How about because it has more cores so when all of those cores are maxed out it will be faster?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Core i3 4340 Review – Beating AMD At Their Own Game
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
How about because it has more cores so when all of those cores are maxed out it will be faster?
Because it would bottleneck your 7950 CF much less in BF4?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
It depend on which i5 you are talking about. It trade blows with the Haswell i5 on the same clock speed when all cores are used that's about it; when not all cores are used (which is vast majority of the situations), it's slower than the i5.
The FX8 is roughly equal to a Sandy i7 (4 cores 4HT) comparing both CPUs on the same clock which is not bad at all, but the problem is that in things that use less than 8 threads (particularly 4 threads of less), the Sandy i7 would pull ahead due to their more powerful physical cores, and the performance hit of fewer threads of the HT being used does not impact as much as few threads being used on the cores of the FX8.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
So it comes down to price vs performance again. The FX8320 costs £107.99 brand new. The cheapest Haswell i5 is £170 (all OCUK prices). Can't really argue with that fact.
In well threaded games like BF4, the FX 8 core pulls away from the Haswell i5 and performs similarly to the i7 4770k (both overclocked).
In well threaded games like BF4, the FX 8 core pulls away from the Haswell i5 and performs similarly to the i7 4770k (both overclocked).
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
In BF4 benchmark it clearly shows the FX8 is only equal to the Sandy i7 comparing at same clock, and Sandy i7 is more or less on par with Haswell i5 which has higher IPC.
Nobody is doubting the value for money of the FX8320, but some people would still go for i5 purely because the CPU demanding games they mostly play don't use more than 4 cores (i.e. mmos, strategies, simulators etc).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
Why would you compare the same clock? We know the Intel CPUs have a higher IPC. Compare achievable overclocked levels. FX CPUs easily reach 4.8/5GHz and at those clocks are comparable in BF4 performance to the i7 4770k at 4.4/4.5 GHz (again an achievable overclock for most).
I'm talking real world comparisons which is what is important to people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
If you want to talk about "real world", then you wouldn't be quoting 5GHz on the FX8 considering it require both the combination of winning the silicon lottery and using one of the more expensive boards. Realistically, average overclocking for the FX8 is only around 4.60-4.80MHz for most people on everyday use.
As for Haswell i5's overclock, most people settled on 4.50GHz because any higher in voltage the temp would be too much, however that would not be an issue for those that delid the CPU and removing the crappy heat trapping sealant (dropping the overclock load temp by up to 19C). With a semi decent board, 4.60-4.70GHz is totally doable.
And speaking of real world, the probability of games using 8 threads "fully" is by far lower than games that use less than that. So far only games by EA and Ubisoft are "heading toward" making using 6 threads+ for games as standard, but the rest of the developers in general are still stucked using game engines that don't use more than 4 cores.
Slightly off topic, but...
Depends on the situation, i have a Bloomfield i7 running @ 3.9Ghz which destroys a Haswell i5 @ 4.4Ghz in 3DMark Physics tests.
I think the Haswell i5 might beat it in integer performance, encoding, compression ecte... all that stuff the FX-83## is good at. But FP performance Intel's seem to have changed little, and AMD, only less so, adding more cores certainly has the FX-83## obliterating the P-II x6.
For Games, overclocked vs overclocked performance i'm probably better off with the BloomField, the frustrating thing for me is my only upgrade path from a 6 year old CPU is an Ivy or Haswaell i7, thats £400+.
IMO on both sides the latest CPU offer little in terms of gaming performance gain.
Enthusiast CPU level upgrading has completely stalled over the past few years.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,451
- Location
- Dormanstown.
What'd you get on the Bloomfield in Firestrike Physics Humbug?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I get what you are saying, and pretty much agree with everything you said there...except may be the FX8 "obliterating" the Phenom II X6 part
While the FX8 certainly give more performance for games that use more than 6 threads, for most part it doesn't make that much of a different, particular for games that don't use more than 6 threads I honestly really looking forward to what AMD has to offer for their next CPU lines, and how it stands again Intel's offering as well.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
The silicon lottery seems much kinder to FX 8 core users than to Intel Haswell users. Most are able to achieve 4.8 GHz fairly easily. The limitation for 5 GHz tends to be heat which is reigned in by any good water AIO (such as an H100). Re:expensive boards, not true. The Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 costs £80 and can achieve these clocks.
I'd say delidding a Haswell (or Ivy) is very unrealistic for most people and certainly less so than using a good cooler on an FX chip. Yes agreed most would probably settle for 4.8GHz on an FX 8-core. Still a faster overclock than most reviewers tend to use and goes back to my point of why would you use clock for clock comparisons. There is no point as we know Intel IPCs are faster.
In terms of games, I was specifically talking about BF4 but there are plenty of well-threaded games (e.g Crysis 3, BF3) and developers are tending to go down this route over the last year or so.
I am not trying to say FX 8 cores are better than i5 or i7 Haswells. All I am trying to say is that they aren't as bad as people assume and the reason for that is because of biased reviews and lack of understanding.
In terms of price to performance, depending on the types of games one plays and at 1080p using a single GPU, the FX 8320 is pretty much as good as it gets out there at present.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,451
- Location
- Dormanstown.
NVM.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,451
- Location
- Dormanstown.
FX6300 out of the two as you can overclock the FX6300.
My girlfriends Dad got one over his Phenom II X4 and he likes it a lot better.
9630 @ 3.9Ghz
I get what you are saying, and pretty much agree with everything you said there...except may be the FX8 "obliterating" the Phenom II X6 part
I honestly really looking forward to what AMD has to offer for their next CPU lines, and how it stands again Intel's offering as well.
I'm not holding any hopes for AMD and better gaming CPU's, i don't even think they are interested in replacing the FX-83##, not for at least a year, if ever.
I'm hoping for a sub £200 CPU from Intel that will actually make a worth while upgrade.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
If Intel still only offering 4 cores with no HT for under £200 for their new product lines in 2014/2015, they can seriously GTFO
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
If Intel still only offering 4 cores with no HT for under £200 for their new product lines in 2014/2015, they can seriously GTFO
What a stupid thing to say.... Stop getting caught up with the silly core count race..
If Intel can offer 4 cores with no HT that annihilates 6 and 8 core CPU's then they can take my money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Except both you and I know it is not going to happen...look at the pitiful increase over the last few gens...they have already starting to hit a brick wall on bumping IPC. If they are only able to do 5-10% bump again, adding more cores would be the most straight forward way to increase performance for end-user, rather than keep trying to squeeze a few drops of blood from stone and call it an upgrade.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I get just under 10k in physics using a false 4670k (4770k with HT off)
I get just over 9k in 3D11 physics with my 2500k