Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Aren't they pretty cheap already with the MicroCenter bundle prices?
It seems you're in such a blind rage that you're spinning hilarious straw man fallacies. The last time I checked, Amazon and Newegg are not Hardforum.
Are you not able to comprehend words properly or something? Or is it your blind rage stopping you? I'm talking about one thing and you're going off on topics that were never part of the original discussion.
No, that's what you want to see that was never said.
You know, if you would have comprehended what I posted, you wouldn't blindly assume I was talking solely about game workloads.
Now I talk about games? Do you even remember what you posted just a page ago about games? It was in response to something you posted. And for clarification, when I said "CPU/thread" I meant a single core on a CPU or a thread. Pretty much every demanding game made for the last 20 years is going to use 100% of a CPU core/thread on said CPU.
We get it that you're a hardcore AMD fanboy who's currently in a tantrum because someone, somewhere on the internet insulted AMD. You can keep your rose tinted glasses on if it makes you feel any better.
If you want to be disrespectful, try to put words in my mouth and use inane straw man fallacies then it's not worth talking with you any longer.
What's the point of this even? I said the power usage and heat output is higher, which is correct and your source confirms it. What it doesn't talk about however (and I've yet to see someone talk about it), is the power usage of the associated heat output being removed by HVAC or window unit A/C systems. I can run 4 Intel quad systems in a 99 SQ foot room and a 5000 BTU window unit has no problems keeping it at 75F by cycling on a couple of times an hour. On the other hand, I can run ONE FX8370 and the poor window unit has to run nearly constantly to keep it at 80F.
The old Phenom II quads had the same problem with heat output. I used to hate dealing with my buddies x4 955 at my house because his rig would crank out so much heat. I eventually put him in another room, which would get ridiculously hot.
I am not even going to try to further prove anything more in all this blabbering or further try to discern who has reading comprehension problems. Speaking of blindness though, your blue glasses haven't even allowed you to read, what 2 other posters in this very thread wrote. I will leave you the arduous task to find which 2.
What you have, is a rampant case of this:
http://www.wds.co/post-purchase-rationalization-we-all-want-to-believe-we-made-the-right-choice/
You could argue, that i have the same, although i am not as blind as you are. In this very thread though (i am not even asking to read more of the forum), you could notice 2 posts, that don't come under the post-purchase rationalization. They are actually the opposite of it. This alone should make you question yourself.
I sympathize with your cooling problems. Maybe a cheaper CPU and a more expensive A/C is in order. You know, the watt difference, if you noticed in those videos, isn't exactly massive for a 99 SQ room. Anyway, you always have may problems with AMD computers.
Good luck.
P.S: I loved the "when I said "CPU/thread" I meant a single core on a CPU or a thread". Thanks for the laugh.
I'm sorry man, but if you are trying to rationalize the performance of current chips you are the one who is being biased or willfully blind.
They have been seriously behind since 2006, hopelessly so since 2011 and it has only gotten worse.
In 2006-2010 or so they were still good bang for the buck chips, especially if you overclocked and unlocked cores, but since the launch of dozer they haven't even had the budget argument, with Intel's low end i3 chips outperforming even the top end FX chips in everything but highly threaded rendering/encoding workloads.
I'm hoping Zen changes all this. I want to go back to AMD. I have great memories of running AMD systems back when AMD was briefly on top from 2000-2005.
I am rooting for Zen to be a massive success, and hoping to buy one, hoping that the performance previews we have seen this far actually hold up when these chips wind up in independent reviewers and end users hands, unlike some previous AMD publicity stunts.
I am very pro-AMD, but even I can't defend anything AMD has released since Phenom II, except for under very narrow well threaded usage scenarios.
As mentioned, my programmer friend had go back to his old Phenom II x4 because after "upgrading" to an FX8350 his compile times were unbearably long.
Sure, in games, in most titles you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But in some you would. I had a terrible time in Red Orchestra 2 and I heard StarCraft 2 also had serious CPU requirements.
But for most, if you are vsyncing at 60hz, you'd never know the difference. But we don't live in a 60hz works anymore. People are buying 144hz gsync and FreeSync monitors and expecting to make the most of them.
In the end the PC is a general purpose platform. It makes no sense to buy a CPU that only performs well under a specialized set of circumstances. You buy a CPU that performs equally well in all circumstances. AMD hasn't had that chip in quite some time.
I've owned 2000-2005 era Athlons and they were great. I've also owned Phenom II and Bulldozer era chips and they were not, which is why I reluctantly moved back to Intel in 2011.
Hopefully 2017 will be the year I can choose AMD again without making any sacrifices.
Since people have short memory, i will repeat what i am arguing all this time:
https://hardforum.com/threads/are-y...ntel-for-ryzen.1919989/page-4#post-1042735298
I am also sorry about your friend, i could bring the opposite experiences from google, but wouldn't change anything. I will just say that there is NOTHING, that could explain your friend's experience, other than VRM throttling at high load on the FX, due to poor motherboard. I have already admitted my bias, contrary to others.
Examples:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/770/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_(125W__BE).html
I am sorry, they are just numbers, but some things don't change.
If i were to say that an FX has better single threaded performance than i6600 , because my friend told me, would you believe me, based on any available data? I don't think so. But, i am pro AMD too. Maybe...more than you.
You see, nowhere did i try to say FX beats Intel. I didn't even say about whether it's a better buy today. I actually talked about prices up to 2 years ago, always. For my use, it IS the best buy, since i paid 125 EUR and got x264 performance which is today on i5 6600 levels, with the FX at 4Ghz.
My entire arguing, was whether it was trash or not and i always replied to specific points. What were my points you were replying to? Could it be you are trying to just say "Intel is faster"? Cause i never said it wasn't...
I even said about Intel being better for games, even mentioned Arma3. So to what end your reply here?
This is the only link you need to look at when it comes to single threaded AMD performance as it stands, pre-Zen.
The fastest AMD chip on that list is the FX-9590 which falls below an Ivy Bridge Intel Pentium G2030.
Please explain me why you reply by showing me the single threaded performance of PentiumG. To what exactly from all you read is this a reply to? Did i say the opposite? That's your reply to what you quoted? Ok. Everyone thinks in different ways. Maybe i implied somewhere that FX has better IPC than Intel? No? I thought so. Does this relate anything to 8350 vs Phenom X4 or whether the FX is trash? No? I thought so. So why do you reply like this? Because you self trapped yourself in a discussion, where you want to shout "Intel is faster". Well, don't bother, i never said the opposite. I don't even know why you even bother to quote others, since you reply to things that don't exist.
Because single threaded performance is the end all of performance, unless you do special case rendering/encoding/scientific work, and it makes no sense to select a general purpose computing platform based on a special purpose workload.
Your argument that ti works well for what you do NOW is all good and well, but what if you do something different tomorrow? I don't know about you, but most people are continuously getting new software etc. on their machines. As such, you never know what you might need to run over the life of a computer, and should select the best general performer, not one that requires special circumstances to perform adequately.
Thus, even if the majority of what you do is rendering/encoding/scientific type of work, it is foolish to select a $195 at launch (in October 2012) FX-8350 that only performs well in multi-threaded tasks, when a six month old (at the time) Ivy Bridge i5-3570 performs almost as well in multithreaded tasks but absolutely kills the fx8350 in single threaded tasks and could be had for $185.
Oh and it was also quieter and cooler.
Im Playing BF1 BF3 at 1080p high and happy enough on a old Quad 6600 at 3.4 More cores dont mean more speed. If I upgrade it will be a 2nd hand 4790k, still the best price performance out there. Its the Graphics card you have to dump money on and they are silly cash. Need serious competition on the graphics front at a affordable price . Sick of reviews of Titan and 1080s who nobody can afford. Pure wanking !Currently rocking an i5-2500K and have little to no incentive to upgrade, but those preview makes me wonder... I love new toys and we need to encourage red team![]()
Im Playing BF1 BF3 at 1080p high and happy enough on a old Quad 6600 at 3.4 More cores dont mean more speed. If I upgrade it will be a 2nd hand 4790k, still the best price performance out there. Its the Graphics card you have to dump money on and they are silly cash. Need serious competition on the graphics front at a affordable price . Sick of reviews of Titan and 1080s who nobody can afford. Pure wanking !
"Single thread performance is the end of all performance" is a gamer driven motto...
Yesare you going to abandon intel for ryzen?
Because single threaded performance is the end all of performance, unless you do special case rendering/encoding/scientific work, and it makes no sense to select a general purpose computing platform based on a special purpose workload.
Your statement about single threaded performance exceptions is way too limited. Did you ever hear of databases??? All good databases are multithreaded and would never be productive if they were not. That is a pretty big exception that you completely forgot about.
Your statement about single threaded performance exceptions is way too limited. Did you ever hear of databases??? All good databases are multithreaded and would never be productive if they were not. That is a pretty big exception that you completely forgot about.
Games, yes, but also most other general purpose desktop loads, like archiving,. Rowser tabs, excel calculations, etc. etc.
Did i say anything being better than 4? No, i didn't. It's your impulse to shout "intel is faster" again? But i 'd take the FX today over any dual core intel, any day. And this includes i3. The Intels took better advantage of the "older" software. Because roughly, the FX needed 2 threads to do job of 1 Intel thread. But the future lies in more threads. Singlethreaded applications have been the minority for some years now.
Yes, having multiple threads helps in general desktop loads as well, but having 8 isn't much - if at all - better than having 4, again, unless we are talking multithreaded rendering/encoding/scientific computation.
Excel is only multi-threaded if your spreadsheet is doing tons of independent calculations. Any inter-dependencies between cells and other sheets cut the multi-threaded scaling to nothing.
And VBA is inherently single-threaded, so any scripting will leave all other cores idle.
And when was the last time you encountered a monster of an Excel workbook that didn't have dependent formulas, or VBA?
See here for more details:
http://www.passmark.com/forum/pc-ha...-is-best-processor-for-complex-excel-workbook
If you get anything AMD for complex office operation, you're really shortchanging yourself. A Core i3 could get the work done in half the time, and costs exactly the same as an AMD quad-core. Because Word and PowerPoint are stuck in single-threaded land permanently.
The vast majority of users don't use 7zip on a regular basis. And when they do, they're almost always hard-disk limited. A daily extraction of 20GB file is the exception really, not the rule, and usually means you ponied-up for an SSD.
I'm hoping it forces Intel to release a Kaby Lake - E at a significantly lower price that I can just use as a drop-in replacement for my Haswell-E.
Costly migration? You have 9 machines that need 9 licenses. Please excuse my ignorance but how is that a huge deal to migrate over to Windows 10? Are you running some trash legacy software that needs XP?We maintain 9 PCs in our office
IOS is overrated too. We support hundreds of IOS devices. Can't stand it.Once you add phones to the count then windows is going to loose.
There is no Kaby Lake-E, there is Skylake and Cannon Lake before Icelake. And no, it wont fit in your current mobo.
There is no Kaby Leak-E yet! And also, do you know for a fact that it wouldn't go in a LGA 2011-v3 package?
that makes no sense what so ever. you basically said "I'm tired of waiting but I'm waiting till summer". they'll prob be out by then and youll probably have to hem-n-haw over vega vs 1080ti.I really wanted to build a Zen + Vega build Q1 2017,
but since Vega is late, i won't make the effort anymore.
I'll just go with what's best comes summer 2017.
Because Skylake-X (new enthusiast platform separate from high end server platform) is a new socket lga2066.
Archiving? Like 7zip? This is perfect for FX. It's fully multithreaded and loads close to 100% all cores.
![]()
This is mine (real life):
http://imgur.com/a/lyeMF (it's one of my favourite applications, i use compressed archives daily, up to 20GB per file).
I don't have MS Office, so i don't know about Excel. However, like i said, most modern software isn't singlethreaded. The FX may lag behind, but i don't think it would be terrible. If the same software that spawns 4 threads on an Intel, can spawn 8 in an FX, then more or less, the FX will perform close. Certainly better than a dual core in many occasions, because often, in a PC, you don't run only 1 application per turn, but it happens that more than 1 use CPU cycles at the same time. You run 1 program at a time, only when you make software benchmarks. In real life, as soon as i launch a program, automatically, the antivirus also runs its own scanner to make sure the executable is clean for example. Or, i will be downloading something, while encoding or watching a film. These all run their own threads. That's more threads at the same time. It's something along these lines, that makes a "trash" CPU as an FX, strangely appear "like an i5" to several Intel users in a desktop enviroment. I mean, if you run a PentiumG or an i3, if you multitask, you can feel the drag compared to both i5 and FX. It's the drag causes by having to process "too much at the same time". The FX for instance, will encounter the game or single threaded application that will make it run lower FPS or take longer. But you won't see it stutter or freeze like a dual core Intel, no matter how much stuff you make it run at the same time. This is exactly what happens in game streaming. You force many threads at the same time and they are there to stay. The quad core Intels, are more balanced chips than the dual cores, exactly because they have 2 more cores. If i were to buy today and Ryzen wasn't available, i would buy 6600. Because it's more balanced than FX for a wide variety of scenarios. If i were a gamer, i would also go i5 or maybe i7.
Overall performance depends on IPC, clock and core count. The problem in FX, is that it chose to go first to higher core count and not for IPC, while the software lagged behind. Now Intel goes the opposite way. From IPC moves to more cores. But for what it costed, the FX was very good, especially for non gamers or for gamers on a budget.
If i were trapped using single threaded programs, i would pick i3 too. So i agree with you. Although, it's the other way around. In really complex stuff, in the link you posted, one guy says he can load 32 cores. But i doubt ordinary stuff as so complex, so more mundane scenarios are probably in the singlethreaded realm.
You should try 7zip with any big file that is compressible. You are not HDD limited. You are CPU limited. You would be HDD limited, if you were doing simple copying or writing on the disk. You are processing files through and algorithm before writing them to a disk. This is why it's slow and doesn't remotely become HDD limited in any SATAIII HDD anyway. Don't believe me. Download the program (it's open source) and try it. On the upper right corner, it tells you the speed in MB/s.
As for its use, contrary to what others do, i simply replied to what was told to me. I 've already covered video/image manipulation, compiling, audio creation, rendering, which are all multithreaded.
And with this, i think i have replied to everything and to the original assertion about FX being trash for any real workload. Or rather easy to verify, one as soon as he sat in front of an FX desktop, he would feel the awful drag compared to the double IPC of an i3, PentiumG or worse i5, wouldn't he.
Yes, I did plenty of tests on 7zip. I could max-out my Core i5 2500k encoding, but the processor never topped 40% DECODING.
You're running out of cases here where MOAR THAN FOUR COARS = noticeable. Archive encoding, video encoding, and rendering, and GTA V. That's a pretty short list.