Do AMD cpus at least give a smoother desktop experience w/more cores?

[LTC8K6]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2443441

For whatever it's worth, Cinebench isn't known to be an AMD-friendly bench, and the four module FX's seem to be able to pull away from all the i5's with the exception of the Skylake i5's with a healthy overclock.

There are only five 8T FX chips in post #3.

Only two of them are beating a few of the 4T i5 scores on page 4, and those two are clocked above 5ghz.

I don't see any 4T FX chips posted at all in comparison to the 4T i5 chips.

 

[Abwx]

There are only five 8T FX chips in post #3.

Only two of them are beating a few of the 4T i5 scores on page 4, and those two are clocked above 5ghz.

I don't see any 4T FX chips posted at all in comparison to the 4T i5 chips.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/609...cessor-megatest-benchmarks-igpu-cinebench-115

 

[SlowSpyder]

There are only five 8T FX chips in post #3.

Only two of them are beating a few of the 4T i5 scores on page 4, and those two are clocked above 5ghz.

I don't see any 4T FX chips posted at all in comparison to the 4T i5 chips.

Look at what was said:

No, sorry the answer is no.

1) Make believe scenarios don't exist, that's why they're called make believe
2) The thread is Intel vs AMD not FX8 vs i3 so even if your make believe scenario existed, the answer is still no
3) FX8 loses far more often then not to an i5 even in multi-threaded environments since Ivy Bridge.

In other words, no.

I disagree, particularly with #3. Looking at the link I posted (which many seem to consider an Intel-favored bench), an FX8350 @ it's turbo frequency of 4.2GHz beats an i5 3570k @ 4.8GHz. His comment was that Ivy level i5's are faster than 'FX8' often, even in multithreaded environments. I guess I'm not seeing that here. Maybe other multithreaded benches would show something different, but I don't think so, or at least it's not something I've seen really.

 

[LTC8K6]

Look at what was said:



I disagree, particularly with #3. Looking at the link I posted (which many seem to consider an Intel-favored bench), an FX8350 @ it's turbo frequency of 4.2GHz beats an i5 3570k @ 4.8GHz. His comment was that Ivy level i5's are faster than 'FX8' often, even in multithreaded environments. I guess I'm not seeing that here. Maybe other multithreaded benches would show something different, but I don't think so, or at least it's not something I've seen really.

But anyway an i5 is a 4T thread chip, and an FX8350 is an 8T chip...

You said 4 modules, which is an AMD term that some might confuse with threads...

Are we bragging now that FX 8 thread chips are a little faster than IB 4T chips? Or what?

 

[SlowSpyder]

But anyway an i5 is a 4T thread chip, and an FX8350 is an 8T chip...

You said 4 modules, which is an AMD term that some might confuse with threads...

Are we bragging now that FX 8 thread chips are a little faster than IB 4T chips? Or what?

I think you should take my posts at face value and stop looking for hidden intent. If you look at my posting history you'll see I regularly use 'module' over 'core' as some contend what IS a core, and that what is in the FX is not actually full cores.

I'm not bragging about anything... someone said something that I don't agree with, I replied and posted a link to support my position. No more, no less. Do you think the Ivy i5 is faster than an FX8 CPU in multithreaded scenarios? I doubt that's the case the vast majority of the time.

Are you bragging that Intel's higher priced and newer CPU's, Intel being a company with an R&D budget a couple times larger than AMD's total revenue, is losing in any benches to AMD? See, I can do it too.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Even RTG people buys Skylake CPUs

 

[Arachnotronic]

Even RTG people buys Skylake CPUs

People who spend their own hard earned money for gear typically don't like to spend it on garbage.

 

[SlowSpyder]

People who spend their own hard earned money for gear typically don't like to spend it on garbage.

I certainly did not spend my hard earned money on garbage.

 

[AtenRa]

I certainly did not spend my hard earned money on garbage.

Dont feed troll/bate posts, not worth it. He hasnt even tried a single FX Vishera CPU.

 

[squirrel dog]

amd cpu's work quite well in PS4's and XBOX 1's .

 

[Sweepr]

People who spend their own hard earned money for gear typically don't like to spend it on garbage.

Looks like RTG employees are smarter than the people who try hard to justify the choice of inferior products in forums. They want to show off their Radeon dGPUs in the best light, and that means Intel Skylake.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Dont feed troll/bate posts, not worth it. He hasnt even tried a single FX Vishera CPU.

Yea, I know... I use AMD and Intel regularly. CPU performance doesn't occur in a vacuum. In real world use the difference is a whole lot less noticeable than the Blue Crusaders here would have you believe.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Dont feed troll/bate posts, not worth it. He hasnt even tried a single FX Vishera CPU.

Exactly. I always find it funny -- that the biggest critics of FX on this forum are the people that have never, ever actually used one. It automatically makes whatever they say about it without merit.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Yea, I know... I use AMD and Intel regularly. CPU performance doesn't occur in a vacuum. In real world use the difference is a whole lot less noticeable than the Blue Crusaders here would have you believe.

Agreed..... Not only that -- the FX seems happiest when you really push it. Namely @4k resolution and Ultra Detail/Very High settings. Let's face it, a $179 FX-8370 shouldn't have a chance against the $1000 i7 5960x.
Yuriman has hypothetical arguments. My overclocked FX-8320 with SLI 970's says he's wrong..... It's called living in the real world. Does my FX keep up with my i7 4790K @ 4K? I would say not always.
But it's much, much stronger CPU than what most people on this forum would have you believe. If you want 250+ fps at 720p, then buy an Intel CPU for the superior single threaded pop. Want smooth 4k? Then
the FX is a pretty damn good choice.

\

 

[frozentundra123456]

Exactly. I always find it funny -- that the biggest critics of FX on this forum are the people that have never, ever actually used one. It automatically makes whatever they say about it without merit.

Have you ever driven a Ferrari, or a Prius? Guess you cant tell which is faster, huh, since you most likely haven't driven either.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Looks like RTG employees are smarter than the people who try hard to justify the choice of inferior products in forums. They want to show off their Radeon dGPUs in the best light, and that means Intel Skylake.

No, no...Robert Hallock is obviously a paid shill for Intel.

 

[mrmt]

Exactly. I always find it funny -- that the biggest critics of FX on this forum are the people that have never, ever actually used one. It automatically makes whatever they say about it without merit.

Given AMD market share it will be quite hard to find people with merits to discuss AMD processors in the near future.

 

[2is]

Look at what was said:



I disagree, particularly with #3. Looking at the link I posted (which many seem to consider an Intel-favored bench), an FX8350 @ it's turbo frequency of 4.2GHz beats an i5 3570k @ 4.8GHz. His comment was that Ivy level i5's are faster than 'FX8' often, even in multithreaded environments. I guess I'm not seeing that here. Maybe other multithreaded benches would show something different, but I don't think so, or at least it's not something I've seen really.

You can disagree all you want. You can find a couple victories for an FX8 here and there, they are exceptions, not rules. i5 > FX8 in ST, i5 > FX8 in MT probably about 80% of the time or more.

FX8 wasn't even beating a 2500k regularly in MT, it was trading blows. Now you want people to believe it's better then Haswell and Skylake i5's in MT? I'd love to know how it suddenly performs better when it's the same old chip riding on the same ancient chipset.

 

[2is]

The BS is when one is left unable to prove a statement he made, explicitely you talked too much, as pointed by the member above even in the Intel centric Cinebench i5s do not manage to beat the FX8350...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-19/indices-performance-cpu.html

Check the benches, in video encoding they use AVX2, FX is castrated with 1600MHz RAM to help a little...

It's been proven, many times, every time threads like this come up. THat's why you people revert to "smoothness" claims. That voodoo metric no one has data for. Again, AMD was behind with Sandy Bridge, now suddenly they're ahead with Skylake? Please. There's a word for people who think the way you think. They're called delusional. And it's the sole reason the answer "no" takes 19 pages. A handful of you reject reality and substitute your own.

Build your machines based on actual performance and not fanboyism, and you can avoid the need to defend your sub par hardware in the future.

It's a processor, it isn't a fine wine. It doesn't get better with age, no matter how strong your will might be to make it do just that. AMD themselves have abandoned these processors you're still defending. AMD themselves don't even use their own processors to highlight their video cards. But go ahead and keep telling yourself otherwise.

 

[Abwx]

i5 > FX8 in ST, i5 > FX8 in MT probably about 80% of the time or more.

You would be hard pressed to find some benches, prove is that you re stuck repeating the same statement without trying to support your own point, i guess that you googled and found that you re completely out of track..

FX8 wasn't even beating a 2500k regularly in MT, it was trading blows.

Yet another prove that you re just spreading urban legends, actualy there s about no MT bench where a 2500K beat a FX, even the 2600K is short of reaching its perfs unless the soft is specifialy designed for Intel like Euler3D or 3D Particle movement..

Here to give you an idea of the Integer throughputs :

 

[SlowSpyder]

You can disagree all you want. You can find a couple victories for an FX8 here and there, they are exceptions, not rules. i5 > FX8 in ST, i5 > FX8 in MT probably about 80% of the time or more.

FX8 wasn't even beating a 2500k regularly in MT, it was trading blows. Now you want people to believe it's better then Haswell and Skylake i5's in MT? I'd love to know how it suddenly performs better when it's the same old chip riding on the same ancient chipset.

That just isn't what I've seen. In ST, i5>FX. In applications that are multithreaded, but somewhat lightly so, it gets a lot more muddy. When something can use lots of cores, the FX>i5 (at least up to Skylake), from what I've seen. If you have benches, post them please!

 

[Abwx]

That just isn't what I've seen. In ST, i5>FX. In applications that are multithreaded, but somewhat lightly so, it gets a lot more muddy. When something can use lots of cores, the FX>i5 (at least up to Skylake), from what I've seen. If you have benches, post them please!

I linked HFR review of the 6700K wich is overall favouring Intel, and where their base is the 2500K at 100.

Even in their review the i5s, including SKL, are not up to the 8350, the i5 6600K is close in the average thanks to some instructions like AVX2, as it tie the 8350 in one X26x test, and to the softwares not all maxing 8 cores CPUs in their own words.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-19/indices-performance-cpu.html

And that s of course mono tasking, i wont insist about the poor multitasking perfs of said i5s...

Edit : Dont be surprised that there s no "counter bench" posted...

 

[Pixels303]

I am not a normal PC user. I host RAID arrays with 12+ drives, Multitask 4+ virtual machines, running games in each one, rip or trans-code various formats of video and run archivers of various sorts. I was a avid AMD user during the phenom age, due to availability of cheap components, but when I upgraded to a similar clock rate quad core Intel chip, I haven't looked back. I still am running two 5 year old Intel chips, which I have burned out and exchanged on warranty 3 times already. I don't know why, as I don't overclock but they seem to last about 18 months before they start doing strange things. I haven't compared to an AMD because I enjoy operating a computer system which doesn't heat my home. The Phenom chip which I gave away was a real hog on electricity and judging that these 8 core AMD's are using twice that energy or more depending on clock rates. I can't imagine running it 24/7/365 like I do with my two older generation 3750/2600 Intel rigs. Electricity bill would make my wife crazy. I however am interested in upgrading to a more powerful rig to double my visualization capacity without heating my home, but that means I need to buy expensive server class Intel stuff. Intel's good stuff is so expensive, and they keep changing their socket types like a girl changes shoes, which makes for obsolete systems whenever the cpu decides to crap out, which I find irritating about Intel. AMD manages to somehow have a compatible chip type across several different releases of processors, extending the life of a system which I find appealing. Would AMD do better trans-coding video or running more virtual environments? I am almost ready to try upgrading my old Intel machine to see, but I am waiting for them to use a 22nm or 14nm die process before I do as they are so power hungry. Till then, I'll limp by on my old Intel rigs. Even the software itself has limitations which I find has it's own bugs. Vmware has gone through 7 upgrades since setting up my rig, and with every new release, things get even worse. Even windows itself is becoming less and less appealing with every new release.

Any Linux Users here who find any performance differences over using windows across these platforms?

 

[2is]

Edit : Dont be surprised that there s no "counter bench" posted...

A simple google search for "i5 multitasking benchmarks"

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/4

Very first link. It doesn't get posted because this discussion is endless, has been going on since Sandy Bridge and AMD is on the losing end.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=697

I count 12 victories out of about 70 tests there. For FX8 over a i5 4690. But go ahead and keep recommending the slower more power hungry processor with a dated chispet to people for no other reason other then your own bias towards crap CPU's.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you should take my posts at face value and stop looking for hidden intent. If you look at my posting history you'll see I regularly use 'module' over 'core' as some contend what IS a core, and that what is in the FX is not actually full cores.

I'm not bragging about anything... someone said something that I don't agree with, I replied and posted a link to support my position. No more, no less. Do you think the Ivy i5 is faster than an FX8 CPU in multithreaded scenarios? I doubt that's the case the vast majority of the time.

Are you bragging that Intel's higher priced and newer CPU's, Intel being a company with an R&D budget a couple times larger than AMD's total revenue, is losing in any benches to AMD? See, I can do it too.

I'm an Intel fan, but I build AMD APU and FX systems fairly often. I am building an FX-6300 system shortly. I have posted numerous times here with benches of AMD systems that I have built.

These threads are nothing but stupidity contests where asked questions equal "FANBOY!!!!!"

It's really tiring.

I will continue to build AMD systems, but will refrain from discussing AMD cpus here in the future.