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 34  

post #331 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Bilko View Post

For $220 it's a bargain, the 9370 and 4670k are both $280 here and the 9590 and 4770k are within $5 of each other ($395 and $400 respectability)

I know people that own 4770k's and never overclock them, i also know people that own 9590's because they didn't want the hassle of overclocking an 8350 or 9370. so i'd say both stock and overclocked values are valid points.

If we are going to argue price as well then i'd guess we need to take motherboards into account as well.
Top Tier AMD board would be a CVF-Z or a UD7 (around $300 AUD),
Mid Tier would be a M5A99FX-PRO or UD3 ($180 AUD) vs the Socket 1150 offerings Maximus VI Extreme or MSI Z87 XPOWER ($500 AUD).
Mid Tier Z87-PRO or GA-Z87X-UD5H ($300)

It all adds up in the end.
Honestly Price will come in to price comparisons. Fact is the Intel likely is fine with the stock cooler where the 8350 will not be ( the 9370/9590 come with better coolers I believe but not sure for OC). But then that brings about the point of the thread, IS AMD VIABLE FOR MID-HIGH END? I already ascertained it is but this was not on a price comparison. Once you add that in then you are also gonna have to add: Delidding and other such anomilies. When you are making the argument for Viable and Mid-High end then you are already throwing out the price argument and going for end result.

END RESULT. That is what the question is asking. Not at what price but can it do it. The fact is yes. Seriously if you decide to go for high end then price is in the back of the bus and its stop is dead last. Usually first is getting the wife to let you do it. biggrin.gif So the end result is AMD is viable. Is it gonna be cheap: no.
post #332 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Bilko View Post

Still, If i wanted to build a Top AMD Rig then thats a 9590 and CVF-Z ($700AUD) vs a Top Intel rig 4770k and Maximus VI Extreme ($900 AUD)

That leaves me $200 AUD for a high end CLC or Custom Water.......

How many are looking to build a "top intel rig" and not looking to overclock it?

Even then something like a maximus VI Extreme offers much, much more than the CVF-Z. Something like a maximus VI hero might be a more comparable board.
 
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 #333 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

You do not need an aftermarket cooler and a high end-ish mobo to run a 4770K at stock. But you do need those for running a 9590 at stock.

This means that a stock 4770K system is much cheaper than a 9590 system while offering more performance in games. (on average)

If you overclock the i7 system is obviously going to outperform the 9590 system by a wide margin. .
Did not know that part with the stock 4770 and the fan.
Quote:
gamegpu.ru order is always determined by minimum fps, if the min fps is the same it's pretty much random what they'll do.
was just joking and stuff. figured it was random yet it makes sense for the 9370 to be above them more than below.
post #334 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by an65001 View Post

Because, the FX-8320 costs twice as less as an i7, and 1.5x less than the i5.
This is so true. When my Saberkitty died I was *this* close to buying Intel system. What annoy me is to build overclockable Intel system first I need to buy K series CPU, which only got two on LGA1150, the 4670K alone costs the same as FX 6300 + 970 chipset motherboard. Fine enough but then I remember I need to buy Z87 series motherboard for overclocking, a cheap one costs as much as good 990FX motherboard. Major facepalm. Don't quote on me for your local pricing because the price isn't the same everywhere on Earth.
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 #335 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Honestly Price will come in to price comparisons. Fact is the Intel likely is fine with the stock cooler where the 8350 will not be ( the 9370/9590 come with better coolers I believe but not sure for OC). But then that brings about the point of the thread, IS AMD VIABLE FOR MID-HIGH END? I already ascertained it is but this was not on a price comparison. Once you add that in then you are also gonna have to add: Delidding and other such anomilies. When you are making the argument for Viable and Mid-High end then you are already throwing out the price argument and going for end result.

END RESULT. That is what the question is asking. Not at what price but can it do it. The fact is yes. Seriously if you decide to go for high end then price is in the back of the bus and its stop is dead last. Usually first is getting the wife to let you do it. biggrin.gif So the end result is AMD is viable. Is it gonna be cheap: no.

Good point, i got side-tracked.

As before, AMD is perfectly viable for a Mid-High end gaming rig, You won't be getting into the Hall of Fame with it but it's a perfectly viable option.
 
Ryze of the Devil
(13 items)
 
FX Trooper 2.0
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen Threadripper 1950x (ES) X399 Aorus Gaming 7 Sapphire RX Vega 64 32GB TridentZ RGB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
240GB HyperX Predator 500GB Samsung 850 Evo 2TB Firecuda EK Predator 360 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win 10 Pro Phillips 349X7FJEW LG 34UM95 Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX1200i Thermaltake Core X9 Logitech G502 Star Citizen Drake Goliath 
Audio
Logitech G933 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium  RX580 Red Devil 16GB Corsair Vengeance LED 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Evo OCZ Trion 150 Fractal Design Kelvin S36 Win 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Nixeus NX-VUE24A Thermaltake Poseidon Z RGB Thermaltake Toughpower Grand RGB 750w Thermaltake View 31 RGB 
Mouse
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8370 Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z R9 290x 16GB G.Skill TridentX 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB Samsung External Blu-Ray Burner Fractal Design Kelvin S36 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Whatever Logitech G19 Silverstone ST1200w CM Storm Trooper 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G502 Star Citizen Drake Goliath Logitech X530 5.1 Logitech G930 7.1 Wireless Headset 
  hide details  
 
Ryze of the Devil
(13 items)
 
FX Trooper 2.0
(16 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen Threadripper 1950x (ES) X399 Aorus Gaming 7 Sapphire RX Vega 64 32GB TridentZ RGB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
240GB HyperX Predator 500GB Samsung 850 Evo 2TB Firecuda EK Predator 360 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win 10 Pro Phillips 349X7FJEW LG 34UM95 Logitech G910 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX1200i Thermaltake Core X9 Logitech G502 Star Citizen Drake Goliath 
Audio
Logitech G933 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 MSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium  RX580 Red Devil 16GB Corsair Vengeance LED 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 960 Evo OCZ Trion 150 Fractal Design Kelvin S36 Win 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Nixeus NX-VUE24A Thermaltake Poseidon Z RGB Thermaltake Toughpower Grand RGB 750w Thermaltake View 31 RGB 
Mouse
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8370 Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z R9 290x 16GB G.Skill TridentX 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB Samsung External Blu-Ray Burner Fractal Design Kelvin S36 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Whatever Logitech G19 Silverstone ST1200w CM Storm Trooper 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G502 Star Citizen Drake Goliath Logitech X530 5.1 Logitech G930 7.1 Wireless Headset 
  hide details  
post #336 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Bilko View Post

Good point, i got side-tracked.

As before, AMD is perfectly viable for a Mid-High end gaming rig, You won't be getting into the Hall of Fame with it but it's a perfectly viable option.
Sorry wasn't making the point you were off topic just adding the other points to the point you made. wink.gif
post #337 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I'm not even going to address the point about my personal equipment. It has nothing to do with the argument here. However it's somewhat telling that that would be the argument you choose to counter my point about cost on stock systems. "you use expensive stuff thus you can't argue price/performance".

Anyway, if your "customers" care about stock performance then isn't the i7 system clearly the better deal? At least for the people who do not use their stock CPU for hwbot prime?

i7 stock:
-performs better in games on average
-much cheaper
-runs cool
-has both good singe thread and multithread performance

9590:
-performs worse in games on average
-more expensive overall
-puts out tons of heat
-has poor single thread performance but good multithread performance.

Please do not tell me that because they're on par in passmark, the FX wins in hwbot prime and because in one BF4 bench they're about on par the FX is a better choice. Because clearly it is not. If you're actually telling your customers that the FX is the better choice then I feel bad for the customers.

If your customers buy their PCs for hwbot prime only then disregard the statement above.

And since you do not wish to address the overclocked argument I assume that you agree with me that the FXs can't hold a candle to the intels in that regard.


Here are the gaming facts:

Once OC'd:

i5 and i7 are clearly faster than the FXs overall
FXs are a bit cheaper than i5, clearly cheaper than i7

Stock:

i5 and i7 are a bit faster than the FXs overall
i7 and especially i5 are CLEARLY cheaper

What's there not to like? And more importantly why in the world would you recommend an FX system for a gamer with these facts in mind? Because it manages 3 more avg fps but lower minimums in one BF4 benchmark?


I honestly do not understand the mentality and rationale behind buying an FX for gaming.
This is the point where you need to realize the topic: Is AMD viable for Mid-High end. It isn't: Is AMD better than Intel for mid-high end. Nor is it about : Which would be cheaper for Mid-High end.

I made the point that it is. If you wish to say it isn't then one thing to help is prove how its not is to show where it would be limited like a LIMIT in math, a point it cant reach. Intel has absolutely nothing to do with it other than where the bar gets placed. What you can do with a 4770K says absolutely nothing about what you can do with a FX 8350.

Edit: oh and don't forget this:

Your min/max/avg argument doesn't tell the whole story. it never did.
post #338 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I'm not even going to address the point about my personal equipment. It has nothing to do with the argument here. However it's somewhat telling that that would be the argument you choose to counter my point about cost on stock systems. "you use expensive stuff thus you can't argue price/performance".

Anyway, if your "customers" care about stock performance then isn't the i7 system clearly the better deal? At least for the people who do not use their stock CPU for hwbot prime?

i7 stock:
-performs better in games on average
-much cheaper
-runs cool
-has both good singe thread and multithread performance

9590:
-performs worse in games on average
-more expensive overall
-puts out tons of heat
-has poor single thread performance but good multithread performance.

Please do not tell me that because they're on par in passmark, the FX wins in hwbot prime and because in one BF4 bench they're about on par the FX is a better choice. Because clearly it is not. If you're actually telling your customers that the FX is the better choice then I feel bad for the customers.

If your customers buy their PCs for hwbot prime only then disregard the statement above.

And since you do not wish to address the overclocked argument I assume that you agree with me that the FXs can't hold a candle to the intels in that regard.


Here are the gaming facts:

Once OC'd:

i5 and i7 are clearly faster than the FXs overall
FXs are a bit cheaper than i5, clearly cheaper than i7

Stock:

i5 and i7 are a bit faster than the FXs overall
i7 and especially i5 are CLEARLY cheaper

What's there not to like? And more importantly why in the world would you recommend an FX system for a gamer with these facts in mind? Because it manages 3 more avg fps but lower minimums in one BF4 benchmark?


I honestly do not understand the mentality and rationale behind buying an FX for gaming.

I understand yours pretty well. But as sorry as you feel for my customers ( over 100 customer builds - only 1 that is mildly dissatisfied but it isn't related to cpu choice ), I feel equally so to people who have closed their minds to alternative viewpoints.
You are an overclocker, obsessed with benchmarking scores and blessed with plenty of means to pursue your hobbie. Intel makes sense to me in light of this. The synthetics you are interested in and spend most of your money on trying to pursue a better score in or hwbot points with are very Intel friendly.

It's all in your unwillingness to acknowledge a few things when it comes to the differences between benchmarking and daily use.
The most significant of which is the fact that they feel so much more nimble than the intels in everyday use it's a fact, you refuse to see it because you are obsessed with benchmarking numbers.

I used to think benchmarking programs were the holy grail of daily use performance measurement, but that was a different time.
At that time I was using single core processors obviously running single thread benchmarks. From the moment the first dual core came out , it started gnawing at the synthetic benchmark's relevance as it pertains to daily use. The best measurement of daily use performance? Well that is daily use smile.gif
If you would accept that, then I think we might be of a common mind ( gosh I hope you aren't insulted tongue.gif).
Daily usage has also changed from that time, partly due to the limitations of the single core processor, not having much running at all at the same time. Today, as I sit here , I have 83 processes running and half a dozen programs open, if I tried doing that on my coppermine or barton, they would gag like a child being told to eat their broccoli tongue.gif

My of customers ( or friends i build for ) will most likely spend less than 1% of their computer use benching ( like most stats , pulled directly from a dark place , but that's an honest guess). Most of their use will not be reflected very well at all in any synthetic benchmark.

Now, the only time I would consider an intel 4 core 4 thread machine is to someone that spends a huge percentage of their time on something where the advantage in single core performance expresses itself in a preceptable way. I'm aware there are games out there where this happens. What disappoints me is that often times my experience with these games is they give pretty crappy fps no matter the hardware and the difference between using the 2 different cpus sometimes seems wildly exaggerated in the reviews by comparison. Often the minimum fps is shown as a representation of one's advantage over the other, this is a poor representation of the truth in my opinion. So many times I see that minimum manifest itself in a single sample and the next lowest fps being 20 to 30% higher. The truth is better served by average fps in my opinion.
Example ( more spread sheets oh goody , please contain your enthusiasm! lol ) for background I work for a huge corporation and spend a nauseating amount of time trying to decipher the truth in the numbers on spreadsheets. I might also add that I have developed a deep personal loathing for any overhead projector tongue.gif
Bioshock infinite benchmark simulating a 9590 , option 4 1920x1200 stock 7970
Notice the overall reported minimum fps is 30, on a single sample the next lowest is 50 ( unless I missed a lower one) outside of the "disregard due to scene change" samples
DefaultPCBenchmarkMap-2014-03-07.19-09-option41920x1200simul.csv 12k .csv file

Always dig into the numbers. Numbers are more often used to further an agenda than used to represent the truth. It's so easy to use them to do just that and so very very difficult to get them to show an accurate representation of reality.
I was very pleased that you seem to recognize this by showing average fps in your spreadsheet Alatar smile.gif

I like a certain level of performance and for the all around machine my low end recommendation is 3570k or FX 8320 just for a point of reference on my opinion.
HTPC's or specialty builds are different.

I wish you could come by my place Alatar, I'd BBQ you a nice Nebraska rib eye steak, serve you the beer of your choice and plop down in front of my rigs in hopes of finding a common ground.

Edited : forgot a word, old age will not be kind to me!
Edited by cssorkinman - 3/9/14 at 8:07am
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 #339 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I understand yours pretty well. But as sorry as you feel for my customers ( over 100 customer builds - only 1 that is mildly dissatisfied but it isn't related to cpu choice ), I feel equally so to people who have closed their minds to alternative viewpoints.
You are an overclocker, obsessed with benchmarking scores and blessed with plenty of means to pursue your hobbie. Intel makes sense to me in light of this. The synthetics you are interested in and spend most of your money on trying to pursue a better score in or hwbot points with are very Intel friendly.
It's all in your unwillingness to acknowledge a few things when it comes to the differences between benchmarking and daily use.
The most significant of which is the fact that they feel so much more nimble than the intels in everyday use it's a fact, you refuse to see it because you are obsessed with benchmarking numbers. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I used to think benchmarking programs were the holy grail of daily use performance measurement, but that was a different time.
At that time I was using single core processors obviously running single thread benchmarks. From the moment the first dual core came out , it started gnawing at the synthetic benchmark's relevance as it pertains to daily use. The best measurement of daily use performance? Well that is daily use smile.gif
If you would accept that, then I think we might be of a common mind ( gosh I hope you aren't insulted tongue.gif).
Daily usage has also changed from that time, partly due to the limitations of the single core processor, not having much running at all at the same time. Today, as I sit here , I have 83 processes running and half a dozen programs open, if I tried doing that on my coppermine or barton, they would gag like a child being told to eat their broccoli tongue.gif

My of customers ( or friends i build for ) will most likely spend less than 1% of their computer use benching ( like most stats , pulled directly from a dark place , but that's an honest guess). Most of their use will not be reflected very well at all in any synthetic benchmark.

Now, the only time I would consider an intel 4 core 4 thread machine is to someone that spends a huge percentage of their time on something where the advantage in single core performance expresses itself in a preceptable way. I'm aware there are games out there where this happens. What disappoints me is that often times my experience with these games is they give pretty crappy fps no matter the hardware and the difference between using the 2 different cpus sometimes seems wildly exaggerated in the reviews by comparison. Often the minimum fps is shown as a representation of one's advantage over the other, this is a poor representation of the truth in my opinion. So many times I see that minimum manifest itself in a single sample and the next lowest fps being 20 to 30% higher. The truth is better served by average fps in my opinion.
Example ( more spread sheets oh goody , please contain your enthusiasm! lol ) for background I work for a huge corporation and spend a nauseating amount of time trying to decipher the truth in the numbers on spreadsheets. I might also add that I have developed a deep personal loathing for any overhead projector tongue.gif
Bioshock infinite benchmark simulating a 9590 , option 4 1920x1200 stock 7970
Notice the overall reported minimum fps is 30, on a single sample the next lowest is 50 ( unless I missed a lower one) outside of the "disregard due to scene change" samples
DefaultPCBenchmarkMap-2014-03-07.19-09-option41920x1200simul.csv 12k .csv file

Always dig into the numbers. Numbers are more often used to further an agenda than used to represent the truth. It's so easy to use them to do just that and so very very difficult to get them to show an accurate representation of reality.
I was very pleased that you seem to recognize this by showing average fps in your spreadsheet Alatar smile.gif

I like a certain level of performance and for the all around machine my low end recommendation is 3570k or FX 8320 just for a point of reference on my opinion.
HTPC's or specialty builds are different.

I wish you could come by my place Alatar, I'd BBQ you a nice Nebraska rib eye steak, serve you the beer of your choice and plop down in front of my rigs in hopes of finding a common ground.

Edited : forgot a word, old age will not be kind to me!

This comment will probably be punched. But yesterday I was running an I7-3770, and today I have installed my new Athlon 760K (basically 6800K).

Same system, same hard drive (same Windows 8 install), same GPU, same everything except that motherboard and chip.

Much to my surprise my Windows 8 system was fine with it so it was exactly the same operating system and files left on there. Meaning all I had to do was clean out the Intel stuff.


Now please tell me why this system now somehow feels faster? It's more snappy, same SSD.

Maybe AMD has more instructions to accelerate it? Either way it's baffling how this system now feels more responsive, with a quad core Richland chip in it.


A fluke? It's the first thing I noticed when I booted it up. I am sorry if "feel" isn't a measurement but for someone just coming from an I7-3770 to an Athlon 760K without any changes to the OS drive I felt it was necessary to mention smile.gif
post #340 of 1593
In the grand scheme of things, as an FX-9590 owner I'm going to have to (for the most part) agree with Alatar here. Intel's are overall the better buy if you want stock performance, and if you want overclocked performance).

I've had every generation of 8 core under my belt so far, 8120, 8350 and currently my 9590 and aside from the 8120 being completely anemic (shakes fist at bulldozer) the 8350 and 9590 serve me well.

BUT - the bottom line is, in the general price range (give or take $50) intel's are better overall for gaming and general use, let alone weak threaded gaming and proghrames. This does not however mean AMD is not viable, but it also means they are not always a good choice depending on the persons budgets and needs. $50 for better performance is worth saving for, again, depending on your needs. The FX-8320 is by far the best bang for the buck cpu out IMO on both sides of the field however. If you need multithreaded performance and decent single threaded performance that is.

And this whole daily use thing I can't seem to agree with, either.

I use a i7 2600 (non-k) at work 40+ hours a week and come home to my 9590 and notice zero difference for general daily use. That said, my 9590 rig is faster for loading, but that is due to my SSD, and my work pc having a 7200rpm drive. Both are windows 7 pro as well.
Edited by SoloCamo - 3/9/14 at 8:37am
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  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?