FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

[teppic]

My point is rather the people who go on every thread that mentions AMD to say how better Intel is, would only be rude, arrogant, aggressive and condescending when they think they could get away with it, and don't ever do it to an ocuk staff member or moderator.

 

[Martini1991]

My point is rather the people who go on every thread that mentions AMD to say how better Intel is, would only be rude, arrogant, aggressive and condescending when they think they could get away with it, and don't ever do it to an ocuk staff member or moderator.

Erm.
There was once that a member put forth an AMD rig which was overpriced and inferior to the cheaper Intel system.

An OCUK staff member pipped up with quite a flawed argument, do you think I was silent because he was a staff member? No. It was bad advice plain and simple.

The example was an FX6300 against an i5 3570k, the AMD was more expensive and inferior.

 

[teppic]

Nice little anecdote there. I didn't say you specifically, or about keeping silent, it's the tone and unbelievable arrogance that I'm talking about.

 

[Martini1991]

You didn't have to say me specifically, I know I'm in that "group" though, I ooze arrogance.

 

[X3T]

AMD doesn't really outclock Intel though.
I can run my cores at 4.8GHZ, that's about as far as I can go, that's also as far as AMD's PD cores go about 7/10 times.
Even at 5GHZ, it in no way offsets the IPC loss.

That is exactly what I am saying!

The FX chips didn't clock high enough, or the Intel chips clocked higher than AMD expected. Now it's only got worse because Intel are on a much smaller process, but AMD are still using 32nm. So the clock speed advantage is gone almost completely.

My argument was against the post about AMD only using 50% of it's power in lightly threaded programs being the reason for it's performance disadvantage.

Either way, both CPUs are more than capable.

 

[Martini1991]

The thing is though, the original i7's came out in 2008 and were already hitting 4.2GHZ.
Intel CPU's prior to that were hitting 4GHZ.

By 2010 AMD had some decent clocking silicon too (I had 4.37GHZ Thuban), so I have no idea what AMD's plan was, as their IPC in Bulldozer lowered so much, half the time the clock speed couldn't offset that lost IPC against their own chips.

So it didn't make much sense, even if things had gone to plan, as AMD were competing and losing against their own previous flagship.

Intels clocking is actually so-so since they've been using none soldered IHS's, which I hope they rectify in the next mainstream platform.

Although Marine has a point.

Lets say the FX8350 has a power level of over 9000 in its 8 cores (So, about 1125 per core) and the Intel has a power level of 8000 (2000 per core)

In a 4 threaded situation, the FX8350 can only use half its power ; 4500, while the Intel will be able to almost use its 8000.

That's what he's on about the 50% thing.
So its lower performance comes from the fact half of the CPU is idling.

 

[Marine-RX179]

He's not building a computer to solely run Crysis 3 though, or am I mistaken?

but i think his forgetting that the Haswell can be OC'ed so a OC'ed Haswell would still be ahead of the OC'ed amd FX

The above pretty sums it up.

People that think this is a "AMD vs Intel" thing, they seriously need take a step back and read properly.

My argument was against the post about AMD only using 50% of it's power in lightly threaded programs being the reason for it's performance disadvantage.

Either way, both CPUs are more than capable.

That's what he's on about the 50% thing.
So its lower performance comes from the fact half of the CPU is idling.

That's what I've been talking about all along.

Let's pretend the AMD 8 core is on par with the 4 cores i5 for gaming, why would any sane person take a CPU that would lose 50% of its grunt in 4 cores games over a that will have CPU that would maintain using 100% its grunt?

teppic always argue that the FX CPUs are "good enough" even for light-threaded games, so it's not relevent. But there's a difference between "playable" and "getting decent frame rate". For example I revisit Crysis 1 (which use 2 cores), my overclocked i5 would have a minimum frame rate around 50-60fps, and the overclocked FX using 2 only cores would have a minimum frame rate of around 30fps...now, is it really irrelevant playing a game with a minimum frame rate 50fps over minimum frame rate of 30fps?

If we are to put those performance frame rate into graphic terms, it would be like a 7850 vs 7970 at ultra settings in BF3...so is having the higher frame rate on the 7970 really irrelevant, so long as it is "playable" on the 7850?

 

[Martini1991]

The fact that games are getting very GPU heavy is masking the problem a lot.
Tomb Raider is barely playable on a single card maxed out at 1920x1080.

 

[teppic]

People that think this is a "AMD vs Intel" thing, they seriously need take a step back and read properly.

The simple point...let's pretend the AMD 8 core is on par with the 4 cores i5 for gaming, why would any sane person take a CPU that would lose 50% of its grunt in 4 cores games over a that will have CPU that would maintain using 100% its grunt?

Yes, they should read properly. No ludicrous amounts of arrogance there.

The simple point.. we all need to upgrade our GPUs too, since games that are GPU bound and would all perform better. No sane person would get a 670 when a 780 will beat it in 100% of games.

It's no wonder the forum is so anti-AMD, when anyone who speaks with any balance is presented with such hostile arrogance and condescension. I imagine most 'sane' people just give up.

 

[Martini1991]

The forum isn't anti-AMD.
It's a performance forum for the most part.

People spend 100 quid more on a GPU for 5% gain, but suggest 40 quid extra for an i5 over FX8350? ** Comment removed - you go too far ** if you do that (Even if they're going to lose out of that extra 5% because of their CPU in some cases)

Mind boggling.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Yes, they should read properly. No ludicrous amounts of arrogance there.

The simple point.. we all need to upgrade our GPUs too, since games that are GPU bound and would all perform better. No sane person would get a 670 when a 780 will beat it in 100% of games.

Arrogance has nothing to do with people can't tell the difference between someone who's a fanboy and someone talking purely on performance term.

As for your above point:
1) Graphic setting can be turned down for a reason

2) 120Hz monitors exist, and lots of people (myself included) have already moved on and are pushing 120fps rather 60fps. Even overclocked i5 it is FAR from able maintaining minimum frame rate of 100fps at all time...the situation would be worse for the AMD CPUs if the game don't use all its cores.

3) No sane person (except people that don't know better) would pay the extra money for a GTX780 over the GTX670, if their CPU would already holding back the GTX670 (aka paying extra for the GTX780 but not getting extra performance over the GTX670 due to CPU bottleneck).

 

[gpuerrilla]

I play a lot of old style games, CSS, RTW, UT4 mods etc so me personally i would lean towards the 6300/6350 so i could still play the older games as well as play the newer games

Be careful. Martini freaks out if you dare to think about playing 'old' games!

And from a price point ill save about £60-80 and in my opinion the performance boost that the intel set up would give is not worth £60-80, Then i have 60-80 to put towards a better graphics card as my 465 is coming to an end

You dont want to make him.. angry

 

[gpuerrilla]

Seriously though.. <real serious here>

the intel tag team 2M's, we get it! Intel>AMD (or at least I do). The original point here before it got snowballed into e-testosterone hypothetical reasonings is:

1) He wants budget
2) IMO doesnt really come across as a hardcore gamer

Recommending the 83X0 is a sane judgement - period. If he wants to he can have the option of spending more to get the i5.

Time to move on and await what the guy does.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Be careful. Martini freaks out if you dare to think about playing 'old' games!



You dont want to make him.. angry

Martini already made it quite clear for gaming performance the i5 would be choice for those who are willing to pay the extra...for those that don't or can't, the FX8320/FX6300 are good choice around the £100 budget, and not once did he recommend getting a Intel i3.

Seriously though.. <real serious here>

the intel tag team 2M's, we get it! Intel>AMD (or at least I do). The original point here before it got snowballed into e-testosterone hypothetical reasonings is:

1) He wants budget
2) IMO doesnt really come across as a hardcore gamer

Recommending the 83X0 is a sane judgement - period. If he wants to he can have the option of spending more to get the i5.

Actually the £150 8350 (not the £120 8320) is probably the only one not worth considering, this is because it is not really saving money in a sense. It is £30 cheaper than the i5 3570K, but a i5 3570K running at 4.00GHz on a stock cooler would match a FX8350 running at 4.50-4.80GHz- which would require at least a £25+ 3rd party cooler.

 

[Something Else]

why the hell is everyone getting up at martini? This has happened in the past when someone specced an amd rig that was more expensive and didn't perform as good (called antony iirc, epic toys out of pram moment)

As far as I can see martini has clearly stated from the beginning that an i5 system would be a better direction than the 8350 due to the performance gap unless it was causing other aspects to be sacrificed in which case the cheaper 8350 would suffice.

You lot talk about fanboyism when in actual fact its just the truth but for some reason you cant see it that way. AMD cpu's are not considered inferior performers to intel because of fanboyism its because they dam well are poor chips compared to intel ffs

 

[teppic]

And game developers recommend an 8350 over an i5 for future proofing with next gen games. Strange attitude for something so inferior.

As has been said throughout this thread by people who actually use the CPUs, the 8320/50 is a good choice for gaming, particularly considering the price. Both 8320/50 and 3570K make good choices for current games, but on a strict budget the higher price Intel CPUs would mean sacrificing other things.

 

[Something Else]

Nice little anecdote there. I didn't say you specifically, or about keeping silent, it's the tone and unbelievable arrogance that I'm talking about.

And game developers recommend an 8350 over an i5 for future proofing with next gen games. Strange attitude for something so inferior.

Teppic remind me why you got a 4770k when you seem to think the AMD is better?

 

[Martini1991]

Unless I'm silly, the OP hasn't stated a budget.
Saying "I'm on a budget" means nothing, as a budget is the amount you're spending, and the difference between the two chips in the OP is 30 quid.

About the game developers thing and future games, I don't know about you, but I don't live in the future.

I can see in heavily threaded games now, that the CPU's are at parity to the GPU bottleneck (That's the kicker, we don't know how that'll go unless we move away from that bottleneck, and low resolution CPU bottlenecked benchmarks of BF3 don't show the FX83 in front)

But I don't mention that, because it doesn't mean other heavily threaded games will go that route.

But people can continue misreading my posts and calling me an Intel fanboy rather ironically.

 

[teppic]

Teppic remind me why you got a 4770k when you seem to think the AMD is better?

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with anything, research work means I currently need an Intel processor with hyperthreading.

If you read my posts, where have I said AMD is better than Intel?

 

[Zaim]

Unless I'm silly, the OP hasn't stated a budget.
Saying "I'm on a budget" means nothing, as a budget is the amount you're spending, and the difference between the two chips in the OP is 30 quid.

+1 mate, that's why in my last post I asked the OP what his budget is.