Difference between i7 Cpu's ?

[gpuerrilla]

The PC industry has been moving forward that way since the 1990's.

PCI-E 3.0, SATA Express, M.2 all are recent technologies that Intel have integrated into their motherboards, it's not their fault that AMD have been stale since 2010 so progression is now classed by some as milking.

Why is it AMD's fault though? As far as I am aware there are more than twenty other manufacturers you can point the finger at in this generic blind statement.

Some people should be taking up another hobby if they feel this ignorant mindset is acceptable.

 

[gpuerrilla]

At 4K for the foreseeable future, you really may's well just go for an FX83 and dump money into GPU's. Pretty sure I touched on that last year too, the difference in CPU at 4K will be tiny.

Hmm, pretty sure it was not you - last year as I got my FX then and it was a small band of un-merry men that were against them. Chiefly you!

The statement though is pretty accurate if you absorb the get an average CPU and plough heavily into the GPU philosophy. Hang on that's pretty much what the people who bought AMD hardware did and still were scorned for it. By you!

 

[philo-sofa]

Hmm, pretty sure it was not you - last year as I got my FX then and it was a small band of un-merry men that were against them. Chiefly you!

The statement though is pretty accurate if you absorb the get an average CPU and plough heavily into the GPU philosophy. Hang on that's pretty much what the people who bought AMD hardware did and still were scorned for it. By you!

We could spend the same money on an Intel and have 1) either the same performance or more money and 2) use less power. It's... good to support AMD, but they're still worse value for money than Big Blue.



EDIT:

Sorry I forgot the golden rule of not feeding AMD trolls and then... had ALXAndy been doing this for long before he was suspended? O.o

Way, way too precious of their cores TBH. 6 core should now be an absolute given on an affordable motherboard and ram combo. There's absolutely no excuse.

Intel have, like you say, been leading the way for ages now. So why won't they allow us to breathe and move forward by starting to introduce more cores into the actual market instead of the 'enthusiast' *cough* market and making devs ignore the high end completely.

There's absolutely no fathomable reason why hex core CPUs are not proudly sitting in Z97 boards. Hell, the 980x came out years ago and fitted a somewhat mainstream board.

Well one counter to your point is that die sizes have remained roughly static over time, albeit with the odd hiccough as Northbridges and iGPUs were absorbed.

I agree it would be good if they had come down more quickly, but the i7 5820K is the first sub 300 he core Intel hex core. There was finally a big price drop with Haswell-E.

Don't blame AMD. They launched an 8 core CPU absolutely ages ago into a desktop board and socket that was more than affordable.

Yeah but it was awful so it couldn't perform and hence had no effect on the market. I seem to recall that Jaguar could sometimes handle more IPC than Bulldozer.

My mate showed me an article the other day where a 8350 basically beat a hex core Ivy with SLI at 4k.

I've just asked him to remind me of the link.....

Started to write a reply about high-res gaming being GPU bound and therefore indifferent to CPU, but then read the whole link just in case I was missing something. The author was pretty clear, he even says this:

"We can see here that the higher resolution we go, the dependancy on the CPU is reduced - freeing up money to be spent on better GPUs, or better yet - an additional GPU to handle the extra work load that the higher resolutions require."

So it's a bit much for you to use that in support of the FX-8350 being a decent chip; they're saying that the CPU is irrelevant.

 

[Martini1991]

Hmm, pretty sure it was not you - last year as I got my FX then and it was a small band of un-merry men that were against them. Chiefly you!

The statement though is pretty accurate if you absorb the get an average CPU and plough heavily into the GPU philosophy. Hang on that's pretty much what the people who bought AMD hardware did and still were scorned for it. By you!

If you say so.
Your memory is clearly lacking though. One size does not fit all.

 

[gpuerrilla]

There isn't a one size fits all, and my advice changes based on the scenario. When I think an AMD is a bad choice is when we're talking 120HZ/1080p screens with 290 Crossfire. It will always be a lesser choice to an Intel set up in that scenario as it currently stands. Take an R9 290X Crossfire with an FX83, you'd argue till you're blue in the face about that type of set up, but it'd come up trumps to an i7 4770K with R9 290 Crossfire set up in pretty much all 1080p set ups, and a lot of 1440P set ups. I'd therefore suggest the Intel and the 290 Crossfire, whereas with 4K? I'd very likely suggest the former. That's being objective, you should learn about it.

Actually this is something I would agree with. My point is you probably promoted an FX one in every ten posts at best, but as your quite the joker, you seem to think you are teflon in most arguments.

The advice changed but the main points in any argument were that choosing an FX was stupid - until I kept applying value or price to performance which after a while you twisted it so that you had always maintained they were the best budget buy. This is something I never argued with people about. I have never been as extreme as say Andy, but in your warped mind you seem to have kept that chip on your shoulder as I dared to be the poster who challenged your omnipotent knowledge.

Ignorance in this regard is bliss, right martin!

But when you're pushing up the resolution? The CPU matters less. In fact, I remember saying that very notion and you quoting it with that being news to you. Your memory obviously isn't what it could be, nor is your objectivity. And I've certainly touched upon it with 4K and the difference in CPU being minimal (Which is why I find the 49XX results shady).

I never think you are stupid, far from it martin. I do not have the time nor the inclination to read into engineer manuals or study specification sheets like I once did when I was a college student.

My two year old keeps me busy, my era for tech bashing arguments with people was pentium 3's and thunderbirds, I seriously laugh when people want a nerdy argument or to look whiter than white as I do not have a point to prove.

I truly am objective, you absolutely aren't.

I think the general consensus would differ, but then again the only people on here who quote me negatively are the minority that think I am an AMD fanboy - you know those objective posters with the green or blue components!

 

[David Bisset]

We could spend the same money on an Intel and have 1) either the same performance or more money and 2) use less power. It's... good to support AMD, but they're still worse value for money than Big Blue.

Value for money how? Did you read the thread? Later in your own post you say CPU power is irrelevant yet you say a more expensive CPU is better value for money. I have only Intel CPUs in my computers and yet I can't help but find this statement hilarious.

Started to write a reply about high-res gaming being GPU bound and therefore indifferent to CPU, but then read the whole link just in case I was missing something. The author was pretty clear, he even says this:

"We can see here that the higher resolution we go, the dependancy on the CPU is reduced - freeing up money to be spent on better GPUs, or better yet - an additional GPU to handle the extra work load that the higher resolutions require."

So it's a bit much for you to use that in support of the FX-8350 being a decent chip; they're saying that the CPU is irrelevant.

I'd say if an FX 8320 can do as good a job as a much more expensive chip then that's a great argument for it being a good purchase. Maybe you have limitless money & thus are happy to spend extra for the same outcome - in which case I've a car I'd love to sell you. It's the fastest car in the world, only it needs a different kind of wheels to the ones we have, so it'll go the same speed as everyone else here.

I'm not saying the Intel CPUs are bad, far from it, but to slate AMD because they equal Intel performance in a normal gaming situation for less money is stupid. I personally run a bunch of VMs that are normally CPU limited so for my use-case more powerful CPUs make sense (in my work machines not my home ones) but if I was not doing this then the AMD options would frequently be suitable for my gaming needs as I've not got nearly fast enough a graphics card for it not to be the limiting factor.

 

[Martini1991]

How are AMD worse value for money than Intel
That makes no sense.

 

[Sasahara]

Performance per watt of power use over the lifetime of use, plus real time processing time, (time is money for a lot of people). It's very easy for Intel CPUs to be better value for money depending on usage.

 

[David Bisset]

In the thread since ALX posted his link (not sure why it got posted in here to be honest) it's been repeatedly stipulated that it's in gaming when GPU bound that we're talking.... including in philo's post. In which case if performance is equal then more expensive CPU = worse value for money (the power use difference is tiny especially when not getting thrashed, as in our scenario).

 

[pillow]

To be fair.. what incentive do intel have to roll out mainstream 6+ core CPU's when the competition isn't pressing them enough?

You just need to think back to the Athlon 64 Fx days when intel had it's back to the wall and came out with 'Conroe'

I think unless AMD really steps up the performance gain then we're not going to see any radical changes to what we're seeing at the moment.

 

[philo-sofa]

Value for money how?

Because they offer more performance for a given cost.

Did you read the thread?

Yes.

Later in your own post you say CPU power is irrelevant yet you say a more expensive CPU is better value for money.

No. I say that CPU power was irrelevant in the 4K test, then caution that it should not be inferred from this that the FX-8350 is a good chip overall.

I have only Intel CPUs in my computers and yet I can't help but find this statement hilarious.

That's because you're either a) paid to express these opinions by AMD or b) aren't very honest with yourself or your understanding of sentences you read.

I'd say if an FX 8320 can do as good a job as a much more expensive chip then that's a great argument for it being a good purchase. Maybe you have limitless money & thus are happy to spend extra for the same outcome - in which case I've a car I'd love to sell you. It's the fastest car in the world, only it needs a different kind of wheels to the ones we have, so it'll go the same speed as everyone else here.

This is a specious argument as you could buy a superior i5 chip for the same money. If that's too complicated I can use your analogy: you don't have to buy the most expensive car, but the Blue team offers better performing ones at every price point.

I'm not saying the Intel CPUs are bad, far from it, but to slate AMD because they equal Intel performance in a normal gaming situation for less money is stupid.

SLI and 4K aren't normal gaming situations.

...if I was not doing this then the AMD options would frequently be suitable for my gaming needs as I've not got nearly fast enough a graphics card for it not to be the limiting factor.

See above re value for money.

 

[Martini1991]

An i5 and an FX83 aren't the same price.

AMD offer more value than Intel. I mean seriously, there's only the i3 in the FX83 pricing range. AMD look to be introducing an even lower priced FX83 too.
That doesn't make Intel too expensive though, as AMD offer nothing to mirror the performance overall.

 

[philo-sofa]

An i5 and an FX83 aren't the same price.

The FX-8350 we were talking about and an i5 are pretty close in price man. FX-8350: £131.99 vs i5 4430: £137.99.

The really budget 8320 models undercut i5 pricing, but not by enough to quite close the overall performance gap.

 

[gpuerrilla]

To be fair.. what incentive do intel have to roll out mainstream 6+ core CPU's when the competition isn't pressing them enough?
...
I think unless AMD really steps up the performance gain then we're not going to see any radical changes to what we're seeing at the moment.

Some comments on here are really knee-jerk poor. Aside from martini's heckling lets take a look at hardware on a broader spectrum (still CPU's):

Not attacking you pillow as there are plenty on this sub-forum, I am using this comment as an example. Even mobile devices are quad core these days. This is not a brand issue by the way, why is it AMD's fault? AMD do more than just CPU's.

What incentive do intel have? With the coffers they have in the war chest they could have done many things, knowing intel they will have a wad of cards to play this early in the game. However they can offer more cores to the mainstream.

I think the core count isn't really something to focus on - even though they are creeping into the mainstream where there is not an 'incentive' they (handset hardware manufacturers) do it because they can!

Why on earth a tablet or mobile phone needs 4, 8 or 12 cores remains to be seen, but I am not complaining because it is rapidly developing technology to the masses. Notice how intel are not a major player here, hence why the cores are coming through thick and fast!

 

[gpuerrilla]

An i5 and an FX83 aren't the same price.

AMD offer more value than Intel. I mean seriously, there's only the i3 in the FX83 pricing range. AMD look to be introducing an even lower priced FX83 too.
That doesn't make Intel too expensive though, as AMD offer nothing to mirror the performance overall.

Actually they're pretty close man. FX-8350: £131.99 vs i5 4430: £137.99.

philo before the latest -E revisions being released I would be buying the 8320 for that extra saving. £100 puts it at a ridiculous level of value. If I had that extra £100 or so available it would not be a consideration using an FX. Tight times.

 

[philo-sofa]

Some comments on here are really knee-jerk poor. Aside from martini's heckling lets take a look at hardware on a broader spectrum (still CPU's):

Not attacking you pillow as there are plenty on this sub-forum, I am using this comment as an example. Even mobile devices are quad core these days. This is not a brand issue by the way, why is it AMD's fault? AMD do more than just CPU's.

What incentive do intel have? With the coffers they have in the war chest they could have done many things, knowing intel they will have a wad of cards to play this early in the game. However they can offer more cores to the mainstream.

I think the core count isn't really something to focus on - even though they are creeping into the mainstream where there is not an 'incentive' they (handset hardware manufacturers) do it because they can!

Why on earth a tablet or mobile phone needs 4, 8 or 12 cores remains to be seen, but I am not complaining because it is rapidly developing technology to the masses. Notice how intel are not a major player here, hence why the cores are coming through thick and fast!

It's nice having a rational commenter I am gonna be a tool and disagree though: there is plenty of incentive in the mobile market, in fact it's cutthroat.

Excluding Intel they all use the ARM instruction set and some big players like Qualcomm, Apple (even AMD) take that instruction set and make their own chips (e.g. most Snapdragons or the A6 to A8 family). Others (and there are dozens of these) just take the base ARM models (e.g. the A9 or A57) and mate them with a GPU and other 'uncore' parts like cellular baseband, DDR memory, USB and HMDI controllers to make their 'own' CPUs. Finally some do a mix of the two (e.g. Samsung, Broadcom and Nvidia).

There's an absolute ****tonne of competition within the ARM family, to fall behind is often to die and that's where the incentive comes from. It's an example of what has been sadly lacking in the CPU industry if anything.

philo before the latest -E revisions being released I would be buying the 8320 for that extra saving. £100 puts it at a ridiculous level of value. If I had that extra £100 or so available it would not be a consideration using an FX. Tight times.

Fair enough: if you can't afford the extra 30 you can't afford it. I've been in that situation myself far too often. But it doesn't make the value for money for everyone else. TBH at 107 or 137 they're both pretty damn epic value, and the price performance ratio is close, but overall if you had the 30 to spare I'd say the 4430 would be worth it.

 

[Martini1991]

The FX-8350 we were talking about and an i5 are pretty close in price man. FX-8350: £131.99 vs i5 4430: £137.99.

The really budget 8320 models undercut i5 pricing, but not by enough to quite close the overall performance gap.

Enthusiasts tend to pick the FX8320 over the FX8350, and the FX8320's been 95 quid.
I'd put more money in and pick a Z97 with a 4670K, as I don't compromise. But at FX8320 money, Intel are no competition.
Intel should have unlocked the i3, as even then, you've got the FX6300 which is a nice price/performance.

And I didn't realise that the sole topic of conversation was the FX8350? You just appeared to make a blanket statement.

As for mobile (Tablets), AMD have X86 chips too, they don't actually go anywhere though . AMD keep making little noises with no substance (It's what they do best after all) about the tablet market. Oh look, here's our X chip. Maybe 1 mickey mouse vendor will pick it up.
Although it's a ridiculous concept to say Intel aren't a major player in the mobile market. Windows tablets would be dead in the water without Intel. Intel are getting into phones now, and they've just landed the Hudl 2. Not that I've ever owned an Intel tablet. I have owned an AMD X86 one though (Acer Iconia W500)

 

[philo-sofa]

Enthusiasts tend to pick the FX8320 over the FX8350, and the FX8320's been 95 quid.
I'd put more money in and pick a Z97 with a 4670K, as I don't compromise. But at FX8320 money, Intel are no competition.

For gaming the performance drop from an 8320 is severe unless in a massively GPU bound situation. Enthusiasts would be better placed with the Intel for extra 30. Albeit the margin is getting small here.

And I didn't realise that the sole topic of conversation was the FX8350?

The FX-8350 was a topic of some discussion due to the link.

You just appeared to make a blanket statement.

This was largely when I disagreed with someone's else making a blanket statement which isn't the same as making my own.

But there are some situations which deserve a more blanket statement: for example the performance/price ratio and absolute performance versus AMD are never properly in AMD's favour within the enthusiast segment. That makes their chips very difficult to recommend for that segment.

 

[pillow]

Some comments on here are really knee-jerk poor. Aside from martini's heckling lets take a look at hardware on a broader spectrum (still CPU's):

Not attacking you pillow as there are plenty on this sub-forum, I am using this comment as an example. Even mobile devices are quad core these days. This is not a brand issue by the way, why is it AMD's fault? AMD do more than just CPU's.

What incentive do intel have? With the coffers they have in the war chest they could have done many things, knowing intel they will have a wad of cards to play this early in the game. However they can offer more cores to the mainstream.

I think the core count isn't really something to focus on - even though they are creeping into the mainstream where there is not an 'incentive' they (handset hardware manufacturers) do it because they can!

Why on earth a tablet or mobile phone needs 4, 8 or 12 cores remains to be seen, but I am not complaining because it is rapidly developing technology to the masses. Notice how intel are not a major player here, hence why the cores are coming through thick and fast!

I don't mind you using my comment to make a point

But the point I am making is this:

Intel are a business. Their only aim is to make money. However this comes about. In order to make money you need to be competitive with your competitors. We will consider AMD as Intel's only competitor in the x64/x86 market. Intel is already crushing AMD when it comes to CPU performance. AMD now holds a marginal lead in the iGPU game, where Intel has really closed the gap over the last few years.

Now why should Intel waste money on adding more cores in their consumer CPUs when they already hold such a performance advantage?

Even when you look at AMD 8-core performance vs Intel's quad offerings AMD still suffer.

As Philo-sofa pointed out, in the mobile market there is huge competition amongst chipmakers. As per-core performance is roughly equal across the board the only way to differentiate yourself in that market is by adding more cores. It just isn't the same game.

Don't get me wrong here. I would love Intel to offer up more affordable 6 or 8 core CPUs but I just don't see it happening any time soon. Over the last couple of years I've had no reason to upgrade my 2500k (as the performance gains since it's release haven't really been that substantial), but yes, I certainly wish that there will be more offerings from Intel.

 

[David Bisset]

No. I say that CPU power was irrelevant in the 4K test, then caution that it should not be inferred from this that the FX-8350 is a good chip overall.

That's because you're either a) paid to express these opinions by AMD or b) aren't very honest with yourself or your understanding of sentences you read.

This is a specious argument as you could buy a superior i5 chip for the same money. If that's too complicated I can use your analogy: you don't have to buy the most expensive car, but the Blue team offers better performing ones at every price point.

SLI and 4K aren't normal gaming situations.

Ahh, being paid to say it, classic argument

I agree SLI isn't normal and neither is 4k gaming, but being GPU bound is very much the norm. SLI reduces the GPU bottleneck so should place more emphasis on the CPU so this abnormality should be helping your side of the debate. 4k will become the norm eventually, it's not yet, but then the 8320 also runs everything current just fine so we're in theoretical future land here already. And as it runs everything current I certainly can state without any inference required that the 8320 is a decent chip - perhaps not as theoretically 'good' as an i5 but significantly cheaper, especially when compared to an unlocked i5. As I overclock any chip I use the 8320 will certainly not cause a problem maxing out my graphics card, meaning both perform equally in games so are equally 'good' whatever you mean by that.

Had you said 'an i3 will max your graphics card too and that's price comparable then you may have had a point, I've not checked to see if this is true or not. I suspect it'll stop being true sooner than for the clocked 8320 but I've not bothered to do any research, nor will I as I'm not looking to buy a new system at the moment. As I named a specific processor, the 8320, as you quoted, I'm curious which apparently superior i5 you're going to buy for the same money which makes my argument so wrong? As I also said *if* it does as good a job. We've only seen one set of information on this and maybe there are interesting counter-points. I'm simply opposing a blanked 'lul AMD are terrible value' statement that I believe to be false.

For gaming the performance drop from an 8320 is severe unless in a massively GPU bound situation. Enthusiasts would be better placed with the Intel for extra 30. Albeit the margin is getting small here.

The FX-8350 was a topic of some discussion due to the link.

But there are some situations which deserve a more blanket statement: for example the performance/price ratio and absolute performance versus AMD are never properly in AMD's favour within the enthusiast segment. That makes their chips very difficult to recommend for that segment.

You said Intel were better value for money. You didn't say 'compared with one AMD processor only'
The 8320 has been the goto value for money processor because it's both cheap and unlocked, easily hitting much higher clockspeeds 24/7. Same reason my i5 750 and the i7 920 remain good - we don't all have to run stock.

When gaming (except on many GPUs) we're almost always GPU bound. That is the whole point. Resolutions and details continue to increase so this will probably remain true for the forseable future.

I'm not arguing the AMD is faster. I've never said the AMD is faster. But value for money isn't about being faster when both deliver the same performance because the bottleneck is the graphics card anyway. Given an unlimited budget I'd absolutely get an Intel CPU as it is faster. But with a limited budget it is almost always better to save money on the CPU and spend it on the GPU - and Intel have nothing to match a clocked up 8320 for £95.

Again, I'm not saying Intel are bad value, if you've a use-case for them then spend happily, I have done before and doubtless will again. I've not said there are no situations where Intel makes sense but in the particular area of gaming I've said that AMD are good value for money. If you're particularly into a specific game then what you need may vary significantly also as different games have different workload profiles. You're the one who claimed AMD were NEVER value for money which is the blanket statement. In case you've forgotten what you said was, with no reference to any single processor comparison:

It's... good to support AMD, but they're still worse value for money than Big Blue.

My response never said AMD were awesome or anything of the like. It said if an AMD chip equals a more expensive Intel chip in a situation then in that situation it's better value for money. And, as you quoted the article, I'll revisit the line:

"We can see here that the higher resolution we go, the dependancy on the CPU is reduced - freeing up money to be spent on better GPUs, or better yet - an additional GPU to handle the extra work load that the higher resolutions require."

If we have a limited budget for a full system, which is almost always the case, then any money we save on the CPU can be spent on the GPU. If we're going to be GPU limited anyway then saving even a few pounds to allow us a better graphics option is well worth it. If that money doesn't let us get anything better in the GPU department then sure, spend it where you want, this doesn't make one CPU bad value for money.