Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

[rolypolyman]

Ironically you're probably safest buying from the bay as Paypal are so inept.

I don't buy there either, also a bad experience, also they are now £194.99, which was my point Intel are too expensive so the FX8320 is better value for me.

 

[teppic]

I don't trust Tek Syndicate at all though

Well you reject all benchmarks that have the 8350 equal or ahead of a 3770K

PCgameshardware also has the 8350 and 3770K similarly performing, and both noticeably ahead of the 2500K (59fps vs 46fps).

 

[almighty15]

I don't buy there either, also a bad experience, also they are now £194.99, which was my point Intel are too expensive so the FX8320 is better value for me.

There's 2 on there, the one is £189

Still faster then the FX in pretty much everything due to hyper threading

 

[Martini1991]

Well you reject all benchmarks that have the 8350 equal or ahead of a 3770K

PCgameshardware also has the 8350 and 3770K similarly performing, and both noticeably ahead of the 2500K (59fps vs 46fps).

I know the i5 sandy won't give the best performance in it, as it is lacking the instruction sets.

But 59 to 46 fps is crazy, is that dual gpu? Could be like bf3

 

[rolypolyman]

There's 2 on there, the one is £189

Still faster then the FX in pretty much everything due to hyper threading

I must be looking at the wrong bit. See the Brazilian wet tree place has them new for.......£247.86 That is so wrong. and that is my predicament, so its Amd this time around.

 

[teppic]

I know the i5 sandy won't give the best performance in it, as it is lacking the instruction sets.

But 59 to 46 fps is crazy, is that dual gpu? Could be like bf3

No, a Titan at 1280x720. The instruction set must come into play as the 3570K gets 50.5fps. Crysis 3 definitely benefits from HT though.

 

[Martini1991]

No, a Titan at 1280x720. The instruction set must come into play as the 3570K gets 50.5fps. Crysis 3 definitely benefits from HT though.

That makes more sense then, yeah, don't think I'd argue with those results. The 2500k getting outmuscled in a heavy threaded entirely CPU bound situation, with the AMD optimisations.

Context man

But when they're not running a titan at that res, I can't imagine there being a massive difference, if you can get past the gpu bottleneck, in crysis 3, I could see an fx8 one upping a 2500k.

As in, the i5 2500k isn't a CPU that I'd choose to get me the most performance in crysis 3.

 

[almighty15]

I must be looking at the wrong bit. See the Brazilian wet tree place has them new for.......£247.86 That is so wrong. and that is my predicament, so its Amd this time around.

I had mine for £180 and it's been golden... CPU's hardly ever break anyway so go for it.

If it was a motherboard, GPU or memory then I wouldn't but CPU's can take some abuse.

I moved from a MSI Z68-GD80 with a 4.6Ghz 2500k to a Asrock Z68 Extreme 7 with a 4.8Ghz 2600k and the move cost me £70

The Asrock board is leaps and bounds above the old GD80 and my 7950's LOVE the extra CPU grunt the 2600k gives.

 

[gpuerrilla]

But there's no point in discussing any of this with you, clearly.

I somehow think this is one for the blue or nothing brigade. Dated or poor evidence I'm afraid.

 

[Martini1991]

The thing is, it's not really this time around, we're talking about platforms that have existed at the same time.

If say you had a socket 775 system, then yeah, jumping up to an fx83 is a "this time" situation

 

[Marine-RX179]

I know the i5 sandy won't give the best performance in it, as it is lacking the instruction sets.

But 59 to 46 fps is crazy, is that dual gpu? Could be like bf3

It's 4.00GHz va 3.30GHz though.

 

[Martini1991]

It's 4.00GHz va 3.30GHz though.

I'd probably put the fx83 ahead when both over clocked and CPU bound in crysis 3 to be honest.

Both should get to the limit with any single card though.

 

[teppic]

The benchmarks are pretty consistent for Crysis 3. Although it's well multithreaded, it still hammers a couple of cores more than the rest, and so the 83xx benefits a lot from an overclock, as the other 6 cores get freed up to do more (it does use all 8).

 

[Marine-RX179]

I'd probably put the fx83 ahead when both over clocked and CPU bound in crysis 3 to be honest.

Both should get to the limit with any single card though.

Yea...I think on the same clock, it would be something like around 5% faster than the i5 2500K?

I still wouldn't trade off 40-50% of the performance at demanding scenes in mmos and strategy games in general for the sake of 5% faster in the few 8 threaded games- which in itself is most likely not gonna be there unless using crossfire/sli setup instead of single GPU card.

 

[ALXAndy]

Yea...I think on the same clock, it would be something like around 5% faster than the i5 2500K?

I still wouldn't trade off 40-50% of the performance in mmos and strategy games in general for the sake of 5% faster in the few 8 threaded games- which in itself is most likely not gonna be there unless using crossfire/sli setup instead of single GPU card.

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 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.

For games you can use BF3 as a rough guide (even though it's limited to six cores) Crysis 3 and BF4. All of which like cores and like using them.

Anything else? you're making it sound like crap software is the CPU's fault.

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.

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.

Please, take the time to understand exactly what it is you are talking about before lobbing out random performance figures.

 

[Martini1991]

Oh, I certainly don't think it's worth it in the slightest to move

 

[ALXAndy]

Oh, I certainly don't think it's worth it in the slightest to move

It just depends how you look at it really. What I do know is that if I had a 2500k at launch I would be desperately bored and looking for something new to play with.

And when it comes down to it? the 8350 or so is a good CPU to have. You certainly won't lose anything, that's for sure. And when you do gain? the gains will be worthwhile IMO.

 

[almighty15]

It just depends how you look at it really. What I do know is that if I had a 2500k at launch I would be desperately bored and looking for something new to play with.

And when it comes down to it? the 8350 or so is a good CPU to have. You certainly won't lose anything, that's for sure. And when you do gain? the gains will be worthwhile IMO.

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..

 

[gpuerrilla]

Yea...I think on the same clock, it would be something like around 5% faster than the i5 2500K

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

It isn't 5% though.

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.

Forum talk generates this fud. What is missing is the people that have played on both systems and so far 2/2 say that there is little to no difference.. I know who I am listening to!

 

[nikki5974]

if you count andy thats 3/3

EDIT: my bad he didnt have the 2500k