Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[2is]

Negative -- the stock clocked FX-8350 was faster in 8 benchmarks versus the stock clocked i7 3770k. I excluded all the results of the overclocked FX. Feel free to read the benchmarks yourself.

What exactly are you saying negative to? 8 out of 25 is <33%

Do the math.

My overclocked comment was referring to your overclocked comment.

You've lost this argument. There is literally no evidence that backs up what you're saying so you've relegated your argument down to calling a bona fide ass whipping "neck and neck" there's a very specific word for that. It's called delusional.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You've lost this argument. There is literally no evidence that backs up what you're saying so you've relegated your argument down to calling a bona fide ass whipping "neck and neck" there's a very specific word for that. It's called delusional.

Sure,

except the dozens of entries on Wikipedia, various web articles.....

Or the Federal Trade Commission (direct quote):
Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

1. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
2. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
3. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

What the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler" -- is what we call ICC. Guess what Cinebench was developed with? HINT: It's what the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler."

Or both AMD and Nvidia quitting BAPCO citing Intel Biased Benchmarks:
http://www.cnet.com/news/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

You're totally right.... I made up the whole thing /sarcasm off

 

[ShintaiDK]

Shintai, if Intel stated the world was flat -- you'd believe them. You do realize everyone already knows what you are going to say before you say it.
Intel should add you to the payroll (if they haven't already). Carry on.

I guess you ran out of facts and showed your true colours while going personal.

 

[Enigmoid]

That is disingenuous.

The stock clocked FX-8350 won 8 of the 25 benchmarks.... I'd call that reasonably neck and neck. At the least, competitive. If it didn't win any of the benchmarks and merely got close, I'd agree with you. Keep in mind -- these are chips that supposedly don't compete with i7 according to Intel marketing.... Yet it is actually faster in 8 categories.

The stock clocked FX-8350 was faster than the stock i7 3770k in:
1) NAS Parallel Benchmarks v3.3 - MG.B
2) NAS Parallel Benchmarks V3.3 SP.A
3) John The Ripper V1.6.9-jumbo-7 Blowfish
4) x264 v2012-10-03 H.264 Video Encoding
5) GraphicsMagick v1.3.16 Operation Sharpen
6) Time Linux Kernel Compilation v.3.1 Time To Compile
7) C-Ray v1.1 Total Time
8) Parallel Bzip2 Compression v1.1.6

Yet, somehow this same FX chip suddenly can't keep up with dual core i3's under Windows..... Some would call that "hinky." I call it software bullshiting.

Depends on the margin of victory. The 3770k on average is 20% ahead. That's not neck and neck especially considering the 8350 wins are mostly in the single digit range. The 3770k victories, save one, are all by more than 10%.

Winning 6 races out of 20 by ~10% and losing the other 14 by 35% is not parity.

Edit: The thing about running custom code on linux with extremely aggressive compiler settings is that AVX2 has a major advantage and runs all over the 3770k and 8350.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_core_avx2&num=2

C-ray and sharpen filter are massive gains.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_corei7_4790k&num=5

 

[bullzz]

since winning by 20% can be assumed as neck and neck, lets also assume haswell GT2 igp is neck and neck with a10-7850k

 

[2is]

Sure,

except the dozens of entries on Wikipedia, various web articles.....

Or the Federal Trade Commission (direct quote):
Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

1. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
2. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
3. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

What the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler" -- is what we call ICC. Guess what Cinebench was developed with? HINT: It's what the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler."

Or both AMD and Nvidia quitting BAPCO citing Intel Biased Benchmarks:
http://www.cnet.com/news/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

You're totally right.... I made up the whole thing /sarcasm off

I'm actually referring to what you're saying about performance, but lets look at the big picture.

You went from pretending the processors are about even, and when that didn't work out for you, you started making up performance numbers. No luck there since we all have internet.

This is where it gets good... Then you were presented with performance figures in the very things you claim FX is so good at. In those figures FX lost MORE THAN THREE times the amount it won, but if that wasn't bad enough, it lost those by a wider margin than it was able to win the handful of times. It gets better still... These tests were done on an OS that by your own standards, isn't biased towards Intel. You'd think that was enough embarrassment right? Nope, we have icing for that cake. After all that, you referred to it as "Neck and neck" performance.

Tell me something, do you think you're convincing anyone to buy AMD?

 

[Markfw]

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.

 

[jhu]

Sure,

except the dozens of entries on Wikipedia, various web articles.....

Or the Federal Trade Commission (direct quote):
Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:

1. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
2. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
3. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.

What the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler" -- is what we call ICC. Guess what Cinebench was developed with? HINT: It's what the FTC refers to as the "Defective Compiler."

Or both AMD and Nvidia quitting BAPCO citing Intel Biased Benchmarks:
http://www.cnet.com/news/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

You're totally right.... I made up the whole thing /sarcasm off

Still doesn't change the fact that AMD still loses using a neutral compiler. From my own tests, icc's dispatch does correctly use code paths based on processor features rather than CPUID (excluding the MKL, which I haven't tested). So the current Cinebench being compiled with icc is irrelevant, unless Maxon is deliberately sabatoging Cinema 4D on AMD platforms themselves because the compiler isn't doing it.

 

[Phynaz]

Cinebench like many benchmarks is complete bullshit.

This is one area that generally AMD and Nvidia agree:
http://www.cnet.com/news/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

Do you even bother reading the links you post?

AMD's argument revolves around the lack of emphasis on what is called general-purpose computing on graphics processing units, or GPGPU.

AMD quit because BAPCo didn't want to do GCPU tests. Turns out BAPCo was right, where's all the GPGPU apps?

There's zero in the article about ICC.

Try again. Re-Read The Posted Article for great quotes like:

"Ars found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!"

Re-read your own links.

None of this constitutes proof of wrongdoing

Good on you for reaching back a decade to try to find arguments to support your position. You are certainly a believer.

 

[CHADBOGA]

AMD quit because BAPCo didn't want to do GCPU tests. Turns out BAPCo was right, where's all the GPGPU apps?

I think the real reason that AMD quit BAPCo is that Bulldozer was just about to launch and they knew what a turkey they had on their hands and when that got inevitably exposed by BAPCo, AMD wanted to be able to hide behind the "bias" excuse.

 

[TeknoBug]

Exactly -- So riddle me this: Why does an FX-8350 run head to head with an i7 3770k under Linux across the board..... But suddenly the exact same FX CPU barely can keep up with a lowly dual core i3 under Windows? Software bullshiting...... I mean "optimizations." 'Nuff said. Intel has already been caught pulling the same crap with ARM benchmarks.

You're misreading that chart son.

I had an i7 3770K and an FX 8320E and FX 4350, even in Linux amd64, the i7 at 3.5GHz did things a bit better than an FX 8320E at 4.2GHz did, nevermind me overclocking that i7 to 4.2GHz without even touching voltage or any BIOS other settings (silicon lottery chip).

 

[bbhaag]

nvm

 

[DrMrLordX]

Hey uh, maybe we can improve this thread a bit by helping out the OP some more?

Did anyone bother to read that he's looking at an i5-4690k? I'm thinking he might be happier with the i7-4790k instead. Also, he seems to want to do a lot of multimonitor stuff.

At this point, I don't think AMD or AMD vs. Intel should really be a part of the discussion . . . what the OP is looking to do is stuff that I personally would not recommend anyone attempt with AMD systems at this time. Maybe if you had a 9590 @ 6 GHz or something crazy like that, then yeah I could see it. But, at that point, why aren't you just using Haswell-E?

 

[jhu]

Hey uh, maybe we can improve this thread a bit by helping out the OP some more?

Did anyone bother to read that he's looking at an i5-4690k? I'm thinking he might be happier with the i7-4790k instead. Also, he seems to want to do a lot of multimonitor stuff.

At this point, I don't think AMD or AMD vs. Intel should really be a part of the discussion . . . what the OP is looking to do is stuff that I personally would not recommend anyone attempt with AMD systems at this time. Maybe if you had a 9590 @ 6 GHz or something crazy like that, then yeah I could see it. But, at that point, why aren't you just using Haswell-E?

I think you're expecting too much from the internet.

 

[2is]

Hey uh, maybe we can improve this thread a bit by helping out the OP some more?

Did anyone bother to read that he's looking at an i5-4690k? I'm thinking he might be happier with the i7-4790k instead. Also, he seems to want to do a lot of multimonitor stuff.

At this point, I don't think AMD or AMD vs. Intel should really be a part of the discussion . . . what the OP is looking to do is stuff that I personally would not recommend anyone attempt with AMD systems at this time. Maybe if you had a 9590 @ 6 GHz or something crazy like that, then yeah I could see it. But, at that point, why aren't you just using Haswell-E?

He already bought/ordered a 4690

 

[escrow4]

Why are you comparing the 3770? AMDs best - either the 8350 or the 9590 are just outclassed by a 4790K. Stock to stock. Its embarrassing. Look at GTA V:

A 9590 @ 5.0GHz is the match of a Haswell i3.

And then:

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

"Clocked at 4.5GHz the FX series is slower than a Core i7 clocked at just 2.5GHz in GTA V which is obviously disappointing."

It doesn't matter if AMD wins in a benchmark or three. It utterly fails in all the others (and this is one of those others).

 

[bigboxes]

Why are you comparing the 3770? AMDs best - either the 8350 or the 9590 are just outclassed by a 4790K. Stock to stock. Its embarrassing. Look at GTA V:

A 9590 @ 5.0GHz is the match of a Haswell i3.

And then:

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

"Clocked at 4.5GHz the FX series is slower than a Core i7 clocked at just 2.5GHz in GTA V which is obviously disappointing."

It doesn't matter if AMD wins in a benchmark or three. It utterly fails in all the others (and this is one of those others).

Stop being a shill. Seriously. Look at my sig and see I'm not trolling. You shall not troll this board.

 

[WelshBloke]

Quick threadjack

I'm on a Q6600@3ghz. I don't really game much anymore and I'm happy with its performance apart from in one area.

Editing HD video in powerdirecter brings it to its knees.

Any advantage to AMD in this edge case?

I don't want to fork out for one of Intels 8 core monsters (although I'd be more than happy with one!)

OK I'm going to stop following this thread. Its giving me a headache.

If anyone has ant reasons why buying a 6 core intel chip (5820k?) would be a bad idea for video editing can they PM me please?

 

[TheELF]

OK I'm going to stop following this thread. Its giving me a headache.

If anyone has ant reasons why buying a 6 core intel chip (5820k?) would be a bad idea for video editing can they PM me please?

It's not a bad idea,but he is no professional so it is over over kill.

 

[TheELF]

Stop being a shill. Seriously. Look at my sig and see I'm not trolling. You shall not troll this board.

He isn't ,OP's quote

How do the i5 compare to an i7? I'm not talking about specific cpu like the i5 4690K which is the most recommended versus the i7 4970K but just in general.

Is i7 needed for gaming or is i5 just as good? I don't plan on doing anything but gaming, meaning no video render, editing, recording, etc...

Will the i5 4690K be future proof for future GPU? Meaning it won't bottleneck the newer GPU years later?

I also want to know if i7 mean it newer than i5, or is that not the case?

Well in the case he states the 9590 is on par with a i3,some games may go to the fx some to the i3 some will be the same,all in all the same level.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I think you're expecting too much from the internet.

Alas.

He already bought/ordered a 4690

If he already bought it then so be it. Hopefully he wins the silicon lottery and gets a good chip. That thing is gonna be pushed hard.

 

[2is]

Not any harder than most everyone else here with an i5.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not any harder than most everyone else here with an i5.

How many people here run three monitors with a high-res game running much of the time on one of them? Maybe there are more of them here than I give credit.

 

[2is]

How many people here run three monitors with a high-res game running much of the time on one of them? Maybe there are more of them here than I give credit.

How much of that matters? That's almost entirely GPU dependent. High resolutions or more monitors doesn't suddenly make use of more threads, both the i5 and i7 will OC to about the same level, so there's no clock speed advantage. Just HT (which only a handful of games can even use) and a little more cache. At that resolution though, he's unlikely to be running games where the CPU is the bottleneck. Whether it's an i5 or an i7

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the reservation was more in regard to having a game running on one monitor and other cpu intensive tasks running at the same time using the other monitors. I could see an l7 or even hex core useful for a case like this.