• 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.

**LETS SEE YOUR PILEDRIVER OVERCLOCKS - LET ME START WITH 5GHz+!!**

Rroff said:
True but overly simplified the AMD cores have 2 seperate logic blocks per real core whereas intel have essentially an advanced scheduler - on paper the AMD solution should give it a much bigger edge.

It ain't bad but I think its a bit far calling it a convincing win atleast to my mind a convincing win is in the region of 15-20% gains.
Click to expand...

The shared front end in each module means the instruction decoder needs to alternate between each core every other cycle.
 
Last edited:
You've got a good one there bro! :) Git! :p

People need to get some proper perspective on these chips and stop comparing them to Intel's higher end chips, as they are not intended to compete directly with them. This is completely evident by the price that AMD put on them. The 2600k was £250 at launch, the 8350 £100 less. Equally, the 8350 gives a 3770k a run for it's money in heavy use apps and that's a much more expensive CPU now. There's also the small matter of the cheapest clockable Intel being £30 more than the top end AMD. Not everyone can/wants/needs to splash out so much just to play a few games and surf the internet.

They're really good CPUs, priced well. If the community (and many of the reviewers) got their head out from under Intel's skirt for a minute and took a proper look, they might just realise this.
 
Because the consumer needs AMD to compete with Intel at every level (While offering consistent performance, something that you can't get with AMD due to the more core approach), there needs to be viable choice where you're literally not seeing anything between the two (Like AMD/Nvidia)

Congratulating AMD on having acceptable top of the line CPU's isn't helping, berating them into actually creating something that can stand up to top of the line Intel CPU's is needed.

I don't want to have to continuously buy one brand to get the best performance, why would anyone want that?

Even in the tablet market AMD are letting Intel get ahead with their Clovertrail stuff (Which has started to finally appear) and Nvidia (With their rather mediocre Tegra stuff) and ARM (Who are dominating)

And when people start pretending the difference is only "10%" then it just gets ridiculous. You can't give a blanket statement on games performance (With one set up the difference in one game could be minimal, but then if you packed an FX8350 with 3 7970's in the same game with a 3570k with 3 7970s again, the difference would be quite high, but you're using AMD's flagship CPU, there is no better AMD CPU, ergo no choice)

If AMD created a consistently performing 250 quid chip, I'd sure as hell want to buy it, I'd much rather support the underdog.

But AMD have already publicly said they're pretty much pulling punches these days (So we're just going to get rather mediocre gains in CPU performance from both sides now). I mean Intel still won't have a mainstream hexcore with Haswell (Disappointing), if we had consistent performance, we probably would have Intel producing a mainstream hexcore.

You can't even say "Well, people don't need X performance, they only need Y", because we've had Y performance for years now.

Or, a third party joins in the X86 land.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
snip
Click to expand...

The comment stemmed from the fact that someone had an issue with a lower clocked AMD CPU beating a higher clocked Intel one in a benchmark.

Moreover,in the last ten years,I hardly knew any gamer who had multiple card setups. In fact about 90% of all gamers I have known have had graphics card under £200 and CPUs under £150 including me. That includes people who are in the higher leagues of games like SC2(Platinum and above).
 
Cat, you try way too hard to give a neutral opinion, almost being one sided to avoid being called a fanboy.

But we're on a forum of the minority where multiple card set ups or flagship GPU set ups aren't uncommon, that is true with the reviewers and their respective forums.

I don't want to put down 100 pound on a CPU for my only option to be an i3 or an FX6/A10, we've had CPU's of that performance for about 3 years now and at similar price point (Phenom II X4's)

Having said that, if software wasn't so far behind, the FX6 would be pretty unbeatable price/performance wise.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
snip
Click to expand...

Yeah but Martin, you're assuming that everyone wants/needs £250 CPUs. I know it's probably frustrating for those that do, which we know is a very small market, but that's just tough titty. AMD are consciously not intending to compete with Intel at that level anyway, so kicking them for not achieving something they're not trying to do is plain stupid.

I see the 8320 is £125 this week, that's excellent bang-for-buck.

Also software isn't that far behind at all. There's no apps that I use now where it matters at all that AMD IPC is a bit slower. It's only really games built on older engines, and they tend to be running at higher fps anyway so it's negated.
 
Last edited:
I'm not assuming everyone wants/needs 250 quid CPU's.
Like I say, we've had performance the general user has needed for years now coming from both sides at acceptable price points.
What we have now is pretty much stagnation.

For software I was more on about games, as something like word doesn't care if you're on a C-50 :p (AMD's netbook CPU)
Encoding programs can use the software, 3DSMax will pretty much use what you can give it.
OS again doesn't care if you're running a C-50.

For the general user, they wouldn't notice the difference over a 3970x and an Athlon II X4 if you were to throw an SSD in the system, I couldn't tell any difference in general usage between a Athlon X2 and my 2500k.
 
Last edited:
I find it strange that in any AMD overclocking thread,people attempt to derail it instead of contributing to it. The moment an AMD CPU happens to be even slightly better than an Intel one,all of a sudden you get some people popping in to defend Intel. I don't see people doing the same in Intel overclocking threads,if some of the benchmarks do even favour a price comparable AMD CPU.

There are too many people who are trying to justify their own purchases.

Enthusiasts are not only those who have £150 motherboards and £180 CPUs. You can be an enthusiast even if you are overclocking a £30 CPU on a £40 motherboard. E-PEEN fanbois are the ones who make the largest noise and yet are probably even a minority among DIY computer builders.

Anyway,this thread has been derailed too far.

Back to the overclocking results.
 
Who's defending Intel? I couldn't give a crap that it gets beaten in situations, I've said since FX8150 launch that there's situations some users with their workloads are better off with it.
If I had 125 quid on a CPU, there's no way in hell it'd be anything other than the 8320 (But that doesn't mean I like the situation that we've been put into as consumers)

I think my whole point was we needed almost like for like competition, I couldn't care if Intel keeled over, AMD imploded and two newbies joined the race and offered that.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Because the consumer needs AMD to compete with Intel at every level (While offering consistent performance, something that you can't get with AMD due to the more core approach), there needs to be viable choice where you're literally not seeing anything between the two (Like AMD/Nvidia)

Congratulating AMD on having acceptable top of the line CPU's isn't helping, berating them into actually creating something that can stand up to top of the line Intel CPU's is needed.

I don't want to have to continuously buy one brand to get the best performance, why would anyone want that?

Even in the tablet market AMD are letting Intel get ahead with their Clovertrail stuff (Which has started to finally appear) and Nvidia (With their rather mediocre Tegra stuff) and ARM (Who are dominating)

And when people start pretending the difference is only "10%" then it just gets ridiculous. You can't give a blanket statement on games performance (With one set up the difference in one game could be minimal, but then if you packed an FX8350 with 3 7970's in the same game with a 3570k with 3 7970s again, the difference would be quite high, but you're using AMD's flagship CPU, there is no better AMD CPU, ergo no choice)

If AMD created a consistently performing 250 quid chip, I'd sure as hell want to buy it, I'd much rather support the underdog.

But AMD have already publicly said they're pretty much pulling punches these days (So we're just going to get rather mediocre gains in CPU performance from both sides now). I mean Intel still won't have a mainstream hexcore with Haswell (Disappointing), if we had consistent performance, we probably would have Intel producing a mainstream hexcore.

Or, a third party joins in the X86 land.
Click to expand...

Congratulating AMD on having acceptable top of the line CPU's isn't helping, berating them into actually creating something that can stand up to top of the line Intel CPU's is needed.
Click to expand...
AMD have done a good job fixing Bulldozer, and it is comparable to the 2600K / 3770K's in applications. Ignoring that and instead continuing with the same rhetoric; "Berating" because they can't keep with Intel on 3x xFire 7970's is frankly ridicules, for that sort of setup you wouldn't have a 3570K, you would have an i7 39##K, you know that as well as i do.
Berating them for not performing in a market they are not priced for is what will cause them to step out of that i5 level market.

AMD with 26 pence to their name cannot compete with Intel and their £26bn.
As it happens the FX-8350 actually does compete rather well against its rival the 3570K, refusing to acknowledge that and instead opt for the usual AMD bashing will not make them miraculously match Intel in every aspect a few weeks from now.
What it will do is keep up the very false impression that AMD are seventh rate junk... so no one buys their products.
Doing that under the guise of "forcing them to compete with Intel" is no excuse.
Sometimes i wonder if what people really want is to see AMD crash and burn.

Like most people what i have is one 7870 overclocked to 7950 BE performance levels, others have a GTX 660/TI, GTX 670, GTX 680, 7950, 7970. most people don't have 2 let along 3 of such GPU's.

In that the FX-8350 is every bit as good for me in gaming as the i5 3570K, in productivity applications its faster, whats more it costs less money.
A win all round.
And as far as i'm concerned AMD 'DO ABSOLUTELY' deserve some recognition for that.
Now how about we let them sell a few of them so they can make some money at last and use that to challenge Intel instead of constant bad press which they in this case do not deserve and may well kill them off completely.
Is that what you want?
 
Last edited:
Berating them for their flagship CPU not keeping up with their GPU's is ridiculous?
Sorry, but they're producing GPU's their CPU's can't keep up with, that's the ridiculous part, not to mention being the first to release PCI-E 3.0 cards with no PCI-E 3.0 boards for the consumer, which doesn't make sense, had they delayed the AM3+ motherboards for when they actually launched the CPU's, it could have been avoided (Then again, the whole point of releasing the motherboards was to get the userbase for the CPU's in what many considered a sneaky move)

Although, why can't you compare the 3570k? It's a similar price, while yes you'd have the money for the 3930k, it doesn't mean you have to use it in the comparison (Given the point was you have no choice, it doesn't matter what Intel CPU you use if there's no AMD CPU that can push the 3 7970's to the same level as even an i5 3570k)

Although I called AMD CPU's acceptable, I'm not sure how that's bashing them or calling them 7th rate junk.

I've also called the FX8320/FX8350 unbeatable price/performance CPU's in some situations, I'd think that's praising them quite highly (But there's still no choice if you want the best, as they're still leagues away from an i7 980/i7 3930k which have inflated prices due to that fact, and Intel could quite easily produce an 8 core CPU for the desktop, which we'll see come IB-E, while all these do cost a lot of money, there's no other choice for x86 desktop to get that performance from AMD)

Like I say, I couldn't give a crap if Intel and AMD keeled over and two newcomers came along and gave almost like for like performance so there was choice.
Hell, if Intel for whatever reason disappeared from the face of the Earth and AMD acquired all of Intel's CPU's, then some random company came along and offered like for like performance to the new AMD CPU's, again, I wouldn't care.

I have no vested interest or care for either company, just performance.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
AMD have done a good job fixing Bulldozer, and it is comparable to the 2600K / 3770K's in applications. Ignoring that and instead continuing with the same rhetoric; "Berating" because they can't keep with Intel on 3x xFire 7970's is frankly ridicules, for that sort of setup you wouldn't have a 3570K, you would have an i7 39##K, you know that as well as i do.
Berating them for not performing in a market they are not priced for is what will cause them to step out of that i5 level market.

AMD with 26 pence to their name cannot compete with Intel and their £26bn.
As it happens the FX-8350 actually does compete rather well against its rival the 3570K, refusing to acknowledge that and instead opt for the usual AMD bashing will not make them miraculously match Intel in every aspect a few weeks from now.
What it will do is keep up the very false impression that AMD are seventh rate junk... so no one buys their products.
Doing that under the guise of "forcing them to compete with Intel" is no excuse.
Sometimes i wonder if what people really want is to see AMD crash and burn.

Like most people what i have is one 7870 overclocked to 7950 BE performance levels, others have a GTX 660/TI, GTX 670, GTX 680, 7950, 7970. most people don't have 2 let along 3 of such GPU's.

In that the FX-8350 is every bit as good for me in gaming as the i5 3570K, in productivity applications its faster, whats more it costs less money.
A win all round.
And as far as i'm concerned AMD 'DO ABSOLUTELY' deserve some recognition for that.
Now how about we let them sell a few of them so they can make some money at last and use that to challenge Intel instead of constant bad press which they in this case do not deserve and may well kill them off completely.
Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

simple matter is its just not as fast as the intel counterpart. most people dont care who makes what they want the best for there money. the amd 8350 is slower than the 3570k so it doesnt do as good no marketing can change that its physically slower overall.

bla bla it can beat it in this or that its slower end of.

amd do great work and im more like amd than intel. the last 7 or 8 cpus i have owned have been amd but they just cant make cpus as fast.

the pd chips are decent and for 90 percent of the planet theyll not notice the difference for enthusiasts though we do notice and thats why this debate happens on a tech forum.

lets see the 5ghz everyday clocks please :)
 
Technically, the FX8350 isn't slower than the i5 3570k, not by a longshot.
Software makes it so.
In pure performance when both CPU's are maxed to their balls drop off, the FX8350 will be the better CPU.

Look at how I bash AMD and call their CPU's 7th rate junk.
 
Martini1991 said:
Berating them for their flagship CPU not keeping up with their GPU's is ridiculous?
Sorry, but they're producing GPU's their CPU's can't keep up with, that's the ridiculous part.

Although, why can't you compare the 3570k? It's a similar price, while yes you'd have the money for the 3930k, it doesn't mean you have to use it in the comparison (Given the point was you have no choice, it doesn't matter what Intel CPU you use if there's no AMD CPU that can push the 3 7970's to the same level as even an i5 3570k)

Although I called AMD CPU's acceptable, I'm not sure how that's bashing them or calling them 7th rate junk.

I've also called the FX8320/FX8350 unbeatable price/performance CPU's in some situations, I'd think that's praising them quite highly (But there's still no choice if you want the best, as they're still leagues away from an i7 980/i7 3930k which have inflated prices due to that fact, and Intel could quite easily produce an 8 core CPU for the desktop, which we'll see come IB-E, while all these do cost a lot of money, there's no other choice for x86 desktop to get that performance from AMD)
Click to expand...

Hey, i'm just going by what you said.

Anyway, i don't compare AMD's flagship CPU to Intel's Flagship CPU on the same page, given the price differences its just plain silly.

I compare AMD CPU to Intel's CPU on price, in that the PD FX-8 compares with the 3570K, for some peoples needs it compares to the 3770K.

I'm pretty sure AMD could make their top end CPU's have 16 threads instead of 4, and perhaps that is something they are working towards.

Right now it is what it is and its as good as any Intel at a similar price or better.
No need to Berate them
 
AMD CPU's execute 8 threads (FX81/83 Obviously), I've seen you say the 4 thing before, I'm not going to pretend to go into CPU architecture like you're keen to pretend you know, but I couldn't care if they threw pixie dust in there, as it's how it works with software that matters.

And I was comparing price for price, hence the 3570k/FX8350 with 3 7970's, we're talking middle of the road CPU against AMD's latest and greatest, and it won't keep up, thus no choice.
So no, you're not going by what I said, you're reading what you want and ignoring anything else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom