Oh my god, this was the worst cherrypicking ever. Too bad latest BF3 & Crysis 3 have shown the Intel is better. Too bad fritz is not a game. And in the rest 2 of your benchmarks, the fx4150 is on top of 8350, you want us to take them seriously?
A pair of them don't test the 3570k but test the 3770k or some other i7 (including extreme ones) and this can give you an idea of the gaming performance. E.g. here you can another gaming benchmark with the FX-8350 competing with the i7-3770k
Here another FX-8350 vs i5-3570k
Benchmark scores vary with resolution, driver, OS, memory... 70 fps on ultra @ 4xMSAA does not look unnatural to me, because I have seen similar FPS for the 660. For example 67 FPS
A pair of them don't test the 3570k but test the 3770k or some other i7 (including extreme ones) and this can give you an idea of the gaming performance. E.g. here you can another gaming benchmark with the FX-8350 competing with the i7-3770k
Here another FX-8350 vs i5-3570k
Benchmark scores vary with resolution, driver, OS, memory... 70 fps on ultra @ 4xMSAA does not look unnatural to me, because I have seen similar FPS for the 660. For example 67 FPS
Congrats for finding a gpu limitation for a very gpu limited game.
BF3 singleplayer (not sure but your slide looks like it) shows absolutely no affinity for stronger cpus. An i3 performs identically to a i7.
Wow, less fps on a lower resolution. Never mind that the stock 660 is only 63 fps (the gigabyte version is slightly factory overclocked).
AMD fan's logic:
A ferrari and a fiat run at the same speed in a very crowded road. Therefore ferrari = fiat. End.:awe:
A ferrari and a fiat run at the same speed in a very crowded road. Therefore ferrari = fiat. End.:awe:
http://theblissquest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/haters-gonna-hate.jpg
This is not 4Chan. This is the AnandTech Forums. Grow up
-ViRGE
Last edited by a moderator:
And it is true, for all practical purposes, if all you do is drive on very crowded roads.
There are niche corner-cases where AMD = Intel, or even cases where AMD > Intel.
The only problem is when folks mistakenly attempt to transfer that corner-case as justification for making a broad generalization. That is when it becomes absurd.
I would say my Prius is better than a H2 for what I do with my Prius (commute and shop). But if I used my prius to go off-roading or if I lived in a rather rural setting prone to mud roads and snow drifts then I wouldn't want a Prius regardless the gas mileage benefits.
Its all application-specific.
There is a minimal difference of 3 FPSs between the two reviews. The difference in resolution is very minimal as well. As stated before different drivers, or OS, or memory can do a change. For instance, changing drivers BF3 can go from 61 FPSs to 75 FPSs on the same hardware (that is a difference of 14 FPSs with everything else the same).
Also I don't get your point about the gigabyte card, one can test (and one can buy) the card that one want.
I think many AMD fans know that the main handicap of ferraris like the FX-8350 is on the current software. Fortunately for them, the future roads will be better.
Last edited:
There's the guy that buys a FIAT instead of a Ferrari because he knows that for his needs the FIAT is absolutely fine, and will cost him a lot less, and he's happy with that. He knows he's got a worse product, but it covers his needs and he's fine with that. That's a happy man & a wise buyer.
Then there's the guy that buys the FIAT and spends all day trying to convince Ferrari owners that both cars are the same (because in some scenarios they'll perform identically) and blames the roads/government/laws/god/whatever for his product inferiority, claiming that whole world conspires for his car to perform worse. That's a fool.
I don't know if -in this analogy- that the first situation the fiat would be "a worse product." also its usually the ferraris that show off with their impratical systems. One can ask which is more affordable, which is easier to repair, which has the tighter turning radius, which is easier to parallel park, which is more fun around town, which go around without scratching the bumper on the curb, which lasts longer, which is more furgal...in most of these cases there is a casual driver and a racer...whose has got the numbers(although reality isn't quite as straight forward)?
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Please name one scenario that a FIAT (even the fastest) will perform identically to a Ferrari.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,487
- 5,911
- 136
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Thats for sure, once a long time ago (around 1996-97) I was faster on foot than a Lamborghini Diablo in oxford st. :biggrin:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
- Mar 15, 2007
- 4,762
- 0
- 76
There is a reason why when they do CPU tests they reduce the graphics quality settings to show the difference in the CPUs. But we also have reviews that show that in a number of games the CPU doesn't matter a great deal with realistic settings and resolution. But that does not apply to all games. This is one of the reason I like http://gamegpu.ru because they are looking at individual games and the variation of both CPU and GPU in relation to that game. Alas I wish they did frame time and FCAT but its still an incredibly useful resource because it does show in the vast majority of games at realistic settings that different CPUs make a difference. In very few the 8350 is actually quicker than a 2600 say, but its not common. What I think is interesting from their results is the number of cases where a 3970X is actually quicker than everything else.
If we take the last 5 games they have reviewed in no cases does the 8350 outperform a 2500, it always performs worse at real (1080p very high quality) settings. What is more worrying however is that in some circumstances it cant even reach i3 performance. We could be talking the difference of 67 fps for a 2600k verses 43 fps for a 8350 like in the case of Far Cry Blood dragon or could be much much worse where the 8350 can literally produce half the frame rate. It even falls behind the Phenom II at times.
My issue with the 8350 is its very inconsistent. It produces pretty good performance in metro last light, and great performance in Crysis 3 but in other games its very variable, and sometimes it produces unplayable frame rates where even an i3 produces playable ones. In the vast majority of games an i5 has a noticeable improvement over the 8350, its only particular games where it does actually better or comparably. If you went through all their reviews from the last year I would expect to see performance differences from 20% reduction to 50% reduction in around 80% of games. Feel free to go through their data and prove that right or wrong, but that is my impression from reading the site for the last year.
My conclusion from looking at that data is that 8350's doesn't really make sense to most gamers. In the general sense the CPU has issues with games and is often the bottleneck and produces unplayable frame rates on a regular basis where an Intel CPU would not. Gamegpu.ru even shows us that 6 cores from Intel are regularly at the top of their charts. Some games can and do use more than 4 cores and having 6 real cores helps, but the 8350 often doesn't show the same improvement, presumably because its not quick enough on a critical single thread. A lot of games offload aspects of the game to other threads but are still largely dominated by the DirectX rendering thread, thus a slow single core despite 8 threads for the game as a whole is still the problem.
I would far rather pay a bit more to be sure a CPU will run all games well. Especially for a gamer who next week could be playing anything rather than knowing they will be playing BF3 single player or Crysis 3 single player. For anyone who plays a lot of games the 8350 regularly has performance problems and becomes the limitation on a decent GPU.
If we take the last 5 games they have reviewed in no cases does the 8350 outperform a 2500, it always performs worse at real (1080p very high quality) settings. What is more worrying however is that in some circumstances it cant even reach i3 performance. We could be talking the difference of 67 fps for a 2600k verses 43 fps for a 8350 like in the case of Far Cry Blood dragon or could be much much worse where the 8350 can literally produce half the frame rate. It even falls behind the Phenom II at times.
My issue with the 8350 is its very inconsistent. It produces pretty good performance in metro last light, and great performance in Crysis 3 but in other games its very variable, and sometimes it produces unplayable frame rates where even an i3 produces playable ones. In the vast majority of games an i5 has a noticeable improvement over the 8350, its only particular games where it does actually better or comparably. If you went through all their reviews from the last year I would expect to see performance differences from 20% reduction to 50% reduction in around 80% of games. Feel free to go through their data and prove that right or wrong, but that is my impression from reading the site for the last year.
My conclusion from looking at that data is that 8350's doesn't really make sense to most gamers. In the general sense the CPU has issues with games and is often the bottleneck and produces unplayable frame rates on a regular basis where an Intel CPU would not. Gamegpu.ru even shows us that 6 cores from Intel are regularly at the top of their charts. Some games can and do use more than 4 cores and having 6 real cores helps, but the 8350 often doesn't show the same improvement, presumably because its not quick enough on a critical single thread. A lot of games offload aspects of the game to other threads but are still largely dominated by the DirectX rendering thread, thus a slow single core despite 8 threads for the game as a whole is still the problem.
I would far rather pay a bit more to be sure a CPU will run all games well. Especially for a gamer who next week could be playing anything rather than knowing they will be playing BF3 single player or Crysis 3 single player. For anyone who plays a lot of games the 8350 regularly has performance problems and becomes the limitation on a decent GPU.
Last edited:
Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 4,997
- 1,585
- 136
The problem with this thinking is there is no such thing as future proofing when its comes to computers. Anyone that that has been in this game long enough knows that.
By the time there is software out that will make the FX shine we will already be 3-4 generation ahead on something else.
Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 4,997
- 1,585
- 136
ya it doesn't matter at this point he isn't going to post them.
Whatever you are thinking in your head about him is true don't waste your time guskline.
The saying "either put up or shut up" fits here.
Your earlier post of BF3 is singleplayer therefore your gpu limited scenario has less value.
Intels are the Ferraris, AMD BD/PD are the mobile trailers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter