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 7  

post #61 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Everyone can claim all sorts of things about user experience on different rigs but unless there's actual data to back that up...
It's an old bench, I probably also have a 4770K with HT sitting somewhere, but I couldn't find it quickly. But I think it was 5ghz or close to it. As I said, old bench, don't remember the exact details. And it doesn't really matter either, I was just proving a point with that one when it comes to the 9590.

Just to clarify I was not trying to spread misinformation with the benchmark post. I know the 3770k and 4770k is going to be faster than FX-8xxx and FX-9xxx in most applications, especially once overclocked. I own a 3770k, I actually own considerably more intel chips than amd ones. Some people may confuse me for a fanboy because I follow AMD closely and I purchase their products. I don't think anyone will be able to find a post from me talking bad about intel or NVidia outside of there business practices. I even had a little rant against AMD when they released the 9590 for $900. You can even find post of me recommending intel chips instead of AMD ones in the AMD CPU section of OCN. I was just trying to show the OP that his 40% claim was a bit ridiculous and baseless. OP sounds confused from the beginning.
Quote:
AMD's latest Vishera chips, are just a complete disappointment to me. I would have gone with Thuban, but a system fry required a motherboard replacement, so I went with the cheapest one, which was AM3 and not AM3+ anymore. So that upgrade path was gone. And now I hear AMD is pretty much giving up on higher end processors in favor of APU's and mobile.

First I'll explain as simply as possible, why Vishera is such a bad processor design, which many of you may already know.
Thuban is a AM3 chip.
Edited by Papadope - 3/1/14 at 10:40pm
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 #62 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

The only thing most benchmarks are actually good at are improving the performance of the same system at different settings.

Most benchmarks that show the FX besting I7's are quickly deemed terrible , but if you accept one bench mark as valid, don't you have to accept them all as being valid? I mean after all, the program is the same , no matter what hardware you are running it on.

Benches of the FX beating the i7s aren't terrible (most of the time). They're just extremely rare compared to the ones where an i7 is beating the FX.

As I said, it all boils down to consistency with the FXs. Take the i5 vs. FX scenario for gaming (since most people here are looking for gaming CPUs). The benches show:

-tons of really GPU bound games
-some games where the i5 wins
-some games where the FX wins.

After making those observations many people quickly label the FX as a good choice, equal to the i5 as a gaming CPU, good value etc. However it's not as simple as that.

The problem is that when the FX wins over the i5 (or in the very rare scenario of it winning over an i7) the margin is really slim. It usually wins by a couple of percent.

But when you take the situations where the intel part wins over the FX you get a ton of benches where the FX gets completely destroyed. This doesn't happen in all of the cases where the i5 wins but in many of them it does.

And this brings us to the user experience. What matters most with that is consistency. And the FXs just don't have it due to low single thread performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

Just to clarify I was not trying to spread misinformation with the benchmark post. I know the 3770k and 4770k is going to be faster than FX-8xxx and FX-9xxx in most applications, especially once overclocked. I own a 3770k, I actually own considerably more intel chips than amd ones. Some people may confuse me for a fanboy because I follow AMD closely and I purchase their products. I don't think anyone will be able to find a post from me talking bad about intel or NVidia outside of there business practices. I even had a little rant against AMD when they released the 9590 for $900. You can even find post of me recommending intel chips instead of AMD ones in the AMD CPU section of OCN. I was just trying to show the OP that his 40% claim was a bit ridiculous and baseless. OP sounds confused from the beginning.
Thuban is a AM3 chip.

I was actually originally responding to someone else entirely, never quoted your post or anything tongue.gif

There was however a post where someone was making a point (with passmark) that the only CPUs that outperform the 9590 are the 3930K and 4930K... (and the X versions)
Edited by Alatar - 3/1/14 at 10:04pm
 
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 #63 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

The only thing most benchmarks are actually good at are improving the performance of the same system at different settings.

Most benchmarks that show the FX besting I7's are quickly deemed terrible , but if you accept one bench mark as valid, don't you have to accept them all as being valid? I mean after all, the program is the same , no matter what hardware you are running it on.

Benches of the FX beating the i7s aren't terrible (most of the time). They're just extremely rare compared to the ones where an i7 is beating the FX.

As I said, it all boils down to consistency with the FXs. Take the i5 vs. FX scenario for gaming (since most people here are looking for gaming CPUs). The benches show:

-tons of really GPU bound games
-some games where the i5 wins
-some games where the FX wins.

After making those observations many people quickly label the FX as a good choice, equal to the i5 as a gaming CPU, good value etc. However it's not as simple as that.

The problem is that when the FX wins over the i5 (or in the very rare scenario of it winning over an i7) the margin is really slim. It usually wins by a couple of percent.

But when you take the situations where the intel part wins over the FX you get a ton of benches where the FX gets completely destroyed. This doesn't happen in all of the cases where the i5 wins but in many of them it does.

And this brings us to the user experience. What matters most with that is consistency. And the FXs just don't have it due to low single thread performance.

My user experience has been consistently better on the FX's than my 2500k, 2600k or 3770k. That's the benchmark the average user is most concerned with.

The FX 8 cores clobber the 4770k at hwbot prime , isn't it possible that advantage reveals itself in my daily usage?
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 #64 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

My user experience has been consistently better on the FX's than my 2500k, 2600k or 3770k. That's the benchmark the average user is most concerned with.

I'm pretty sure the benchmark the average user is most concerned with is actual user experience, not the one you say you've experienced.

I don't doubt that you consider your experience with FXs better however the overall proof of performance in real life applications don't back your experiences up.

Meaning that it's your word vs. the word of tons of other users + reviewers and the actual data out there.
Quote:
The FX 8 cores clobber the 4770k at hwbot prime , isn't it possible that advantage reveals itself in my daily usage?

I doubt it since the clock for clock advantage for the FXs in that bench is around 6%, since it's completely synthetic and doesn't represent any real life application and since most people don't spend their day calculating prime numbers.

I've been going over this for at least 2 posts now, it doesn't matter if we can find one scenario where the FX does a bit better than an i5 or an i7. It's not consistent. There are a ton of situations where it loses absolutely horribly due to low single thread performance.

This is why an FX is only a good choice if you know exactly what applications you're going to be running. And you're sure that they fit the FX well.

An FX isn't a "best of both worlds" solution. An i7 is.

Bad single thread performance + good multithread performance = inconsistent user experience
Good single thread performance + good multithread performance = consistent user experience.
 
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 #65 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

My user experience has been consistently better on the FX's than my 2500k, 2600k or 3770k. That's the benchmark the average user is most concerned with.

I'm pretty sure the benchmark the average user is most concerned with is actual user experience, not the one you say you've experienced.

I don't doubt that you consider your experience with FXs better however the overall proof of performance in real life applications don't back your experiences up.

Meaning that it's your word vs. the word of tons of other users + reviewers and the actual data out there.
Quote:
The FX 8 cores clobber the 4770k at hwbot prime , isn't it possible that advantage reveals itself in my daily usage?

I doubt it since the clock for clock advantage for the FXs in that bench is around 6%, since it's completely synthetic and doesn't represent any real life application and since most people don't spend their day calculating prime numbers.

I've been going over this for at least 2 posts now, it doesn't matter if we can find one scenario where the FX does a bit better than an i5 or an i7. It's not consistent. There are a ton of situations where it loses absolutely horribly due to low single thread performance.

This is why an FX is only a good choice if you know exactly what applications you're going to be running. And you're sure that they fit the FX well.

An FX isn't a "best of both worlds" solution. An i7 is.

Bad single thread performance + good multithread performance = inconsistent user experience
Good single thread performance + good multithread performance = consistent user experience.

The weight of my opinion is equal to the weight of yours no more no less smile.gif
Edited by cssorkinman - 3/1/14 at 11:07pm
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 #66 of 1593
I'm talking about all the real world software testing you can find on countless test sites, forums etc.

Not my personal subjective user experience with the different platforms. (I don't talk about it because it shouldn't affect someone else's purchase)
 
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 #67 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I'm talking about all the real world software testing you can find on countless test sites, forums etc.

Not my personal subjective user experience with the different platforms. (I don't talk about it because it shouldn't affect someone else's purchase)

So your saying, that it's alright for him to personally enjoy his FX systems more, but that he shouldn't publicly say it or recommend it over an Intel system because of 'inconsistent benchmark results' between i7/FX?

Is that what your basically getting at here?
 
ThinkPad Yoga
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 970 @ 4 Ghz Asus M4A88TD-V EVO EVGA SuperClocked 1050 Ti 4GB G.Skill Snipers 8GB DDR3 1333 (2x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Crucial MX300 275GB SSD Seagate NAS 2TB Seagate NAS 2TB Asus DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
CoolerMaster GeminII S524 Win 7 Pro x64 Samsung 24" S24D590 (1080p) Logitech G510 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 Corsair 600T Silver Logitech Trackball Dead mouse carcass 
AudioOtherOther
Logitech Z313 Linksys WRT54G w/ DD-WRT @ 225Mhz Samsung Galaxy S3 16GB - Rooted/Carbon Rom 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Baytrail Quad Core @ 2.16 Ghz OEM Lenovo 20DAS02X00 Intel HD Graphics 8GB DDR3L 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
240GB Kingston SSD N/A Windows 8.1 Pro 11.6" IPS Touch Display @ 1366 x 768 
KeyboardAudio
ThinkPad baby... HD Audio 
  hide details  
 
ThinkPad Yoga
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 970 @ 4 Ghz Asus M4A88TD-V EVO EVGA SuperClocked 1050 Ti 4GB G.Skill Snipers 8GB DDR3 1333 (2x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Crucial MX300 275GB SSD Seagate NAS 2TB Seagate NAS 2TB Asus DVD Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
CoolerMaster GeminII S524 Win 7 Pro x64 Samsung 24" S24D590 (1080p) Logitech G510 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair TX750 V2 Corsair 600T Silver Logitech Trackball Dead mouse carcass 
AudioOtherOther
Logitech Z313 Linksys WRT54G w/ DD-WRT @ 225Mhz Samsung Galaxy S3 16GB - Rooted/Carbon Rom 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Baytrail Quad Core @ 2.16 Ghz OEM Lenovo 20DAS02X00 Intel HD Graphics 8GB DDR3L 1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
240GB Kingston SSD N/A Windows 8.1 Pro 11.6" IPS Touch Display @ 1366 x 768 
KeyboardAudio
ThinkPad baby... HD Audio 
  hide details  
post #68 of 1593
No, I'm saying that someone personally liking X over Y for "better user experience" (without proof attached) isn't really a valid argument for why X is preferable over Y.

For example;

I could say that I love the user experience I had with my P55 system and that it was better than the one I have had with my Z87. However that would not make P55 any better objectively, and it shouldn't make someone buy P55 over P67, or 990FX, or X79, or Z87 or whatever.
 
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 #69 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

My Intel rigs don't give me as good of a user experience as my AMD's , regardless of cost. Simple as that.My FX's are so much more nimble for everyday things

This quote really got me but it also makes me think you're just trolling Alatar.

You're just having some fun with him right?

Right?

eh-smiley.gif
post #70 of 1593
This reminds me of what happened at microcenter last week when I bought my 9370.

Employee: How can I help you

Me: One FX 9370 please

Employee: Sure. can I ask what kinda stuff you do with your computer?"

Me: "Just games basically"

Employee: "Ooooooh....you know we've got some intel socket 2011 boards in and some deals on i7's to go with them?"

Me: "Your point?"

Employee:"Well intels, i7's especially, are much better for gaming."

Me: "According to whom?"

Employee: "Well id be more than happy to show you some benchmarks if you'd just follow....."

Me: "Is a Ferarri better at driving to the grocery store than a minivan? Technically. Will you notice a difference because of the speed limits? No. I said I wanted a 9370, not 'I dont know which cpu I want'."


Lol tongue.gif my i5 3450 already runs almost every game at 60 fps with my dual 7950's,(including crysis 3, and battlefield 4) I want the amd just to have it. You don't need a high end cpu for gaming as long as you have enough gpu power at hand. The average processor is more than enough for practically any game outside of physics heavy sims.

but dat 5ghz Overclock... Oh yeah biggrin.gif
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?