Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I shell out for an intel processor, or upgrade to the FX-8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 22, 2012 11:38:37 PM

I'll try to keep this short. I've got a pc running an fx-4170 that I want to upgrade. I've got a radeon 7950 in it and I use the system primarily for gaming. I plan on xfiring somewhere down the line, but first I need a better processor. My question is, should I just get the FX-8350, or should I shell out for a new board and get an intel processor? I'm 16, and I don't pull in a lot from my job, so money is a big factor. If you suggest intel, which processor in the $200-$250 price range could I get the most bang for my buck?
a c 900 à CPUs
a c 154 å Intel
November 23, 2012 11:54:52 AM

If you go Intel then I5 3570K is the bbb but remember you need as well a $100+ motherboard.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 12:05:48 PM

The i5 3570K will give you about 20% extra FPS in 'some' but not all games.

In well threaded games like BF3 your not going to notice the difference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...


But, in light threaded games like World Of Warcraft the i5 has a clear lead over Piledriver, because 'while it only has half the cores of the FX-8' they are individually faster. So for a game that is only capable of using 2 cores the Intel i5 has the FX nailed.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 12:11:28 PM

IF you're preserving the money I'd say go for the 8350 or the 6300

If you go Intel you'l need a new mobo too which is just more money.

Unless you like spending money, because I don't. Therefore......AMD!
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
a c 154 å Intel
November 23, 2012 12:12:57 PM

I personally would go with the FX8350 in this case.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 12:34:58 PM

upgrading from 4170 to 8350 would result in barely any noticaeble increase in gaming performance. so you are just wasting your money. if you think that 8350 wont bottleneck two 7950 in Xfire you are wrong. all amd cpu's are bottlenecked by dual hi end graphic cards coz the limitation is in the AM3+ socket itself.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 12:55:02 PM

Thats the first i have heard that. links, proof?
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 2:46:26 PM

mohit9206 said:
... if you think that 8350 wont bottleneck two 7950 in Xfire you are wrong...


That is not a completely accurate argument. A 8350 will chew through anything well threaded, performing similar to Intel's 4 core CPUs. Take BF3 for example. There you can only see a 7950 creating bottleneck, not the CPU. Most games aren't well-threaded. It is game developers' duty to program their games this way, suitable to multi core/thread CPUs. AMD's defect is the poor single core performance. They tried to follow a "modern" route when designing their CPU but they forgot that programmers are too lazy to write multi thhreaded programs (or games in this case)
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 2:56:39 PM

That really depends on how much money you're willing to drop. :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 2:58:13 PM

Stick with you AMD for now and upgrade to an i5-3570k(if you can OC the CPU) or the i5-3450(if you dont OC the CPU).
The I5-3570k is very very good to OC but if you dont OC it will be a waste of money.
I understand money may be tight but buying an inferior CPU will just make you have to upgrade next year.With a good solid CPU like the I5-3570k(again,only if you plan to OC it) or the I5-3450 you will keep it for years before it needs a replacement.
Personnaly I'd wait for the money for an I5-3570k+mobo+a EVO212+ and turn it into a 4.0-4.2ghz monster.
To make my case,I am without a desktop for 2 months to save money for christmas deals and to get a system that will last for years.I could have bought a cheap short-term solution but those are simply money wasted.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 3:03:55 PM

technoholic said:
That is not a completely accurate argument. A 8350 will chew through anything well threaded, performing similar to Intel's 4 core CPUs. Take BF3 for example. There you can only see a 7950 creating bottleneck, not the CPU. Most games aren't well-threaded. It is game developers' duty to program their games this way, suitable to multi core/thread CPUs. AMD's defect is the poor single core performance. They tried to follow a "modern" route when designing their CPU but they forgot that programmers are too lazy to write multi thhreaded programs (or games in this case)


AMD is a poor CPU designer that seems to fail to read on gaming marketing.Of course Intel is better,they put only 4 cores but each core beats 2 AMD cores.Games are not going 4 cores that soon.

Yes,if the game can use more cores the AMD can near the Intel but how many games do that honestly?Are you going to buy something that is inferior in most gaming scenarios or go with a solution that matches every AMD and works very good in all games?
AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.

As for "its the game producers duty" bla bla(no offence) that is bull.If they are not making them use 4/8/12 core and 4/8/12 threads it is because the gaming data base is still filled with single and dual cores eventhough the 4 core games are around half of that by now.Problem is that GPUs are largely the most important hardware on the system as far as gaming goes.
When the time comes when a 4 core CPU is absolutely necessary to run a game they will make it optimized for that.As for what the CPUs role can be fulfillled with dual or even single core so naturally game producers won't spend time on money working on optimizing a game for something it doesnt need or that barely benefits from.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 3:09:44 PM

abundantcores said:



But, in light threaded games like World Of Warcraft the i5 has a clear lead over Piledriver, because 'while it only has half the cores of the FX-8' they are individually faster. So for a game that is only capable of using 2 cores the Intel i5 has the FX nailed.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...


While the Intels may have a lead, the 8350 is still maintaining well over 60fps. I know some people like to say they can tell the difference between 70 and 100fps, but I sure can't when my monitor is at 60hz anyway. Also at very high resolution, the intel drops farther than the AMD, making them equal (58 vs 60fps)

m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:10:59 PM

blacknemesist said:
AMD is a poor CPU designer that seems to fail to read on gaming marketing.Of course Intel is better,they put only 4 cores but each core beats 2 AMD cores.Games are not going 4 cores that soon.
Yes,if the game can use more cores the AMD can near the Intel but how many games do that honestly?Are you going to buy something that is inferior in most gaming scenarios or go with a solution that matches every AMD and works very good in all games?
AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.


You would argue that FX = 70 FPS vs Intel = 80 FPS is worth building a new rig for?
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:12:06 PM

blacknemesist said:
AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.

At the same time, games are very suitable for parallel work loads, aren't they?
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:17:06 PM

technoholic said:
At the same time, games are very suitable for parallel work loads, aren't they?


What like gaming while also converting an AVI file in to DVD, for example?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 3:18:41 PM

abundantcores said:
You would argue that FX = 70 FPS vs Intel = 80 FPS is worth building a new rig for?


You can't compare it will that...10 FPS where?And what about in 2 years when FX will be completely absolete and the I5 is still a good all around CPU?
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:20:32 PM

abundantcores said:
What like gaming while also converting an AVI file in to DVD, for example?


But let's not forget 8350's power consumption. IMO there is no arguing for it. I like and support AMD but Piledriver still doesn't deliver when you consider power consumption
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:25:55 PM

blacknemesist said:
As for "its the game producers duty" bla bla(no offence) that is bull.If they are not making them use 4/8/12 core and 4/8/12 threads it is because the gaming data base is still filled with single and dual cores eventhough the 4 core games are around half of that by now.Problem is that GPUs are largely the most important hardware on the system as far as gaming goes.
When the time comes when a 4 core CPU is absolutely necessary to run a game they will make it optimized for that.As for what the CPUs role can be fulfillled with dual or even single core so naturally game producers won't spend time on money working on optimizing a game for something it doesnt need or that barely benefits from.

So you claim that multi threading "barely" helps performance?
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:31:53 PM

blacknemesist said:
You can't compare it will that...10 FPS where?And what about in 2 years when FX will be completely absolete and the I5 is still a good all around CPU?


Here, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

well its 86 vs 110

And 91 vs 107 here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

And nothing here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

I don't see the point in buying a new Motherboard for gaining 15 / 20 FPS for some games when your already getting over 80 FPS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 3:33:20 PM

technoholic said:
So you claim that multi threading "barely" helps performance?


I am claming that gaming companies would rather keep up with GPUs and optimize games for them than going into the huge trouble of optimizing a game to support a number of Cores/threads that most people dont have.SO naturally they optimize for 2 cores/2 threads which is comon and less expensive to program for.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 3:41:21 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

You "forgot" this one.

And yes,it is worth it for the price difference.The AMD has a long way to go still.They use alot more power and generate alot more heat.Try OCing it to max then compare the performance to maxed OC i5 and you will see the gap widen.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 3:43:19 PM

blacknemesist said:
I am claming that gaming companies would rather keep up with GPUs and optimize games for them than going into the huge trouble of optimizing a game to support a number of Cores/threads that most people dont have.SO naturally they optimize for 2 cores/2 threads which is comon and less expensive to program for.


To me i would think better multithreading is an important step forward for developers given that games are becoming more complex.

And this is already happening, the Frost Bite 2 uses up to 8 cores for a reason, frankly those who don't move with the times are simply going to be left behind.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 4:08:14 PM

abundantcores said:
To me i would think better multithreading is an important step forward for developers given that games are becoming more complex.

And this is already happening, the Frost Bite 2 uses up to 8 cores for a reason, frankly those who don't move with the times are simply going to be left behind.


I agree.Game producers don't.Until the vast majority of the games is using 4+ cores you are simply preparing for something that isnt going to work as you think it will.Most games wont benefit from 8 cores using the AMD architecture as they do with the Intel 2/4 core architecture.Proof of that are the benchmarks above.
I don't see 8 cores in games as the minimum in the near future,maybe in 5 years they will but for now 4 intel cores is a better choice than amd 8 cores.
As I said,until it proves worthwhile making a powerful 8 core CPU dependant game,game producers will stick with making them run on the most used CPU and right now those are dual core and quad cores.8 cores are in a very small number in that pool.
Just because the Frost Bite engine can use up to 8 cores it doesnt mean that the 8 cores vs 4 cores will be significant enough because games are not using all of them because that makes a make longer and more expensive to produce and only a few % of people will have that benefit so it is time and money wasted by gaming companies.
If you have the money and want to game and process audio and video at the same time,go for a 8 core or 12 core otherwise 4 cores will be enough.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 4:08:40 PM

blacknemesist get your facts together mate. No offense but at 1 side you claim that CPU arthitecture doesn't make much of a difference, at another side you say that an intel is better than AMD and keep suggesting xxx cpu over another
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 4:15:21 PM

CPU architecture is everything.The point is that the benefit on gaming is not nearly as important as a good GPU.Bottlenecking comes to mind.

And I never said CPU architecture is irrelevant,I studied computer cience and learned a bit on how it is important.What I said is that a CPU must be powerful enough not to bottleneck the GPU and help keep up and boost the FPS.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 4:19:52 PM

blacknemesist said:
CPU architecture is everything.The point is that the benefit on gaming is not nearly as important as a good GPU.Bottlenecking comes to mind.

And I never said CPU architecture is irrelevant,I studied computer cience and learned a bit on how it is important.What I said is that a CPU must be powerful enough not to bottleneck the GPU and help keep up and boost the FPS.

If GPU is the defining factor (like you mentioned earlier) why do people need to pay 100$+ for a 3570k? I can as well use a 100$ CPU and put the extra money on a better GPU? Then what is the point in suggesting a 3570k over a FX-4300?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 4:23:03 PM

The FX-4300 will bottleneck the 7950.The i5-3570k or i5-3450 wont.Just search the forums and you will find alot of threads on it.It is either OCing the FX-4300 or getting a new CPU.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 4:28:28 PM

blacknemesist said:
I agree.Game producers don't.Until the vast majority of the games is using 4+ cores you are simply preparing for something that isnt going to work as you think it will.Most games wont benefit from 8 cores using the AMD architecture as they do with the Intel 2/4 core architecture.Proof of that are the benchmarks above.
I don't see 8 cores in games as the minimum in the near future,maybe in 5 years they will but for now 4 intel cores is a better choice than amd 8 cores.
As I said,until it proves worthwhile making a powerful 8 core CPU dependant game,game producers will stick with making them run on the most used CPU and right now those are dual core and quad cores.8 cores are in a very small number in that pool.
Just because the Frost Bite engine can use up to 8 cores it doesnt mean that the 8 cores vs 4 cores will be significant enough because games are not using all of them because that makes a make longer and more expensive to produce and only a few % of people will have that benefit so it is time and money wasted by gaming companies.
If you have the money and want to game and process audio and video at the same time,go for a 8 core or 12 core otherwise 4 cores will be enough.



See it for your self.

Phenom II @ 1.2Ghz / Gigabyte 7870 @ 1200 / 1500

2 cores @ 1.2Ghz



GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31.

As you can see the CPU is completely pegged and the GPU is only just working at a quarter, FPS are also very low.

4 Cores @ 1.2Ghz



GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47.

With the extra two cores at the same speed the GPU usage has increased dramatically, as have the FPS while the CPU has tailed off slightly. But the GPU is still bottle-necked.



Now with 6 cores, again at the same speed, the GPU usage is almost maxed, the FPS have also increased again; now at a nice 70 FPS, the CPU is now at a reasonably comfortable level.

That's 6 Phenom II cores at 1.2Ghz running a 7870 overclocked to stock 7950 GE performance levels.

A lot of head room there even with just 6 cores.

CPU core performance is not going to increase much over the next few years, GPU's will, to keep up with that your going to need more cores, that means more threads in the software.



m
0
l
November 23, 2012 4:39:02 PM

blacknemesist said:
The FX-4300 will bottleneck the 7950.The i5-3570k or i5-3450 wont.Just search the forums and you will find alot of threads on it.It is either OCing the FX-4300 or getting a new CPU.

Yes i know it. So, we agree that CPUs DO MAKE a difference in games. What i was saying (you called bla bla earlier) was that multi threading helps games GREATLY. This is about CPUs, especially relevant to AMD's CPUs. It matters A LOT. I was criticizing that game companies don't optimize their games for better threading. That way, we would all get extra performance from our hardware, almost for free. And i think, sooner or later all game developers will be optimizing their software this way. So, at the end, what i was saying is true. AMD CPUs will make MORE sense and they will be more competitive in the NEAR future. I don't agree you that game companies won't do that soon.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 4:42:32 PM

abundantcores said:
See it for your self.

Phenom II @ 1.2Ghz / Gigabyte 7870 @ 1200 / 1500

2 cores @ 1.2Ghz

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/Hunbug76/Benching/1.png

GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31.

As you can see the CPU is completely pegged and the GPU is only just working at a quarter, FPS are also very low.

4 Cores @ 1.2Ghz

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/Hunbug76/Benching/2.png

GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47.

With the extra two cores at the same speed the GPU usage has increased dramatically, as have the FPS while the CPU has tailed off slightly. But the GPU is still bottle-necked.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/Hunbug76/Benching/3.png

Now with 6 cores, again at the same speed, the GPU usage is almost maxed, the FPS have also increased again; now at a nice 70 FPS, the CPU is now at a reasonably comfortable level.

That's 6 Phenom II cores at 1.2Ghz running a 7870 overclocked to stock 7950 GE performance levels.

A lot of head room there even with just 6 cores.

CPU core performance is not going to increase much over the next few years, GPU's will, to keep up with that your going to need more cores, that means more threads in the software.

+500
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:01:51 PM

The bla bla part was to save alot of texting,you got what i was refering to. ;) 

Gaming companies will start support more core/threads because they have to as in order to provide better graphics they need better GPUs and better GPUs need a good CPU behind them so indirectly they will change.But I doubt it is as soon as you think.We already reach a point where a well designed game is extremely realistic and can run in a mid-high system.The jump could be on the optimization of GPUs part to run faster with a different approach to how processes are handle,much like a console does.

Time will tell but the current line of AMD CPUs is very lacking,they provide high stock clocks and more cores and still fail to match intel.
Maybe the next gen of AMD CPUs will fix this problem.

abundantcores I understand what you did there and the point you made but it is not a fair comparison.For starters the game is using 6 cores which is not comon to all games and second the 7870 even OC cant be compared directly to a 7950.The structural diferences are huge and the 7870 is 256bit 158gb/s memory while the 7950 is 384bit 240gb/s memory.

With a native 7950 your cpu would choke even if OC over that.

To the point a FX-4300 will bottleneck a 7950.God,a 7950 can run anything without breaking a sweet.
Further more the test you made didn't cover cpu calculations like a shoot out during bf3 with bullet ricocheting everywhere.That tax the CPU alot.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:02:00 PM

blacknemesist said:
You can't compare it will that...10 FPS where?And what about in 2 years when FX will be completely absolete and the I5 is still a good all around CPU?



You might just as easily argue that in 2 years quad cores will be irrelevant. We don't know what kind of code is going to be cranked out. What is likely to happen is that most games will become more and more multi-core aware and utilize DX11 where the AMDs do very well.


And funny the environmental talk of power consumption, but by all means lets fill the landfill with perfectly fine and functionalhardware.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:06:35 PM

Oh well I kind of tire of this.It is not my money on the line.
Lets all ignore every review out there that leaves the AMD wanting and Intel as the top dog ;) 
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 5:07:22 PM

twelve25 said:
And funny the environmental talk of power consumption, but by all means lets fill the landfill with perfectly fine and functionalhardware.

Umm that was more about the "pocket" side :D  :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:09:15 PM

I tire of people not understanding that there is a difference between a fast and functional solution and the highest benchmarked solution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:15:33 PM

twelve25 said:
I tire of people not understanding that there is a difference between a fast and functional solution and the highest benchmarked solution.


You left out bad investment :D  Lets all upgrade parts one little performance at a time :sol: 
Anyways,I am out.Good luck OP.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 5:15:55 PM

IMO as long as a CPU can provide "smooth" experience, there is no need to pay for a "higher" performing one. Sometimes i even wonder why a home user pays so much for a high-end CPU costing 500$+. Oh well, there is the "power consumption" side too
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 5:18:50 PM

Depends on how long you plan to keep your system going.Since the OP is 16 he wont be able to upgrade much so the best solution is the bang for the buck.
Some users would be better off with a X360 or PS3.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2012 6:47:35 PM

The Intel AMD debate here has become irrevelant, due to the fact: OP has a tight budget, which automatically narrows this down to the 8 core AMD being cheaper, saving him the money and hassle of purchasing a new mobo and meeting his performance requirements.

I see no debate. AMD it is
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 7:05:35 PM

BuddiLuva said:
The Intel AMD debate here has become irrevelant, due to the fact: OP has a tight budget, which automatically narrows this down to the 8 core AMD being cheaper, saving him the money and hassle of purchasing a new mobo and meeting his performance requirements.

I see no debate. AMD it is


Agreed. There's no good reason for him to switch platforms.

If this were a brand new build, then the debate could continue (and I personally would recommend the 3570K), but not as it stands. Nothing left to debate. The 8350 is the only thing that makes sense here.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 8:36:52 PM

2696498,32,1437817 said:


Time will tell but the current line of AMD CPUs is very lacking,they provide high stock clocks and more cores and still fail to match intel.
Maybe the next gen of AMD CPUs will fix this problem.

abundantcores I understand what you did there and the point you made but it is not a fair comparison.For starters the game is using 6 cores which is not comon to all games and second the 7870 even OC cant be compared directly to a 7950.The structural diferences are huge and the 7870 is 256bit 158gb/s memory while the 7950 is 384bit 240gb/s memory.

With a native 7950 your cpu would choke even if OC over that.


That just prove you have a serius lack of understanding.

1,
Quote:
Time will tell but the current line of AMD CPUs is very lacking,they provide high stock clocks and more cores and still fail to match intel.


Even with multithreaded games matching the 3570K in benchmarks and beating the 3570K in productivity apps you blatantly make that statement, its pretty clear the FX-8350 is FASTER than the 3570K, and you saying otherwise does not make the benchmarks made here go away.

2,
Quote:
abundantcores I understand what you did there and the point you made but it is not a fair comparison.For starters the game is using 6 cores which is not comon to all games and second the 7870 even OC cant be compared directly to a 7950.


Its not fair because it proved my point? you said it would make little difference to a game when its running more cores, i just proved to you that a 6 core Phenom II running at 30% of stock clock-speed is enough to run a properly threaded game like BF3 at 70 FPS and on Ultra preset 1080P no less.

3,
Quote:
The structural diferences are huge and the 7870 is 256bit 158gb/s memory while the 7950 is 384bit 240gb/s memory.


This is where your understanding really falls down. every noob GPU overclocker knows memory bandwidth has little effect @ 1080P, and 35% more shader cores does not translate in to 35% higher performance, the actual performance difference between the 7950 and 7870 out of the box is about 10% because the 7950 is lower clocked, at the same clock the 7950 is 20 to 25% (at best) faster.
At the clocks i benched the 7870 at its 15 to 20% faster making it faster than a stock 7950, its actually knocking on for a 7970. now ask anyone who knows anything about overclocking GPU's about that.

The simple fact is this, with all 8 cores running the FX-8350 faster than the 3570K; with all of its 4 cores running.

Here is another thing, i have seen plenty of instances on forums where high end GPU CF / SLI are bettlenecked by overclocked i5 CPU's, there are no benchmark that i can see which tests this so take that with a pinch of salt.

Either way GPU's are going to start outpacing the 4 core 4 thread i5 CPUs pretty soon, (A 7970 GE matches the last generation dual GPU 6990, that is how fast they are moving, and 20nm is coming in 2014) game developers know this so they are going to have to start moving up a gear, the FrostBite 2 engine is just the first, it is not the last.
Yes i do think the 3570K will faulter BF3 before the FX-8350.

Add to that Steamroller will probably get quite close to the IPC of Ivy Bridge and be available on the same AM3+ socket, what you will have then is something that closely resembles an 8 core Ivy Bridge. or it might be a complete disaster.

Rebuilding his rig to accommodate Intel for 85 FPS instead of 70 FPS in a few game that only use 2 cores, is in itself daft.
But to do it now when there is a good chance he can upgrade to Steamroller with his existing Motherboard as opposed to having to get a new one (again) for Intel's next chip is daft again.

He can do it once if he decides he wants Haswell instead of having to do it twice when the chip he could have now on his existing Motherboard is just as good as the Intel your pushing.

When digging through all your blanket statements what your saying is "spend £150 extra to get the 3570K because it will give you 15 FPS you don't need and wont notice in a couple of games that i don't even know you would ever play"




m
0
l
November 23, 2012 9:03:45 PM

hafijur said:
I like how people say amd is cheaper. Question is how long exadon will plan on using his computer for in terms of average hours per week and how long he wants to use his investment of his new pc for his entertainment.

If he games for 4 years on this pc same gpu but difference is with amd cpu similar performance to intel cpu. He will be using like 80w more just to get same performance as an intel cpu and when ocing it will increase to like 160w as amd don't overclock well with power consumption figures.

So this could cost him like £50 vs an intel cpu over 4 years just to run an amd cpu over an intel cpu. To be honest the cheapest i5 quad core with ivy bridge will be much more efficient once oc to get fx8350 performance and beat it at less than half the power.


Your logic is valid though not completely true. I also criticize PD's power consumption a lot but every one of us knows that nobody will use the same CPU/GPU for 4 years for the fact that it won't be a "gaming" rig any more. It will be a pocket calculator :)  Be it an ivy or PD. Also nobody can claim that AMD won't unleash an energy efficient CPU in 1-2 years for the same socket/platform. At last, they must learn from their mistakes and produce better parts otherwise they are going bad :) 

And @ abundantcores: Even i didn't guess that much of a performance jump from a multi-core CPU in that game. And you have a lot of valid points there. Your comments and screens really prove the importance of multi threading in a game
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 9:07:59 PM

abundantcores said:
The simple fact is this, with all 8 cores running the FX-8350 faster than the 3570K; with all of its 4 cores running.


Now that's a blanket statement. A ludicrous one, actually.

Is it faster in apps that can make use of more than 4 cores? Yes (it gets the work done faster, anyway). Is it faster in general? Absolutely not (and I think you know better. I hope you do).

The only reason a FX 8xxx can match an i5 in some games is because the game (BF3, for example, even though it can make use of the extra cores) is GPU heavy, and therefore, everything is equal.

Be careful how you word things...

Also, there's no chance that an OC'd i5 gets outpaced by a single high end GPU anytime soon. SLI 690's are bottlenecked slightly by a Sandy or Ivy i5 at stock, but that's about it.

If that were the case, everybody is screwed because no FX CPU could keep up, either (I don't care about the extra "cores", raw speed is what will matter for at least a few more years (3-4) in gaming). By the time a current FX 8xxx means something in all games, it'll be too old and too far behind to really realize its potential.

Edit: And your name says it all. You're one of "those" guys that seems to truly believe that more cores will always and forever = better. Eventually, maybe, but not in time for a current 8xxx to matter. That point is pretty much moot.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 9:55:39 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Now that's a blanket statement. A ludicrous one, actually.

Is it faster in apps that can make use of more than 4 cores? Yes (it gets the work done faster, anyway). Is it faster in general? Absolutely not (and I think you know better. I hope you do).

The only reason a FX 8xxx can match an i5 in some games is because the game (BF3, for example, even though it can make use of the extra cores) is GPU heavy, and therefore, everything is equal.

Be careful how you word things...

Also, there's no chance that an OC'd i5 gets outpaced by a single high end GPU anytime soon. SLI 690's are bottlenecked slightly by a Sandy or Ivy i5 at stock, but that's about it.

If that were the case, everybody is screwed because no FX CPU could keep up, either (I don't care about the extra "cores", raw speed is what will matter for at least a few more years (3-4) in gaming). By the time a current FX 8xxx means something in all games, it'll be too old and too far behind to really realize its potential.

Edit: And your name says it all. You're one of "those" guys that seems to truly believe that more cores will always and forever = better. Eventually, maybe, but not in time for a current 8xxx to matter. That point is pretty much moot.



Well, the fact that you do get faster productivity for less money but more cores means there is something to be said for more cores. it proves high threading is making its mark, about 10 years later than AMD wrongly predicted :lol:  but it is happening.

And i do honestly believe the next 20nm 'single' GPU's will match that GTX 690 of yours, i also think Intel have reached the limit of what can be done with IPC, its not changed much since Nehalem and i think i'm right in saying Haswell is said to be another SB to IB IPC upgrade, in otherwords practically nothing.

SLI a pair of GTX 690's or 880's? in 2014 and the 3570K will have a problem in BF3.
Time then for an Intel 6 core, or the 8 core Steamroller.
m
0
l
a c 900 à CPUs
a c 154 å Intel
November 23, 2012 9:59:16 PM

I think that you guy's should stop arguing until OP has had a chance to analyze and comment on the answers he got so far.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 10:01:27 PM

abundantcores said:
i think i'm right in saying Haswell is said to be another SB to IB IPC upgrade, in otherwords practically nothing.


I actually agree with that. Haswell won't be anything special (basically just much better power efficiency than even Ivy, but not much faster). Broadwell, on the other hand... I expect Broadwell to be the next "killer" CPU from Intel that will possibly put AMD in the back of the bus (or even outside it) again.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 10:05:07 PM

rolli59 said:
I think that you guy's should stop arguing until OP has had a chance to analyze and comment on the answers he got so far.


I agree, but I don't think there's really anymore discussion that can be done, on that front. The only thing that makes much sense for the OP is a 8350.
m
0
l
November 23, 2012 10:06:39 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I actually agree with that. Haswell won't be anything special (basically just much better power efficiency than even Ivy, but not much faster). Broadwell, on the other hand... I expect Broadwell to be the next "killer" CPU from Intel that will possibly put AMD in the back of the bus (or even outside it) again.


Broadwell, is that the 14nm chip?

It will be interesting to see transistor spacing that small, i think Intel's foreseeable road map goes as low as 5nm, that's just insane lol
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 23, 2012 10:08:49 PM

Yeah, Broadwell will be a 14nm chip and I agree, it's mind boggling to think of transistor spacing that small.
m
0
l
!