Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[frozentundra123456]

There seems to always be a "reason" why AMD processors are underperforming. Underperforming seems to be a pretty solid constant for them though. I think the one and only reason is that they're simply not nearly as good. Anything else is excuses and delusions.

First, native quad cores was supposed to get them beyond Intel. Didn't happen
Then it was just a matter of optimization, software needed to be optimized for AMD. Didn't happen
Then came Phenom II, it was going to do what Phenom couldn't. Didn't happen
Then came Bulldozer with "moar cores" and surely that was going to get AMD the performance crown back. Didn't happen
Then it was the whole optimization argument all over again, programs needed to be optimized for AMD's modular design and they'd be back on top. Didn't happen
Then it was Windows 8. Windows 8 was going to have a much better scheduler that knows how to better leverage AMD"s modular design and get them the edge they need. Didn't happen.

Oh, and dont forget the consoles. Games were going to use all these cores with the eight core consoles and magically FX would be the processor of choice. Didnt happen either.

Now the end of the rainbow is DX12. Should help FX, but lets wait and see how much.

 

[2is]

Oh, and dont forget the consoles. Games were going to use all these cores with the eight core consoles and magically FX would be the processor of choice. Didnt happen either.

Now the end of the rainbow is DX12. Should help FX, but lets wait and see how much.

Ahh yes, the AMD design win for consoles. Suddenly games were going to be optimized for AMD. Right you are.

Oh, and on that same note... Mantle.

The other sad part is these guys keep defending AMD but AMD has largely abandoned this space. Where before their silver lining was the next AMD product, but with nothing to look forward to from AMD for the last few years they're relegated to a "white knight" to swoop in and make existing AMD processors do things they simply aren't capable of doing.

 

[HeXen]

For me it depends on gaming performance to price value. If an AMD CPU is a couple hundred less and not too far behind in gaming benchmarks then I'll go AMD but it's been a while

 

[MongGrel]

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.

 

[Abwx]

..........vaccum

It s like answering "a donkey" when asked how much are 1 + 1.....

This wont change the fact that the AMD mobile APU is better than the i3 in the same laptop, now if thread crapping is an escape route for you, why not.?..


Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[MongGrel]

It s like answering "a donkey" when asked how much are 1 + 1.....

This wont change the fact that the AMD mobile APU is better than the i3 in the same laptop, now if thread crapping is an escape route for you, why not.?..

How did this turn into mobile to begin with.

I thought were other threads for that...

You're arguing in the wrong place to begin with apparently.

 

[jihe]

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...

From the reviews:

The performance of the processor is similar to Intel's Haswell ULV Core i3 processors. Actually, only the multi-thread performance is on par, while the Intel CPU performs significantly better in single-thread tasks.

The Pavilion's consumption of 23.8 Watt is lower than the sister model's (29.7 Watt). The reason is found quickly: The processor of the AMD model is throttled, while the Intel model's isn't.

 

[Abwx]

How did this turn into mobile to begin with.

I thought were other threads for that...

You're arguing in the wrong place to begin with apparently.

I find it quite a fallacy that asking such a question..

May i remind you It turned mobile only a short moment when one made a statement about mobile that i branded wrong while giving him two links to compare, end of the mobile section discussion...

But then you quoted my answer to this member and implyed that i was wrong, the rest you can browse and see that you are of bad faith one more time..

 

[Abwx]

From the reviews:

I wont insist on mobile, just that the throttling argument is moot, it doesnt throttle in benches, look at the scores, the i3 consume 5W more at the CPU level to achieve the same scores...

 

[thehotsung8701A]

Awesome help guys!

I decided to go with the i5 4690K since it seem to be the best for my build. My last question is this. I plan on playing and working in 5760 x 1080p resolution. When It come to work, I want to be able to open as many browser tab as I can and be able to open as many programs as I can. I won't always be gaming in 5760 x 1080p when I'm multi-tasking. I would have one screen with a game I'm playing (Witcher 3), the 2nd screen is for overclocking and monitoring while my last screen will be use for internet surfing, music, movies, and documents.

Would an i5 be enough or do I need an i7?

 

[jihe]

I wont insist on mobile, just that the throttling argument is moot, it doesnt throttle in benches, look at the scores, the i3 consume 5W more at the CPU level to achieve the same scores...

By same you mean 50% faster single thread?

 

[Sweepr]

From the reviews:

Lol. One of the slowest Haswell Core i3s out there, 1.9GHz (no Turbo) and it still got 53% better ST performance and 16% better MT performance @ Cinebench R15. No wonder why AMD (and the shills) are hyping Carrizo so much.

The Pavilion's consumption of 23.8 Watt is lower than the sister model's (29.7 Watt). The reason is found quickly: The processor of the AMD model is throttled, while the Intel model's isn't.

Busted. I wonder if that was bad faith from his part, something he loves to accuse everyone else.

 

[Abwx]

Lol. One of the slowest Haswell Core i3s out there, 1.9GHz (no Turbo) and it still got 53% better ST performance and 16% better MT performance @ Cinebench R15. No wonder why AMD (and the shills) are hyping Carrizo so much.

Busted. I wonder if that was bad faith from his part, something he loves to accuse everyone else.

Lol, i will post one more time on this issue, i take the numbers you re using totaly irrelevantly and without catching their significance, to the point of inverting the reality...

The Pavilion's consumption of 23.8 Watt is lower than the sister model's (29.7 Watt). The reason is found quickly: The processor of the AMD model is throttled, while the Intel model's isn't.

From the numbers above we can can conclude that the i3 has 4.7W more real TDP than the Beema, yet the MT scores on CB 11.5 are comparable, it means that the i3 need more power to achieve the same score.

That it throttle with Prime 95 + Furmark has nothing to do with what i stated , it s just prove that you are using arguments that are totaly irrelevant as you are purpotedly ignoring the benches scores, thoses scores and the lower TDP are prove that it has better perf watt...

All the higher scores provided by i3 require more power than the estimated
17.2W used by the SKU in this laptop, if anything usefull from this derailing at least you have now discovered the perf/Watt of Haswell, a score of 2 at 17.2W TDP, you can extrapolate all others similar SKU power comsumptions and Cinebech 11.5 scores by scaling these numbers accordingly, no CPU work oustside of the physical laws...


Edit : end of mobile for me, open a mobile perf/watt thread if you want to keep discussing those issues, you can count me to help you populate it somewhat..

 

[TeknoBug]

I see this thread went the usual way.

 

[2is]

Awesome help guys!

I decided to go with the i5 4690K since it seem to be the best for my build. My last question is this. I plan on playing and working in 5760 x 1080p resolution. When It come to work, I want to be able to open as many browser tab as I can and be able to open as many programs as I can. I won't always be gaming in 5760 x 1080p when I'm multi-tasking. I would have one screen with a game I'm playing (Witcher 3), the 2nd screen is for overclocking and monitoring while my last screen will be use for internet surfing, music, movies, and documents.

Would an i5 be enough or do I need an i7?

An i5 will be enough, but if you can swing an i7 in your budget without compromising the rest of the machine it's obviously superior to an i5.

If you plan on keeping this setup for a while as-is then go with the i7 as the extra $100 wont' really amount to much. If you upgrade frequently the i5 is a better buy.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dont they always? Told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but did anyway.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

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.

It seriously depends on the workload. As I have mentioned previously, in heavy multi-threaded workloads.... An Octocore FX will mop the floor with an i5 in scientific computing, rendering, etc. The FX will indeed get owned by an i5 in anything single threaded.

It just comes down to if the software can push all eight threads. Same thing for i7 versus the i5. Only software that can use all 8+ threads will demonstrate any performance advantage of the i7 versus the i5.

 

[2is]

It seriously depends on the workload. As I have mentioned previously, in heavy multi-threaded workloads.... An Octocore FX will mop the floor with an i5 in scientific computing, rendering, etc. The FX will indeed get owned by an i5 in anything single threaded.

It just comes down to if the software can push all eight threads. Same thing for i7 versus the i5. Only software that can use all 8+ threads will demonstrate any performance advantage of the i7 versus the i5.

There must not be a whole lot of scientific computing stuff around then because here is what I see:

In almost every single review out there. I see an i5 destroying an FX8 in anything that is either heavily single threaded or doesn't use more than 4 threads.

I see an i5 beating an FX8 in the majority of things that can use more than 4 threads

I see an FX8 pulling a slight lead on a handful of things that can use all 8 threads. and even then, not everything.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find many end users who's work load is comprised of only those small number of things the FX8 does better in, so you're left with a situation where an i5 is better at the vast majority of tasks, and often times by a huge margin, then there's the minority of things the FX8 doe better in, and the few times that may happen, it's not by much.

Cinebench is often times referenced in these scenarios, but lets look at see what happens when AMD hasn't released a new CPU in so many years. Take an i5 2500k vs FX8 and the FX8 has a reasonable advantage. Take a i5 4690k and an FX8, and that advantage has shrunk to being nearly negligible. i5's are getting better every year while FX is stagnant.

This is why AMD people copy/paste individual cherry picked charts, because they know when you look at the bigger picture, the results are extremely one sided, and not in the way they'd like.

 

[CriticalOne]

According to CPU World (I have no idea if they are very reputable) the FX 8350 is a whole 4% faster in MT than the i5 4590 is.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4590.html

 

[Burpo]

Yeah, it ONLY uses 50% more power to get you 4% in MT.. Gets beaten by nearly 50% in ST too..

 

[2is]

And that only happens in highly MT apps. Pretty much anything from 1-6 threads i5 wins. 8 threads where they can all be adequately utilized you may get that ~4%

 

[Phynaz]

That apply rather to someone who use Xbitlab as reference..

You are aware that Anton shilov massacred AMD as much as he could once they stopped sending him some gear..?.

Heck, he didnt even deny that he received his 290/290X right from Nvidia, and also look at the massacre of Kabini while BT was praised, rewarded a few time later by the full Intel CPU line up...


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...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

Can't attack the data, so attack the source?

 

[Phynaz]

Not the same quality.

Huh? I asked somebody else a yes or no question. You're so quick to come to AMDs defense you had to already start doing damage control before he even replied.

Have you even tried Quicksync with recent software?

 

[TheELF]

Huh? I asked somebody else a yes or no question. You're so quick to come to AMDs defense you had to already start doing damage control before he even replied.

Have you even tried Quicksync with recent software?

quicksync can not provide the same quality AT THE SAME BITRATE as the classic, software only, x264 path.
If you raise the bitrate you can get excellent quality video, just bigger in size,for the consumer who is transcoding the latest episode to watch on his tv just to delete it afterwards, this doesn't really matter.

For the "serious" collector that needs to have every movie (ever made) on his drive the size difference will become noticeable.

And yes I do use it all the time for screen capture with obs.

 

[escrow4]

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..

What. Seriously. I read that three times sober and I'm still lost.