• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

  • 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.

9590 or 4770K?

Unbelievable misunderstanding of power consumption. People need to really grasp what this actually equates to over an annual bill. Deciding to not buy a processor just because of it's claimed total power consumption is laughable.

With energy saving features on it will consume similar levels to the intel. I would be more concerned about the other devices being used, PSU efficiency etc all will make more of a difference.

Why do you constantly defend the 8350's and 9*** power usage when they both have stated tdp at 220w or above. At 5.0Ghz the 8350 must be knocking on the door of 300w+ without the power needed to cool the red hot beast with a decent cooler.

And if a 3.5-4.0Ghz i5/i7 beats the red hot beast at 5.0Ghx in most things gaming related the Intel will draw much less energy both from the cpu socket and cooling solution. (Exception being huge overclocks of 4.5-4.6Ghz+).

Remember most good i5/i7's will do 4.4 on virtually stock voltage.

Why are you so pro AMD cpu's? (They are not as good in most cases to their nearest rival).

AMD GPU's are brilliant with a price/performance that is totally amazing. (290 flashes to 290x for circa 300 quid)
 
TDP is the maximum possible draw. It doesn't necessarily reflect what you'll ever see in real use. The 8350's TDP is not 220w, it's 125W. And that's with all 8 cores maxed out, which never happens except in benching or encoding.

I find that many people who accuse others of being fanboys or pro-whatever will pluck figures from nowhere to back up arguments against actual real world results.
 
At least from my investigations of power draw an FX8350 will draw between around 35W to 95W more than an IB or Haswell Core i5 or Core i7 K series CPU,when running a game. That is also taking into consideration the fact the 990FX motherboards are more power hungry than the 970 motherbroards,and the Asus Crossfire usually used is not the best in this consideration IIRC. Intel has shifted most of the functionality onto the CPU,so in theory it should be less motherboard reliant when it comes to power consumption I suspect.

If you had no life and gamed 40 hours a week,for every week of the year,at 15P a Kilowatt hour,that is still under £30 a year difference(around £13 to £28 if my sums are correct). That means your whole life is centred around gaming.

Not even my most gaming mad mate,with 600+ Steam games,does that consistently for 52 weeks.

To put that in context,that is 4 hours every weekday and 10 hours every day of the weekend for 52 weeks flat.

The only people I know who do that tend to be unemployed,so probably have the time to do that,and probably are worrying so much about monthly bills.

OTH,you would not be buying a £170 to £250 CPU in that case.

Moreover,if you are the type that never switches off their PC even when it is doing nothing,that will probably cost you as much money(or more) anyway.

Overclocking also costs you more power and craters performance per watt too.

Usage habits are one of the most important aspects of how much your computer will cost you in electricity bills.
 
Last edited:
Why do you constantly defend the 8350's and 9*** power usage when they both have stated tdp at 220w or above. At 5.0Ghz the 8350 must be knocking on the door of 300w+ without the power needed to cool the red hot beast with a decent cooler.

And if a 3.5-4.0Ghz i5/i7 beats the red hot beast at 5.0Ghx in most things gaming related the Intel will draw much less energy both from the cpu socket and cooling solution. (Exception being huge overclocks of 4.5-4.6Ghz+).

Remember most good i5/i7's will do 4.4 on virtually stock voltage.

Why are you so pro AMD cpu's? (They are not as good in most cases to their nearest rival).

AMD GPU's are brilliant with a price/performance that is totally amazing. (290 flashes to 290x for circa 300 quid)

Get your facts straight.

TDP is the maximum possible draw. It doesn't necessarily reflect what you'll ever see in real use. The 8350's TDP is not 220w, it's 125W. And that's with all 8 cores maxed out, which never happens except in benching or encoding.

He doesnt read, blinded by them 'fanboy' comments he chooses to absorb.

I find that many people who accuse others of being fanboys or pro-whatever will pluck figures from nowhere to back up arguments against actual real world results.

Strangely enough we have found one here - looking more like an intel fanboy. :rolleyes:
 
It's more the double standards that is tiresome. You can't seriously run two hideously inefficient 480s (alone approx 600-650W full out) and bring up power consumption as an argument.

Wait he runs a pair of GTX480 cards and is complaining about power consumption??

LOL!!

I find it quite funny people running massive full sized rigs with multiple high end cards like the GTX480 complain more than a SFF PC fan like me,who has been running mini-ITX and Shuttle form factor rigs for close to a decade.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind but he stings out a comment that I am an AMD FX83 and 9*** (seriously WTF?) preacher yet I take on the chin any intel proof as long as it is backed up. As most of the claims are not backed up I normally only listen to people who have owned both machines before accepting it as fact.

Blurting out factiods of late is getting tiresome to read. This though is un-defendable though if you own an AMD in these parts.. for some reason!

I bet with his 480s chugging along at high wattage and lots of heat he didn't bat an eyelid when purchasing them thinking of 'power consumption'. Pfft.
 
Get your facts straight.



He doesnt read, blinded by them 'fanboy' comments he chooses to absorb.



Strangely enough we have found one here - looking more like an intel fanboy. :rolleyes:

Well, the 9590 apparently, "must be knocking on the door of 300w+ without the power needed to cool the red hot beast with a decent cooler", though total *system draw* running a multithreaded stress test was measured at the wall at a peak of 248W in the CPU review, with 67W at normal load.
 
I wouldn't mind but he stings out a comment that I am an AMD FX83 and 9*** (seriously WTF?) preacher yet I take on the chin any intel proof as long as it is backed up. As most of the claims are not backed up I normally only listen to people who have owned both machines before accepting it as fact.

Blurting out factiods of late is getting tiresome to read. This though is un-defendable though if you own an AMD in these parts.. for some reason!

I bet with his 480s chugging along at high wattage and lots of heat he didn't bat an eyelid when purchasing them thinking of 'power consumption'. Pfft.

Well if you just attempted to quote the pro's and cons of both cpu's and not just their damn prices then people would not have to represent the opposite to your statements.


The 8350/9370 at 5.0Ghz is pulling way above 125w its at least 220w probably closer 300w when used in games like BF3/BF4 that max it out when played in crossfire/sli. (If your stupid enough to use an 8*** in crossfire/sli because it cripples your fps)

Well, the 9590 apparently, "must be knocking on the door of 300w+ without the power needed to cool the red hot beast with a decent cooler", though total *system draw* running a multithreaded stress test was measured at the wall at a peak of 248W in the CPU review, with 67W at normal load.

125w is probably is base setting at 4.0Ghz before it turbo's and certainly bears no relation to the 5.0Ghz overclocks.
 
Last edited:
You don't seem to understand how these things work. You're also misinformed about SLI/Crossfire performance, but I'm not sure you care.
 
You don't seem to understand how these things work. You're also misinformed about SLI/Crossfire performance, but I'm not sure you care.

Care, of course I care.

Next you gonna tell me that cross/sli is not impeded by 8350's or 9*** cpu's. (Sleeping dogs might be an outlier exception of course).

I'm always happy to learn from people with knowledge. :)
 
You're not technically wrong, it's just the way it's put across, it's bottlenecked, rather than straight out crippled.
But then people will link to X or Y cherry picked benchmark, the same way you do with an i5 showing that an i5 doesn't bottleneck Crossfire (In one of the GPU threads)

My i5 4670k (At stock) and R9 290 overclocked outbenched a 7990 overclocked and FX8320 (Overclocked) in Resi 6 while having less GPU grunt.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Nobody sensible would think that a game CPU limited with one GPU is going to do any better with two. Games that suit the 83xx CPUs (i.e. well threaded) will perform very well in SLI/Crossfire, or games that are not well threaded but not particularly CPU demanding (like Sleeping Dogs).


BF4 is "well threaded" in fact its the most "well threaded" game i've ever seen it uses all 12 threads on a sandy bridge e. Guess what the 8350 at 5.0Ghz gets shafted by a 3.5Ghz i5!!! So number of threads used in a game is but a single variable in an otherwise complex performance jigsaw puzzle. I bet having each core working 30-40% more efficiently might have something to do with it as a guess.
 
Where are all the benchmarks of the 5GHz 8350 being 'shafted' by an i5 at 3.5GHz in BF4? That goes against everything I'm seeing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom