Whats the problem with AMD

a3venom said:
Still don't understand the debate here -
People are claiming their 2 L Civics run just as good as the next guy's V8s in the city and daily tasks.

Technically it is correct since you have a speed limit in the city but saying you "saved" money by going with the civic is hilarious, just as saying you saved money by going for a 8320 instead of a 4790k.

Because they are not the same products, they are not intended for same audience and do not perform even in the same leagues. - while gaming both will give you identical performance @ 60fps 1080p probably, but so will a pentium even in a lot of games
Click to expand...

Based solely I what you just said, your Toyota Prius (Pentium) will run as good as my Dodge Avenger V6 3.6l. LOL, I cannot help but laugh at your comparisons, thank you. :D

I am absolutely certain that if I sat you down in front of 2 computer, one a 4790k, the other an FX 9370, you would notice no difference whatsoever. In fact, [H] did something very much like that and the AMD was voted as the best at that event. Perception is everything.
 
ManofGod said:
I am absolutely certain that if I sat you down in front of 2 computer, one a 4790k, the other an FX 9370, you would notice no difference whatsoever. In fact, [H] did something very much like that and the AMD was voted as the best at that event. Perception is everything.
Click to expand...

I can believe that, but similarly most people dont even notice above 30 fps, so they dont need to spend more than 100$ on a cpu technically.

Would the same people notice the difference between an i3 , i5 , i7 , fx etc. ? probably not.
 
a3venom said:
I can believe that, but similarly most people dont even notice above 30 fps, so they dont need to spend more than 100$ on a cpu technically.

Would the same people notice the difference between an i3 , i5 , i7 , fx etc. ? probably not.
Click to expand...
I could agree that above 60fps with g-sync it might be hard for some people to notice difference but for 30vs 60fps you would have to be pretty blind not to notice it :rolleyes:

as for performance, in desktop I do not see much difference between clarkdale i3@4.6GHz, lynnfield i7@4GHz and Ivy i5@4.8GHz, even considering SDD upgrade from one @ SATA2 to RAID0 @ SATA3

there are however cases when I would see difference. If synthesising of a core can take eg. 10 minutes on my i5@4.8Ghz then how long would it take on FX@4.8GHz? 16minutes? If its mostly integer stuff them maybe difference would be lower but still not very optimistic... Pentium Anniversary Edition would in this case obliterate this FX in raw performance in this specific (single core) task :eek:

In worst Intel times (Pentium 4/D vs Athlon 64/X2) difference in performance was nowhere near as big as there is now ...
 
ManofGod said:
Based solely I what you just said, your Toyota Prius (Pentium) will run as good as my Dodge Avenger V6 3.6l. LOL, I cannot help but laugh at your comparisons, thank you. :D

I am absolutely certain that if I sat you down in front of 2 computer, one a 4790k, the other an FX 9370, you would notice no difference whatsoever. In fact, [H] did something very much like that and the AMD was voted as the best at that event. Perception is everything.
Click to expand...

With this I agree, I own both and I know what the differences are but if you take a casual user/ gamer they won't see it. cssorkinman did a pretty good job in my opinion over here at OCN, comparing the DC vs the FX http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user
 
XoR said:
I could agree that above 60fps with g-sync it might be hard for some people to notice difference but for 30vs 60fps you would have to be pretty blind not to notice it :rolleyes:

as for performance, in desktop I do not see much difference between clarkdale i3@4.6GHz, lynnfield i7@4GHz and Ivy i5@4.8GHz, even considering SDD upgrade from one @ SATA2 to RAID0 @ SATA3

there are however cases when I would see difference. If synthesising of a core can take eg. 10 minutes on my i5@4.8Ghz then how long would it take on FX@4.8GHz? 16minutes? If its mostly integer stuff them maybe difference would be lower but still not very optimistic... Pentium Anniversary Edition would in this case obliterate this FX in raw performance in this specific (single core) task :eek:

In worst Intel times (Pentium 4/D vs Athlon 64/X2) difference in performance was nowhere near as big as there is now ...
Click to expand...

Makes sense, first time I heard about amd was when my dad got athlon 64, and it was really fast as compared to my p3 earlier, i was like 10 back then but i remember.
 
ManofGod said:
Based solely I what you just said, your Toyota Prius (Pentium) will run as good as my Dodge Avenger V6 3.6l. LOL, I cannot help but laugh at your comparisons, thank you. :D

I am absolutely certain that if I sat you down in front of 2 computer, one a 4790k, the other an FX 9370, you would notice no difference whatsoever. In fact, [H] did something very much like that and the AMD was voted as the best at that event. Perception is everything.
Click to expand...

and in that point is where you are wrong.. specially when you are aiming at 60FPS MINIMUMS with as higher as possible averages with 120+hz panels or surround setups.. I have a 1 FX 8350 at 5.0ghz and one FX 9590 at 5.2 ghz next to 4 machines and back of this are other 4 machines.. when you aim to 60FPS averages with a single GPU that's OK, those chips perform great.. the problem its when First you are using mutiGPU setups and you try to achieve as higher FPS as possible to keep (if possible) a rate of 90+FPS.. FX chips simply Can't keep with with overclocked mainstream i7s intel offerings (2600K, 3770K 4770K/4790K).. even less with 6c/12t 3930K, 4930K.. etc (i don't have any newer than those).. when im Out of work, I have a chance of testing what i want in every machine here swapping parts from a machine to others and so on.. and yes at those high clocks FX chips are kinda comparable to a i7 2600K at 4.2-4.3ghz but once you push to higher than 60FPS the 2600K take the lead by a good margin..

A thing that I have always noticed its the fact that actual gaming are more CPU intensive than ever and in those games intel chips perform much, much better than FX chips even at 2K resolutions when in the past they were somewhat equal.. Shadow of mordor, Dragon Age inquisition, Watch Dogs are heavy in the CPU resources department and those perform night/day differences from a FX8350 to a i7 3770K, but I Remember in the past Crysis 3 performing better in the FX 8350 than any other i5 and performing equal to mainstream i7.. Newer games scale better not only with Cores but also with the IPC and if that trend become a standard AMD will always be behind intel offerings.. not matter how people trash about DX12 intel will always have a big lead

as a Personal opinion.. I love the performance out of the box of FX chips (specially FX9000 series as they are already overclocked) the muti-tasking performance its exceptional.. not all people do a single task at the same time, in that department FX chips are years away from i3 and i5 machines (also main reason in work we don't use anything below 4c/8t i7).. i3 and i5 if its known perform equal to FX chips, at the moment you are starting to add background apps, Work, Streaming they will lag severely below a FX 8350 for example and even some 4c/8t i7 if aren't overclocked enough can also suffer a great performance penalization in that department FX chips shines.. but also as I always say people shouldn't forget that when new those FX chips weren't cheap chips, specially that 900$ abomination called FX 9590 would any of you buy a FX 9590 at 900$ today?.. even at 400$?.. those prices are actually low because AMD know in the segment they are, they know they can't compete with intel and the only way to keep selling is to have lower prices.. actually the fastest gaming processor in the market its the i7 4790K you will not find anything better in the market for gaming than that chip even Haswell-E if aren't heavy overclocked can't stand aside of a 4790K.. a FX8370 cost 200$ new. a i7 4790K cost arround 320$ (even at sub 300$ in some MC combos) why would anyone build a gaming machine with a AMD FX 8370 over a Intel i7 4790K. have any reason? absolutely nope.. as a 4790K dance circles around a FX 8370 in any department and that's what 99% of people see before build a new machine.. yes FX 8370 have a great multitasking performance, but the percentage of people that are working/streaming/gaming at the same time are less than 1% of the total gamer population. if someone want a purely gaming machine a i5 its unbeatable in price, if someone want a versatile machine for work, gaming and other stuff then I see a reason (unique maybe?) to go with a FX Chip..
 
ManofGod said:
I am absolutely certain that if I sat you down in front of 2 computer, one a 4790k, the other an FX 9370, you would notice no difference whatsoever. In fact, [H] did something very much like that and the AMD was voted as the best at that event. Perception is everything.
Click to expand...

Except you don't build a computer to sit in front of it for one session and then never use it again. Initial perception is easy to fool, its the long term that people care about and eventually you would be able to tell the difference.

A cousin of mine was given a Cyrix 233 and at the same time people said the exact same thing. Guess what got thrown away soon after initial impressions?
 
Trimlock said:
Except you don't build a computer to sit in front of it for one session and then never use it again. Initial perception is easy to fool, its the long term that people care about and eventually you would be able to tell the difference.

A cousin of mine was given a Cyrix 233 and at the same time people said the exact same thing. Guess what got thrown away soon after initial impressions?
Click to expand...

Yeah,
Even my new intel atom tablet , is as snappy in opening folders etc. as a 9590 or i7, average user wont know by just using it for a couple mins coz shit opens instantly
 
Trimlock said:
Except you don't build a computer to sit in front of it for one session and then never use it again. Initial perception is easy to fool, its the long term that people care about and eventually you would be able to tell the difference.

A cousin of mine was given a Cyrix 233 and at the same time people said the exact same thing. Guess what got thrown away soon after initial impressions?
Click to expand...

Except that the [H] test was in gaming at the time.
 
After reading and trolling this thread, I decided to research more on the FX for gaming, because I am helping a buddy build his rig who knows nothing about PCs and gf won't let him keep his PS4.

I spent quite some time, found some really interesting benchmarks, but almost all of them agreed that an OCed FX to 4.5 doesn't beat an i3 in FPS / Frame times in most titles. [even arma 3]

I saw Tek Syndicate's Video where FX 8350 absolutely rapes the i5-3570k [specially when considering it is cheaper] in gaming with a mid range GPU, and that dude looks like he means business so I have always trusted his benchmarks. Then Linus had a video which showed the i5 definitely ahead in all games but the AMD still pretty close, no groundbreaking differences.

Coming to the 4th gen, it doesn't really seem like they are close anymore, if you google for a couple hours you will come the same conclusion [shitty i3 beating the best cpu amd makes] unless you are coming in with a bias already.

Nobody cares if those benchmarks are fake and the AMDs perform better in real life, because most people would make their buying decision by looking at benchmarks/reviews rather than testing it out in real world.

I even noticed that i7-4770k @ 2.5 ghz beats the fx 8350 @ 4.5 ghz in every single game without fail [ I saw this on techspot.com ] which doesnt sound good at all.

Most people take this shit as fanboyism, it does exist but I believe most of the posters here who own Intels simply chose them because it is a better product, performance wise and price wise. They probably won't care if ADIDAS or HAAGEN DAZS made their processors as long as they got a good product for what they paid.

If you chose to go for a FX CPU 2 years ago, it is great since the differences werent that big at that time, but as of today the i3 outperforms the FX 8 core (which i find sad, i do like AMD man). So it is evident in market share, that people are taking Intel when the $120 cpu can perform very good why spend $160?

I am from Canada and the FX 8350 is priced at $229, which makes it a very hard sale over the i3 or entry level i5s.

Intel is bigger than ever and is hardly getting any competition [which again is fucking sad] because if AMD made even competitive chips, it would be better for both teams. I even read about the anti competitive things that Intel did in the past and now I don't really like them (yeah kinda hate em) as a company at all to be honest but I would still spend my hard earned money on a product that is better even if it has to come from Nazi Inc.

Talking about the future being better for 8 cores, is completely irrelevant since no one knows what's gonna happen in a couple of years - we could have world war 3 before 8 cores become useful. As for application / desktop / multitasking goes I have never said i3 or entry level i5s will outperform the FX since i have always talked about gaming in all my posts here.
 
a3venom said:
If you chose to go for a FX CPU 2 years ago, it is great since the differences werent that big at that time
Click to expand...
not even close: http://pclab.pl/art51125-3.html
FX-8150 @ 4.7GHz loose in every single game to i5 750 @ 4GHz, sometimes to a stock i5-750 with large difference. i5-750 when it debuted five years ago was actually cheaper than FX-8150 two years ago.

FX were never good i. It is failed product and people who defend it apparently can't read charts and do not know how to count money.
 
I mean, my AMD set-up for my CPU/MoBo has lasted me 3 years now with no issues at all. There is not game or application it can't handle. i think the total cost for both was $240. Mind you, i prefer Nvida GPUs over the AMD ones, but for processing i would stick with AMD until someone gave me a free i5/i7 and MoBo. I def. would NOT pay upwards of $600 for the nessecary parts... Maybe i'm stubborn, or cheap, but what i have works and that's what matters to me.
 
XoR said:
not even close: http://pclab.pl/art51125-3.html
FX-8150 @ 4.7GHz loose in every single game to i5 750 @ 4GHz, sometimes to a stock i5-750 with large difference. i5-750 when it debuted five years ago was actually cheaper than FX-8150 two years ago.

FX were never good i. It is failed product and people who defend it apparently can't read charts and do not know how to count money.
Click to expand...

The original bulldozer was gimped heavily because the software didn't work well on it. Windows was terrible because it used cores in order: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7 which is terrible being 0-1,2-3,4-5,6-7 are core combos in each module. Once the drivers and resource allocation were fixed and the core use went 0-2-4-6 then 1-3-5-7 huge gains were made. Benchmarks from early release mean jack. Benchmarks are the fodder of morons that have no real clue or even a single fact of experience.
 
a3venom said:
After reading and trolling this thread, I decided to research more on the FX for gaming, because I am helping a buddy build his rig who knows nothing about PCs and gf won't let him keep his PS4.

I spent quite some time, found some really interesting benchmarks, but almost all of them agreed that an OCed FX to 4.5 doesn't beat an i3 in FPS / Frame times in most titles. [even arma 3]

I saw Tek Syndicate's Video where FX 8350 absolutely rapes the i5-3570k [specially when considering it is cheaper] in gaming with a mid range GPU, and that dude looks like he means business so I have always trusted his benchmarks. Then Linus had a video which showed the i5 definitely ahead in all games but the AMD still pretty close, no groundbreaking differences.

Coming to the 4th gen, it doesn't really seem like they are close anymore, if you google for a couple hours you will come the same conclusion [shitty i3 beating the best cpu amd makes] unless you are coming in with a bias already.

Nobody cares if those benchmarks are fake and the AMDs perform better in real life, because most people would make their buying decision by looking at benchmarks/reviews rather than testing it out in real world.

I even noticed that i7-4770k @ 2.5 ghz beats the fx 8350 @ 4.5 ghz in every single game without fail [ I saw this on techspot.com ] which doesnt sound good at all.

Most people take this shit as fanboyism, it does exist but I believe most of the posters here who own Intels simply chose them because it is a better product, performance wise and price wise. They probably won't care if ADIDAS or HAAGEN DAZS made their processors as long as they got a good product for what they paid.

If you chose to go for a FX CPU 2 years ago, it is great since the differences werent that big at that time, but as of today the i3 outperforms the FX 8 core (which i find sad, i do like AMD man). So it is evident in market share, that people are taking Intel when the $120 cpu can perform very good why spend $160?

I am from Canada and the FX 8350 is priced at $229, which makes it a very hard sale over the i3 or entry level i5s.

Intel is bigger than ever and is hardly getting any competition [which again is fucking sad] because if AMD made even competitive chips, it would be better for both teams. I even read about the anti competitive things that Intel did in the past and now I don't really like them (yeah kinda hate em) as a company at all to be honest but I would still spend my hard earned money on a product that is better even if it has to come from Nazi Inc.

Talking about the future being better for 8 cores, is completely irrelevant since no one knows what's gonna happen in a couple of years - we could have world war 3 before 8 cores become useful. As for application / desktop / multitasking goes I have never said i3 or entry level i5s will outperform the FX since i have always talked about gaming in all my posts here.
Click to expand...

What you have lovingly left out of every discussion is the fact that every game, well nearly every game, will do things on low core counts to keep frame rates up, you know for the sad souls that play on laptops. In BF3 it is documented that opening doors is simplified on dual cores by making them show instantly open rather than animate the opening of said door. So comparing a dual core CPU to any higher core counts is never gonna be apples to apples.

A dual core processor on a desktop is a BAD idea and never should exist. It is like having a Corvette with the 3 cylinder from a Geo. Only an idiot would have one.
 
It Beats the fuckin 8 core fx doesn't matter if the extra cores cure cancer in the background or just jerk off
 
I am trying to figure out, other than with a business desktop or at home because you cannot afford more, why anyone would willingly buy a dual core processor anymore. Even quad core processor are cheap enough and would perform far better than a dual core for gaming.

If I want to do only one thing at a time, I will pick up my phone and use that. Otherwise, my FX 8 core processors do kick some serious butt. I have personally been in the game long enough to know what works well and what is just a useless gesture except in a business desktop. (Dual cores work great there where 4 to 8GB of ram keep things going for the 4 or so programs that are always running.)
 
a3venom said:
It Beats the fuckin 8 core fx doesn't matter if the extra cores cure cancer in the background or just jerk off
Click to expand...

I'm on the side of thinking that Intel is simply better. And I think it should be rather obvious. But when did game benchmarks become the most important factor? To me it looks like most of the AMD users in this thread understand Intel is better at purely gaming. What I've read from most of them is, so what if Intel gets more FPS if my FX chip gets me a solid 60 FPS (usually better). And they are right in stating that their gaming experience is no different at 60+ FPS compared to an Intel user getting more than that.

The only argument I can see with getting higher FPS right now with Intel is that it has better longevity. But I kind of think that is a moot point considering how often enthusiasts upgrade. And if someone is a serious gamer I think they become a PC enthusiast to some degree because they have to have a decent machine to play.

Anyway, as I said before I do see/read/hear more AMD users defending their purchase than I do Intel users. But to shit on AMD and claim Intel is the better option just because they don't bench as well in games... Well I don't think it's any kind of secret, and that's only portion of what PC users do. And when it comes to doing other things like encoding etc... AMD holds it's ground in price/bang for the buck.

For me power use and temps are something to consider. I don't like the power draw of the FX chips and I'm thinking they'd run hotter than my 4770k which I don't want. My i7 930 ran hot and it was too much for the room it was in. The 4770k is so much better on that front and it's faster. I can see/feel the difference.
 
Last edited:
a3venom said:
It Beats the fuckin 8 core fx doesn't matter if the extra cores cure cancer in the background or just jerk off
Click to expand...

In no way shape or form. Either you just want to make yourself feel better about your CPU or have some desire to be obtuse. Any day you wanna go head to head against my 8350 with your i3, I am game. Fact is I have worked on many PCs and know that i3 you have is pure crap compared to any 8core FX or any 4core any where. Likely you have to cut off everything to play any game with favorable frame rates. Plenty of tests done with 4cores higher clocked than yours that bow to the 8 of the FX when gaming hard with other programs running as well. This is a case of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
 
durquavian said:
In no way shape or form. Either you just want to make yourself feel better about your CPU or have some desire to be obtuse. Any day you wanna go head to head against my 8350 with your i3, I am game. Fact is I have worked on many PCs and know that i3 you have is pure crap compared to any 8core FX or any 4core any where. Likely you have to cut off everything to play any game with favorable frame rates. Plenty of tests done with 4cores higher clocked than yours that bow to the 8 of the FX when gaming hard with other programs running as well. This is a case of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Click to expand...

Yet to see these "benchmarks", everything i see is FX 8350, 9590 is on the same tier for a gaming cpu as an i3
 
a3venom said:
Talking about the future being better for 8 cores, is completely irrelevant since no one knows what's gonna happen in a couple of years - we could have world war 3 before 8 cores become useful. As for application / desktop / multitasking goes I have never said i3 or entry level i5s will outperform the FX since i have always talked about gaming in all my posts here.
Click to expand...

Being unbiased here talking generically - you're right the way a lot of applications are architected they are I/O limited especially on desktop. Throwing parallelism in there against a 5400rpm laptop harddrive isn't going to drive performance up let alone the other inherent issues when programming across multiple threads (which some devs still don't understand).

The lazy route a lot of programmers (from personnel first hand experience) take the easy route, code for the single thread, maybe take advantage of asynchronous functionality to at least not block the UI thread, but largely target just a single core.

I was really hoping OpenCL and Multithreading by now would have taken off, but there's just too much focus on getting the job done quickly without thinking about scalability and how much faster it could run across multiple cpus. In companies where the target performance metric is hit then it could be a hard sale for the dev team to say well we're gonna have to spend an extra 10% on multi-threading.

Fortunately I do all of the architecture and implementation of large systems at work so everything I do takes advantage of the hardware available, but other companies in my neck of the woods don't unfortunately. So to your point and others in this thread, the single thread IPC performance is a good metric of "real world" performance in a lot of cases (for gaming and other multicore applications like SQL Server it matters less).

Hopefully Zen brings the IPC back to a competitive standpoint.
 
durquavian said:
The original bulldozer was gimped heavily because the software didn't work well on it. Windows was terrible because it used cores in order: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7 which is terrible being 0-1,2-3,4-5,6-7 are core combos in each module. Once the drivers and resource allocation were fixed and the core use went 0-2-4-6 then 1-3-5-7 huge gains were made. Benchmarks from early release mean jack. Benchmarks are the fodder of morons that have no real clue or even a single fact of experience.
Click to expand...
Bulldozer have 4c/8t so for most games it was 14% chance to hit the same core (two thread game) and performance of CMT is 85% so performance penalty of hitting the same module was totally marginal. Because of that all those paths did very little to improve performance. Much less than Windows 7 did to improve performance of Hyper Threaded CPU's compared to Vista which treated all cores as physical.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/imprimer/842/
http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/jaki_procesor_kupic_wielki_test_100_procesorow_intel_i_amd?page=0,28
 
xTrident said:
What I've read from most of them is, so what if Intel gets more FPS if my FX chip gets me a solid 60 FPS (usually better). And they are right in stating that their gaming experience is no different at 60+ FPS compared to an Intel user getting more than that.
Click to expand...
Intel users also use 120/144Hz monitors

60Hz sucks :rolleyes:
 
My buddy's 3570K sucks at streaming. He always looks at my stream, gets jealous, and logs. So I stopped streaming so he would feel better about himself. Funniest was when he tried to challenge me to a BF4 test level comparison. I swear I heard his keyboard fly across the room just before Skype d/c'd.

But he can hit some really nice numbers while playing StarCraft II so I guess it is all good. Really though the new Intel chips are really nice so I've been contemplating an upgrade for no other reason than to upgrade. Then again DX12 is coming and the new AMD processors next year. ;)
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Ahem,
Anyone post this yet??

https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks
Click to expand...
That one is pretty old ;)

But yes the performance can be rather good on AMD FX 8350. Not just on that cpu but there is a demo for laptops around where AMD runs 4 benchmarks at the same time and Intel system chokes badly ;)

cageymaru said:
Here is another test of AMD FX processors vs 6 core Intel pushing SLi 780's and SLi 980's. A 6 core Intel is my direct upgrade path.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
Click to expand...

If they could have done some testing with DX12 that would have been great comparison. But this was or is interesting to see that eventually due to API it is a moot point. Maybe that is also why MS jumped in DX12 because on the gaming side on 4K would be rather slow process before games become "playable" .
 
cageymaru said:
Here is another test of AMD FX processors vs 6 core Intel pushing SLi 780's and SLi 980's. A 6 core Intel is my direct upgrade path.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
Click to expand...

Interesting read and curious. Kinda wished they had explained why they thought the huge difference in 980 to 780 on AMD. I switched from Nvidia when I found AMD GPUs just worked better with AMD CPUs. But at least the point of viability was made and proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top