Older CPUs better than new ones?

[uzairinamdar]

I was going through anandtech benchmarks and I found that many of older CPUs outperformed newer ones.

Example: AMD Phenom II X4 better than most AMD A series, Intel i5 750 better than most Intel i5 3xxx, and many more. (Feel free to explore in bench under CPU section).

So is it reasonable and a better option to buy an older CPU which performs better? Some of you may bring price into the picture - so, Phenom II X4 is better and cheaper than AMD A-10 5800k. What to say about that. Intact many of the Phenom II processors are at par with the costly AMD FX processors.

Please explain... Thank you


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=102
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=102

 

[uzairinamdar]

Intel i5 750 better than most Intel i5 3xxx, and many more. (Feel free to explore in bench under CPU section).
..............................
That is false firstly.

Secondly amd fx is not much better then the older phenom 2s which I agree with.

However intel have made massive steps since for example know comparing to an i5 750 to the latest intel cpu you get double the performance a half the power consumption so 4x better performance per watt. AMD have stood still for a while basically bulldozer was a huge fail and piledriver was a patched up bulldozer.

I'm sorry for that, I meant 760 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

From the link you'll see what I mean. Thank you again

 

[jaguarskx]

I'm sorry for that, I meant 760 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

I tend to ignore SysMark, FutureMark, 3DMark, and several others since they are synthetic benchmarks which do not necessarily reflect the overall capabilities of CPUs. I prefer looking at benchmarks of actual programs such as in the following comparison of the i5-760 and i5-2400. The i5-2400 is 300MHz faster, but that is the slowest Sandy Bridge i5 that Anandtech has.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/191?vs=363

 

[uzairinamdar]

I tend to ignore SysMark, FutureMark, 3DMark, and several others since they are synthetic benchmarks which do not necessarily reflect the overall capabilities of CPUs. I prefer looking at benchmarks of actual programs such as in the following comparison of the i5-760 and i5-2400. The i5-2400 is 300MHz faster, but that is the slowest Sandy Bridge i5 that Anandtech has.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/191?vs=363

So its always better to take a newer processor?
Select one from each pair to help me understand:
i3 3xxx and i5 2xxx
Phenom II X4 980 BE and A10 5800k (the Phenom is better in many compared to A10 or even equal)

 

[cemerian]

the amd A10 and all the other a series are apus which means they have a gpu core there aswell and would not be the direct comparison to phenom 2 which would be the FX series, in other word the apus arent ment to be the best cpu amd has to offer those are the fx ones

 

[Viking2121]

I love AMD, But they are starting to kinda lead me away from the market, Ok cool APU's are nice, But doesn't target the high end users. The FX right now is pretty much nothing to upgrade from for those with a Phenom II. Heck they 1090T & 1100T still gives the FX8350 a run for its money.

Only real reason to get an FX is for the price, you wont find a 1100T for under $300 lol. 8 core or not, its still getting shaken up by the older 6 core which isn't good.

My income tax I'll be getting an Intel unless AMD does have something else by then that is worth upgrading my 4.4ghz 1100T.

I think they should have improved on the Phenom II series, make it able to OC higher, make it run cooler, higher stock clocks, Then improve on the FX during that time.

 

[griptwister]

Lol, you're comparing a Phenom II x4 to a APU. Did you know that APUs don't have L3 cache? The FX 4300 OCs further than the Phenom II x4 thus improving performance more.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=102

Also, most of those benchmarks are user submitted. There is a lot of variation in there.

The FX 8350 is faster than the 1100T. Especially when Overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=697

 

[Viking2121]

Lol, you're comparing a Phenom II x4 to a APU. Did you know that APUs don't have L3 cache? The FX 4300 OCs further than the Phenom II x4 thus improving performance more.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=102

Also, most of those benchmarks are user submitted. There is a lot of variation in there.

The FX 8350 is faster than the 1100T. Especially when Overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=697

Im not comparing the APU to a Phenom II, please re read my post, APU's are targeted for low end system, its a new type of CPU, they seem to be pushing the APU's more then the FX series. I was comparing the Phenom II with the FX, im not sure where you got lost at.

the 8350 has to be clocked at 4.5 at least to beat a 1100T at 4ghz, give or take. I seen comparisons where a 1100T at 4.2ghz with a CPU-NB of 3000mhz smoke a 8350 at 4.8ghz, 8350 CPU-NB don't OC well. An FX chip does well with memory bandwidth, but once you up the CPU-NB on the Phenom II, its a whole other ball game.

Upgrading to a FX8350 from a 1090T or 1100T isn't the best idea, its more of a side grade, which is my point. AMD is targeting the wrong market in my opinion. The APU line is nice in a way, but they are focusing to much on it and not on the the higher end market unless you count the new GPU's that they are working.

they FX4300 can be clocked to 5ghz and still lose to a Phenom II x4 965 left at stock in most cases, once you OC the 965 to 4ghz which most do, the FX4300 is just not looking good, its on par with a a Athlon II dual core, have you ever used 1, you'd know, it bottlenecks even a 5770 vary easy sadly.

No way did I compare the APU's with Phenom II's or FX's lol.

 

[CTOAGN]

I like Viking2121's answer. To me the first thing that pops into my head that makes the difference is core clock and amount of cores. Most games only require two cores but if you want to run other background apps like a recorder or music you will need that extra core to keep performance up. A 4.4ghz 2 core processor is decent if just gaming but will start to lag behind when more and more applications come into play unlike a 3.5ghz 8 core processor (I am referencing AMD cpu's because this is an AMD cpu post). Also if you are in the mood you can overclock cpu's that allow it to match up come close with the 4.4ghz processor. Final thing, APU's share the power from both the processor and ram which only allows a percentile for both parties, while a discrete (separate) gpu uses it's own VRAM to function and allows more to full potential for the cpu.

 

[GuatoNoP01]

If older CPU's were better then they would not make newer CPU's.

 

[Viking2121]

If older CPU's were better then they would not make newer CPU's.

I agree, but bechmarking proves otherwise, I'm happy with my 8320 5ghz, but my 1100T is right on its tail at 4ghz in almost everything. Older tech isn't always better or slower then newer tech.

Its simlar to GPU's, Would you take a GT 720 over a GTX480? I think not.

 

[Xibyth]

Your comparing a Ferrari to a bug there, the a series apu's are designed for low power, compact systems while the phenoms were designed for power users and enthusiast. In addition AMD is directely to blame for their CPU's poor performance, They simply have not improved their microcode much over the last 3/4ths of a decade.

As for FX vs Phenom most of those applications don't support 8 threads, look at the ones that do, the FX more than doubles the power of the Phenom for only 30 more watts.

The i5's are leagues apart, not sure if you really looked well at that list but even the 2000 series i5's doubled the speed of the 750.

Your not making much sense here. Lower power requirements, better memory and thread control, faster and more available cache, better architecture and support for new technologies and better expansion, lower temps, higher overclocks.

The only thing older intels got over new ones is they come with the used price.