Are AMD processors worth considering for mid to high end?

SaltyNuts

Golden Member
May 1, 2001
1,183
9
91
#1
From looking around I get the impression that these days intel pretty much dominates on other than the very low end. Even taking price into account. But I've only read a few reviews. Is this the general consensus?

Thanks!
 

Celeryman

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
310
0
76
#3
For high end, AMD really doesn't make any desktop chips that compete well with high end Intel chips. I like AMD and have been running an FX 8320 in my desktop rig at home for two years. It's been a good chip, but starting to lag behind Intel's chips by a fair margin.

I would consider the FX line a good mid-range option. The A8 and A10 series is not a bad value option.

The general consensus at present time for most people will be that Intel is the way to go. I would agree.

I just hope Zen makes AMD more competitive.
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,469
13
106
#4
AMD isn't worth considering in most use cases. The cpu market belongs to Intel for the most part.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,774
1,378
136
#5
AMD isn't worth considering in most use cases. The cpu market belongs to Intel for the most part.
I think thats a little over the top. One the mid to low end they offer some good solutions based just on price/perf.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
14,428
409
55
#6
FX processors are very good for video encoding. They've only just been passed by Skylake parts; and the FX parts are cheaper.

I also think that, if you want to build a HTPC today that supports 10-bit HEVC, the A10-7800 is one of the best options. Although I'm not sure how hybrid decoding works with the new i3s.

But AMD's niches are few, and are continuing to shrink.
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,829
3,967
126
#7
The problem with the FX has always been balance. It can hang with an i7 in some benches, get left behind a Pentium in others. Depending on your use an FX can be worth considering, in other uses it isn't worth looking at.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#8
The problem with the FX has always been balance. It can hang with an i7 in some benches, get left behind a Pentium in others. Depending on your use an FX can be worth considering, in other uses it isn't worth looking at.
I posted a link, once sustained throughput is required only the FXs and the i7s are adequate, i5s are a no go, let alone i3s and below.

SKL i5 6600 make no exception, in the Cinebench + Winrar test it s a massacre, the FX8350 is 100% faster.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/...m-multitasking-test-the-witcher-3-plus-winrar
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
0
0
#9
AMD isn't worth considering in most use cases. The cpu market belongs to Intel for the most part.
I disagree, under $150 their cpus are very competitive, and will be better in the future. On the other hand, an intel might be more future proof if you plan to upgrade your cpu later. That's assuming they don't randomly change the socket again for kaby lake.
 

Z15CAM

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2010
1,952
6
81
www.flickr.com
#10
Ever since Sandy Bridge AMD has a long way to catch up - But for the price, AMD has Intel beat per Clocks.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#11

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#12
I don't see where the 8350 is twice as fast as the 6600 at that link.
CB MT score of the FX is 633, i5 score 602, if Winrar is executed at the same time the CB scores get to 387 and 192 respectively.

Notice that the i5 ST score is 165 and that it get to 77 if Winrar is executed at the same time, the FX ST score is 91 and get to 61 with Winrar.

Conclusion is that it s true that i5 have good ST perf, who would have guessed that it s litteraly the case, i.e, only if there s one thread running, lol...

Edit : Right that counting the two tasks the FX is only 57.7% or so better....
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
#13
I think thats a little over the top. One the mid to low end they offer some good solutions based just on price/perf.
Well, the question was for a mid to high end build, not low end. But granted, the title is oversimplified and a bit....provocative.

You really need to consider the what the system will be used for. The key though is, as another poster said, Intel is much more well rounded solution and would be my choice in most mid to high end builds, especially if gaming is going to be one of the major uses.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#14
CB MT score of the FX is 633, i5 score 602, if Winrar is executed at the same time the CB scores get to 387 and 192 respectively.

Notice that the i5 ST score is 165 and that it get to 77 if Winrar is executed at the same time, the FX ST score is 91 and get to 61 with Winrar.

Conclusion is that it s true that i5 have good ST perf, who would have guessed that it s litteraly the case, i.e, only if there s one thread running, lol...
Yes, if you throw a ton of threads at them, the chips that can handle the most threads will probably shine.

I don't think that's ever been a secret.

If we a throw a lot of threads at an 8T cpu and a 4T cpu, the outcome is not a surprise. The 4T cpu will fall behind.

If we know our workload is such, we will choose a CPU that can handle a lot of threads.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
#15
I don't see where the 8350 is twice as fast as the 6600 at that link.
Yea, I am always sure I have winRAR running before I start up a game.

The numbers he is referring to is cinebench plus winRAR multi gives 387 for 8350 and 192 for 6600k. But 6700k gives 579, so either the numbers are off, or it is a very artificial situation. I cant think of any other case where hyperthreading and a small clockspeed boost gives 3x the performance.

Edit: I do think though, that since it is basically free performance (from Intel's point of view), they should make hyperthreading more widespread.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#16
Yes, if you throw a ton of threads at them, the chips that can handle the most threads will probably shine.

I don't think that's ever been a secret.

If we a throw a lot of threads at an 8T cpu and a 4T cpu, the outcome is not a surprise. The 4T cpu will fall behind.
Surely and it s also FP but then look at The Witcher 3 + Winrar (this latter being an integer app it s representative of bursty process like wifi or apps connecting to the net), not only the FX is good for the game in isolation, it is better for winrar in isolation and better in both game and winrar in the combined tasks.

As for the i3s no need to comment further...
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#17
Yea, I am always sure I have winRAR running before I start up a game.
You are good to find excuses even when faced with raw facts, true that you couldnt read what i just posted...

Surely and it s also FP but then look at The Witcher 3 + Winrar (this latter being an integer app it s representative of bursty process like wifi or apps connecting to the net),
I cant think of any other case where hyperthreading and a small clockspeed boost gives 3x the performance.
That has nothing to do with HT, otherwise the i3 wouldnt sink, the cache sizes could be the explanation, in wich case that s a deliberate segmentation unknown by about all users and potential buyers..
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#18
Surely and it s also FP but then look at The Witcher 3 + Winrar (this latter being an integer app it s representative of bursty process like wifi or apps connecting to the net), not only the FX is good for the game in isolation, it is better for winrar in isolation and better in both game and winrar in the combined tasks.

As for the i3s no need to comment further...
I'm not so sure you are correct. The Game+Winrar test looks like a tie between all the high end chips.

Do we know what ram was used for FX vs Skylake vs Haswell?
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#19
Well, you have an 8T chip clocked 500mhz higher.

I don't think it's too impressive that 8T 4.0 8350 beats 4T 3.5 6600K in a simultaneous Winrar/R15 test, even if the numbers are correct.

It might show AMD's usual perch, value for money, if you intend to run mega threads.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#20
FX just seems to do very well with 7zip and WinRar, I think.

Even a 6350 ties a 6600K in 7zip. 6350 is actually 3.9ghz, though, so also clocked quite a bit higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1544

I think WinRar may have been chosen because FX does very well with it?
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#21
I'm not so sure you are correct. The Game+Winrar test looks like a tie between all the high end chips.

Do we know what ram was used for FX vs Skylake vs Haswell?
Tie if you want but that s far from the urban legends spread by the usuals suspects..

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/prozessoren-benchmarks-testsystem-amd-intel-2015/


FX just seems to do very well with 7zip and WinRar, I think.

Even a 6350 ties a 6600K in 7zip. 6350 is actually 3.9ghz, though, so also clocked quite a bit higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1544

I think WinRar may have been chosen because FX does very well with it?
No, they have a version that disadvantage AMD, look at the times and compare with AT...
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
28,515
235
126
#22
Yes, AMD was given faster ram. Not sure what difference it makes, though. Certainly not 2X.

I just don't think the R15 + WinRar numbers really help the case for FX versus Haswell / Skylake, even if they are accurate.

I would expect an 8T 500mhz faster chip to always demolish a 4T 500mhz slower chip, and that's just not the case at all.
 

littleg

Senior member
Jul 9, 2015
355
0
61
#23
I'm not even convinced they're worth considering on the low end at the moment.

I was looking at building a basic budget PC (to start with) and at the price points I was looking at I could either get a Pentium or maybe a rubbish i3 or an AMD chip. I settled on Intel as I could get a cheap 1150 processor now and then upgrade to an i5 / i7 without having to replace the mobo or RAM. There basically was no upgrade path for the AMD build at all short of getting a Zen processor when they come out and buying a bunch of new parts to put it in too.
 

Bradtech519

Senior member
Jul 6, 2010
501
1
91
#24
Depends on what you are doing day to day on your PC. I'd say the average user would probably be best served by an Intel CPU looking at the performance comparisons. It took a good deal price wise for me to go FX 8350 in the past & it performed good enough for me before it died. AMD is good enough CPUs but most users do stuff FPU dependent that benefit from higher IPC instead of heavy integer work loads that benefit AMD last I looked. I don't think the performance difference would probably be noticeable by the average person that gets on youtube & pays bills on a PC though. I put an SSD in a Celeron 900 2.2 GHz singe core laptop and my in laws are thrilled with how it feels now. Anymore I don't think you can go wrong on general usage but why pay the same for something that performs worse in most use cases.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
8,870
213
126
#25
Yes, AMD was given faster ram. Not sure what difference it makes, though. Certainly not 2X.
RAM is at max official settings, we re talking of stable plateforms.


I just don't think the R15 + WinRar numbers really help the case for FX versus Haswell / Skylake, even if they are accurate.

I would expect an 8T 500mhz faster chip to always demolish a 4T 500mhz slower chip, and that's just not the case at all.
Personaly i dont need to think, the numbers speaks for themselves, now it s true that they dont suit everybody here, including thoses who unrelentelessly brought games into the equation, they will hopefully think twice before advising to buy i3/i5s...
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS