Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Hardware Maniac
Joined
·
3,332 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well im suprised.. I was running ton of bench for fun.. And one in passmark the integer one i was like 50 point stronger than a stock 5820k.. Score was 25k if i remember well

Is their any other task in integer than the fx can beat a 5820k?
headscratch.gif
 

·
FX-5000
Joined
·
974 Posts
Not really sure that benchmark is super accurate. (I've never tried it....)

Looking at your typical WPrime 32m, at around 6500mhz FX-8300 will do WPrime 32m at 5.225s roughly. A 5820K at roughly only 4.3ghz will accomplish the same thing. But there is a large gap in thread count there. (comparison from HWBot. The 8300 was my submission the 5820K courtesy of DHPT's submission.)

This is really an apples to oranges comparison here.
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
It is apples to oranges.

One bench (pretty much the only one) where it might do better is in HWBOT Prime. But yeah that's like the only one. Anything Intel destroys a Piledriver setup nowadays in most applications (especially gaming), even a i3 6100 at stock should get much more fps in most titles, and higher benchmark scores, compared to Piledriver.
 

·
Hardware Maniac
Joined
·
3,332 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Integer wise.. A fx shred your i3..

Nothing apple to orange... Wprime is singlethreaded i think? and is it Integer or Floating point? bench?

At 4.4 a 150$ fx 8300 is on par with a 500$ 5820k...

Must show us that intel integer performance is kinda crappy in one task
headscratch.gif


I know most integer task the 5820k destroy the fx.. But im kinda wondering if at normal clock like mine 4.4 is their any other benchmark the fx can reach close to 5820k level?

Gaming is about floating point..
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
The only place the 8300 wins is in multi thread. The rest of the time it loses to the i3. And in particular, in gaming the i3 is much better.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1645

Mind you, that's only with the i3 at 3.6ghz, but it should be no sweat to get it much higher.

Pay attention to things like minimum frame rate in gaming- if you're capable of listening to me.

Also note that in some games like GRID Autosport, the i3 is getting almost double the fps with the same GPU. (83 vs 52).

There's a reason why you only see Intel chips tested nowadays and used by major review sites, AMD is so bad it's abysmal, for example this:



Your "FX" 8300 isn't even on the list. The 7870K is, which is actually newer and faster and has more IPC. Better single thread performance. That means games run faster. It still can't hang with Intel though, and I'm sure there are quite a few games where the i3 would get 20 fps more than the 7870K. I mean, even in that graph the quad core 7870K gets 20 fps less than a locked i5 that is probably very close in price. I don't know what the clock speeds are either but chances are the Intel is even clocked lower.

Sorry but most people here build their rigs for gaming. Unless you are doing heavy rendering, encoding, music production or other professional work and you need the extra cores (on a budget), the i3 will always be better and get my recommendation.

I ran a FX-8350 at 5ghz for over a year and a half. I got tired of poor ass benchmark scores and 2nd best performance. I really didn't realize exactly how far ahead Intel is with their tech until I switched. And I'll never go back. Even my i7 at stock blows my 8350 out of the water. And the 8350 was bottlenecking my Crossfire setup when I had two 290s. Yeah, that ish had to go.

Anyway, yeah, the i3 is better and if you disagree you're in denial or a rabid fanboy. This isn't really up for discussion. It's just fact.
 

·
Hardware Maniac
Joined
·
3,332 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Im running 4790k at 4.7

I do know all you just said.

What im trying to kbow is in what a fx can reach a 5820k
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by neurotix View Post

The only place the 8300 wins is in multi thread. The rest of the time it loses to the i3. And in particular, in gaming the i3 is much better.

There's a reason why you only see Intel chips tested nowadays and used by major review sites, AMD is so bad it's abysmal, for example this:



Your "FX" 8300 isn't even on the list. The 7870K is, which is actually newer and faster and has more IPC. Better single thread performance. That means games run faster. It still can't hang with Intel though, and I'm sure there are quite a few games where the i3 would get 20 fps more than the 7870K. I mean, even in that graph the quad core 7870K gets 20 fps less than a locked i5 that is probably very close in price. I don't know what the clock speeds are either but chances are the Intel is even clocked lower.






Maybe you should think again, as to why Anandtech didn't put any other AMD CPUs, other than the "APU is so much better than the FX". Because for example, at 1600p the [email protected] runs better than Intel 4130, which on its turn runs better than AMD 7870K. Even the FX6350 @3.9 does. So the conclusion that "Anandtech put the APU, because it's the only AMD CPU worth putting in there", doesn't hold water. Something else is going on.

Mind you, i am not arguing about Intel being better in games. I am arguing against the idea behind "Anandtech only uses APU because it's the only worth including). Or to put it otherwise, "why is the APU in the list and no FX"?.
 

·
Overclocker
Joined
·
11,635 Posts
In specific scenarios always some CPU is faster than the other. Sometimes i5 is faster than FX, sometimes FX is faster than i7, overall FX lacks IPC/node/... and is terribly slow nowadays because the architecture is getting updated after many years in 2017. They made a bad architecture and were stuck with it for a loong time and didn't have one to switch to. Intel used to have multiple architectures going on so when one was no longer viable they switched to some of their other, so when Pentium 4 was dead they switched to the mobile/laptop architecture: Core.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by neurotix View Post

Anyway, yeah, the i3 is better and if you disagree you're in denial or a rabid fanboy. This isn't really up for discussion. It's just fact.
claims like these are made by the most ignorant posters on these forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,594 Posts
I specifically play a lot of the Witcher 3 and battlefront where the FX octos handily beat i3s and compete with i5s and i7s. I suppose I am rabid fanboi for knowing exactly what I bought and for what reason, huh?
 

·
Hardware Maniac
Joined
·
3,332 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7850K View Post

claims like these are made by the most ignorant posters on these forums.
I was thinking the same thing... But at the same time lot of people cant see the difference even if they own intel...

I remember being called crazy saying it was dumb to go quadfire with a fx about a years ago..

I play ton of cpu bound game... Beam ng arma 3 mmo and stuff.. And the fx is pretty decent... But the minimum fps and average are ways better with my i7.

Beam ng with a semi truck im at 20fps at 4.4ghz 8 core 4790k ht enabled 60fps lock

What im trying to find.. Is benchmark that a 9590 level of overclock or less will beat a stock 4790k or reach near 5820k.

Just want to understand the strong point of that cpu...

I seen some h265 4k bench that i lost that was showing awesome performance from the fx
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonami2 View Post

I was thinking the same thing... But at the same time lot of people cant see the difference even if they own intel...

I remember being called crazy saying it was dumb to go quadfire with a fx about a years ago..

I play ton of cpu bound game... Beam ng arma 3 mmo and stuff.. And the fx is pretty decent... But the minimum fps and average are ways better with my i7.

Beam ng with a semi truck im at 20fps at 4.4ghz 8 core 4790k ht enabled 60fps lock

What im trying to find.. Is benchmark that a 9590 level of overclock or less will beat a stock 4790k or reach near 5820k.

Just want to understand the strong point of that cpu...

I seen some h265 4k bench that i lost that was showing awesome performance from the fx
I don't think it's possible, at least with benchmarks based on real life applications. Best case scenarios for an FX are x264 and x265. The 9590 is very close to 4790K, but still not above:

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5135/7/amd-fx-9590-and-fx-9370-review-amds-return-to-the-high-end-market-benchmarks-tech-arp-x264-hd-501-pass-2

http://x265.ru/en/x265-hd-benchmark/

^ Here there there is a result where the FX9590 beats the 4790, but with the latter using 1600Mhz RAM. Also both overclocked.

If there is some synthetic benchmark where the FX comes 1st, maybe, i don't know. But video encoding is one of the best real life scenarios for FX, so if it can't beat it there, i don't know where it will.

EDIT: Thinking about it, if you have time to waste, you could doublecheck results for encryption benchmarks and 7zip benchmark. The FX *might* be a bit better there than video encoding, as video encoding to some extend does use FPU, while 7Zip and encryption should be even more integer heavy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

I specifically play a lot of the Witcher 3 and battlefront where the FX octos handily beat i3s and compete with i5s and i7s. I suppose I am rabid fanboi for knowing exactly what I bought and for what reason, huh?
The situation is always the same. The APUs do have higher IPC than the FX, but the FX has more cores and overclocks more. So in games that spawn few threads or low load, the APU may beat an FX. In games that spawn many threads and high load, the FX will always beat the APU. The heavier the game and the more threads, the closer the FX comes to its ideal scenario and thus competes with i5. If the game was able to use 100% the FX and use more integer, you 'd arrive to a scenario similar to what you see in x264/x265 benchmarks, where the [email protected] is roughly equivalent to i7 3770 or to Skylake i5 6600. The more the game uses few threads and loads 50% the FX, the more the i3s gain ground and even beat the FX.
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Sorry for my post guys, I didn't mean to come off as "ignorant", but bonami2 sounded pretty aggressive towards me and deluded in his post that I replied to...it's hard to tell sometimes with some people here
redface.gif


The truth is, I'm hardly ignorant, I've had setups from both sides and seen the difference since switching to Intel. I've also benched both setups for HWBOT, running practically every CPU bench there is on them, with the highest frequency memory available and the IMCs overclocked etc.

The fact is, the 8300 and Piledriver is general is a very weak and old CPU architecture. It has a crappy IMC (I got double the speed from DDR3 by switching to Intel!), very slow cache, only 4 (slow) FPUs, less ALUs and so on. This is why it performs so poorly vs Intel. It doesn't matter if you overclock it, it's still slow. I got 95 fps tops in Valley Extreme HD with 2x 290s and a 5ghz FX-8350. My Intel at stock got 110 fps and overclocked got 130 fps. I have screenshots to prove this. I'm willing to bet a locked i3 would get similar or better scores, since Valley places a very light load on the CPU and is almost entirely GPU bound. Fire Strike was the same way, I got 12000 with the 290s and AMD and 18000 with the 290s and Intel. Sure, you might say it's synthetic, but I've also noticed my games all run 10-20 fps faster, and more importantly the minimum frames are much higher.

For gaming, the i3 is probably superior except in very select titles that take advantage of more than 4 threads (which will still probably be uncommon for a while).

As far as versus the 5820k, I think in some benchmarks it may come close but of course, it would need to be at 5ghz+ vs a stock 5820k. And even then, in some benches there's just no way the FX will hang with the 5820k simply because 6 core 12 thread.
smile.gif
 

·
curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,930 Posts
My 8370 beats the 5820k in integer math, floating point math, and physics. Where it loses the worst is in extended instructions (SSE). Then comes encryption and then single thread performance.

But this is comparing it to a cpu that costs twice as much and only delivers 11% better performance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,113 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by neurotix View Post

Sorry for my post guys, I didn't mean to come off as "ignorant", but bonami2 sounded pretty aggressive towards me and deluded in his post that I replied to...it's hard to tell sometimes with some people here
redface.gif


The truth is, I'm hardly ignorant, I've had setups from both sides and seen the difference since switching to Intel. I've also benched both setups for HWBOT, running practically every CPU bench there is on them, with the highest frequency memory available and the IMCs overclocked etc.

The fact is, the 8300 and Piledriver is general is a very weak and old CPU architecture. It has a crappy IMC (I got double the speed from DDR3 by switching to Intel!), very slow cache, only 4 (slow) FPUs, less ALUs and so on. This is why it performs so poorly vs Intel. It doesn't matter if you overclock it, it's still slow. I got 95 fps tops in Valley Extreme HD with 2x 290s and a 5ghz FX-8350. My Intel at stock got 110 fps and overclocked got 130 fps. I have screenshots to prove this. I'm willing to bet a locked i3 would get similar or better scores, since Valley places a very light load on the CPU and is almost entirely GPU bound. Fire Strike was the same way, I got 12000 with the 290s and AMD and 18000 with the 290s and Intel. Sure, you might say it's synthetic, but I've also noticed my games all run 10-20 fps faster, and more importantly the minimum frames are much higher.

For gaming, the i3 is probably superior except in very select titles that take advantage of more than 6 threads (which will still probably be uncommon for a while).

As far as versus the 5820k, I think in some benchmarks it may come close but of course, it would need to be at 5ghz+ vs a stock 5820k. And even then, in some benches there's just no way the FX will hang with the 5820k simply because 6 core 12 thread.
smile.gif
I was curious as to what you are using to measure that and what were your scores on the FX platform vs the DC?
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
How is this 11% better performance?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1320

The 5820k is literally twice as fast in some of those benchmarks. In the rest of them it still handily beats it.

orkinman (wassup?) I used AIDA64 cache and memory test on my FX-8350 and a 4770k with the same kit of DDR3 in dual channel, 2400mhz CL11-11-11-28-1T.

My memory write speed was 20gb/sec with AMD and 37gb/sec with Intel. Memory read and copy were much much higher too. Aside from that, the L1 cache on Intel was almost 4 times faster.
 

·
curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,930 Posts
Because that is what it is with my system. It is a waste of money for me to go intel. The single thread performance is quite adequate and it is more than capable of handling modern any game I have.

You see, I can buy a cpu and cooling system for overclocking for less than the price of just that intel cpu.
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
The problem is that you're running a 8370 @ 5ghz which is not attainable (safely) for most people. Not only do you need a high end cooler to cool 300 watts of heat, but you also need a higher end overclocking motherboard (Sabertooth is like $150 right??) with 8+2 phase VRM to safely overclock the Vishera that high. So you're looking at $200 for the chip (according to newegg right now), $150 for a motherboard, $100 for cooling, that's $450. For the same price you could buy an i5, a midrange ($100 or even sub-$100) motherboard, and a $30 cooler and probably spend less money for much better performance in games. On top of that, if you really need the 8 threads, it's not much of a stretch to save money for one month more or something to get an i7 for only around $100 more than an i5. Sorry, but if you're building a high end gaming computer, you need to expect to pay for it. If you are spending almost $500 on a AMD setup, well you could probably do an i7 setup for only $600, throw in a $300 GPU and still put a system together for around $1000, less if you reuse drives, case, fans, lighting etc.

The budget thing doesn't really make sense. Unless you need to 8 cores for rendering, encoding, music or something, for purely gaming the Intel is vastly superior and cheaper. You also get the latest and greatest technology and not a dead platform from 2012.

It makes sense to me, I have the money, and I had high end Crossfire so I made the switch because I needed a very strong CPU to drive my 290s and Eyefinity. The FX-8350, even at 5ghz, was a severe bottleneck on two 290s in not only benchmarks but also games. I can understand being on a budget, or wanting to support AMD (and not Intel...), or personal preference, but really you can't justify it based on performance and cost.

AMD GPUs on the other hand, I absolutely love and will continue to buy and support for as long as they keep making them and they remain mostly competitive with Nvidia offerings.
smile.gif
 

·
curmudgeon
Joined
·
5,930 Posts
You are changing the rules in the middle of the game. You don't go from a high price cpu to a low price low performance cpu in the middle of the conversation. Besides, those little quads are now starting to reach their limits in games while the duos are completely overmatched these days.

Then you come to the core of your argument: Just throw money at it. You must be part of the top 20% of Americans who own 84% of the wealth. Then there are the bottom 40% of us who own 0.3% of the wealth. I'm a 40%er and intel is priced waaay to high. They are a bad deal.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top