Are AMD processors worth considering for mid to high end?

[SlowSpyder]

Well, the 4.7ghz 9590 still gets massacred in single thread by the 3.7ghz i3...

That pretty much tells us that you aren't going to overclock an 8350 past an i3 for single thread dominance.

But the gap can be lessened. It also depends on the application. And you can't overclock an i3 to match the FX's multithreaded performance.

 

[crashtech]

A true budget octacore with per-core (ST) performance closer to what we have come to expect would be quite welcome, but the 8T FX does not meet either of those criteria. In most apps it behaves more like a 4C/8T CPU than a 8C/8T one.

 

[svenge]

And you can't overclock an i3 to match the FX's multithreaded performance.

It's just too bad that Intel doesn't make CPUs with higher core counts to counter that. I don't know what they'd call such a hypothetical processor though, perhaps if they keep using prime numbers in their names it could be an i5 or i7?

 

[MrTeal]

It's just too bad that Intel doesn't make CPUs with higher core counts to counter that. I don't know what they'd call such a hypothetical processor though, perhaps if they keep using prime numbers in their names it could be an i5 or i7?

They do, you just need to move to LGA2011.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, but that is part of the problem with FX for the average user. He is not going to overclock, and you have to add a discrete card or live with motherboard graphics as well. Not to mention 9590 or 8350 overclocked to 9590 levels uses a *lot* more power than an i3, especially Skylake. Only scenario where that makes sense is a lot of heavily multithreaded workloads.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's just too bad that Intel doesn't make CPUs with higher core counts to counter that. I don't know what they'd call such a hypothetical processor though, perhaps if they keep using prime numbers in their names it could be an i5 or i7?

A tri core i4 xxxxK with HT would be awesome. But we'll never see it because I think it'd eat up i5 and possibly even i7 sales. There's a good business reason that i3's are only available locked.

 

[dark zero]

A true budget octacore with per-core (ST) performance closer to what we have come to expect would be quite welcome, but the 8T FX does not meet either of those criteria. In most apps it behaves more like a 4C/8T CPU than a 8C/8T one.

Agreed. Only on Virtual Machines the FX are really effective against the HT (VM loves real cores, despite if is slow or not and heavily ignores virtual cores unless comes from high end Xeons or HEDT Core chips)

 

[MrTeal]

Well, the 4.7ghz 9590 still gets massacred in single thread by the 3.7ghz i3...

That pretty much tells us that you aren't going to overclock an 8350 past an i3 for single thread dominance.

Massacred is a pretty strong word. It still gets beat, but it pulls closer. The Haswell chip is 35-50 faster in some single threaded workloads, but in multithreaded ones the 9590 can be 100% or more faster than the i3. In gaming, other than the strangely low minimums in Bioshock Infinite* it's pretty much a wash between the two. If your use case benefits from more cores (and you enjoy having toasty warm feet) an overclocked 8320 compares pretty good with 2C/4T Haswell chips.



*The Bioshock numbers are doubly strange as a 3.8GHz FX-4300 gets a minimum of 14.7fps while the 4.7GHz FX-9590 gets 10.2fps with a single GTX770.

 

[Phynaz]

Question was answered in the second post. And then the usual suspects got all defensive.

 

[Phynaz]

Well then, the best the 4.0/4.2ghz FX 8 core chip can do is "a wash" against Intel's 4th gen 3.7ghz 2C/4T i3?

How is that good?
How is it good that you even have to talk about overclocking the FX relative to the i3?

Winter is coming, the FX will do an immensely better job of heating your house than the i3. ()

 

[CHADBOGA]

I disagree. Single thread has always been a problem for the FX, and things haven't improved with time. The i3-6100 now enjoys about a 33% advantage in single-thread performance over the FX-8320, an advantage which persists well into the medium loads that the vast majority of PCs will be subject to.

Where are you getting your figures from?

 

[LTC8K6]

Where are you getting your figures from?

Not hard to believe since Haswell has a huge lead already.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

 

[boozzer]

I am waiting for zen and see how it stacks up. but intel is rolling out with more cores just like amd. the next couple of years we could finally see some improvement in the cpu department?

 

[TheELF]

No intel will not jump on the core train, it makes no sense for mainstream CPUs.
Intel improves the cores performance which is much more useful for the end user.
http://anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis/5

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not hard to believe since Haswell has a huge lead already.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

I think the point was that 33% was an huge understatement.

 

[Vortex6700]

My $.02: a $1200 9590 + dual r9 290x setup on Arma 3 can net you 60fps @ 5960 x 1080 w/ultra everything and 10k view distance and 10k object distance with 60 ai squads in view (30 v 30)

 

[fourdegrees11]

The point is that if you play games with an i3/i5 disable all others possible apps, including your firewall, antivirus, wifi or ethernet, whatever can use ressources, othewise you wont get the fps that you see in reviews, and dont forget to have permanently a clean OS with no useless applications installed.

LMAO yeah games are a dog with afterburner, anti-virus, and ethernet enabled :sarcasm:

 

[frozentundra123456]

My $.02: a $1200 9590 + dual r9 290x setup on Arma 3 can net you 60fps @ 5960 x 1080 w/ultra everything and 10k view distance and 10k object distance with 60 ai squads in view (30 v 30)

Seriously? With a titan, 8350 at 4.5 ghz only gets 40FPS. link . And that is apparently a single 1080 screen, not eyefinity. Not sure why anybody would post Arma 3 as a game to justify FX. Just look at the link I posted. 4 generation old 2600k at stock is more than 25% faster than FX overclocked to 4.5.

 

[crashtech]

Image for the impatient, at ultra quality (as mentioned) it gets even worse:

Two 290x in CF won't improve minimums much if at all, imo.

 

[AtenRa]

That is from 2013, there are more than 3-5 patches of the game and more than 12 GPU drivers since then.

 

[crashtech]

1080 Ultra, No AA, May 2015:

 

[Innokentij]

AMD isn't worth considering in most use cases. The cpu market belongs to Intel for the most part.

Amen, AMD stopped being relevant for me after C2D came.

 

[AtenRa]

1080 Ultra, No AA, May 2015:

Sorry but not all of those scores were acquired on the time of the review,

The scores of the FX CPUs and the SB, Ivy and Haswell are the same as in 2014 FX8370 review. They simple copy the old results. Not to mention that the vast majority of those systems are bellow 30fps at that settings and the GPU.

What GPU they used for the review by the way ???

 

[Sweepr]

1080 Ultra, No AA, May 2015:

FX's piss poor ST performance becomes evident in this game. 65W Core i5-5675C @ mid-3GHz demolishes 220W Vishera close to 5GHz.

 

[crashtech]

Sorry but not all of those scores were acquired on the time of the review,

The scores of the FX CPUs and the SB, Ivy and Haswell are the same as in 2014 FX8370 review. They simple copy the old results. Not to mention that the vast majority of those systems are bellow 30fps at that settings and the GPU.

What GPU they used for the review by the way ???

Tell you what, I'll just let readers decide for themselves instead of wasting time responding to your nitpicks.