For gaming

[durquavian]

I don't wish to fuel the fire but I have a question, keep in mind i'm not against amd. Amd seems to be a great value and APU seems like the future.

That being said, if you can afford intel and amd will fit your needs just fine right now why wouldn't you just go intel? IF intel has a slight FPS advantage at your price point right now that means it will 2 video card upgrades down the road and might allow you to run an older system just a little longer. This was the case when i had my 920 which i retired only a few months ago. the amd systems of it's era probably couldn't play modern games like it could today. Maybe i'm wrong. I haven't ran AMD since conroe was released.

seems like way too serious of a topic on the internet, get what makes you happy and don't worry about others opinions. maybe i just had too many beers...

Well up front and if one were in the market right now and had no sway one way or the other then I would advise going Intel ie:4770k which would last a number of more years. However if one wanted to go AMD, you know as a choice, Then it would be a decent choice. It may not be the strongest but it is viable and too can last a number more years.

The only problem which you see on the internet is the constant over-portrayal of negativity.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I have two systems, one with an i7-4930k, one with an FX-8320. I really can't tell the difference between the two other than the AMD build being substantially cheaper, especially if you push the 8320 up to 4.6 GHz. If you aren't going multi-gpu there's no reason to spend a ton of money on a PC.

 

[Choopyplz]

Thing is most people will be satisfied with whatever they get and may not necessarily have the know-how to make an objective comparison between chips, so anecdotal evidence isn't really all THAT useful. It doesn't hurt to take that into account though as long as it's not the absolute basis for your opinion.

In what way are pro reviews bullshit?

meh anyways, I think Vishera is totally fine for gaming, among many other tasks. It may not be the absolute fastest, but chips like the 8320 are definitely still capable. The only thing that I dislike about AMD is the motherboard variety is very sparse in comparison to intel sockets.

 

[Tsumi]

Thing is most people will be satisfied with whatever they get and may not necessarily have the know-how to make an objective comparison between chips, so anecdotal evidence isn't really all THAT useful. It doesn't hurt to take that into account though as long as it's not the absolute basis for your opinion.

In what way are pro reviews bullshit?

meh anyways, I think Vishera is totally fine for gaming, among many other tasks. It may not be the absolute fastest, but chips like the 8320 are definitely still capable. The only thing that I dislike about AMD is the motherboard variety is very sparse in comparison to intel sockets.

Artificial bottlenecks such as running at 1024 x 768, which is not at all indicative of real world, though useful for showing potential CPU limitations.

Reviewers sometimes try too hard to show a difference, and that difference doesn't always translate to anything meaningful in real world usage. That's not to say it's always the case, but often enough that "professional" reviews need to be sorted through, because some are BS and some aren't.

That's also why I prefer [H]OCP reviews. They demonstrate real world usage and real world feel.

 

[durquavian]

Thing is most people will be satisfied with whatever they get and may not necessarily have the know-how to make an objective comparison between chips, so anecdotal evidence isn't really all THAT useful. It doesn't hurt to take that into account though as long as it's not the absolute basis for your opinion.

In what way are pro reviews bullshit?

meh anyways, I think Vishera is totally fine for gaming, among many other tasks. It may not be the absolute fastest, but chips like the 8320 are definitely still capable. The only thing that I dislike about AMD is the motherboard variety is very sparse in comparison to intel sockets.

Pro reviews? Well the two I use as examples are for the 9590 and the 7850K (both AMD).

First the 9590: at the time I had run a couple of benches @4.64Ghz on my 8350 with 1600mhz ram and a HDD. So when the benches/reviews came out for the 9590 with 1866 or 2133(cant remember exactly) and a SSD, I had some comparative data. Specifically it was the Cinebench score they were getting. With the 9590 locked @5.0Ghz it was posting a lower score than my 4.64Ghz. It was blatantly obvious at this point that the overclock wasn't even remotely stable, therefore the entire review was now suspect.

Second the 7850K: Fortunately there were a number of decent reviews but one in particular intentionally tried hard to skew the results in a very negative manner. I fortunately got the chance to debate the scum(trust me by the end of our conversation it was obvious the term scum fit him to a T). At first I and others questioned his reasoning after seeing his conclusion. Here is the scenario: He tested his 7850K with 1600 ram which gave a certain result. In and of itself was not a huge deal but his conclusion omitted other factors that would nullify his result. Many asked him about faster ram which he then concluded that there were other reviews at the same site that did that comparison. He was right but the issue was his conclusion which alluded to the inability to attain a certain performance level, which based on those same reviews he mentioned proved he was wrong. In and of itself it wouldn't have meant much but his attitude was very coarse and confrontational. See using even 1866 ram produced results that contradicted his claims. just by using 2133 ram one would see a 20+% increase in gaming alone. So it became obvious that his sole intention was to flame or as we call it click-bait.

I am sure this happens all the time and I am in no way insinuating all AMD reviews are unfair or intentionally skewed. But it opens the door to question all and give reason to be skeptical of all results. Fortunately in the case of the 9590 I had the 8350 with which to compare, but not a 7850K. With the 7850k there were enough reviews to compare and see what the trend was and his just didn't fit.

But that is the rub. Most of us may be able to pick up these little nuances but the majority looking at reviews will not. It is unfortunate that these results sometimes happen, but it isn't right or as I said in an earlier post, it is a dis-service to turn a blind eye to it.

Hence why my advice has always been, you want to know how it runs ask a user. But like with any review take with a grain of salt. Look for the ones that seem to try hard to give both positives and negatives and they will likely be accurate. I get some posters here disdain for it because of bias or as you mention anecdotal accounts, but to be honest how is it any different than the reviewers. Reviewers spend very little time with said products and honestly may be ill equipped to give the real-world results. And lately seem to be more concerned with hits than journalistic integrity.

 

[Choopyplz]

Artificial bottlenecks such as running at 1024 x 768, which is not at all indicative of real world, though useful for showing potential CPU limitations.

Reviewers sometimes try too hard to show a difference, and that difference doesn't always translate to anything meaningful in real world usage. That's not to say it's always the case, but often enough that "professional" reviews need to be sorted through, because some are BS and some aren't.

That's also why I prefer [H]OCP reviews. They demonstrate real world usage and real world feel.

Yeah, I can understand that side of it. TBH though I don't fault pro reviewers for not talking about "real world" feel and stuff like that more, since that is kind of subjective anyway. Ideally it'd be nice if more people could just interpret the data from pro reviews in regards to their own personal needs, in order to make a decision without looking at brands in a black and white context. Oh well! :V

Sorry I posted this while your post hadn't yet shown up durquavian. I don't really have anything to add, guess there are crap pro reviewers out there too. It'd definitely be best to reference as many sources as possible when researching a product, especially ones that are reviewed as heavily and extensively as computer components.

 

[durquavian]

Yeah, I can understand that side of it. TBH though I don't fault pro reviewers for not talking about "real world" feel and stuff like that more, since that is kind of subjective anyway. Ideally it'd be nice if more people could just interpret the data from pro reviews in regards to their own personal needs, in order to make a decision without looking at brands in a black and white context. Oh well! :V

Sorry I posted this while your post hadn't yet shown up durquavian. I don't really have anything to add, guess there are crap pro reviewers out there too. It'd definitely be best to reference as many sources as possible when researching a product, especially ones that are reviewed as heavily and extensively as computer components.

You are right everyone should, a kind of Buyer Beware. But as I tried to add even user reviews have merit and some posters like to discount their findings and opinions as placebo or anecdotal with no merit at all. Hence why I group both the same, reviewers and users as being useful and irrelevant reader beware at the same time.