Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[Phynaz]

no, it's not outclassed for the i3 at $140. and I can encode 3x faster than the i3.

Are you including the use of Quicksync on the i3?

 

[TheELF]

Because the bench suite doesnt max all the CPUs, the 4C/4T are the only ones to be maxed in all benches, for instance Virtual Studio allegedly use 6 threads but all the computing is done on 4 threads with the 2 other threads being almost idle..

No sh*t, sherlock...
Why do you think everybody says that intels are better?
Even after your quote, the best you could come up with was a tie.
No wonder intel is better if it only needs halve the cores(and soft with halve the threads) to give the user it's full potential.

Lol....and of course the "review" start with a series of Sysmark, an Intel troll bench biased at will, to the point that AMD made a public statement that it was rigged.

Let s see what more serious reviewer, not to say unbiaised, have to say about it, and with real softs used by professional people, not some 3D particle and other WebXPRT pseudo benches...

 

[Abwx]

What are you even asking? The charts speak for themselves. i5 > FX in far more than just gaming. We don't need comments, it's just more beating around the bush and excuses as to why AMD isn't competitive. That's all you have, excuses. If OP wants a sub par CPU and make excuses for it, he should go with AMD.

What is the validity of these benches..?.

I say about none, that s all nebulous softwares with scores all around the place for AMD APUs, as is usual with this reviewer.

Video Conversion – Xilisoft Video Converter 7

A ivy bridge 3225 faster in video encoding than a 7850K.???

Similarly to WinRAR, the FastStone test us updated for 2014 to the latest version
FastStone does not use multithreading for this test

Lol, a sub score of an eventualy multithreaded soft, of course, 100% sure that it was selected with no second thoughts, but if it please you, why not..

I will end with a comparison of Handbrake according to AT and to TR :

5% between a i3 4360 and a 3.5HGz Kaveri ( the i3 score is actualy 59, the pentium is at 1) :

Morphed to up to 18% against a 3.7 Kaveri in AT bench....

So if i understand well only biaised benched than no one use, tricked sub scores and others shenanigans are to abided to...??

The XVC test I normally do is updated to the full version of the software, and this time a different test as well. Here we take two different videos: a double UHD (3840x4320) clip of 10 minutes and a 640x266 DVD rip of a 2h20 film and convert both to iPod suitable formats. The reasoning here is simple – when frames are small enough to fit into memory, the algorithm has more chance to apply work between threads and process the video quicker.

How to favour CPUs with a bigger cache...

 

[2is]

OP, just take a look at the above post and that should make your decision a lot easier. Countless professional reviews show Intel > AMD and the best the AMD fans can come up with is excuses and conspiracy theories. 'nuff said. The post isn't even worth a reply, but rather as an example of ridiculousness.

 

[Abwx]

No sh*t sherlock...
Why do you think everybody says that intels are better?
Even after your quote, the best you could come up with was a tie.

A tie as average of a whole suite, if you look at subscores you soon understand that a i5 is much less powerfull than a FX in Integer code and competitive only in FP thanks to 3DSmax being VERY well optimised for HW.

As for the rest dear Watson we are talking of end users, isnt it, the very people that look at throughput, not the ones buying a CPU to use a single core out of it..

 

[AtenRa]

I'm wondering if these people will call Zen a failure if it barely outperforms FX9590's MT performance but delivers much better ST performance at lower power next year.

I will most certainly would.

 

[AtenRa]

Are you including the use of Quicksync on the i3?

Not the same quality.

 

[Abwx]

amd is worse on laptops than desktops. they get hotter and have shorter battery lifes

Typical hearsay, the laptop below using a Beema has better perf/Watt, use less power, is cooler and has better battery life than the i3 used in the very same laptop.


http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-13-a093na-x360-Convertible-Review-Update.130928.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-13-a000ng-x360-Convertible-Review.127351.0.html

Comparison 100% relevant given the tech specs being the same, prove is done that AMD has better perf/Watt...

 

[2is]

Abwx, you should rethink your approach with these replies. All these excuses for why AMD underperforms are surly going to scare people off.

 

[AtenRa]

OP, just take a look at the above post and that should make your decision a lot easier. Countless professional reviews show Intel > AMD and the best the AMD fans can come up with is excuses and conspiracy theories. 'nuff said. The post isn't even worth a reply, but rather as an example of ridiculousness.

Just answer me this,

Why the most expensive AMD CPU in that graph is ONLY the Quad Core APU at $140 but the Intel most expensive CPU is at $1000 ???

Now take a look at graph bellow and tell me if you spot the difference

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420502

 

[ShintaiDK]

I see this thread went the usual way.

 

[MongGrel]

Typical hearsay, the laptop below using a Beema has better perf/Watt, use less power, is cooler and has better battery life than the i3 used in the very same laptop.


http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-13-a093na-x360-Convertible-Review-Update.130928.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-13-a000ng-x360-Convertible-Review.127351.0.html

Comparison 100% relevant given the tech specs being the same, prove is done that AMD has better perf/Watt...

Why are you even trying at this point ?

 

[Abwx]

Abwx, you should rethink your approach with these replies. All these excuses for why AMD underperforms are surly going to scare people off.

What would you say if a site receive an Intel CPU that clock at 3.3 and turbo at 4.3 and would do a review with the single threas scores obviously benched at 3.8 but would still publish those results and keep them on their later reviews..?.

Would you accept that i use the numbers of such unprofessional reviewers to argue with you about perfs...??.

You would point that i m biaised, yet i m asked to abide by those truncated reviews once the scores suit your opinion.

Hardware.fr that i often use as exemple would never disadvantage Intel, actualy they are often even better opimised than ATs in this respect with some scores upped by 30% between IBridge and Haswell, the difference is that they were carefull to not disadvantage AMD with Sysmarkeries and other 3D Particle.

I mean is there something comparable to Webxprt within Hardware.fr, that is a bench that would had been designed by AMD.?

100% sure that you would brand a site using AMD designed benches as shill sites definitly not reliable, so ultimately enough of these sliding rules, you have no right to use benches that you would deem as biaised if the tables were turned, either you re up to this standard, wich i practice, or else it s just bad faith.

 

[Abwx]

Why are you even trying at this point ?

It s you that are trying...

What about a comment about the numbers rather than a trollish comment that imply that i would be wrong..?..

The numbers are what they are and Beema is superior to his i3 counterpart, that it please or not the urban legends seekers.

 

[2is]

Just answer me this,

Why the most expensive AMD CPU in that graph is ONLY the Quad Core APU at $140 but the Intel most expensive CPU is at $1000 ???

You say that like it takes a $1000 Intel CPU to beat AMD, take a look at the review, and glance at ALL the charts. You can take that CPU out of them for all it matters, the end result stays the same. I'll do you one better, just check the bottom of this post, no $1000 CPU's there.

What would you say if a site receive an Intel CPU that clock at 3.3 and turbo at 4.3 and would do a review with the single threas scores obviously benched at 3.8 but would still publish those results and keep them on their later reviews..?.

Would you accept that i use the numbers of such unprofessional reviewers to argue with you about perfs...??.

You would point that i m biaised, yet i m asked to abide by those truncated reviews once the scores suit your opinion.

Hardware.fr that i often use as exemple would never disadvantage Intel, actualy they are often even better opimised than ATs in this respect with some scores upped by 30% between IBridge and Haswell, the difference is that they were carefull to not disadvantage AMD with Sysmarkeries and other 3D Particle.

I mean is there something comparable to Webxprt within Hardware.fr, that is a bench that would had been designed by AMD.?

100% sure that you would brand a site using AMD designed benches as shill sites definitly not reliable, so ultimately enough of these sliding rules, you have no right to use benches that you would deem as biaised if the tables were turned, either you re up to this standard, wich i practice, or else it s just bad faith.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Doesn't sound like you do either. I'll just leave this here for your reading pleasure:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1261

 

[Abwx]

Just answer me this,

Why the most expensive AMD CPU in that graph is ONLY the Quad Core APU at $140 but the Intel most expensive CPU is at $1000 ???

Now take a look at graph bellow and tell me if you spot the difference

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2420502

lol, there s not a single intel CPU in those charts that is less priced than the 7850K...

Of course the FXs have no say, they are too expensive!!!

 

[Abwx]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Doesn't sound like you do either. I'll just leave this here for your reading pleasure:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1261

Honnestly..?.

Generaly when people feel the need to start their speech with such a claim it s a hint that there will be some bad faith in the rest of the sentence...

Here an explanation accessible even to children.

Ian Cutress receive a FX8370E from AMD, he use an available MB without even updating the bios as hinted by Hardware.fr reviewer, still he bench the CPU and get the FX working at only 3.7-3.8 in the ST tests, this is visible when comparing to other FXs, yet he publish this trash review and use the ST scores for his next reviews.

Now if Hardware.fr had proceeded to a single such butchered review with an Intel CPU you would brand them as definitly unreliable, so it s fair that i have no confidence in a reviewer that has shown that he has no care for some products.

 

[AtenRa]

You say that like it takes a $1000 Intel CPU to beat AMD, take a look at the review, and glance at ALL the charts. You can take that CPU out of them for all it matters, the end result stays the same. I'll do you one better, just check the bottom of this post, no $1000 CPU's there.

Just made the following graph, numbers taken from Anandtech Bench of Hybrid x264 4k video.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1061

Reminds you of something ??? :whiste:

 

[2is]

You don't need to waste your time "making graphs" they're all there in the link.

Let me repeat. They are ALL there in the link.

And yes, it reminds me of other similar threads where camp AMD was beaten and fall back on a couple victories they were able to score and turned a blind eye to the dozens of defeats. :whiste:

people without an agenda will give you links to full reviews and allow everyone to see where one processor is better and where it isn't. People with an agenda will post the few charts that say what they want them to say.

 

[TheELF]

A tie as average of a whole suite, if you look at subscores you soon understand that a i5 is much less powerfull than a FX in Integer code and competitive only in FP thanks to 3DSmax being VERY well optimised for HW.

As for the rest dear Watson we are talking of end users, isnt it, the very people that look at throughput, not the ones buying a CPU to use a single core out of it..

Oh sure,cause the end user does nothing else than (de)compress the contents of their hdd all day long again and again,
winrar and zip are the only benches in which the i5 is considerably slower.

 

[AtenRa]

You don't need to waste your time "making graphs" they're all there in the link.

Let me repeat. They are ALL there in the link.

And yes, it reminds me of other similar threads where camp AMD was beaten and fall back on a couple victories they were able to score and turned a blind eye to the dozens of defeats. :whiste:

You are too blind to see that im not talking about performance but how the graph was made.

Carry on

Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[Abwx]

Just made the following graph, numbers taken from Anandtech Bench of Hybrid x264 4k video.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1061

Reminds you of something ??? :whiste:

At AT the 4790 is ONLY 52% better than the i3 4330 while having 2x the throughput, this say that the bench is badly threaded, seriously, how one can call this a realistic encoding bench..??.


Also in your review the 9590 has 2.9x the score of this same i3....

 

[DEW73]

Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel? Thanks

Yup; my household has several PCs, and all are running exclusively on AMD hardware (other then the company provided workstations, which are Intel/Nvidia based machines).

I'm a software engineer by trade, my workloads are from developing in C++ (Visual Studio, game industry), watching video (Living room HTPC), creating some 'programmer art' (using Photoshop/Gimp/Blender), running web servers (LAMP stack) and just overall being quite the computer nerd. Never had an issue with performance or reliability (and I rather don't support Intel's questionable business tactics or Nvidia's invasive PR machine).

That said, as mentioned in the forums ad nauseam, it's not the optimal hardware to run certain games or apps, so your milage will vary.

 

[2is]

You are too blind to see that im not talking about performance but how the graph was made.

Carry on

Ahh, well it must be that 10+ years of experience you have looking at benchmarks and finding ways to make excuses for it. I'll bet it's second nature by now.

Me on the other hand, I guess I'm used to looking at reviews to see which is the better product so I know what to buy next.

 

[controlflow]

Lol, find me a single AMD review where the settings are so favourably organised..

Benches made at 720p, often at low settings to get the CPU being the bottleneck, and of course the 720P res being worthless when AMD had a huge lead is now the best res to play with , nevermind that Kaveri allow 1920p, why no 1920p at AT..??.

Perhaps because R. Smith didnt want to put his credibility at stakes by doing like THG that benched games at resolutions and settings that were constantly changed from a game to another to get the good results, only convenient settings to please the customer, as it s well known that THG does not do reviews for free.



As said at res that the same people praising Intel currently deemed as unworthy to be used.

Jjust to get the "good" result seems thaT 1920p is not necessary after all, at least as long as Intel will not best AMD at this res..

Are you really going to try to argue against the results here? Just stop making a fool of yourself by attacking the test methodology because you didn't like what the results showed. You can't possibly be delusional enough to think that AMD iGPU is actually better than Broadwell GPU + Crystalwell.