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 5  

post #41 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

sozo.gif I'm not sure why or who you are trying to convince. Many people have pointed out flaws in your argument and you choose to try and go around them with the ridiculous reasoning of energy cost over time. Yes this applies to servers and render farms but these are not server chips. And if you are going to be running something that utilizes the CPU at 100% 24/7 then you should be buying intel. However your argument is, well the cost to performance ratio is not good because for the 1% of people who render or fold 24/7 it will cost them more money over time.

I'm sorry but the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k all have fantastic cost to performance ratios. People have pointed out other chips as well.

This is OCN. You are preaching to the wrong audience. The majority of us don't care about power consumption hence the reason we overclock. The only times we do are when we are folding or mining and we are educated enough to know to buy hardware accordingly. You may as well go open a thread over in the water cooling section and tell people that nobody should purchase custom water cooling products because it does not have a good return on investment because the extra overclock you can get over a AIO or high end tower cooler has a poor cost to performance ratio. Don't forget to leave out the fact that their will be extra electricity cost over time due to having to run a pump and more fans on the radiators than you would have on a normal heatsink.

What i'm trying to say is we know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know it doesn't always make sense (FX-9590), however in the case of the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k it does. I'm sorry if I come off as rude, it's not my intention but I'm trying to get a point across to you.

I don't know what he is getting at? This is OCN. It is for people who like to tinker. People who like to do more with their computers than the average user who never opens their case. I spend a lot at Newegg, Microcenter etc... That being said its actually a cheap hobby because I am always recycling various bits of hardware. I find it immensely enjoyable. I also find that AMD is more fun to tinker with and cheaper to boot. To me that is an intangible that Intel can't match. This coming from a guy who is a long time Mac fanatic!
post #42 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

sozo.gif I'm not sure why or who you are trying to convince. Many people have pointed out flaws in your argument and you choose to try and go around them with the ridiculous reasoning of energy cost over time. Yes this applies to servers and render farms but these are not server chips. And if you are going to be running something that utilizes the CPU at 100% 24/7 then you should be buying intel. However your argument is, well the cost to performance ratio is not good because for the 1% of people who render or fold 24/7 it will cost them more money over time.

I'm sorry but the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k all have fantastic cost to performance ratios. People have pointed out other chips as well.

This is OCN. You are preaching to the wrong audience. The majority of us don't care about power consumption hence the reason we overclock. The only times we do are when we are folding or mining and we are educated enough to know to buy hardware accordingly. You may as well go open a thread over in the water cooling section and tell people that nobody should purchase custom water cooling products because it does not have a good return on investment because the extra overclock you can get over a AIO or high end tower cooler has a poor cost to performance ratio. Don't forget to leave out the fact that their will be extra electricity cost over time due to having to run a pump and more fans on the radiators than you would have on a normal heatsink.

What i'm trying to say is we know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know it doesn't always make sense (FX-9590), however in the case of the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k it does. I'm sorry if I come off as rude, it's not my intention but I'm trying to get a point across to you.

I'm responding to arguments created, not creating more on my own. So it's a bit silly to say "why are you even", when it's you guys who are prompting for the replies.

And it is a big issue, because if someone was even coming from something as old as a Phenom II, they wouldn't really find huge benefits over all (after all, a CPU from 2009 can still handle all general tasks today, including gaming), especially if you consider the time spent owning both the old system and the new one, that's like going 8 years combined with barely double the performance you started with. That's like if you had a 300Mhz CPU in 1998, bought a 600Mhz CPU in 2002, and had that 600Mhz CPU all the way to 2008. And if you want to argue that every 2 years for a new CPU would be good, that still gets killed by the price to performance ratio.

let's say you buy an AMD cpu for $120, then 2 years later, a say 50-100% faster one for another $120 and keep that one for 2 years too. you've just spent $240 on processors over a 4 year period. Now let's say that intel had an offering for $300 when you bought the first one that was 50% faster than the second one to start with. not only is the price to performance ratio much better, but the longevity is also there, and that's before you even get into power consumption.

I don't think anyone can argue that a 220w CPU is competitive and that the energy consumption isn't detrimental.....and I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't buy a 9590 just to barely use it. even if it was just $5 a month, energy costs add up over years.

The thing I see people confusing is they generally expect good price to performance processors to be cheaper at sale.....BUT that's only one part of it. My point is, you can have higher costing processors from Intel, that in the long run, end up costing you less in total, while also increasing the time between upgrades. Even then, the 9590 is more expensive than the 4770K out of the box. So even before you consider energy savings, it's already more expensive, which means it can never catch up.

Of course, as we switch to smaller nanometer designs, power usage will drop in every future processor. Although some day I imagine it's possible we'll see something like a massive 400w 8nm CPU that delivers huge performance.

As for upgrading CPU's, I personally think even double the performance of what you're replacing really isn't enough to justify it unless it's for professional reasons. triple the performance is to me, a good sweet spot for the minimal reason to upgrade, and even then it has to have staying power for the years you will own it. What's decent today may not be 2 years down the road.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/1/14 at 2:46pm
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 #43 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

sozo.gif I'm not sure why or who you are trying to convince. Many people have pointed out flaws in your argument and you choose to try and go around them with the ridiculous reasoning of energy cost over time. Yes this applies to servers and render farms but these are not server chips. And if you are going to be running something that utilizes the CPU at 100% 24/7 then you should be buying intel. However your argument is, well the cost to performance ratio is not good because for the 1% of people who render or fold 24/7 it will cost them more money over time.

I'm sorry but the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k all have fantastic cost to performance ratios. People have pointed out other chips as well.

This is OCN. You are preaching to the wrong audience. The majority of us don't care about power consumption hence the reason we overclock. The only times we do are when we are folding or mining and we are educated enough to know to buy hardware accordingly. You may as well go open a thread over in the water cooling section and tell people that nobody should purchase custom water cooling products because it does not have a good return on investment because the extra overclock you can get over a AIO or high end tower cooler has a poor cost to performance ratio. Don't forget to leave out the fact that their will be extra electricity cost over time due to having to run a pump and more fans on the radiators than you would have on a normal heatsink.

What i'm trying to say is we know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know it doesn't always make sense (FX-9590), however in the case of the FX-6300 and FX-8320 and A10-6800k it does. I'm sorry if I come off as rude, it's not my intention but I'm trying to get a point across to you.

I'm responding to arguments created, not creating more on my own. So it's a bit silly to say "why are you even", when it's you guys who are prompting for the replies.

And it is a big issue, because if someone was even coming from something as old as a Phenom II, they wouldn't really find huge benefits over all (after all, a CPU from 2009 can still handle all general tasks today, including gaming), especially if you consider the time spent owning both the old system and the new one, that's like going 8 years combined with barely double the performance you started with. That's like if you had a 300Mhz CPU in 1998, bought a 600Mhz CPU in 2002, and had that 600Mhz CPU all the way to 2008. And if you want to argue that every 2 years for a new CPU would be good, that still gets killed by the price to performance ratio.

let's say you buy an AMD cpu for $120, then 2 years later, a say 50-100% faster one for another $120 and keep that one for 2 years too. you've just spent $240 on processors over a 4 year period. Now let's say that intel had an offering for $300 when you bought the first one that was 50% faster than the second one to start with. not only is the price to performance ratio much better, but the longevity is also there, and that's before you even get into power consumption.

Contradict much?
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 #44 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

let's say you buy an AMD cpu for $120, then 2 years later, a say 50-100% faster one for another $120 and keep that one for 2 years too. you've just spent $240 on processors over a 4 year period. Now let's say that intel had an offering for $300 when you bought the first one that was 50% faster than the second one to start with. not only is the price to performance ratio much better, but the longevity is also there, and that's before you even get into power consumption.

I don't understand this example either. In this example you are unable to sell the original processor to recover part of the upgrade cost?

How's this
In 2010 I purchased the Phenom II x6 1100T for $220.
It is currently selling today in 2014 on ebay for ~$220 and up.
I can also today purchase a FX-8320 at Microcenter for $99 which drops into the same motherboard.

Which means by upgrading to a faster processor I can make over $120.
Edited by Papadope - 3/1/14 at 4:08pm
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
post #45 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post


...not only is the price to performance ratio much better, but the longevity is also there, and that's before you even get into power consumption....

I don't think anyone can argue that a 220w CPU is competitive and that the energy consumption isn't detrimental.....and I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't buy a 9590 just to barely use it. even if it was just $5 a month, energy costs add up over years.........

The thing I see people confusing is they generally expect good price to performance processors to be cheaper at sale.....BUT that's only one part of it. My point is, you can have higher costing processors from Intel, that in the long run, end up costing you less in total, while also increasing the time between upgrades. Even then, the 9590 is more expensive than the 4770K out of the box. So even before you consider energy savings, it's already more expensive, which means it can never catch up.....

Of course, as we switch to smaller nanometer designs, power usage will drop in every future processor. Although some day I imagine it's possible we'll see something like a massive 400w 8nm CPU that delivers huge performance.....

You keep going on about power consumption, but haven't proved anything. The fact, as I stated earlier, there is ALMOST no difference when it comes to power usage.

If you buy a FX8350 and 4770K from Newegg right now, you can get them for this:

FX 8350 $200
4770K $340

That's a difference of $140.

Using tom's chart:

There's a difference of 155.4 watts per hour for using the FX8350 instead of the 4770K. Using my computer usage pattern of 4 hours a day and my typical kilowatt rate of $.08. The difference comes out to be about $17.70 a year for using the FX.

It will take me 8 years, yep that's right 8 years, to make up the difference in initial costs of the CPUs SOLELY base on the CPU power usage.

Please just stop with the power consumption argument.
Edited by flyin15sec - 3/1/14 at 6:58pm
post #46 of 1593
I don't know about anyone else but the power consumption question is a non issue for me.

I have an E3 1230 v3 that tops out at 60 watts, nice, but not paramount.

I'd be more concerned with the wattage/heat/voltage issues when talking about something like a heavily overclocked 8350 or the 9590 etc.....
post #47 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyin15sec View Post



Please just stop with the power consumption argument.

Not everyone has cheap power. For an example, I live in the US and pay over four times more than you do. The power consumption difference between these competing processors is certainly large enough for it to matter.
post #48 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Not everyone has cheap power. For an example, I live in the US and pay over four times more than you do. The power consumption difference between these competing processors is certainly large enough for it to matter.

It would take me 2 years at your power cost (x4 my cost) to make up the difference. The only time power consumption would be a real issue if we use a specific task in a 24/7 usage scenario. If this was the case, I'm sure the general OCN member would know what processor is best for that task.

For general usage, gaming, there's no difference in the power consumption.

For the record I live in IL, the suburbs of Chicago.
post #49 of 1593
OP seems hung up on the FPU configuration. For legacy software, FPU can still be important, but floating point calculations are easily synthesized with coding that can take advantage of modern instruction sets.

Example: My 2 module-four core piledriver CPU gets about 20 or so GFLOPS in the old IBT compared to about 45 on the newer AVX version.

There are always going to be new instruction sets and yes, often legacy software will run like crap on a modern CPU. Yes, sometimes those DOS-box games seem to run slow. It is what it is. I guess you could keep a collection of old hardware for legacy stuff. For modern games, bulldozer/ piledriver does just fine.

Is it mid/high end? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm concerned, my sub $600 rig is smoking fast, and more than enough power for any game I play on my monitor.
Light Gamer #1
(12 items)
 
Light Gamer #2
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i3-6100 ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 MSI r7850 TFIII OC MSI r7850 TFIII OC 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G,Skill TridentX OCZ Vector 150 TPC-612 Windows 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G105 Rosewill Capstone 550M HAF XB M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 860K MSI A88X-G45 MSI GTX 460 G.Skill RipjawsZ 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
PNY Optima Hyper T4 Windows 10 Devastator 2 
PowerCase
Rosewill Valens DIYPC Ranger-R4-R 
  hide details  
Light Gamer #1
(12 items)
 
Light Gamer #2
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i3-6100 ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 MSI r7850 TFIII OC MSI r7850 TFIII OC 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G,Skill TridentX OCZ Vector 150 TPC-612 Windows 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G105 Rosewill Capstone 550M HAF XB M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 860K MSI A88X-G45 MSI GTX 460 G.Skill RipjawsZ 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
PNY Optima Hyper T4 Windows 10 Devastator 2 
PowerCase
Rosewill Valens DIYPC Ranger-R4-R 
  hide details  
post #50 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Another added benefit is time saved. Your 4 hour computer usage, could be cut down to just 2-3 hours for example. That further enables energy savings not to mention increases productivity, not to mention reduces time between upgrades.

So what you are saying is that what would take four hours of gaming/reading OCN forums/facebook on an AMD chip would only take 2 hours with an Intel chip? I didn't realize Intel had mastered that whole space/time thing.
Atomic Scorpio
(15 items)
 
X
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I7 4790K Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD5H-BK EVGA 980 SC ACX 2.0 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline DDR3 2133 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SanDisk Extreme Pro 240g, WD Black 1TB Lg Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, Lite-On DVD-RW Custom H2O Windows 8.1 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung UN49KS8500 Razer BlackWidow Ultimate Stealth SeaSonic G-750 heavily modified Raidmax Scorpio Z 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga Hex Icemat V2 Black HT|OMEGA CLARO II 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P XFX GTX 285 8g Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 250g Custom H2O Vista Ultimate x64 LG Flatron L206W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logisys kb606bk PC Power&Cooling Silencer 610 Unknown brand.. modified of course Sunbeam FireLine 
Audio
Logitech z213 
  hide details  
Atomic Scorpio
(15 items)
 
X
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I7 4790K Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD5H-BK EVGA 980 SC ACX 2.0 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline DDR3 2133 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SanDisk Extreme Pro 240g, WD Black 1TB Lg Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, Lite-On DVD-RW Custom H2O Windows 8.1 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung UN49KS8500 Razer BlackWidow Ultimate Stealth SeaSonic G-750 heavily modified Raidmax Scorpio Z 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Razer Naga Hex Icemat V2 Black HT|OMEGA CLARO II 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P XFX GTX 285 8g Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 250g Custom H2O Vista Ultimate x64 LG Flatron L206W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logisys kb606bk PC Power&Cooling Silencer 610 Unknown brand.. modified of course Sunbeam FireLine 
Audio
Logitech z213 
  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?