i5 or Piledriver

[Marine-RX179]

Not really.... No.

Yes really....Yes.

You are simply not looking beyond benches of linear single player games.

 

[colbrook32]

i5, AMD is nothing compared to Intel apart from with graphics

 

[areksnumbr1sxylady]

i5, AMD is nothing compared to Intel apart from with graphics

with that sig, your judgement is seemed bias.

 

[~>Dg<~]

lol

but sorry to say if you want the best intel is the way (i have amd rigs and intel )

 

[z0mbi3]

Well I'm of the position that Piledriver will do nicely in games, and that if multi threaded applications are important to you then for the money you really should give them a look.

If games are more important to you then go with Intel.

I can't wait to try some encoding with Ripbot on my 8350.

 

[wannabedamned]

Yes really....Yes.

You are simply not looking beyond benches of linear single player games.

Have a search of Kitch9s posts in CPU session, You'll find it quite interesting. It's 100% AMD defence

Regardless of how fact based the counter argument is..

 

[passey89]

starting from new no mobo = I5

if you already have an AM3+ supported mobo = piledriver

Anything else = I5

The onyl reason to go piledriver is if u hava a mobo for it already.

 

[z0mbi3]

starting from new no mobo = I5

if you already have an AM3+ supported mobo = piledriver

Anything else = I5

The onyl reason to go piledriver is if u hava a mobo for it already.

Cost me £240 for mobo and 8350. My main concern is multithreading, for the price Intel couldn't match it.

 

[~>Dg<~]

cost me 240 for new i5 3570 and gigbyte deh brand new on offer last week sorry

only reason to go pd is if you have am3+ mobo as said be numerous people

price is almost identical but i5 is clear performance winner no ifs or buts. im not biased either i have phenom rigs still and majority of my systems have been amd.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

cost me 240 for new i5 3570 and gigbyte deh brand new on offer last week sorry

only reason to go pd is if you have am3+ mobo as said be numerous people

price is almost identical but i5 is clear performance winner no ifs or buts. im not biased either i have phenom rigs still and majority of my systems have been amd.

I am on socket 1155 too,but TBH it really does sound like you are trying to sell your own upgrade to yourself!!

AFAIK,looking at another thread,the upgrade was primarily not for gaming.The chap is using his rig mostly for certain video encoding applications AFAIK,so an FX8350 is not too bad in this respect. I would have probably gone with a cheaper motherboard though.

 

[z0mbi3]

The chap is using his rig mostly for certain video encoding applications AFAIK

Yep, encoding was the reason I went with the 8350. All 8 cores fully utilised. I don't believe the 3570 would have been as good in this respect.

I do game as well, but the reduced encoding time is more important to me.

 

[~>Dg<~]

I am on socket 1155 too,but TBH it really does sound like you are trying to sell your own upgrade to yourself!!

AFAIK,looking at another thread,the upgrade was primarily not for gaming.The chap is using his rig mostly for certain video encoding applications AFAIK,so an FX8350 is not too bad in this respect. I would have probably gone with a cheaper motherboard though.

no im not biased as i said and i have phenoms rigs still now

intel is faster option and that is the best option unless you have a am3+

pd will be decent but i5 is the better option.

 

[Martini1991]

Not in encoding DG.
If you're using heavily multi-threaded situations as a daily thing, then an FX8350 would be a better option, certainly an 8320 would be unbeatable price/performance, board price is around the same.

 

[kitch9]

In those benchmarks the FX also has a 600MHz higher clock. At equal clocks the pileof****driver will be even more behind.

Uhm the retard is strong in this post.....

Why should PD have same clocks as Ivy when it doesn't have same clocks as Ivy?

 

[passey89]

if encoding then yeh PD wins.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Not in encoding DG.
If you're using heavily multi-threaded situations as a daily thing, then an FX8350 would be a better option, certainly an 8320 would be unbeatable price/performance, board price is around the same.

It would be interesting if there is a bench that show the time it takes for both CPU at 4.6GHz for encoding same piece files that actually show how much in real-world time the PD would be saving over the i5.

I mean I'm not sure I would trade minimum 55-60fps for 35-40fps in some games if it is only for the sake of finish encoding something for 5 mins faster...

 

[Martini1991]

Depends what your main priority is.

Even though I could do with the extra encoding performance, I wouldn't take the FX8350 over the i5 as I mainly game, but that very logic can be applied in reverse.

Although yes, I do agree I'd need see how much better it'd be for the encoding.

 

[~>Dg<~]

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/350412-get-you-Piledriver-benchmarks-here?p=2196433

quite a few reviews there just for encoding and basically couple of seconds faster if encoding is priority over a i3570k (in some encoding the i5 is still quicker )

in everything else it loses and in a lot loses quite big

lets do some benchmarks

what progs to use would be intresting to see

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

no im not biased as i said and i have phenoms rigs still now

intel is faster option and that is the best option unless you have a am3+

pd will be decent but i5 is the better option.

The thing is I do think you are trying to hard. Its almost:

"look here! I have new shiny! Its the bestest in the world and nothing else can compare to it!"



The thing is different people have different priorities for their systems and that is the reality of it. Just because one set of components is like the most optimal for what I do,does not instantly mean the same for someone else. Even OS choice can change the system spec for example. Sometimes you find that reviews mask certain bottlenecks artificially(audio transcoding benchmarks being one of them),so other areas might need more attention in a build.

For video encoding,the type of encode,input file size and output file size can alter the relative positions of CPUs quite easily, even with the same software version, so this is why you can see differences in reviews between the relative positions of CPUs even with the same software. The OP has said the encodes take a few hours to do with their new CPU,so I assume the input files are quite large and are probably a few gigabytes in size.

On another forum I started a benchmark thread using HB 0.9.5:

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss33/CAT-THE-FIFTH/HexusHandBrakeresults22-02-2012-1.png

I have HB 0.9.6 and 0.9.8 results too,which I need to put into a table,so it will be interesting to see if the relative positions will change especially with the newer CPUs.

 

[David_Vaughton]

I5 its a non-choice, if you want more threads then get an i7