Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core i7 3930K vs AMD FX 9590

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 27, 2013 8:55:36 PM

The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2013 9:10:20 PM

How can you base it off a CPU that hasn't been released?
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2013 9:15:06 PM

@mastrom101, from what I could find, technically it has been released, but not to consumers. :( 
June 27, 2013 9:59:07 PM

mastrom101 said:
How can you base it off a CPU that hasn't been released?


I didn't say im buying nor wanted a fx 9000 sries cpu, (What would you choose) but im guessing you would.


June 28, 2013 2:04:34 AM

AMD for me, best geared for the new gen console ports that will be written for 8 core AMD CPUs.
June 28, 2013 2:07:06 AM

blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.
July 9, 2013 10:22:42 AM

it's hard to talk about the AMD because it hasn't been released. however if the 9590 does cost more than £200 and not beat a i7-3770K let alone a i7-3930K it will have lost its value for money bonus which is one of AMD's biggest selling points as the 8350 cost less than a i-5 3570k by about £5-£15.
a b à CPUs
July 9, 2013 10:27:34 AM

Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Stop spreading AMD PR and wait for benchmarks. I love how some of you think amd's magically going to start dominating Intel :lol: 

OP the 4930K will be out in 2 months and its a monster

July 14, 2013 11:25:07 AM

Intel God said:
Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Stop spreading AMD PR and wait for benchmarks. I love how some of you think amd's magically going to start dominating Intel :lol: 

OP the 4930K will be out in 2 months and its a monster



Your name is telling of your bias, no need to call others liars or PR pushers, when you're the one that's doing exactly that, everything the gentleman said was accurate, so stop your ridiculous comments.
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 11:41:21 AM

viewgamer said:
Intel God said:
Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Stop spreading AMD PR and wait for benchmarks. I love how some of you think amd's magically going to start dominating Intel :lol: 

OP the 4930K will be out in 2 months and its a monster



Your name is telling of your bias, no need to call others liars or PR pushers, when you're the one that's doing exactly that, everything the gentleman said was accurate, so stop your ridiculous comments.


Obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you're calling me biased based on my name alone.
July 15, 2013 11:20:55 AM

I hate to say it, especially as a large AMD fan, but Intel outdoes AMD with high end processors. Between the FX 9590 and i7 3930k, the i7 is better. The New FX 9590 may have 8 cores, but with 4MB lower L3 cache than the i7. The i7 also has 12 threads as opposed FX, which has 8. So, while the 8 cores is better than the six cores, each core has less to work with in the FX. Arguably the FX chips will work better with many next gen games, but the jury is still out on how much those games will be optimized. Although, it is important to know that with the FX, your motherboard will likely be compatible with the next set of processors, as the AM3 socket type will likely be around for awhile. The i7 is around 400 dollars less though.
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2013 11:24:18 AM

brianberger7 said:
I hate to say it, especially as a large AMD fan, Intel outdoes AMD with high end processors. The New FX 9590 may have 8 cores, but with 4MB lower L3 cache. It also has 12 threads as opposed to 8. So, while the 8 cores is better than the six cores, each core has less to work with in the FX. Arguable, the FX chips will work better with many next gen games. The jury is still out on how much those games will be optimized. Although, it is important to know that with the FX, your motherboard will likely be compatible with the next set of processors, as the AM3 socket type will likely be around for awhile.


There are already games that utilize up to 8 cores and Amd gets killed in them. Just because games will be more multithreaded doesnt mean having more cores means everything.
July 15, 2013 11:27:54 AM

Intel God said:
brianberger7 said:
I hate to say it, especially as a large AMD fan, Intel outdoes AMD with high end processors. The New FX 9590 may have 8 cores, but with 4MB lower L3 cache. It also has 12 threads as opposed to 8. So, while the 8 cores is better than the six cores, each core has less to work with in the FX. Arguable, the FX chips will work better with many next gen games. The jury is still out on how much those games will be optimized. Although, it is important to know that with the FX, your motherboard will likely be compatible with the next set of processors, as the AM3 socket type will likely be around for awhile.


There are already games that utilize up to 8 cores and Amd gets killed in them. Just because games will be more multithreaded doesnt mean having more cores means everything.


Oh, i agree wholeheartedly. AMD put the 8 cores and high clock speeds on because that's what the average Joe will look at. The quantity of FX doesn't outweigh the quality of The i7 chips.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 15, 2013 11:38:08 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
Mal Anderson said:
While all the details here:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-FX-9...

What would you choose tho if your gamer/Enthusiast/Designer?.


the 9590 is just an overclocked 8350. Nothing new really.


Wrong, the Richland IPC improvements are part of the architecture there...hence "Vishera 2.0" nomenclature.
July 15, 2013 2:35:33 PM

all the new consoles are going for amd 8 cores and all the games will be counting amd cpu's not intel u can see bf4 has partnership with amd, most of the new games that are coming q4 2013 and 2014 are using up to 8 cores like bf4, even the fx-8350 is equal to the i7-3770k only 1-2% difference in performance on bf3 because these best games like bf4 and new generation games can make use of the extra cores, with the i7 uses only 4 cores which would max last 1 more year and barely survive due to the next games that are coming which i saw, tbh intel is a rip off giving u 8 cores for 1000$ and seen some go to 4000$ it's era will end soon because they couldn't keep up, an 8 core is needed now for the next gen gaming that are coming soon and they are lacking behind with their 4 core which is overpriced too, amd said that it will be at the top again and it seems like it will :) , best choice right now is to wait for the new fx-9000, dont believe the prices right now because they will drop by minimum to 50% trust me on that, if u have a great rig and u want future proof get the fx-9000 for better performance and price instead of buying an intel 1000$ minimum for 8 cores when ur GPU is half that price ... just being honest and for intel haters i have 2 words for you !! It's!!!!!!!!! ( face palm ) xD
edit: i haven't found an 8 core with 1000$ from intel lol rip off
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2013 2:45:33 PM

I do believe I saw someone post a Cinebench benchmark. Wasn't there that whole scandal where intel paid off a bunch of benchmarking program makers to generate 386/SSE instructions rather than the newest instruction set that is supported by AMD processors? I found a massive thread detailing this and how the use of CPUID spoofing made the programs use the fastest available instruction set, making this "huge" gap that has been claimed by intel fans (and intel) into nothing more than hot air.

But I digress.

I'd choose neither. Intel processors are FAR too overpriced, and the 9590 does appear to be a power guzzler.

I'm sticking with my 965 BE.
July 16, 2013 3:09:39 PM

Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Well, first off, during E3 it was explained that each console asked Nvidia if they could sport their product, and Nvidia said they didn't want or weren't ready to give our their tech for console ported games. They also sais they would have liked Intel processors in their systems, but Intel denied them as well.

Now, on to the comment about AMD having an edge because they're in consoles. Games that are made for xbox/ps3 and the new gen, were and are made just for the hardware in the consoles. Thats why, in the xbox 360/ps3, graphic intensive games worked in lower end hardware(in the 360/ps3) compared to our pc's. Because when thew games being made, its made specifically to run on the consoles hardware. When a PC game is made, it has to be made so that it can run on a wide range of hardware, from Nvidia to AMD. Just because AMD is inside the new consoles, doesn't really give them an edge. People aren't going to run and buy AMD based hardware for their PC's now because its in a console, and AMD isn't all of a sudden going to start beating out Intel in performance just because they're in a console. We can't assume that AMD is going to start making processors for our PC's that out-perform Intel processors just because they're in consoles, thats just silly. And don't get me wrong, I think AMD is an awesome, affordable product in which certain pieces of hardware will allow you to do what you want. Such as an FX-8350, and a 7990. A 7990 is awesome, and is just about on par with a 690, even though the 690 runs a LITTLE smoother because of Nvidia's tech. So, I can't agree that AMD has an edge on future PERFORMANCE because its in a console. Yes they'll make some extra coin when people buy the consoles, but that won't affect how Intel is still making superior products, and I would assume will continue to. And I don't think AMD will suddenly become #1 product because of the extra money trhey make from people buying consoles. Game developers will be making games for the XBOX ONE, and the PS4, just like they made games for the 360 and ps3. Intel didn't have the edge because AMD wasn't in the 360, they had the edge because their products perform better. Developers will still be making games for PC. And even if they didn't make games for the pc, Intel will still be a superior product(we can assume, because they have been.... for a long time) and I for one will still spend the extra money on an Intel based machine even if I'm not going to be gaming. But as I said, AMD is still a viable option. But in no way going to shoot past Intel because its 1) in a console, 2) Can overclock higher than an Intel chip(becauseeee, an 8350 at 5.1ghz is still outdone by an i7 based processor clocked at 4.5ghz). If AMD beats out Intel in sales, its because they're so much cheaper, which is cool. But they aren't going to make a superior product because they're suddenly inside a gaming console. PC for life! :p 
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2013 3:18:44 PM

Chris Danas said:
Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Well, first off, during E3 it was explained that each console asked Nvidia if they could sport their product, and Nvidia said they didn't want or weren't ready to give our their tech for console ported games. They also sais they would have liked Intel processors in their systems, but Intel denied them as well.

Now, on to the comment about AMD having an edge because they're in consoles. Games that are made for xbox/ps3 and the new gen, were and are made just for the hardware in the consoles. Thats why, in the xbox 360/ps3, graphic intensive games worked in lower end hardware(in the 360/ps3) compared to our pc's. Because when thew games being made, its made specifically to run on the consoles hardware. When a PC game is made, it has to be made so that it can run on a wide range of hardware, from Nvidia to AMD. Just because AMD is inside the new consoles, doesn't really give them an edge. People aren't going to run and buy AMD based hardware for their PC's now because its in a console, and AMD isn't all of a sudden going to start beating out Intel in performance just because they're in a console. We can't assume that AMD is going to start making processors for our PC's that out-perform Intel processors just because they're in consoles, thats just silly. And don't get me wrong, I think AMD is an awesome, affordable product in which certain pieces of hardware will allow you to do what you want. Such as an FX-8350, and a 7990. A 7990 is awesome, and is just about on par with a 690, even though the 690 runs a LITTLE smoother because of Nvidia's tech. So, I can't agree that AMD has an edge on future PERFORMANCE because its in a console. Yes they'll make some extra coin when people buy the consoles, but that won't affect how Intel is still making superior products, and I would assume will continue to. And I don't think AMD will suddenly become #1 product because of the extra money trhey make from people buying consoles.


well we all know AMD is better at multithreading. its no secret! i think Rome270AD's point was, the game developers will start making games more threaded, hence amd will perform "better". even the currect 8 core will have longer life for this. this is why the gap between gaming performance between intel and amd is getting smaller on well threaded games. when games developers are forced to code in 8 core in one platform, they will obviously do the same when they port it into PC. hence amd cpu will be more competitive (if not in absolute terms).
July 16, 2013 3:23:30 PM

xXSnAkEXx said:
all the new consoles are going for amd 8 cores and all the games will be counting amd cpu's not intel u can see bf4 has partnership with amd, most of the new games that are coming q4 2013 and 2014 are using up to 8 cores like bf4, even the fx-8350 is equal to the i7-3770k only 1-2% difference in performance on bf3 because these best games like bf4 and new generation games can make use of the extra cores, with the i7 uses only 4 cores which would max last 1 more year and barely survive due to the next games that are coming which i saw, tbh intel is a rip off giving u 8 cores for 1000$ and seen some go to 4000$ it's era will end soon because they couldn't keep up, an 8 core is needed now for the next gen gaming that are coming soon and they are lacking behind with their 4 core which is overpriced too, amd said that it will be at the top again and it seems like it will :) , best choice right now is to wait for the new fx-9000, dont believe the prices right now because they will drop by minimum to 50% trust me on that, if u have a great rig and u want future proof get the fx-9000 for better performance and price instead of buying an intel 1000$ minimum for 8 cores when ur GPU is half that price ... just being honest and for intel haters i have 2 words for you !! It's!!!!!!!!! ( face palm ) xD
edit: i haven't found an 8 core with 1000$ from intel lol rip off


AMD products are awesome, especially for the price. FX-8350 is what, $200? But, an Intel Hexacore(6 core) Sany-E(not normal sandybridge) i7 3930k, 500$ roughly. It still benchmarks on Toms Hardware over any other processor in its class, I'm not sure about the higher end version, 3960x, even the new Haswells. But, a new hexacore will be coming out soon, on the haswell based tech. They don't need to make 8 core processors, because their 4 cores still beat out AMD's 8 cores. I like AMD, my bdudy has an 8350 with a 6950 inside, and its great.
July 16, 2013 3:30:26 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
Chris Danas said:
Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Well, first off, during E3 it was explained that each console asked Nvidia if they could sport their product, and Nvidia said they didn't want or weren't ready to give our their tech for console ported games. They also sais they would have liked Intel processors in their systems, but Intel denied them as well.

Now, on to the comment about AMD having an edge because they're in consoles. Games that are made for xbox/ps3 and the new gen, were and are made just for the hardware in the consoles. Thats why, in the xbox 360/ps3, graphic intensive games worked in lower end hardware(in the 360/ps3) compared to our pc's. Because when thew games being made, its made specifically to run on the consoles hardware. When a PC game is made, it has to be made so that it can run on a wide range of hardware, from Nvidia to AMD. Just because AMD is inside the new consoles, doesn't really give them an edge. People aren't going to run and buy AMD based hardware for their PC's now because its in a console, and AMD isn't all of a sudden going to start beating out Intel in performance just because they're in a console. We can't assume that AMD is going to start making processors for our PC's that out-perform Intel processors just because they're in consoles, thats just silly. And don't get me wrong, I think AMD is an awesome, affordable product in which certain pieces of hardware will allow you to do what you want. Such as an FX-8350, and a 7990. A 7990 is awesome, and is just about on par with a 690, even though the 690 runs a LITTLE smoother because of Nvidia's tech. So, I can't agree that AMD has an edge on future PERFORMANCE because its in a console. Yes they'll make some extra coin when people buy the consoles, but that won't affect how Intel is still making superior products, and I would assume will continue to. And I don't think AMD will suddenly become #1 product because of the extra money trhey make from people buying consoles.


well we all know AMD is better at multithreading. its no secret! i think Rome270AD's point was, the game developers will start making games more threaded, hence amd will perform "better". even the currect 8 core will have longer life for this. this is why the gap between gaming performance between intel and amd is getting smaller on well threaded games. when games developers are forced to code in 8 core in one platform, they will obviously do the same when they port it into PC. hence amd cpu will be more competitive (if not in absolute terms).


I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them :p 

I like AMD, not an Intel fanboy or anything. I still have a system with a Phenom II x4 in it, and I LOVED the Phenom processors, they were awesome. But looking at benchmarks on here, and a few others sites, AND 3dmark vantage Intel is winning out on all the above. AMD's on board graphics OWNS Intels though. An example, an 8150 3dmark vantage scores, 30,000. An i7 2600k, 80,000. The Intel Hexacores 3dmark scores are over 110,000. Nothing comes close to that. But, as you say, they will up the core usage for games. Maybe not 8 cores, but I could see them making games that utilize 6 cores total FOR PC. All we can do is wait and see who will win. The question is, will AMD's prices go up if they start beating out Intel? Or will they be awesome and stay affordable lol
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2013 3:49:56 PM

Chris Danas said:

I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them :p 




aaa. i meant in terms of performance/price. either way, what you say is correct. obviously console will not increase the synthetic performance. its just better utilization of the hardware. i merely suggested them getting more competitive.

i am not games developer, but it usually works like this> the developers make a game in console and then port it to PC. or the otherway round. obviously this is a gross stereotyping coz not all games are this way. but some parts of all games are this way. its a cost cutting measure. AMD will not force developer to use 8 cores, but amd will certainly encourage them. and since amd is not high on single thread performance, they will have to make it more threaded to use all of its newly added GPU power. its all speculation. hell if i know. but it is the more likely course
July 16, 2013 4:35:09 PM

sarwar_r87 said:
Chris Danas said:

I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them :p 




aaa. i meant in terms of performance/price. either way, what you say is correct. obviously console will not increase the synthetic performance. its just better utilization of the hardware. i merely suggested them getting more competitive.

i am not games developer, but it usually works like this> the developers make a game in console and then port it to PC. or the otherway round. obviously this is a gross stereotyping coz not all games are this way. but some parts of all games are this way. its a cost cutting measure. AMD will not force developer to use 8 cores, but amd will certainly encourage them. and since amd is not high on single thread performance, they will have to make it more threaded to use all of its newly added GPU power. its all speculation. hell if i know. but it is the more likely course


I can agree with that, if AMD keeps their affordable prices that they will indeed become competitive if not better. But if they become the "flahship" of processors like Intel is right now, they're bound to raise prices. If Intel doesn't make some crazy 8 core processor that costs $2,000 lol


Well, I just came accross this info 5 minutes ago. Our convo about how games are going to be made to utilize an 8 core processor, well Intel is coming out with Haswell-E based 8 core processors :) . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcOkoWgw2_s we had to know they would go do that lol.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 17, 2013 7:20:46 AM

Intel God said:
Spoiler
viewgamer said:
Intel God said:
Rome270AD said:
blader15sk8 said:
The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.


Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.


Stop spreading AMD PR and wait for benchmarks. I love how some of you think amd's magically going to start dominating Intel :lol: 

OP the 4930K will be out in 2 months and its a monster



Your name is telling of your bias, no need to call others liars or PR pushers, when you're the one that's doing exactly that, everything the gentleman said was accurate, so stop your ridiculous comments.


Obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you're calling me biased based on my name alone.


Welcome to my world...as I have said many times...screen names have nothing to do with the price of goats in Africa.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 17, 2013 7:25:33 AM

sarwar_r87 said:
Chris Danas said:

I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them :p 




aaa. i meant in terms of performance/price. either way, what you say is correct. obviously console will not increase the synthetic performance. its just better utilization of the hardware. i merely suggested them getting more competitive.

i am not games developer, but it usually works like this> the developers make a game in console and then port it to PC. or the otherway round. obviously this is a gross stereotyping coz not all games are this way. but some parts of all games are this way. its a cost cutting measure. AMD will not force developer to use 8 cores, but amd will certainly encourage them. and since amd is not high on single thread performance, they will have to make it more threaded to use all of its newly added GPU power. its all speculation. hell if i know. but it is the more likely course


I am a game developer...and console games are designed on a PC to be used on a console, and then ported back to PC.

I know it's a bit convoluted, but we do what we can with what we have.

As for AMD doing well in benchmarks, any game run on CryEngine 3 performs well on AMD, and so do the games on Unreal 3 or Unreal 4. Multi-threaded games are coming, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they find a way to use 8 cores at all. My current project is a MMO for PCs, but one of the other teams is working on a console game and they keep me posted :) 
July 18, 2013 7:03:53 AM

8350rocks said:
sarwar_r87 said:
Chris Danas said:

I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them :p 




aaa. i meant in terms of performance/price. either way, what you say is correct. obviously console will not increase the synthetic performance. its just better utilization of the hardware. i merely suggested them getting more competitive.

i am not games developer, but it usually works like this> the developers make a game in console and then port it to PC. or the otherway round. obviously this is a gross stereotyping coz not all games are this way. but some parts of all games are this way. its a cost cutting measure. AMD will not force developer to use 8 cores, but amd will certainly encourage them. and since amd is not high on single thread performance, they will have to make it more threaded to use all of its newly added GPU power. its all speculation. hell if i know. but it is the more likely course


I am a game developer...and console games are designed on a PC to be used on a console, and then ported back to PC.

I know it's a bit convoluted, but we do what we can with what we have.

As for AMD doing well in benchmarks, any game run on CryEngine 3 performs well on AMD, and so do the games on Unreal 3 or Unreal 4. Multi-threaded games are coming, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they find a way to use 8 cores at all. My current project is a MMO for PCs, but one of the other teams is working on a console game and they keep me posted :) 

i've got 2 questions:
1-should i wait for the 9590 or get the 4930x if indeed it has a 10-15% more performance than the 3930x? ( keep in my mind i really can't wait for like 5-7 months for it but the 4930x i can easly wait for it for like in like a month maybe more abit ) that can change if the 9590 is a must over 4930x.
2- when multi threaded games that uses 8 or 6 not sure maybe they will start with 6 then after a year with 8 but any way when an eight core game comes out what exactly should happen to my 4930x is it a dead waste ? would i have to change to fx 9590 which would be cheaper almost like a downgrade ? or it wud work fine just what would be the dammage done here is what i want to know
3- sorry for adding 1 more question but the fx-9590 wouldn't be exactly 8 cores right due to sharing resources and stuff i've been told that two cores are like 1.75 real cores so that would make their 8 core more of 7 real cores am i right ? so compared to 6 ( 4930x ) and 7 real ( 9590 ) wouldn't be much of a difference, any info is mostly appreaciated.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 7:19:11 AM

9590 is not a CPU for worth considering in any condition. 200W TDP is just too much.

10-15% more performance compared to 3930x is not a worth the extra price tag. if real life conditions you will not see it at all. also the 4th gen has a reputation of being hot.

by the time games start becoming 8 threaded, there will be newer revisions of cpu from both amd and intel, ask then :=). and a six threaded i7 will still hold grounds better than 4 threaded i7s

in multithreaded enviornment a 6 core intel will perform slightly better than amd 8 core, not because amd is "1.75 core per module", but because at this point, IPC starts to help out intel (assuming full utilization of all cores).
July 18, 2013 7:34:52 AM

sarwar_r87 said:
9590 is not a CPU for worth considering in any condition. 200W TDP is just too much.

10-15% more performance compared to 3930x is not a worth the extra price tag. if real life conditions you will not see it at all. also the 4th gen has a reputation of being hot.

by the time games start becoming 8 threaded, there will be newer revisions of cpu from both amd and intel, ask then :=). and a six threaded i7 will still hold grounds better than 4 threaded i7s

in multithreaded enviornment a 6 core intel will perform slightly better than amd 8 core, not because amd is "1.75 core per module", but because at this point, IPC starts to help out intel (assuming full utilization of all cores).

shouldn't the 4930x has the same price tag of 3930x just few $ more, since the 4770k is like the same price as 3770k ?

a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 7:46:05 AM

you also have to factor in lower OCing capability and higher heat. you donot buy a K series cpu if you are not OCing
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 18, 2013 8:50:15 AM

If you want to go with AMD get the 8350 and OC, I wouldn't pay the exorbitant money they want for the 9590s right now....(unless they hit 6.0+ GHz on air cooling...then I would consider it)...

At this point in time, I think AMD will make more gains in the next generation of games, and you will see the gap close, and intel may even fall behind out side of the $1,000 monsters.

As far as multithreaded games go...Crysis 3 runs 9 threads now....(that's 9 cores it can use)...so games that run on 8 cores are already here now.

All AMD processors physically have as many cores as they say...that's Intel propaganda to keep you from the truth. AMD 8 core CPUs have 8 Integer Cores. They share FPU between 2 cores...which isn't a huge deal...because most floating point calculations are being offloaded onto the GPU these days anyway...so physics calculations on the CPU are becoming increasingly less useful.

AMD "Module" Houses 2 cores one FPU, so think of it like this, and AMD Module is like a motorcycle frame, with an engine over each wheel. While an Intel Core is like a regular motorcycle. The AMD Bike is going to be really good at going fast under certain conditions, under other conditions...the Intel bike may be a little better.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 9:07:10 AM

I'm just going to throw this in here.

Saw someone posting a benchmark and a bunch of people talking about how Intel tanks AMD. I'd recommend those folk to take a read.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 10:01:34 AM

MajinCry said:
I'm just going to throw this in here.

Saw someone posting a benchmark and a bunch of people talking about how Intel tanks AMD. I'd recommend those folk to take a read.


hafijur said:
MajinCry said:
I'm just going to throw this in here.

Saw someone posting a benchmark and a bunch of people talking about how Intel tanks AMD. I'd recommend those folk to take a read.


AMD well know thats not the difference in performance between both cpus. Its just an excuse. There main gripe is that it doesn't work perfectly on there amd cpu and rubbish on the intel cpu.


ya? is that why all linux based benchmark show that amd is way more (tangible) competitive when compared to benchmarks windows platform?
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 10:01:41 AM

hafijur said:
MajinCry said:
I'm just going to throw this in here.

Saw someone posting a benchmark and a bunch of people talking about how Intel tanks AMD. I'd recommend those folk to take a read.


AMD well know thats not the difference in performance between both cpus. Its just an excuse. There main gripe is that it doesn't work perfectly on there amd cpu and rubbish on the intel cpu.


You'll have to re-write that first part. I didn't understand a single word of what you were trying to say.

I also don't know what you're on about on the second part.

Some fellow said that an i7 was getting a 3DMark score of 110,000, whereas the 8150 got 30,000. It's seemingly not well known that intel has bought of a bunch of benchmarking suites to generate 386/SSE1 code when an AMD CPU is detected. When an intel CPU is detected, the newest instruction set is used.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 10:30:49 AM

AMD does have optimization on GCC, which is a third party compiler. GCC also has optimized scripts for intel.

intel will not allow AMD optimization on their compile. most widely used compiler in windows is made by intel.

but its a ethical question regarding y someone making a living by claiming to be a fair benchmark tool developer would use optimization for for intel and not for amd.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 10:43:19 AM

Ethical question? Ethics and morals are thrown out the window when money is involved.

We ARE in a capitalist, consumer based society after all. By "We", I mean the majority of the west.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 10:54:09 AM

MajinCry said:
Ethical question? Ethics and morals are thrown out the window when money is involved.

We ARE in a capitalist, consumer based society after all. By "We", I mean the majority of the west.


money is a contributor . definitely.

but i would put more blame on us (ppl who buy new PC) ignorance/bliss/lack of knowledge. places like tomshardware/anandtech get sponsorship from intel because ppl visit them. if ppl did not, than intel would pay some other sites.

but now, if ppl know and choose to avoid the reviewers who donot use fair tools, than the reviewers will be forced to stop using stuff like cinibench. this will drop their sale and will loose sponsor ship from intel the following year. hence to save their skin, they would than also provide optimization for amd and via. this probably will not bring back intel sponsorship, but will definitely improve sales .

capitalism is only bad if you donot know how to use it from a consumer point of view.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 11:01:44 AM

Uh. Capitalism is bad because it allows the minority to hold more wealth, land and power than the majority. It also is based upon the shafting of other people for personal gain.

But that's not what this thread is about.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 3:15:50 PM

I bothered doing something simple.....i looked at benchmarks (NOT simulations, but REAL games...GASP!!) amd vs intel. Amd couldn't even beat the i3 in games. (OUCH). game NOT depended on the cpu, didn't make much difference (only a few had 20fps difference between cpu types, intel the faster one). So i went with the Intel i5 cpu.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 3:18:22 PM

i think no1 here thinks its special.
a b à CPUs
July 18, 2013 3:19:26 PM

computertech82 said:
I bothered doing something simple.....i looked at benchmarks (NOT simulations, but REAL games...GASP!!) amd vs intel. Amd couldn't even beat the i3 in games. (OUCH). game NOT depended on the cpu, didn't make much difference (only a few had 20fps difference between cpu types, intel the faster one). So i went with the Intel i5 cpu.


Read this.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 19, 2013 9:56:40 AM

hafijur said:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

holy moly, the centurion guzzles and still loses to any i5 sandy bridge onwards at games


What "games"? Skyrim? Civ5? hmm...the usual culprits? What about Crysis 3? Want to bet where it ends up there? Especially considering the 8350 already bests the 3570k in that one...
July 19, 2013 10:35:20 AM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

holy moly, the centurion guzzles and still loses to any i5 sandy bridge onwards at games


What "games"? Skyrim? Civ5? hmm...the usual culprits? What about Crysis 3? Want to bet where it ends up there? Especially considering the 8350 already bests the 3570k in that one...


Where is the Richland update in the FX-9590 you promised?
The FX-9590 is a overclocked FX-8350 nothing more and nothing less.

July 19, 2013 10:37:08 AM

hafijur said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

Only have to look at metro 2033 to know these intel cpus are being crippled somewhere. I don't know if logan is doing benchmarks miles off the norm to get attention or not but its quite funny. Alarm bells should ring for logan when the fps difference is large between a sandy bridge i7 3820 and i7 3770k lol. He probably benchmarked the minmum fps he saw at one moment for intel cpus and used them in his figures.

Logan's video is way off from linus's.
If anyone is interested in learning something check out this video from linus about the two cpu's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY
July 19, 2013 10:40:58 AM

3970k hands down! Efficiency and better IPC!
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 19, 2013 11:57:17 AM

hafijur said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

Only have to look at metro 2033 to know these intel cpus are being crippled somewhere. I don't know if logan is doing benchmarks miles off the norm to get attention or not but its quite funny. Alarm bells should ring for logan when the fps difference is large between a sandy bridge i7 3820 and i7 3770k lol. He probably benchmarked the minmum fps he saw at one moment for intel cpus and used them in his figures.


Trololololololol...

So when Intel wins...AMD was fine, but if AMD wins...the Intel CPUs must be "crippled" somehow? That sounds fanboy-ish if I've ever heard it.
a b à CPUs
July 19, 2013 1:38:17 PM

The 3930k has 6 cores and 12 threads, FX 9590 is just an overclocked FX 8350 with 4 modules and 8 threads. The FX 9590 is ridiculously over priced and doesn't have too much of a performance gain over the 8350. The FX 9590 also has the most ridiculous TDP I've ever seen.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 19, 2013 2:00:35 PM

jed said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

holy moly, the centurion guzzles and still loses to any i5 sandy bridge onwards at games


What "games"? Skyrim? Civ5? hmm...the usual culprits? What about Crysis 3? Want to bet where it ends up there? Especially considering the 8350 already bests the 3570k in that one...


Where is the Richland update in the FX-9590 you promised?
The FX-9590 is a overclocked FX-8350 nothing more and nothing less.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590...

Quote:
Today at E3 AMD announced their latest CPUs, the FX-9590 and FX-9370. Similar to what we’re seeing with Richland vs. Trinity, AMD is incrementing the series number to 9000 while sticking with the existing Piledriver Vishera architecture. These chips are the result of tuning and binning on GlobalFoundries’ 32nm SOI process, though the latest jump from the existing FX-8350 is nonetheless quite impressive.


http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-Releases-First...

Quote:
We received some further info about this chip. The TDP is up in the 220 watt region. It utilizes Turbo Core 3.0 to help achieve those speeds, so it seems that some of the work that went into Richland has made it into these latest FX processors. BIOS updates are probably a must. These chips will only be going to system integrators (SIs) and will be bundled with a liquid cooling system. We have no idea what the price will be since these will only be sold to SIs. Systems should be available after July 16.


There it is...Google is your friend...
!