Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[DrMrLordX]

And I linked the AT bench 8370E vs. i5 4690k.

The problem is, the 4690k isn't really "high end" either. Not sure why the OP went with one when the 4790k is about where the "high end" starts. Arguably he would have been better-off going with a 5820k or 5930k (if he really needed those extra PCI-e lanes, which he might have).

If someone is too lazy to read the i5 and i7 Devil's Canyon reviews, they are just here to stir the pot.

It doesn't take much to stir the pot around here.

 

[B-Riz]

The problem is, the 4690k isn't really "high end" either. Not sure why the OP went with one when the 4790k is about where the "high end" starts. Arguably he would have been better-off going with a 5820k or 5930k (if he really needed those extra PCI-e lanes, which he might have).



It doesn't take much to stir the pot around here.

Arguably, for gaming (1080p, 1200p, 1440p), the 4690K is perfect.

But, I grabbed the 2700K post 3770K release (after delidding info came out) because it was cheaper, and had more cache (than 2500K), as Intel CPU's love cache.

BUT, I disabled HT for the longest time, so it was like the 2500K it replaced, only it OC'd better.

 

[TopTenGamer]

Am I the only one that doesn't think that Broadwell is a valid comparison to Kaveri? Especially in the low-end? A6-7400k seems like a very valid option at $59.99 (NCIX)

Can't even buy a Broadwell CPU for less than $200. Not saying I wouldn't rather have an Intel CPU, I just question the comparison.

 

[Phynaz]

Ehm really ??

Yes. Am I supposed to post every example of when AMD has used Cinebench?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Arguably, for gaming (1080p, 1200p, 1440p), the 4690K is perfect.

But, I grabbed the 2700K post 3770K release (after delidding info came out) because it was cheaper, and had more cache (than 2500K), as Intel CPU's love cache.

BUT, I disabled HT for the longest time, so it was like the 2500K it replaced, only it OC'd better.

OP wants to run a tri-monitor setup with a game + two monitors worth of other software running simultaneously. It's an ambitious setup, really. The 4690k might bog down. It might not. Hopefully he'll come back here and tell us about it once he's got it up and running.

 

[B-Riz]

OP wants to run a tri-monitor setup with a game + two monitors worth of other software running simultaneously. It's an ambitious setup, really. The 4690k might bog down. It might not. Hopefully he'll come back here and tell us about it once he's got it up and running.

Did OP leave after the first page? I could not find info on specifics of what they were actually doing...

Edit: Found it.

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?

If game + extras at same time, I would have said get a 5820K plus lots of RAM and a big SSD.

Yeah, I dunno know about that i5 now... the i7 would have been better, you are correct.

 

[soccerballtux]

i3 has QuickSync, so you're closer to 3-5x slower. (perhaps even slower still actually)

Are you including the use of Quicksync on the i3?

can handbrake use quicksync?

Not the same quality.

exactly

 

[2is]

Yes, handbrake can use QuickSync. If you're worried about quality you simply up the bit-rate. File size will be larger but it's still many times faster.

 

[DEW73]

Yes, handbrake can use QuickSync. If you're worried about quality you simply up the bit-rate. File size will be larger but it's still many times faster.

But, this is only an option if all you're worried about is quality, and not bit-rate

I can definitely see this not being an option for some users, e.g. they're OK with waiting a bit longer to get the best possible result in a given bit-rate constraint.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes, handbrake can use QuickSync. If you're worried about quality you simply up the bit-rate. File size will be larger but it's still many times faster.

But, this is only an option if all you're worried about is quality, and not bit-rate

I can definitely see this not being an option for some users, e.g. they're OK with waiting a bit longer to get the best possible result in a given bit-rate constraint.

this level of intentional blindness to facts shouldn't be allowed. It's dishonest. Particularly because it's circumventing the benchmark results confirmed by WinRAR-- I'm 3x as fast as those i3s

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, handbrake can use QuickSync. If you're worried about quality you simply up the bit-rate. File size will be larger but it's still many times faster.

HD4400 with QuickSync its double the file size vs Quad Core CPU and less than 50% faster vs Core i5 Ivy.

 

[2is]

HD4400 with QuickSync its double the file size vs Quad Core CPU and less than 50% faster vs Core i5 Ivy.

I have a 3770k. File size isn't double and performance difference is far greater than 50% when I use QS. And that's HD4000 which is slower than 4400 compared to an IB i7 which would edge out a HW i5 in software encoding. Please stop making up numbers.

 

[2is]

this level of intentional blindness to facts shouldn't be allowed. It's dishonest. Particularly because it's circumventing the benchmark results confirmed by WinRAR-- I'm 3x as fast as those i3s

We aren't talking about WinRAR, this was about encoding and you're slower. Period. i3's have a technology you don't and i3 owners can leverage that technology. You cannot. If you take comfort in a WinRAR victory over an i3, go for it. When it comes to encoding though, you've lost.

The i3 user meanwhile still has about 90% free resources on his CPU to continue using his PC for other tasks having little to no effect on the encode time. You on the other hand will not. So that's yet another benefit with Intel.

 

[Madpacket]

No, you're not the only one. The reason for the comparison [I believe] is because historically Intel has not competed very well with APU's for gaming. This has changed now but Intel still has a long way to go. Just because they can compete and exceed on frame rates we now need them to come out with a SKU that can compete with pricing.

Also more advanced features like freesync, 4K 60hz monitor support, in game streaming and recording, improved drivers and better game compatibility etc need to be adopted. Perhaps Intel can also come up with a [less annoying] version of Raptor that scans for games and optimizes for them. They also need better developer relations. I'm not sure how Intel gaming fares under Linux but that's always a point of contention.

Intel still has a long way to catch up with AMD and especially nVidia even though they have the raw speed coming along nicely.

 

[AtenRa]

I have a 3770k. File size isn't double and performance difference is far greater than 50% when I use QS. And that's HD4000 which is slower than 4400 compared to an IB i7 which would edge out a HW i5 in software encoding. Please stop making up numbers.

http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2dsvoi/i_did_some_tests_with_handbrake_and_intel/

 

[Phynaz]

http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2dsvoi/i_did_some_tests_with_handbrake_and_intel/

Random people posting on Reddit are now authoritative sources?

Hold on, I gotta go make some stuff up, I'll link to it hereafter it's 9 months out of date.

Seriously, you're getting way to desperate to defend AMD.

 

[2is]

http://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/2dsvoi/i_did_some_tests_with_handbrake_and_intel/

And I've done my own tests. I have the option of using software or QS, I use QS. I can created a reddit post too and post my own results. Will you use it as a reference, or do you just pick the ones you like? The performance difference is close to 300%

 

[AtenRa]

Random people posting on Reddit are now authoritative sources?

Hold on, I gotta go make some stuff up, I'll link to it hereafter it's 9 months out of date.

Seriously, you're getting way to desperate to defend AMD.

Why dodnt you post a link instead of all this bullshit desperation for defending AMD staff??

 

[AtenRa]

And I've done my own tests. I have the option of using software or QS, I use QS. I can created a reddit post too and post my own results. Will you use it as a reference, or do you just pick the ones you like? The performance difference is close to 300%

Please do.

 

[2is]

Please do.

No need, I already let you know I'm seeing closer to a 300% improvement. I know as an AMD fan, you are resistant to the fact that an Intel dual core is outperforming an FX8 in encoding, but an Intel dual core IS out performing an FX8. You can preach all you want about how software is the only way it should be done, that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion (though I have doubts that you actually believe it yourself) But as someone who wants to make sure people reading this have as much information as possible, it was important to bring up QuickSync and how it crushes one of the very few bright spots AMD has. Your attempts to downplay it, is expected.

 

[Phynaz]

Why dodnt you post a link instead of all this bullshit desperation for defending AMD staff??

You're AMD staff?

 

[AtenRa]

No need, I already let you know I'm seeing closer to a 300% improvement. I know as an AMD fan, you are resistant to the fact that an Intel dual core is outperforming an FX8 in encoding, but an Intel dual core IS out performing an FX8. You can preach all you want about how software is the only way it should be done, that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion (though I have doubts that you actually believe it yourself) But as someone who wants to make sure people reading this have as much information as possible, it was important to bring up QuickSync and how it crushes one of the very few bright spots AMD has. Your attempts to downplay it, is expected.

What i said was that QuickSync doesnt have the same quality with software. All the rest is your words not mine. I never said Quicksync is not faster but if you want the same quality the software provides you have to raise the bit-rate and that will increase the file size and affect the speed.

Not the same quality.

 

[AtenRa]

You're AMD staff?

For once at least try to contribute to a thread and stop all this flame bate/thread crapping/personal attacks.

 

[Sheep221]

I would skip on AMD and Intel 2011 chips and unless you want to have webserver at home or animation studio, just get regular i7-4770, will be enough for practically everything else.

 

[Phynaz]

For once at least try to contribute to a thread and stop all this flame bate/thread crapping/personal attacks.

My contribution is counteracting the falsities you post.