• 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.

From AMD8320 - i7 6700. Impressions

Small update.

Had chance to extensively test this yesterday with AC: Unity. Running a small overclock on the 1080 GTX and frames jumped quite a bit. And I'm talking not even a 3-5% OC.

I'm now running close to 60 but then there's drops where is suddenly goes down to low 30s on the frames. I'm putting this down to crappy coding.

One area in particular was quite good as it doesn't matter what I did in OC'ing my 8320 or GPU, I was getting mid to low 20s, and that's in the restaurant area that you buy in game. Now it's hitting a consistent mid to low 50s in there. So clear improvement.
 
A lot of it depends on the games, but my sticking argument is consistency, which is higher with the Intel.

I've literally always maintained am FX 83 offers inconsistent performance, (it has a far greater range of performance it can offer in situations over an i5)
 
Martini1991 said:
I've literally always maintained am FX 83 offers inconsistent performance, (it has a far greater range of performance it can offer in situations over an i5)
Click to expand...

I get a better gaming experiance with my i5 4690k than I did with my FX8350

heres 2 results from 3d mark the same gpu was used.( my old 7950 ) same ram was used as this moved over when I went from my 8350 to my 4690k

this is my best scores with my 7950 from the AMD and the Intel CPU's

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/4163977/fs/6277751

there is not much in it but the i5 does have the edge
 
I went from a Phenom II 1090t to a Haswell 4770k and didn't notice much difference in general usage. Honestly, the i7 feels a little faster with web browsing , exploring the pc etc, but that could just be in my head. However, it scores far higher than the amd chip in benchmarks.
 
Jamesyboyjim said:
I went from a Phenom II 1090t to a Haswell 4770k and didn't notice much difference in general usage. Honestly, the i7 feels a little faster with web browsing , exploring the pc etc, but that could just be in my head. However, it scores far higher than the amd chip in benchmarks.
Click to expand...
the Phenom II 1090t was a great overclocker though.
when my 8350 died I used one for a few month until I bought the 4690k and yea it was a great chip. it overclocked well and being honest.. I didint notice much in it compared to the 8350..

Ive still got the 1090t here in a gigabyte board not decided what to do with it fully.
 
Jamesyboyjim said:
I went from a Phenom II 1090t to a Haswell 4770k and didn't notice much difference in general usage. Honestly, the i7 feels a little faster with web browsing , exploring the pc etc, but that could just be in my head. However, it scores far higher than the amd chip in benchmarks.
Click to expand...

When I blew my launch p67 board, I had to use an athlon 90nm chip with my SSD, in general usage there was no difference.
 
Jamesyboyjim said:
I'm the same, I've still got it sat in my old Asus Sabertooth 990fx motherboard, Loved that setup, not sure if its worth selling or keeping to treasure haha :D
Click to expand...
when I was running mine it was in the Asus 990fx Sabertooth board but when I got a replacement 8350 that went into the Sabertooth board for my niece.
My lad is using the Asus 990fx crosshair formula z with an 8350 the now with my old 7950 hes happy with that.
Its on a stock cooler the now but just got a Thermaltake Frio off the MM so once that arrives ill stick it on and give it an overclock :D
 
There has been a handful of users on here that both found no difference in their upgrade as there were people that found it to be an improvement.

As long as you were happy with the switch then it doesnt really matter. Most of the improvements would have been user specific and useless for blanket statements. Either way the money involved rarely justifies the switch and as an educated observation it was more down to people either expecting too much from an FX or badly sourced hardware for the job they intended from the outsource.

One thing that has been positive for the FX faithful is that with GPU's taking the grunt off the CPU in certain games, and the use of better API's the vishera has had an extended life and certainly not as big a flop that some make out.
 
Played a bit more AC: Unity last night. While I hate to sound cliched, it does feel a bit smoother overall. Didn't run any frames as I got tired of looking at numbers instead of playing the game, but there's been no noticeable slow downs or stuttering.

I wonder if there's such a thing where a CPU takes time to 'settle in' to the system. The past 24 hours everything suddenly sped up a bit, from loading games to booting into Windows. Maybe someone more tech savvy can comment on that.

With all the upgrading final completed ... I kinda miss having something to obsessively research :p

I wonder if an NVME SSD drive is worth it over a normal SSD ...
 
Overall this mirrored my thoughts of an NVME drive....



Not worth the cost over an SSD
 
Last edited:
I went for the PM 512 as it's reasonably priced but faster than a sata drive. It's also two cables less clutter in the case.

If you already have a good SSD though, I wouldn't bother.
 
Relentless81 said:
I'm glad of this thread, getting itchy for a new cpu to replace my 8350 and again it just doesn't seem worth it regards the return I'll get vs the cost
Click to expand...

Some games you will, some you won't. If you're a 'benchmark' type guy, don't hesitate and go for the Intel, I've seen a 15-20% rise across the board on all benchmarks since getting the Intel. Gaming, overall it feels a bit more smooth and as I said, certain areas in certain games run more stable, but it's not 'incredible' or 'amazing' or whatever adjectives I've seen people use here to justify their upgrades. Not for me anyway.

If you can get a second hand one at a throw-away price because some idiot is convinced that Intel's latest 5% incremental upgrade will change his life, it might be worth looking at it. If you're like me and purely buy on value for money, look at the 2nd hand market. Some incredible deals to be had there if you're patient enough. I've bought my last two systems (before moving to NZ) from the MM for practically nothing and it's lasted me around 9 years combined.

But as always, all about the GPU!
 
The main point of skylake i7 especially the K version is for high hz gaming especially at 1080p to keep up with the top end gtx 1080. The higher the resolution and lower frame rates don't need a mega cpu to keep up.
 
as i said before many people dont bench properly tthe games they play on the old system to the new system.

they just run fraps or something see oh 65 fps ah thats what it gets.then do new system at rough same place ahh its about the same :p

you need to do minimum , avg , max fps do all your games you play daily or regular. it may take you a hr but when you upgrade you can see the difference then.

8320 to a i7 6700 k or none k is still a massive difference.

some people notice it some dont.
 
So in short, when it comes to gaming, the difference was 3 times the price, 0-20% performance.

If you need a bench to tell you that there is a difference, the difference is not worth the money.
 
PhoenixUK said:
So in short, when it comes to gaming, the difference was 3 times the price, 0-20% performance.

If you need a bench to tell you that there is a difference, the difference is not worth the money.
Click to expand...

no the difference is many people cant notice difference because they look at max fps while playing.

you do really need to bench because your max fps may not jump much but your minimums may jump 50 percent which is a night and day performance difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom