AMD FX 8350 Winning against i5/i7?

[piesquared]

Sure are a lot of what seem to be disgruntled short sellers in here..

And this video posted by AIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMYV8Djt7k ....

ewwwww that was cringe worthy and i'm embarrassed for those two fellas. That's probably the biggest FAIL rebuttal I've seen in a long long time. :LOL:

The whole point of Logan's video was to show that AMD does in fact make CPU's perfectly suited for playing games, and in many cases, outperforms more expensive intel solutions. Those two fanboys in the other video were just, well....cringe worthy

[boxleitnerb]

Originally Posted by amdisstaying

Did you even know what a blind-test is?

"A testing procedure, designed to eliminate biased results, in which the identity of those receiving a test treatment is concealed from both administrators and subjects until after the study is completed."

The testers don't know which system they are voting for?

This kind of test is location independent. You can have a blind-test at Intel campus or on AMD campus.

I already know that the FUD against AMD is very strong.

I have to put 20 members on my ignore list.

Is it? I have no major in psychology, but I don't think you can exclude something like that completely.
Anyway, the fact that these were rather GPU bottlenecked tests makes the whole affair quite useless. No one would play that way - unless they turned options way down to get comfortable fps which I quite frankly doubt they did.

Also please just stop with stuff like your last 2 sentences. That is called flaming and it is unnecessary.

[Lex Luger]

Anyone who believes this clown and buys AMD hardware over intel hardware because of his benchmarks deserves what they get.

[Rvenger]

Viral marketing season.

[Abwx]

Originally Posted by Lex Luger

Anyone who believes this clown and buys AMD hardware over intel hardware because of his benchmarks deserves what they get.

He provided a benchmark , questionable or not , while
you are only providing insults and deffamation...

[amdisstaying]

Originally Posted by piesquared

And this video posted by AIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMYV8Djt7k ....

The guys in this video are clowns. Please read the comments after the video.

"TheNonPrestigeGamer 1 hour ago
Are these guys serious? "if you play skyrim your not a real gamer!" These guys are so f***ing butt hurt that their precious intel isn't as good as they though. "

"AmericanZ28 1 day ago
Couldn't these two blow each other, and then cuddle in their intel blankets in private?"

"magicblack3124 2 hours ago
neckbeard i got a dollar so go buy yourself some haterade so you can stop being so butt hurt about intel and admit amd is better"
...

This video is a real joke. I can't stop laughing...

[notty22]

I wish you would stop post user comments to youtube video's or random newegg reviews, as if they hold some substance for us. It's a joke. This guy, he's a Intel fan, and he says blah blah. It's gone on to long. Just seems juvenile?

[shady28]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

Not highlighting this particular convo to pick on either contributing member, but I swear we could teleport ourselves back to circa 2005 and the exact same back-and-forth posting argumentation would be found in these forums, only it would be about Prescott versus K8

We have all aged 8 yrs but not a damn thing has changed otherwise when it comes to THE debate. Everyone champions their favored CPU for the niche applications it dominates, and bedevils the other camp with claims of review bias or benchmark cherry picking.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

To what end? The argument wasn't decided in 2005, it sure as hell isn't going to be decisively concluded in 2013.

AMD will suffer the consequences of building a Netburst analog until such time that they build themselves a Conroe analog.

That is all that history has to teach us, the rest is just us finding painful and frustrating ways to grow older year by year wiling away the time by tearing each other a new one in this turn-based RPG

Probably the best post in years.

The reality of the market is that people don't buy processors so much as they buy systems. If they buy a system based purely on CPU performance, they probably are not getting the best system for their intentions.

People in these forums tend to buy components, based on individual component performance. That is where the breakdown between the market and perspectives here occurs.

The average price of a desktop in 2011 was ~$630. I don't have numbers for 2012, but if it follows prior trends it's probably below $600.

If you go to Newegg, Microcenter, etc and look for a complete desktop at that price point ($600) I think you'll find AMD and Intel equally well represented in systems that are nearly equivalent.

I think the case could be made that AMD is inside better 'gaming' systems at that price point, while Intel is inside better 'general purpose' systems.

Case in point, I did an advanced search on Newegg for any type of desktop / tower system, 6-8GB RAM, 1-2 TB HDD, no monitor, between 300 and 600 $$.

The most expensive ($599) choice was clearly the one with the most powerful CPU, an Intel i5-2320, 2 TB HDD, 8GB RAM. But, Intel HD 2000 graphics. Not a gamers machine by any stretch.

At $520 there is a Gateway with an A8-5550, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD.

Obviously anyone who does even light gaming, provided they are not a power user in normal applications (very few are), would be far happier with the A8-5550 than the i5-2320.

Only one system in the list with an Intel CPU had any gaming capability at all - and that was with a GT 610 and an i3-3220.

At that same price point there was an FX-6100 with a GT610 also. A strong argument could be made that these two systems are very close in performance.

Based on that one simple search, the market itself seems to be pricing equivalent AMD and Intel based systems against each other quite well for the bulk of the buying public.

The only AMD analysis you can really get from all of this is that AMD does not have a presence in high-end systems, and if you plan to go out and buy a $300+ GPU, you probably should get an high end Intel i5 or better CPU.

At the mid range and low end, AMD and Intel trade blows quite well at those price points, each having their virtues depending on how you plan to use your system.

[GillyBillyDilly]

Originally Posted by Ferzerp

It's all it ever could have been to begin with. We all know the premise is preposterous. All it is are 4 or 5 people more interested in a company than the performance of parts having a little wankfest because enough have congregated together to make it appear that there is actually some agreement, despite the preponderance of evidence disagreeing with them.

It makes no difference though. It's like conspiracy theory folks. There is literally no amount of evidence that will stop them from holding on to what they oh so dearly wish were true. See the link above to the study summary on ars. It is one of only two ways that I can see to explain this behavior. Amusingly, the new account which was all sure he would be banned was sort of giving us a warning on what kind of poster he was when he started that.

There are certain folk who have no interest in the truth, and want to perform as many mental gymnastics routines as necessary to reinforce their delusions. When you get more than one of those people in the same space, they can create the illusion of there actually being a question on a topic that has been settled in a most thorough manner. As they congregate, they get an us vs them mentality, preceive that they are persecuted, victims of conspiracy, etc. There's no point in actually having the conversations that they want to have, because their positions are never supported and always involve, "look at this piece of suspect information" coupled with "ignore the *huge* mass of evidence proving my view as crackpot, that evidence is part of the conspiracy". In the end, you just have to eventually not-engage enough that they go away or start to act out so much that they are forcibly removed.

They, of course, get offended that no one listens to them (but no reasonable individual would), and so acting out and having little meltdowns happens far more often with them then the normal population. They can't see why no one will take their position filled with more cognitive dissonance than the vatican seriously. It would help if they actually supported their position. Typically though, we see urges for us to look at this pile of 2 oranges (their "support") and ignore the 5 NFL stadiums filled with oranges right across the street (the rest of the data on the matter). Of course, while I say it would help if they supported their position, if they were capable of doing so (because supporting the unsupportable position without resorting to conspiracy theories is typically impossible), they wouldn't act like crackpot conspiracy theorists and I wouldn't be writing this post.



All in all, there are 2 ways the thread could go.

1) A few amused comments about the blatant motives of the drive by poster until it died.

2) Somehow, enough individuals that share the same delusion would decent upon it and make the collective critical thinking ability of the board drop down 2 notches in the process.

In this one, sadly, 2), has happened.

For your vocabulary.

All in all this is just a hobby, a passtime, so don't be bothered if there is no concrete outcome from these discussions. Let the kids play.

[amdisstaying]

There is so much hate against AMD that it is hard to believe.

It will be obvious if you read a few AMD threads. The attackers provide no data to support their case.

[Bman123]

Either cpu plays games just fine, buy what you want and call it a damn day

[BLaber]

Originally Posted by amdisstaying

There is so much hate against AMD that it is hard to believe.

It will be obvious if you read a few AMD threads. The attackers provide no data to support their case.

Just relax bro, spending too much energy on this topic is not worth-ed, we know & accept AMD with its flaws as it is & same goes for Intel, just make peace & dont get caught in this hatred you just building up bad sticky Karma unknowingly, so chill & forgive posters with their agenda as they will reap what they have sown

[amdisstaying]

Originally Posted by guskline

I've noticed something a bit strange about this forum and in particular postings where the FX 8350 is compared to the Intel counterparts of I5/I7 (2500k/2700k/3570k/3770k). When someone runs a test between these chips and the 8350 scores slightly higher on a test, posters seem to immediately come out of the wood work attacking the credibility of the test, the tester etc, yet when the results favor the Intel chips no one questions the tester, the test etc.

Why? Isn't it possible that under certain parameters the 8350 actually does produce ma higher result?

I watched this video by the tester who ran xsplit and ran a few games and said he was amazed that the 8350 actually beat the 3570k, in particular by a few fps so he ran the test again and again. I think his mannerisms are somewhat quirky, but he appears to be a legit tester. Why the attacks?

BTW, I have said again and again, for gamers, all things being equal the 3570k might be a better buy than the 8350. However, the overall performance of the chips is close AND in some software scenarios the 8350 actually pulls ahead.

The above post makes sense.

Here are two more benchmarks in which the AMD FX-8350 beats the Intel core i7-3770K easily:

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.ph...ha=96eefe6&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.ph...ha=293f200&p=2

Most of the gaming benchmarks are not using the AMD chip to its full potential.

IF we compare the AMD FX-8350 at 5 GHz to Intel core I7-3770K at 5 GHz, the difference between the two processors wont be significant.

AMD was targeting the Bulldozer to run at 5 GHz or higher but GF's 32nm process was too leaky.

When AMD released the Bulldozer the chip as well as the process were not ready. So AMD released a half-baked solution. AMD paid the price.

[amdisstaying]

Originally Posted by BLaber

Just relax bro, spending too much energy on this topic is not worth-ed, we know & accept AMD with its flaws as it is & same goes for Intel, just make peace & dont get caught in this hatred you just building up bad sticky Karma unknowingly, so chill & forgive posters with their agenda as they will reap what they have sown

Thank you, I agree with you completely.

[boxleitnerb]

When gaming and doing recording with xsplit at the same time, it is plausible that the FX pulls ahead. Question is, how relevant that is for the average gamer today.

IF we compare the AMD FX-8350 at 5 GHz to Intel core I7-3770K at 5 GHz, the difference between the two processors wont be significant.

That depends entirely on the software/game. You realize that AMD compensates a bit for its lower IPC with clock speed, right? If you match clock speeds, it will look worse for AMD than at stock speed. Maybe you should get your facts straight

[Abwx]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

If you match clock speeds, it will look worse for AMD than at stock speed. Maybe you should get your facts straight

Not at all , he s right , let s look at the facts rather than words..

3770 at 4.9 and FX at 4.5 in MT and 4.8 in single thread.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...or-reviewed/13

[CHADBOGA]

Originally Posted by Abwx

Not at all , he s right , let s look at the facts rather than words..

3770 at 4.9 and FX at 4.5 in MT and 4.8 in single thread.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...or-reviewed/13

Have you understood what Boxleitnerb wrote?

Your link actually proved what he was saying, therefore I can only assume you didn't understand what he said in the first place.

[Gideon]

IMO FPS is a rather useless metric when comparing CPUs as games tend to be GPU limited at resolutions they are actually played at and CPUs tend to cluster together anyway.

A much more informative metric when comparing CPUs is the frame latency. It's also usually a lot more noticeable to the end user when the average framerate is high.

Therefore I really like techreport reviews like this (granted, there could have been more/other games):

http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...ith-today-cpus

[Nemesis 1]

Originally Posted by amdisstaying

There is so much hate against AMD that it is hard to believe.

It will be obvious if you read a few AMD threads. The attackers provide no data to support their case.

I must say your love affair with AMD is intriging. Kind of reminds me of this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKloW9RES4E

[mikk]

Trine 2 is one of the worst games when it comes to CPU Benchmarks. Even a 1,0 Ghz Sandy Bridge Dualcore Celeron would be enough for this game to maintain 60 fps. Unfortunately 1,6 Ghz is the minimum frequency I can set in the Bios for my i5-3570k. Assuming they tested with maximum graphics details (including Extreme AA) and the same level shown in their youtube video, have a look at this amazingly big difference between a downclocked 4x1,6 Ghz i5-3570k and 4x3,4 Ghz (Turbo was on so probably more than 3,4 Ghz). Tested with my GTX 660 Ti.

4x1,6 Ghz= http://i47.tinypic.com/211kirk.png
4x3,4 Ghz= http://i48.tinypic.com/xekepg.png

Both 55 fps absolutely the same. In 1280x720p noAA I get 145 fps at this location with a downclocked 4x1,6 Ghz 3570k. This game runs soooooooo GPU limited.

How the hell can they measure such differences between those CPUs at 1080p in Trine 2? This is mind-boggling. And also Trine 2 does not use more than 2 cores. I'm pretty sure those Trine 2 scores are bullshit and probably the whole test.

Intel i5 3570k -
Trine 2 1080p - 38.800

Intel i7 3770k
Trine 2 1080p - 47.280

AMD FX-8350
Trine 2 1080p - 58

[boxleitnerb]

Remember that they have been running xsplit to encode during gaming. For that you need multiple threads and that makes the results far more plausible, though cherrypicked.

Regardless what the guy in the video says, they used xsplit throughout the whole review.