FX 8350 or i7 4770k

[ANIR0X2K00L]

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.

 

[juanrga]

The only article about gaming ever is that not-biased-at-all eurogamer article. Eurogamer, the authority on tech... oh wait. That is where I got the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% figure that "did you laugh" or whatever. The .0000000000000000001% of the planet that thinks the 8350 is superior is made up entirely of that single article that you love to quote, and repeatedly post a link to. The rest of the planet somehow doesn't exist to you and they think the 3570k is a good CPU for PC gamers. Find another, just one, article that is not on the eurogamer.net domain which says the 8350 is superior. We will all "did me laugh" when you find one. The whole "the new Playstation is going to have 8 cores and an AMD chip, so my 8 core AMD chip is now better than the Intel chip" theory is about as insane as saying the Xbox 360 having an Apple Power PC or an IBM Xenon CPU means that Macs and IBM Power PCs were superior for gaming simply because they share the same CPU and have more cores than the Core 2 duo or dual core Athlon 64. Same argument. Same logic. Both insane.

Please explain your theory to this thread:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366034-28-what-core-gaming

It seems that none of them has read that single solitary article about the "8 core console = 8350 is better now" theory. There are 50 replies. Most of them are along the lines of "PS4 having 8 cores means nothing for PC gaming, now or in the future. What matters is your GPU." Please, PLEASE, post your theory on that thread, AMD fanboys.

I recommend you to read both my posts and the article, because the recommendation for the FX-8350 has nothing to do with your 'argument' about the Xbox 360, Macs, and IBM Power PCs. Or if you did already read then you did not understand.

To all of you mentioning PS4.
No need of 8 cores for PC beacuse of this. That jaguar is weaker or about as good as i3.

Preliminary benchmarks show that 4 jaguar cores @ 2.0 GHz already outperform an i3 (HT enabled: 2x2) @ 2.5 GHz. The 8 jaguar core chip on the PS4 will provide a performance close to an i7 (4x2). Why do you believe that Epic has selected an i7 PC for comparisons?

 

[FAMDUCK]

The only article about gaming ever is that not-biased-at-all eurogamer article. Eurogamer, the authority on tech... oh wait. That is where I got the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% figure that "did you laugh" or whatever. The .0000000000000000001% of the planet that thinks the 8350 is superior is made up entirely of that single article that you love to quote, and repeatedly post a link to. The rest of the planet somehow doesn't exist to you and they think the 3570k is a good CPU for PC gamers. Find another, just one, article that is not on the eurogamer.net domain which says the 8350 is superior. We will all "did me laugh" when you find one. The whole "the new Playstation is going to have 8 cores and an AMD chip, so my 8 core AMD chip is now better than the Intel chip" theory is about as insane as saying the Xbox 360 having an Apple Power PC or an IBM Xenon CPU means that Macs and IBM Power PCs were superior for gaming simply because they share the same CPU and have more cores than the Core 2 duo or dual core Athlon 64. Same argument. Same logic. Both insane.

Please explain your theory to this thread:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366034-28-what-core-gaming

It seems that none of them has read that single solitary article about the "8 core console = 8350 is better now" theory. There are 50 replies. Most of them are along the lines of "PS4 having 8 cores means nothing for PC gaming, now or in the future. What matters is your GPU." Please, PLEASE, post your theory on that thread, AMD fanboys.

I recommend you to read both my posts and the article, because the recommendation for the FX-8350 has nothing to do with your 'argument' about the Xbox 360, Macs, and IBM Power PCs. Or if you did already read then you did not understand.

To all of you mentioning PS4.
No need of 8 cores for PC beacuse of this. That jaguar is weaker or about as good as i3.

Preliminary benchmarks show that 4 jaguar cores @ 2.0 GHz already outperform an i3 (HT enabled: 2x2) @ 2.5 GHz. The 8 jaguar core chip on the PS4 will provide a performance close to an i7 (4x2). Why do you believe that Epic has selected an i7 PC for comparisons?

I think you should check yourself in to a psychiatric care facility. Either that or put down the crack pipe. When are you going to open your eyes and see that you are basically trying to make your inferior product seem superior for no other reason than because you own it. I do not own any of these CPUs, but I can read and I fully understand and comprehend what I read. And from what I have read on many websites (not just eurogamer) the consensus is that the 3570k is the best value gaming CPU out right now (not in the future, NOW) and the 8350 is 2nd. And in nearly every non-gaming application, any 2nd gen i5 and up and even some 3rd gen i3's will beat the 8350. No story the length of War and Peace will change that. Keep typing, but nobody is listening. If you want to be heard, go contradict everything that the 50 plus posters said on this thread about how the 8350 gives you no advantage what so ever since the new consoles are 8 core AMDs. Post your gibberish there and see how many agree with you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366034-28-what-core-gaming

Oh, and I have a crappy ipad. Desktops are so last century. If I want to play triple A games, I'll BUY A PLAYSTATION 4. Like I said, if you really feel the need to be a whiny know-it-all with a little "CPU Expert" ribbon who doesn't use this forum to help people, instead uses it to start flame wars about petty fan boyism and tout AMD like a door to door snake oil salesman, then start your own thread; DON'T HIJACK OTHER THREADS LIKE A TROLL.

 

[whyso]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

 

[juanrga]

The only article about gaming ever is that not-biased-at-all eurogamer article. Eurogamer, the authority on tech... oh wait. That is where I got the 99.99999999999999999999999999999% figure that "did you laugh" or whatever. The .0000000000000000001% of the planet that thinks the 8350 is superior is made up entirely of that single article that you love to quote, and repeatedly post a link to. The rest of the planet somehow doesn't exist to you and they think the 3570k is a good CPU for PC gamers. Find another, just one, article that is not on the eurogamer.net domain which says the 8350 is superior. We will all "did me laugh" when you find one. The whole "the new Playstation is going to have 8 cores and an AMD chip, so my 8 core AMD chip is now better than the Intel chip" theory is about as insane as saying the Xbox 360 having an Apple Power PC or an IBM Xenon CPU means that Macs and IBM Power PCs were superior for gaming simply because they share the same CPU and have more cores than the Core 2 duo or dual core Athlon 64. Same argument. Same logic. Both insane.

Please explain your theory to this thread:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366034-28-what-core-gaming

It seems that none of them has read that single solitary article about the "8 core console = 8350 is better now" theory. There are 50 replies. Most of them are along the lines of "PS4 having 8 cores means nothing for PC gaming, now or in the future. What matters is your GPU." Please, PLEASE, post your theory on that thread, AMD fanboys.

I recommend you to read both my posts and the article, because the recommendation for the FX-8350 has nothing to do with your 'argument' about the Xbox 360, Macs, and IBM Power PCs. Or if you did already read then you did not understand.

To all of you mentioning PS4.
No need of 8 cores for PC beacuse of this. That jaguar is weaker or about as good as i3.

Preliminary benchmarks show that 4 jaguar cores @ 2.0 GHz already outperform an i3 (HT enabled: 2x2) @ 2.5 GHz. The 8 jaguar core chip on the PS4 will provide a performance close to an i7 (4x2). Why do you believe that Epic has selected an i7 PC for comparisons?

I think you should check yourself in to a psychiatric care facility. Either that or put down the crack pipe. When are you going to open your eyes and see that you are basically trying to make your inferior product seem superior for no other reason than because you own it. I do not own any of these CPUs, but I can read and I fully understand and comprehend what I read. And from what I have read on many websites (not just eurogamer) the consensus is that the 3570k is the best value gaming CPU out right now (not in the future, NOW) and the 8350 is 2nd. And in nearly every non-gaming application, any 2nd gen i5 and up and even some 3rd gen i3's will beat the 8350. No story the length of War and Peace will change that. Keep typing, but nobody is listening. If you want to be heard, go contradict everything that the 50 plus posters said on this thread about how the 8350 gives you no advantage what so ever since the new consoles are 8 core AMDs. Post your gibberish there and see how many agree with you.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/366034-28-what-core-gaming

Oh, and I have a crappy ipad. Desktops are so last century. If I want to play triple A games, I'll BUY A PLAYSTATION 4. Like I said, if you really feel the need to be a whiny know-it-all with a little "CPU Expert" ribbon who doesn't use this forum to help people, instead uses it to start flame wars about petty fan boyism and tout AMD like a door to door snake oil salesman, then start your own thread; DON'T HIJACK OTHER THREADS LIKE A TROLL.

It is pretty simple to understand, albeit for some reason you don't. All triple-A game developers recommend the FX-8350 as the best cpu for future gaming. Yes you can cite your "99.99999999999999999999999999999%" websites recommending the i5/i7, but none of those websites are developing the future games. They have no idea about future games. They will only know when the games was released and they can test them by themselves.

Crysis 3 already shows how an FX-8350 can beat some the i5-3570k and the i7-3770k, albeit is not using the fullest potential of the eight-core FX chip. Crysis 3 is the first of a new generation of games. Haswell i7-4770k provides about a 1-3% advantage in gaming over the i7-3770k and will be still more expensive, therefore the FX-8350 will continue being the best cpu for future gaming.

My recommendation
Older games: i7-4770k
Modern games: i7-4770k or FX-8350
Future games: FX-8350

 

[juanrga]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

 

[8350rocks]

HUMA and HSA are pretty cool, even though they have nothing to do with a 4770k or 8350 which is what the OP's original question was about. It would be game changing, if games actually existed that could use it. Right now, this is about as useful as Hyperthreading.

"The big difficulty for AMD is that merely having hUMA isn't enough. Developers actually have to write programs that take advantage of it. hUMA will certainly make developing mixed CPU/GPU software easier, but given AMD's low market share, it's not likely that developers will [be] in any great hurry to rewrite their software to take advantage of it."

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/amds-heterogeneous-uniform-memory-access-coming-this-year-in-kaveri/

If you (8350rocks, juanrga, or whatever your SN is tomorrow) start your own thread (instead of hijacking other people's threads), what would the title be? I'm guessing it would be something like: "Who wants to bash every chip maker besides AMD, especially Intel?" or "Which is better, the 3570k or the 8350, oh, wait, I already know which one I think is better, but post anyway so I can troll." or "I have a CPU expert badge and would like to lecture you on what makes the AMD CPU so much better than the crappy Intel CPU. Nothing you say means anything, and if you post something, I will simply refer you to this Eurogamer article that I once read and have tattooed on my chest. [hyperlink to the article]" or "My screen name is 8350rocks and I am totally not biased at all." or "I check on this thread multiple times a day and if anyone posts something about AMD, I have a Turret's like compulsion to reply every single time even though it is irrelevant."

There are people on here with intel CPU screen names...but you pick at me for it...why?

Also, I am tired of biased opinions on both sides...I am telling you the facts. What you choose to believe is on you.

I am not Juanrga...I do not have multiple Tom's accounts. If I did don't you think I would have all the badges if I was badge driven as you seem to think?

I have a CPU expert badge because I have met the forum criteria for it based on responses. Many would agree I know what I am talking about with or without the stupid badge. If you have an issue with badges take it up with the forum admins.

I have started many threads, they're usually a relevant discussion about technology, until some twit comes in talking out an orifice other than his mouth about intel and spouting rumors/wives tales as facts without supporting them with credible sources.

Additionally, I don't consider someone who disregards credible sources and side steps the entire argument by posting flames to be anyone worth reading. So if it seems like I often times disregard your posts, don't sit back and wonder why. Reading as much intel biased garbage as exists in this forum hurts even my eyes after a while. The rest of you don't realize how bad it is because you live in lala land where intel is "drastically superior" and i3 CPUs burn FX8350s because the skyrim benchmark said they were close in that one game that is poorly optimized for AMD.

So, go ahead and read that and come back and post a few more flames.

EDIT: Where did I bash intel CPUs? All I have said is that AMD CPUs are much closer than far too many people give them credit.

 

[juanrga]

Not to mention that arstechnica has working to people as Andrew Cunningham who worked previously at anandtech. Do I need to say more folks? Ok just search AMD in their site and look to the articles returned

http://arstechnica.com/search/?query=amd

They also use this kind of images in their articles

which gives you an excellent good idea of what they are trying

 

[whyso]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

 

[juanrga]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

Apart from using another chip, why would I look to a synthetic benchmark which does not represent real world performance of the PS4 in any imaginable way?

 

[8350rocks]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

No...Kabini = Jaguar.

Temash = tablets.

 

[whyso]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

Apart from using another chip, why would I look to a synthetic benchmark which does not represent real world performance of the PS4 in any imaginable way?

Its the same architecture. They simply gave it different name. Trinity and Vishera use the same piledriver core. temash, kabini and ps4 use the same jaguar core. Unless they are physically changing the core architecture performance can be directly compared between them (they are using the same straight core on all three).

Perhaps because the ps4 hasn't been released yet and 'real-world' performance will not be available for months.

 

[8350rocks]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

Apart from using another chip, why would I look to a synthetic benchmark which does not represent real world performance of the PS4 in any imaginable way?

Its the same architecture. They simply gave it different name. Trinity and Vishera use the same piledriver core. temash, kabini and ps4 use the same jaguar core. Unless they are physically changing the core architecture performance can be directly compared between them (they are using the same straight core on all three).

Perhaps because the ps4 hasn't been released yet and 'real-world' performance will not be available for months.

The TDPs are drastically different...that's like comparing a 65W TDP 8 core CPU to the 125W TDP 8350...the results are going to be dramatically different.

Additionally, Temash is not utilizing HUMA, or HSA like the Kabini architecture in PS4 is.

 

[8350rocks]

I think amd current cpus perform worse then intels current cpus as the amd cpus can't load the graphics card to 99%. Games seem to like raw performance at high clock rather then weak core performance with many cores. Thats why i3 games very well as it has a lot of raw performance for a dual core. Also intels cpus have massive memory bandwidth. AMD basically have gone backwards since the phenom 2 series and the gap from intel and amd being the biggest in history performance per watt shows that. Intel improved amd have virtually stood still for last 4 years.

Benchmarks or it didn't happen.

CPUs don't load the GPU...software does. Stop talking about stuff without information.

 

[juanrga]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

Apart from using another chip, why would I look to a synthetic benchmark which does not represent real world performance of the PS4 in any imaginable way?

Its the same architecture. They simply gave it different name. Trinity and Vishera use the same piledriver core. temash, kabini and ps4 use the same jaguar core. Unless they are physically changing the core architecture performance can be directly compared between them (they are using the same straight core on all three).

Perhaps because the ps4 hasn't been released yet and 'real-world' performance will not be available for months.

You continue mixing things. I repeat

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

 

[whyso]

From an early temash review

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-AMD-A6-1450-APU-Temash.92264.0.html

Four jaguar cores at 1-1.1 ghz get a cinebench R11.5 score of 1.02 and a 3dmark physics score of 1107.

4 cores at 1.1 ghz x 2 x (1.6/1.1)= ~3 for cinebench or ~3200 for 3dmark physics.

Either way thats a fairly weak chip.

An 8350 at 1.6 ghz is weak too.

First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash.
Second, cinebench uses ICC, which uses the cripple_AMD function to cheat scores.
Third, the CPU on the PS4 will be not wasting cycles running an bloated OS such as Windows 7/8.

For someone so enthusiastic about AMD I thought you would at least get your facts correct.

Temash-jaguar
ps4-jaguar

Look at the 3dmark scores then.

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

Apart from using another chip, why would I look to a synthetic benchmark which does not represent real world performance of the PS4 in any imaginable way?

Its the same architecture. They simply gave it different name. Trinity and Vishera use the same piledriver core. temash, kabini and ps4 use the same jaguar core. Unless they are physically changing the core architecture performance can be directly compared between them (they are using the same straight core on all three).

Perhaps because the ps4 hasn't been released yet and 'real-world' performance will not be available for months.

You continue mixing things. I repeat

Read what I wrote above: "First, the CPU on the PS4 is not based in Temash."

Yes Temash uses jaguar cores and the PS4 uses jaguar core but the PS4 chip is not based in Temash. There are more stuff in a given chip than just the cores.

You are 100% right.

Temash and kabini are based on jaguar.

Ps4 is based on jaguar.

Temash, kabini and ps4 are quite similar.

In my earlier post I was looking at the performance of the cpu cores which are jaguar based on both platforms (no HSA/Huma but things have to be coded for that).

@ 8350rocks I can compare sandy across the whole sandy bridge architecture from ULV to quad core to extreme editions. I can do the same for ivy. I can do the same for piledriver (a10 and FX 4300 do very similarly despite the a10 not having L3 cache).

 

[juanrga]

You are 100% right.

Temash and kabini are based on jaguar.

Ps4 is based on jaguar.

Temash, kabini and ps4 are quite similar.

In my earlier post I was looking at the performance of the cpu cores which are jaguar based on both platforms (no HSA/Huma but things have to be coded for that).

Regarding performance we wait PS4 > Kabini > Temash

 

[whyso]

You are 100% right.

Temash and kabini are based on jaguar.

Ps4 is based on jaguar.

Temash, kabini and ps4 are quite similar.

In my earlier post I was looking at the performance of the cpu cores which are jaguar based on both platforms (no HSA/Huma but things have to be coded for that).

Regarding performance we wait PS4 > Kabini > Temash

Very true but given one I can extrapolate the performance of another (with a reasonable degree of accuracy).

 

[8350rocks]

You are 100% right.

Temash and kabini are based on jaguar.

Ps4 is based on jaguar.

Temash, kabini and ps4 are quite similar.

In my earlier post I was looking at the performance of the cpu cores which are jaguar based on both platforms (no HSA/Huma but things have to be coded for that).

Regarding performance we wait PS4 > Kabini > Temash

Very true but given one I can extrapolate the performance of another (with a reasonable degree of accuracy).

Now, I would be curious to see a 35W TDP Kabini benchmark for kicks and giggles...

 

[brimfire]

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.

 

[brimfire]

If i was you i would buy an Asus Gryphon mb with thermal kit for good a good price for the mother board $179aus i7 4770k is very quick i have just bought a 4770k and i don't need to overclock and i am playing crisis 3 . joe

 

[spentshells]

So 4770 then? ROFL.

 

[ANIR0X2K00L]

Thanks guys but i got an i7 4770k as i had the money and i needed a system now. Upgrading from pile driver to steam roller wasnt an option and i coudnt wait to directly buy a steam roller. Now i have a good cpu for the next 6 years (hopefully), now i am saving for a new GPU

Thanks a lot guys, without your help i would have never been able to make a decision. I guess i cant find the best solution cause i can only award it to one

 

[ANIR0X2K00L]

Thanks especially to 8350rocks, thnx man for the suggestions and help