• 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.

benchmarks I3 IVY vs 8150 and 8350

Associate
Joined
6 Jan 2011
Posts
1,335
A friend of mine owns a rig with an 8150 in it. Other day he was saying how 8150 was better than the I7 and destroyed I5. after i sent him some benchmarks comparing the I7 and I5 to the 8150 for gaming purposes he soon saw it was other way around. (bless him)

his next argument was that the 8150 was so much cheaper than the I5 so wasn't worth paying extra for the I5.

i then put my neck on the line and said i reckon the I3 Ivy could boss the 8150 and keep up with the 8350 but struggling to find any benchmarks to prove this. has anyone got any links to sites with a direct relation and comparison between the 8150/new 8350 and the IVY I3?

cheers

Hes also just forked out for 16 gig of ram and wasn't happy when i told him he should cancel order, and get some faster 8 gig ram. as he only does some light gaming and will struggle to use 8 gig never mind 16. so would ebenfit more from faster ram rather than more...

his mid set seems to be quantity over quality, all he raves on about is 8 cores@ 4.6 ghz and now having 16 gb of ram 1600mhz. wheras id prefer i5 4 cores @ 3.4 and 8 gig of 2400 mhz ram

Anywho , any bench marks appreciated thanks
 
8150 vs 3220

Didn't look very hard Dunn. You know how much we use anandtech here for comparison. For gaming it's pretty close, video encoding the i3 loses but that wont be using quicksync which would definately help shorten the time....you need software that supports QS though.

It's the power consumption which is also a factor, intel has improved this with each revision, Haswell looks to continue this trend
 
Thanks Hono, ill have to bookmark that site.

I never pay attention to site names i usually just google when im looking for something and the same sites tend to pop up.
 
It's not just the number of cores it's the architecture of the CPU that matters.

Similar analogy with cars. You can have say a 2.0L straight 6 cyclinder engine or a V6. Both have 6 cyclinders (think cores) but you get more torque usually from a V6 i.e better performance. There are always pro and cons for each.

I really wanted bulldozer and piledriver to do well, alas not. I do love to suggest Llano or trinity for laptops but I do struggle to "justify" it for desktop rigs. For a well rounded rig intels 1155 socket makes a whole lot of sense.

Stulid did an interesting piledriver spec last night. The CPU and mobo were cheaper which helped pay for a 7950 over a 7850. He was partly joking doing the spec but it was scary how easily you could justify the spec for a gaming rig
 
It's not just the number of cores it's the architecture of the CPU that matters.

Exactly my mate doesn't seem to get that. as i said hes all about quantity over quality. he see's more cores and assumes its better

I do love to suggest Llano or trinity for laptops but I do struggle to "justify" it for desktop rigs

Yeah, only reason i would suggest for desktop is cheap HTPC build / someone whos on an insanely tight gaming build budget

Stulid did an interesting piledriver spec last night. The CPU and mobo were cheaper which helped pay for a 7950 over a 7850. He was partly joking doing the spec but it was scary how easily you could justify the spec for a gaming rig

gonna look for this now ^^, link would be appreciated in case i can't find (as you can tell i'm hopeless when looking for things)
 
Haha, that entire thread was a good read :D

TBF as stulid mentioned later on if the fella was a die hard AMD fan, was a very viable build, i wouldn't be able to bring myself to click buy on that build but im sure theres many out there who would ^^
 
As a Core i3 owner myself,the FX6300 does look a good option especially once the price settles down to the AMD RRP of around £100.

It does not do too badly:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page6.html
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...view-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Results-Skyrim-and-
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/331...good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-tom-clancys-hawx-2

Unless I was building a TDP limited build,like what I was doing,I would probably consider a FX6300 TBH.

8150 vs 3220

Didn't look very hard Dunn. You know how much we use anandtech here for comparison. For gaming it's pretty close, video encoding the i3 loses but that wont be using quicksync which would definately help shorten the time....you need software that supports QS though.

It's the power consumption which is also a factor, intel has improved this with each revision, Haswell looks to continue this trend

I have a Core i3 2100 myself,so a few things that might be relevant:
1.)In MP scenarios I expect games like BF3 to do well due to its well threaded nature, on CPUs like the Core i5 and FX8000 series when compared to a Core i3. Any of the new generation engines such as Frostbite 2,id Tech 5 and CryEngine2 thread well. UE4 is likely to show this too.
2.)Quick Sync reduces quality to achieve its higher speed,like AMD VCE and Nvidia NVENC. OpenCL acceleration of HandBrake seems to indicate no loss in quality and the software is free and seems the same quality as a CPU only encode. AFAIK,the full version is not out yet,but when it does,it is going to great for people who want quality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom