Why are you making this comparison between those two combos?
what are you even trying to demonstrate by this?
what point can that possibly make?
its like comparing a Civic to BMW 5 Series.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Whats the problem with AMD
- Thread starter rellyrale
- Start date
Why are you making this comparison between those two combos?
what are you even trying to demonstrate by this?
what point can that possibly make?
its like comparing a Civic to BMW 5 Series.
Ruoh
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,857
It could with M.2 PCIe SSDs as well.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
The price difference is rarely Core i7 versus FX 8350. It's usually Core i3 or i5 versus FX 8350, which is more in the $50 price-difference range. For the vast majority of multi-threaded benchmarks the Haswell Core i5 matches the FX 8350, and in gaming it outmatches it, sometimes by 40-50%.
So if gaming is your primary use case, you can make a longer-term investment for only $50 more. I'm still using my Core i5 2500k I bought 5.5 years ago for $210 to game on, and expect to be using it for another 3+ years. Are you still using the same AMD system you had 5.5. years ago, and still getting > 60fps in all modern game engines?
We'll have to wait and see. DX12 will fix the rendering engine side of things by letting it scale up to four threads, but most game engines are still using less than 4 threads. If you are still limited by the game engine, then all these rendering efficiency improvements will not scale 100% like you are imagining.
So, we will have to wait and see. In the meantime I will be enjoying my Core i5 2500k without any restrictions. That is the reason I recommend the Core i5 over the FX 8-module parts: you've always been able to make better use of Intel's 4-core parts, no matter the year or the game you're running. Fifty bucks is hardly a large premium to pay for that freedom and longevity, understand?
Bulldozer failed for AMD because it was a server chip that failed at being a server chip. It's failure has nothing to do with whether or not the community oozes their love for it on forums everywhere. You are allowed to love or hate a processor, but don't let that stop you from being objective.
Last edited:
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
Ok so my turn Right? Well truth be told, it is easy to make any argument you wish when criteria aren't set. So first I will state I am using a FX8350 with R9-290, 16Gb 1600 ram 3Tb HDD and GS800 Corsair PSU. I have plenty of experience working on both Intel and AMD.
First we need criteria with which to judge. Basically it is the monitor that this whole argument is dependent upon. In other words what resolution/size and what hz/FPS. So lets put it in an easy to read form:
a: 60Hz 4:3 and 16:9/10 : Here either platform will do quite well. Of course with the lower tiers for each the degree of stress will be greater but among the top tiers for each this criteria is easily met with the majority of games.
b: 120/144Hz 4:3 and 16:9/10 : Here Intel is the better choice definitely at stock. AMD needs OCing to achieve this level. Also dependent upon resolution GPU numbers may need to be greater than one and therefore Intel becomes the better choice up to the only one remaining if maintaining high levels of FPS is the desirable outcome.
c: 21:9 and other wide panels or surround/eyefinity : This is just a bit more taxing on the CPU because of the wider scene needing to be created so Here AMD becomes more akin to example B even starting at 60hz.
Truth is @60FPS EITHER platform is more than sufficient even indiscernible. Granted there is the random rare game that can throw a monkey wrench into the result but like any statistical anomaly it is deemed an outlier and discarded.
But as asked originally WHY ALL THE HATE? Honestly, any number of reasons none based on legitimate cause. Ego or superiority because of low self worth thereby needing to hop on the leaders train to feel that they themselves are akin to it, maybe. Or being greatly mislead by the hordes that deem themselves the messengers whose sole purpose it is to educate the masses even if the information is slanted, lies or even mistaken or misconstrued .
Take the facts like this: as the industry stands (gaming and other software) Intel is in the advantageous position. Fact is their current architecture is better than AMD currently when looking at throughput. But the problem is, and what has been taken and ran with, that software is what has widened that gap in performance more than actual hardware. Here is an example:
AMD showed the 7850K against the 39__X Intel using Adobe. Using current software the Intel stomped the AMD, an expected outcome 12 threads to 4 and better cores in Intels favor. However using HSA that 7850K turned the tables. Now that AMD architecture didn't change, nor did the Intel. What did change was the software.
Truth is it is hard to tell with great certainty which is architecturally superior, well actually we know right now Intel is so better put is we cant be sure by how much. This is the crux of the problem. All we can state is which is better in EACH task. This has been the state of the argument going years with the FX series.
But you can now see why I laugh each time I see blanket statements sans CRITERIA. Generally those posters know that they cant make the fair argument either way, for either side without giving into obvious bias, although most don't leave much guess work there.
What needs to be stated when someone asks for a Viable 60Hz Gaming platform is that most mid to high tiers in both camps will suffice and can be quite fun. 120Hz or > then Intel is the predominant choice but if one wants to go AMD then the answer needs to be that it will take a lot of work and top quality parts but it can be done.
Any of us have at least once wondered what posses that person to buy that car. The fact is they wanted it. If they enjoy it then well good for them. It doesn't change the fact we think they made a mistake but hey if it gets the job done then... .
How about we show ourselves to be what we claim OCing ENTHUSIASTs and give advice accordingly. If you condemn another for their choice you only go to prove you aren't the aforementioned but rather a stain on the forums pages. Many of us have vast amounts of knowledge to give and of that number a great deal waste it on unwarranted allegiances.
First we need criteria with which to judge. Basically it is the monitor that this whole argument is dependent upon. In other words what resolution/size and what hz/FPS. So lets put it in an easy to read form:
a: 60Hz 4:3 and 16:9/10 : Here either platform will do quite well. Of course with the lower tiers for each the degree of stress will be greater but among the top tiers for each this criteria is easily met with the majority of games.
b: 120/144Hz 4:3 and 16:9/10 : Here Intel is the better choice definitely at stock. AMD needs OCing to achieve this level. Also dependent upon resolution GPU numbers may need to be greater than one and therefore Intel becomes the better choice up to the only one remaining if maintaining high levels of FPS is the desirable outcome.
c: 21:9 and other wide panels or surround/eyefinity : This is just a bit more taxing on the CPU because of the wider scene needing to be created so Here AMD becomes more akin to example B even starting at 60hz.
Truth is @60FPS EITHER platform is more than sufficient even indiscernible. Granted there is the random rare game that can throw a monkey wrench into the result but like any statistical anomaly it is deemed an outlier and discarded.
But as asked originally WHY ALL THE HATE? Honestly, any number of reasons none based on legitimate cause. Ego or superiority because of low self worth thereby needing to hop on the leaders train to feel that they themselves are akin to it, maybe. Or being greatly mislead by the hordes that deem themselves the messengers whose sole purpose it is to educate the masses even if the information is slanted, lies or even mistaken or misconstrued .
Take the facts like this: as the industry stands (gaming and other software) Intel is in the advantageous position. Fact is their current architecture is better than AMD currently when looking at throughput. But the problem is, and what has been taken and ran with, that software is what has widened that gap in performance more than actual hardware. Here is an example:
AMD showed the 7850K against the 39__X Intel using Adobe. Using current software the Intel stomped the AMD, an expected outcome 12 threads to 4 and better cores in Intels favor. However using HSA that 7850K turned the tables. Now that AMD architecture didn't change, nor did the Intel. What did change was the software.
Truth is it is hard to tell with great certainty which is architecturally superior, well actually we know right now Intel is so better put is we cant be sure by how much. This is the crux of the problem. All we can state is which is better in EACH task. This has been the state of the argument going years with the FX series.
But you can now see why I laugh each time I see blanket statements sans CRITERIA. Generally those posters know that they cant make the fair argument either way, for either side without giving into obvious bias, although most don't leave much guess work there.
What needs to be stated when someone asks for a Viable 60Hz Gaming platform is that most mid to high tiers in both camps will suffice and can be quite fun. 120Hz or > then Intel is the predominant choice but if one wants to go AMD then the answer needs to be that it will take a lot of work and top quality parts but it can be done.
Any of us have at least once wondered what posses that person to buy that car. The fact is they wanted it. If they enjoy it then well good for them. It doesn't change the fact we think they made a mistake but hey if it gets the job done then... .
How about we show ourselves to be what we claim OCing ENTHUSIASTs and give advice accordingly. If you condemn another for their choice you only go to prove you aren't the aforementioned but rather a stain on the forums pages. Many of us have vast amounts of knowledge to give and of that number a great deal waste it on unwarranted allegiances.
Anyone saying AMD is Value for money for strict gaming just is misinformed.
In all best optimized games CPU heavy shit like GTA 5,
$ for $ intel is a better performer.
i want to see someone post a benchmark which shows someone actually saving a penny by using AMD and getting more or same performance as the same priced intel [ dont include any ridiculously cheap one time offers - use the market price ] - i will consider that as a small win for AMD.
Every single comparison is made using a fucking 8320/8350 vs an i7 or 4690k? WTF? compare apples to apples.
In all best optimized games CPU heavy shit like GTA 5,
$ for $ intel is a better performer.
i want to see someone post a benchmark which shows someone actually saving a penny by using AMD and getting more or same performance as the same priced intel [ dont include any ridiculously cheap one time offers - use the market price ] - i will consider that as a small win for AMD.
Every single comparison is made using a fucking 8320/8350 vs an i7 or 4690k? WTF? compare apples to apples.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,990
rellyrale said:
rellyrale said:
Hostility is your intent if you feel so strongly about it to make a thread like this with such ridiculous posts. Your choice of words basically says to the rest of the community, "Fuck your viewpoints, I shall jizz on your face so you can't state any facts."rellyrale said:
This thread is nothing but a circle jerk bukkake fest for the OP and clueless AMD fanboys to justify their purchase and stir up trouble with Intel fanboys. The ridiculous amount of replies in such short order is proof of this.
Meanwhile, intelligent posts by both AMD and Intel users alike fall on deaf ears thus making this is a pointless discussion. This same discussion has been done hundreds of times already in other threads and this thread only serves as a means to start a flamewar between ignorant fanboys on both sides.
Yes, I felt the need to bold and underline those statements as some of those people in this thread don't seem notice the difference. I am calling out a specific group of users, not AMD or Intel users as a whole.
Call this a drive-by shit post if you want. Hopefully its stench will warn the rest of the community here to stay away from this thread.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
And can you personally prove any of it. I mean I get you can give evidence to your own setup but what makes you think you can give word on mine? Or how about this: Does what performance you get change my gameplay at all? Now that you made your statement does my performance now decrease? No! It is the same today as it was a year ago.
As far as 4-5 years ago, I still have my 965BE, actually my wife uses it to play WoW with a 7770 and does maintain 60FPS. I have my 8350 which has never given me a single frame rate issue playing any game. Even with a heavily modded Skyrim, that looks absolutely beautiful with VSR, I get constant 75FPS (capped).
And even you failed at being objective.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
You do realize this thread is in an AMD section therefore Intel posters do not NEED to post here. If it was posted in the Intel section you would have a point.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,990
Then my post was for everyone else that keeps posting trying to convince the OP otherwise. His mind is already made up. Per his exact words "no one can ever convince me".
You know what you are getting into. Just don't get stuck eating the limp biscuit when this is all over.
Brilliant Idea! Lock down forum sections so only owners of said products can post in them. I'm sure that will provide plenty of mutual ego stroking for fanboys.
I own both brands, use both brands, and work on boxes containing both brands. Am I not allowed to post here per your definition of this subsection?You do realize this is a FORUM and anyone can post anywhere?
I am warning AMD and Intel posters alike to stay away from this thread due to the massive amounts of reach arounds going on. For those of you that do know what's happening in this thread, prepare your flamesuits and troll on.
Last edited:
AMD APU is where AMD comes ahead.
It doesn't make sense for dedicated GPU, but for tiny itx systems, AMD APU is great. So you save money not having to buy a GPU.
The 7650k is about the same as an i3.
I personally hope to see Iris Pro at budget prices. I'm sure it will come soon by the time Zen releases
Well someone has yet to post a benchmark / evidence of a case where it is possible to save $1.00 atleast by using AMD in a build instead of Intel while still getting same / more perf - I think only way to do this would be APU builds.
Strictly talk numbers
Strictly talk numbers
AMD APU is where AMD comes ahead.
It doesn't make sense for dedicated GPU, but for tiny itx systems, AMD APU is great. So you save money not having to buy a GPU.
The 7650k is about the same as an i3.
I personally hope to see Iris Pro at budget prices. I'm sure it will come soon by the time Zen releases
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
Hostility is your intent if you feel so strongly about it to make a thread like this with such ridiculous posts. Your choice of words basically says to the rest of the community, "Fuck your viewpoints, I shall jizz on your face so you can't state any facts."
This thread is nothing but a circle jerk bukkake fest for the OP and clueless AMD fanboys to justify their purchase and stir up trouble with Intel fanboys. The ridiculous amount of replies in such short order is proof of this.
Meanwhile, intelligent posts by both AMD and Intel users alike fall on deaf ears thus making this is a pointless discussion. This same discussion has been done hundreds of times already in other threads and this thread only serves as a means to start a flamewar between ignorant fanboys on both sides.
Yes, I felt the need to bold and underline those statements as some of those people in this thread don't seem notice the difference. I am calling out a specific group of users, not AMD or Intel users as a whole.
Call this a drive-by shit post if you want. Hopefully its stench will warn the rest of the community here to stay away from this thread.
Your post was hostile and rude and being the person I am to show you how cool I am i'll just respond with this and allow you to be simulated by your perverted remarks... All I was doing was making my point that in my experience with what I use my PC for I don't see how it could get any faster or better. I don't have a problem with intel and I may eventually pick up one but I don't care for people to act as if AMD builds will break down in smoke and just not work because intel is better...
I think most people would agree it is fine if you have an AMD, but $ for $ if you had to get a new one, you should get an intel because you will get more value for your money, which is good for everyone
The Phenom II X4 965 BE would be the fastest CPU AMD made 5.5 years ago. It was never a terribly fast chip, only being competitive with C2Q models released late in the LGA 775 era. The i5 2500K came out in 2011, so a more valid comparison would have been with the i5-750 for price, performance and release time. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/109?vs=102
Give AMD credit where it's due: the best it had was competitive with the lower end socket Intel used, that both had out in Q3'09. Kind of moots the original point.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,990
I'm sorry, but your thread is already simulating my perverted remarks which is why I pointed out my observation. However, I do find your replies stimulating.rellyrale said:
Your posts I mentioned were also hostile. I was replying in kind. I've said my piece.
/bowing out
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Bulldozer is not a bad chip performance wise Mantle proves this. It is bad because it did not sell it is so bad that AMD just made Piledriver revisions and never bothered updating the AM3+ platform.
For people with an AM3+ mainboard it is not a bad chip at all. It just does not perform very well in certain older benchmarks and with gaming it needs a new API to make it fly.
The usage of those percentages with 'more expensive' and 'more cost' bug the hell out of me.
really shabby reporting. anyone whose used both platforms knows that you don't need a $1000 intel cpu to out perform an amd 8-core for highend, high resolution. you just need a inter quad with hyper threading. they should have used an i7 4770k instead.
If your 8320 can pull 60FPS easy then by all means post your benchmark results in my thread!
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1861011
I'm having a hard time convincing people to.
Last edited:
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,823
Interesting as the i5 clock for clock should be beating the AMD up and down.....
So you want to see benchmarks of....
FX 8350 vs i5 4430
FX 8320 vs i3 4330
FX 6350 vs i3 4160
FX 6300 vs Pentium G3460
A10 7850k vs i3 4330 (as APU)
A8 7650k vs Pentium G3460 (as APU)
X4 860k vs Pentium G3420 (as CPU)
I'd favor the AMD system in most of those cases.... Its not until you get to the top of the very top of the FX processors that the Intel makes much better sense, and I dont think anyone is contesting that. Intel has the faster/better tech if you have the money for a big build... That said, If you have a specific budget, or only need 1080p gaming (or less) for now and want to save some money, AMD makes LOTS of sense to LOTS of people.
(CURRENTLY I would put the AMD processors there above the Intels except maybe the i5/8350... 2 years from now with new APIs and threaded apps, they will perform even better than their intel counter-parts, no money/upgrade needed)
Last edited:
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Well, I have an FX 8320 and an FX8350 and I am quite happy with them. True, I want to upgrade but not because I need to but just because I want to build computers. However, I would be better off building an 860K build, not to replace what I have but to enjoy building a computer without breaking the budget.
CaptNumNutz, I really do not understand why you are responding so strongly with an emotional response in this thread. You do not seem pleased with the fact that AMD is quite good but, there is always the Intel forums which are right below the AMD ones. I am over upgrading just to see a tiny bit of performance improvement since I do not have money to waste anymore. (Truth is I never did but I seem to think I did.)
AMD makes fantastic processors and they are going to produce a hit in 2016. (How much of a hit remains to be seen.) Anyways, the 5820K from Intel is the only worthy upgrade path anyways from what I have but it would not be worth the cost at this time.
CaptNumNutz, I really do not understand why you are responding so strongly with an emotional response in this thread. You do not seem pleased with the fact that AMD is quite good but, there is always the Intel forums which are right below the AMD ones. I am over upgrading just to see a tiny bit of performance improvement since I do not have money to waste anymore. (Truth is I never did but I seem to think I did.)
AMD makes fantastic processors and they are going to produce a hit in 2016. (How much of a hit remains to be seen.) Anyways, the 5820K from Intel is the only worthy upgrade path anyways from what I have but it would not be worth the cost at this time.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
So, why the strong emotional response? For the cost of my FX 8350 and FX 8320 and what I do with my computers, nothing in the Intel camp at the same cost comes even close. In fact, the only worthy upgrade would be a 5820K which I have mentioned many times before. However, I would not be able to justify the cost since it would not be a great ROI for me at this time.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 757
I think the responses being what they are in the negative pertain to the fact that they cant wrap their head around REAL performance when it may or may not contradict posted benchmarks from review sites. We know that the 8350/20 perform very well in real world, to the point that any need of upgrade is non-evident. A 4790k would add nothing to my daily gaming or to the time I spend here.
I have stated for years if you want to KNOW how a CPU or GPU perform ASK A USER. Get factual information like settings and results. Hell I get some skepticism from remarks that really say nothing more than how much they like it, but when users give real world performance numbers and settings then how can anyone deny it or even live with themselves using sorted crappy reviews as contradictory evidence.
Case in point: When the 9590 was released one review posted lots of numbers that paled in comparison to my 8350 clocked at 4.6Ghz (at the time). Given the 9590 was clocked to 5.0Ghz with faster ram and a SSD against my 4.6Ghz slower ram and HDD, the benches should have been far higher, but sadly they weren't. FACT is they didn't even have a stable clock, easily discerned from the reviewers own description of how they achieved their OC.
Lastly, the most laughable aspect of any discussion when benchmarks from reviews are used is that one question needs to be answered: DO YOU EVER GET THE SAME RESULTS AS ANY REVIEW? I always have better, hence why every review I take with a grain of salt. Yet so many on forums act as if those results are EXACTLY what one can expect. SAD!
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,091
I posted in your thread. My R9 290 runs at 8x mode because it is missing part of the PCI-E connector as the Post Office damaged it in shipping. It is a real world test as I always have 25+ tabs in FireFox open on my second monitor and Malwarebytes, antivirus, Steam, Battlenet, Origin, Skype, GOG, Office, Google Drive, Amazon Music, and a ton more apps open 24/7. I used the [H]ardocp guide to pick my settings.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,004
Mmmmmmmm... I'm an AMD fan through and through. But an i3 is a much faster processor for serial tasks.
AMD has been behind since the Core 2 Duo / Core 2 Quad days. Nehalem just increased that gap substantially. AMD dropping the ball? The reality is that AMD rarely had it in the first place.
People have short memories or the bulk of forum go'ers here are simply too young to know that this is how its been for the majority of Intel and AMD's CPU war. AMD enjoyed a brief stint at the top of the performance pile but that makes up for less than a quarter of Intel and AMD's business fued. Intel has had manufacturing and performance advantages over their rivals for most of the last 25-30 years. The Athlon was the first AMD CPU to realistically compete with Intel. Even then the platform was crap. AMD's motherboard chipsets and faulty VRM design was causing retail systems based on these CPUs to catch fire and fry CPUs. We had stacks of Slot A Athlon motherboards piling up at the service center where I worked over this problem from multiple brands. It took NVIDIA's help to make the AMD platform good enough to stand on its own. (Talking about motherboard chipsets, not CPUs.)
Three things that happened which made people feel like AMD ever had a chance in the long haul against Intel. The first reasonable success was the K6. While it wasn't the equal of the Pentium II it was moderately successful. It was born of technology from the NexGen Systems NX586 and NX686 designs. The success of K6 owes everything to AMD's acquisition of NexGen Systems. The Athlon wasn't AMD's own child either. DEC imploded leaving a bunch of Dec Alpha CPU engineers out of work. They brought those engineers and that technology to the Athlon and then S754 abd S939 Athlons were born. And in retrospect the Athlon may not have really been all that good. It was timed against Intel's clock speed gamble: Netburst. Whether you believe the Athlon was that good or simply that Netburst was that bad the end result was the same. Intel lost the performance lead to AMD.
It seems many people only recall the Athlon vs. the Pentium IV as an example of AMD's track record prior to the introduction of the AMD slaughtering Core 2 Duo. They don't seem to recall all the AMD 486 knock offs which were slower per clock than Intel's CPUs. AMD's 486's were on average one model below Intel's in terms of speed. A 486 DX2 66MHz Intel CPU was as fast and faster than AMD's 80MHz 486 DX2 clone. People will often bring up the AMD 486 DX4 100MHz and 120MHz models which were basically surpassed by Pentiums at that point. And let's not forget the abysmal K5 series CPUs and the "PR" rating system. Back then AMD was getting its ass kicked by everyone, including Cyrix.
AMD lagging behind Intel isn't good for us consumers. No question, but this is how its been for the bulk of the last couple of decades. This doesn't indicate a special problem for AMD but rather them running business as usual.
Last edited:
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
Thank you for that, Dan. People really do seem to forget the product history (or they are too young). I've lived through it all (and used most of the AMD processors since the AM386 days), and your product timeline commentary is spot on.
I've always known that almost all AMD CPU products offered inferior performance to Intel, but then again, they were always significantly cheaper because of this, especially in the era of the $800+ Pentium II 300 MHz.
Then Bulldozer comes along and is priced MORE than the i7-2600K at release; boy, did the prices drop fast on those...and it's been business as usual for AMD since: significantly less pricing for significantly less performance. Nothing wrong with that per se, as I've always got some form of an AMD processor running in one of my desktops or laptops, but I know exactly what I'm getting for the tight budget I set, therefore I'm not going to run and cry about it. And, for the most part, I'm completely satisfied with the performance for the money.
I've always known that almost all AMD CPU products offered inferior performance to Intel, but then again, they were always significantly cheaper because of this, especially in the era of the $800+ Pentium II 300 MHz.
Then Bulldozer comes along and is priced MORE than the i7-2600K at release; boy, did the prices drop fast on those...and it's been business as usual for AMD since: significantly less pricing for significantly less performance. Nothing wrong with that per se, as I've always got some form of an AMD processor running in one of my desktops or laptops, but I know exactly what I'm getting for the tight budget I set, therefore I'm not going to run and cry about it. And, for the most part, I'm completely satisfied with the performance for the money.
Last edited:
Killerxp100
Gawd
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,008
Any game that needs single thread performance will do better on an intel cpu, and most games are still single thread dependent. Best example is Planetside 2, a 30fps difference in heavy fights between my 4690k and my brothers 8350. Its probably the most cpu dependent game there is.
MotionBlur
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,636
Completely agree, I was about to drop $600 on a 600mhz Pentium III Summer of 1999 to upgrade from my Celeron 300A. Thankfully my dad convinced me to wait and December 2000 spent $350 and got both a 1ghz Thunderbird and an Abit KT7-RAID. To Dan_D's point, the VIA KT133 chipset on that Abit KT7-RAID was terrible. Never had so many problems with a motherboard before, it really wasn't until the Palomino (Athlon XP) came out with the AMD 760 chipset in my Abit KG7-RAID where I had all the stability I had coming from growing up using all Intel.
Since that 1ghz Thunderbird I have used every generation of AMD products with the knowledge that I am getting what I pay for. For what I've been using my desktop for (almost 100% C# programming), my FX 8350 and every highest end AMD CPU since has been more than enough for me. I can take the money saved on a cpu/motherboard and get larger/better SSDs or 2 graphics cards etc.
When it comes down to it, it's all about having choice. There's going to be folks who want to drop $800+ on a i7. Good for them. And then there's the folks who don't mind spending $800, but don't want it all to goto just the cpu. I'm crossing my fingers AMD can compete again, because regardless of which side you are on, it wouldn't be good to only have Intel to look to for CPUs.
In times when AMD had the ball having any amount of money to spend you could never buy faster Intel system than you could get AMD system spending as much for CPU + MOBO . Athlons were almost as fast with sucky VIA chipsets as Pentium 3 with expensive Intel chipsets. Celerons were always slower than considerably less expensive Durons. And that trend continued for many years until... Pentium D
Pentium D 820 and especially 805 was so cheap that I could buy whole system with hot nforce chipset cheaper than cheapest Athlon X2 3600+ alone and it was considerably faster overall than any AMD system in that price range except maybe games but at 3.8GHz games ran pretty sweet at it.
AMD had times after C2D when buying AMD system was pretty smart compared to Intel system. Whole Phenom II line was generally very successful, performance/price compared to Core 2 was great and core unlocking made those CPU's quite popular. LGA1336 were so expensive that AMD had nothing to worry about in Phenom II price range.
But then everything changed. Intel pushed performance of thread up and prices down and AMD stopeed any progress and made regress. If Intel did zero innovation and still sold only Lynnfield and Clarkdale and for prices from January 2010, just increased clock a little each year then it would still be better bung for money, better performance (in single thread and in games) and better TDP than today's AMD offerings, even given process node difference between Lynnfield and Bulldozer.
And some people make threads "Whats the problem with AMD"...
I would rather ask whats the problem with their cognitive abilities...
Pentium D 820 and especially 805 was so cheap that I could buy whole system with hot nforce chipset cheaper than cheapest Athlon X2 3600+ alone and it was considerably faster overall than any AMD system in that price range except maybe games but at 3.8GHz games ran pretty sweet at it.
AMD had times after C2D when buying AMD system was pretty smart compared to Intel system. Whole Phenom II line was generally very successful, performance/price compared to Core 2 was great and core unlocking made those CPU's quite popular. LGA1336 were so expensive that AMD had nothing to worry about in Phenom II price range.
But then everything changed. Intel pushed performance of thread up and prices down and AMD stopeed any progress and made regress. If Intel did zero innovation and still sold only Lynnfield and Clarkdale and for prices from January 2010, just increased clock a little each year then it would still be better bung for money, better performance (in single thread and in games) and better TDP than today's AMD offerings, even given process node difference between Lynnfield and Bulldozer.
And some people make threads "Whats the problem with AMD"...
I would rather ask whats the problem with their cognitive abilities...
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,091
I strictly started buying Intel computers starting in 1991. When the AMD 1500+ came out you could overclock them higher than the 2500. Kyle and the crew hyped them up so much that I had to try it. On my old forum account that was lost, I was walked through how to do the "pencil trick" to unlock a CPU and the first 64 bit AMD processors were in my HP notebook I used in college.
When the Q6600 came out I switched back to Intel. and then it was onto Bulldozer where we couldn't even run SteamWorks games for months after launch because of the bios issues on the motherboard. I still run that motherboard with my current FX-9370. While waiting for Bulldozer I installed a triple core AMD that wouldn't stay stable when unlocked to save it's life. But it was fun as hell trying to get it to be stable.
At no point do I remember having a slow system that I felt hindered me from gaming, multimedia tasks, etc. Well when I had a 386 Intel I was having loading issues with the first Mechwarrior game.
Here is my GTA V benchmark. I think that it's fine for having a R9 290 video card running at 8X speeds because part of the PCI-E connector is chipped off from Post Office shipping damage. How much more faster would a comparably priced Intel processor run the game?
When the Q6600 came out I switched back to Intel. and then it was onto Bulldozer where we couldn't even run SteamWorks games for months after launch because of the bios issues on the motherboard. I still run that motherboard with my current FX-9370. While waiting for Bulldozer I installed a triple core AMD that wouldn't stay stable when unlocked to save it's life. But it was fun as hell trying to get it to be stable.
At no point do I remember having a slow system that I felt hindered me from gaming, multimedia tasks, etc. Well when I had a 386 Intel I was having loading issues with the first Mechwarrior game.
Here is my GTA V benchmark. I think that it's fine for having a R9 290 video card running at 8X speeds because part of the PCI-E connector is chipped off from Post Office shipping damage. How much more faster would a comparably priced Intel processor run the game?
Last edited:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Multiheaded-NVIDIA-Gaming-using-Ubuntu-14-04-KVM-585/
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Multi-headed-VMWare-Gaming-Setup-564/
I wonder how a FX 8core will stack up against 4core i7 with HT?
Let's say a 2 headed setup (4cores per vm). It would be a cool benchmark to test, BF4 or GTA V running on both machines at the same time. I personally would try at least try a 6core intel 3cores per vm, but maybe the hyperthreading will do its job. I actually used to have a 3770 but traded it for a k, otherwise i would be testing this right now.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Multi-headed-VMWare-Gaming-Setup-564/
I wonder how a FX 8core will stack up against 4core i7 with HT?
Let's say a 2 headed setup (4cores per vm). It would be a cool benchmark to test, BF4 or GTA V running on both machines at the same time. I personally would try at least try a 6core intel 3cores per vm, but maybe the hyperthreading will do its job. I actually used to have a 3770 but traded it for a k, otherwise i would be testing this right now.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Why would anyone really be interested in doing this sort of thing?
The only thing you save by sharing the same system is the cost of the hard drive and case. Everything else scales-up in cost too much (i.e. price premium for more cores, motherboards with more x16 PCIe slots, etc).
So you could put two gaming instances on a Core i7 4790....or you could pay for two Core i3s for the same price and get the same number of threads.
So you could buy an SLI z97 motherboard for $150...or just get a 2 B85 motherboards each for $75
Memory use between virtual machines scales linearly. GPUs between virtual machines scale linearly. PSU price usually scales linearly in capacity up until the 850w level, so you could drop $100 for 850...or $50 each for 430w.
Hell, even the case cost would increase if the choice was between a cheap case with minimal cooling for i3 + GPU, and a case that could handle i7 + dual GPUs fully-loaded. And of course you get all the fun of managing the complexity of these virtual machines before you ever get to play a single game.
Last edited:
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Having dual cores except for office type work really is not going to go well anymore. Also, virtual machines are a lot simpler to set up and take up far less physical space since I do not need 2 separate computers. As it is right now, I have 5 virtual machines running on top of Windows 8.1 Pro in Virtual box.
The cool thing is, on my break, I played Wolfenstein: Old Blood on this computer at the same time and it played great. FX 8320 at 4.4 Ghz, 32 GB of ram and a 1GB 6770 videocard.
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,941
I think dual Intel core or dual AMD module systems are fine for a lot of users.