i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

[the1gooner]

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.

Have I missed something?

This thread originally started out as upgrading from an i5 750 and I believe along the way it's been said that 'upgrading' to an 8320/8350 wouldn't be worth it.

Not sure why i3's are now being talked about, confused.com.

 

[David Bisset]

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)

1. You're talking about IPS not IPC - IPC doesn't vary by clock speed (being instructions per clock). IPS does, being instructions per second. Though the IPS is the more relevant metric

2. 4.2 for the i5 is a very good clock - you're unlikely to go much higher. So saying it'd be higher if the i5 was clocked higher is totally pointless as it is unlikely it will be possible to take it higher. That's why the 2500k was such a great improvement - because it clocked higher. The lynnfields don't clock nearly as well (though they seemed fast at the time!) So the 25% figure is utterly wrong in terms of IPS.

3. You're using one program to base this discussion off - given the IPC isn't some fixed magic number but instead a reflection of how well a particular program works with a given processor this is all a bit pointless.

4. Who cares? Isn't this thread about if the i5 750 to the 8350 which isn't just about one metric. Personally I'd go for an 860 were I to upgrade, because it involves changing less stuff. So I'm agreeing with you. But to argue for so many pages each cherry-picking a number that makes the other look bad is a total waste of time :S

 

[Martini1991]

We're not talking about IPS.

He was talking IPC, but doing it wrong, we can know he's wrong because the figures tell us that much.

Comparing a 3.4GHZ core (If it was) against a 4.2GHZ core (If it was) isn't really comparing IPC, but you can gauge from there.

No one really brings up and uses IPS.

 

[ALXAndy]

Have I missed something?

This thread originally started out as upgrading from an i5 750 and I believe along the way it's been said that 'upgrading' to an 8320/8350 wouldn't be worth it.

Not sure why i3's are now being talked about, confused.com.

Belong the way it's been said by you and other Intel fans. So you can take that as conclusive if you like (looking at your CPU I can see why you dived in head first now).

Yet by others who are not partial to one brand it's been pointed out that an 8 core AMD is a huge upgrade. Mostly because these people were open minded and did not try and skew anything in favour of one or the other. From what we've seen from multi threaded benchmarks the AMD is around 35% faster at the very minimum. Take it to something like Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3... It changes drastically.

So whilst the Intel lot have thrown about as much muck as they can (by saying the I3 is better than the 8320 when it's not even as good as the £80 6300 at stock clocks ETC, ETC yada IPC on one core ignoring the other 7.. Not looking to what the future holds.. yada YAWN) it hasn't really changed anything at all.

The 83x0 is a nice upgrade from the I5 750. The I5 750 will not be good enough for the latest titles and certainly won't fare too well in the future. Whatever you want to think about that said future and how the new consoles will affect it has been pointed out well enough by now.

 

[David Bisset]

There is no reason to compare IPC though, as having a higher IPC on a slower clocked chip does you no good, it's only IPS that matters being the combination of IPC and clock speed. Hence me raising the point.

 

[Martini1991]

Changing the sport again I see.

 

[Martini1991]

There is no reason to compare IPC though, as having a higher IPC on a slower clocked chip does you no good, it's only IPS that matters being the combination of IPC and clock speed. Hence me raising the point.

In this particular verse, we didn't bring up IPC, Andy did, and was, wrong about it.

With the higher IPC, while being lower clocked, the i5 750 can still give out higher IPS than the FX83 (4.2GHZ, against a 4.8GHZ).
And that's due to the higher IPC.

I see the point, but it changes little at the end result.

If we were comparing a 45nm Core 2, which can generally have slightly higher IPC, the point has more merit, as the FX83 will have the higher IPS due to the clock advantage.

 

[ubersonic]

Yet by others who are not partial to one brand it's been pointed out that an 8 core AMD is a huge upgrade.

Actually we pointed out that it wasn't worth the cost, as unless the games could use >4 cores (hardly any games) the wouldn't be an improvement.

There is no reason to compare IPC though, as having a higher IPC on a slower clocked chip does you no good

lulwat? yes it does, IPC and the amount of cycles are intrinsically linked, hence why an i5 core with better IPC than a Piledriver core is able to match its performance while running at a lower speed.

 

[Tonester0011]

We're not talking about IPS.

He was talking IPC, but doing it wrong, we can know he's wrong because the figures tell us that much.

Comparing a 3.4GHZ core (If it was) against a 4.2GHZ core (If it was) isn't really comparing IPC, but you can gauge from there.

No one really brings up and uses IPS.

Was trying to compare releative IPC
I'll back down and head back to the graphics forum. Andy on this subject knows less than me and i'll hold my hands up and say i know very little

 

[Martini1991]

Actually we pointed out that it wasn't worth the cost, as unless the games could use >4 cores (hardly any games) the wouldn't be an improvement.

Shut up, we're brain washed fanboys who want everyone to spend their money on i5's and i7's.

 

[ALXAndy]

Actually we pointed out that it wasn't worth the cost, as unless the games could use >4 cores (hardly any games) the wouldn't be an improvement.

If you're into high end gaming with high end settings then the 8320 is a massive upgrade. I had an I5 2400 and it was absolutely useless in Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3. Useless to the point where it was stopping my SLI 670s from being able to achieve good frame rates. Same went for Far Cry 3. I went from low 30s min to high 60s.

I just can't see the I5 750 putting in an acceptable show on Crysis 3, especially when the I5 Xeon thing I had couldn't and was a faster CPU.

So hey, whatever. Buy what you like etc, buy Intel they're great ETC ETC. Don't predict that the next two huge titles need 6gb ram and 8 cores, ETC ETC.

 

[David Bisset]

In this particular verse, we didn't bring up IPC, Andy did, and was, wrong about it.

With the higher IPC, while being lower clocked, the i5 750 can still give out higher IPS than the FX83 (4.2GHZ, against a 4.8GHZ).
And that's due to the higher IPC.

Quite possibly, I just saw IPC being repeatedly used and it was irritating so I decided to comment on it's use. Was way too lazy to check back and see who brought it up and (mis)used it.

Seems an easy question anyway, already got a 1156 mobo -> get the 860 cause the price difference is too significant. Regardless of if the 83x0 is better or worse than the i5, who cares? It'd need to be much better than an 860 to be worth it.

 

[ALXAndy]

In this particular verse, we didn't bring up IPC, Andy did, and was, wrong about it.

With the higher IPC, while being lower clocked, the i5 750 can still give out higher IPS than the FX83 (4.2GHZ, against a 4.8GHZ).
And that's due to the higher IPC.

I see the point, but it changes little at the end result.

If we were comparing a 45nm Core 2, which can generally have slightly higher IPC, the point has more merit, as the FX83 will have the higher IPS due to the clock advantage.

No he wasn't wrong about it. He interpreted it wrong and the Intel won in Cinebench but the AMD won in Passmark. So, at worst it was dead even. However, by computing the scores (differences etc) the AMD came out ahead.

Given what you've said about Cinebench it's likely that Passmark works differently and supports the AMD architecture properly.

 

[David Bisset]

lulwat? yes it does, IPC and the amount of cycles are intrinsically linked, hence why an i5 core with better IPC than a Piledriver core is able to match its performance while running at a lower speed.

Pretty selective quote there Had you quoted the next few words you'd see what I was saying - were the i5 to run at, say, 1GHz it'd be worse even with better IPC. You could say you need both IPC and clockspeed for the values to have any meaning at all, and given there is a value that takes account of just that we may as well use it. And that value would show the i5 does fine against the piledriver as you point out.

Edit: Not saying IPC is never relevant - when e.g. discussing architectural changes it can be of interest, particularly when unsure how the new architecture will clock for example. However, once you know how a given chip will clock it's pretty pointless, though to be fair so is IPS, just another benchmark really, no more useful than a 3dmark physics score or whatever. Tells you about how that test runs.

 

[the1gooner]

Belong the way it's been said by you and other Intel fans. So you can take that as conclusive if you like (looking at your CPU I can see why you dived in head first now).

Can I just say that I am not partial to one brand.

Over the last 12 years or so most of my processors have been AMD and very good they were. It wasn't until Intel released Core 2 Duo that things changed as far as performance goes.

Here are some of the AMD processors I have used in my time.

Athlon XP 1800
Athlon XP 2800
Athlon XP 3200
Barton 2500
Barton 2500 Mobile
Opteron 146
Athlon 64 3200
Athlon 64 3500
Athlon 64 3700
Athlon 64 X2 3800
Phenom II X2 250 - Unlocked to 4 core

I am currently on Intel because at the time it offered far and away the best performance and for that reason only.

 

[ALXAndy]

Athlon XP 1800.
Celeron D.
Core 2 1.8ghz Allendale.
Core 2 E4500 OC to 3ghz.
Phenom 2 940 oc to 3.8ghz
Intel I7 950 no OC (was a crap clocker and ran red hot)
Intel Xeon E31220 (Core I5 2400, basically)

AMD FX 8320.
AMD FX 8320 w/ CHVFZ.

I had the Xeon still set up and running when I got my first 8320. I wanted to make sure that it was a good idea. It was either switch to the 8320 for 8 core gaming and future games, or, buy an I5 3570k. In all of the titles I wanted the upgrade for (the most recent ones I was struggling with on the I5) the 8320 fared better than the 3570k. Thus in the end I reluctantly parted with my Xeon and MSI Z77A G45 and made the complete switch.

And the AMD is pretty much faster in everything (and I mean everything, I own pretty much every decent game released). The absolute worst the AMD did @ 4.2ghz was in Hitman : Absolution. I gained nothing pretty much (well, I went from 31 FPS min to 35, that's insignificant to me). It seems that Hitman when running 8XMSAA is completely GPU bound and not a great engine.

But when the AMD won it won by miles. Crysis 3 went from being completely unplayable to completely playable with over double the minimum FPS.

I buy whatever makes sense at the time I buy it. If the worst case scenario happens then I will still find myself able to play any game coming in the future. I'm not sure COD : Ghosts will fully support 8 cores as it's coming out on the PS3 and 360 first. This makes me lean toward the fact that it could be a crap old engine that just uses massive textures. Mind you I've never had a problem running any COD game because they usually run on ancient engines.

Watchdogs though? that is pretty much demanding an 8 core AMD for the maximum settings and with a GPU subsystem like mine I forking want maximum settings.

As I've said way back in this thread I trust and believe what the game devs themselves say over any one on a forum on the internet. They are the hand that feeds, they are the ones who know what's coming.

And I used that making my purchase decision and from what I've already seen (IE when running recent titles) is enough to confirm what I suspected and I have visual proof of it.

And it's really as simple as that. If you think that Intel have what you need? then by all means go with them. However, it will be really hard to justify it from a reality perspective when the AMD 8 core CPUs win hands down in their price bracket in modern games.

I also don't hold onto the past and use old means of testing and I don't really care about Skyrim. My computer picked that up and chucked it around like a ragdoll and I've now completed it. Same goes for any other game that came out two years ago. Been there, played that, completed that.

I've not even completed Crysis 3 yet but I will. Same goes for Far Cry 3 (I was TV bound at the time and refused to play either on a gamepad). All I do know is that the Intel was useless for those two modern games.

 

[Martini1991]

No he wasn't wrong about it. He interpreted it wrong and the Intel won in Cinebench but the AMD won in Passmark. So, at worst it was dead even. However, by computing the scores (differences etc) the AMD came out ahead.

Given what you've said about Cinebench it's likely that Passmark works differently and supports the AMD architecture properly.

Oh Dear.

I suggest you look where that passmark is coming from (It also looks to be 4.5GHZ)

 

[ubersonic]

Intel 8086 - 8MHz
AMD 486-DX4 - 120MHz
IDT Winchip - 225MHz
AMD K6-III - 400MHz (@500MHz)
AMD Athlon XP 2200 - 1800MHz
AMD Athlon 64 3500 - 2200MHz
Intel E6420 - 2.13Ghz
Intel Q9650 - 3GHZ (@3.5GHz)
Intel i7 860 - up to 3.46GHz (@4.09GHz)
Intel i7 3820 - up to 3.8GHz (@4.75GHz)

My recent chain of Intel CPU's has been dictated because of their dominance in the high end, not fanboyism.

 

[Martini1991]

AMD Athlon 3400+ (I think it was this, it was a decent little thing)

Intel P4 3GHZ (Although this is because it was me learning to build, it was a second hand one as I was learning, had a 1950XT Radeon, 256MB GDDR3 or something)

Athlon 6000+ X2 (My first custom built, AM2+, before Phenom II launched)

AMD Phenom II X4 940 (Near launch)

AMD Phenom II X4 965 (The C3 stepping, got myself a 790FX board and 2000MHZ DDR3, although AMD's IMC was crap, so you could only ever get 1333MHZ)

AMD Phenom II X4 965 (Another C3 stepping, I was among the first to get a proper 4GHZ 24/7 overclock that could handle prime all day long in the AMD Phenom II overclocking thread, IMC still sucked.)

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (Launch day model, couldn't justify over 200 quid on the 1090T, I again managed 1055T prime stable all day long, I got this with my Asus Crosshair IV Formula, finally an AMD IMC that could handle 1600MHZ)

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 95W (With my Crosshair I managed 4.375GHZ 24/7 stable)

i5 2500K (Because they were pretty incredible when they launched at 150 quid, mine could do 5GHZ, but I popped my board)

Another Phenom II X6 1055T 95 (Figured with my board dead, I would stupidly wait for Bulldozer, so sold up and went to another Phenom II X6 1055T 95 and Crosshair)

Another i5 2500K (AMD announced the 3 months to Bulldozer and new socket, I wasn't prepared to wait, and the new socket annoyed me, I went in, bought the best P67 board on the market, the Maximus VI Extreme)

i5 4670K (Impressed with my 4.8GHZ 2500K, I wanted more core for core performance, I chose the i5 4670K and have it at 4.75GHZ, and AMD didn't have anything I considered an upgrade)

 

[uksoldierboy]

How is this thread still going