Haswell i3-4150 vs FX 8320/e for budget gaming rig?

[escrow4]

Who even uses Kabini or Bay Trail on the desktop? They are equal trash. Use some real CPUs for a change D:

Both are horrific for any sort of multi-tasking. If it isn't an i3 or better don't bother.

 

[Abwx]

I wouldn't doubt if some apps are compiled to be optimized for Intel processors, but that doesn't really matter. You're providing [part of] the reason why it performs better on Intel, but the end result is that it performs better.

So that a bench favour a brand over another ones does not matter, i mentioned that Intel tool were used starting from CB 11.5 and gave a link that show the numbers, here they are , comparison of i3 4030u and A8
6410 with CB R10, 11.5 and R15 :


....................CB R10.....CB 11.5....CB R15

i3 4030U.......... 6285......2.03..........191

A8 6410........... 7010......2.04..........165

So with R10 the A8 is 11.5% (!) faster, come a new version, CB 11.5, that is Intel compiled, profiled and miraculously the i3 is now on par with the A8, but that s not good, Maxxon didnt work well enough for their mentor so they released R15 and now the i3 is 15% faster than the A8, but as you said it doesnt matter provided it favour the relevant brand, isnt it...

 

[2is]

Maybe the 5350 performs better somehow, but in ST, going from 1.4 (Kabini) or 1.6 (Brazos) to 2.05 (Kabini AM1) doesn't seem like that much of an improvement to me.

My argument is basically that across the board, AMD chips have inferior performance to Intel, when compared directly against their "equivalent" processor from the other camp. Not that there aren't outlying corner cases where AMD's higest-end quad-core small-core CPU beats a mid-range Intel small-core.

While it is true that AMD's processors are inferior to Intel's, lets keep some perspective. The buying choices you made weren't the smartest. Trying to save the world by going green and buying the weakest processors you can find, then being unhappy about the performance and buying the next weakest processor you can find isn't exactly AMD's fault. Then topping those decisions off with a $60 tablet to use as a desktop replacement...

 

[2is]

So hat a bench favour a brand over another ones does not matter, i mentioned that Intel tool were used starting from CB 11.5 and gave a link that show the numbers, here they are , comparison of i3 4030u and A8
6410 with CB R10, 11.5 and R15 :


CB R10 CB 11.5 CB R15

i3 4030U 6285 2.03 191

A8 6410 7010 2.04 165

So with R10 the A8 is 11.5% (!) faster, come a new version, CB 11.5, that is Intel compiled, profiled and miraculously the i3 is now on par with the A8, but that s not good, Maxxon didnt work well enough for their mentor so they released R15 and now the i3 is 15% faster than the A8, but as you said it doesnt matter provided it favour the relevant brand, isnt it...

It doesn't matter regardless of who it favors. Optimizations isn't cheating. Just like using Mantle isn't cheating. Now if it were some kind of driver optimization that got better performance by virtue of doing a shittier job, something that, for example both AMD and NVidia have been guilty of, that's different. If these optimizations had the opposite effect, you wouldn't have a problem with them.

And lets not pretend that Cenebench is the only thing Intel does better at... Lets look at, well... Everything else too.

 

[Abwx]

It doesn't matter regardless of who it favors. Optimizations isn't cheating. Just like using Mantle isn't cheating. Now if it were some kind of driver optimization that got better performance by virtue of doing a shittier job, something that, for example both AMD and NVidia have been guilty of, that's different. If these optimizations had the opposite effect, you wouldn't have a problem with them.

And lets not pretend that Cenebench is the only thing Intel does better at... Lets look at, well... Everything else too.

It s not optimisation it s plain discrimination, the two CPU dont run the same code path, Kabini has all the necessary instructions, why his score is reduced by 11.5% from CBR10 to 11.5 and another 15% when going to R15.?.

I can point that this is deliberate unoptimisation by checking POVRAY scores, this is also a FP benches and it is also optimised for Intel, the difference is that it s also optimised for AMD, why would you prefer a bench that give a flawed picture of a product.?
Because it favour your favourite brand.?.

If Intel was that good in FP they would dominate POVray scores by the same amounts but it s not the case.

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/2/#diagramm-pov-ray

 

[2is]

It s not optimisation it s plain discrimination, the two CPU dont run the same code path, Kabini has all the necessary instructions, why his score is reduced by 11.5% from CBR10 to 11.5 and another 15% when going to R15.?.

I can point that this is deliberate unoptimisation by checking POVRAY scores, this is also a FP benches and it is also optimised for Intel, the difference is that it s also optimised for AMD, why would you prefer a bench that give a flawed picture of a product.?
Because it favour your favourite brand.?.

If Intel was that good in FP they would dominate POVray scores by the same amounts but it s not the case.

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/amd-fx-8370e-im-test/2/#diagramm-pov-ray

No I prefer real world benches actually, you're the one who brought up and is stuck on Cinebench, I said we can look at everything else. Or is it that Cinebench is the only one you can make excuses for? Then again, what else is new. Everything that has to do with AMD processors is excuse after excuse after excuse. Either the benchmark cheats, or its good enough so you don't want anything better, or good things are coming in the future for existing AMD products (an 8 year old prediction). Pathetic is the only word to describe the AMD apologists.

 

[Abwx]

No I prefer real world benches actually, you're the one who brought up and is stuck on Cinebench, I said we can look at everything else.

What is real world bench, because CB does nothing else than rendering a scene, as is doing POVray, and these are in principle real world benches FP wise, a synthetic, and rigged, bench is Sysmark.

Or is it that Cinebench is the only one you can make excuses for? Then again, what else is new.

Sysmark, 3D Particle at AT are rigged benches and the former is often used.

Everything that has to do with AMD processors is excuse after excuse after excuse. Either the benchmark cheats, or its good enough so you don't want anything better, or good things are coming in the future for existing AMD products (an 8 year old prediction). Pathetic is the only word to describe the AMD apologists.

I provided numbers that are difficult to negate, if thoses numbers are made up then you could say that it s an excuse but in the waiting you re answering to real numbers with general statements that have no analytical value, all i read is rather some Intel apology, i would say that if their CPUs were that good they wouldnt need to use such tricks.

 

[2is]

I didn't negate the numbers, I said buying an AMD processor leads to nothing but excuses for its poor performance. All you did was provide more reasons why people should stay away from them. They are weaker to begin with and further gimped by developers it seems... I'm not even going to disagree with you on your Cinebench points, in fact, I'm going to take that as legit, and add that to the growing list of reasons why I'll stick with, and will continue to recommend Intel processors.

 

[Abwx]

I didn't negate the numbers, I said buying an AMD processor leads to nothing but excuses for its poor performance. All you did was provide more reasons why people should stay away from them.

What i did provide are hints that they are much better than what some rigged benches are showing.

They are weaker to begin with and further gimped by developers it seems...

If they were weaker Intel wouldnt need to bribe a few firms like Maxxon.

And no, they are not gimped by devellopper but by some paid firms that represent nothing, Maxxon is not used by a lot of people, they thought that playing in Intel s hands would provide them some revenue, all they did was to downplay their software, no real professional wants a rigged application..

I'm not even going to disagree with you on your Cinebench points, in fact, I'm going to take that as legit, and add that to the growing list of reasons why I'll stick with, and will continue to recommend Intel processors.

What you ll witness is that Intel CPUs are much less responsive than in benches, if not assisted by optimisations they are lame, ask the HPC software vendors, no wonder that they dont use ICC, they have no time to lose with tools that do not guarantee optimal perfs in all systems, notice that for this segment Intel themselves use benches that can show AMD being much better, professional are not amateurs, you cant mislead them with Cinebencheries.

 

[2is]

What you ll witness is that Intel CPUs are much less responsive than in benches, if not assisted by optimisations they are lame, ask the HPC software vendors, no wonder that they dont use ICC, they have no time to lose with tools that do not guarantee optimal perfs in all systems, notice that for this segment Intel themselves use benches that can show AMD being much better, professional are not amateurs, you cant mislead them with Cinebencheries.

Riiiiight, this voodoo snappiness of AMD that no one but their fans notice and no professional review ever mentions. You happen to be posting on the forum of one of those professional review sites btw, are all the AT editors being paid by Intel too? You seriously have no business accusing anyone of hearsay and urban legends. You're the master of it with this last post.

So lets recap... An unexplained snappiness that non-AMD lovers don't notice and is never mentioned in reviews. An 8 year long and counting wait for software to be optimized for AMD, and conspiracy theories. What a joke.

And again, you keep bringing up cherry picked cinebench results... Umm, it was you who brought it up initially, and it's you who keeps harping on about it. Your delusions are so obvious, how can you not see it yourself?

 

[Abwx]

Riiiiight, this voodoo snappiness of AMD that no one but their fans notice and no professional review ever mentions. You happen to be posting on the forum of one of those professional review sites btw, are all the AT editors being paid by Intel too? You seriously have no business accusing anyone of hearsay and urban legends. You're the master of it with this last post.

Beware, you are relegated using ad hominems, generaly that s what is used when one is short of arguments and technical arguments you have none.

So lets recap... An unexplained snappiness that non-AMD lovers don't notice and is never mentioned in reviews.

You already answered yourself to this question :

Sounds like you don't understand the concept of "anti" If they're anti-AMD, it would make sense that they don't own AMD gear.

So we should listen to incompetent and cluless people that do not own and never use AMD gear when it comes to estimating their products..??.

An 8 year long and counting wait for software to be optimized for AMD, and conspiracy theories. What a joke.

I told you, you have no arguments, hence irony and sarcasm as mean to downplay real numbers.

And again, you keep bringing up cherry picked cinebench results... Umm, it was you who brought it up initially, and it's you who keeps harping on about it. Your delusions are so obvious, how can you not see it yourself?

For CB that s not complexe, take any Intel score and remove 20% and you have the real perf of the i series in this application, or you can increase AMD score by the same amount, i.e, 26.5%, another solution is to use POVRAY for real comparisons.

Your delusions are so obvious, how can you not see it yourself?

No dellusions but numbers, i get that you re only talking bla bla, i see no numbers in your posts that would contradict me, the case of CB is obvious, the datas are here but you are not interested in such things because they dont show your favourite brand in good light.

To end i ll point that you mentioned Mantle, as you know it it works as well with Intel gear than with AMDs, that s all the difference between an ethical firm and a company whose specialty is more shenanigans to ensure market domination than chips design, i have no doubt that thoses behaviours are replicated accordingly by the two firms respective supporters as proved by thousands posts in this forum.

 

[VirtualLarry]

For CB that s not complexe, take any Intel score and remove 20% and you have the real perf of the i series in this application, or you can increase AMD score by the same amount

No dellusions but numbers

So, in order to fairly compare processors, we should take away any advantage that they have in scoring, due to code optimizations for those particular CPUs?

Or we should have "affirmative action" for the underdog in scoring?

And you accuse us of "delusions"??? LOL.

 

[Abwx]

So, in order to fairly compare processors, we should take away any advantage that they have in scoring, due to code optimizations for those particular CPUs?

Or we should have "affirmative action" for the underdog in scoring?

And you accuse us of "delusions"??? LOL.

Yes delusion, delusion when a brand need to pay a firm so that a bench give it 26% advantage from the start over the competition, delusion when one use a 2C 1.4 APU as argument to say that a 4C 2.05 APU will work no better.

Here the pathetic advantage that you re talking about, 100% enginered by Maxxon and their subsider :

So that a bench favour a brand over another ones does not matter, i mentioned that Intel tool were used starting from CB 11.5 and gave a link that show the numbers, here they are , comparison of i3 4030u and A8
6410 with CB R10, 11.5 and R15 :


....................CB R10.....CB 11.5....CB R15

i3 4030U.......... 6285......2.03..........191

A8 6410........... 7010......2.04..........165

So with R10 the A8 is 11.5% (!) faster, come a new version, CB 11.5, that is Intel compiled, profiled and miraculously the i3 is now on par with the A8, but that s not good, Maxxon didnt work well enough for their mentor so they released R15 and now the i3 is 15% faster than the A8.

That s the advantage, not due to uarch but simply to ICC and the rest of the tools they gave to Maxxon, surely for free.

That said i proposed to use POVRAY and keep CB only for a same brand comparison, is that what one would call biaised, given the numbers above.?.

 

[2is]

No dellusions but numbers, i get that you re only talking bla bla, i see no numbers in your posts that would contradict me, the case of CB is obvious, the datas are here but you are not interested in such things because they dont show your favourite brand in good light.

lol oh yeah? Literally hundreds of CPU reviews from dozens of sites and not a single one has numbers to illustrate the "snappiness" of AMD over Intel. Not only do they not have the numbers, they don't even mention the phenomenon.

This experience you're describing, doesn't exist outside your own head. That, by it's very definition, is you being delusional. Either that or you're simply making it up, which would make you a liar, so take your pic. Nice hole you've dug for yourself here.

 

[Abwx]

lol oh yeah? Literally hundreds of CPU reviews from dozens of sites and not a single one has numbers to illustrate the "snappiness" of AMD over Intel. Not only do they not have the numbers, they don't even mention the phenomenon.
This experience you're describing, doesn't exist. That, by it's very definition, is you being delusional.

Could you point us a snapiness oriented bench, because i never talked of AMD s CPUs as being explicitely snappier than Intels, much less of this bench of yours, but perhaps you could provide us the post that say so, and dont forget the snapiness bench, of course...

Either that or you're simply making it up, which would make you a liar, so take your pic. Nice hole you've dug for yourself here.

The eventual liar is the one that create false quotes or put words in someone else mouth to make a point, that said i m done with you, if AMD gear doesnt please you then you can always post on Intel related threads, i m sure you ll find some people there that will fully agree with you, you should stop losing your time in this thread about APUs that you are deeming worthless, heck, that s quite a lot of time dedicated to thoses "inferior" APUs, or is it a way to make a living.???..

 

[BSim500]

"Intel cheats"
"For the record AMD does not pay firms to rig benches while Intel has no hesitations..."
"Cinebench cheats"
"Sysmark, 3D Particle at AT are rigged benches and the former is often used."
"wouldnt need to use such tricks."
"it s plain discrimination,"
"So that a bench favour a brand over another"
"that is Intel compiled,"
"provided it favour the relevant brand"
"delusion when a brand need to pay a firm"
"Intel are like a company that hire assassins to kill people"

 

[Abwx]

Originally Posted by Abwx
"Intel cheats"
"For the record AMD does not pay firms to rig benches while Intel has no hesitations..."
"Cinebench cheats"
"Sysmark, 3D Particle at AT are rigged benches and the former is often used."
"wouldnt need to use such tricks."
"it s plain discrimination,"
"So that a bench favour a brand over another"
"that is Intel compiled,"
"provided it favour the relevant brand"
"delusion when a brand need to pay a firm"
"Intel are like a company that hire assassins to kill people"

I saved your false quote so that your post can be reported.

 

[BSim500]

I saved your false quote so that your post can be reported.

The last one was an obvious deliberate exaggeration (but not by much). As opposed to your endless daily whine-fest against anyone & everyone including Anandtech of "being paid by Intel". Give it a rest...

 

[Abwx]

including Anandtech of "being paid by Intel". Give it a rest...

Yet another invention and deliberate deffamation, show us where i woyuld have said such a thing, it must be a pavlovian reflex, i guess that it s you that should put a rest to your lies like this one.

If AMD related threads do no interest you then post on other threads but just dont tell people to put a rest to a discussion whatever the content, it s not like this site is yours.

 

[JumBie]

Is it me? Or did Sheldon Cooper get a Anandtech account?

 

[2is]

Could you point us a snapiness oriented bench, because i never talked of AMD s CPUs as being explicitely snappier than Intels, much less of this bench of yours, but perhaps you could provide us the post that say so, and dont forget the snapiness bench, of course...




The eventual liar is the one that create false quotes or put words in someone else mouth to make a point, that said i m done with you, if AMD gear doesnt please you then you can always post on Intel related threads, i m sure you ll find some people there that will fully agree with you, you should stop losing your time in this thread about APUs that you are deeming worthless, heck, that s quite a lot of time dedicated to thoses "inferior" APUs, or is it a way to make a living.???..

Ahhh, I see... So the one metric AMD is truly better than Intel at is something that is immeasurable... oh, and never even mentioned in passing in any professional review... Keep digging kid

 

[TheELF]

Could you point us a snapiness oriented bench, because i never talked of AMD s CPUs as being explicitely snappier than Intels, much less of this bench of yours, but perhaps you could provide us the post that say so, and dont forget the snapiness bench, of course...

You just need to think about it,what makes an 775 quad respond slower(less snappiness) than an haswell quad(or even dual) ?
It's not the number of cores,since that doesn't change, but rather the speed of the cores that makes the difference,sure you can connect like a million pentium II PC's in an render farm(see folding@home and similar) and have even better numbers at zip/rar/rendering and the likes but you wouldn't be able to even run windows on them.

 

[Abwx]

Ahhh, I see... So the one metric AMD is truly better than Intel at is something that is immeasurable... oh, and never even mentioned in passing in any professional review... Keep digging kid

It is useless to answer you, i just have to recycle the questions you eluded :

No I prefer real world benches actually, you're the one who brought up and is stuck on Cinebench, I said we can look at everything else. .

What is real world bench?

Seems that you re unable to just sustain your very point, i saw no answer about those alleged "real world" benches...

I guess that it s superpi.?.

 

[Abwx]

You just need to think about it,what makes an 775 quad respond slower(less snappiness) than an haswell quad(or even dual) ?

Give the 775 or whatever other quad a SSD and it will be snappier than a 4770K overclocked to 5GHz.

The Haswell is better at same drive, let say a HDD, due to the SATA interface mainly, certainly that memory play a little role but the HDD is the big bottleneck.

 

[2is]

It is useless to answer you, i just have to recycle the questions you eluded :





Seems that you re unable to just sustain your very point, i saw no answer about those alleged "real world" benches...

I guess that it s superpi.?.

You said cinebench is real world and well... Intel wins, so...

Now are you actually done with me, or was that the delusions talking?

If you really want to see more benches, go ahead ant look up reviews right there at this very site. I guarantee you they're there even if I don't personally spoon feed them to you. Done digging yet? Oh, and they wont mention snappiness either.