i5 6600k not comparing to my old amd 8350

[spotexx]

So I used to have an amd 8350 with a gtx 770 one day i switched up to a 1070 in a trade and the computer came with an intel 6600k.

I get that it only has 4 cores in stead of 8 but i have been having problems with programs eating up all of my cpu running youtube and having the video player crash. Playing modded minecraft and the game crashing.

I was watching my task manager and the problem was clearly coming from the cpu, are the cpu's really that different? anything i can do, or do i need to upgrade my cpu.

 

[Faike]

The 8350 is an excellent processor for multi-media streaming due to its 8 cores. You can increase the amount of GPU you're using so maybe the computer will use the GPU more than the CPU but the 8350 is better at processing multi-media stuff like streaming and what not.

 

[spotexx]

The 8350 is an excellent processor for multi-media streaming due to its 8 cores. You can increase the amount of GPU you're using so maybe the computer will use the GPU more than the CPU but the 8350 is better at processing multi-media stuff like streaming and what not.

how can i go about doing this sorry if its a stupid question

 

[Faike]

Run programs at higher settings, try and make the GPU take on more than the CPU (up the quality of the games, etc).

 

[spotexx]

Run programs at higher settings, try and make the GPU take on more than the CPU (up the quality of the games, etc).

alright thanks for the help i will try this outB

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

The 8350 system is better for general Desktop use. Don't be surprised if you see a decrease in the overall smoothness of the system. The 6600k system, with it's lower thread count but higher IPC will be better while gaming or performing tasks that need the extra horsepower.

 

[Faike]

The 8350 system is better for general Desktop use. Don't be surprised if you see a decrease in the overall smoothness of the system. The 6600k system, with it's lower thread count but higher IPC will be better while gaming or performing tasks that need the extra horsepower.

A bit right a bit wrong, I game and I stream and I do a lot of editing, and AMD beats my i5 system drastically.
I5 does have a better IPC so in theory it handles tasks better, but user is saying there is a noticeable difference in the performance of their system since the upgrade.

Maybe you have to run DDU as well and just reinstall your graphics driver for your new system. Update your drivers for your motherboard, etc. Run razer cortex (a fix for some people, some not so much, but it doesn't help to try). Check your msconfig and see if you have a lot of background processes eating up CPU for no reason.

 

[weberdarren97]

What is going on here? I'm really surprised at the amount of false information being presented.

AMD FX 8350 technically does have 8 cores, but thanks to the way they're packed into modules, Windows recognizes each pair of cores as a core and a thread. The complete lack of simultaneous multi threading also makes it so Windows cannot effectively use the additional threads as well. In the eyes of Windows, it's a quad core processor.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgejkSWzvNs"][/video]

Also, the FX series has very low IPC compared to Intel CPUs of the same age. This means that the 4.2GHz offered by the FX 8350 feels like an aging 3GHz i5. When compared to a modern i5 like the 6600K, the difference is made even more obvious.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3503vs1489

To sum this up, AMD FX is dead.

The 8350 is an excellent processor for multi-media streaming due to its 8 cores. You can increase the amount of GPU you're using so maybe the computer will use the GPU more than the CPU but the 8350 is better at processing multi-media stuff like streaming and what not.

how can i go about doing this sorry if its a stupid question

@spotexx It's not a stupid question. What @Faike just said simply doesn't make sense.

Run programs at higher settings, try and make the GPU take on more than the CPU (up the quality of the games, etc).

You do realize that the GPU gets its data from the CPU, right? If you make the GPU do more work, the CPU load will increase as well. It won't increase as much as the GPU load, but it will still increase.

If conflicting settings, bad drivers installations, or thermal throttling are causing an issue, your instructions will only make the problem worse.

 

[weberdarren97]

So I used to have an amd 8350 with a gtx 770 one day i switched up to a 1070 in a trade and the computer came with an intel 6600k.

I get that it only has 4 cores in stead of 8 but i have been having problems with programs eating up all of my cpu running youtube and having the video player crash. Playing modded minecraft and the game crashing.

I was watching my task manager and the problem was clearly coming from the cpu, are the cpu's really that different? anything i can do, or do i need to upgrade my cpu.

I need more information before I can tell you what the problem is.

You're current build is the i5 6600K, some Intel motherboard, and a GTX 1070, correct?

What are the makes and models of your motherboard and power supply?

What is the CPU temperature when just sitting at the desktop? What is the CPU temperature when gaming? If you're unsure of CPU temperatures, CoreTemp can help. http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

Moving on...

The way your post is worded is rather confusing for me...

1) If you just swapped out your old hardware for the Intel hardware, did you remember to fresh install Windows?

2) If you moved over to the new Intel computer, you didn't just grab the old hard drive and put it in the new computer, did you?

3) Have you uninstalled all applications/programs that you no longer use?

4) Have you optimized startup objects yet? If you're not sure what this means, just ask. I'm here to help.

 

[Faike]

Msconfig -> Services -> Hide Microsoft Services -> Disable services that are unnecessary (usually almost all of them).

Click on Startup, disable start up programs that are also unnecessary.

Razer Cortex can do this for you with ease.
And Web, I'm going off experience rather than fanboy-ness which I think you got the impression pretty quickly when I suggested what I suggested. I could link benchmarks to you as well with the same biases and make a weird intel vs amd argument but that's not what I want to do, it's simply what I've seen in my experience and with others I know who build PC's.

But I disgress...

Easiest way to optimize is by razer cortex. It works well for some but not so much for others but it's worth trying. It pretty much does all this for you automatically.

You can also run DDU, remove all the old nvidia drivers from other installations, and then reinstall fresh the new drivers. Also make sure your computer has the latest drivers for your motherboard and isn't hanging on to the old motherboard's drivers.

 

[Deleted member 217926]

Literally the only things FX can compete with a Skylake i5 ( or even an i3 😉 ) in are Winzip and similar programs. The i5 smotes it in every other metric.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1544

Here's a completely stock i3 6100 making an 8320 look bad. And they even overclock the 8320 to 4.6Ghz. Doesn't help.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Ryzen on the other hand is a HUGE leap forward for AMD and competes nicely.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

What is going on here? I'm really surprised at the amount of false information being presented.

AMD FX 8350 technically does have 8 cores, but thanks to the way they're packed into modules, Windows recognizes each pair of cores as a core and a thread. The complete lack of simultaneous multi threading also makes it so Windows cannot effectively use the additional threads as well. In the eyes of Windows, it's a quad core processor.

If you're going to insult false information, it's best not to continue it's spread.

In the eyes of Windows, an FX 8350 is not just a quad core, it's a quad core with the equivalent of Hyperthreading. This gives the least amount of resource contention when dispatching threads, and this functionality was already built into the Windows thread scheduler with a minimal of fuss needed for Microsoft to implement it. FX CPUs were initially treated as having 8 cores, but the switch was made to dispatching threads in a 4 core 8 logical pattern to more efficiently utilize the CPU resources available. Windows uses the additional threads perfectly fine, it only plays this game to make sure that all modules are used before it starts using the second core of each module.

Also, the FX series has very low IPC compared to Intel CPUs of the same age. This means that the 4.2GHz offered by the FX 8350 feels like an aging 3GHz i5. When compared to a modern i5 like the 6600K, the difference is made even more obvious.

I'm going to draw a distinction here. the FX 8350 does not feel like an againg 3 GHz i5, it performs like an aging 3 GHz i5 but feels like an FX 8350, which is not the same. Clearly FX can't compete in IPC, and hopefully you didn't get the impression I ever implied it could. Thankfully, it's not all about the total amount of work possible, as most folks aren't seeing 100% CPU loading while browsing the web, checking email, editing photos, or using Office. For general desktop use, having a higher thread dispatch rate can help with overall system responsiveness.

Literally the only things FX can compete with a Skylake i5 ( or even an i3 😉 ) in are Winzip and similar programs. The i5 smotes it in every other metric.

If all a person does with a CPU is have it compete in foot races, sure, the FX looks like the unhealthy person grabbing his chest and wheezing. When the focus shifts from maximum theoretical abilities, the FX competes perfectly fine. FX provides a good user experience, provided the user isn't in need of the overall highest amount of total work being done, such as would be the case if gaming.

Ryzen on the other hand is a HUGE leap forward for AMD and competes nicely.

I completely agree. Consumers get both IPC improvements and even higher thread dispatch than with FX, and for prices that seem a little more reasonable than some of the Intel equivalents.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

I really don't see that the OP has provided enough details for us to do more than argue amongst ourselves. It would be nice if the OP could expound on some of weberdarren97 questions.