Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[Enigmoid]

All those benchmarks pretty much show the 8370E and i3 in the same ballpark with an edge to the i3.

 

[AtenRa]

The i3 is 18% faster in AC unity and 8% faster in Advanced Warfare, which is "not much faster", but you claim GTA at 14% faster for FX proves the FX is far superior. OK, if you say so. I guess the criteria for significant difference is different depending on which company wins. In any case, it is pretty pathetic that we are arguing about whether a 125 watt top end processor from AMD is better or not compared to a 53 watt mid range processor from intel. And to use the argument that so many AMD fans use, I bet one would be very hard pressed to see any of those differences in an actual gaming session.

You were the one to use the word "considerably" faster. I havent said anything like that in my posts, i just said that the FX is "faster" than core i3 in the games above.

Also, Core i3 4330 is only 6% faster (avg) than FX at 4.4GHz in AC : Unity and not 18%. And in Advanced Warfare the FX at 4.4GHz is a little faster (avg) than the Core i3.

 

[AtenRa]

All those benchmarks pretty much show the 8370E and i3 in the same ballpark with an edge to the i3.

Really ??? take them one graph at the time and see how many times the FX at 4.4GHz is faster than the Core i3.

And yes im talking about the FX8320E Overclocked to 4.4GHz.

 

[TeknoBug]

Looks like AtenRa is getting outnumbered.

Also when stated 220W $210 FX, that's the 9590 which doesn't sell well and sucks over 300W when OC'd. And a FX needs to be 1.2GHz faster in order to match a 3.5GHz i3 yet ignoring that fact? You must be doing this on purpose.

Hello everyone. Its that neighborhood i3 user here ready to give my $.02.

I was in the process of planning my build when I discovered that Intel made a new CPU as part of the Haswell Refresh line. The i3 4370. It comes with a base clock of 3.8GHz and 4MB of L3$ which makes it the fastest i3 yet. I saw the benchmarks of lesser processors (i3 4330 and i3 4360) and then just went to Microcenter and picked it up for $140. No questions asked, no second thoughts, no regrets.

The i3 4370 is tempting, but the pricetag here doesn't warrant the buy, I just may as well get an i5 4590 for the same amount.

 

[AtenRa]

And a FX needs to be 1.2GHz faster in order to match a 3.5GHz i3 yet ignoring that fact? You must be doing this on purpose.

and ??? its a crime to need more frequency than a different design to reach a certain performance ???

 

[2is]

If you need to be right you can be, I'm ok with it. You can even have the last word.
But you'll have to post again.
I stand by everything I posted, and will probably
post as much again if the occasion comes up.

I'll even throw you a good natured bone, Intels low end today is
often better than AMD's high end from a few years ago.

I'd still buy another FX if my i7 dies tomorrow. Crazy world ain't it?

Intel's low end today is often better than AMD's high end today as well. You can buy both today, BNIB and the i3 will be better more often than not... Today. Period.

Your i7 is not likely to die tomorrow. Thank Intel that their processors are robust enough that you won't be cornered into a foolish decision. Not so crazy really. Plenty of people out there who are oblivious to the obvious and make bad decisions.

 

[Enigmoid]

Really ??? take them one graph at the time and see how many times the FX at 4.4GHz is faster than the Core i3.

And yes im talking about the FX8320E Overclocked to 4.4GHz.

We are overclocking the 8370E to 4.4 ghz?

Might need a cpu cooler.

IMO the 8350 has a solid edge over the i3 in terms of performance, especially when overclocking. I would take FX 8xxx over i3 any day as long as I'm not running the computer 24/7 and paying the power bill and I don't have a heat problem (my room heats up noticeably with just myself and the laptop - I'd have to put a desktop, especially one that uses that much power in the basement).

Either way, neither the i3 or FX 8xxx are high end. At the time I would say the FX is performing like an i3 in games but has potential to perform like an i5. If I was doing day to day tasks the i3 rules the roost simply because it uses much less power, doesn't require a discrete gpu, and fits easier into smaller builds. If I wanted a power box for cheap I'd grab the FX.

 

[Abwx]

Intel's low end today is often better than AMD's high end today as well. You can buy both today, BNIB and the i3 will be better more often than not... Today. Period.
.

Blank statement...

It is better in almost nothing useful..

Eventualy in Sysmark.

Or in ST subscores of MT softs...

 

[2is]

Blank statement...

It is better in almost nothing useful..

Eventualy in Sysmark.

Or in ST subscores of MT softs...

Not blank, this thread is over 430 replies long, a link was posted much further back. Sorry I don't include it with every post for the naysayers who don't want to believe it.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Looks like this thread is heating up.

There are so many instances of i3's beating up on FX-8s, but those cases seem to be based on utilizing 4 threads. Given 8 threads, it's obvious a program should run much faster on the FX-8 from a per clock perspective, especially in something like Cinebench where the focus is SIMD performance. FX-8 users are also in a way lucky AMD managed to get 8 core x86 CPUs into the Xbone and PS4. Unless GPGPU is an issue, it's virtually guaranteed that anything really utilizing all 8 of those Jaguar cores should run [theoretically] twice as fast on PC, even in the light of 'console optimization'.

 

[Abwx]

Not blank, this thread is over 430 replies long, a link was posted much further back. Sorry I don't include it with every post for the naysayers who don't want to believe it.

They are talking of high end, with a FX8370E you can compress your files while doing a circuit simulation, an i3 would choke with such usages for wich it is not designed.

 

[2is]

They are talking of high end, with a FX8370E you can compress your files while doing a circuit simulation, an i3 would choke with such usages for wich it is not designed.

Sure, and for those people who want to spend no more than $150 that are doing simultaneous file compression and circuit simulation, the FX8 would be the better buy.

Sounds like a very common use case and I'm sure there is a huge market for it... :\

 

[frozentundra123456]

You were the one to use the word "considerably" faster. I havent said anything like that in my posts, i just said that the FX is "faster" than core i3 in the games above.

Also, Core i3 4330 is only 6% faster (avg) than FX at 4.4GHz in AC : Unity and not 18%. And in Advanced Warfare the FX at 4.4GHz is a little faster (avg) than the Core i3.

i am looking at average framerate.

Edit: and I dont know where you are getting data for a 4.4 ghz FX. I am comparing stock to stock 8350 vs the i3.

 

[Ramses]

Hello everyone. Its that neighborhood i3 user here ready to give my $.02.

I was in the process of planning my build when I discovered that Intel made a new CPU as part of the Haswell Refresh line. The i3 4370. It comes with a base clock of 3.8GHz and 4MB of L3$ which makes it the fastest i3 yet. I saw the benchmarks of lesser processors (i3 4330 and i3 4360) and then just went to Microcenter and picked it up for $140. No questions asked, no second thoughts, no regrets.

I haven't been disappointed at all by this processor. All of the benchmarks are accurate and there's no bait and switch going on. I almost exclusively game on it and every game I have runs smoothly on it. Everything from Skyrim to BF4 runs without huge FPS drops. I can browse with as many tabs as I want, given that Flash decides to work on that day. Given that its a dual core things like processing videos is reasonably fast.

Most people also lack any understanding of what Hyperthreading actually does and just parrots stuff like "HT doesn't work in games". Hyperthreading works by allowing each core to execute two threads, allowing the physical core to use resources that would have otherwise remained idle. Its functionality is so supported its almost essentially supported on the hardware level. Games and most programs can't identify which "CPU" is a "fake" or a "real" core either. There are rare applications in which Hyperthreading does not work, but gaming is not one of those given that it can use 4 threads to begin with.

The "quad core brigade" isn't doing anyone favors by constantly crapping on the i3 series. Its okay to dislike the i3, but at least do so by its merits. Just because something is a quad core doesn't automatically make it good or superior to my i3. I bet most of the "quad core brigade" wouldn't use an quad core Atom instead of an i3. If it performs satisfactorily to your needs in benchmarks, then that's all there is to it. I don't get how people on here can be so scientific and go strictly by the numbers in these tons of FX vs i5/i7 threads but try their hardest to tarnish the i3 because a dual core performing at that level makes them uncomfortable.

Thanks for chiming in. We all, mostly, used dual core CPU's and got along just peachy for a long time. I was an early adopter running dual single cores. I'm pretty content with how hyperthreading works these days, I had an early P4 years ago when it was fresh and it was kinda meh for awhile, not seeming to match what two physical, if slower, cpu's could do, but time moved on. So much of this stuff seems to be software playing catchup.

 

[Abwx]

Sure, and for those people who want to spend no more than $150 that are doing simultaneous file compression and circuit simulation, the FX8 would be the better buy.

Sounds like a very common use case and I'm sure there is a huge market for it... :\

You can replace simulations by gaming, there s enough cores to compress or do whatever else in the background...

That s a matter of available throughput, you may not need a lot 80% of the time but there s instances where a lot of instantaneous throughput is required, with i3s there s few reserve left and indeed comparisons of those CPUs with FX8xxx shouldnt even be put on the table other than as blatant exemples of lacks of evaluation capabilities...

 

[smitbret]

Microcenter prices are not really relevant to general purchasers. In addition, the Microcenter deals on i3 are very poor compared to their deals on higher end intel and AMD cpus. In the normal market, FX8xxx and an i3 are pretty much the same price.

And my viewpoint is just the opposite. I would consider it a toss up for the i3 and FX8xxx for gaming, with the i3 having the edge in older games and very competitive in current games, while the FX *might* pull ahead in future more threaded games under DX12.

But for the normal user, who just does mainly social apps, browsing, even office work, I would never pick an FX8xxx over an i3. It uses more power, and is much slower in lightly or even moderately threaded workloads, which is what nearly all the casual user does.

Edit: not to mention with the FX, you have to either use awful motherboard graphics or add a discrete gpu.

The FX is a niche CPU at this point. There's only 2 things that it is really good for:
#1 - Gaming with a discrete GPU
#2 - Paired with an ECC supporting motherboard, it can make for a pretty powerful server.

Otherwise, there's no benefit to owning one over an i3 or i5.

 

[2is]

You can replace simulations by gaming, there s enough cores to compress or do whatever else in the background...

That s a matter of available throughput, you may not need a lot 80% of the time but there s instances where a lot of instantaneous throughput is required, with i3s there s few reserve left and indeed comparisons of those CPUs with FX8xxx shouldnt even be put on the table other than as blatant exemples of lacks of evaluation capabilities...

And with an i3 I can encode using quick sync and still play a game.

 

[Ramses]

Intel's low end today is often better than AMD's high end today as well. You can buy both today, BNIB and the i3 will be better more often than not... Today. Period.

I can buy a new Pentium II or a 486 dx2/66 as well, bnib.
That does not make them "current".
What you could have said is AMD is currently manufacturing them, which I have no idea if they are or not, but it would have worked better.

We are in an oddly (un)fortunate time that a relatively old CPU can perform quite well for a lot of users still, this has been discussed at length in several other threads. What I have heard proposed previously and sounds reasonable is that Intel is more interested in efficiency, for mobile devices and otherwise, than raw performance, hence the relatively small performance gains recently, which allow us to compare a new Intel chip to an old AMD chip at all. If Intel was rolling out +20% or better across the board with every CPU refresh, I don't think this thread would be here.

 

[Abwx]

And with an i3 I can encode using quick sync and still play a game.

On this subject i did read that there s updates released that improve quality, so much, but does it improve the quality of the already compressed piles of terabytes using previous "improvements"..?..

So certainly that high end users dont use low/average quality encoding, otherwise where would be the 'high end"..?.

 

[escrow4]

You can replace simulations by gaming, there s enough cores to compress or do whatever else in the background...

That s a matter of available throughput, you may not need a lot 80% of the time but there s instances where a lot of instantaneous throughput is required, with i3s there s few reserve left and indeed comparisons of those CPUs with FX8xxx shouldnt even be put on the table other than as blatant exemples of lacks of evaluation capabilities...

And if you are doing that much then you'd buy a 4790K in the first place.

 

[2is]

I can buy a new Pentium II or a 486 dx2/66 as well, bnib.
That does not make them "current".
What you could have said is AMD is currently manufacturing them, which I have no idea if they are or not, but it would have worked better.

Who said BNIB is what "makes them current"? Sound like more logic fail on your part.

If you want to make ridiculous arguments, go ahead. Nothing changes. It just shows how weak your position is. Sound like you have nothing worthwhile left to say but just felt like getting another post in.

I mean really? you just brought up a 486 processor. That's your new defense? A processor from the early 90's?

The ADF sure is getting desperate.

 

[Ramses]

Who said BNIB is what "makes them current"? Sound like more logic fail on your part.

If you want to make ridiculous arguments, go ahead. Nothing changes. It just shows how weak your position is. Sound like you have nothing worthwhile left to say but just felt like getting another post in.

I mean really? you just brought up a 486 processor. That's your new defense? A processor from the early 90's?

The ADF sure is getting desperate.

You said 'BNIB". I'm just playing along.

I also suggested how you could have better worded it to support your position. I'm secure enough that I don't mind helping you with your argument. I suggested

What you could have said is AMD is currently manufacturing them, which I have no idea if they are or not, but it would have worked better.

I also correct your spelling when I quote you. Mostly just because it's easy though.

Anyone know if AMD is still making the FX8's? The 9590 kept dropping out of stock at Newegg last time I was watching it.

 

[MongGrel]

MiddleOfTheRoad:

I have a dual 12 core, total of 24 core AMD system and a dual hex core 24 THREAD system (5639's). When they were both running F@H, the Intel system was winning in PPD by 20%. That software you are saying is also biased ? I am just sick of this thread and done with the exaggeration of benchmark results.

AMD in general is NOT on top. PERIOD IMO.

How is that old SR2 doing, I always wanted one.

Slap a couple 5675's in that baby !!!!

Just kidding

 

[DrMrLordX]

If Intel was rolling out +20% or better across the board with every CPU refresh, I don't think this thread would be here.

LGA2011 v3 should obviate the need for this thread. That's the high-end. Everyone knows it, some folks just have creative ways of trying to ignore that fact . . .

 

[Ramses]

LGA2011 v3 should obviate the need for this thread. That's the high-end. Everyone knows it, some folks just have creative ways of trying to ignore that fact . . .

They are neat stuff, but spendy. I looked real hard at them before buying the 4790k, but just couldn't justify the cost based on some educated guesses at performance VS what I had on hand recently to play with. Neat stuff though for sure, I'll pick one up in a couple years if AMD fails to do anything interesting.
It's that whole "how much more instant-er can you get" thing again. I'm sure the heavy users are loving em though.