• 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.

Intel Haswell Refresh Processors Codenamed Devil’s Canyon – Launching in Mid 2014 With Unlocked Desi

Whats funny is that I was one of the first people on UK forums to talk about the Xeon E3 CPUs,since I saw discussion about them on PC forums in the US,dedicated to smaller PCs like SFF Tech(they had a lower TDP and were easier to cool) and I only really do SFF builds,where Intel have been a much better choice for the last 8 years over AMD if you go with a discrete card. Forgot the CPUs,the motherboard support is still much better overall(and they start at a lower price base too).

When they became available in the UK,I always mentioned them as alternatives to say a Core i5 K series ,with a cheaper motherboard. My current main system is a Xeon E3 with a GTX660 and my secondary system is a E3400 in a Zotax 9300-ITX in a low profile case.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Whats funny is that I was one of the first people on UK forums to talk about the Xeon E3 CPUs,since I saw discussion about them on PC forums in the US,dedicated to smaller PCs like SFF Tech(they had a lower TDP and were easier to cool) and I only really do SFF builds,where Intel have been a much better choice for the last 8 years over AMD if you go with a discrete card. Forgot the CPUs,the motherboard support is still much better overall(and they start at a lower price base too).

When they became available in the UK,I always mentioned them as alternatives to say a Core i5 K series ,with a cheaper motherboard. My current main system is a Xeon E3 with a GTX660 and my secondary system is a E3400 in a Zotax 9300-ITX in low profile case.
Click to expand...
Intel have much better low threaded performance, they are also more power efficient. i will agree all day long with anyone who says that because its a fact.

What i will not do is spend my time in this room bashing AMD because of that, or anyone with an AMD logo in their signature, shall i take down the Saint Georges Cross out side my house because i might upset someone in my street?

The CPU i use works well for me and its inexpensive, i happen to like it. i also like the Gaming Evolved ethos.

People should learn to live with the fact that everyone has the right to think as they do and not everyone thinks alike.

Its really quite sad to see some of the behaviour that we sometimes do on forums like this.

Anyway, back on topic. :)
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Intel have much better low threaded performance, they are also more power efficient. i will agree all day long with anyone who says that because its a fact.

What i will not do is spend my time in this room bashing AMD because of that, or anyone with an AMD logo in their signature, shall i take down the Saint Georges Cross out side my house because i might upset someone in my street?

The CPU i use works well for me and its inexpensive, i happen to like it. i also like the Gaming Evolved ethos.
Click to expand...

Tek syndicate not long ago done the maths on the cost to power the cpu's for those that either found it too difficult to calculate, or only read the hyperbole from other users. I have mentioned it a few times in the general hardware forum where some people try to justify the purchase for this reason.

It is handy for laptops and mobile devices, but for desktops plugged into the mains it will take years to be a significant factor - by which time you have already upgraded to a better system.
 
Th0nt said:
Any charlie with his head screwed on would pick an 8320 and save £35 if your mentioning the buzz words "budget rig"
Click to expand...

Why buy into AM3 at this point?

I said was Pentium K at £50 is a bargain CPU. Especially as it's on a platform with other upgrade options and 14nm chips later on.

All you AMD nuts are mad at Intel or something, it's really weird tbh.

If you got a problem with my opinion it's not my problem tis yours. People are allowed different opinions.

Deal with it.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Why buy into AM3 at this point?
...
All you AMD nuts are mad at Intel or something, it's really weird tbh.

If you got a problem with my opinion it's not my problem tis yours. People are allowed different opinions.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

z3St1tk.gif

Your the one comparing it to the mid priced offering FX... get a grip - take a chill pill.
 
Th0nt said:
Your the one comparing it to the mid priced offering FX... get a grip - take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

So you quote a tiny part of my post, where I mentioned the FX 8350 had been benched alongside the Pentium K, to show what performance is like in gaming. You used that to justify you moaning about a £50 CPU.

Like I said before, a £50 CPU that can overclock and has no probs keeping up in gaming and other tasks, there is very little to moan about there, but somehow some people try to find a way :p

You get a grip mate.

Take it easy.

Love Boomstick :)
 
Where does the £50 pentium k keep up with the fx8350 in gaming precisely? In a few games in which it would keep up with a 4770k also? I see two benchies with a 8350 and the £50 chip in, and the stock 8350, stock and overclocked fx6300(£90) and the stock and overclocked FX4300(£70, in one case the fx4300 only beats the stock p-K) all beat the £50 Intel chip when it's overclocked at 4.7Ghz.

Exactly how is that keeping up with? 23fps vs 40, or 70 vs 50?

From the watchdogs bench you could extrapolate that a 8320 should provide almost double the performance of the overclocked pentium K and costs just over twice as much.
 
Th0nt said:
Tek syndicate not long ago done the maths on the cost to power the cpu's for those that either found it too difficult to calculate, or only read the hyperbole from other users. I have mentioned it a few times in the general hardware forum where some people try to justify the purchase for this reason.

It is handy for laptops and mobile devices, but for desktops plugged into the mains it will take years to be a significant factor - by which time you have already upgraded to a better system.
Click to expand...

well for those that are keeping a machine for years then the efficiency does count.

Think of servers for example. They are on 24/7 pretty much 365 days of the year. Efficiency counts a lot for those time frames.

By the way ** all ** AMD components are less efficient than their rivals.

you add AMD cpu + AMD gpu for roughly same performance and you're looking at 2 years to break even the cost of each system in most cases.

Add in stupid xfire and it becomes ridiculous --> extreme example is 295x2 xfire gives all in for 1350 W off the wall , freaking insane. That's 1KWhr every 45min

~= 24p every hour in electricity alone!!

- " wana play CS for 2 hours? "
- " yeh sure :D "
- " ok give me 50p and i'll let you play "
- " O_O "
 
You don't need two 295s for CS :p

Svyper1 said:
you add AMD cpu + AMD gpu for roughly same performance and you're looking at 2 years to break even the cost of each system in most cases.
Click to expand...

I don't see your point though Svyper1. The 8350 runs about 100 W hotter than a 3rd gen i5 at the same clocks. Full load for 1 hour per day that adds up to... £10 over 2 years. And no game will ever push your CPU to that kind of load.

Energy savings are nice but in reality they're not a big factor when choosing a CPU for a home PC.
 
All the 4970k reviews I've seen are a little underwhelming, there seems to be very little performance benefit over the 4770k. Saying that, I do wonder how the retail CPU's will compare to the Engineering Samples used in the reviews.

At the moment it seems as always, luck of the draw will be everything and this is just the 2600k-2700k all over again.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Whats funny is that I was one of the first people on UK forums to talk about the Xeon E3 CPUs,since I saw discussion about them on PC forums in the US,dedicated to smaller PCs like SFF Tech(they had a lower TDP and were easier to cool) and I only really do SFF builds,where Intel have been a much better choice for the last 8 years over AMD if you go with a discrete card. Forgot the CPUs,the motherboard support is still much better overall(and they start at a lower price base too).

When they became available in the UK,I always mentioned them as alternatives to say a Core i5 K series ,with a cheaper motherboard. My current main system is a Xeon E3 with a GTX660 and my secondary system is a E3400 in a Zotax 9300-ITX in a low profile case.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Xeon CPUs weren't unlocked.
 
khodos said:
Last time I checked, Xeon CPUs weren't unlocked.
Click to expand...

They are not,but they are good alternative to the Core i5 K CPUs though,and the older ones from the SB and IB times,had the partially unlocked multipler trick too. They also have more L3 cache,and HT which does improve their performance in games like Crysis3,and are the cheapest way to get a Core i7. Intel quietly snuck them in,so it was not obvious to many people especially since the Xeon E3 CPUs use the Intel consumer sockets and not their server ones.

Plus,you can stick with a cheaper motherboard and the stock cooler,and they are not that much more expensive than a K series Core i5,but cost less than the Core i7 3770 and Core i7 4770 non-K CPUs.

Turbo is getting more and more agressive each generation,meaning overclocking is showing not as huge improvements as before for the higher end parts,unless they are very lowly clocked to start with. A Q6600 overclocked to 3.6GHZ was a 50% clockspeed increase for example(the Pentium has a low base clockspeed too).

Someone could use the savings and put it into a better graphics card,for example. Even over the locked Core i5 4670,there is not a massive price increase.

Seems worth it for the HT IMHO.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Where does the £50 pentium k keep up with the fx8350 in gaming precisely? In a few games in which it would keep up with a 4770k also? I see two benchies with a 8350 and the £50 chip in, and the stock 8350, stock and overclocked fx6300(£90) and the stock and overclocked FX4300(£70, in one case the fx4300 only beats the stock p-K) all beat the £50 Intel chip when it's overclocked at 4.7Ghz.

Exactly how is that keeping up with? 23fps vs 40, or 70 vs 50?

From the watchdogs bench you could extrapolate that a 8320 should provide almost double the performance of the overclocked pentium K and costs just over twice as much.
Click to expand...

So you're agreeing that a £50 can keep up with an FX 8350 and even the 4770K in some games, but your portraying this negatively.. Ok then..

Also while the FX 8320 is double the price as you pointed out, but will net you some more performance in some multi-threaded software. it's also on a dead platform. The Pentium K is a good entry level point for people on low budgets. Allowing them to buy into a 'relevant' chipset with future upgrade options, and get a taste of overclocking all on a budget. Then later if wanted / needed buy another chip.

Their is very little to moan bout here, but some of you will just keep trying :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom