Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore - Gaming and future octacore-optimized development.

[prankstare]

Hey,

So we all know Intel's architecture is much better and energy/performance efficient per thread/core but how about multi-tasking performance? Also, do you think that, in the near future perhaps, not only games but also most computer programs will all benefit from using 8 actual cores like next-gen consoles are doing for games?

The reason I'm asking this is because I'm a bit torn between buying "faster" but expensive Intel's quadcore solution i5 3570k or "slower" but much cheaper AMD's octacore FX-8350. However, if the future say 8-12 months from now will be eight-core optimized sofware all the way (including games and overall multi-tasking), then I think such "slower" (for now) AMD solution is worth it.

So, any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[firemedictj]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

Right except my recomendation is for the 3770k which in just a cursory glance still beats your 8350 all day.

 

[firemedictj]

LOL...ok...here are some of the things I do, programs I run...tell me what you recommend there firemedictj:

So, why should I spend more money on a 3570k again?

EDIT: I am a game developer, I don't just use my pc for gaming like so many others do. I know what I bought and why, and it made the most sense because I paid less for more performance relevant to what I do with it. There is no amount of arguments you can present that would change my mind on this subject. Nothing Intel has out presents enough performance increase across the board that the value of the expense is justifiable for my purposes.

Not to be rude, but any good game developer makes way more than enough money to not worry about $100 difference we're talking about. Either you have developed an indie game that hasnt sold or been released yet, or you work for a terrible company..... you should find a better agent.

You bought what you thought was a good value and I have no problem with that but of course its a good value when they are so far behind. Just for grins why dont you go ahead and post another wall of benchmarks with intels current line-up regardless weather you think its trash or not.
Out-dated benchmarks..... Oh the future will be better..... I dont know about you but I want performance now and have purchased such.

There is one thing I have learned in life and that is do it right the first time.
There will always be better tech coming, its the nature of the business, at some point you just have to jump in. But in my experience for the most part in electronics, you get what you pay for. It sounds like you like paying over and over again for wishful thinking while I have made one purchase that still crushes the 8350 in pretty much every benchmark you posted.

Just one last thought:
8350: Top of line at AMD
3770k: not even top tier processor..... (think 6core)

 

[firemedictj]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

I can see your 1100T BE and 8350 killing the 2600k in your mind only. lol
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
Lol. can we try this again.
You're right the 8350 still can't out pace the 2 year old 2600k.

LOL

 

[NappySlapper]

The 'tier' of the processor doesn't mean anything, its the low price that makes amd better for the budget

 

[earl45]

LOL...ok...here are some of the things I do, programs I run...tell me what you recommend there firemedictj:

So, why should I spend more money on a 3570k again?

EDIT: I am a game developer, I don't just use my pc for gaming like so many others do. I know what I bought and why, and it made the most sense because I paid less for more performance relevant to what I do with it. There is no amount of arguments you can present that would change my mind on this subject. Nothing Intel has out presents enough performance increase across the board that the value of the expense is justifiable for my purposes.

Not to be rude, but any good game developer makes way more than enough money to not worry about $100 difference we're talking about. Either you have developed an indie game that hasnt sold or been released yet, or you work for a terrible company..... you should find a better agent.

You bought what you thought was a good value and I have no problem with that but of course its a good value when they are so far behind. Just for grins why dont you go ahead and post another wall of benchmarks with intels current line-up regardless weather you think its trash or not.
Out-dated benchmarks..... Oh the future will be better..... I dont know about you but I want performance now and have purchased such.

There is one thing I have learned in life and that is do it right the first time.
There will always be better tech coming, its the nature of the business, at some point you just have to jump in. But in my experience for the most part in electronics, you get what you pay for. It sounds like you like paying over and over again for wishful thinking while I have made one purchase that still crushes the 8350 in pretty much every benchmark you posted.

Just one last thought:
8350: Top of line at AMD
3770k: not even top tier processor..... (think 6core)

+1 on everything.
Here's the i7 2600k vs Fx 8350 benchmarks
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/441/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600K.html
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
here's the last one,
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3172.html?prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5759%5D=on
could you please show me the better by a mile, and here they are running
at almost the same speeds the FX-8350 with just a 100Mhz better clock
advantage totally disappears.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3172.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

 

[NappySlapper]

What you are saying might be true, but you are just searching frantically for a way to show the intel as better than the amd, and at the same time you have gone off topic.

This thread is about gaming, not personally insulting someone who has a different choice than you... no matter what you say to him you are not going to change anything so why bother?do you need to try and justify your purchase that badly?

 

[8350rocks]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

I can see your 1100T BE and 8350 killing the 2600k in your mind only. lol
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
Lol. can we try this again.
You're right the 8350 still can't out pace the 2 year old 2600k.

Anandtech has serious Intel bias...to the point that no one in my field takes them seriously.

Try someone like techspot

 

[8350rocks]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

Right except my recomendation is for the 3770k which in just a cursory glance still beats your 8350 all day.

Sure, for $140 more...and the gap in performance isn't $140 worth. Even at MC, the difference is still $70, and it's not $70 better performance. Frankly, it isn't $10 better performance...

Buying a dead socket, with no upside, no meaningful prospects for improvement until 2016 at the earliest since broadwell is only BGA and broadwell and everything after it was pushed back 12 months. Intel is missing their tick/tock time frame now to do a haswell refresh in 2014 pushing back their entire timetable 12 months.

Want to know why? Because their flawed tri-gate process is having issues shrinking to 14nm. They can't get it right...think I don't know what I am talking about? Google "Intel haswell refresh in 2014" or "Intel pushes back broadwell". See what happens for you there.

I would never spend a dime on an Intel piece of hardware. Personally, if others want to support a company that lies to consumers and OEMs, cheats the general public, and tries to get away with operating their business in every immoral and unethical way possible...then you can go right ahead. But no money of mine will ever willingly pay for a product Intel has manufactured, endorsed, partnered with, been involved in production of, or otherwise had any involvement with, of any kind, what-so-ever.

EDIT: Here's some passmark scores for you to chew on:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2415M+%40+2.30GHz

FX8350: 9139
2600K: 8489
2700K: 8925
4670K: 7761
3570K: 7119

Hmm...not much difference there at all, huh?

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039488.png

No difference there either?

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039491.png

2600k still losing there too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039486.png

WOW! 2600k loses that one too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039484.png

Seeing a trend here...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039485.png

Continuing trend...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039482.png

It keeps going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039483.png

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039492.png

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039494.png

and going...

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039504.png

Tired yet? I can post quite a few more...

How about this one?

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG75/fd501a41a2adcc643acc832de94444f9fd7d9678

BTW: that is a i7-3960x in comparison there...(longer is better in the graph)

EDIT: images weren't working...

 

[earl45]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

I can see your 1100T BE and 8350 killing the 2600k in your mind only. lol
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
Lol. can we try this again.
You're right the 8350 still can't out pace the 2 year old 2600k.

Anandtech has serious Intel bias...to the point that no one in my field takes them seriously.

Try someone like techspot

I did post benchmark from tom's as well, here let me give it to you again.

Here's the i7 2600k vs Fx 8350 benchmarks
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-FX-8...
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/441/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
here's the last one,
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/comp...
could you please show me the better by a mile, and here they are running
at almost the same speeds the FX-8350 with just a 100Mhz better clock
advantage totally disappears.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/comp...

Here's my thought the performance you're enjoying today from the FX 8350,
I bought from Intel over 2 year's ago with the 2600k.
The kicked to this is we don't have to talk about clock speeds because the 2600k
can overclock just as good as the FX 8350 on air and water.

 

[8350rocks]

Actually, my previous system was an 1100T BE OC'ed to 4.0 GHz, and I wouldn't have bought a 2600k then either as the 1100T was flat out better at everything there as well.

Thanks for playing though

EDIT: The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?

I can see your 1100T BE and 8350 killing the 2600k in your mind only. lol
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
Lol. can we try this again.
You're right the 8350 still can't out pace the 2 year old 2600k.

Anandtech has serious Intel bias...to the point that no one in my field takes them seriously.

Try someone like techspot

I did post benchmark from tom's as well, here let me give it to you again.

Here's the i7 2600k vs Fx 8350 benchmarks
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-FX-8...
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/441/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287
here's the last one,
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/comp...
could you please show me the better by a mile, and here they are running
at almost the same speeds the FX-8350 with just a 100Mhz better clock
advantage totally disappears.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/comp...

Here's my thought the performance you're enjoying today from the FX 8350,
I bought from Intel over 2 year's ago with the 2600k.
The kicked to this is we don't have to talk about clock speeds because the 2600k
can overclock just as good as the FX 8350 on air and water.

You must have missed where the FX 8350 at stock is faster than the 2600k in every single benchmark I posted above...

 

[8350rocks]

The tomshardware benchmarks don't work earl45.

I never said that...stop trolling

 

[8350rocks]

Ahh...well...I didn't bother to check the link...

 

[earl45]

Well I looked at the site you told me to checkout TECHSPOT.COM and this is what I found,
there where 15 benchmarks the 2600k won 10 and the FX 8350 won 5.
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html
thank for confirming what I already knew the 2600k with 4 core's and
running 600Mhz slower the the FX 8350 can still beat it at most things.

 

[earl45]

Ahh...well...I didn't bother to check the link...

Well someone like yourself (pretending you know more about cpu's then anyone else),
should always check things out before spouting out falsehoods like it's the truth.

 

[8350rocks]

Ahh...well...I didn't bother to check the link...

Well someone like yourself (pretending you know more about cpu's then anyone else),
should always check things out before spouting out falsehoods like it's the truth.

Did you see the benchmarks I posted on the last page? There were only about 12 where the 2600k wasn't close. You must've missed that...

 

[earl45]

The tomshardware benchmarks don't work earl45.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on
and the is with the FX 8350 running just 100Mhz faster then the i7 2600k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

 

[8350rocks]

The tomshardware benchmarks don't work earl45.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on
and the is with the FX 8350 running just 100Mhz faster then the i7 2600k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

I am familiar with Tom's benchmarks, you must not be familiar with these...


http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Co...

FX8350: 9139
2600K: 8489
2700K: 8925
4670K: 7761
3570K: 7119

Hmm...not much difference there at all, huh?

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039...

No difference there either?

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

2600k still losing there too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

WOW! 2600k loses that one too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

Seeing a trend here...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

Continuing trend...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

It keeps going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039...

Tired yet? I can post quite a few more...

How about this one?

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLA...

BTW: that is a i7-3960x in comparison there...(longer is better in the graph)

 

[earl45]

If you get the Sabertooth 990FX Gen3 R2.0 you even get PCIe 3.0

What you forgot to tell him is the FX 8350 cpu it's self don't support PCIe 3.0

 

[8350rocks]

If you get the Sabertooth 990FX Gen3 R2.0 you even get PCIe 3.0

What you forgot to tell him is the FX 8350 cpu it's self don't support PCIe 3.0

That doesn't matter...the L2 cache used to be on chipset on the MB, but it's on die now...there's no difference.

 

[earl45]

The tomshardware benchmarks don't work earl45.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on
and the is with the FX 8350 running just 100Mhz faster then the i7 2600k.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

I am familiar with Tom's benchmarks, you must not be familiar with these...


http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Co...

FX8350: 9139
2600K: 8489
2700K: 8925
4670K: 7761
3570K: 7119

Hmm...not much difference there at all, huh?

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039...

No difference there either?

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

2600k still losing there too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

WOW! 2600k loses that one too...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

Seeing a trend here...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

Continuing trend...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

It keeps going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0...

and going...

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039...

Tired yet? I can post quite a few more...

How about this one?

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLA...

BTW: that is a i7-3960x in comparison there...(longer is better in the graph)

Wow this is pretty funny nothing from the site you told to check out, you know
TECHSPOT.

Quote=(Anandtech has serious Intel bias...to the point that no one in my field takes them seriously.

Try someone like techspot )

Well here's techspot
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...
tell me what you see. Lol

 

[8350rocks]

These are relevant to what I use a PC for:

 

[earl45]

These are relevant to what I use a PC for:

Well You and I can take the BS out of all this, I have the 2600k and you
have the FX 8350 lets put a benchmark suite together and see what's
really going on, you vs me what's up?

 

[earl45]

The 'tier' of the processor doesn't mean anything, its the low price that makes amd better for the budget

Not when you don't have a budget issue.

 

[8350rocks]

Well You and I can take the BS out of all this, I have the 2600k and you
have the FX 8350 lets put a benchmark suite together and see what's
really going on, you vs me what's up?

I don't have the time, or the energy to sit down and run a bunch of benchmarks to get similar numbers to what's all over the internet...

Plus, I have no desire to measure e-peens over which processor does what better...

The fact of the matter is, you have been trolling about intel for 2 pages, and frankly, I am about done with this conversation. You don't seem to want to understand that the things I use a PC for, the FX 8350 is better...that's why I chose it and saved money on top of that.

I feel like I am surrounded by Intel fans...when you manage to shake one fan...another one comes along talking about how great his CPU is.

 

[lesteron2]

They tried to do too much smart stuff and screwed some of it up.