Regarding CPU Benchmarks: Do I sense Tom's Hardware Intel fan-boyism...?
Claiming that AMD doesn't fare as well as the Core i5s and i7s is a bit of a misconception...
1.) The Core i5-2500K on top is overclocked by 900 MHz while the others fare @ stock speed, so let's disregard that one for a moment...
2.) The stock speed i5-2500K scores the highest average FPS but also the largest delta between avg. and min. score (20.3 FPS)
3.) The Core i7-3960X is not exactly your good performance/$ average everyday CPU, but does score a significantly lower delta between avg. and min. score (12.6 FPS) and doesn't bottom out below 60 FPS which is much sought after for "perfect performance"
4.) The FX-8350, which is comparably a bargain against the i7-3960X, scores a delta between avg. and min. of just 10.9 FPS!!! However, it does bottom out below 60 FPS, but not by a high margin.
5.) The 2 CPUs at the bottom doesn't fare too well. The intel gets the better of the AMD by a good margin but comparatively it also has a greater delta between min. and avg FPS (12.7 vs. 9.5). From the perspective that above 40 FPS is playable without any significant issues as such, the AMD does reasonably well. The intel gets the better by attaining an avg. FPS of 61.7 vs 51.5 and considering the cost, the intel does the better job here, although it would have been more interesting with a comparison with the newer AMD FX-4350 which comes at the same clockspeed as the 4170 but should in general achieve better performance according to CPU World and at a slightly lower cost.
- This microprocessor is 5% faster in single-threaded applications.
- In multi-threaded tasks, the processor has 7% better performance.
- In memory-intensive programs, the CPU is 6% faster.
Graphics performance of the microprocessor is higher.
- The CPU supports F16C instructions, that appeared in modern processors not too far ago. These extensions are not broadly supported by applications yet, however their support should improve in future programs.
- The AMD FX-4350 microprocessor incorporates FMA3 instruction set extension. Only AMD CPUs have this technology, thus it probably will not get broad support from software vendors.
-The processor has 5% better price/performance ratio.
And take a peek at CPU World comments on AMD FX-4350 vs Intel Core i3-3220:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html
This just adds to the tab...!
Returning to the hi-flyers (i5-2500K, i7-3960X and the FX-8350) I would any day rate the i7 and FX-8350 higher than the i5 at stock speed due to the lower delta in FPS. If you crank up the speed of those two babies by the same amount as the i5... Where would the i5 @ OC be then? And I predict, that they (i7-3960X and FX-8350) would still hold lower delta values between min. and avg. FPS, it might even decrease further, as is the case with the overclocked i5 vs. stock i5. You may ask why I find the delta interesting: this solely because a lower delta between min. and avg. with more than adequate FPS already, yields the smoother gameplay, i.e. fluctuations isn't that big!
Taking cost of these CPUs into account... The clear winner is the FX-8350. Everybody with a FX990 AM3+ based motherboard can pop this baby in and get flying! Changing CPU in an intel rig = swap everything, bar your GPU!
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/97...s_Intel_Core_i7_Extreme_Edition_i7-3960X.html
So please... Be fair in your comparison! You disregard by far too many variables here and compare things you really can't compare so bluntly as you do here. You need to assess such scores a bit more carefully!
BR
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram