is priced great also.


However I think most here would choose a chip based on what they were going to be doing. I.E. Basic streaming or web browsing and word processing I'd pick up an A6 smile.gif
post #308 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

As someone who spent a lot of time on starcraft forums: The amount of people buying "high end" systems that ran the game literally half as well (3570k vs fx8150) as overclocked intel did because AMD sponsored a few events, and then came to the forums confused about why there FPS was so bad in fights was really, really painful ;/

^It's because of this, that i shy away from the "high end" branding. It's confusing to too many people - they expect to be buying something that's up there, the best, and what they actually get is a specialist chip which has great price/performance in certain loads but is brought to its knees in some other loads that they may encounter, and that some people buying these cpu's who are mis-informed, run all of the time.

I think they're decent CPU's, especially at some of the crazy prices we've seen. I just think the i5 is a better, more well-rounded mid-range gaming/encoding CPU. Out of the CPU bound games.. you'll find a lot that choke on older CPU's and bulldozer/piledriver, but few that give you poor performance in comparison with a 4670k, once you're at midrange (which i'l define as etc 8320/4670k+760/270x, as this means something completely different to everyone) it just seems hard to have such a liability for a somewhat big range of games

Yeah this is the problem. As I said previously in this thread, consistency.

If you're going to recommend Vishera to everyone with blanket statements like "it's great price/perf and good performance" you run a high risk of accidentally recommending it for something where it is really bad price/perf and bad perf.

Vishera CAN be a really good price/perf choice. However you need to add an asterisk after that claim to make sure what sort of applications you're talking about. If you buy Vishera you should usually have a really good idea about the sort of software you run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

First I want to thank you for this. It gave me an idea.

We are attacking this from the wrong angle. So I am going to ask some questions and I warn you, they are loaded.

1. Since you have concluded AMD is not viable, then is it correct to assume you mean they are low end and barely making medium?

I usually classify high/mid/low end by prices. And imo anything under $200 is not mid-high end.

So in my opinion Vishera 8320 and 8350 are priced as mid-low range products and all Vishera products also perform at mid range level. 9xxx are priced in the high range but only have mid range performance overall.
Quote:
2. Being that they are low end, does that mean that they can only run on low to medium setting in games?

No, being able to run application X at Y settings with Z fps has nothing to do with how the products are placed against lower/similarly/higher priced ones.

Range placements are about comparing CPUs against each other.
Quote:
3. All those guys running CF up to Quad fire, and what the hay, SLI and Tri-SLI on FX 8350s wasted their money and time with subpar CPUs?

They made a really bad price/perf decision.

They saved maybe $50 tops over an i5 or $150 tops over an i7 with a build that most likely cost $3000+. And for their savings they get clearly worse performance.

Sure the rig will work and all but from a logical stand point the 8350 doesn't make any sense in that case.
Quote:
Now with more ME questions.

Using, for those on phones and cant see my Rig:

FX 8350 @4.84Ghz 220 FSB with 22 Multi C&Q enabled No turbo
16Gb Ram @1466 7-8-8-22-30 1T 2420 CPU-NB
XFX 7770 x2 1150 core 1450 Memory voltage locked 2860 HT link
1Tb HDD no SSD
Acer S231HL 23" 1080p 60Hz

4. So with Skyrim and full 2K textures 80+ mods run with 4eq SSAA High FXAA and SMAA Capped to 75FPS ( weird glitch with Vsync only running with 120FPS fixed with last driver but not rerun Skyrim) and I get high quality Gameplay with fine textures and run at average of 73 FPS for a 3hour session ( load screens are 30 FPS so depending on how many fast travels you do your FPS will be impacted slightly). So am I cheating or am skewing the results to my favor?

I don't understand the question.
Quote:
B]5.[/B] I browse the internet, mostly this site, and it moves flawlessly and smooth with no hitches. Is it a fluke and not what I should expect as an 8350 user?

With an SSD pretty much every mid-level (or better) CPU made in the last 5 years will give you the same experience.

General usage (word documents, browser use, etc.) hasn't been a deciding factor between CPUs in years.
Quote:
Truth be told, some here work harder than necessary to make the situation look worse than it actually is. I have yet to see the ones sticking around to make the argument on the AMD side ever once say AMD was the top performer and bash Intel in any way. rather as they and I have done is make a much better case for Viable=yes than any naysayer.

No one on the intel side has said that you can't run an AMD CPU or that they aren't capable of running these games.

What we're saying is that intel is faster.

The argument of this thread in particular boils down to AMD's CPUs slipping downwards when it comes to placing somewhere in the high-mid-low ranges. They still run the applications obviously but compared to advancing intel part they don't do it as well as they once did.
Quote:
ALATAR what most displeases me is that you have these chips in question in your possession and like Cssorkinman can bench and test both side by side (unless you have since sold them). Now it is just a guess but either you know what we say as fact and don't wish to let on you would know because of your ownership or you fear what we say may very well be correct ( or as mentioned above you no longer have the opportunity).

I've told you on many occasions that my CVF has a dead memory channel. There's no point in running gaming comparisons when one platform has crippled memory bandwidth.

That and an extensive comparisons would take days of work. I don't have time for that.
Quote:
My fear is that others looking to buy the FX 8350 searching the web is going to find these negative posts based on reviews only and not see the real reviews that we gave. That is a great disservice to honesty.

Only seeing one part of the argument is bad.

People need to see all sorts of reviews and arguments and make their own decision based on those.
 
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 #309 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

The question isn't of value, the question is if AMD is a viable option for mid-high end
The problem i see with that argument it is it's not really about that, but more for example a $1000 system against a $1100 system, even if one CPU is $100 more than the other. If you pay 10% more, overall, and run certain games at 30-50%+ higher framerate, it's hard to make a case for value

Someone posted that there were better options than AMD for the money. I posted an example and asked a question. I was not addressing the OP with my question.
post #310 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagtek View Post

Someone posted that there were better options than AMD for the money. I posted an example and asked a question. I was not addressing the OP with my question.

Ok, hard to keep track of the 300+ posts
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  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?