why i5-4690k is better than fx-8350 and fx-9590

[Crixilian]

hello, I have some questions
I watched some videos from youtube about i5-4690k vs fx-8350 gaming fps
i5-4690k got better fps than fx-8350, but I wonder how can be
according to cpu-world.com information
i5-4690k frequency is 3.5 GHz 4 cores/4 threads and fx-8350 8 cores/8 threads
of course, fx-8350 totally better than i5-4690k, more cores and higher frequency
but, why i5-4690k can get a better fps than fx-8350?
even fx-9590, higher frequency and more cores than i5-4690k, but why i5-4690k got a better fps on gamming?

then, if i5-4690k is better because it can overclocked to higher frequency
a processor overclock ability is depend on what?

thx anyway

 

[blasc]

basically, and about the knowledge i have:

Intel = more raw power per core.

games nowadays don't benefit (yet) much from multithreading, and therefore, since intel has more power per core than AMD, if you have a game using only, lets say, 2 threads, Intel is gona win, because the higher number of cores/threads just won't matter.

and i believe the benchmarks you saw are all with CPU on stock, and not overclocked (unless the guy who posted the benchmarks specified it)

Edit: just go compare gaming benchmarks of i5 VS i7. they are almost everytime the same, and even sometimes, i5 gets some 5% better than i7.
Multithreading is not yet aimed at gaming.

 

[Math Geek]

has to do with the fact that the game uses at most 4 cores. more than likely it only uses 2 threads. the i5 single core is better than the fx core. so only using 2-4 cores gives intel the advantage due to stronger core.

if you could use all 8 cores, then the fx would edge out the i5 due to the more cores.

games just are not written to handle the 8 cores the fx offers.


with that said the fx is by no means junk and still offers ample performance. people like to bash the chips but for their age they still perform well, just not as good as the intel ones that are far newer.

 

[Crixilian]

then, are all intel processor has more power per core?
or only newer processors?? or some specified processors??
then, is that means fx-8350 say 4 GHz, while gaming fx can't use entire of 4 GHz?? (just say used about 3.4 to 3.5??)
and if I could use all 8 cores on fx, is there is setting or something to set how many cores to be use? is all cores (8 cores) should be used??

 

[Math Geek]

the core count has nothing to do with the speed of the core. the fx will run at 4 ghz per core but it only uses a few at a time for the game. there is no way to force it to use more since this is how the game itself is programmed. it has to be written to handle so many cores and right now they are only writing them for 4 threads max usually less.

this is why for gaming the i5 is better since it can do more with 2-4 cores than the fx can. and this is the newer i5's. the fx actually beat out the i5's that were released at the same time as it. it is just a very old cpu and it is showing it's age vs newer cpu's. this is also why an i3 will usually beat out the fx since it has the better cores as well and at 2-4 cores, it still beats out the amd ones.

 

[synphul]

You can't directly compare frequency (ghz) between two different architectures. It was an old way of marketing that got stuck so people think 4ghz is faster than 3ghz. Which it is, if you're comparing a haswell intel cpu to a haswell intel cpu or amd fx to fx. Intel's cpu's process differently and more efficiently. They have higher ipc (instructions per clock) than amd cpu's. Because of that, 3.5ghz on intel can easily process data faster than 4ghz on amd. Even overclocking amd won't help it surpass intel unless it's a really slow intel cpu. Overclocking a 4ghz fx cpu to 4.8 would help it some and may get it closer to the processing power of an i5 at 3.5ghz. Keep in mind the 4690k can also be overclocked to around 4.6 or 4.7ghz making it that much faster since each mhz the intel cpu is strong than the amd. Overclocking an amd fx 800mhz is more like overclocking an i5 300mhz.

Even in heavily multithreaded applications where the amd cpu's can use all 8 cores effectively, it basically matches the processing power of the 4c/4t i5 and in some rare cases will perform slightly better. So it's not just a matter of intel being faster when an amd cpu is only using 2-4 of its 8 cores, the amd doesn't perform much if any better under ideal conditions.

Part of it also has to do with the architecture. An i5 can process 4 threads with 4 cores. An i7 can process 8 threads but still with 4 cores so there's a slight advantage but it's not the same as doubling performance as 8 true cores would. Amd's cores are a bit trickier, they have 8 cores but the way they're designed they have 2 processing cores per 'module' and 4 modules (on fx 8 core cpus). Even though there are 2 cores in a module, those 2 cores have to share some resources like the floating point unit (fpu), l1 cache, fetch, decode etc. Intel's cores on the other hand each have their own resources, their own fpu, l1 cache etc. Both amd and intel share the l3 cache.

When people think of cores, they think of independent cores with each core having access to it's own resources completely and fully functioning. Having half of those resources split between 2 processing cores in the fx modules, there are times where the cores are fighting each other for the same pool of information and slows them up. If you and a friend have to walk groceries from the car to the house and shoes are required to do so (barefoot not being an option), you both could be getting loads of groceries to the house if you each had your own pair of shoes. If you had 1 pair of shoes to share and one had to wait for the other it would take you much longer. That's essentially what amd's done with their modules. It's not really something new, it was done in the mid 90's with risc chips which since have gone away. When amd started the bulldozer architecture they thought it would be a good idea to try it again.

If amd's cpu cores had independent resources for each core they would perform a bit better than they do. Too much sharing going on, much like the hyperthreading in intel cpu's. It does add some performance but only around 12% give or take on average depending how well it's utilized. Having 8 threads is great but having only 4 processing cores to handle the data is very limiting compared to a cpu that each thread ran entirely on it's on processing core.

 

[synphul]

the fx actually beat out the i5's that were released at the same time as it. it is just a very old cpu and it is showing it's age vs newer cpu's.

Not entirely true. The fx 8350 released 4th qtr of 2012, the i5 2500k released the first quarter of 2011, almost 2yrs difference between the two with the 2500k being older. More times than not the 2500k beat the 8350.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

Update with some bench's.
When it comes to gaming the 4yr old 2500k still edges out the 8350 in plenty of games, even current games.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Barely in gta 5 which isn't overly cpu bound but the 2500k still outperforms the 8350.
http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

 

[Crixilian]

You can't directly compare frequency (ghz) between two different architectures. It was an old way of marketing that got stuck so people think 4ghz is faster than 3ghz. Which it is, if you're comparing a haswell intel cpu to a haswell intel cpu or amd fx to fx. Intel's cpu's process differently and more efficiently. They have higher ipc (instructions per clock) than amd cpu's. Because of that, 3.5ghz on intel can easily process data faster than 4ghz on amd. Even overclocking amd won't help it surpass intel unless it's a really slow intel cpu. Overclocking a 4ghz fx cpu to 4.8 would help it some and may get it closer to the processing power of an i5 at 3.5ghz. Keep in mind the 4690k can also be overclocked to around 4.6 or 4.7ghz making it that much faster since each mhz the intel cpu is strong than the amd. Overclocking an amd fx 800mhz is more like overclocking an i5 300mhz.

Even in heavily multithreaded applications where the amd cpu's can use all 8 cores effectively, it basically matches the processing power of the 4c/4t i5 and in some rare cases will perform slightly better. So it's not just a matter of intel being faster when an amd cpu is only using 2-4 of its 8 cores, the amd doesn't perform much if any better under ideal conditions.

Part of it also has to do with the architecture. An i5 can process 4 threads with 4 cores. An i7 can process 8 threads but still with 4 cores so there's a slight advantage but it's not the same as doubling performance as 8 true cores would. Amd's cores are a bit trickier, they have 8 cores but the way they're designed they have 2 processing cores per 'module' and 4 modules (on fx 8 core cpus). Even though there are 2 cores in a module, those 2 cores have to share some resources like the floating point unit (fpu), l1 cache, fetch, decode etc. Intel's cores on the other hand each have their own resources, their own fpu, l1 cache etc. Both amd and intel share the l3 cache.

When people think of cores, they think of independent cores with each core having access to it's own resources completely and fully functioning. Having half of those resources split between 2 processing cores in the fx modules, there are times where the cores are fighting each other for the same pool of information and slows them up. If you and a friend have to walk groceries from the car to the house and shoes are required to do so (barefoot not being an option), you both could be getting loads of groceries to the house if you each had your own pair of shoes. If you had 1 pair of shoes to share and one had to wait for the other it would take you much longer. That's essentially what amd's done with their modules. It's not really something new, it was done in the mid 90's with risc chips which since have gone away. When amd started the bulldozer architecture they thought it would be a good idea to try it again.

If amd's cpu cores had independent resources for each core they would perform a bit better than they do. Too much sharing going on, much like the hyperthreading in intel cpu's. It does add some performance but only around 12% give or take on average depending how well it's utilized. Having 8 threads is great but having only 4 processing cores to handle the data is very limiting compared to a cpu that each thread ran entirely on it's on processing core.

I got it,thx

 

[Gabriel Harwood]

hello, I have some questions
I watched some videos from youtube about i5-4690k vs fx-8350 gaming fps
i5-4690k got better fps than fx-8350, but I wonder how can be
according to cpu-world.com information
i5-4690k frequency is 3.5 GHz 4 cores/4 threads and fx-8350 8 cores/8 threads
of course, fx-8350 totally better than i5-4690k, more cores and higher frequency
but, why i5-4690k can get a better fps than fx-8350?
even fx-9590, higher frequency and more cores than i5-4690k, but why i5-4690k got a better fps on gamming?

then, if i5-4690k is better because it can overclocked to higher frequency
a processor overclock ability is depend on what?

thx anyway

Intels Devils Canyon has a much better architecture than the AMD FX CPU's.

 

[jaguarskx]

Basically around 2002 AMD showed Intel that MHz (clockspeed) was no longer the "king". Performance (especially for games) involved how much instructions the CPU can process every Hz. Intel was pushing their Pentium 4 CPU to ever higher clockspeeds, but AMD's Athlon XP CPUs could perform just as well or better than Intel CPU in games at lower clockspeeds.

AMD held that competitive edge for awhile because Intel was focusing on higher frequencies and was relying on very long pipelines and Netburst to improve performance. That did improve performance, but not for games. AMD was more or less riding high with their Athlon 64 X2 CPU series and for some time those CPU were more expensive than Intel Pentium 4 CPUs because of gaming performance.

But that all came crashing down in mid 2006 when Intel released the Core 2 Duo / Quad series. Intel learned a lot of lessons from AMD and put it into effect. Ever since then the focus has been on improving IPC (instructions per cycle) rather than clockspeed. Intel CPUs regained their de facto standard as the processor for gamers and prices for Intel CPUs were once again higher than AMD CPUs.

The role between AMD and Intel has flipped around. Intel is focusing on improving IPC for better performance while AMD is focusing on higher clockspeed to compete against Intel. As AMD has shown Intel over 10 years, clockspeed is not as important as IPC and now AMD is struggling financially to remain in business (they have a lot of debt to pay in 2019, more than what the company is worth). Simply stated, AMD's future relies on how well their Zen CPU is going to perform, but that will not be released for another year unless there is a delay.

AMD also need to turn around their GPU division; back in June 2014 AMD had 38% of the dedicate GPU market share. That has shrunk down to 18% as of June 2015.