Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel I7 3770 vs. 8350 Vishera for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 14, 2013 2:31:18 AM

I'm trying to find out which is a better processor for gaming. I have two monitors so most times I'd have quite a few things open at once. Which one has a better performance?
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 2:37:39 AM

fx 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 3:14:48 AM

i7 3770
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 5:06:07 AM

FX 8350 for one reason.

The i7 represents bad value to performance in gaming terms, not discernably faster and costs around $150 more plus the setup costs. For gaming the FX 8350 costs less and delivers comparible performance to a 3570K at the same price point. If I were you id look at a i5 3570 or 3550 or the like or a FX 8350/8320
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 1:11:07 PM

He asked which CPU will give better performance.
And the answer is the Core i7.
There shouldn't really be a discussion about it the Core i7 will be faster 95% of the time.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 1:13:22 PM

It will but it will cost twice as much and deliver similar gaming performance to a i5/FX.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 1:16:23 PM

sarinaide said:
It will but it will cost twice as much and deliver similar gaming performance to a i5/FX.


Not really.

If we look at the benchmarks the i7 is the superior CPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

i5-3570k has the best value though, with almost the same price as the FX 8350.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 14, 2013 1:17:14 PM

Yeah, strictly speaking the i7 has better performance. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the better purchase - certainly not the best.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 1:31:57 PM

In many gaming synthetics those that are CPU orientated highlight the generation gap between AMD and Intel which is true but in pure numbers and notably GPU limited titles the AMD systems are pushing similar FPS to intels $1100 parts, it dispels the myth that AMD bottlenecks GPU's but more importantly in CPU orientation AMD will be slower but how that matters in actual real FPS not what these reviewers use corrolates somewhere between 5-10FPS tops between a i7 and a FX/i5 varying.

It has been done to death by every PC magazine the i7 for gaming represents the worst value/performance and I am tired of going through the same retort.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 1:45:22 PM

sarinaide said:
In many gaming synthetics those that are CPU orientated highlight the generation gap between AMD and Intel which is true but in pure numbers and notably GPU limited titles the AMD systems are pushing similar FPS to intels $1100 parts, it dispels the myth that AMD bottlenecks GPU's but more importantly in CPU orientation AMD will be slower but how that matters in actual real FPS not what these reviewers use corrolates somewhere between 5-10FPS tops between a i7 and a FX/i5 varying.

It has been done to death by every PC magazine the i7 for gaming represents the worst value/performance and I am tired of going through the same retort.


The OP asks which one is better, not which one has the best value. FX 8350 has bad value too compared to equally priced Intel offers.

m
0
l
a c 479 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a c 196 C Monitor
January 14, 2013 4:02:39 PM

The reason to buy a Core i7-3770k is for the Hyper Threading technology (HT or HTT). Since games do not use HT there is no real reason to by an i7-3770k unless you use other programs that can make use of HT.

So...

According Newegg... the FX-8350 is currently selling for $200 while the Core i5-3570k is selling for $230.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Between the two I would choose the i5-3570k. It offers better performance and consumes less power than the FX-8350. About 80w on a full load, around ~40w to ~50w less on a moderate load.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 4:26:42 PM

HT is hyper-transport, AMD uses it for the system bus, also knows as HT link.

As far as the op's question, the I7 is faster, thats why its $150 more.

is it $150 faster? .. no.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 4:36:17 PM

For a gaming machine? The i5-3570k. For a work machine that games? The i7-3770k.
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 4:43:48 PM



the i7 was getting bottlenecked, as were the i5 and i3. the fx, however, was bottlenecked. more so then an i3.

OP, get an i3...
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 5:49:14 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
Well, if we look at several benchmarks it's a different story.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...


>i3 not in ONE of these
>amd geting there a$$ kicked by a crap ton in exactly 5 of the 6 (the 5 that were obvious below)







sooo... whom has the messed up set of data here?


P.S. this is the only one that amd is not geting its arse kicked by over 20 fps.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 5:51:01 PM

masterman467 said:
>i3 not in half of these
>amd geting there a$$ kicked by a crap ton in exactly 5 of the 6 (the 5 that were obvious below)

P.S. this is the only one that amd is not geting its arse kicked by over 20 fps.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51124.png

ya, instead the I3 is getting its ass kicked, way to prove your point.
m
0
l
January 14, 2013 5:53:46 PM

noob2222 said:
ya, instead the I3 is getting its ass kicked, way to prove your point.

you provided ONE sorce, just as i have. this is the only one of the benchmarks that had an i3 in it.


it depends on the tester, honestly. even in the same games they do difrent things.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 6:03:43 PM





And some non-image ownage of the I3. http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314/10/amd-fx-8350--83...


try 9.

Where is the I3 in all of this? between the 4300 and 6300 usually, well below the 8350 most of the time.

And not even close to the I7 3770 in question.

I3 over the I7 ... seriously??
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 6:12:18 PM
January 14, 2013 6:33:16 PM

Guys, I just want to let you know that I found an i7 for $229 at microcenter. So that means it's only like $60 difference or something. I might just end up going with the I7.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
January 14, 2013 6:36:01 PM

JD1993 said:
I'm trying to find out which is a better processor for gaming. I have two monitors so most times I'd have quite a few things open at once. Which one has a better performance?


For gaming dont bother getting the I7 for gaming, get an I5 3570K and enjoy the same frames as the I7. Unfortunately AMDs gaming performance is lacking these days for any game that is moderately CPU intensive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 8:08:09 PM

I guess there weren't enough posts like this already? :) 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2013 4:25:41 AM

Depends on what gaming is done, if the OP is interested in GPU orientated titles like PS2, BF3, CODBOII etc then the difference between a FX8350 and i7 3960/70X is a mere few FPS, if you are looking at CPU orientated RTS titles then Intel have the advantage and nobody is denying that. While Vishera is a massive step forward for AMD it is realistically 2 Generations back in x86 performance, but x86 is not always the determining factor in gaming.

Metro 2033 is the best synthetic available and it clearly shows AMD doing well in CPU and GPU performance at a much lower cost. Let me put it to you like this, if a AMD setup can max out 2033 at 1080 or better and run well it will run any game really well as to how much more you need and willing to pay will determine how necessary a intel is.
m
0
l
February 13, 2013 11:26:19 PM

The AMD 8350 Vishera scales its speed and performance based of cpu demand. That gives it a slower speed when handling low demand tasks, and handling one task at a time. The i7 handles those tasks much better. However, when tested at high demand settings, as well as multi-tasking, the 3850 does surpass the i7. Again, the reason for that is in the 3870 architecture they set it up to slow down it's speed to reduce power consumption, and throttles the speed according to the demand being put on the processor. If you are playing games with the settings very high, with AA and 16x Antistropic filtering, or multi-tasking often, then the 3850 is the cpu for you. If you do not, then you want the i7.

A good show of this data is this test and review:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8...

Not only does it show the multi-tasking capabilities of the 8 Core FX series processors, but it shows it using older versions of the 8 Core FX series cpu.
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
February 13, 2013 11:36:27 PM

interesting

m
0
l
a c 152 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
February 13, 2013 11:37:21 PM

To directly answer your question the I7 is the better processor.
m
0
l
February 14, 2013 2:34:54 AM

Yes i7 3770k is better choice it only has 4 cores but it has pci-e 3.0 that 8350 don,t have & all new video card ,s like the hd7970 have pci-e 3.0 for faster gaming here,s the specs on 3770k good luck

With faster, intelligent, multi-core technology that applies processing power where it's needed most, Intel Core i7 processors deliver an incredible breakthrough in PC performance. They are the best desktop processors on the planet. You'll multitask applications faster and unleash incredible digital media creation. And you'll experience maximum performance for everything you do.



Main Specifications

•Processor

•Type / Form Factor: Intel Core i7 3770K

•Number of Cores: Quad-Core

•Number of Threads: 8 threads

•Cache: 8 MB

•Cache Memory Details: L3 - 8 MB

•64-bit Computing: Yes

•Clock Speed: 3.5 GHz

•Max Turbo Speed: 3.9 GHz

•Compatible Processor Socket: LGA1155 Socket

•Manufacturing Process: 22 nm

•Thermal Design Power: 77 W

•Architecture Features: Hyper-Threading Technology, integrated memory controller, Intel Virtualization Technology, Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0, Intel Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), Intel AES New Instructions (AES-NI)

•Cache Memory Installed Size: 8 MB

Integrated Graphics

•Type: Intel HD Graphics 4000

•Base Frequency: 850 MHz

•Max Dynamic Frequency: 1150 MHz

•Features:

Intel Clear Video HD Technology , InTRU 3D Technology, Intel Wireless Display (WiDi), Intel Insider, Intel Quick Sync Video 2.0
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2013 9:35:26 AM

Simple answer: 8350 vs i7 = i7 wins.

However i7 is a waste of money if you plan on gaming.

So this thread should be another "8350 vs 3570k!?!!" for the 10 millionth time.

You should be looking at the 3570 or 8350 for gaming, not the i7.
m
0
l
a c 135 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
February 14, 2013 9:39:41 AM

i7 has hyper threading witch has no value in gaming as games arent coded to use hyper-threading and can actually give less performance when turned on.

pci-express 3.0 is a gimmick. theres no real world difference with that and 2.0 at the moment and for somethime to come, honestly i dunno why they made 3.0 2.0 was working fine.

3770 cost:330$+tax and the 8350=199. 3570k= 220$.

gaming. goes in this order. 3770k. than 3570k than 8350. but theres still close in performance depending on the game, and having 8cores for 200$ is an amazing deal.

of course if you want pure gaming performance and dont care about multi-tasking like a madman than 3570k it is. 3770k shouldnt even be considered for gaming as its properties aka. 4ht cores is more for software developpement, adobe photoshop. video editing etc, software that can use ht quality.

very simple to understand if you do not buy a dictionnary :D 

m
0
l
July 30, 2013 11:51:41 AM

dear JD1993 i was in a similar situation as you are now. trying to decide which hardware was better for my needs.

i will show you what changed my mind and made me decide for good what is best for me, you might as well find it helpful.

watch this video with the fun and amazing Logan, you'll find many interesting facts about i5 i7 and fx8350 !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

once you watch that video you'll want to hear more i'm sure so here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

and a simple build guide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIS6zyBkoKY

and a fair and unbiased Crysis 3 benchmark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

:) 

m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 12:36:40 PM

Jamal Nazzal said:
dear JD1993 i was in a similar situation as you are now. trying to decide which hardware was better for my needs.

i will show you what changed my mind and made me decide for good what is best for me, you might as well find it helpful.

watch this video with the fun and amazing Logan, you'll find many interesting facts about i5 i7 and fx8350 !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

once you watch that video you'll want to hear more i'm sure so here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

and a simple build guide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIS6zyBkoKY

and a fair and unbiased Crysis 3 benchmark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

:) 



1. Youtube is a horrible source.
2. That guy has NO idea of what he is talking about. Intel has no L2 cache???? LOL

3. His numbers make NO sense at all. How can an HD7870 get so few FPS in metro 2033 at 1440... He is a fool. He does not even test so many games, most of them are indie or older.

He also fails to mention half the important things about the FX and its characteristics.

Look at the variable on the system used.
https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-35...

He did not even use the same gaming runs(different scenes in game), so on one he may as well have looked at something non-intense, like a wall, and on the Intel run he could have looked at an explosion in game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMYV8Djt7k

That explains it pretty well.

NOTE : They bench Metro 2033 as well at 19:10. Why don't they match up? BECAUSE his number are dumb!
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 1:01:54 PM

Novuake said:
Jamal Nazzal said:
dear JD1993 i was in a similar situation as you are now. trying to decide which hardware was better for my needs.

i will show you what changed my mind and made me decide for good what is best for me, you might as well find it helpful.

watch this video with the fun and amazing Logan, you'll find many interesting facts about i5 i7 and fx8350 !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

once you watch that video you'll want to hear more i'm sure so here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

and a simple build guide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIS6zyBkoKY

and a fair and unbiased Crysis 3 benchmark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

:) 



1. Youtube is a horrible source.
2. That guy has NO idea of what he is talking about. Intel has no L2 cache???? LOL

3. His numbers make NO sense at all. How can an HD7870 get so few FPS in metro 2033 at 1440... He is a fool. He does not even test so many games, most of them are indie or older.

He also fails to mention half the important things about the FX and its characteristics.

Look at the variable on the system used.
https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-35...

He did not even use the same gaming runs(different scenes in game), so on one he may as well have looked at something non-intense, like a wall, and on the Intel run he could have looked at an explosion in game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMYV8Djt7k

That explains it pretty well.

NOTE : They bench Metro 2033 as well at 19:10. Why don't they match up? BECAUSE his number are dumb!




i hate calling anyone a liar a fanboy or a mislead noob. so how are you ? doin fine ? XD

1. youtube is not a horrible source, i believe it is the best source especially when backed up by a website that supports and explains every step of the test.

2. he didn't say intel has no L2 cache. he just says it has too little L2 cache compared to the FX-8350

3. his numbers make a lot of sense actually, metro 2033 is a very graphics intensive game and 7870 is not powerful enough to run it maxed out especially at 1440p !!!

and you actually make me smile with your desperate attempts to undermine Logan, when you say that "Logan" doesn't know what he's talking about, give me a brake dude.

Logan made it clear. it's all about gaming.

check linustechtips videos in reply to Logan's videos. results are very close and linus is known to be "Paid" by intel who would mislead and sell his viewers and subscribers for a punch of dollars.

that's the truth about it










dear JD1993 don't mind me nor mind Novuake.

if you like the i7-3770k and you have the "money" get that, it will run cooler and perform better "overall" but if you are on a budget get the FX-8350 it is the better bargain.





.............



.............
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 1:10:51 PM

The ignorance is STAGGERING. So you don't even pay attention to the fact that pretty much EVERY other review contradicts him and that his method is horrible with a thousand variables.
Believe what you want.
The 8350 is not a bad option, its just not BETTER in any way.
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 1:26:22 PM

Novuake said:
The ignorance is STAGGERING. So you don't even pay attention to the fact that pretty much EVERY other review contradicts him and that his method is horrible with a thousand variables.
Believe what you want.
The 8350 is not a bad option, its just not BETTER in any way.


i beg to differ on "every other review contradicts him"

but i'm trying to get to a common ground here, i hate disputes.

in "some" ways it's better, and as you said "The 8350 is not a bad option".

JD1993 watch the videos and all other related videos from other reviewers and make your own decision.

i got the FX-8350 and it's a beast in every aspect.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2013 2:14:55 PM

Unless if you are gaming on two 120Hz monitors, FX 8350 hands down. As we get to the GPU bound situations where there are lots of pixels being pushed, the i7 and FX 8350 are close to DEAD even.

Also, the FX 8350 has 8 ACTUAL cores. It would make it more handy for you especially now that Gaming will be taking advantage of more then 4 cores and you will have Multiple resources running in the background.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 2:26:29 PM

griptwister said:
Unless if you are gaming on two 120Hz monitors, FX 8350 hands down. As we get to the GPU bound situations where there are lots of pixels being pushed, the i7 and FX 8350 are close to DEAD even.

Also, the FX 8350 has 8 ACTUAL cores. It would make it more handy for you especially now that Gaming will be taking advantage of more then 4 cores and you will have Multiple resources running in the background.


That is VERY debatable. Below is a dual core AMD "module", some resources are shared, as you can see, although this is still closer to a 8-core than the I7 with its hyperthreading, wheather its a true quad core is up for serious debate.

m
0
l
July 30, 2013 2:27:24 PM

griptwister said:
Unless if you are gaming on two 120Hz monitors, FX 8350 hands down. As we get to the GPU bound situations where there are lots of pixels being pushed, the i7 and FX 8350 are close to DEAD even.

Also, the FX 8350 has 8 ACTUAL cores. It would make it more handy for you especially now that Gaming will be taking advantage of more then 4 cores and you will have Multiple resources running in the background.



I totally agree with you. future proofing ? AMD all the way. FX-8350 will let the OS stretch it's legs comfortably with the 8 cores at its disposal.
and in the next few years we'll be seeing even more games optimized for amd products as amd is making its way to consoles.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 2:36:14 PM

Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 2:50:23 PM

This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 2:52:15 PM

Novuake said:
Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.


cool down mate there's no need for the outrage.

i quote:
"The PS3 used the oddball Cell processor, and that lead to countless problems for third-party developers making multi-platform games. It has more horsepower than the Xbox 360, but the difficult architecture meant developers were often left with a choppy frame rate or egregious texture pop-in. That’s not the case this time around, and we mostly have AMD to thank. The development environments for PC, Xbox One, and PS4 are by no means identical, but ports won’t need nearly as much retooling as they did last generation."

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/157489-amd-has-consol...

see the logic that drives my conclusions now ? if not, think again.
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 2:53:25 PM

Novuake said:
This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...


people are stupid all people say that. see the paradox ? if not, think again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2013 2:59:18 PM

Novuake said:
Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.


YOU IGNORAMUS!!! Next GEN consoles are fully x86 and have 8 cores. Go back under the bridge troll. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating actual fact.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/4452488/amd-sparks-x8...
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 3:46:23 PM

griptwister said:
Novuake said:
Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.


YOU IGNORAMUS!!! Next GEN consoles are fully x86 and have 8 cores. Go back under the bridge troll. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating actual fact.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/4452488/amd-sparks-x8...


Are you a programmer? Do you understand coding?

While that is interesting and a good read. You do realize that not a SINGLE game developer writes for just one system except when literally endorse by AMD or NVidia, like with PhysX titles.

To benefit from a SPECIFIC CPU and its characteristic more effectively you need to manually CODE a game line by line. However there are hundred of acceleration tools out there known as automated compilers, these are and will ALWAYS be optimized for SINGLE CORE performance FIRST and foremost. Since the AMD lacks in single core performance so badly, do you really think anyone will bother manually coding a game they produce with millions of millions of lines of code?


Most of that article is conjecture ANYWAY until the "next-gen" games are out and have proven whichever is correct.

"Winning the console battle" is an empty victory as Nvidia BASICALLY withdrew from the "fight" because of a non-existent profit margin.
However for AMD their annual turn over will be higher, which will help keep them afloat in their troubled financial state.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 3:48:51 PM

Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...


people are stupid all people say that. see the paradox ? if not, think again.


I never said people are stupid, I said people CAN be stupid, hell we all have retarded thoughts at times.
Hahaha its amazing that you are in the minority, so who are you calling stupid, the majority?
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 4:05:10 PM

Novuake said:
Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...


people are stupid all people say that. see the paradox ? if not, think again.


I never said people are stupid, I said people CAN be stupid, hell we all have retarded thoughts at times.
Hahaha its amazing that you are in the minority, so who are you calling stupid, the majority?


so the FX-8350 issue is resolved i take it, thank god for people's stupidity. and the x86 consoles issue too. who's the idiot now LOL.
m
0
l
a c 223 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
July 30, 2013 4:14:59 PM

Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...


people are stupid all people say that. see the paradox ? if not, think again.


I never said people are stupid, I said people CAN be stupid, hell we all have retarded thoughts at times.
Hahaha its amazing that you are in the minority, so who are you calling stupid, the majority?


so the FX-8350 issue is resolved i take it, thank god for people's stupidity. and the x86 consoles issue too. who's the idiot now LOL.


What the hell are you saying?
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 4:27:44 PM

Novuake said:
Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
Jamal Nazzal said:
Novuake said:
This is why I NEVER normally reply to these threads... People idiocy and sad hope just riles me up so bad...


people are stupid all people say that. see the paradox ? if not, think again.


I never said people are stupid, I said people CAN be stupid, hell we all have retarded thoughts at times.
Hahaha its amazing that you are in the minority, so who are you calling stupid, the majority?


so the FX-8350 issue is resolved i take it, thank god for people's stupidity. and the x86 consoles issue too. who's the idiot now LOL.


What the hell are you saying?


i'm saying you are the "smthn" here LOL. it's just that as i stated initially i don't like calling people idiots even when they are plainly, simply and wildly pure idiots. LOL
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2013 5:13:05 PM

Novuake said:
griptwister said:
Novuake said:
Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.


YOU IGNORAMUS!!! Next GEN consoles are fully x86 and have 8 cores. Go back under the bridge troll. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating actual fact.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/4452488/amd-sparks-x8...


Are you a programmer? Do you understand coding?

While that is interesting and a good read. You do realize that not a SINGLE game developer writes for just one system except when literally endorse by AMD or NVidia, like with PhysX titles.

To benefit from a SPECIFIC CPU and its characteristic more effectively you need to manually CODE a game line by line. However there are hundred of acceleration tools out there known as automated compilers, these are and will ALWAYS be optimized for SINGLE CORE performance FIRST and foremost. Since the AMD lacks in single core performance so badly, do you really think anyone will bother manually coding a game they produce with millions of millions of lines of code?


Most of that article is conjecture ANYWAY until the "next-gen" games are out and have proven whichever is correct.

"Winning the console battle" is an empty victory as Nvidia BASICALLY withdrew from the "fight" because of a non-existent profit margin.
However for AMD their annual turn over will be higher, which will help keep them afloat in their troubled financial state.


Lol, okay. Believe what you want. You're pretty much wrong on the x86 argument and you're trying to change the subject with your delusional rant. The FX 8350 is a good investment in right now's gaming market. End of discussion. And yes, I do understand coding. I am a beginner, but I know that x86 optimization and development for 8 cores will transfer over to PCs because I happen to know 5 Devs that would tell you the same.
m
0
l
!