Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

[Hagar]

TDP does not equal power consumed.

Factor in the graphics card(s) and a comparable overclock and there is little significant difference in power draw with either system.

The major difference is single or multithread performance.

EDIT My FX8350 running prime at 4.6GHz on eight workers and also running heaven benchmark on a 6950 grahics card at the same time, peaked at 380W at the wall socket

 

[Martini1991]

I'm not saying don't switch from Intel to AMD, I'm saying, don't do it on the strength of an AMD event, and certainly not from the i5 2500K to a PD.

Put it this way, in the vast, vast, vast majority of games, an FX83 owner with an R9 290X would bench lower than me with my i5 4670K and a R9 290.

BF4 wouldn't, but it's one game.

 

[almighty15]

The 2500k would batter the FX in every game that uses 4 threads or less, so I would either keep it or sell it and buy an i7.

 

[almighty15]

This maybe useful for the OP to decide whether it's worth switching motherboard / CPU etc for a chip that overall performs pretty much the same but consumes more power.


http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/436/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K.html

Better memory performance on the FX?

Hell no....

 

[Martini1991]

Yeah, AMD aren't renown for their IMC's.

Who doesn't remember not being able to run 1600MHZ on the Deneb

 

[teppic]

The 2500k would batter the FX in every game that uses 4 threads or less, so I would either keep it or sell it and buy an i7.

Lots of older games don't need anything like the power of either processor, so it's not quite that straightforward.

 

[almighty15]

Lots of older games don't need anything like the power of either processor, so it's not quite that straightforward.

GTA, ARMA, STALKER, Crysis and most RTS games disagree.

 

[ALXAndy]

GTA, ARMA, STALKER, Crysis and most RTS games disagree.

When you upgrade do you do it for old games? or ones that are current and forthcoming?

 

[teppic]

GTA, ARMA, STALKER, Crysis and most RTS games disagree.

Since when is that 'every' game?

 

[ALXAndy]

Since when is that 'every' game?

STALKER lmao. It's only about five years old.

 

[Boomstick777]

Thanks for that Boom. I still fancy swapping though just for a change haha But i hear what your saying, its arguably a like for like swap over that will generate more heat and use more power. But its new and shiney!

No worries, I hear ya, I'm the same. Got the upgrade bug myself atm. Want to switch from 780 to 290X, arguably just a sidegrade but like you said it's new and shiny lol.

 

[ALXAndy]

No worries, I hear ya, I'm the same. Got the upgrade bug myself atm. Want to switch from 780 to 290X, arguably just a sidegrade but like you said it's new and shiny lol.

You do realise that I could take quite a large handful of games and benchmarks and show the FX 8 core beating the 2500k in every single one, right?

Nobody upgrades their rig for the past. Not unless they start playing an old game and realise their old rig doesn't cut it.

BF3
BF4
Crysis 2
Crysis 3
Far Cry 3
RAGE

Cinebench 15
3Dmark Firestrike CPU (physics).

All of which the 8 core AMD is faster and more productive than the 2500k, and, oddly enough all are modern recent titles and benchmarks.

Then there's virtualisation, encoding.. I could go on and on.

So I guess it all depends on what people constitute as an upgrade. If upgrade means a better CPU ergo more performance in what matters (new and future titles and software) then it's an upgrade, end of.

Whether it's worth spending the money on, maybe using a 2600k/3770k instead? that's a whole different argument. But, I absolutely assure you it's no side grade as you call it.

 

[Boomstick777]

You do realise that I could take quite a large handful of games and benchmarks and show the FX 8 core beating the 2500k in every single one, right?

Nobody upgrades their rig for the past. Not unless they start playing an old game and realise their old rig doesn't cut it.

BF3
BF4
Crysis 2
Crysis 3
Far Cry 3
RAGE

Cinebench 15
3Dmark Firestrike CPU (physics).

All of which the 8 core AMD is faster and more productive than the 2500k, and, oddly enough all are modern recent titles and benchmarks.

Then there's virtualisation, encoding.. I could go on and on.

So I guess it all depends on what people constitute as an upgrade. If upgrade means a better CPU ergo more performance in what matters (new and future titles and software) then it's an upgrade, end of.

Whether it's worth spending the money on, maybe using a 2600k/3770k instead? that's a whole different argument. But, I absolutely assure you it's no side grade as you call it.

It's def a sidegrade, I'm really not that interested tbh bud. If the OP knows it's a sidegrade and is happy with it because he wants to try something new, then good for him. Let's not try and turn this into an AMD defensive thread, there are to many of them. Some good info here, direct comparison between the two CPU's.

This maybe useful for the OP to decide whether it's worth switching motherboard / CPU etc for a chip that overall performs pretty much the same but consumes more power.

Identical overall performance,
Performs better in single-threaded tasks,
Comes with HD 3000 GPU,
Needs less power

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/436/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K.html

 

[teppic]

It's a downgrade, sidegrade or upgrade depending on what you do with it. The thread wasn't asking for advice about whether to do it or not, but comments like the 2500K is always going to be better are very inaccurate and not helpful.

 

[ALXAndy]

It's def a sidegrade, I'm really not that interested tbh bud. If the OP knows it's a sidegrade and is happy with it because he wants to try something new, then good for him. Let's not try and turn this into an AMD defensive thread, there are to many of them. Some good info here, direct comparison between the two CPU's.

Let's not turn this into an innacurate Intel are better thread.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/436/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K.html

Read.

3dmark 03. PCmark 02. Cinebench 10.

You're cherry picking, just as I could. So you obviously missed the point but whatever. Not being funny but I've seen more of your posts and you're firmly in the blue corner. That makes you bias from the start.

 

[David Bisset]

Edit: Erm, back to the OPs question. The rest doesn't matter, he knows what he needs to. I don't know temps, but while the h100 slightly outperforms the 920, as single thickness double size allows better airflow thus better cooling performance, the difference is tiny so I'd probably not bother unless you're just after the new/shiny feeling

 

[Make]

When you upgrade do you do it for old games? or ones that are current and forthcoming?

You do it for current; the games you want to play.

As you cannot tell the future (Unless you are a fortune teller), you can't really know what future games need. You can speculate about it, but a game made to run on 8x 1.7ghz cores might run just as well on 4x. 4.0ghz cores.

We just can't know.

AS for the OP: If you want to upgrade for mantle, then wait until it, and it's supporting games are out. You get better bang for buck then, now it's gonna be expensive in comparison.

Don't upgrade unless you need to; right now it's a sidegrade, not an upgrade. No point whatsoever.

 

[DarkTheSupreme]

I wouldn't get an AMD CPU, after trying out an 8320 it really was a downgrade from my 3570k. Even when I pushed it to 5GHz it wasn't performing well in games.

 

[SiDeards73]

Thanks all for the replies.

Basically it boils down to this, i want a new GPU, as you can see im running at 6950 Toxic, its been a lovely card but its time to move to something new, so im going for an Non Ref R9 290 Pro when they are released. I had decided on this before i watched or read up on any of the Mantle stuff.

Funnily enough i was toying with the idea of buying a PS4, which works out around the same price as a R9 290, but i own a PS3 which i hard play on, and figured the money would be better spent on the PC. So hence the R9 290 decision.

Now a few people said i would need to overclock my CPU to make sure i did not bottleneck the GPU, so i pushed the CPU to 4.4ghz, and its fine. So anyhow i see the Mantle stuff and it got me thinking, AMD are in the new gen consoles, their hardware is going to be pushing games for the next few years, the Mantle stuff looks awesome but we know relatively little on it, but what i did see last night is that it really benefits from more cores if you have them and if its the program has been coded to use them. Also currently the cost of an AMD cpu is much cheaper than the Intel counterpart on a relatively even keel of performance overall.

I mainly only play MMO's and FPS games, seeing as DICE are onboard with Mantle and a fair few upcoming Frostbite3 Engine games peak my interest (DA Inquisition, SW Battlefront) i figure AMD may hell have a bit of an ace up their sleeves with this whole concept.

So if i swap now to AMD, im not really losing anything performancewise, as i figure where the CPU might underperform on some games, the new GPU will overcompensate for me instead.

So thats basically it in a nutshell, as its a big GPU upgrade, swapping CPU at the same time i shouldnt really notice any loss in performance i reckon.

 

[Martini1991]

I wouldn't get an AMD CPU, after trying out an 8320 it really was a downgrade from my 3570k. Even when I pushed it to 5GHz it wasn't performing well in games.

As well in games you mean?

EDIT : SiDeards73, the 2500K will 1 up the FX83 in MMO's, they're not threaded well, and core for core performance isn't up to the same standard as Intel.