Simple CPU Question .... I Think :(

[VirtualLarry]

And the usage model for XSplit makes it relevant to what demographic of end-users?

Finding one-off niche apps that results in an 8-core processor having higher performance is not hard, the niche apps really do exist.

Finding an end-user that significantly benefits from the minor improvement provided by said niche application is the challenge.

KillerNIC had a larger target audience than XSplit.

Except, KillerNIC was mostly snake-oil. AMD 8-core CPUs are not. In fact, I'm slightly offended that you even made the comparison between the two.

And as far as the demographics of "streamers" - no, it's not a mainstream activity, but as sites like twitch.tv get more popular, then the demographics will increase. And the fact that AMD's 8-core CPUs shine in this sort of situation, has been drowned out by all of the "buy an IVB!" crowd.

I was just speaking with someone that wants to start streaming, just a little while ago.

I've been contemplating that myself as well.

 

[AstroDav]

For the ones recommending AMD's, know that I highly respect them for price/performance comparisons. My first "real" computer, meaning over 1.5GHZ, was AMD, as have been 90% of the few dozen I've built, including my wifes, kids, & the one I'm currently using, + both of the laptops I've owned.

However, I believe this time my best choice for purposes is an Intel, specifically the 3570K, which has already been ordered. But I always welcome every reply & consider them equally. I'm no "fan-boy" of ANY brand, CPU or otherwise, except possibly Gigabyte MOBOs. I decide by careful comparisons, reviews, & recommendations based upon performance, price, & general reputation.

 

[2is]

Except, KillerNIC was mostly snake-oil. AMD 8-core CPUs are not. In fact, I'm slightly offended that you even made the comparison between the two.

And as far as the demographics of "streamers" - no, it's not a mainstream activity, but as sites like twitch.tv get more popular, then the demographics will increase. And the fact that AMD's 8-core CPUs shine in this sort of situation, has been drowned out by all of the "buy an IVB!" crowd.

I was just speaking with someone that wants to start streaming, just a little while ago.

I've been contemplating that myself as well.

He compared KillerNIC to xsplit not to AMD. It just so happens that the areas that AMD does well at, are areas like xsplit which almost nobody uses, and that's why their "shine" has been "drowned", because nobody cares about xsplit.

 

[VirtualLarry]

He compared KillerNIC to xsplit not to AMD. It just so happens that the areas that AMD does well at, are areas like xsplit which almost nobody uses, and that's why their "shine" has been "drowned", because nobody cares about xsplit.

Well. perhaps the comparison was apt, if you consider both of their demographics to be "gamers".

 

[vampirr]

Since everyone are saying go Intel, so I will go advocate for AMD. Here we go...

AMD's 32nm processor Bulldozer(aka Zambezi) was a flop because it was a new architecture compared its previous generation's, Piledriver(aka Vishera) is an update to Bulldozer that fixed all the flaws and problems that Bulldozer in its architecture ever had.

AMD Piledriver-Vishera(Bulldozer 2.0) introduced minor changes in architecture to somewhat flawed initial design of Bulldozer-Zambezi, Piledriver improvements over Bulldozer is about 15% and thus those improvements vastly increased its potential.

AMD offers great performance for the price since their K series processors and Athlon was amazing for its time, a beast. AMD maintains their sockets for several generations of their processors compared to Intel that mostly for each generation has a new socket for it and thus it costs more for upgrading compared to AMD alternative/path ...

Intel's Sandy/Ivy CPU's are better since its a 22nm compared to 32nm AMD's CPU Bulldozer/Piledriver, for its size 32nm AMD's CPU can compete and even outperform a 22nm Intel's CPU while its drawbacks is its TDP and power consumption.

Future wise, AMD will be better. Why? Programs and games are more and more multi-treading focused and we see it already in Crysis 3 where FX 8350 beats i5 3570k and on the same level as i7 3770k while having a 10nm larger architecture compared to Sandy/Ivy brigde.

People must take into an account alot of various factors, designs, architectures, nm size and many other things into calculation and in the end I must say AMD is superior when we take all the factors for it and in some Tom's Hardware forum thread I read that some people that work for Intel were suprised by ingenuity and design of bulldozer/piledriver.

Bulldozer/Piledriver and its future iterations are great for heavy/extreme multitasking and on the same level as Intel's Sandy/Ivy bridge processors in games and in future better.

Next processor from AMD is Steamroller(Bulldozer 3.0) will be released in Q4 2013 and will have a considerable or even huge leap in performance since its architecture will have numerous improvements and produced in smaller 28nm production process.

Intel's Haswell will introduce some minor improvements and will be produced in a 20nm process so gap betwen AMD and Intel will not be 10nm like now but now 8nm.

All 8th generation core's will use AMD's GPU's while PlayStation 4 use's an AMD's APU(CPU+GPU) while its rumored that Xbox 720 will also have an AMD's APU or CPU and a GPU. This eight generation console war is ruled by AMD and we don't see Nvidia nor Intel.

PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720 will have an 8 core processor inside, this means that games will utilize more and more core's and be more multi-threaded, programs will be more and more focused on multi-threading since single-threading is hitting the limit and more core's are needed. Also Intel's HyperThreading is only usefull in synthetic benchmarks and has no real impact in games except some programs and thats all, its basically what Physx is for Nvidia. Just adding another reason to buy their product with feature that no one uses really...

AMD is really future proof when you look what they offer, their sockets last for years and they now have an 8 core(4 module) processors that are really future proof for literally years. We will need to wait for a decade to see games or even programs that can use more than 8 core's, so this is my two cents here

So its on and off topic, I am just giving the more complete and bigger picture !

I hope you enjoyed my post/response, thank you for reading in advance...

 

[Torn Mind]

In simple terms, for posterity's sake.

More cores work when:
1. Speed of the individual cores is "sufficient"(No 8 core 8086 will last in this modern era)
2. Applications scale with those extra cores.

The choice is primarily dependent on application usage.

 

[2is]

Future wise, AMD will be better. Why? Programs and games are more and more multi-treading focused and we see it already in Crysis 3 where FX 8350 beats i5 3570k and on the same level as i7 3770k while having a 10nm larger architecture compared to Sandy/Ivy brigde.

I've heard this argument from your side of the isle every single time AMD has an uncompetitive product. Guess how many times it's actually been accurate? Whatever number you're thinking, multiply it by 0 and that's the answer.

 

[vampirr]

I fell something from you, buy a haterade for better expirience...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6ZuCkhFCg

 

[2is]

I fell something from you, buy a haterade for better expirience...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6ZuCkhFCg

Not the same thing. AMD actually developed a good processor back then that was competitive from the start. They didn't build something sub-par and "waited" for software to "catch up" to make it better which is what you're saying here... Like I said, multiply your number by 0.

 

[vampirr]

2is you fail over and over again, please see the big picture...

PlayStation 4 has an APU(CPU+GPU) from AMD and Xbox 720 will most likely to have an CPU and GPU from AMD, inside a Wii U you have AMD's GPU's. AMD practically rules eight console generation, there is no Intel nor Nvidia that dropped the ball... Game developers will focus on AMD's CPU and GPU while Intel and Nvidia will be on bottom for optimization.

I checked some sources, Haswell is also a 22nm processor like Ivy Bridge. So when 28nm Steamroller gets released the difference will be just 6nm compared to whooping 10nm.

Steamroller(Bulldozer 3.0) is a considerable leap over Piledriver, you can expect 25% or even 30% improvements in performance thanks to smaller nm size of 28 and further development of Bulldozer architecture that is radically different compared to previous processors that AMD made. This may be the Athlon scenario all over again ...

Haswell will offer some small improvements and overall 5 to 10% better than Ivy bridge, its just a bit architectural changes and some refinements while Steamroller will offer considerable improvements of about 20 to 30% over Piledriver. The gap betwen AMD and Intel will be smaller, an 8 core Steamroller will be literally a beast of a CPU ...

AMD is working on HSA since 2005-2006 and many companies joined the HSA foundation.

http://hsafoundation.com/

 

[2is]

Your fanboy driven guesswork vs facts, and I'm the one failing? Comeback when you can create threads that don't get locked in 24 hours because they're nothing more than troll bait with bad information.

Intel > AMD that's a fact you'll have to just live with. Or in your case, make excuses for.

I think I may add your last paragraph to my signature to see what you'll imagination will come up with when every single review shows Haswell > Steamroller.

You sound exactly like the few misguided souls who said BD was going to be a quantum leap and have higher IPC than Phenom II. We know what happened there. My guess is you'll re-register in the near future with another name spouting the same nonsense. Rinse and repeat.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Intel > AMD that's a fact you'll have to just live with. Or in your case, make excuses for.

Except, stating that as a rule is just fanboy talk as well.

AMD's 8-core Piledriver chips do have more multi-processing power than a 3770K, in certain specific apps. Not all apps, not even most apps. But if your app falls into that category (Xsplit), then AMD should be the choice for you. Not admitting that is just as fanboyish as what you accuse others of.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I fell something from you, buy a haterade for better expirience...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6ZuCkhFCg

Wow, that's a funny commercial. Too bad AMD isn't as aggressive in marketing like that, like they used to be. (I never saw that commercial on TV.)

 

[2is]

Except, stating that as a rule is just fanboy talk as well.

AMD's 8-core Piledriver chips do have more multi-processing power than a 3770K, in certain specific apps. Not all apps, not even most apps. But if your app falls into that category (Xsplit), then AMD should be the choice for you. Not admitting that is just as fanboyish as what you accuse others of.

When I say to someone, I'll see you tomorrow or talk to you tomorrow or get back to you tomorrow, I leave it at that. I don't qualify that statement by acknowledging the extremely small likelihood that an asteroid slams into earth, preventing me from making that call.

Like wise, I post quite often on these boards, I'm not going to qualify every single Intel > AMD statement based on an extremely small subset of applications which in turn also have an extremely slow subset of people who actually use them. If someone has that specific of a use, they will declare it and I would respond accordingly.

Wow, that's a funny commercial. Too bad AMD isn't as aggressive in marketing like that, like they used to be. (I never saw that commercial on TV.)

They'd get sued for false advertising if they did a commercial like that now.

 

[AtenRa]

I've heard this argument from your side of the isle every single time AMD has an uncompetitive product. Guess how many times it's actually been accurate? Whatever number you're thinking, multiply it by 0 and that's the answer.

Lets see some of the latest AAA titles,

Medal of Honor: Warfighter Oktober 2012

Call of Duty: Black Ops II Noveber 2012

Far Cry 3 Deceber 2012

Crysis 3 February 2013

Tomb Raider March 2013

Not to count that at lower price the FX8350 complitly distroys the Core i5 357K in the majority of Multithreaded apps and Multi-Tasked scenarios. I believe you should retract the uncompetitive statment for products up to $200.00.

 

[2is]

Really? 5 examples, 3 of which are clearly GPU limited? So two examples? Do you really want to play this game with me again or Should I just link the other thread where you tried this before and failed?

Oh what the heck...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34719307&postcount=86

taken from:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34719307&highlight=#post34719307

I believe you should save that tired argument for someone who hasn't already debunked it that you may be able to fool.

 

[AtenRa]

Really? 5 examples, 3 of which are clearly GPU limited? So two examples? Do you really want to play this game with me again or Should I just link the other thread where you tried this before and failed?

Oh what the heck...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34719307&postcount=86

taken from:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34719307&highlight=#post34719307

I believe you should save that tired argument for someone who hasn't already debunked it that you may be able to fool.

You havent debunked anything, we are talking about new apps and games and you trying to counter with ATs 2-3 years old gaming bencmarks at 1024x768 ???

The fact is that FX8350 is very competitive against the Core i5 both in price and performance in newer games and MT apps.

 

[2is]

That article was published late last year (2012). Tested far more than gaming and the games they did test were at 1680x1050 save for one. Do you regularly take the ethical low ground by lying to defend a CPU? The fact is Intel > AMD and nearly everything you've said is BS as I've illustrated in this post and the other thread.

 

[AtenRa]

That article was published late last year (2012). Tested far more than gaming and the games they did test were at 1680x1050. Do you regularly take the ethical low ground by lying to defend a CPU? The fact is Intel > AMD and nearly everything you've said is BS as I've illustrated in this post and the other thread.

You are trying hard and personaly attacking anyone that shows any AMD CPU better than Intel. The article may be of late 2012 but the games are much older, 2 or 3 years old.

Skyrim was released in 2011,
Dragon Age Origins was released in 2009
Dawn of War II was released in 2009
The original WoW was released in 2004, Cataclysm at 2010 and Mists of Pandaria in 2012. (guess what ?? Mists Of Pandaria AMD CPU performance is close to Intels)
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty was released in 2010

Vampirr was talking about new games and new apps, I have shown you 5 new games that were releast in the last 5 months and show the AMD CPUs to be very competitive against the Intel counterparts at the same price range.

 

[2is]

You called a late 2012 review a 3 year old review
You called 1680x1050, 1024x768
You called an overall review a gaming review
You called 3 GPU limited tests being competitive

You are intentionally misleading with your statements, I call that a liar and will continue to do so while you continue to attempt to mislead.If you think that's a personal attack, report me.

Vamp was speculating, a baseless speculation that constantly occurs but never comes to fruition.

Oh and your last example of "close to intel" shows Intel > AMD with a lower TCO for the end user with an i5


Edit: please link the entire toms article instead of a picture of a pic of a single chart... Or is this another attempt to mislead? It would be a poor one though since it doesn't actually support your original claim of better for less.

 

[AtenRa]

You called a late 2012 review a 3 year old review

I said 2-3 year old gaming benchmarks

2-3 years old gaming bencmarks at 1024x768 ???

You called 1680x1050, 1024x768

I was refering to StarCraft II

You called an overall review a gaming review

I was refering to the gaming benchmarks and you know it.

You called 3 GPU limited tests being competitive

Sorry that newer games need more GPU performance than games of 2009 :whiste:

You are intentionally misleading with your statements, I call that a liar and will continue to do so while you continue to attempt to mislead.If you think that's a personal attack, report me.

It is you that trying to misslead by bringing 2-3 year old games in to the discussion of CPU performance in newer games.

Vamp was speculating, a baseless speculation that constantly occurs but never comes to fruition.

I have shown you the games, now look what hapens with newer MT software.

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

And if you count that FX8320 is UNLOCKED and can be clocked to 4GHz and have the same performance as of FX8350 at even lower cost, then it makes the FX8xxx even more competitive against the Core i5 3570K.

Now go troll/thread crap someware else. It is clear that in newer games/apps the AMD FX is very competitive against the Intel at the same or lower price point.

 

[2is]

How about I just refer you to the links I've already posted and point out yet again, you showed 3 out of 5 new games that were GPU limited and one that backed up my claim, not your own. That's the same one where you only posted a pic of the chart instead of the whole article because you know it wouldn't cater to your line of misleading information.

The difference between our positions is could also cherry pick charts from the article you posted and make intel look good, but I can also post every chart and it would still look good. You on the other hand are limited to cherry picking. Like I told Virtual Larry, if someone made a case they were looking for the best xsplit performance, I'd certainly recommend AMD. If it makes you feel better, if someone asks for the beat 7-zip performance, ill also recommend AMD.

If you want the crapping to stop, post what you claim. Not single images and cherry picked benchmarks or claim something is competitive by virtue of a common bottleneck and not on its own merits.

 

[AtenRa]

How about I just refer you to the links I've already posted and point out yet again, you showed 3 out of 5 new games that were GPU limited and one that backed up my claim, not your own. That's the same one where you only posted a pic of the chart instead of the whole article because you know it wouldn't cater to your line of misleading information.

The difference between our positions is could also cherry pick charts from the article you posted and make intel look good, but I can also post every chart and it would still look good. You on the other hand are limited to cherry picking. Like I told Virtual Larry, if someone made a case they were looking for the best xsplit performance, I'd certainly recommend AMD. If it makes you feel better, if someone asks for the beat 7-zip performance, ill also recommend AMD.

If you want the crapping to stop, post what you claim. Not single images and cherry picked benchmarks or claim something is competitive by virtue of a common bottleneck and not on its own merits.

How many times should I say that we are talking about NEW games and apps but you continuously disregard that.

Lets see some of the latest AAA titles,

we are talking about new apps and games

The fact is that FX8350 is very competitive against the Core i5 both in price and performance in newer games and MT apps.

I have shown you the games, now look what hapens with newer MT software.

Showing you the NEWER MT software graphs is not cherry picking, they represent exactly what we are talking about and that is NEWER GAMES AND MT APPs.

 

[jaqie]

For the ones recommending AMD's, know that I highly respect them for price/performance comparisons. My first "real" computer, meaning over 1.5GHZ, was AMD, as have been 90% of the few dozen I've built, including my wifes, kids, & the one I'm currently using, + both of the laptops I've owned.

However, I believe this time my best choice for purposes is an Intel, specifically the 3570K, which has already been ordered. But I always welcome every reply & consider them equally. I'm no "fan-boy" of ANY brand, CPU or otherwise, except possibly Gigabyte MOBOs. I decide by careful comparisons, reviews, & recommendations based upon performance, price, & general reputation.

sorry to quote the entire post and not go into detail, not feeling so well tonight....

I did just want to say that I totally agree with AstroDav here. He has chosen the proper CPU for his system build.

I am a fangirl of gigabyte, but they have hard-won me over many years of motherboard reliability and steadfast build quality... but I use whatever video and cpu is the best for the intended use and budget at hand, and I agree with AstroDav's assessment here.

 

[bgt]

AtenRa, you also have 2 systems to compare, whats your opinion about the differences between the i7 and FX? I have to say after having both systems for months now.................I notice the differences are tiny(and I don't mean running benches). I think the FX is absolutely a very, very nice CPU. The i7 is also awsome but for people to make so much fuss as to say Intel is better than AMD..................only in power draw. I find the discussions what to buy a bit over the top. Intel is only better in dedicated software applications and powerdraw but this latter is a bit of a farce because when you're just surfing the difference is tiny.