-
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.
Why AMD?
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,875
- Location
- Hastings
^^ name is number_25 but has the number 18 in sig ahhhh brain hurt.
No disrespect, just my sense of neatness / idiot kicking in
No disrespect, just my sense of neatness / idiot kicking in
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,875
- Location
- Hastings
Oh I know I know......I support Liverpool so.....let's not go there
Oh and I am considering a 8350 as well, but my 4ghz 6 core is handling most stuff fine hmmm, 8350 or steamroller hmmm.
Oh and I am considering a 8350 as well, but my 4ghz 6 core is handling most stuff fine hmmm, 8350 or steamroller hmmm.
Last edited:
Well, I've got an i7 980X and am seriously thinking of going AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8350.
Why ?
Well, my assassin G1 motherboard is fantastic but old tech, marvell sata3 sucks for SSD, no more new BIOS for it, old PCIe , Tri channel DDR.
Upgrade for 980X not a chance now, or complete new system.
AMD have kept the AM3 boards for future chips which is excellent.
Why ?
Well, my assassin G1 motherboard is fantastic but old tech, marvell sata3 sucks for SSD, no more new BIOS for it, old PCIe , Tri channel DDR.
Upgrade for 980X not a chance now, or complete new system.
AMD have kept the AM3 boards for future chips which is excellent.
OP has probably gone for the best CPU for his usage and budget (gaming and encoding @ £150), the i7 2700k @ £199.99 would be better, but that's a big £50 extra on the budget, money possibly better spent elsewhere.
I suspect most people that buy high end CPUs for gaming/mixed usage won't upgrade them for 3 years+ (shouldn't really need too if they made the right choice).
They are more likely to spend any performance upgrade cash on a new GPU as it should make more difference. (if you were gonna upgrade the CPU you probably need to upgrade the GPU as well to make it worth while).
Even if AMD do stick with the AM3+ socket, I'd take that with a pinch of salt, PC specs will be upgraded even if the socket is up-to-date the rest of it probably won't be, and you might want a new one anyway.
So this "won't need a new mobo" is a bit of a red herring and shouldn't really come into the decision process.
I suspect most people that buy high end CPUs for gaming/mixed usage won't upgrade them for 3 years+ (shouldn't really need too if they made the right choice).
They are more likely to spend any performance upgrade cash on a new GPU as it should make more difference. (if you were gonna upgrade the CPU you probably need to upgrade the GPU as well to make it worth while).
Even if AMD do stick with the AM3+ socket, I'd take that with a pinch of salt, PC specs will be upgraded even if the socket is up-to-date the rest of it probably won't be, and you might want a new one anyway.
So this "won't need a new mobo" is a bit of a red herring and shouldn't really come into the decision process.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,505
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I'm understanding why you're bringing in old PCI-E and Tri channel DDR3 as reasons to move to AMD, AM3+ is DDR3 dual channel and also "only" uses PCI-E 2.0 like the socket 1366, your current CPU is better than an FX8350.
The sata point, yeah that's fair enough, but you're only really affecting maximum data rate potential, try sustaining the 500MB read/write rate in real life, you'll barely see the difference in general usage between a SATA III SSD and a SATA II SSD.
Also, AMD sacked off AM3 while touting it as being for bulldozer it actually never received any exclusive CPU's, AMD introduced AM3+, which arguably wasn't required as AM3 boards could have taken Bulldozer chips (As shown by the CH IV)
As it makes use of all 8 cores i would have thought it will be pretty good.
I can't find any comparisons with Intel, but i have found this... http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-19.html
It's not as good as one might expect, looking at that. The closest I've got the results for is 8055 but, assuming it's similar to the 8056, I got exactly the same PPD from a 2600k at 4.4GHz. As hyperthreading only gives a 30% boost over 'real' cores this far more than negates the 10% clock speed difference and the I7 performance per core seems much better than the 8350, even on the previous generation. I'll run up F@H client 7 when the current WU ends on my test PC and see how a 3570 (no K) compares.
You got the same score from a 2600K @ 4.4Ghz?
Then it does much better than i thought if you have to overclock what is a £230 2600K by 30% to match a £150 FX-8350 at stock.
If your just looking for raw performance (regardless of cost) then this is your best bet http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-440-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672
Last edited:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...reviews-info-(again-after-mod-mistake)/page10
I got the same batch number.
Im going to see if it out does my 4150Mhz 1090T on my Crosshair V Formula.
Last edited:
No, cost isn't the issue. I'm just comparing performance for equivalent hardware. As you said, the 8350 should do well because it has 8 discrete cores but it isn't any better than an old i7 with only four discrete cores and hyperthreading, only running 10% faster. If we say that the base i7 at the same speed as the 8350 has half the performance, add 30% for hyperthreading then the 10% clock difference we get a 'performance index' of 0.715. This says to me that Intel's multi-thread handling is still much better than AMD's. From this, I would expect a 3770K to easily match a 3530 at the same speed and use much less power doing it.
Yes, But if you overclock the FX-8350 by 20% it will easily out perform the 2600K even with its 30% overclock and for a lot less money.
For that it is not worth swapping out a new Motherboard and all the rest of it.....
Did you not already know about the core for core performance Intel vs AMD?
The 3770K will match the FX-8350 but that is £90 more.
If your looking for better performance than the 3770K at £90 less your not going to find it anywhere.
You are better of sticking with what you have as the 3770K is also not a great deal faster than the 2600K and ridiculously expensive.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 1,107
- Location
- Scotland
Dont spend too much money, as fx 8350 seem cheap to get on and run 8 core never mind how fast,etc... just save money also intel will release new haswell that will be 1150 as sb or ib owners cant upgrade to new haswell as sb/ib using 1155 that will fork out a lots for haswell cpu and mobo as am3+ still can get steamroller in 2014 that would be nice cheaper cost plus some cash in your pocket.. i own 8350 that seem great run on my asus cfv, i wouldnae spend too much money... just grab cheaper one. It up to you to decide for yerself..
i dont get why you all argue this and that do you think amd and intel dont know what speed/place in todays world each processor sits !
they do exactly and don't have forum nerds working it out they have scientists and professionals not guessing at biased benchmarks .
the cpus are priced at relevant performance in actual used programs and tasks used not stuff that could be created or isnt used.
so just look at the pricing and it will tell you what cpu is what in todays market.
the 8350 is a decent value cpu its rival is what its PRICED AGAINST which is the 3570 (not k version) this is why its priced that way simple as no bs.
so upto 150 yes its a great cpu faster at that point. other than that intel is quicker. argue all you want thats how it is.
they do exactly and don't have forum nerds working it out they have scientists and professionals not guessing at biased benchmarks .
the cpus are priced at relevant performance in actual used programs and tasks used not stuff that could be created or isnt used.
so just look at the pricing and it will tell you what cpu is what in todays market.
the 8350 is a decent value cpu its rival is what its PRICED AGAINST which is the 3570 (not k version) this is why its priced that way simple as no bs.
so upto 150 yes its a great cpu faster at that point. other than that intel is quicker. argue all you want thats how it is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,505
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Stock versus stock it competes against the locked i5, but the FX8350 isn't locked, and even when it does go up against the 3570k, both clocked, it can come up both ahead and behind situation depending, that's why you can't give a random blanket statement and quote "IT'S X SPEED FASTER" etc.
I'm no Intel/AMD fanboy, but anyone giving ridiculous blanket statements on either side should just stop (Along with the prophecy's, and the palm reading
)
That's all well and good but socket 1155 is almost 2 years old now, people have had tremendous CPU performance for almost 2 years, and it won't have cost them anymore/much more than your CHV and FX8350 has cost you (Arguably some people who have been on AMD in that time may have spent more as they've went to AM3+ and then got a Zambezi and then Piledriver, obviously not everyone has done that, likewise people have also gone SB and IB), except they'd had the performance for a rather long time while AMD was still on Phenom II, then Bulldozer, and finally Piledriver, the fact Haswell is coming out and changing socket shouldn't be a negative on Intels side, it's progression and arguably they're doing it in their weaker area which is their IGP, while they're still increasing their cpu performance, socket 1155 stuff won't cease to exist entirely straight away.
The fact is, Intel has a mainstream and Enthusiast platform both with overall X and Y performance, and then you've got AMD's overall in the Y for certain situations, there's plenty of CPU's to fit into certain budgets and certain workloads. I just wish the fanboys would quieten down and people would stop making ridiculous statements based on nothing.
I'm no Intel/AMD fanboy, but anyone giving ridiculous blanket statements on either side should just stop (Along with the prophecy's, and the palm reading
)That's all well and good but socket 1155 is almost 2 years old now, people have had tremendous CPU performance for almost 2 years, and it won't have cost them anymore/much more than your CHV and FX8350 has cost you (Arguably some people who have been on AMD in that time may have spent more as they've went to AM3+ and then got a Zambezi and then Piledriver, obviously not everyone has done that, likewise people have also gone SB and IB), except they'd had the performance for a rather long time while AMD was still on Phenom II, then Bulldozer, and finally Piledriver, the fact Haswell is coming out and changing socket shouldn't be a negative on Intels side, it's progression and arguably they're doing it in their weaker area which is their IGP, while they're still increasing their cpu performance, socket 1155 stuff won't cease to exist entirely straight away.
The fact is, Intel has a mainstream and Enthusiast platform both with overall X and Y performance, and then you've got AMD's overall in the Y for certain situations, there's plenty of CPU's to fit into certain budgets and certain workloads. I just wish the fanboys would quieten down and people would stop making ridiculous statements based on nothing.
Last edited:
If your using it for folding or any other 24/7 full load tasks and you taking costs into account you need to look at running costs too.
This is where the cheap AMD falls down as the saving is lost in increased energy consumption after a years use.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7
So the 3770K may cost £90 more, but the overclocked FX-8350 using 120 W more power run 24/7 over a year will cost £115 more compared to an overclocked 3770K. (11 pence per kWh used)
Both on stock the FX-8350 will cost £45 more to power.
The i7-2700K at £199.99 also has a £45-50 saving per year. (based on 2600k results)
If you PSU isn't as efficient (85%+) the cost differences could be even higher.
This is where the cheap AMD falls down as the saving is lost in increased energy consumption after a years use.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7
So the 3770K may cost £90 more, but the overclocked FX-8350 using 120 W more power run 24/7 over a year will cost £115 more compared to an overclocked 3770K. (11 pence per kWh used)
Both on stock the FX-8350 will cost £45 more to power.
The i7-2700K at £199.99 also has a £45-50 saving per year. (based on 2600k results)
If you PSU isn't as efficient (85%+) the cost differences could be even higher.
Stock versus stock it competes against the locked i5, but the FX8350 isn't locked, and even when it does go up against the 3570k, both clocked, it can come up both ahead and behind situation depending, that's why you can't give a random blanket statement and quote "IT'S X SPEED FASTER" etc.
I'm no Intel/AMD fanboy, but anyone giving ridiculous blanket statements on either side should just stop (Along with the prophecy's, and the palm reading
That's all well and good but socket 1155 is almost 2 years old now, people have had tremendous CPU performance for almost 2 years, and it won't have cost them anymore/much more than your CHV and FX8350 has cost you (Arguably some people who have been on AMD in that time may have spent more as they've went to AM3+ and then got a Zambezi and then Piledriver, obviously not everyone has done that, likewise people have also gone SB and IB), except they'd had the performance for a rather long time while AMD was still on Phenom II, then Bulldozer, and finally Piledriver, the fact Haswell is coming out and changing socket shouldn't be a negative on Intels side, it's progression and arguably they're doing it in their weaker area which is their IGP, while they're still increasing their cpu performance, socket 1155 stuff won't cease to exist entirely straight away.
The fact is, Intel has a mainstream and Enthusiast platform both with overall X and Y performance, and then you've got AMD's overall in the Y for certain situations, there's plenty of CPU's to fit into certain budgets and certain workloads. I just wish the fanboys would quieten down and people would stop making ridiculous statements based on nothing.
its not based on nothing lol and as said all arguments are just that . price is the true reflection on what cpu is what. anyone can post any benchmarks they want to those for amd will post the encoding bla bla those intel will do gaming and so on its irrelevant !
they all have a price point where they are competitive and can live and sell thats why they are there if they arnt competitive and dont sell they drop to where they are competitive. its that simple !
intel are faster and im not a intel fanboy or amd fanboy i dont care who makes my cpu or others. you know intel are faster overall thats what is funny .
look at the pricing at the 8350 once again its against a i3570 locked version cause it can compete with it . if it could compete or was better than the 3570k it would be at same price or dearer . it cant so its cheaper its that simple.
waits for next encoding person to come in for amd
at end of day just be happy with what you have and use the price as your guide to the cpu performance not internet nerds or biased benchmarks
