Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Thoughts on these results ?!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2013 3:18:49 PM

Just like the guy on the video, i too cant even believe what i am seeing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE ) Is Intel really just a marketing scheme ?! I cant even come to think about all the reviews i've read about Intel being a clear choice when it comes to gaming !

More about : thoughts results

a c 210 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 3:30:51 PM

KevinG4 said:
I cant even believe what i am seeing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE ) Is Intel really just a marketing scheme ?! I cant even come to think about all the reviews i've read about Intel being a clear choice when it comes to gaming !


Without even seeing the video I can answer that...

Yes, you've seen through the veil and all the smoke and mirrors. Intel is a massive propaganda machine. That's why there are many users going AMD these days. The difference isn't nearly as large as some would have you believe, and *gasp* AMD even wins sometimes.

Haswell, for example, has earned the nickname "hasfail" as it's literally a marginal move forward, and almost a lateral move from Ivy Bridge in all reality. The real world gains average around 3% performance improvement. Plus, all the features users seek on the more expensive Z87 boards can be had on a 970 or 990 chipset AMD board for less money.

My M5A97 R2.0 (mid range 970 board) was $90 and has 6 SATA3 ports 4 USB 3.0 (Header + 2 rear) and 8 USB 2.0 ports. Additionally, I can overclock my FX 8350 on my 970 series MB, to do that with Intel you have to go to the expensive Z77/Z87 boards.

There isn't really anything that Intel is that great at that you can't do it within a few seconds performance wise for far cheaper with an AMD setup. Additionally, the AMD quality control has always been a notch or 2 above Intel in my mind. Seen far more Intel chips die, and far more DOA CPUs from Intel (come to think of it, I haven't personally seen a DOA AMD CPU, ever...).

So, welcome back to reality...where Intel spits out more propaganda year in and year out, trying to bury the arguably better company. Even though they have less market share...it's just because they don't have the massive advertising budget Intel does, and the bias is carried over to uninformed people making poor recommendations.

Additionally, Intel has bribed OEMs in the past to prevent AMD from gaining a stronger foothold in the public sector via pre-built PCs. Typically, you have to go to a semi-custom type company to get any type of performance oriented AMD CPU. Though you can get an i7 in nearly any Dell or HP machine out there, you have to look hard to find a FX anything, and even then you don't typically see the 8 core stuff at all, and few of the 6 core models.

It's been a scam for 20 years, and it won't change anytime soon. Look at the Intel AnTuTu scandal that was recently exposed for more evidence. Intel only hoodwinks the consumer. At least you've realized what they are doing to us all. Now you can spread the truth to your friends and colleagues and help the world realize what a disservice that Intel has been to the consumer.
m
0
l
August 25, 2013 4:02:53 PM

8350rocks said:
KevinG4 said:
I cant even believe what i am seeing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE ) Is Intel really just a marketing scheme ?! I cant even come to think about all the reviews i've read about Intel being a clear choice when it comes to gaming !


Without even seeing the video I can answer that...

Yes, you've seen through the veil and all the smoke and mirrors. Intel is a massive propaganda machine. That's why there are many users going AMD these days. The difference isn't nearly as large as some would have you believe, and *gasp* AMD even wins sometimes.

Haswell, for example, has earned the nickname "hasfail" as it's literally a marginal move forward, and almost a lateral move from Ivy Bridge in all reality. The real world gains average around 3% performance improvement. Plus, all the features users seek on the more expensive Z87 boards can be had on a 970 or 990 chipset AMD board for less money.

My M5A97 R2.0 (mid range 970 board) was $90 and has 6 SATA3 ports 4 USB 3.0 (Header + 2 rear) and 8 USB 2.0 ports. Additionally, I can overclock my FX 8350 on my 970 series MB, to do that with Intel you have to go to the expensive Z77/Z87 boards.

There isn't really anything that Intel is that great at that you can't do it within a few seconds performance wise for far cheaper with an AMD setup. Additionally, the AMD quality control has always been a notch or 2 above Intel in my mind. Seen far more Intel chips die, and far more DOA CPUs from Intel (come to think of it, I haven't personally seen a DOA AMD CPU, ever...).

So, welcome back to reality...where Intel spits out more propaganda year in and year out, trying to bury the arguably better company. Even though they have less market share...it's just because they don't have the massive advertising budget Intel does, and the bias is carried over to uninformed people making poor recommendations.

Additionally, Intel has bribed OEMs in the past to prevent AMD from gaining a stronger foothold in the public sector via pre-built PCs. Typically, you have to go to a semi-custom type company to get any type of performance oriented AMD CPU. Though you can get an i7 in nearly any Dell or HP machine out there, you have to look hard to find a FX anything, and even then you don't typically see the 8 core stuff at all, and few of the 6 core models.

It's been a scam for 20 years, and it won't change anytime soon. Look at the Intel AnTuTu scandal that was recently exposed for more evidence. Intel only hoodwinks the consumer. At least you've realized what they are doing to us all. Now you can spread the truth to your friends and colleagues and help the world realize what a disservice that Intel has been to the consumer.


I want to ask you a few questions because i am making a build that it looks a lot like yours .
1st of all . Will an FX-8320 overclocked have the same results just like in the video against the intel counterparts , because i am on a budget build and those 30 dollars i will save from the 8350 will go to an aftermarket cooler (Hyper EVO 212). I also heard that FX-8320 overclocked is like a 8350
Secondly because i am getting the same mobo , i am wondering how did you manage to have the ram run at 2400mhz , can it really support that high frequencies ?
And lastly i want to know your opinion about the G.Skill series like ripjawsx and sniper because i am torn between G.Skill Ripjawsx , Sniper and Corsair Vengeance .

m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2013 4:20:27 PM

Not to take anything away from the Asus M5A97 R2.0 as it is a great quality mid range 970 board that offers a ton of features for the money. Unfortunately this board has only a 4+2 Phase Power system which doesn't really make it "ideal" selection for overclocking one of the big 8 cores. Luckily it has a good quality 4+2 Phase power system so you will at least be able to get something out of it but you will probably no reach your maximum potential due to VRM temperatures and thermal throttling. I would suggest at least a 6+2 with digital VRM's or preferably an 8+2 digital VRM just to make sure you don't run into any power delivery issues if you end up with a power thirsty chip.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 4:39:41 PM

If I was going to build another, I would likely do the M5A99X EVO R2.0 with better VRMs.

However, to answer your questions:

1.) The 8320 will do just fine and will hit 4.0 GHz easily, it will also reach 4.4 GHz pretty typically on a 990 chipset MB with more VRMs.

2.) The MB doesn't support it officially...only 2133 MHz in an overclocked state, and actually that's what my 2400 MHz RAM would be running at were it not for the fact that I OC'ed through the base clock.

By OC'ing using the base clock, I also overclocked the NorthBridge on the MB, and that, in turn, also OCs the bandwidth on the RAM, so my RAM is stock 2400 MHz, though it runs there about 2400 MHz in an overclocked state because I overclocked baseclock in the BIOS and the NB as well by doing so.

Also, this is of little import to you, though it will increase performance. It also overclocks your HT bus on the MB increasing internal data transfer on the MB itself.

My baseclock is 220 and my multiplier is set to 20 (stock multiplier setting)
m
0
l
a c 228 å Intel
a c 535 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 4:41:15 PM

Let's face it, they are both propaganda machines...look at AMD with BullDozer and PileDriver and the hoopla about the FX CPUs having a native 1866 MC (memory controller) if so why can't most of the FX CPUs run 1866 -most of the 81/8320s and 50s can ...so how bout the 4xxx and 6xxx......or how bout AMDs own documentation, indicating it's a 1333 based MC (AMD BIOS and Kernel Programming Guide).....or early documentation showing these same CPUs with a lower base clock and say the 8350 that was originally planned for about 3.5 arriving at 4.0...Will admit AMD was fairly careful about they themselves not 'claiming' 'native' 1866, what they did was feed it to reviewers and the media it would run 1866 out of the box (and with the pre OC on it it did - they even tested with 2x4GB 1866 sticks - but then it all came back on them, people were loading up the BUlldozers w/ 16GB of DRAM in 4x4GB and problems out the yazoo...they finally published their freq guide showing if you really want to run 4 sticks then realistically you are looking at 1333 maybe 1600....and for a while even listed the CPUs as 'native' 1333 on their site, but that was pulled by the mastermind that started the native 1866 fiction, and was changed to state they can 'RUN UP TO 1866 AT 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL'
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 4:49:13 PM

Tradesman1 said:
Let's face it, they are both propaganda machines...look at AMD with BullDozer and PileDriver and the hoopla about the FX CPUs having a native 1866 MC (memory controller) if so why can't most of the FX CPUs run 1866 -most of the 81/8320s and 50s can ...so how bout the 4xxx and 6xxx......or how bout AMDs own documentation, indicating it's a 1333 based MC (AMD BIOS and Kernel Programming Guide).....or early documentation showing these same CPUs with a lower base clock and say the 8350 that was originally planned for about 3.5 arriving at 4.0...Will admit AMD was fairly careful about they themselves not 'claiming' 'native' 1866, what they did was feed it to reviewers and the media it would run 1866 out of the box (and with the pre OC on it it did - they even tested with 2x4GB 1866 sticks - but then it all came back on them, people were loading up the BUlldozers w/ 16GB of DRAM in 4x4GB and problems out the yazoo...they finally published their freq guide showing if you really want to run 4 sticks then realistically you are looking at 1333 maybe 1600....and for a while even listed the CPUs as 'native' 1333 on their site, but that was pulled by the mastermind that started the native 1866 fiction, and was changed to state they can 'RUN UP TO 1866 AT 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL'


Actually, buddy, I think I have solved your dilemma.

Since you overclock many of your machines. If you overclock AMD CPUs via baseclock, which also overclocks the HT bus and the NB on the MB. You can get RAM to run @ 1866 MHz on all 4 DIMMs if you overclock far enough. Haven't worked out what the BCLK and NB need to be at to get 1866 MHz specifically...but my RAM is running in an overclocked state, and you could likely get it to run a bit higher if I was on a board I could OC further with.

On a 990FX chipset, I could likely hit close to 2133 MHz on 4 DIMMs. Though I don't have the tools to test it.

My timings are 11-12-30 IIRC...would have to check BIOS though.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
August 25, 2013 5:06:31 PM

Tradesman1 said:
Let's face it, they are both propaganda machines...look at AMD with BullDozer and PileDriver and the hoopla about the FX CPUs having a native 1866 MC (memory controller) if so why can't most of the FX CPUs run 1866 -most of the 81/8320s and 50s can ...so how bout the 4xxx and 6xxx......or how bout AMDs own documentation, indicating it's a 1333 based MC (AMD BIOS and Kernel Programming Guide).....or early documentation showing these same CPUs with a lower base clock and say the 8350 that was originally planned for about 3.5 arriving at 4.0...Will admit AMD was fairly careful about they themselves not 'claiming' 'native' 1866, what they did was feed it to reviewers and the media it would run 1866 out of the box (and with the pre OC on it it did - they even tested with 2x4GB 1866 sticks - but then it all came back on them, people were loading up the BUlldozers w/ 16GB of DRAM in 4x4GB and problems out the yazoo...they finally published their freq guide showing if you really want to run 4 sticks then realistically you are looking at 1333 maybe 1600....and for a while even listed the CPUs as 'native' 1333 on their site, but that was pulled by the mastermind that started the native 1866 fiction, and was changed to state they can 'RUN UP TO 1866 AT 1 DIMM PER CHANNEL'


I fully agree they are both guilty in their own right I just think maybe intel is guilty on a few more counts simply because their marketing department has more money to play with and well money always leads to corruption. A little pay off here and a little bribe there and what do ya know you can't hardly even find an FX in the pre built sector even though they are considerably cheaper and as far as 99%percent of the general public is concerned look to have better specs on paper (selling point) But all the same the pre built market is ruled by intel for one reason or another...

PS: I don't feel that AMD or any other competitive company would be any different given equal funds and power.Right or wrong truth or lie, at the end of the day it's all about making money and burying the other guy
Share
a c 228 å Intel
a c 535 à CPUs
August 25, 2013 5:07:52 PM

Oh I agree if you OC it further, my point was with them claiming it as 'native' there should be no need to OC anything to run four sticks at 1866, a low end Intel runs 4 with no problem at advertised native freq
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2013 11:31:10 PM

How many times will that video circle around, lol.

Video reviews are pure garbage, but they did make a good point if you're going to stream while gaming it can help to have more cores.

They were testing with a 7870 with video settings maxed including 4xAA so the GPU was the bottleneck not the CPU. Charts tend to be fairly flat when the GPU is the bottleneck.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2013 6:13:47 AM

I'm just glad to see both companies at eachothers throats. Means cheaper products for me!
m
0
l
!