Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I'm sorry for you in a way. I get what you are saying, I get why, and while it's not wrong, it's missing out on a lot of things and I wish you could make that leap, there is enjoyment to be had. All else I think I can say is, as I've said in the last ten threads like this, I've owned them all since I don't like running my mouth without experience, and my experience is contrary to what you are suggesting with the FX. Try looking past the benchmarks, it's a brave new world.

I agree with Ramses here -- Depending of the workload (for people not using their PC's for 100% playing games)... An octocore FX is generally faster than an i3 for the majority of multithreaded tasks.... Obviously, single threaded tasks are usually faster on the i3.

 

[crashtech]

I agree the i3 is a very good all around processor, even for moderate gaming. The only issue I have with the i3 is that it seems a bit overpriced in general, although you can find good deals now. For a general use consumer box, I would have no problem recommending an i3; in fact I think a quad is definitely overkill.

But for gaming, the i3 *is* uncomfortably close to a locked i5 in price. And with even the low end i5 having turbo, you dont give up too much single threaded performance in exchange for significantly better multithreaded performance.

The 4460 is $70 more than the 4160, and it's max turbo is only 200MHz higher than base, maxing out at 3.4GHz single threaded, whereas the i3 will run at 3.6 even maxed out.

 

[Ramses]

Strictly speaking, you don't know what you're talking about, and here is why.

When AMD and Intel "bills" their chips, they are comparing it with other chips in their own line up. That isn't what we are doing here. We are comparing them to one another. So you can't say FX is high end and i3 is low end when the i3 outperforms it. Seriously, how hard is this concept? Take off your fanboy glasses for no longer than a minute and you'll very quickly see how ridiculous that statement sounds.

I disagree, and repeat.

The i3 will always be low end for intel(unless they change things up), no matter how fast it is, as long as there are i5's and i7's that are faster, it's low end. I didn't decide this, Intel did. It's a perfectly good CPU. It's not high end. It's faster than a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, but that was still and always will be a high end CPU, and the i3 is still a low end CPU.

The FX is done and gone. It's over. It's too late to change anything about it.
It doesn't need to be beaten, defeated, destroyed, it's done. But it's not somehow, but still. It's old news. And I'm a little baffled why it's in the same conversation as a much newer low end cpu. Back in it's day it compared fairly favorably to the midrange Intel stuff for awhile, for the money, and that was just fine. Time has moved on. And that's exactly how it should be. It's a gift to us that old cheap CPU's can still be useful unlike in years or even decades past.

It was a mid-range and high-end chip for AMD.
No matter what they make going forward, if they make, it will always be
the mid-range and high-end AMD chip from that time period and product line.
Nothing will ever change that. No matter how fast future low end parts are, no matter how much faster (or slower) future AMD parts are, this is what they are and will always be.

Says the supposed AMD fanboy with the i7 laptop and desktop and not an AMD chip in the house. Other than a GPU..


Question. Are you comparing the FX line to the current i-whatever just because AMD hasn't made another CPU yet? That's a peculiar way of looking at things if so. Is there a cutoff or expiration date? Next year, five years? Will the 14th generation i7 have a thread comparing it's benches against the FX? lol..

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

It seems to me important to note that AMD doesn't even use AMD processors in their high-end consumer gear (e.g. Quantum) or showcase machines for their GPUs. The company that designs the chips isn't using them.

Only because Zen isn't available yet. Why would anyone run a 3 year old FX for a technology demo? I might also point out -- that FX has never been available in an ITX form factor (Quantum).

 

[Ramses]

Only because Zen isn't available yet. Why would anyone run a 3 year old FX for a technology demo?

They have been recommending the use of Intel CPU's for GPU tests in the press kit for some time I've read more than once. It only makes good sense, especially if the GPU division is as separate as I suspect it is from the CPU guys. Good to see them being practical about it, I'd have made the same choice for sure.

 

[2is]

I disagree, and repeat.

The i3 will always be low end for intel(unless they change things up), no matter how fast it is, as long as there are i5's and i7's that are faster, it's low end. I didn't decide this, Intel did. It's a perfectly good CPU. It's not high end. It's faster than a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, but that was still and always will be a high end CPU, and the i3 is still a low end CPU.

You don't disagree, you said the exact same thing I did lol. You're just being dense, maybe on purpose maybe not. We aren't comparing Intel to Intel we are comparing Intel do AMD. i3 is intel FX8 is AMD. That's been the discussion between you and I since the beginning. Ignoring it won't change that.

 

[crashtech]

So if the i3 is low end, what are Celerons and Pentiums? I'd think that the true low end is defined by those craptastic tablet CPUs they are putting into "desktops" these days.

 

[Ramses]

You don't disagree, you said the exact same thing I did lol. You're just being dense, maybe on purpose maybe not. We aren't comparing Intel to Intel we are comparing Intel to AMD. i3 is intel FX8 is AMD. That's been the discussion between you and I since the beginning. Ignoring it won't change that.

What I'm hearing is that i3 is higher end than FX, and I disagree with that for what I think are obvious reasons I've detailed above. None of which have anything to do with performance today so much as they do performance years ago. If that isn't what you're saying I apologise.

I don't see any reason to compare a new i3 with an old FX other than in passing if even that.

 

[Ramses]

So if the i3 is low end, what are Celerons and Pentiums? I'd think that the true low end is defined by those craptastic tablet CPUs they are putting into "desktops" these days.

They still make celerons? lol...

 

[AtenRa]

My point was, I don't think any actual high-end user would do that except for kicks. Once you get down to the serious business of putting together a budget for the machine and assessing performance, it's LGA2011 v3 hands down as the winner.

I do, when it comes to minimum framerates. Doubly so if you're using AMD video cards in a DX11 title.

The price difference of a Socket 2011-v3 + 6-Core Core i7 + DDR4 vs AM3+ + FX-8320E is more than a R9 290/X alone. That means that you can have a 4K Gaming with an FX 8-Core + CF 290 for less and you will not even feel any performance difference even in minimum fps.

If a Quad Core Kaveri at DEFAULT is enough for Dual 290X and 4K then an OverClocked 8-core FX is as well or even better. And this is in DX-11, in Mantle the difference in CPU performance between the 8-Core FX and 6-Core Core i7 will be negligibly.

You can, if your existing WC setup is going to be enough for a beastly FX overclock. It would not surprise me if someone's Thuban WC setup held them back on an FX. Thuban could get hot, but Vishera gets hotter.

Nope, If you had a 6-core Phenom II at 4-4.1GHz you will be fine with an FX at 4.6-4.8GHz using the same cooling setup.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I disagree, and repeat.

The i3 will always be low end for intel(unless they change things up), no matter how fast it is, as long as there are i5's and i7's that are faster, it's low end. I didn't decide this, Intel did. It's a perfectly good CPU. It's not high end. It's faster than a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, but that was still and always will be a high end CPU, and the i3 is still a low end CPU.

The FX is done and gone. It's over. It's too late to change anything about it.
It doesn't need to be beaten, defeated, destroyed, it's done. But it's not somehow, but still. It's old news. And I'm a little baffled why it's in the same conversation as a much newer low end cpu. Back in it's day it compared fairly favorably to the midrange Intel stuff for awhile, for the money, and that was just fine. Time has moved on. And that's exactly how it should be. It's a gift to us that old cheap CPU's can still be useful unlike in years or even decades past.

It was a mid-range and high-end chip for AMD.
No matter what they make going forward, if they make, it will always be
the mid-range and high-end AMD chip from that time period and product line.
Nothing will ever change that. No matter how fast future low end parts are, no matter how much faster (or slower) future AMD parts are, this is what they are and will always be.

Says the supposed AMD fanboy with the i7 laptop and desktop and not an AMD chip in the house. Other than a GPU..


Question. Are you comparing the FX line to the current i-whatever just because AMD hasn't made another CPU yet? That's a peculiar way of looking at things if so. Is there a cutoff or expiration date? Next year, five years? Will the 14th generation i7 have a thread comparing it's benches against the FX? lol..

Comparing intel to FX is not a peculiar way of looking at it at all. If you can show us a better chip than FX to compare to intel, then go right ahead. Honestly, I dont get the people who excuse FX for being old. It is currently the chip they are selling and has to be compared the the chips intel is currently selling. it is not my fault, or intel's fault that AMD has not brought out any new chips. It is the responsibility of the company to bring out new products to remain competitive.

 

[TeknoBug]

Ramses, I don't remember if I asked you or it was someone else but I'm going to ask it again, have you used an i3 at all? They're NOT slow. Remember, I came from an FX 8320E OC'd to 4.2-4.5GHz and an i7 OC'd to 4.5GHz because I'm into efficiency builds now.

Also I can still count on one hand the number of multi-threaded applications. There's an awful lot of cherry picking going on here.

 

[2is]

What I'm hearing is that i3 is higher end than FX, and I disagree with that for what I think are obvious reasons I've detailed above. None of which have anything to do with performance today so much as they do performance years ago. If that isn't what you're saying I apologise.

I don't see any reason to compare a new i3 with an old FX other than in passing if even that.

It's faster, newer, uses less power. You can disagree all you want. It just means your definition of "high end" is purely arbitrary and thus, every bit of worthless. By your logic, we have a low end processor quite regularly outperforming a high end processor. Which makes those labels completely meaningless when you're the one using them.

 

[AtenRa]

Radeon R9 290X CF - AMD AM3+ vs. Intel LGA 1150 vs. LGA 2011 at 4K
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...s-intel-lga-1150-vs-lga-2011-at-4k/index.html

AMD FX-8350 powering GTX 780 SLI vs GTX 980 SLI at 2560x1440
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...80-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

AMD FX-8350 powering GTX 780 SLI vs GTX 980 SLI at 4K
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

ps: The FX8350 in the reviews above is at DEFAULT.

 

[Ramses]

It's faster, newer, uses less power. You can disagree all you want. It just means your definition of "high end" is purely arbitrary and thus, every bit of worthless. By your logic, we have a low end processor quite regularly outperforming a high end processor. Which makes those labels completely meaningless when you're the one using them.

It's perfectly natural for a newer low end product to outperform an older high end product. We call this progress and it's observable in nearly everything man-made.

Remember, I didn't label the i3 low end or the FX high end, their respective manufacturers did by marketing them as such.

 

[myocardia]

An octocore FX is generally faster than an i3 for the majority of multithreaded tasks....

Name just 3 or 4 tasks that average people are doing with their computers, that are multithreaded.

edit: Besides gaming, of course.

 

[AtenRa]

Name just 3 or 4 things that average people are doing with their computers, that are multithreaded.

1: Play games especially Mantle and DX-12. But even latest DX-11 games are faster with the FX 8-core than Haswell Core i3.

2: converting movies, x264 etc

3: MultiTasking, Playing games like Civilization, third person shooters/mobas and at the same time converting Movies.

 

[2is]

It's perfectly natural for a newer low end product to outperform an older high end product. We call this progress and it's observable in nearly everything man-made.

Remember, I didn't label the i3 low end or the FX high end, their respective manufacturers did by marketing them as such.

Except you're not comparing an i3 to an i5 or an i7 which is what Intel is doing.

And you're not comparing FX8 to FX6 or FX4 which is what AMD is doing

You're comparing i3 to FX8. The comaprisons we are making aren't the same ones Intel or AMD are making. This is about the 3rd or 4th time we have been through this. What part is confusing to you exactly? At what point do you read this, get confused, say "f it" and reply back saying the same thing over and over again?

Furthermore, please link me the Intel product brief that specifically has them labeling i3 as "low end" I haven't seen it, up until now I was just taking your word for it, but seeing the continued delusional nature of your arguments, I now have to question this claim as well.

 

[Ramses]

Ramses, I don't remember if I asked you or it was someone else but I'm going to ask it again, have you used an i3 at all? They're NOT slow. Remember, I came from an FX 8320E OC'd to 4.2-4.5GHz and an i7 OC'd to 4.5GHz because I'm into efficiency builds now.

Also I can still count on one hand the number of multi-threaded applications. There's an awful lot of cherry picking going on here.

Have not used an i3 for any length of time(any of them) however I fully believe they are not slow, and I've said as much several times, or tried to. They are very nearly ALL fast, newer CPU's. It's why people can still use an FX and get along OK, or a several generation old Intel chip. There is no shortage of fast CPU's, there is a great thread on here from a few months ago about the slowing of upgrade cycles precisely because of this. I've used some older i5's long enough to count, my i7-4510u and 4790k for a good while, I think I can extrapolate a bit up and down the scale from the observed performance there. I've no doubt the i3 is plenty fast.
I have an old TK-57 dual core laptop, THAT is getting to be pretty slow but it's still useable if one takes care. Odd part is doing the exact same things with the same software that it used to be pretty speedy on, it's now slow. My tinfoil hat is on over that but it's another discussion all together.

I think from my experience that multi-threaded is over-used as a thing, it's not so much that since nothing I run ever really stresses a modern CPU anyway, as it is having multiple cores that can dedicate themselves to a dozen different tasks on top of just running windows. I'm no programer but I have enough sense to use a process viewer and performance trackers and have done a fair bit of that in the past and I maintain my more-cores-the-better attitude. I'm not joking when I say everything I do on my PC is effectively instant, it was that way from the 8350 on up. I can't figure out how to get more instant-er than instant, which is I guess why folks benchmark so much. I remember the first time I could play an mp3 while running QuakeII, there aren't many "wow!" moments like that anymore.
If there are people doing things that drag a 4790K or an 8350 or whatever and have those "wow!" moments when they upgrade these days, I envy em the continued experience. It seems to be over for me.

 

[myocardia]

1: Play games especially Mantle and DX-12. But even latest DX-11 games are faster with the FX 8-core than Haswell Core i3.

You should read the threads you're posting in, before posting.

Depending of the workload (for people not using their PC's for 100% playing games)...

 

[2is]

1: Play games especially Mantle and DX-12. But even latest DX-11 games are faster with the FX 8-core than Haswell Core i3.

2: converting movies, x264 etc

3: MultiTasking, Playing games like Civilization, third person shooters/mobas and at the same time converting Movies.

1) Mantle is a dead end tech
2) Average people don't do this and QuickSync puts FX8 to shame
3) Average people don't do this and it's rare even for people on here. If you do decide to do it, QuickSync puts FX8 to shame and will hardly slow down while doing other things.

I call your cherry picked jpg and raise you a cherry picked skyrim benchmark:

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

Whats sad is that this doesn't even include haswell i3

What else you got?

 

[Ramses]

Except you're not comparing an i3 to an i5 or an i7 which is what Intel is doing.

And you're not comparing FX8 to FX6 or FX4 which is what AMD is doing

You're comparing i3 to FX8. The comparisons we are making aren't the same ones Intel or AMD are making. This is about the 3rd or 4th time we have been through this. What part is confusing to you exactly? At what point do you read this, get confused, say "f it" and reply back saying the same thing over and over again?

Furthermore, please link me the Intel product brief that specifically has them labeling i3 as "low end" I haven't seen it, up until now I was just taking your word for it, but seeing the continued delusional nature of your arguments, I now have to question this claim as well.

Low end is implied, imo, by the fact that the i5 and i7 are more expensive and higher performance/more features. It's a pretty standard sales thing(least in the US). That is how their marketing structure has presented them to me and I don't think anyone would think of them as anything but low-end. Sure they are fast, so are most desktop CPU's, but still low end.
It seems obvious to me but that's the most honest way I can think to answer.



I see no reason to compare an old, out of date CPU to a new one.
Even if AMD never makes another CPU, I ask again, will you still be comparing the 14th gen I3 to an FX years from now? Where do you draw that line?
Do you draw that line?

Illustrative example:
When a new Mustang comes out, it is compared to the new Camaro.
Unless there isn't a new Camaro(which there wasn't for some time).
Nobody compared the new Mustangs to the previous Camaros, because it was not current. Even though there were still plenty of them driving around, it wasn't something anyone did other than in passing because it was fruitless.

I keep saying the same thing over and over for the same reason you do, I can't understand how you aren't seeing what I'm getting at, and vice versa.
I'm ok with that and it's nothing new on the interwebs but I really would like to know where you draw that line I've mentioned a couple times now. Is it punishing AMD somehow for not keeping up? I can understand that sentiment if that's the case, but it's distasteful.

 

[2is]

There are lower end processors in the Intel line up than the i3. There are Pentiums and Celerons below that.

So you kept saying it's intel's own word and now we have "implied" but what you think is implied really isn't. If i3 is "implied" as low end what is a Pentium and Celeron below that?

You compare what the company puts out. FX8 is AMD's flagship that is still being shipped and sold. That's what we compare. When people go and buy a new system, they buy what's beign sold.

Lets summarize your points:

-i3 is low end but fx8 is high end (despite i3 outperforming FX8)
-Intel claims i3 is low end (now we know you just made that up)
-Benchmarks don't matter
-You see no reason to compare even though that's what's on the market currently being sold.

Will the delusions ever stop?

How can I possibly get where you're coming from when your reasoning defies all logic and further, is based on nothing more than your own imagination? You have been saying up until I called you out how intel themselves claim i3 is low end (not that it even matters since that would be in reference to their own product lines) and now you're saying it's implied. Yet, you are failing to acknowledge Celeron and Pentium. So not only would the argument be irrelevant if true, but it's not true, and it's not even implied. You've been making compromise after compromise to this argument, watering it down as the situation required, and it's still a fallacious claim. The amount of fail in these arguments is down right astonishing.

 

[Ramses]

There are lower end processors in the Intel line up than the i3. There are Pentiums and Celerons below that.

So you kept saying it's intel's own word and now we have "implied" but what you think is implied really isn't. If i3 is "implied" as low end what is a Pentium and Celeron below that?

You compare what the company puts out. FX8 is AMD's flagship that is still being shipped and sold. That's what we compare. When people go and buy a new system, they buy what's beign sold.

Lets summarize your points:

-i3 is low end but fx8 is high end (despite i3 outperforming FX8)
-Intel claims i3 is low end (now we know you just made that up)
-Benchmarks don't matter
-You see no reason to compare even though that's what's on the market currently being sold.

Will the delusions ever stop?

How can I possibly get where you're coming from when your reasoning defies all logic and further, is based on nothing more than your own imagination? You have been saying up until I called you out how intel themselves claim i3 is low end (not that it even matters since that would be in reference to their own product lines) and now you're saying it's implied. Yet, you are failing to acknowledge Celeron and Pentium. So not only would the argument be irrelevant if true, but it's not true, and it's not even implied. You've been making compromise after compromise to this argument, watering it down as the situation required, and it's still a fallacious claim. The amount of fail in these arguments is down right astonishing.

There we are, a fundamental difference.

You want to compare an old CPU from AMD to newer CPU's from Intel, since AMD does not have anything newer. I disagree with that philosophy. I understand that if you were not going by it, you'd have less to talk about and I'm OK with you taking that tract if it makes you happy, but I disagree with it. If that makes me "delusional" than great, I'm delusional. Reality is a letdown as often as not anyway. :thumbsup:

I still say the i3 is obviously low end.
As for direct from intel, there isn't a hierarchy or graph that I can find, if someone can I'd like to see it.
What I did take a moment to go find (which mirrors my observations), is if you go to the product finder and select:

Value Desktop, they don't offer an i3 model.

If you select Performance Desktop, they don't offer an i3.

They offer i3's in laptops, cheap ones, with the nicer ones having i5 and i7.

If that isn't low end and telling of it's intended place in the world I don't know what is.

IMO believing the i3 is anything short of a lower end CPU is indeed "delusional" as you put it.
It's a perfectly good CPU that performs the vast majority of tasks just fine for the average daily user, I have no doubt, but it's still beneath the i5 and i7 by and large and that makes it low-end in my book, and I suspect in the book of most folks on a forum like this. The Pentium or celly or whatever else they have are "Value Processors"(Intels on words) which as a consumer translates to absolute bottom barrel. They too are quite possibly perfectly OK for any number of basic PC tasks, I don't know much about them because they aren't interesting.

-i3 is low end but fx8 is high end (despite i3 outperforming FX8)

Correct, more or less. Having nothing to do with the relative performance of either. This is observable by the fact that years ago, the fx8 was compared most commonly with the i5, and earlier on the i7. Pretty much nobody looking at an fx8 was looking at an i3 for reasons others have covered well in the last few pages. This is a key point too, AMD positioned the fx8 as a midrange to high end cpu, not me. They decided to play in that ballfield so to speak, how it compared to what Intel had to offer is another matter altogether and been pretty thoroughly covered(to death) long ago, but it will forever be the higher end FX chip AMD was selling along about that time. This is as much a matter of perspective as anything else and I'm OK with that, you can call me "delusional" again if you feel the need but you haven't offered anything to change my opinions that have been formed over years of observing and using.

-Intel claims i3 is low end (now we know you just made that up)

See my post above, marketing is much more complicated than saying "this is low, this is mid, this is high", but I stand by my observation that the i3 is positioned on the lower end of the i-scale. They don't even, Intel that is, officially suggest it live in a desktop, only cheap laptops. Feel free to check Intels site and see if I missed something. Further, as a consumer, I am only a reflection. I didn't decide it was low end, I didn't decide the i7 was higher end, I am relecting what Intel and the various other tech sites and blogs and forum users even have directed toward me. The i3 is low end. And that's perfectly ok as far as I'm concerned.

-Benchmarks don't matter

Not so much anymore. I had a post or two previously I'm not going to repeat but with the overall high level of performance for most tasks, hardcore gaming or some such being the obvious exclusion, benches matter a lot less than they used to. How much more instant-er can one get than instant as I said.

-You see no reason to compare even though that's what's on the market currently being sold.

Correct. Also see my previous post and car analogy.


You don't have to get where I'm coming from, sometimes things are just that way between people. You've had these conversations before, we both have, it's ok. I've consistently offered my reasons and experience with no blanket demand that they be taken as gospel. Nor have I called you names or been aggressive which I sort of think you have but I forgive you. I'm OK with disagreeing, and that is a genuine skill I'm proud to have cultivated.

 

[2is]

I'm comparing them because that's what sout there in the market. Not because I "want to" but because that's waht's being sold. You don't want to compare them because the results aren't what you'd like them to be.

You said Intel claimed i3 was low end, That was false. Then you said it was implied, that theory got shot down by the existence of Pentiums and Celerons. Now it's about how you "feel" which isn't relevant.

Also, plenty of "low end" laptops running Pentiums, so that further waters down your argument.

Even if we adopt your own naming conventions that's neither explicitly stated nor implied by Intel, all it boils down to is: Intel's low end > AMD's high end.