Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

[ALXAndy]

You'll lose a good chunk of single threaded performance, you know, the thing that 99% of all games depend on.

Not to mention a 2500k will rape ANY FX CPU when it comes to multi GPU performance..

99% of games? really?

Because all of the latest big hitting titles either don't want hardly any CPU grunt at all, or, want lots of cores. Is this 99% of yours kinda like Marine's 5%?

You know, like pulled from the anus rather than facts? If you want to see what happens in a non CPU dependent game then feel free to stop by my 8320 thread and see how it fares. Min FPS of 49 in Tomb Raider with everything on max. Since when was that not enough?

As for your 'rape' analogy? it's pretty much like the other analogies you've brought up. IE - not very clever, stupid random extreme phrase used to try and scare people out of the truth.

I own two 8320s. Not one, but two. I switched from a Xeon (which equated to a I5 2400) and had plenty of chance to ditch the AMD and go for a better Intel CPU. I sold the Xeon, that pretty much says it all.

Then I had a windfall, and, had plenty of opportunity AGAIN to return to Intel and their expensive CPUs. I chose another 8320 with a top end board.

As for games? I pretty much own every game worth having, dating all the way back to 1998 when the CDROM pretty much became common place. My Steam list and Origin lists are vast, and I can tell you now I could benchmark any one of my hundreds of games and each one would return acceptable playable levels.

These 'rape' sorts of figures you gleefully toss around are a load of crap, mate. I would spend some time reading and learning.

 

[mmj_uk]

It isn't 5% though. I used to have a Xeon E3 1220 clocked to almost 4ghz and it was rendered unplayable in Crysis 3. 22 FPS min.

A 8320 at 4.2ghz on the same level near on doubled the minimum frame count.

If that's the case then something was seriously wrong with your system.

If you want to get a completely accurate story of what both chips (the 8320 and 2500k) can do when it's balls to the wall simply check out either the Cinebench R15 thread, Winzip benchmarks or 3dmark Firestrike's physics score.

"balls to the wall" applications are extremely rare, why do AMD users constantly highlight the rare situations where Piledriver excels whilst ignoring the vast majority of applications which favour fast cores?

When both CPUs are supported properly the 8320 comes out ahead of the 4670k. It's been said that the 8350 is pretty much dead level on productivity terms to the 3770k.

The point is though you buy 4670K now and you'll never have to worry about your CPU being 'properly supported', all Piledriver owners can do is look toward the future with hope.

You either don't seem to understand that, haven't checked any recent data or you simply don't want to accept it. But throwing out 5% gains as a given is just plain wrong.

The situations where Piledriver beats a 4670K by more than 5% are rare and require heavy use of all cores, we do not live in a perfect world where everything is superbly multithreaded.

 

[Marine-RX179]

At least he's changed his tune from the old 99/100 chestnut.

I go by game benchmark, rather than thinking sympathetic benchmarks result can be directly translated to representation of real-world gaming performance like Andy suggest. I recall seeing a Crysis 3 benchmark which the i5 2500K overclocked to the same clock as the FX8 9590 and the i5 2500K had a minimum frame rate of 68fps and the 9590 had a minimum frame rate or 72, there's where the 5% I quoted came from.

Also I didn't "change my tone". The problem is people keep generalising 3 gens of i5 into one...most the comparisons I mentioned in the pass was about the IvyBridge i5, whereas this topic is about the SandyBridge i5.

If that's the case then something was seriously wrong with your system.

He was getting "double frame rate" moving from his i5 2400 to his overclocked FX8 as well. I don't know if for some bizarre reason he can never get an Intel setup to run properly, or he just hate Intel setup...or the other way round (Intel setup hate him) If his claim was true, it would mean the i5 is only as good as the FX4...

 

[almighty15]

99% of games? really?

Because all of the latest big hitting titles either don't want hardly any CPU grunt at all, or, want lots of cores. Is this 99% of yours kinda like Marine's 5%?

You know, like pulled from the anus rather than facts? If you want to see what happens in a non CPU dependent game then feel free to stop by my 8320 thread and see how it fares. Min FPS of 49 in Tomb Raider with everything on max. Since when was that not enough?

As for your 'rape' analogy? it's pretty much like the other analogies you've brought up. IE - not very clever, stupid random extreme phrase used to try and scare people out of the truth.

I own two 8320s. Not one, but two. I switched from a Xeon (which equated to a I5 2400) and had plenty of chance to ditch the AMD and go for a better Intel CPU. I sold the Xeon, that pretty much says it all.

Then I had a windfall, and, had plenty of opportunity AGAIN to return to Intel and their expensive CPUs. I chose another 8320 with a top end board.

As for games? I pretty much own every game worth having, dating all the way back to 1998 when the CDROM pretty much became common place. My Steam list and Origin lists are vast, and I can tell you now I could benchmark any one of my hundreds of games and each one would return acceptable playable levels.

These 'rape' sorts of figures you gleefully toss around are a load of crap, mate. I would spend some time reading and learning.

You make me laugh so much....

Less then 1% of ALL PC game are multi-threaded.. that is pure FACT and if you're too naive to know that then there's no hope for you.

Truth is Intel are faster and can be MASSIVELY faster too.... There's not only HUNDREDS of professional reviews that show this but also HUNDREDS of user submitted data in various forums all over the world.

You make do with your 'acceptable' frame rate levels and I'll stick to having superior minimum frame rates

 

[ALXAndy]

If that's the case then something was seriously wrong with your system.

Nothing wrong with it other than the derpdy derp clock speed and locked multiplier that you can only get on Intel I'm afraid.

"balls to the wall" applications are extremely rare, why do AMD users constantly highlight the rare situations where Piledriver excels whilst ignoring the vast majority of applications which favour fast cores?

Only they're not incredibly rare and are growing in numbers as the days pass. From BF3 onward a game either didn't bother the CPU much at all, or, likes using all of it. I've demonstrated this well with all of this year's big titles myself. Watch dogs? wants 8 cores. That's the next big game up.

So I'm sorry, but you'll have to forgive me for not running away at the scent of your vast majority claims because frankly they're as outrageous as "Rape !" and "Destroy" and all of the other terms being used.

The point is though you buy 4670K now and you'll never have to worry about your CPU being 'properly supported', all Piledriver owners can do is look toward the future with hope.

The point is that for rougly £160 (less than the cost of the 4670k) you can buy a FX 6300, board and ram. You can then overclock it and enjoy pretty much any game available ! spending your money where it matters on the GPU/S and not listening to rubbish being brandished on forums.

The situations where Piledriver beats a 4670K by more than 5% are rare and require heavy use of all cores, we do not live in a perfect world where everything is superbly multithreaded.

No we certainly don't. So by your own admission what's the point in buying a 4670k when there are CPUs costing less than half of the price that can do exactly the same thing (IE - put out acceptable FPS levels).

Sorry, but as a gamer I've had exactly 0 issues with my 8320 rendering a game unplayable. Not in one single instance. So you'll excuse me for not believing your horror stories and having the wherewithall to judge for myself.

 

[ALXAndy]

You make me laugh so much....

Less then 1% of ALL PC game are multi-threaded.. that is pure FACT and if you're too naive to know that then there's no hope for you.

Truth is Intel are faster and can be MASSIVELY faster too.... There's not only HUNDREDS of professional reviews that show this but also HUNDREDS of user submitted data in various forums all over the world.

You make do with your 'acceptable' frame rate levels and I'll stick having superior minimum frame rates

Oh so now you're exaggerating with bold type and CAPITAL letters

I see.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...cessor-Review-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Conclusion

So what do we actually get with this release? Well, it is a bittersweet release for AMD. The pricing on these parts is not only competitive, it undercuts Intel by a significant amount across the board. The 8350 is very competitive with the 3570K, and it can be had for $30 less. The 6300 will walk all over the Intel products that exist at the $132 price point, and in fact is more competitive in terms of performance with the $185 Intel products. Again, we get a nice $50 discount for essentially the same performance. In these cases though, expect the AMD CPU to consume more power. Would it be enough to make one nervous about energy bills? Not really

There you go. There's an unbiased professional review for you brought to you by the same guys who managed to fix Crossfire alone.

 

[almighty15]

Oh so now you're exaggerating with bold type and CAPITAL letters

I see.

Some people are just beyond help, funny thing is I bet my 2600k+motherboard didn't cost that much more then your FX set-up..

 

[ALXAndy]

Some people are just beyond help,

Oh irony, how you do make me chortle.

 

[Martini1991]

People keep using multi-threaded and single threaded incorrectly

It's hurting my soul.

 

[almighty15]

Oh irony, how you do make me chortle.

When I mention either 4.6 or 5ghz I will be referring to this machine -

AMD FX 8320 clocked to either 4.6ghz or 5ghz
Asus Crosshair V Formula Z motherboard
8GB Mushkin memory
Radeon HD 7990.

Cost for board and CPU £272 (est)

Yep my 2600k+mobo was cheaper...... And faster to boot!

 

[almighty15]

People keep using multi-threaded and single threaded incorrectly

It's hurting my soul.

It's no use getting technical in here, most people don't even know how things work

 

[Marine-RX179]

Only they're not incredibly rare and are growing in numbers as the days pass. From BF3 onward a game either didn't bother the CPU much at all, or, likes using all of it. I've demonstrated this well with all of this year's big titles myself. Watch dogs? wants 8 cores. That's the next big game up.

So I'm sorry, but you'll have to forgive me for not running away at the scent of your vast majority claims because frankly they're as outrageous as "Rape !" and "Destroy" and all of the other terms being used.

BF4 wants 8 cores (or more) too, and look at how the i5 4670K more or less matches the FX8350, despite at 600MHz lower in clock.

It's no use getting technical in here, most people don't even know how things work

I feel insulted to refered as a noob and be lectured about CPU performance by someone suggesting Cinebench, Winzip and Firestrike results as representation for game performance in real-world. It's almost as funny as the time which I read someone saying because the FX8 is faster than the i5 on encoding bench, so it means it would destroy the i5 in gaming performance...

 

[Martini1991]

It's no use getting technical in here, most people don't even know how things work

You were one to use single threaded incorrectly with the 99% claim, lightly threaded would be the term.

Unless we're going to start talking about DOS games etc

 

[almighty15]

You were one to use single threaded incorrectly with the 99% claim, lightly threaded would be the term.

Unless we're going to start talking about DOS games etc

Don't confuse 'lightly threaded' with Windows kernal trying to load balance the cores

 

[alex_123_fra]

Not to mention a 2500k will rape ANY FX CPU when it comes to multi GPU performance..

You're wrong. Games are becoming increasingly multithreaded which is a fact you don't seem to be prepared to deal with. Stop generalising.

Lets see some multi-GPU benches with a 2500k (at any common OC) vs an 83x0 CPU (again at common OCs) in games such as BF4 or Crysis 3 which utilise multiple cores/threads. I'd be intrigued to see this "rape" you talk of. If you want to see actual results, check the BF4 and the FX cpu threads and educate yourself.

When I mention either 4.6 or 5ghz I will be referring to this machine -

AMD FX 8320 clocked to either 4.6ghz or 5ghz
Asus Crosshair V Formula Z motherboard
8GB Mushkin memory
Radeon HD 7990.

Cost for board and CPU £272 (est)

Yep my 2600k+mobo was cheaper...... And faster to boot!

Not when new it wasn't. You are also comparing pricing of a top of the range motherboard (CHVFZ) with your asrock? Seriously?

If one buys second hand parts you could have Andy's CPU and mobo combination for £150. If you want even more cost-effective options, it can be had for around £100 while still on a 4+2 phase board. So again, educate yourself before generalising.

 

[Hades]

When I mention either 4.6 or 5ghz I will be referring to this machine -

AMD FX 8320 clocked to either 4.6ghz or 5ghz
Asus Crosshair V Formula Z motherboard
8GB Mushkin memory
Radeon HD 7990.

Cost for board and CPU £272 (est)

Yep my 2600k+mobo was cheaper...... And faster to boot!

Eh? But in your sig it's an Asrock. Yes of course you can save money by going uber budget line in comparison to a top end board. Instead of £160 (or whatever it is) for the CHFZ you could spend £80 instead and get decent results with a budghet Asus AM3+ board.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

The equivalent AM3+ board would probably be the Extreme 4, which is able to take a decent clock (much better than the extreme 3) and is cheaper than the Crosshair by 50 quid. Though if it were my money, there are better boards for less money on am3+ like the Asus evo 970/990.

What Hades is saying is pretty spot on. Maybe we should compare high end board prices with high overclock... ouch my wallet.

 

[teppic]

You'll lose a good chunk of single threaded performance, you know, the thing that 99% of all games depend on.

Not to mention a 2500k will rape ANY FX CPU when it comes to multi GPU performance..

I don't know what category this fits into other than total and utter nonsense.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I don't know what category this fits into other than total and utter nonsense.

Utter nonsense?

Look at it this way for someone with a single 290/290x/GTX780, having an overclocked i5 or FX8 ain't gonna make much difference (if at all) in BF4 or Crysis 3; but if using the same setups for playing Starcraft, Total Wars, mmos in general, the FX8 setup will lag VERY noticably behind.

PC games are not only limited to 1st person games (which would support 8 threads) you know.

 

[teppic]

Hardly anything runs on just one core, to say 99% of games do is nonsense.

There are tons of benchmarks showing 83xx SLI/Crossfire performing just as well as an i7 in games, while the i5 2500K often struggles with the same ones. To say that the 2500K will "rape" any FX CPU is also nonsense.

(And enough of this "rape", it's vulgar and sounds like a 14 year old boy.)