i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

[gpuerrilla]

It shows that as resolution increases CPU powere becomes less important than GPU. So £30 or £60 or whatever saved on CPU can be better spent on the GPU. That's increasingly important as the possibility of 8 thread gaming increases.

Best snip I seen in pages.

For me I'd get the 8320 (in fact I will be shortly) but that's because for my personal usage it is the more rounded CPU with better value. I don't pretend it's faster than an i5 in lightly threaded applications and games though.

On my wavelength, glad there's more people that think like this around!

We'll have to see with Watchdogs.

Even if games do go threaded over night, the i5's won't crap their pants, but it does lower their relative price/performance in comparison.

I think everyone and their dog should look forward to AMD's next CPU, that could have potential, the trade off might become worth while for some people.

Yes, for sure. If I was upgrading in a few months time I would have timed that as a great time, I just CBA waiting any longer. I am interested in the APU's too.

 

[ubersonic]

Then you obviously didn't look at the link.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Then read the bit at the bottom. The I7 860 is inferior to the FX 8350 in every way.

Well, apart from the way that each individual core on the i7 is better than each individual core on the 8350, the 8350 just has more of them... >.>

 

[ALXAndy]

Well, apart from the way that each individual core on the i7 is better than each individual core on the 8350, the 8350 just has more of them... >.>

I guess that depends how you look at it. According to Martini the AMDs are never going to do as well as they should in Cinebench. In Passmark their single threaded score is higher. But yes, with AMD you get eight of them for £113.

So as I've said over and over in this thread for less than £200 you can get an 8 core CPU on a motherboard. The rest can be put into the GPU.

 

[ALXAndy]

You're clueless mate
If the games he plays are lightly threaded....where the IPC counts most, how is it getting a 2/4 CPU wrong? Based on the SB architecture.

He would be getting a lot worse performance in Skyrim, Kerbal + whatever other games he plays if i got the 6300.

Here's a little graph....Shame they only show average framerates, i'm sure the minimums from AMD would be laughable!

I'm sure the minimums would be fine. Skyrim is based on a reworked engine that was used for Fallout 3 and Fallout : New Vegas. The engine underneath is basically five years old. It only supports dual core (it was supposed to support 4 but was terribly unstable, so Bethesda basically told people how to disable the extra threads to make it playable.

http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/20199-fallout-3-windows-7-w-quad-core.html

Add another line after it and insert:
iNumHWThreads=2
This will limit the game to 2 cores and prevent the engine bug from causing the game to freeze.

In the Anand benchmarks I showed you the 6300 had a better result in Skyrim. As for the minimums? the 6300 will do 5ghz all day long and thus, wee on the I3. As CAT has pointed out the I3 is a complete waste of money and acts merely as a decoy to con people into going not only for the I5, but the unlocked I5 with the premium slapped on it.

And you still sit here and defend Intel until you're blue in the face.

 

[gpuerrilla]

It doesn't matter lol, still in the top 10 for Steam.

 

[ALXAndy]

It doesn't matter lol, still in the top 10 for Steam.

The 6300 is more than man enough for an ageing game engine was the point I was making.

 

[Martini1991]

It shouldn't do better in Cinebench.

I'm almost getting tired of saying FPU.

 

[ubersonic]

So as I've said over and over in this thread for less than £200 you can get an 8 core CPU on a motherboard. The rest can be put into the GPU.

And as I have said over and over that's a great option for people looking for a new system on a budget or upgrading from Core2/i3/Phenom systems, but for people in the OP's position the is no point wasting £200 on an upgrade that isn't even going to net you an improvement in the majority of games, that was all I was trying to say.

The 6300 is more than man enough for an ageing game engine was the point I was making.

This I agree on 100%, in fact IMO the FX6350 is currently the best CPU AMD have on offer, it beats everything Intel have in the price range and in most cases will beat an FX-8 too (assuming overclocking there).

 

[Marine-RX179]

I think I'll just leave this same Skyrim benchmark here, but at 2560x1600. It shows that as resolution increases CPU powere becomes less important than GPU. So £30 or £60 or whatever saved on CPU can be better spent on the GPU. That's increasingly important as the possibility of 8 thread gaming increases.

The Intel chips are certainly faster per core and I doubt the gaming world will move to 8 threads overnight. But it shows that an 83x0 is no less relevant than an i5. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Essentially the buyer is making a bet whichever one they decide on:

Buy i5 = betting that 8 thread gaming will be slow to take off
Buy 83x0 = betting that 8 thread gaming will take off quickly

For me I'd get the 8320 (in fact I will be shortly) but that's because for my personal usage it is the more rounded CPU with better value. I don't pretend it's faster than an i5 in lightly threaded applications and games though.

This is why OP's spending minimal on upgrade by going from i5 760 to a i7 860/870 for 8 threads and spend the rest of the money on graphic card would be the better bet than going FX8, which would involve getting a new board (another dead socket at that as well). Problem is some people (or should I say one individual) above seem to think an overclocked FX8 would destroy an overclocked i7 860/870- which it won't, if comparing overclocked to overclocked.

It is silly to compare a stock clock FX8350 to a stock clock i7 860, if considering the average max overclock headroom:
FX8350 4.00GHz to 4.80GHz= 20% overclock
i7 860 2.80GHz to 4.25GHz= 52% overclock

 

[ALXAndy]

And as I have said over and over that's a great option for people looking for a new system on a budget or upgrading from Core2/i3/Phenom systems, but for people in the OP's position the is no point wasting £200 on an upgrade that isn't even going to net you an improvement in the majority of games, that was all I was trying to say.

I get you don't worry I wasn't referring to older games though. The 83x0 have more than enough IPC for older games and can run anything at an acceptable pace. My philosophy is based solely on the future, where 8 cores are going to be far more relied upon. The fact that you can get an 8 core CPU (and I'm going to be more than fair here !) with an IPC that pretty much matches the I5 750, to me, make it the logical choice. (I'm going on two benchmarks tit for tat, one a piece).

This upgrade isn't about the past or the present it's about the future. As I keep saying the last few big titles were either CPU bound (as many cores as you can) or GPU bound. Anything before this year's games? to me are null and void. I posted some benchmarks the other day on how well the 83x0 perform in older games and game engines (such as the Unreal engine in its latest iteration) and it was more than good enough

This I agree on 100%, in fact IMO the FX6350 is currently the best CPU AMD have on offer, it beats everything Intel have in the price range and in most cases will beat an FX-8 too (assuming overclocking there).

The FX 6300 (using my source) has actually gone up a tenner. I think AMD have realised themselves that they have the dancefloor all to themselves at that price bracket. And yeah, the 6350 is definitely the mid range CPU of choice as you don't need hefty power stages for big overclocks

What I'd like to see is the 6300 made public around here. So Cinebench, Crysis 3 etc

 

[Tonester0011]

The IPC isn't anywhere near the old lynfields though....
128 @4.2Ghz vs 121 @5Ghz...that's quite a difference lol.

Cinebench or not, still a huge difference current gen AMD isn't even competing against what? 4 year old Intel?

Here is my i5 760 at 4.2Ghz.

Single thread

197.Core i7 [email protected] - Tonester0011
193.Core i5 [email protected] - pastymuncher
188.Core i7 [email protected] - Uksoldierboy
188.Core i5 [email protected] - Martini1991
185.Core i7 [email protected] - Steampunk
183.Core i7 3770k@5Ghz - Wazza300
181.Core i7 [email protected] - Setter
179.Core i5 3570k@5Ghz - RavenXXX2
175.Core i5 [email protected] - Make
170.Core i7 [email protected] - wazza300
169.Core i7 [email protected] - Whyscotty
162.Core i5 [email protected] - Frozennonva
121.[email protected] - nkata
118.Xeon E3 [email protected](3.4GHZ Turbo) - CAT-THE-FIFTH
112.Core 2 Quad9650@4Ghz - WingZero30
110.[email protected] - Jonnyp1993
109.Xeon X5650@noidea - flippant
104.[email protected] - Jumper118

 

[ALXAndy]

About a 3% difference. The AMD has double the cores.

 

[Tonester0011]

Means nothing! You were comparing IPC! Sheesh, not my fault you don't understand it.
This is why this thread is now 11 pages long, the OP might as well spend £30 and get an i7 860 instead of hopping over to AM3+ and get the same performance for more money, there's no IPC gains, and even with the higher potential core clock it still performs less in single threaded.

Also, it's not 3% difference...if one is clocked substantially lower! LOL
If clocked the same that i5 would be scoring around 152. Or if that 8320 was @4.2Ghz it would have scored 101! So that lynnfield has roughly 25% more IPC. (on Cinebench15)

 

[ALXAndy]

Means nothing! You were comparing IPC! Sheesh, not my fault you don't understand it.
This is why this thread is now 11 pages long, the OP might as well spend £30 and get an i7 860 instead of hopping over to AM3+ and get the same performance for more money, there's no IPC gains, and even with the higher potential core clock it still performs less in single threaded.

Also, it's not 3% difference...if one is clocked substantially lower! LOL
If clocked the same that i5 would be scoring around 152. Or if that 8320 was @4.2Ghz it would have scored 101! So that lynnfield has roughly 25% more IPC. (on Cinebench15)

I understand it perfectly well thanks. I also understand that Passmark sees the 8 core AMD well ahead.

The I5 750 can't do much more than 4.2ghz. The 8 core AMDs do and will, at least 4.7ghz on mine if I want it really cool or 4.85 if I don't mind riding the temps a bit.

You're still not taking the fact that the AMD has 8 cores into consideration. Not four cores + 4 threads that offer around 30% of a physical core, but 8 real cores.

Buy hey, whatever. Let's see what the future brings.

 

[Tonester0011]

Clearly you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be spouting **** about AMD having 8 cores. As for clocking better, they have no choice.

 

[ALXAndy]

Clearly you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be spouting **** about AMD having 8 cores. As for clocking better, they have no choice.

Coming from some one desperate to cling onto what one core can do I find that terribly ironic.

 

[Tonester0011]

Remember, you're the one who misused IPC. I merely corrected you and showed how far behind yoru value for money king is for single threaded perf. I don't even think the FX chips can compete with the old phenom 2 chips lol.

It's not ironic btw

 

[ALXAndy]

Remember, you're the one who misused IPC. I merely corrected you and showed how far behind yoru value for money king is for single threaded perf. I don't even think the FX chips can compete with the old phenom 2 chips lol.

It's not ironic btw

It is ironic. You're totally focused on one thing, yet, accuse me of doing the same. You've already been told that Cinebench isn't really fair on AMDs but you continually bash on about it any way. Even if we were completely using it as a benchmark then overall the AMD is miles ahead.

But whatever. Keep buying I3s and then upgrading in 6 months to another I3 repeat ad nauseum.

 

[Tonester0011]

It is ironic. You're totally focused on one thing, yet, accuse me of doing the same. You've already been told that Cinebench isn't really fair on AMDs but you continually bash on about it any way. Even if we were completely using it as a benchmark then overall the AMD is miles ahead.

But whatever. Keep buying I3s and then upgrading in 6 months to another I3 repeat ad nauseum.

You brought up and misused IPC.

The fact that you can get an 8 core CPU (and I'm going to be more than fair here !) with an IPC that pretty much matches the I5 750, to me, make it the logical choice. (I'm going on two benchmarks tit for tat, one a piece)

The logical choice would stick with the dead socket 1156 and get an i7 860, clock that....that's the logical choice. Like i proved above, the IPC of lynnfield (in Cinebench....is 25% higher) so even if that bench favours Intel that's a big disparity between the two for any sane person to reccomend spending over £200 to hop from 1156 to AM3+...

On another note, i have a 4770k Not an i3, so god knows where you got that from. (IPC gains of around 67% compared to your FX in Cinebench15!! LOL)

 

[Martini1991]

Who said anything about Cinebench not being fair on AMD?