Are AMD processors worth considering for mid to high end?

[LTC8K6]

RAM is at max official settings, we re talking of stable plateforms.

Yes, that's the argument that is always put forth. I expected you to write that.

I have an FX-6300 system right next to me, and I don't hobble it with 1866 ram, just as I don't hobble my 4790K with 1600 ram. I give them both what they need to get up and run.

I have built several FX systems and several Haswell systems. I liked both. I used fast ram in both.

I would still buy the 6600K over the 8350, even with the R15/WinRar numbers, were I buying now.

I have to look at the big picture.

I am going to drop an 8320 or 8350 into my 6300 system soon.

 

[Abwx]

Yes, that's the argument that is always put forth. I expected you to write that.

I have an FX-6300 system right next to me, and I don't hobble it with 1866 ram, just as I don't hobble my 4790K with 1600 ram. I give them both what they need to get up and run.

Slowspyder made some 7Zip tests at different speeds, there s some gains but nothing exceptional, must be 3-5% IIRC, all in all not sure that it s worth the effort, perhaps in other apps.

I have built several FX systems and several Haswell systems. I liked both. I used fast ram in both.

I would still buy the 6600K over the 8350, even with the R15/WinRar numbers, were I buying now.

I have to look at the big picture.

I am going to drop an 8320 or 8350 into my 6300 system soon.

It seems to me that the 8320E is not only cheaper but also better, AT s 8320E sample is only 2% "worse" TDP wise than Hardware.fr s 8370E, and has the same frequency ceilling (4.8-5.0) minus those 2%..

Well that s your money, but whatever the choice provide us some numbers in some thread......and good multitaskings to you , of course..

 

[escrow4]

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

Who runs CB + Winrar at the same time? Eh? Multiple benchmarks at the same time? FX is faster in something no one will ever actually use in practice. FX is a failure, AMD has gone back to the drawing board with Zen except it will likely be way too late.

Intel CPUs are simple, if you want basic buy an i3, if you want grunt buy an i5, if you want everything buy an i7. Anything below an i3 is a waste of time.

 

[tential]

There is no option from AMD that is current for the high end, so this thread really is irrelevant OP. You only have one option, Intel.
When AMD brings a new processor to market, then we can have a discussion.

 

[AtenRa]

For many new games the FX is better even against the Skylake Core i3 when paired with a mid-class GPU like GTX960/970 or R9 380/390.
But for MMORGs and older RTS they lag behind due to weaker single Thread performance. The only problem i have with the AMD FX Desktop CPUs in 2015 is the high power consumption and the older Platform design, otherwise for most of 2014-2015 games that can utilize more than 2-4 Threads, the 8-Core FX can even come close to Core i5s paired with mid-class GPUs.

 

[Abwx]

Who runs CB + Winrar at the same time? Eh? Multiple benchmarks at the same time? FX is faster in something no one will ever actually use in practice. FX is a failure, AMD has gone back to the drawing board with Zen except it will likely be way too late.

Intel CPUs are simple, if you want basic buy an i3, if you want grunt buy an i5, if you want everything buy an i7. Anything below an i3 is a waste of time.

No need of winrar, it is enough that some apps are open to choke the CPU, what the test show is that the i3/i5 are a disaster in Multithread once more than one app is loading the CPU, 4 thread yes, but only if it s the same soft..

So when playing games close everything else, includind the antivirus, to correct you anything i3 or i5 is a waste of time.

 

[Sweepr]

Who runs CB + Winrar at the same time? Eh? Multiple benchmarks at the same time? FX is faster in something no one will ever actually use in practice. FX is a failure, AMD has gone back to the drawing board with Zen except it will likely be way too late.

Intel CPUs are simple, if you want basic buy an i3, if you want grunt buy an i5, if you want everything buy an i7. Anything below an i3 is a waste of time.

Remmember the Hardware.fr scores he used to quote so much? He's not posting them anymore because 4C/4T Core i5-6600K almost matches FX8350 in their highly-MT benchmark selection. Now you need to dig real hard in pro-AMD websites like Computerbase, Hardwareluxx and SemiAccurate to find a few niche scenarios were the FX failure makes sense.

In reality the gap is so big it's embarassing:

i7 6700K vs FX8350 @ 4.7GHz - PCLab Review:

34,3% faster @ Assassins Creed Unity
60,4% faster @ Arma III
60,3% faster @ Battlefield 4 Multiplayer
64% faster @ Counter Strike Global Offensive
32.5% faster @ Crysis 3
104% faster @ Far Cry 4
114% faster @ GTA V
85% faster @ The Witcher 3
60.6% fater @ Watch Dogs
87.4% faster @ Project Cars
133% faster @ Starcraft 2
139.1% faster @ Total War Attila

Overall: Skylake-S 81.2% faster than Vishera per clock.

Instead of admiting AMD does need to play a lot of catch up you will see some people in total denial even after Zen launches. Have to admit it's fun to watch though.

 

[Abwx]

In reality the gap is so big it's embarassing:

Lol, pc lab and a 6700K...

Granted this one is not choked when two apps are running but that s not the point..

As posted above i3/i5 are incapable to perform in a real PC like they do in sites clean systems that have nothing else installed, not even an internet connection or a firewall..

No wonder that people upgrading to i7 say that it s night and day, while it shouldnt be according to reviews, it s just that i3/i5 are poor CPUs in modern usage and this is blatant as aknowledged by said users.

 

[Enigmoid]

Lol, pc lab and a 6700K...

Granted this one is not choked when two apps are running but that s not the point..

As posted above i3/i5 are incapable to perform in a real PC like they do in sites clean systems that have nothing else installed, not even an internet connection or a firewall..

No wonder that people upgrading to i7 say that it s night and day, while it shouldnt be according to reviews, it s just that i3/i5 are poor CPUs in modern usage and this is blatant as aknowledged by said users.

Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Abwx]

Remmember the Hardware.fr scores he used to quote so much? He's not posting them anymore because 4C/4T Core i5-6600K almost matches FX8350 in their highly-MT benchmark selection.

I do not post them because i boycott the CPU reviewer as he s of bad faith.

He always used 1600MHz RAM for the FX, i pointed him that the CPU support officialy 1866, to wich he answered that the Intel plateform was limited to 1600, as if it was AMD s fault, and that RAM speed didnt matter in Winrar or 7Zip, wich was a lie as he stated the contrary as apology for SKL/BDL in thoses tests..

That said it is well known that HFR is sold out to Intel and litteraly an Nvidia mouthpiece, it s just that the level of bias in EU sites is well below the one in US sites, if we except PC lab, thoses ones are in a vengence course since AMD stopped sending them some gear...

 

[Abwx]

Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

Two softs using each 4 threads at most and the throughput collapse, be it CB + Winrar or a Game + Background tasks like Adobe updating...

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

Multithread yes, multi tasks no, as said close everything else when gaming otherwise it will be a festival of tearing and stutter....

 

[mrmt]

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!

Yes, it is. Current AMD chips were labeled "unmitigated failures" by a former AMD SVP and the failure was acknowledged by the then-CEO Rory Read. They are such a failure that AMD is basically dropping both current architectures and developing a new one.

 

[MrTeal]

Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

I find running benchmarks like R15 my scores will go up ~5% or so if I manually go in and stop every non-essential service and kill unnecessary processes. I've had Win7 installed on that computer since it was new though, and it has 127 processes running even sitting at the desktop after a reboot. It's not exactly a lean system.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I think thats a little over the top. One the mid to low end they offer some good solutions based just on price/perf.

Agreed. High end is kind of a vague description. If the OP was talking about gaming... Sure, probably need to buy an Intel cpu. If he was talking about rendering / video editing / integer intensive applications -- then an FX 8 Core is pretty hard to beat for bang for the buck.

 

[Yuriman]

Lol, pc lab and a 6700K...

Granted this one is not choked when two apps are running but that s not the point..

As posted above i3/i5 are incapable to perform in a real PC like they do in sites clean systems that have nothing else installed, not even an internet connection or a firewall..

No wonder that people upgrading to i7 say that it s night and day, while it shouldnt be according to reviews, it s just that i3/i5 are poor CPUs in modern usage and this is blatant as aknowledged by said users.

In day-to-day use, I can't tell the difference between my wife's i3, my i5 and the i7 machine I built for my in-laws. We're all at least light gamers, and frequently leave things open in the background. Not sure where this is coming from.

 

[Enigmoid]

Lol, pc lab and a 6700K...

Granted this one is not choked when two apps are running but that s not the point..

As posted above i3/i5 are incapable to perform in a real PC like they do in sites clean systems that have nothing else installed, not even an internet connection or a firewall..

No wonder that people upgrading to i7 say that it s night and day, while it shouldnt be according to reviews, it s just that i3/i5 are poor CPUs in modern usage and this is blatant as aknowledged by said users.

This has to do with thread count. Nothing to do with capability. Its not hyperthreading related (otherwise i3's and i7's would perform relatively similarly) or related to the fact that intel uses a unified reservation station for FP and integer tasks (again i3's and i7's would perform similarily).

That test is flawed in that the CB + Winrar results only show the CB score. Simply put, most of the CPU computing power may be allocated to Winrar. In fact that is exactly what is happening. The winrar times barely budge while CB drops like a rock (looking specifically at the i5's) because most of the core resources are allocated to Winrar.

Looking at the results it appears that for intel CPUs

4 or less cores, no HT: prioritize Winrar (winrar scores similar, CB scores terrible)

4 or less cores, with HT: Give more equal priority to both tasks (because HT) -> CB scores higher, winrar scores lower. Exceptions are pre HW i7s.

More than 4 cores with HT: Enough threads to handle everything. Minimal hit the winrar and CB performance.

AMD: Behaves like the 8 thread intel CPUs

Conclusion: Can't say. Don't know whether this is an intel prioritization problem or a windows scheduling problem. No AMD chips other than the 8350 were tested so we can't say that this behaviour would no be observed on AMD chips (say the 2M/4T chips). Seems like, quite obviously, more threads means greater multitasking potential.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For many new games the FX is better even against the Skylake Core i3 when paired with a mid-class GPU like GTX960/970 or R9 380/390.
But for MMORGs and older RTS they lag behind due to weaker single Thread performance. The only problem i have with the AMD FX Desktop CPUs in 2015 is the high power consumption and the older Platform design, otherwise for most of 2014-2015 games that can utilize more than 2-4 Threads, the 8-Core FX can even come close to Core i5s paired with mid-class GPUs.

I was going to mention this, in many new AAA games the FX seems to hold it's own pretty well.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I have both and i will say that the i7 is the fastest overall but there are things where the FX challenges the i7. My dedicated gamer is the i7 for obvious reasons but i do use the FX for some specific programs and it does a very good job.

Intel owns the top and mid but AMD has decent alternatives for mid. Bottom is still a toss up.

 

[b-mac]

There may be a few niche cases where AMD makes sense but for the VAST majority of people an Intel CPU is the best choice. I would recommend Intel to anyone building or buying a PC these days.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I was going to mention this, in many new AAA games the FX seems to hold it's own pretty well.

Yes this is very true. My FX system plays everything @ 1080p (without ultra settings in some 2015 titles).

I would recommend Intel to anyone building or buying a PC these days.

It really depends on what the PC will be used for. FX is an unbalanced chip due to low single thread performance and solid Multithreaded performance

 

[2is]

I personally don't think AMD is worth considering at any end.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I personally

You're entitled to have your opinion, i respect it

On the other side:
In a world without Intel, i bet it would serve everyone

 

[IEC]

AMD has some niches, but Intel has the better options for most things.

i7 6700K or similar --> Gaming
i7 5820K or similar --> budget 6C/12T workloads
i7 5960X or Xeon --> professional heavily multi-threaded workloads

 

[crashtech]

As of this moment, AMD is not supplying the competitive products required to earn the recommendation of most enthusiasts. Even if there are niche apps for AMD, it's tough to recommend them because PCs are supposed to be general purpose machines, and for that we need a CPU that does nearly everything well. Right now Intel CPUs fit that definition much better than AMD, even though there are a few things AMD really excels at.

 

[Abwx]

This has to do with thread count. Nothing to do with capability. Its not hyperthreading related

Who said that it s due to thread count and HT...?.

Read through the thread before posting..

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..

what the test show is that the i3/i5 are a disaster in Multithread once more than one app is loading the CPU, 4 thread yes, but only if it s the same soft..

That test is flawed in that the CB + Winrar results only show the CB score.

Prove that you dont read, the Winrar score are posted, so who s or what is flawed since you dont even ead before posting..?.[/QUOTE]

Conclusion: Can't say. Don't know whether this is an intel prioritization problem or a windows scheduling problem. No AMD chips other than the 8350 were tested so we can't say that this behaviour would no be observed on AMD chips (say the 2M/4T chips). Seems like, quite obviously, more threads means greater multitasking potential.

Probably that the lower end FX also behave very well if not better than the FX8350 as they have the full L3 cache for less cores set apart for the 4300 wich is exactly half a FX8350.

As for Intel i would believe that it s a deliberate segmentation if it is confirmed that it s the cache that is the culprit.

There may be a few niche cases where AMD makes sense but for the VAST majority of people an Intel CPU is the best choice. I would recommend Intel to anyone building or buying a PC these days.

Yes, because vast majoity of people use one PC per application and at a given moment, niche case you said...?..

Actualy this moniker better suit Celeron, Pentium, i3 and eventualy i5.

I personally don't think AMD is worth considering at any end.

Lol, all is left is denial.