• 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.

CPU Charts 2012: 86 Processors From AMD And Intel, Tested

~>Dg<~ said:
haha martin please tell me you read that

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-performance-comparison,3370-18.html :p
Click to expand...

I did.
Although it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Just because you lack any thinking beyond a one line comment doesn't mean the rest of us should.

In certain situations the AMD can be better, there is no way around that, for gaming and other situations that need the core for core performance, it's Intel.
I mean there's quite a few benchmarks there which show FX8350 > i5 3570k.

Not that I think the FX8350 is the better CPU, however in the heavy workload situations where you can make use of the cores it *can* be.
This heavily threaded software and situations exist now, they're not made up, they're not stipulations, and they're certainly not hypothetical.
Ignorance doesn't make you intelligent DG.

EDIT : To expand for your simple mind.
If one did a review with 10 heavily threaded benchmarks, and 5 lightly threaded benchmarks, it may be that the FX8350 in that review is overall faster.

You can then get another review with 5 heavily threaded benchmarks and 10 lightly threaded benchmarks, in that review it may be that the 3570k is overall faster.

It all purely depends on what software is used within the review. You can't in any circumstance give a blanket statement with a made up figure, because it simply doesn't hold true. One may use heavily threaded applications in a working environment where the 3570k may come up trumps, would you suggest they get the "faster" 3570k in that situation? No, because that'd be stupid.

I won't buy PD CPU's for gaming myself, because I want the best, that is Intel, but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and chant "Intel, Intel" as you are currently doing.

Pick the CPU to fit your software, end of.

And if you're going to reply with another poorly constructed rhetoric response full of nothing, don't bother.
 
Last edited:
Pretty poor that FX8350 consumes more power than a 3930K which is more than 60% faster overall, if Intel would hurry and release a mainstream 6 core for £200-250 AMD would get annihilated and be unable to respond.

I think the biggest selling point for Piledriver is price, AMD really got it right this time unlike with Bulldozer, more people are buying PD as an alternative and are quite satisfied despite a few deficiencies, if FX8350 had been £200 it would have been the same laughing stock that Bulldozer was.
 
Martini1991 said:
I did.
Although it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Just because you lack any thinking beyond a one line comment doesn't mean the rest of us should.

In certain situations the AMD can be better, there is no way around that, for gaming and other situations that need the core for core performance, it's Intel.
I mean there's quite a few benchmarks there which show FX8350 > i5 3570k.

Not that I think the FX8350 is the better CPU, however in the heavy workload situations where you can make use of the cores it *can* be.
This heavily threaded software and situations exist now, they're not made up, they're not stipulations, and they're certainly not hypothetical.
Ignorance doesn't make you intelligent DG.

EDIT : To expand for your simple mind.
If one did a review with 10 heavily threaded benchmarks, and 5 lightly threaded benchmarks, it may be that the FX8350 in that review is overall faster.

You can then get another review with 5 heavily threaded benchmarks and 10 lightly threaded benchmarks, in that review it may be that the 3570k is overall faster.

It all purely depends on what software is used within the review. You can't in any circumstance give a blanket statement with a made up figure, because it simply doesn't hold true. One may use heavily threaded applications in a working environment where the 3570k may come up trumps, would you suggest they get the "faster" 3570k in that situation? No, because that'd be stupid.

I won't buy PD CPU's for gaming myself, because I want the best, that is Intel, but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and chant "Intel, Intel" as you are currently doing.

Pick the CPU to fit your software, end of.

And if you're going to reply with another poorly constructed rhetoric response full of nothing, don't bother.
Click to expand...


haha you think im chanting intel and that is your whole argument i don't care who is best ! im just saying intel is quicker you taking what i say literally as fanboyism when all im saying is intel is faster.

you just been shown overall the intels are faster overall .
you know yourself that intel are faster overall

yet you just say my argument is wrong or im a fanboy of intel :p

do a hundred different benchmarks and you know what intel is faster :D you know it i do and so do everyone else.

you still cant grasp that amd 8350 is made to compete with 3570 non k version. yet its faster :confused: you just dont get it that is its place doesn't matter if you personally believe the amd is faster it isnt.

maybe you should go restructure amd and take on intel as you seem to know more about the speed of there own processors than they do :p

your trying to argue your way past a thing you cant argue against which is

speed is relevant to price

if it was quicker it would be dearer it isnt so its priced to compete. been over this a millions times but that how it works. anyway been a healthy debate :D

just let me quote this as the last word from me

" There's no way around it: if outright speed is your top priority, and you have some money to spend, Intel wears the crown. From about $250 to $1050 or so, AMD simply cannot compete. Anything pricier than that and you're out of the desktop market entirely. " haha
 
Last edited:
So, in a situation in which the FX8350 is faster than the 3570k, how does that make the Intel quicker? Obviously, I can't comprehend this as well as you can.

Or are you saying there's no situation in the world in which an FX8350 is faster than a 3570k?

Despite the obvious rendering benchmarks/encoding (Which are actual workloads that are used this very moment)

And again, the 7970GHZ/GTX680 situation, despite the 7970GHZ being cheaper than the GTX680, it's arguably better in some games, and worse in others, price isn't all indicative of overall performance. The FX8350 has INCONSISTENT performance due to the very nature of where its strengths and weaknesses, so you can't price it too high, as shown by the FX8150 which fell steeply not long after launch.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the productivity benchmarks,the FX8350 is in many cases faster than a Core i5 3570K. It might be inconsistent in gaming,but it does smack of purchase justification if someone is saying the FX8350 is slower in all things than a Core i5 3570K.
 
No great surprises there, shows that for most home users any decent dual core processor from the last couple of years gives decent performance if not gaming or encoding.

I am running an i5 760 which performs well enough to spare me the need to upgrade to sandybridge/ivybridge.

Bring on haswell then a new setup will be ordered :)
 
Just had a quick read through and saw they included Fritz benchmark and it just so happened l still had it on my Backup HD. Well l thought l run it for old time sake and my results fritz-relitive speed:31.86/kilo nodes per sec:15293, which put my i7 920-7th spot can't be bad lol.

Well l built this PC to last about 4 to 5 years with just a upgrade in GPU now and again plus upgraded the air cooling to a Custom H2o full loop CPU/GPU. Well pleased with the H2o cooling as there is no need to turn my OC down even on the hotest lol summers day. My trusty I7 920:4.2ghZ is nearly 4 years old still kicks butt, if its worth upgrading when Haswell is released l will, if not l'll just upgrade the GPU again.

Have a smashing Xmas Day everyone, cheers Oldphart. ;)
 
We need AMD to compete with Intel for the 'enthusiast' market.

The worst thing that could happen is that AMD pull out, and plow their money in their APU systems. Intel have a free market and will be able to hold off development and increase prices.

Intel are already holding back because of the 'lack of belief' with AMD CPUs.

In 'real-life' terms you'll hardly notice the difference between the AMD Piledriver FX-8350 and the Intel Core i5 3570k, this is what people fail to understand.

If AMD can pull their shizner together and release an 8 core processor which doesn't draw 24% more than Intel's processors - then we may have a bit of competition.

It's not over 'tlll the fat lady sings.
 
its not over for amd but if they can not compete with intel in speed theyll just use there cpus to work in other areas as they are doing now

if they succeed better at that then that will become there main focus

also the 8350 is a good cpu and no not many would notice the difference between that and a i3570k but... why settle for something which you know is slower just for the sake off it ;)

happy christmas pue :D
 
~>Dg<~ said:
why settle for something which you know is slower just for the sake off it ;)
Click to expand...

Looking at the TH benchmarks in many productivity benchmarks the FX8350 it appears not to be slower. For gaming the Core i5 CPUs have more consistent performance.

However,going by your posts,your response will be somewhat predictable.
 
Last edited:
no thats the whole point !

its not justification ! you and martin for eg are reading it that way.

i just went for what is the faster cpu in general for everyday use and gaming not just gaming. 8350 maybe faster in somethings but on average its slower by about ten percent overall.

that's why i chose intel not cause i love intel i don't i actually prefer amd as a company but why choose amd just cause i like them better when the product is slower in real world ?

that is stupid.

if the amd was quicker i would have got that.

what kinda makes me laugh is many many sites show exactly the same with numerous pc benchmarks yet some are still trying to argue against proven results :p

thing is every time i put that someone will just stick in a encoding benchmark that favors the 8350 for eg but in a lot of encoding the intel can still be quicker why not show them :D

so i don't hate amd im not a fanboy or justifying my purchase

i have 5 pcs you know what 1 is intel all rest are amd ;) hardly intel fanboyism :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom