i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

Martini1991 · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:49

ALXAndy said:
And I don't think you know how to read. Because even with it put there in the form of a picture you can't read what it says. I even outlined it in red for you, just to make sure.

Since when was Cinebench unfair to you?

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

EDIT : Even if that result IS legit, it still shows the IPC in the favour of the i5 750.
You just simply don't understand.

the1gooner · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:50

Looking at that above, the 8350 is at 4.0Ghz and is only just beating the 870 at 2.8Ghz in single core performance.

So an extra 1.2Ghz needed to beat an 870 in single core performance.

How is that good?

Tonester0011 · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:50

ALXAndy said:
Yeah and when you read the pros and cons of the whole chip the AMD wins in pretty much every single category.

was being sarcastic mate....

ALXAndy said:
And I don't think you know how to read. Because even with it put there in the form of a picture you can't read what it says. I even outlined it in red for you, just to make sure.

Since when was Cinebench unfair to you?

2.8ghz clock vs 4ghz....yes, the AMD has superiour IPC...(sarcasm, again)
scroll down and you link shows it losing in a singlethreaded application cinebench11.5.

Martini1991 · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:50

the1gooner said:
Looking at that above, the 8350 is at 4.0Ghz and is only just beating the 870 at 2.8Ghz in single core performance.

So an extra 1.2Ghz needed to beat an 870 in single core performance.

How is that good?

It's not, it's a result which makes no sense.

No CPU in the world can even get a third of that single threaded!

Even if that result WAS legit, it's not comparing IPC, so even still, Andy's well off the mark, AGAIN!

ALXAndy · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:55

Martini1991 said:
It's not, it's a result which makes no sense.

No CPU in the world can even get a third of that single threaded!

Even if that result WAS legit, it's not comparing IPC, so even still, Andy's well off the mark, AGAIN!

It's taken from here.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-01-Cinebench-11.5,3142.html

Then there's the Passmark score which the 8350 is ahead on, so by law of averages when put together (the two results) the 8350 comes out with a score of 8.2 out of 10, and the I7 860 8.0.

I think we need to get hold of this passmark.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:56

the1gooner said:
Looking at that above, the 8350 is at 4.0Ghz and is only just beating the 870 at 2.8Ghz in single core performance.

So an extra 1.2Ghz needed to beat an 870 in single core performance.

How is that good?

Actually the Core i7 860 runs at 3.46GHZ when a single core is loaded and the FX8350 at 4.2GHZ during the same scenario.

Martini1991 · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:56

It's moot, as I said in my first reply to you, you're misusing terms.
As it wasn't comparing IPC, and showed the i7 to be winning (Because at the same clock, the i7 would be higher, ergo, higher IPC)

Cinebench is FPU heavy, it's never really going to make the FX83's look good.

Martini1991 · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:57

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Actually the Core i7 860 runs at 3.46GHZ when a single core is loaded and the FX8350 at 4.2GHZ during the same scenario.

True, forgot all about boost on Lynnfield.

ALXAndy · 14 Oct 2013 at 21:58

Martini1991 said:
It's moot, as I said in my first reply to you, you're misusing terms.
As it wasn't comparing IPC, and showed the i7 to be winning (Because at the same clock, the i7 would be higher, ergo, higher IPC)

Cinebench is FPU heavy, it's never really going to make the FX83's look good.

It's still a comparison though. I'm going to have a play with this Passmark on my laptop (Core 2 FTW) and see if it's usable without being paid for.

Martini1991 · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:05

That single threaded result isn't a result.
It's a review score.

Is that Passmark really coming from an Amazon Review?

Forget changing the sport.

PhoenixUK · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:09

the1gooner · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:10

I have just run Cinebench R15 Single Core with my i5 760 at 4.2Ghz and scored 128.

That beats an 8320 at 5.0Ghz looking at the list in the Cinebench thread.

Is that good?

Tonester0011 · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:12

the1gooner said:
I have just run Cinebench R15 Single Core with my i5 760 at 4.2Ghz and scored 128.

That beats an 8350 at 5.0Ghz looking at the list in the Cinebench thread.

Is that good?

No mate, because you don't look at CPUs in the tiny details only in the full complete package. When all cores are used AMD is good and that's where the value comes from, when all the cores are being used....

I mean

Yes mate, it shows how embarrassingly poor even the latest AMD chips are for IPC and that's why they've not been the chip of choice for gamers for years, only the hardcore followers....or benchmarkers looking for points.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:23

Tonester0011 said:
No mate, because you don't look at CPUs in the tiny details only in the full complete package. When all cores are used AMD is good and that's where the value comes from, when all the cores are being used....

I mean Yes mate, it shows how embarrassingly poor even the latest AMD chips are for IPC and that's why they've not been the chip of choice for gamers for years, only the hardcore followers....or benchmarkers looking for points.

I would still take an FX6300,FX6350 or FX8320 over a Core i3 in most cases,and I had a socket 1155 Core i3. Moreover,most of the sub £120 Intel range has been rather meh for years. I know loads of people with budget rigs using AMD CPUs still.

gpuerrilla · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:29

i5 bromance, lots of it here.

Tonester0011 · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:30

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I would still take an FX6300,FX6350 or FX8320 over a Core i3 in most cases,and I had a socket 1155 Core i3. Moreover,most of the sub £120 Intel range has been rather meh for years. I know loads of people with budget rigs using AMD CPUs still.

Comes down to budget, that's fair enough.
Me personally if on a budget will still opt for the i3 over the FX6*** just because the games i play, so that's personal preference. (Built a budget rig for a mate, his games of choice were Skyrim and the like, his i3 is doing very nicely!)

Admittedly the FX6*** would play a damn sight better for BF4, but i don't plan on playing that!

I mainly play KSP, sometimes the odd BF3....though if put into hours my computer spends 96% of the time downclocked browsing the forums and websites in general!!

gpuerrilla · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:38

Tonester0011 said:
though if put into hours my computer spends 96% of the time downclocked browsing the forums and websites in general!!

Well we can all be guilty of that one!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:41

TBH,with an HD7950,an FX6300 or FX6350 is going to be within 10% or thereabouts of an IB Core i3,and the FPS is over 60FPS and Skyrim is not a first person FPS anyway so its a moot point. One of my mates has an FX6300 and an HD7870XT and it seems to have decent framerates at 1920X1080.

I get the impression Skyrim Online is going to use a more threaded engine,from what Bethesda has indicated. About time! The Creation/Gamebryo engine is ancient,and would be nice if Fallout 4 had DX11.

gpuerrilla · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:42

Tonester0011 said:
Comes down to budget, that's fair enough.
Me personally if on a budget will still opt for the i3 over the FX6*** just because the games i play, so that's personal preference.

I used to upgrade regularly but these days it's settled down to a 5yr pattern bar GPU's.

This time round I could only twist the wife's arm so much and got it on a 9 monther to pay it off. Had to get a new case too as the old one was dated and hacked over the years.

alex_123_fra · 14 Oct 2013 at 22:54

the1gooner said:
I have just run Cinebench R15 Single Core with my i5 760 at 4.2Ghz and scored 128.

That beats an 8320 at 5.0Ghz looking at the list in the Cinebench thread.

Is that good?

Well, my 3930k at 4.2GHz scrapes above a score of 140. At 4.5 GHz 156 and at 4.9 GHz at about 170ish. Pretty much all the Sandy, Ivy and Haswell chips in that thread score better. Does that mean my CPU is bad, or barely better than an i5 760?