• 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 are Intel so Expensive

Martini1991 said:
You've had an i7 rig for about 2 month, your upgrade was something older than your original CPU, I think that speaks volumes..... So I wouldn't really use it of proof of your "unbiased" attitude, as it's anything but.

There's BS on both sides, as much as you try to make it seem like it's not.

There's enough options now for people to pick the best for their money, and budget depending it can easily be an FX6300/FX8320 rig or an i5 4670K rig+.

It's not "Intel all the way" or "AMD all the way"
Click to expand...

Its very much give and take with that, its an i7 930 running at 3.8Ghz, I still have the Phenom II x6 1090T, can't bring myself to part with it even though its suffering from silicon burn. the is i7 better at keeping the Min FPS up in Skyrim and Planet Side 2, a couple of apps I realy use its also a little better.

Having said that the P-II x6 is faster in Handbreak, its better with archive compression and its much faster in Sony Vegas, and any game that isn't DX9 or an Nvidia ruined MMO its exactly the same as the i7 930.
The i7 also uses more power and bleeds more actual heat, 85c on the cores in Handbreak, the case feels like a radiator at full blast.
Oh, it also wont do Metro 2033 with advanced PhysX on, the x6 did.

I like them both for different reasons, I know the new i7's are much better, also better and cooler than the FX chips, I would really like a newer i7 but for £270? the performance on the FX-8350 is far more than comparable enough at £150.
And I can handle the heat, I am right now.....
 
Last edited:
Push the i7 further? Pretty sure people were doing 4.2GHZ on 930's. The original i7's are getting dated (Well, I'd hope they are, they're half a decade old almost)

Lacks instruction sets etc.

I'd never personally get an i7, I think they're ridiculously priced, the i5 4670K was a stretch at its price, but Grid 2 brought it down a little bit.
Which is somewhat annoying, given the Xeon's with their much better price/performance (The Haswell came out at 190 4c/8t)
 
Martini1991 said:
Push the i7 further? Pretty sure people were doing 4.2GHZ on 930's. The original i7's are getting dated (Well, I'd hope they are, they're half a decade old almost)

Lacks instruction sets etc.

I'd never personally get an i7, I think they're ridiculously priced, the i5 4670K was a stretch at its price, but Grid 2 brought it down a little bit.
Which is somewhat annoying, given the Xeon's with their much better price/performance (The Haswell came out at 190 4c/8t)
Click to expand...

Yes, I can get it running at 4Ghz, but I frequently use it with all cores maxed and it just heats up to much, I don't want to push it to its limits, 3.8Ghz ian't bad, I did the same with the x6 in the end, I could get that running at 4.2Ghz and its spend the first year or a bit more 18 hour number crunching day in day out at that speed, which is probably why it now wants silly volts to hold the high side of 3Ghz.
A bit more clock on the i7 is not going to make that difference, its just slowly killing it for nothing.

The i7 is already an old well used chip, I need it to last into next year before I build a completely new rig.
I still don't know what i'm going to get yet, but its not an i5, I need something with more threads than that, low threaded and / or DX9 games is about 5% of my computer use, I value DX11 games and fast encoding far more.

As I said I want a newer i7 as its a more consistent performing chip, but an 8 core AMD chip is very much in the running, if AMD can also get more performance consistency for less money, that's where i'm heading, of course.
 
Last edited:
Then you'll be going SR 8 core.
Intel isn't magically going to change their pricing.
The only thorn is if AMD release a winner, they'll price it as such, anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

Although with encoding I thought you used GPU? And DX11 games I've never noticed my 4 threads to be a limit (The constant 99% GPU usage)
4.6GHZ 4670K at 1.3v
 
Martini1991 said:
Then you'll be going SR 8 core.
Intel isn't magically going to change their pricing.
The only thorn is if AMD release a winner, they'll price it as such, anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

Although with encoding I thought you used GPU? And DX11 games I've never noticed my 4 threads to be a limit (The constant 99% GPU usage)
4.6GHZ 4670K at 1.3v
Click to expand...

Yeah, because DX11 spreads the workload across all cores (with in reason) so single threaded performance is far less important as 4 cores are stronger than one, its why you don't get any bottlenecking on AMD CPU's unless your running 1997 resolutions or GTX Titans in SLI, which I aren't.

For games the i5 is more than enough, yes I agree. i'm thinking in terms of productivity work.

On that, yes I do where it has it or works, OpenCL is really gathering pace, and with AMD finally pushing HSA now instead of just talking it up while doing nothing there may come a time soon when I can offload such work onto the GPU as a matter of corse.

At the moment its pretty sporadic and inconsistent, I will have to wait and see
 
If AMD do manage to raise their game and match Intel then sadly they will just match their prices instead of undercutting as shown by the HD7990 being around the same price as the GTX690 despite costing less to produce :(
 
ubersonic said:
If AMD do manage to raise their game and match Intel then sadly they will just match their prices instead of undercutting as shown by the HD7990 being around the same price as the GTX690 despite costing less to produce :(
Click to expand...


That's another worry, though i would think the (Intel brand clout) would prevent that.
 
humbug said:
Yeah, because DX11 spreads the workload across all cores (with in reason) so single threaded performance is far less important as 4 cores are stronger than one, its why you don't get any bottlenecking on AMD CPU's unless your running 1997 resolutions or GTX Titans in SLI, which I aren't.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember the blurb when Heaven benchmark first came out (And it never used more than 4 cores)

Engine still has to be coded to make use of more threads, it isn't just a DX11 implementation = Done.

Shogun 2 is an example of that, that's an actual CPU intensive DX11 game.
 
Martini1991 said:
Yes, I remember the blurb when Heaven benchmark first came out (And it never used more than 4 cores)

Engine still has to be coded to make use of more threads, it isn't just a DX11 implementation = Done.

Shogun 2 is an example of that, that's an actual CPU intensive DX11 game.
Click to expand...


Right, yes it also depends on coding be it good or crap, Skyrim in DX11 mode still bottlenecks on all CPU's while to a lesser extent on Intel, Nvidia gimping PhysX to just one core is another example.

There is a school of thought that current Game Consoles are to blame for crappie CPU instruction set / core allocation in (some) DX11 games.
Of corse that's about to change.....
 
Last edited:
Skyrim's only DX9?

When it was released it had appalling CPU optimisation and so the AMD benchmarks look quite bad. After an update that was reduced a lot, it's now mostly in line with other games that don't properly use multi-core set ups.
 
teppic said:
Skyrim's only DX9?

When it was released it had appalling CPU optimisation and so the AMD benchmarks look quite bad. After an update that was reduced a lot, it's now mostly in line with other games that don't properly use multi-core set ups.
Click to expand...

Yes my bad.

The 1.4 Patch is better but still not great on any CPU.
Ubisoft are just plain terrible, Farcry3.... fantastic game, awesome GFX, great game play, looks stunning........ runs horrible on all GPU's without vSync and occasional GFX corruption to top it off.
 
Would help if you haven't given me a bad link :p
But I'm not going to get into the "current engine" debate, as I could show you Assassins Creed with Anvil Next (In your own review posting) where the equally priced i5 4430 is a the further distance from the FX8350 as the FX8350 is from the i3 3220 (And I wouldn't be cherry picking, as it's evidence from your own posting)

But I rate Ubisofts Anvil Next very poorly, but just making the point that we're not in a situation where you can post a review from one engine and for it to be a rule (Although we're much closer to it being a rule than we were a few years ago)

Newer engines coming with the next consoles will benefit the FX CPU's, but I'm a believer it'll be at best parity with i5's (Piledriver CPU's that is)

Again, I have no real desire to discuss CPU performance in games at this moment, I can assure you I'm pretty unbiased, I just don't agree with cherry picking benchmarks to suit agendas, or using very flawed arguments (Which generally tends to be, look at how these 5 games perform, pretend they're the only ones that exist)
 
Last edited:
Problem with those results is, see the FX8350 besting the 3770K? I could show you a whole bunch of reviews with a different hierarchy.
And I'd hope an FX8350 would best the i3 3220, it's almost double its price, nor did I say the Skyrim was relevant, as I was aware it's not the general case, I'm usually an advocate of suggesting the FX6300/FX8320 over i3 3220 rigs and it's a poor showing from Intel that they've neither unlocked the i3 or introduced something better into that price segment.
 
That example isn't cherry picking. Showing benchmarks where the AMD processors can beat Intel processors is just as relevant as showing ones where it performs worse. That benchmark wasn't aimed to show it coming out better than a 3770K, rather showing how crippled i3s can be on the most recent games, which are more suited to 4+ cores.

In reality the vast majority of games are so close, or the framerates are so high, it's irrelevant.
 
I thought you were, in the post a few back.

That benchmark isn't intended to represent anything more than the performance in that game, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom