should I abandon the AMD ship? (Updated)

[Ramses]

I don't know whether you should upgrade by abandoning ship, however I can tell you about my experience from doing the same thing.

I had a stock clocked FX-8350 and I moved to an i7 4790K. It's faster but nowhere near to the extreme levels some here will say. In actual fact, I was disappointed because I naively began to believe some of the things people spout here (When so many people keep saying the same thing, you sometimes start to think there must be something to it). In some areas it's a very noticeable difference but in others it's marginal at best.

As some have said, the FX-8350 is without a doubt faster, and smoother in actual use than the FX-6350. Having used both, I can at least attest to that from my experience.

So all in all, it's a matter of economics. If you can, and you don't mind spending the money? Then do it, it is an upgrade, but try to have realistic expectations otherwise you might come off a little disappointed.

Very well put and full of honest simple accuracy.

 

[SeanJ76]

Smart builders buy Intel/Nvidia.......AMD is decades behind Intel in processor speed.

 

[Enigmoid]

Smart builders buy Intel/Nvidia.......AMD is decades behind Intel in processor speed.

Can you stop with the trolling and blatant lies?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Smart builders buy Intel/Nvidia.......AMD is decades behind Intel in processor speed.

LOL, I guess the "smart builders" only build systems with poor value, then.

Since AMD chips offer consistently better performance per dollar based on Passmark benchmarks:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

Generally, only Celerons and Pentiums fare well on that chart.

 

[witeken]

LOL, I guess the "smart builders" only build systems with poor value, then.

Since AMD chips offer consistently better performance per dollar based on Passmark benchmarks:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

Generally, only Celerons and Pentiums fare well on that chart.

Wrong.

 

[cbrunny]

Wrong.

Interesting. I assume though that since the FX-8350 and 8370 aren't on that list that it is somewhat old (odd that the 9590 is?). Even so, assuming it doesn't take into account the recent price drops.

That being said, intel is still the way to go for a gaming system imo.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you have a decent GPU, most of the time the CPU just doesn't matter that much at settings you'll actually play at. Kind of like how the difference between 1866 and 1600 ram doesn't make a world of difference most of the time, or how and 85% efficient power supply vs. an 88% power supply doesn't make a difference. When it comes to PC gaming, GPU performance is king by a long shot.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389580

I think for every AMD fan that seems to try and justify their AMD CPU, there are at least as many trying to justify why they spent more on an Intel CPU when it doesn't really make a difference. Just look at the replies in that thread, some are borderline hostile because BFG ran the tests how he games in real world instead of showing the numbers how they'd like them to be.

 

[witeken]

Interesting. I assume that [...] it is somewhat old

Source, August.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8312/state-of-the-part-cpus

 

[cbrunny]

Source, August.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8312/state-of-the-part-cpus

neat. I wonder why the 8350 is missing. Even so, article is dated Aug 5 and price drops didn't hit until end of August, so it is still out of date.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I don't know whether you should upgrade by abandoning ship, however I can tell you about my experience from doing the same thing.

I had a stock clocked FX-8350 and I moved to an i7 4790K. It's faster but nowhere near to the extreme levels some here will say. In actual fact, I was disappointed because I naively began to believe some of the things people spout here (When so many people keep saying the same thing, you sometimes start to think there must be something to it). In some areas it's a very noticeable difference but in others it's marginal at best.

As some have said, the FX-8350 is without a doubt faster, and smoother in actual use than the FX-6350. Having used both, I can at least attest to that from my experience.

So all in all, it's a matter of economics. If you can, and you don't mind spending the money? Then do it, it is an upgrade, but try to have realistic expectations otherwise you might come off a little disappointed.

Nicely put

Also, if OP was able to push his 6350 to 4.6ghz i bet he can push his 8350 to equal or better clocks since the octacore is the better overclocker IMO.
If i let any intel owner use my FX system, i bet he won't notice a thing. perhaps some SATA sluggishness due to the archaic chipset.

 

[Ramses]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html price/performance..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html price/performance all time

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html most common CPU's


Good showing for AMD all in all imo.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html If your mouse don't wear out you can scroll far enough down to find AMD stuff.

 

[SlickR12345]

You won't get better performance from a new CPU, especially since at resolutions of 2560x and above your performance is always GPU limited.

Like the only case I can imagine where you would be CPU bound is if you have quad core 780TI and gaming at 2560x resolution. Then you would be CPU bound, but why would you game at such resolution with 4x GPU's? You would be gaming at 4k resolutions which would mean you get GPU bound again.

While Intel CPU's are generally faster for games, its only at lower resolutions and between standard cpu's, since you have your overclocked a lot it will perform similarly to the fastest intel cpu.

 

[schmuckley]

It's really not hard to choose the best cpu for gaming at this point in time.
It would be 4690K or 4790K on the z97 1150 platform.
I would say do it;You'll get pretty much 10+ more fps all the way around.
They're (1150)better than the Enthusiast chips for gaming,even. 5**** series x99 ones.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Wrong.

Well, I call complete B.S. -- you are such a fanboy........

Just linked the chart you clearly loved ignoring (which was directly above the one you just cherrypicked from Anand's web site) -- This one focusing on the CPU itself...... which BTW is very similar to Passmark's ratings.

Backing up exactly what I just stated. Unless it is a Pentium or Celeron, Intel CPU's generally have pretty lame bang for the buck. If bang for the buck is the ultimate goal for the build -- AMD still remains the better option as soon as the CPU price exceeds a Pentium/Celeron.

BTW, we all know you have a Intel shrine in your bedroom, Witeken.... Your blatant bias is all too obvious in every post.

AMD's CPU's do have several shortcomings -- but value is never usually one of them.

 

[crashtech]

I don't know why the bare CPU price/performance ratio would somehow be more representative of true "bang for the buck' than the total system price/performance ratio.

 

[Ramses]

I don't know why the bare CPU price/performance ratio would somehow be more representative of true "bang for the buck' than the total system price/performance ratio.

Because the rest of the parts in the system vary wildly? It'd be different if they all came in a computer with a given board, gpu, drive, psu, etc.
Too much variation though. A person can pick a less bangy bucky CPU and surround it with unreasonably high end components, or buy a really high end CPU and surround it with crap. Nearly infinite variation.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I don't know why the bare CPU price/performance ratio would somehow be more representative of true "bang for the buck' than the total system price/performance ratio.

Because there are a host of variables that can skewer the results of a system build. Since you can't mount an AMD chip and Intel chip on the same motherboard -- there is no possible way you get an accurate apples to apples system cost. How do we know the builder didn't use a expensive AM3 board versus a cheap 1150 to paint a better picture of the system value? Plus additional components skewer the results further (Nvidia Cards seem to perform better than Radeons on AMD CPU's -- throwing off the value benchmarks even further depending on how those benchmarks were run and with which components). Synthetic CPU scores remove a ton of (potentially misleading) unknowns that are included in these vague "system builds."

"System Builds" have far too many unknowns to ever be useful for comparisons. How do we know they were running same Ram speeds? Equivalent motherboards? Equivalent motherboard prices? It just gets too unclear... Too many wild cards....

 

[CHADBOGA]

LOL, I guess the "smart builders" only build systems with poor value, then.

Since AMD chips offer consistently better performance per dollar based on Passmark benchmarks:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html

Generally, only Celerons and Pentiums fare well on that chart.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html price/performance..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_alltime.html price/performance all time

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html most common CPU's


Good showing for AMD all in all imo.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html If your mouse don't wear out you can scroll far enough down to find AMD stuff.

When did "Passmark" become the holy grail of benchmarking?

 

[Ramses]

When did anyone say it was?

I google'd cpu performance for price, like most folks that don't hang out debating down to the single digit percent differences on forums like a bunch of nuts would. I did notice if you hover over the little lines it shows how many samples and some other interesting data. If you've compiled tens of thousands of CPU records over years I'd be down for taking a look at them too.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

When did "Passmark" become the holy grail of benchmarking?

Considering Passmark and Anand posted very similar results for Processor Performance to Price ratios -- I'd say they are pretty spot on.... Not very many reviewers provide price / performance ratios.... But Passmark compiles thousands of user scores to get their data.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't know why the bare CPU price/performance ratio would somehow be more representative of true "bang for the buck' than the total system price/performance ratio.

I would even argue that the overall system cost is the true measure of the value of a component. As far as I know, no one has bought a cpu and set it on their desk to look at it, you install it in a system to perform a task. And those who are making excuses for AMD in these threads seem to conveniently forget that some of the initial cost savings will be lost due to increased power consumption. We just went through this "discussion" ad naseum in another thread, and no matter how much one wants to minimize it, it is a factor.

It is also not true that the cpu doesnt matter for gaming. It does depend on the game and the settings, but in cases like this World of Tanks a 4670k is 60% faster than an 8350 at very common gaming settings (single 780Ti, 1080p, one of the most popular on-line games). In fact this game illustrates the big problem with the 8350-- lack of well rounded gaming performance. In some games it performs well, but in anything that is not highly threaded and demands good single core performance, it falls flat on its face, in contrast to an i5 or i7 which performs well in both scenarios.

Edit: BTW, I have been using computers for 20 years, and never run passmark once.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I would even argue that the overall system cost is the true measure of the value of a component. As far as I know, no one has bought a cpu and set it on their desk to look at it, you install it in a system to perform a task. And those who are making excuses for AMD in these threads seem to conveniently forget that some of the initial cost savings will be lost due to increased power consumption. We just went through this "discussion" ad naseum in another thread, and no matter how much one wants to minimize it, it is a factor.

Edit: BTW, I have been using computers for 20 years, and never run passmark once.

You are already jumping way too far in wrong assumptions -- There are a ton of AMD configurations that use less power than Intel. Light gamers that run Athlon 5350's for example. Or running an AMD APU for light gaming instead of an Intel cpu with a dedicated video card -- will also use less power. Yet you are already blanket disqualifying their components because of the logo on the retail box.

The one size fits all -- Intel is always better mantra is just dumb. Both manufacturers have their niches for which they excel.

 

[crashtech]

Because there are a host of variables that can skewer the results of a system build. Since you can't mount an AMD chip and Intel chip on the same motherboard -- there is no possible way you get an accurate apples to apples system cost. How do we know the builder didn't use a expensive AM3 board versus a cheap 1150 to paint a better picture of the system value? Plus additional components skewer the results further (Nvidia Cards seem to perform better than Radeons on AMD CPU's -- throwing off the value benchmarks even further depending on how those benchmarks were run and with which components). Synthetic CPU scores remove a ton of (potentially misleading) unknowns that are included in these vague "system builds."

"System Builds" have far too many unknowns to ever be useful for comparisons. How do we know they were running same Ram speeds? Equivalent motherboards? Equivalent motherboard prices? It just gets too unclear... Too many wild cards....

I see your point, but I think Anandtech would do some due diligence when compiling their figures. Here's a quote from the article from which the graphs were pulled. I'll leave it to you and other readers to decide if Anandtech should get the benefit of the doubt over your objections:

Naturally, there's one other element that needs to be considered: the price of the parts. Intel holds the crown for the fastest CPU performance, but if we just look at the cost of the CPUs/APUs and how much you pay for a certain level of performance the story is quite different. Not surprisingly, the least expensive processors tend to look the best here. However, processors don't exist in a vacuum – they're only a portion of the total system cost – so we really need to add in a baseline price for the rest of a system.
If you purchase a motherboard, RAM, SSD, case, and PSU it will tack on $350-$510. I used the base set of components from the recent Budget PC Guide (minus the HDD), and then chose reasonable motherboards for the various platforms ($75 for FM2/FM2+, $80 for AM3+, $100 for LGA1155, $90 for LGA1150, and $225 for LGA2011 with $10 extra on RAM to get 4x2GB instead of 2x4GB). You could certainly spend a lot more on system components, but while less expensive motherboards exist for some of the platforms, I'm a bit wary of any motherboard priced under $70. The result is that the minimum cost for an entire system ends up being around $425-$500 for the less expensive CPUs/APUs, and $600 for something like the i5-4690K, $670-$705 for Core i7 LGA1150 systems, and as much as $1559 for the i7-4960X. Using the complete system prices (including a $50 discrete GPU on the AM3+ and LGA2011 systems), the performance to price charts look as follows:

Edit: Fixed goof in quote, and here is a link to the article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8312/state-of-the-part-cpus

 

[SlowSpyder]

I would even argue that the overall system cost is the true measure of the value of a component. As far as I know, no one has bought a cpu and set it on their desk to look at it, you install it in a system to perform a task. And those who are making excuses for AMD in these threads seem to conveniently forget that some of the initial cost savings will be lost due to increased power consumption. We just went through this "discussion" ad naseum in another thread, and no matter how much one wants to minimize it, it is a factor.

It is also not true that the cpu doesnt matter for gaming. It does depend on the game and the settings, but in cases like this World of Tanks a 4670k is 60% faster than an 8350 at very common gaming settings (single 780Ti, 1080p, one of the most popular on-line games). In fact this game illustrates the big problem with the 8350-- lack of well rounded gaming performance. In some games it performs well, but in anything that is not highly threaded and demands good single core performance, it falls flat on its face, in contrast to an i5 or i7 which performs well in both scenarios.

Edit: BTW, I have been using computers for 20 years, and never run passmark once.

There certainly are games where Intel is clearly faster. Many games Intel benches better. I imagine the OP at 4.6GHz will be much closer to the FX9370 in that chart, though. Sure, still lagging behind Intel CPU's, but still a very good and playable experience I would guess, based on the numbers in that chart.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The one size fits all -- Intel is always better mantra is just dumb. Both manufacturers have their niches for which they excel.

Except that Intel's niche could be described as 90%+ of the market.