Amd processor equivalent to intel i5 processor

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sort by date Sort by votes


No no no. Different hardware has been used during the tests, just Watch the video response to it. Which clearly shows otherwise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Of course they used different hardware. It's not like he's going to drop an 8350 into a Z77 MB.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ignoring the video, point is no AMD processor can top an i5, or be equal to one. An old 760 beats out the 8350 in some benchmarks, to let you guys know. Plus, look at the difference in power efficiency! I think that says alot about what AMD has to throw at Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, that's the ticket....just ignore/bash anything that doesn't match your pre-conceived ideas.

I have an FX-8350 and it smokes Intel processors way beyond the i5 for the things that I do. That would be media encoding for one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have to wonder how many intel fanboys have gleaned their "knowledge" strictly from numbers they have seen on pretty charts. I understand that things have to be quantified, but I don't think people realize how small some differences are in real-world use.

I have actually spent time moving GPU's between two computers and gaming just to experience the real-world difference between AMD and Intel, and it reminds me of my experience at the track.

People read car mag articles that show car A beats car B to 60mph by 0.2 seconds and they think they can feel that from the drivers seat.

This is what those charts look like when you are actually playing a game:
http://youtu.be/DD3ucbL1B7w

And this is with a 600Mhz clock advantage for the Intel chip. (3.4Ghz AMD vs 4Ghz Intel.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Half my systems are AMD ones, and I used to run an AMD Opteron 275 before most people even knew what a dual-core processor was. (Read: That's four cores, over two sockets).

- I am not an Intel fan; I am merely a fan of the better product for a given application.
- Today, more than 50% of the time, and maybe even >= 70% of the time that is the Intel Core i5 2000 or 3000 series processor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


There are two concerns when spending money on "better".

How much money?

How much better?





 
Upvote 0 Downvote


FX-what?

This is a common theme for Intel biased arguments to try to lump the FX-8350's in with previous generations in comparisons. An FX-8350 is not an FX-8150.

Tom's hardware conveniently left the 8350's out of their last roundup...wonder why that was?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh, you want a 8350 specific article, that has better than bar charts?
- http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

skyrim-latency.gif

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well actually the price of a FX-8320 is £130 vs the £170 for an i5-3570K, and £150 for a FX-8350.

I think too much people ignore the real world differences between the two CPU's which is almost nill.
If you're budget can afford it then sure - go Intel, but honestly an FX-8320 can do anything an i5 can albeit a TAD (hardly noticeable in real-world) slower.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



This is exactly the kind of "pretty graph" logic I was talking about.

Here's the pretty chart for Crysis 2 (because I don't have Skyrim to demonstrate):

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/8

The frame latency chart implies a dramatic difference in gaming.

Sure the numbers are what they are, and intel is "better", but this is what those numbers LOOK like in PRACTICE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbGUfaPg-Vo&feature=youtu.be

Maybe the difference would be more noticeable if that pretty chart flashed on the screen every few seconds, just to remind me how awesome my Intel rig is and how lame the AMD rig is?

I'm not arguing performance numbers. I'm cautioning against placing too-high a value on differences that look dramatic on a chart and then barely noticeable (if at all) in real life.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom