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 43  

post #421 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Ok thank you, I'd prefer yours but I understand.


Those are very nice, you should post a SS of those scores.

Messy video, meant to show people it's possible to have a 5 ghz OC and still have CNQ enabled, but it gives an idea of how snappy my 8350 rig is smile.gif
http://youtu.be/-pi2_eDey20

b68824fb_U3f0Ykq.png

flicking to 44x uncore over 40x in software got me three points, it was kinda optimized run but not entirely

^old shot. With a few tweaks and my newer RAM settings it could probably do 955@4.6/4.0 (still just on 24/7 running settings though, cheap sammy miracle RAM not really world record benching stuff)
Quote:
Ok thank you, I'd prefer yours but I understand.
TBH sounded like you wanted to compare 4770k@3.7ghz to 9590 @4.7-5.0 like some people in this thread kookoo.gif

Snappy is awesome, i do find it curious though that most people mentioning it one way or the other are using windows aero themes on 60hz monitors. Yknow, the ones that are vsynced and add an average of ~8.34ms of input lag to basic operations like dragging windows wth.gif
Edited by Cyro999 - 3/10/14 at 10:35pm
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 #422 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Ok thank you, I'd prefer yours but I understand.


Those are very nice, you should post a SS of those scores.

Messy video, meant to show people it's possible to have a 5 ghz OC and still have CNQ enabled, but it gives an idea of how snappy my 8350 rig is smile.gif
http://youtu.be/-pi2_eDey20

b68824fb_U3f0Ykq.png

44x uncore over 40x got me three points, it was kinda optimized run but not entirely

^old shot. With a few tweaks and my newer RAM settings it could probably do 955@4.6/4.0 (still just on 24/7 running settings though, cheap sammy miracle RAM not really world record benching stuff)
Quote:
Ok thank you, I'd prefer yours but I understand.
TBH sounded like you wanted to compare 4770k@3.7ghz to 9590 @4.7-5.0 like some people in this thread kookoo.gif

Very nice, if I ever get a 4770k I might bug you for some help overclocking it. Quite a few foreign terms on that screen shot.

I googled a little bit, the 9590 seems to have the slightest of leads , stock vs stock on the 4770k.

I did want to compare the 2 , to be honest , it's not easy to find a review site that compares the 9XXX's directly with the 4700K in cinebench15. The charts are there, 4770k is there,8350 is there , but not an 9XXX in sight.
This disappoints me about these sites, they really seem to hesitate to show benches where AMD is shown to perform better;

Stock vs stock, nothing kookoo about that smile.gif
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #423 of 1593
Quote:
I googled a little bit, the 9590 seems to have the slightest of leads , stock vs stock on the 4770k.
Quote:
Stock vs stock, nothing kookoo about that smile.gif

Well the problem is that nobody cares what it says on the 4770k box (or the 8320 box), to me it is simply: Silicon A vs Silicon B. What can it do under X amount of cooling and how does that perform?

The only difference between 9590 and 8320 is some settings in a bios, and probably a bit better bin (though it's impossibly hard to quantify how much better, there's a big lack of info) - and that does not actually change the performance of the silicon very much. I don't care to "downgrade" an fx9590, but i've always compared against what that particular CPU/silicon/die/whatever could run with equal cooling, and on that front, fx9590 isn't really substantially different from 8320
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 #424 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post


Well the problem is that nobody cares what it says on the 4770k box (or the 8320 box), to me it is simply: Silicon A vs Silicon B. What can it do under X amount of cooling and how does that perform?

The only difference between 9590 and 8320 is some settings in a bios, and probably a bit better bin (though it's impossibly hard to quantify how much better, there's a big lack of info) - and that does not actually change the performance of the silicon very much. I don't care to "downgrade" an fx9590, but i've always compared against what that particular CPU/silicon/die/whatever could run with equal cooling, and on that front, fx9590 isn't really substantially different from 8320
You should ask around with FX users. There is a leap in performance after 4.6Ghz to the point that 4.7ghz and up is a whole new ball game. Most of these benches with the 9590 were getting lower scores than my 8350 @4.6ghz and the 9590 was using faster ram. Be careful what you take from a bench on a review.
post #425 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

You should ask around with FX users. There is a leap in performance after 4.6Ghz to the point that 4.7ghz and up is a whole new ball game. Most of these benches with the 9590 were getting lower scores than my 8350 @4.6ghz and the 9590 was using faster ram. Be careful what you take from a bench on a review.
With that piece of information, I'll now try to achieve as high OC as possible on my FX-8150 to see whether it's the same for Zambezi or not. I see a lot of people saying Zambezi is a total crap and bs, but I feel it is worth the money I paid and at that price I couldn't get a better CPU than the 8150 (now it's 8350).

EDIT: Again, I see from a lot of later reviews of FX-8150 that after 4.5-4.6 GHz they see a good boost in performance and is on par with stock 2600k or 3770k (may-be 4.7 to be near 3770k)
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
post #426 of 1593
Quote:
You should ask around with FX users. There is a leap in performance after 4.6Ghz to the point that 4.7ghz and up is a whole new ball game.

*scratches head*

Where are the benches for this?
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 #427 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

*scratches head*

Where are the benches for this?
*sigh* guess you will never understand. I feel sorry for those that live by benches, they miss out on the real experience.
post #428 of 1593
He doesn't mean a canned time demo haha. He just wants to see this info substantiated by data. Even better if it is numbers straight from our community members, rather than a review site.
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
post #429 of 1593
Well needless to say I am thoroughly enjoying my little Athlon 760K, best £59/$98 I ever spent.

It kinda makes my I7 look a bit foolish, in that it's not overly different in terms of speed.

But for reference I run ARMA 3 and yes of course my minimum FPS dropped considerably, however, only in the areas my I7 also choked on, heavily dense areas where the minimum FPS is around 10.


However, a minor overclock and that problem is rectified.


On a side note, the power consumption of this is strange, I measured them using a wall meter so excuse any inaccuracy.

I7
STOCK
idle 65-75w
load 140w (+ GPU = 230W)

ATHLON X4
STOCK
idle 52w-110w (fluctuating because of the fluctuating turbo speeds)
load 150-160w (+ GPU = 235W)

(bare in mind this an overall consumption, so board efficiency is taken into consideration. The board seems very efficient in that regards considering the TDP of the Athlon compared to my I7

I do have some numbers for prices but that depends where you live.


I know it isn't a FX series but he's still a Piledriver chip smile.gif


It may not be high end, but now when I think of it high end in my eyes really means Xeons and Opterons.

It won't drive rendering or any CPU hungry applications but it's not going to be slower than some of the older generation of chips; there is a lot of businesses still on very old chips so if you compare them in that sense it isn't too bad.

Intel's just ahead of the game in terms of raw performance, rendering for example, or encoding/decoding. AMD chips will only be behind, measured in minutes. Not that big of gap to humans. In numbers it looks big, but the gap is closing.


Compare that to a dual core or even single core and you'll see AMD are still viable in a sense really. Although I really would never go lower than a quad core. For a HTPC maybe some dual core AMD chips may suffice.
post #430 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by mav451 View Post

He doesn't mean a canned time demo haha. He just wants to see this info substantiated by data. Even better if it is numbers straight from our community members, rather than a review site.

Indeed, i'l just quote what i said before:
Quote:
even if it were really possible to be true, you can't defend or attack something on the basis of feeling; anybody can state that
what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it too, there is no discussion to be had

If there's some kind of recordable data relevant to it, I'd legitimately be interested in reading over it

if not, why are we talking about it?


I mean we had this whole discussion with Haswell and Cache performance, it's brought up on a weekly basis - all of the people wanting to run it at same multi as core. "It feels better, stuff is snappier"
Edited by Cyro999 - 3/11/14 at 5:26am
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?