Recent content by minitron

The i7 completes the task in 91.5s The FX completes the task in 116s The i7 is not 21% faster than the FX [1 - (91.5/116)] The i7 is 26% faster than the FX (116/91.5) I understand there's 10 numbers and it's hard for some of you to master them all but it's something you'll probably have to...

He's already getting a dedicated video card and the i3 has superior CPU performance. Why should he get the A10 when he's not going to use it's iGPU, the primary reason to get the A10.

More bad math.:whiste: The i7 completing the task in 79% of the time it would take the FX which is not the same as the i7 being 21% faster. I guess I must use an example for AMD fanboy: Assuming constant speed and no acceleration... Car A travels 1/4 Mile in 12 seconds Car B travels 1/4 Mile...

No, you're wrong. The FX (116s) takes 24.5 seconds longer to complete the task than the i7 (91.5s) which means the i7 completes the task 26.7% faster; you want to divide the additional time the FX take by the time the i7 takes. By your awful math the i7 completes the task in 79% of the time it...

With his terrible assumption you can just add up the total times for all the workloads. In heavily threaded applications the i7-3970X is ~57% faster than the FX-8350.

Bad math. 116 - 91.5 = 24.5 24.5 / 91.5 = ~26.7%

So it is very possible that it is running at 4.1 Ghz in games, especially lightly threaded ones where only two threads are needed?!? Like I said, 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.:whiste: Yes, I'm completely serious that the i3 offers distinct advantages over it's AMD counterparts such as lower power...

I would get a bigger monitor; something with 1600x900+ resolution. You don't need that big of a PSU; 400W from a quality PSU should be plenty even if you decide to upgrade your video card and CPU. 8GB of RAM is also recommended if the price difference is similar to the US. So you went from...

My original point is the i3 will be just as fast as the FX-6300 in gaming while consuming less power and offering a better upgrade path. This is coming from a guy who claims BD was faster than an i7 for gaming...

I would hardly say there is a "winner" in that link. Funny thing is you spent so much time finding this one link when every Vishera review (and Bench is not a proper review) shows that the best case scenarios AMD CPUs match Intel in games and in worse case scenarios they are significantly...

You're just saying this without any substance or empirical data such as reviews to back it up. I can claim a i386 is faster than i7-3960X if we didn't use facts.:whiste:

AES encryption, 3D rendering and high-quality video encoding are specialized tasks none of which the OP actually mentioned. People who do tons of rendering/encoding are probably doing it for their job in which case they're using an i7/Xeons and skipping AMD. I don't understand why you think...

Not really. Some people run DOTA2 on C2D and 9800 GTs and can rape your face.

They sure as hell shouldn't buy any AMD CPU for gaming if they are building a new setup. You linked the FX-6300 chief.

Just remember the dual-core beats AMD FX-8xxx CPUs in many scenarios.