Intel Haswell vs. AMD Steamroller

Haswell

"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.

To give a good answer I would need to pull my time machine out of storage. Wait until they're released and benchmarked, until then it's all speculation. If you want a wild guess, I'd probably say the Haswell I7.

When deciding on a CPU you need to know all of the strengths and weaknesses of both and then look at what you'll be using it for. When it comes to the high end CPU of both brands they both will give high quality and fps in games while Intel's IPC will allow it to pull ahead in gameplay. You also have to know that while the 8350 has 8 cores the i7-3770K and i7-4770K are four cores with hyper threading so have a total of 8 cores also.
There is also the LGA 2011 socket CPU to consider if your budget allows and the i7-3930K is a six core with hyper threading that makes it a 12 core CPU.

This isn't entirely accurate.

The 3770K has been left behind by the 8350 in multimedia? I don't even know where that came from but it's certainly not true. Show some benchmarks and I might agree with you.

Gaming wise, Intel chips still destroy AMD in CPU bound games. Starcraft, Skyrim, and Planetside 2 come to mind and there are a lot more. In the case of PS2, it's not even playable on an AMD chip due to frame rate drops. The only game where AMD is really that effective is Crysis 3 and while it keeps up with Intel in average frame rate, it has a much lower minimum frame rate which means it dips into unplayable levels at times.

We've seen Haswell and we know what it can do. It's another 5-10% on top of Intel's already 20% IPC lead. Everyone might think AMD is going to pull out 30% improvement, but AMD has a bad habit of talking big then letting everyone down. Piledriver was about a 15% improvement on Bulldozer, but a lot of that was clock speed increases and there's not a lot of headroom there.

It's also important to remember that AMD chips are clocked higher to begin with in order to keep up, thus using way more power. When clocked the same, an i7 beats an 8350 in just about anything and still uses less power doing it.

There's nothing wrong with the 8350 as it is $100 cheaper than the 3770K, but lets be realistic. It's a competitor to the i5 not the i7. I certainly wouldn't get one if budget isn't a concern, especially with Haswell around the corner. You can always wait to see what happens with Steamroller, but as much as I would like to I'm not getting my hopes up.

3770k losing to the FX-8350 in multimedia? Are you delusional?

I remember I saw the FX-8350 beating the Core i7-3770K in various multimedia-oriented tasks:
http://thgtr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/3ds-max-oc.png
That was the overclocked FX, my bad.

I stated that because I remember I saw benchmark results proving it -I know those are not the norm.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/4
POV-Ray.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

The only time AMD hasn't been pretty much right on with the predictions was Bulldozer. Let's be totally honest here too, Bulldozer was completely uncharted territory for AMD, and the theoretical gains were really not achieved because the product was rushed. Piledriver should have been BD, and SR should have been PD, etc. However, we got what we got, and now that they understand the architecture and it's pros and cons, they can much better assess the real world gains. The rest of the time they've been pretty much accurate.

Also, outside of synthetic benchmarks, I have only seen haswell achieve 6-8% improvement over Ivy. I could be wrong here, and there may be some earth shattering real world applications that I have missed...but, I find that not all too likely.

Considering that Kaveri engineering prototypes will be coming out to developers soon, we will likely see some leaked benchmarks in the Q3 this year, and that improvement over trinity will give us a reasonable degree of insight into what the desktop FX series will gain in Q1 2014.

Also, there are more than just Crysis 3 where AMD runs a tight race:

Bioshock Infinite
Metro 2033
Tomb Raider
Far Cry 3
BF3 Multiplayer
Crysis Warhead

The only games where intel really shines at this point are SC2, Skyrim, Civ5...and I would even argue planetside 2 is nearly unplayable on intel as well because their optimization was just terrible to begin with. Minimum frame rates for any CPU are in the toilet on the benchmarks for that one.

Additionally, I don't consider an advantage to one side or the other that falls within the MoE for the benchmark to be a clear cut advantage either way. Consider 10% Margin for Error, most intel victories in games are not by more than that anyway. Hardware inconsistencies across an entire system (with the same make/model of components but different individual parts) can even generate greater difference than that margin anyway.

I certainly hope that AMD surprises me and gives me a reason to upgrade my 2500K this fall because Intel certainly hasn't with Haswell. Get the IPC up to Sandy Bridge levels, get multi threaded performance up to Ivy Bridge i7 levels and get the TDP down to around 85W and I'm sold at $200.

I would also buy an APU that has FX-6300 level CPU performance and 7790 level GPU performance for $200. That would be a game changer.

AMD has a chance here to catch Intel with their pants down in the gaming market, I doubt they will though.

There's something that needs to be said with all this who's better, Intel or AMD debate. The fact of the matter is that when you have the high end CPUs and you benchmark them side by side, yes you do have a winner but what is that winning margin by? I've seen a benchmark where one will win by 1 FPS and while a win is a win to me that simply says that it doesn't matter which one yo get because both will do the job.

There is no set benchmarks that will sat that one brand is better than the other across the board and therefore is a clear choice to go with that one. Intel will win some and AMD will win some and just because one wins and one loses doesn't mean that the one that loses is so bad that it won't do the job, of course it will. In gaming once you go past 60-70 fps you do not notice a difference in game play, a game at 70 fps looks just as good as a game at 95 fps. In productivity if one CPU finishes a task 5 sec faster then the other then what's 5 sec , nothing.

It then is just a matter of what do you want to spend for a computer and how much of a budget do you have and some even go so far as to what do they feel comfortable with. There are so many models for so many different price levels that there is one that will fit your requirement.

+1 That's essentially what I have been saying all along.

I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.

Let me start out by mentioning I have no bias towards any company. I would buy whatever happens to be the best value at the time, and that's also how I recommend products on these forums. I'm a big fan of a lot of AMD products, and I personally use a lot of products from both companies.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind getting your opinions on the current pricing scheme of AMD's FX line. I personally think that it is very difficult to recommend anything from it at any price point except perhaps the 8320 at $170. I believe that a $30 price drop across the board would help that tremendously. Let me break it down.

At around $110-120 it is very hard to recommend the 4300 because it performs almost exactly the same as the $90 Phenom II x4 965.

At $135-140 it's very difficult to recommend the 6300 because it's performance benefit over the Phenom really isn't much at all other than in applications that can take advantage of many threads. Even there is it really $50 better? No. Better than the i3 at the same price price point? Probably, but the i3 3235 is overpriced as well. In addition, to get the best performance out of it, you need to invest say another $30 in an aftermarket cooler. That's putting it at the same price as the i5 3350P which destroys it in just about everything.

At $170 the 8320 competes with the 3350P and beats it slightly in highly threaded applications. So I would say it's a recommendation at this point for those using mainly productivity oriented applications. Gaming, definitely not because the clock speed is too low and overclocking requires dropping another $30 in aftermarket cooling.

At $200 the 8350 competes with the i5 3570K which beats it in everything other than the most heavily threaded applications and even there it's close. Especially when clock speeds are the same. At the very maximum this is a tie which means the recommendation could go either way.

Showing these examples, I just don't see where AMD pulls off any wins, even against their own Phenom line. I haven't even mentioned the power consumption differential either. A $30 price drop would go a long way toward fixing this though.

In any of the cases I mentioned, how would you justify AMD recommendations?

It's not about 1-2 FPS, it's about recommending the best possible value for the money. Aside from throwing AMD a bone because I like the company, I just don't see any reason to buy their FX products. Slash the price by $30 and it's a whole new ballgame.

4300 would be a clear winner at $80

6300 would be a no brainer at $110

8320 easy buy at $140

8350 bargain at $170

That's a winning lineup.

The FX8350 results against the i5-3570k all fall squarely within margin of error on most benchmarks. That's essentially a wash...and I mean that going both ways.

The only area where the individual CPUs shine is the i5-3570k wins in single core AAC encoding (see: itunes) and a few games like Skyrim. The FX8350 does win in a few heavily threaded benchmarks by more than margin of error, handbrake for example, and encryption is another that comes to mind as well as thread heavy rendering suites.

Now, the FX8350 is typically $30-50 cheaper than the i5-3570k, if that extra money puts you up a notch on your GPU, then the FX8350 is by default a better setup because the CPUs with equal cards are mostly a draw. So if you have a better GPU with one, it wins. Additionally, Z77 boards for intel tend to run a little pricier than 990FX chipset AMD boards, so you can save money there. If you don't intend to CF/SLI you can even drop down to a 970 series motherboard with good features for around $80-90.

The FX6300 with an aftermarket cooler can be cranked up to 4.5-4.6 GHz on air cooling, and at those clockspeeds, it will run a race with nearly anything out there. Most people these days spend money on an aftermarket cooler anyway, because the stock systems are mostly rubbish. If you compare the FX6300 to the i3's and low end i5's, for the money, it's a lot more CPU.

Additionally AMD announced today the FX4350 and FX6350 which will both have clockspeeds around 3.7-3.9 GHz without TC. These will be priced where the FX4300 and FX6300 are now. Which makes them higher binned and likely an even better buy for the same money.

Additionally, AMD is going to stop producing AM3 CPUs and motherboards as well as FM1 components also to support AM3+ and FM2 fully, meaning the higher end Phenom series CPUs will go away. Additionally, the higher binned Phenom chips cost as much as the FX8350 in many cases...(if you can find a 970/975/980BE or 1090/1100T).

So there is sound logic in it, plus AM3+ systems will have a direct upgrade path for steamroller, which is a nice perk.

FX4350 @ $119.99 (3.9 GHz/4.3 TC)
FX6350 @ $129.99 (3.8 GHz/4.2 TC)
FX8350 @ $179-189 is typical now (microcenter sells it for $169)
FX8320 @ $159-169 is typical now (microcenter sells it for $149/159)

(both new offerings are 125W TDP, so your board would be compatible with top end SR offerings as well)

I was referring to pricing and products available right now. What's happening soon is subject to change because AMD will launch these higher clocked Piledriver chips and Intel will launch Haswell. Also, lets leave out Microcenter because Intel chips are cheaper there as well.

I'm talking about what Newegg is charging right at this moment in time. I just looked and here it is:

8350: $199.99
8320: $179.99
6300: $139.99
4300: $129.99 (Especially overpriced)


Phenom II x4 965: $89.99

i5 3350P: $169.99

i5 3570k: $219.99

Not much logic there. The only real tie or debate would be 8350 vs 3570K because of the $20 price advantage for the AMD chip.

Intel motherboards are getting cheaper and now offer about the same bang for the buck so I call that a wash also.

I would disagree that aftermarket heatsinks are necessary for non-overclocked Intel CPUs as Ivy Bridge runs pretty cool at lower clock speeds.

Also, the 3350P still equals a 6300 at 4.5 and uses a lot less power doing it.

It remains to be seen if these new chips are binned higher as voltage could have just been added. I suspect this is the case with the 30W higher TDP.

You can buy the FX8350@ Amazon.com for $179.99/189.99 consistently...that's a $30-40 advantage.

Plus MSI 970A-G46 motherboard is $69, the same motherboard in Z77A-G45 format is $105. There's $35 difference there as well...that's typical of the difference between the 2 formats.

AMD offers more budget options, Intel has more high-end options.

AMD is good for people on a strict budget.

That's pretty much how I see it at the moment. With the APUs and FX6300 I haven't used a pentium or I3 in a quite a while. The I5 vs FX8 is a more difficult decision, could go either way.

I have only ever built one computer and its only really used for high end gaming, but I look a lot into the parts I buy and the way I see the argument between amd and intel is like Xbox and playstation wait till the new gen CPUs come out then decide which bests fits you I'm only upgrading my PC when I need a to start running sli. If the CPUs are anything like the predecessor I'm probably going to get haswell as I have never had a problem with the 3 Intels I've had and had to replace to amds. But that could just be me.

CPU: well i suggest you to go with Intel if you got no money problem!get intel i7 4770K but i will promise you can't make use of all the 100% of it by gaming and CS...and NO AMD DID NOT BEAT Intel I7 3770K!that is wrong!read this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html
what really happened is that on benchmark,Intel performed 10 to 20% better but the price of i7 3770K is 340$ while AMD's FX-8350 is only 170-180$.so that means AMD's FX-8350 does a perfect job and comes really close to an I7 3770K but not beating it yet.
Mother Board : if you went with intel most of the stuff is good V formula is perfect Asus Sabertooth Z77 is also good(240$).but again those mother boards are cost more compared to an AMD mother board.another thing is,AMD doesn't have any PCIe 3.0 Motherboards except ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Gen3/R2.0 Military Grade.that is the 1st and only AMD PCIe 3.0 motherboard right now and it's about 190-200$ (don't get me wrong it's a good mother board but maybe you would like to buy a Gigabyte Motherboard)
Graphic : i think Radeon HD 7970 is good for everything but they over heat,Use more power and make a lot of noise so you might wanna get a water cooling for it as you want your parts last for a number of years good for gaming and good for software.Nvidia Graphics...expensive,Power friendly,not noisy,doesn't heat like ATI does,loads more detail in games but not so software friendly...
RAM : you would need atleast 8GB of ram but 16gb is much better.Corsair rams are the best.
SSD : Yes you need that too.it will skyrocket your performance speed.
Storage Drive: only if you need one
Power Suply : Atleast 700w.Cooler Master is good.
but with all this it all comes down to how much you wanna spend!if you are around 1200$ go with AMD cpu+Nvidia Graphic.if it's like 2000$ go with Intel+ATI graphic.

P.S: I'm a AMD user myself.I think their products are good and budget friendly and Intel haven't Beat their Price/Performance at all as their products are priced too high for what they offer...!but on the other hand i'm not a FANBOY of em.so i pretty much speak reality.AMD good Price/Performance but not as powerful as Intel they still have distance with Intel in that matter...

there a rumor that amd is packing with that steamroller with radeon graphics. if true, you could use amd's dual gpu technolgy. that will put both dedicat and intergate gpus to work.

" gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance)."
This is absolutely lie! It depends on what kind of game you want to play. Some games are srsly CPU bound (like MMO's -eg Guild Wars or RTS like StarCraft 2) where my HD 6870 or 7870 are srsly bored (like 10-30% used with not good FPS on highest) while on FPS's like BF3 or Tomb Rider they are working on 90+% maxed - CPU Phenom II X4 965 OC to 4GHz

I think combo intel CPU and AMD GPU is the cheapest way to achieve max performace in games

To get a view of all the Intel and AMD Vishera chips, Benchmark results, go to Th3 Guruin 3D.com, A dutch company which has Ivy bridge, Vishera and Sandy Bridge processors benchmarked side by side. The 6300 Vihera overall has performance equal to the Intel 2500K. The major Intel cpu advantages seem to be in memory bandwidth while AMD has a definite Hashing advantage. Aside from higher fps in Farcry 3, onceyou get into the higher resolutions, the CPUs are very ckosely matched. To make a long story short, and to get a more complete benchmark comparison, go to Guru in 3D , hardware review, processors, 8350,8320,6300, 4300 article and click on read more. This should give you an idea of what is happening at the moment. You can then add 10% to the 3770k and 20-39% to the 8350 to get an idea of where you will be when Steamroller comes out.

Disclaimer: I like AMD and their processors and I like the *idea* of their new architecture and future direction.

I am a software engineer and I also use my computer for gaming.

The only CPU taxing element of my work is building large projects and running multiple web servers for unit testing.

My next build will be an AM3+ build with a piledriver (fx-8350) CPU (along with SSDs, gobs of ram, and an AMD 7970). I plan on upgrading the CPU (since AMD does make relatively inexpensive CPUs) to a steamroller model when they arrive.

With the predicted single core performance improvements (and I believe they prove to be accurate) the steamroller chips will be moved well into the performance realm of the current intel offerings, WITH the remaining advantage of the high multi-thread performance that has soundly beaten current intel offerings.

I don't know if the next generations will support AM3+, but I imagine they might, even if they cannot be used to their maximum levels of performance.