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

[DrMrLordX]

Does any of this have anything to do with the topic? Seems like the OP's request is fulfilled so can we get a lock or something?

 

[Headfoot]

Intel tools are optimized for Intel mArchitecture. They are specifically created to help leverage Intel mArchitecture designs. By using all those Intel optimized tools, Cinema 4D is Intel mArchitecture optimized. Making Cinebench an Intel heavily optimized Benchmark.

Not that simple. And if you even read the link I posted the Maxon guy refutes this exact fallacy...

Since it's clearly too difficult to click that link I'll paraphrase. He said they tested with other compilers and found that ICC produced the fastest code for AMD.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=135978&curpostid=136051

"3. The CineBench 11.5 Windows version uses ICC (the OS X version GCC 4.2), as these have been the compilers
> creating the fastest code at that time (end of 2009) for these platforms - independent of the cpu vendor.
> To be more specific: With the (SSE2) compiler setting used in CINEMA 4D and CineBench 11.5, the speed advantage
> of ICC over MSVC (roughly 15-20%) has been slightly bigger on AMD cpus than it was on Intel cpus."

 

[Essence_of_War]

He said they tested with other compilers and found that ICC produced the fastest code for AMD.

At the risk of reading too much into anec-data, I've had a limited opportunity to test some gcc vs. icc code on both phenom II and ivy bridge, and for the work I was doing, icc was faster for both phenom II x4 and IB. I didn't check exactly how much faster, each of them was. I know it's not BD/PD/SR, and I don't have fractional changes and yada-yada, but like I said, anec-data.

 

[AtenRa]

He said they tested with other compilers and found that ICC produced the fastest code for AMD.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=135978&curpostid=136051

"3. The CineBench 11.5 Windows version uses ICC (the OS X version GCC 4.2), as these have been the compilers
> creating the fastest code at that time (end of 2009) for these platforms - independent of the cpu vendor.
> To be more specific: With the (SSE2) compiler setting used in CINEMA 4D and CineBench 11.5, the speed advantage
> of ICC over MSVC (roughly 15-20%) has been slightly bigger on AMD cpus than it was on Intel cpus."

Its not only the compiler, Cinema 4D is using the majority of Intel tools that are specifically created to extract the highest performance from the Intel mArchitectures. Especially vTune performance analyzer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzLxCo5qofo

I have never talked about the ICC, but i have always said Cinebench (Cinema 4D) is heavily Intel Optimized.

 

[crashtech]

At the risk of reading too much into anec-data, I've had a limited opportunity to test some gcc vs. icc code on both phenom II and ivy bridge, and for the work I was doing, icc was faster for both phenom II x4 and IB. I didn't check exactly how much faster, each of them was. I know it's not BD/PD/SR, and I don't have fractional changes and yada-yada, but like I said, anec-data.

This mirrors what I have seen. Even though ICC may give Intel an advantage percentage-wise, it still enables AMD CPUs to run faster than they would with GCC.

 

[TheELF]

I have never talked about the ICC, but i have always said Cinebench (Cinema 4D) is heavily Intel Optimized.

Of course it is,it has to be,it's an professional tool, if it wouldn't work well on pc's people wouldn't buy it.

 

[Danrr]

Well I just bought an i3-4330, it was the best option in my budget and the fact that I will upgrade to an i5 later on.

I just switched from AMD to Intel because right now there is no upgrade path with AMD and I'm always looking for future-proof hardware.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well I just bought an i3-4330, it was the best option in my budget and the fact that I will upgrade to an i5 later on.

I just switched from AMD to Intel because right now there is no upgrade path with AMD and I'm always looking for future-proof hardware.

Good choice. I had a 4130 in one my rigs and was happy to be able to pop in a 4590 without replacing the board.

 

[escrow4]

Well I just bought an i3-4330, it was the best option in my budget and the fact that I will upgrade to an i5 later on.

I just switched from AMD to Intel because right now there is no upgrade path with AMD and I'm always looking for future-proof hardware.

Intel has no upgrade path either. Switch mainstream sockets every year just because. There is nothing future proof except maybe X99 which is built to last. That said, at least you don't end up with something like stale old AM3+. Buying i3 now and i5 later is equally senseless. May as well go for a cheaper i5 and H81.

 

[TheELF]

You can still buy plenty, if not all, 2012(year FX came out) intel processors in shops and that will not change for haswell, you will have 3-4 years to buy a brand new CPU and several years after that to buy a used one.
Thing is on the intel platform there ARE stronger CPU's so you CAN change to a stronger one,AMD no matter what you are basically stuck with an FX-8xxx at different clock speeds.

 

[Abwx]

Thing is on the intel platform there ARE stronger CPU's so you CAN change to a stronger one,AMD no matter what you are basically stuck with an FX-8xxx at different clock speeds.

Yes, with the FX8350 for instance you re stuck from the start at about 3770K-4770K level of throughput but at i3 prices, on the other hand it s less perfs overall with an equally expensive i3 and a lot of $ on the long term to eventualy upgrade at 4770/4790k levels.

 

[2is]

Yes, with the FX8350 for instance you re stuck from the start at about 3770K-4770K level of throughput but at i3 prices, on the other hand it s less perfs overall with an equally expensive i3 and a lot of $ on the long term to eventualy upgrade at 4770/4790k levels.

You're trying exceptionally hard to convince people you don't know what you're talking about. I assure you, that goal was accomplished much earlier in this thread. Further evidence to that effect really isn't necessary.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2

I count 27 total charts in that review and a 8350 manages to fall to a 2500k far more often then the three times it manages to eek past a 3770k, don't even get me started on comparing it to a 4770k.

 

[Abwx]

You're trying exceptionally hard to convince people you don't know what you're talking about. I assure you, that goal was accomplished much earlier in this thread. Further evidence to that effect really isn't necessary.

It s you that are trying to convince people, i need no to do so, all i m doing is posting numbers that you re constantly negating...pathetically :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

So that s the super uber everything 4770K that has a huge 9.5% lead over the i3 priced FX8350...for the time..

 

[escrow4]

You can still buy plenty, if not all, 2012(year FX came out) intel processors in shops and that will not change for haswell, you will have 3-4 years to buy a brand new CPU and several years after that to buy a used one.
Thing is on the intel platform there ARE stronger CPU's so you CAN change to a stronger one,AMD no matter what you are basically stuck with an FX-8xxx at different clock speeds.

Where can you buy SNB new? Its obsolete. IVB is gone from my local store here too. And really stop posting random french graphs abwx, the whole internet knows that FX is trash and is stomped out by a 4770K and barely manages to wheeze up to a 3770K level. Where is AMD's plan for 2015? Still on ancient AM3+? Still selling FX? Intel is coming up with Broadwell/Skylake and FX has no chance.

 

[Erenhardt]

Do we have numbers on how often average PC user upgrade CPU only, and how ofter the whole platform is upgraded?

This "you can upgrade later to i7" argument seems to be limited to PC hardware forum illuminati.

You're trying exceptionally hard to convince people you don't know what you're talking about. I assure you, that goal was accomplished much earlier in this thread. Further evidence to that effect really isn't necessary.

This post brings less to the discussion than the google bot would.

 

[2is]

It s you that are trying to convince people, i need no to do so, all i m doing is posting numbers that you re constantly negating...pathetically :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

So that s the super uber everything 4770K that has a huge 9.5% lead over the i3 priced FX8350...for the time..

I gave you a link to an entire review with over two dozen tests from a reputable site. You linked a single chart that no one knows the meaning of. I don't need to convince anyone, most of the participants in this thread of shown they know how to count. Chalk this up as another one of many false statements you've made.

 

[Abwx]

Where can you buy SNB new? Its obsolete. IVB is gone from my local store here too. And really stop posting random french graphs abwx, the whole internet knows that FX is trash and is stomped out by a 4770K and barely manages to wheeze up to a 3770K level. Where is AMD's plan for 2015? Still on ancient AM3+? Still selling FX? Intel is coming up with Broadwell/Skylake and FX has no chance.

It s not random, it s an average of 10 applications, otherwise i would had to post the 10 graphs, neverless i can post the applications names where the FX8350 is "stomped" by said gigantic 9.5%..

Mental Ray
V-Ray
Visual Studio
MinGW-w64/GCC
WinRAR
7-Zip
x264
x265
Lightroom
DxO
Stockfish
Fritz

 

[BSim500]

all i m doing is posting numbers

Yes totally irrelevant ones. Re-read the thread title - "budget GAMING rig". So far you've managed to spam every single chart on hardware.fr EXCEPT the games related ones (directly below the one you quoted):-

An FX-8350 is not "the same as a 4770K". Deal with it.

 

[dainthomas]

Yes totally irrelevant ones. Re-read the thread title - "budget GAMING rig". So far you've managed to spam every single chart on hardware.fr EXCEPT the games related ones (directly below the one you quoted):-

An FX-8350 is not "the same as a 4770K". Deal with it.

I know this isn't what Abwx was saying, but one would expect a component that is double the price to perform better. At the moment, an 8350 is a decent value for the performance.

 

[Abwx]

I know this isn't what Abwx was saying, but one would expect a component that is double the price to perform better. At the moment, an 8350 is a decent value for the performance.

I already posted this game graph, what i never mentioned is that it s a favourable case for a given brand as 6 out of the 8 games used are mainly single or barely dual threaded, other sites could show less differences but since i m relying on Hardware.fr for applications i also use those figures, as for the perf/$ you re right that it s a no contest.

 

[Abwx]

Yes totally irrelevant ones. Re-read the thread title - "budget GAMING rig". So far you've managed to spam every single chart on hardware.fr EXCEPT the games related ones (directly below the one you quoted):-

An FX-8350 is not "the same as a 4770K". Deal with it.

If you check my posts history you ll see that i posted this graph numerous times, anyway i m used to your constant bad faith and forever misquotings, words put on mouths and so on, keep on your thread crapping and usual trolling....

As for the 4770K it s not better than a 8350 overall, the percentage are just too small, so small that they need a ton of propaganda to try convincing people that a 9.5% difference is light years...

 

[Sweepr]

I already posted this game graph, what i never mentioned is that it s a favourable case for a given brand as 6 out of the 8 games used are mainly single or barely dual threaded, other sites could show less differences but since i m relying on Hardware.fr for applications i also use those figures, as for the perf/$ you re right that it s a no contest.

Just like the applications chart is 100% favourable to AMD thanks to the inclusion of many apps that can scale with 8 threads, but curiously I don't see you complaining about that. Old Vishera can't compete with Haswell in per core performance, that's why they are almost giving them away at Core i3 prices. Good luck trying to promote this chip till 2016 or even after.

 

[BSim500]

I know this isn't what Abwx was saying, but one would expect a component that is double the price to perform better.

In many games they often do. The "Intel premium" is precisely for that higher level of consistency between a "good" game and a "bad" game whereas the AMD's have a better "bang per buck" on the surface but suffer from the usual "gaming threading lottery". Besides which the nearest AMD has to the i7 is the $240-$250 FX-9590.

keep on your thread crapping and usual trolling....

Oh, the irony...

 

[Abwx]

Just like the applications chart is 100% favourable to AMD thanks to the inclusion of many apps that can scale with 8 threads, but curiously I don't see you complaining about that. Old Vishera can't compete with Haswell in per core performance, that's why they are almost giving them away at Core i3 prices.

Quite the contrary, if you had looked at the apps you should have seen that they are very optimised for Intel and that all apps are not that well threaded, as confirmed by the reviewer, you should read the review with gog translate, this would spare you completely hysteric claims such as this one, that said we can talk of each bench used if you wants, perhaps we should start with their two tests using 3DS Max wich is the soft that showed the best perfs improvements for Haswell.?.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/897-25/gains-moyennes-cpu.html

 

[Phynaz]

If you check my posts history you ll see that i posted this graph numerous time

We are aware you keep repeating yourself over and over. It's rather boorish actually.