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!

 

[earl45]

The arguments you are giving are so poor, why would you want to give money to a company that is purposefully not trying?

Why does it matter how many cores they have if the performance is the same, with more cores in the new consoles then surely it would be stupid to buy intel if they have equal performance now and amd chip might get more powerful with the new consoles (and it will be £100+ cheaper)

I still have not seen one proper counter argument to the fact that if you get an 3570k now, you will end up spending more than £100 more when you upgrade in the future.

Anyone who bought 2600k over 2 year's ago don't have to buy anything today
to compete with AMD's best. let's see what AMD had that couldn't beat the 2600k,
1100T BE, FX 8150 and the almighty FX 8350 all fell very short of taking the crown.

 

[earl45]

If the 8350 and 4670k are quite equal than Intel is just the same. Stop being such a blatant fanboy

It look like the 4670k is ahead of the 8350.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/837?vs=697

the 8350 wins in 7 of the 19 , its pretty much equal. Looks like intel hasnt done anything of note either i guess huh

You forgot these chips

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=697
8350 wins 6 out of 29 against 2600k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/551?vs=697
8350 wins 5 out of 38 against 3770k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/836?vs=697
8350 wins 1 out of 19 against 4770k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=697
8350 wins 0 out of 29 against 3930k

I guess there is no AMD equal to these chips, and
your right i'm a FANBOY to buying the best when time to upgrade,
and I don't care who make it, AMD or INTEL, if you can get better
why settle for less?

 

[GotR1GHT]

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008


Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

 

[4745454b]

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

I suspect that if Intel feels they have an issue with games, they will either slap on more cores, or enable HT. 8 cores isn't going to be an issue here.

Edited to fix pic.

 

[8350rocks]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

 

[earl45]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

Well i'll take the wait and see approach with all of this, there's always been someone
that can see things AMD can't see or deliver, since bulldozer it's always just wait it's
coming, and it never show up.

IF AMD make a CPU's that's better then Intel for what I do, I will purchase it,
I'm about performance over company.

I build my own systems and I've never owned an AMD machine yet, and it would be
my pleasure to build one when AMD has a CPU worth building a system around,
and please no more it will be better in the future nonsense, I've been hearing that
for almost 3 year's.

 

[earl45]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

The problem with you 8350rocks you don't like Intel at all, and your bias
most of the time it's pretty blatant, while pretending to be impartial.

We had a discussion about cpu's, from the start outlandish claim flowed
from your mind with words like LAUGHABLE and BY A MILE, when I proved
you wrong, you back tracked to things you use it for, no longer was it laughable
and can be beaten by a mile, here's your last impartial move, you said I quote

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

Try someone like techspot"

So i did just that, and they agreed with me, not one time while posting all the site to comfirm
your nonsense did you post anything from the site you had me visit, because all
of a sudden they're not trust worthy. Lol

All i'm saying is things you say should be taking with a large grain of salt.


http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html

 

[Raidur]

Lol, way to cherry pick Mr. "8350rocks".

You do realize BD/PD (FX) CPUs have less IPC than Phenom II yes? You also realize Phenom II has less IPC than C2Q yes?

I hope this is helpful. Trying to make people think Bulldozer is 8x faster than 6 core, especially synthetically, Sandy is going to do nothing but make you look silly and crush your credibility.

Now, take a similar clocked Sandybridge quad + HT and compare it to Bulldozer minus cherry picking. You may be surprised, or saddened. Though, you'll likely ignore anything of the contrary and move on believing nothing can beat your precious AMD.

AMD is awesome, though there's a reason their octos are priced so cheap... Oh wait, AMD is just better at pricing! No... AMD prices their CPUs for what they're performance is at(for their uses).

I'm a fanboy to performance. I bought a 4400+ Athlon X2 back in the day for $450. It smashed everything from Intel, and AMD was selling their flagships (FX) for over $700. Was Intel pricing lower just to save you money and be the better deal?

Simple answer, the CPUs are priced to sell at their performance and uses. (mainly "uses" when it comes to octo cores, as they're a very limited market, unless you're uneducated which a lot of you fanboys are... IMO if you're gaming on AMD I'd still prefer Phenom II)

 

[8350rocks]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

The problem with you 8350rocks you don't like Intel at all, and your bias
most of the time it's pretty blatant, while pretending to be impartial.

We had a discussion about cpu's, from the start outlandish claim flowed
from your mind with words like LAUGHABLE and BY A MILE, when I proved
you wrong, you back tracked to things you use it for, no longer was it laughable
and can be beaten by a mile, here's your last impartial move, you said I quote

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

Try someone like techspot"

So i did just that, and they agreed with me, not one time while posting all the site to comfirm
your nonsense did you post anything from the site you had me visit, because all
of a sudden they're not trust worthy. Lol

All i'm saying is things you say should be taking with a large grain of salt.


http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html

Man, anything you post has salt attached to it before your fingers hit enter on the Keyboard.

You just find it hard to believe that AMD is actually better than Intel at anything. It's ok...you're a blatantly biased Intel nut. But don't try to tell me something that contradicts all the proof I have presented to you.

Did I say AMD was better at everything? No. I said, on multiple occasions, it's best for my workload. Hey, it's ok, Intel still has iTunes...right?

 

[earl45]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

The problem with you 8350rocks you don't like Intel at all, and your bias
most of the time it's pretty blatant, while pretending to be impartial.

We had a discussion about cpu's, from the start outlandish claim flowed
from your mind with words like LAUGHABLE and BY A MILE, when I proved
you wrong, you back tracked to things you use it for, no longer was it laughable
and can be beaten by a mile, here's your last impartial move, you said I quote

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

Try someone like techspot"

So i did just that, and they agreed with me, not one time while posting all the site to comfirm
your nonsense did you post anything from the site you had me visit, because all
of a sudden they're not trust worthy. Lol

All i'm saying is things you say should be taking with a large grain of salt.


http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html

Man, anything you post has salt attached to it before your fingers hit enter on the Keyboard.

You just find it hard to believe that AMD is actually better than Intel at anything. It's ok...you're a blatantly biased Intel nut. But don't try to tell me something that contradicts all the proof I have presented to you.

Did I say AMD was better at everything? No. I said, on multiple occasions, it's best for my workload. Hey, it's ok, Intel still has iTunes...right?

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?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

Your words Tom's chart's prove it!

 

[8350rocks]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

The problem with you 8350rocks you don't like Intel at all, and your bias
most of the time it's pretty blatant, while pretending to be impartial.

We had a discussion about cpu's, from the start outlandish claim flowed
from your mind with words like LAUGHABLE and BY A MILE, when I proved
you wrong, you back tracked to things you use it for, no longer was it laughable
and can be beaten by a mile, here's your last impartial move, you said I quote

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

Try someone like techspot"

So i did just that, and they agreed with me, not one time while posting all the site to comfirm
your nonsense did you post anything from the site you had me visit, because all
of a sudden they're not trust worthy. Lol

All i'm saying is things you say should be taking with a large grain of salt.


http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html

Man, anything you post has salt attached to it before your fingers hit enter on the Keyboard.

You just find it hard to believe that AMD is actually better than Intel at anything. It's ok...you're a blatantly biased Intel nut. But don't try to tell me something that contradicts all the proof I have presented to you.

Did I say AMD was better at everything? No. I said, on multiple occasions, it's best for my workload. Hey, it's ok, Intel still has iTunes...right?

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?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

Your words Tom's chart's prove it!

You misconstrue my words...for the same applications...the 1100T BE was better at everything I do...so why would I have bought Intel?

 

[earl45]

This has happened before. Intel's dual core CPUs ran better than AMDs quad core CPUs until games utilized four cores and now the AMD quad CPUs such as the phenom x4 are better than the intel dual cores. Games may start to be optimized for 8 cores though, as they are doing that with the new gen consoles, but the ps3 had 8 cores and the Xbox 360 had 3, so how come it didn't happen before? You shouldn't be worried, just stick to intel chips for now. There will be a long time before people stop using dual cores. Hell, I had a single core CPU up until a year ago!

Least common denominator was 3...so most games ran on 2-3 cores. As has been pointed out, the LCD now is 8 cores...which means game developers will program for 8 cores, the next gen game engines will be setup to take advantage of 8 cores.

But it's not like Intel can't make an 8 core chip. They don't give us them because at this point its not really needed. They also have HT. A 3770k should behave much like an 8 core CPU. I know HT isn't as good as what AMD went with, but considering the IPC advantage Intel has I bet its pretty close. Looking at the links provided, the 3770K is faster then the 8350 in every one so advantage Intel. (For people with bad memories...)

Well, in situations where 8 cores are used to proper potential...(some Linux benchmarks, server applications, etc.) the 8350 is superior to even the 3960x.

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

There's just one example of the FX 8350 destroying the i7-3960x in Linux.

Q9550 @ 4GHZ is probably very similar to a FX 6100 at stock

Release Date March 2008
Current Date February 2013

Bloomfield is from November 2008 and is still near the top of that chart even at stock

See what I am getting at?

The whole CPU buisness is a shame anyway, some bored teenage kid in Florida named Chipp or something started this site and im sure he is even sick of computers at this point. He likes the ad revenue now so why give the site up? No one who comes to this site wants to "really" be here bro, I thought you knew that. Most of the
people on high end systems just use it for the sole purpose to argue about the 8350 vs 3770, etc.and then look at porn between rants, buy steam games they never play and get a complex about the computer thing they bought a few months ago is now inferior based on a benchmark. Did that just happen in this thread?. I believe it did.

The person who came to this site once November 2008 and bought a i7 920 and a 4870 and never came back is the happiest PC gamer alive today. Thats the only thing anyone here has needed the last 5 years to play games correctly.

No one here is happy with what they have because of the culture around here, its a sickness, dont even get Haswell. That random guy with the 990x is worried right now about something. Why should he be, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK HERE to be reminded how someone has a 3770k that performs for cheaper than his CPU. He has got to justify his purchase for the next year and this is the perfect place to do so. He will participate in a 60 page rant if he has too that will be edited by an arrogant British man when your asleep. He doesnt even play computer games anymore because of this place, his original intent, everyones original intent. God Bless/Help us all.

Come here 5 years later and look at benchmarks for Crysis 7 with your 3770k in the middle somewhere. I am serious when I say this.

FX 8350 + MB = 60-70$ cheaper than intel i5 counterpart.
Difference between those two in gaming = a few fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says."Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did....

Finally...someone gets it!

The problem with you 8350rocks you don't like Intel at all, and your bias
most of the time it's pretty blatant, while pretending to be impartial.

We had a discussion about cpu's, from the start outlandish claim flowed
from your mind with words like LAUGHABLE and BY A MILE, when I proved
you wrong, you back tracked to things you use it for, no longer was it laughable
and can be beaten by a mile, here's your last impartial move, you said I quote

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

Try someone like techspot"

So i did just that, and they agreed with me, not one time while posting all the site to comfirm
your nonsense did you post anything from the site you had me visit, because all
of a sudden they're not trust worthy. Lol

All i'm saying is things you say should be taking with a large grain of salt.


http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page2.html

Man, anything you post has salt attached to it before your fingers hit enter on the Keyboard.

You just find it hard to believe that AMD is actually better than Intel at anything. It's ok...you're a blatantly biased Intel nut. But don't try to tell me something that contradicts all the proof I have presented to you.

Did I say AMD was better at everything? No. I said, on multiple occasions, it's best for my workload. Hey, it's ok, Intel still has iTunes...right?

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?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5792%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

Your words Tom's chart's prove it!

You misconstrue my words...for the same applications...the 1100T BE was better at everything I do...so why would I have bought Intel?

No i didn't misconstrue anything, we where talking about all of the programs you use,
that supposedly work better on your 1100T BE and FX 8350 over the 2600k.

What we found out is the 2600k is equal to your 8350 out of the box, in every application you
use, and beat it in all others, and running at the same clock speed the Fx 8350 can't beat the
2600k at all in anything.

Now for your 1100T BE it's below the 8350 in performance so your right this is the laughable
part, it can't win in anything you do period, the laugh is on YOU, I've
never seen anyone back track and double talk like you. Lol

I will play your game, show me anything the 1100T BE is better in performance over the
2600k.

 

[8350rocks]

7 zip and SANDRA Integer performance:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/453/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600K.html

 

[earl45]

7 zip and SANDRA Integer performance:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/453/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-2600K.html

Well thank you for proving my point this is the most asinine come back I've
had the pleasure of witnessing.

You should have bought Intel's 2600k when it was released over 2 year's ago,
I actually feel sorry for you, having to make very stupid excuses for 2 shitty
purchase's, no one should have to defend garbage the way you have to, man
you have my sympathy.

 

[8350rocks]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

 

[4745454b]

what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things?

Time is money. I like things that save me time.

 

[8350rocks]

what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things?

Time is money. I like things that save me time.

It's your prerogative to spend 100% more money for those 15 seconds...how long would it take you to break even on double the cost 15 seconds at a time?

EDIT: Let's say you earned $100 an hour...(probably not...but just being optimistic).

At 15 seconds per job, and $140 cost difference between the FX 8350 and 3770k, it would take you 336 jobs to break even...hardly worth it.

If you made something like $50 an hour...it would take you 772 jobs to break even...starting to look less attractive already, right? If you make $25 an hour...It takes 1,544 jobs to break even...not even in the ballpark of worth it at that point.

 

[4745454b]

It's your prerogative to spend 100% more money for those 15 seconds...it would take you 336 jobs to break even

Sounds like one job a day per work station alone. Be paid off in less then a year.

 

[8350rocks]

It's your prerogative to spend 100% more money for those 15 seconds...it would take you 336 jobs to break even

Sounds like one job a day per work station alone. Be paid off in less then a year.

If you get $100/hr to render, and if your employees work 365 days/yr. Most places give 2 days off per week...which would be 261 work days per year.

Additionally...that's assuming the $100/hr is all profit, if you're going from a business perspective we would have to look at what your actual profit per hour is to determine what the actual advantage breaks down to be, but I would assume it would likely be much closer to $50/hr. pure profit, after overhead, if not less than that. Which makes that figure double or more.

 

[earl45]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.

I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.


Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.

 

[8350rocks]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.

I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.


Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/336/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-950.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1484/4/

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

Further, in things like video encoding, etc. The 1100T does very well, and in file compression and other things it holds it's own.

 

[earl45]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.

I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.


Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/336/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-950.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1484/4/

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

Further, in things like video encoding, etc. The 1100T does very well, and in file compression and other things it holds it's own.

Here's the problem with your last post.

8350rocks said:
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.


My first post: The question is how long have you been working with these programs, would you say
about 3 year's or more, now if that's so you could of bought a 2600k 2 year's ago and
get the performance of your FX-3850 today.

8350rocks said:

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?

1) Notice who put the 1100T BE in the conversation, that would be you.
2) What did you say the 1100T is good at, "was flat out better at everything there as well."
3) You also said this: "The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?"

These are all your asinine claims, and I called you out on each and everyone,
proving to you that your boasting is completely unfounded.

8350rocks said:

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

My response:

I compared the 1100T BE only after you made false claims about it being better then the
2600k in the same things you use the 8350 for.

8350rocks said:

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

My response:

This another one of your BS moments, NO you're no right the 2600k is over 2 year older
then the 8350 and still beats it at will, you do know the 2600k can overclock as good or
better then 8350, so running them at the same clock speed the 2600k will best the 8350
in pretty much everything: the graph below proves this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

The problem with you is when proven wrong, you try to twist words, double talk,
and blame people for thing you actually did. Watch the insults.

 

[8350rocks]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.

I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.


Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/336/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-950.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1484/4/

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

Further, in things like video encoding, etc. The 1100T does very well, and in file compression and other things it holds it's own.

Here's the problem with your last post.

8350rocks said:
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.


My first post: The question is how long have you been working with these programs, would you say
about 3 year's or more, now if that's so you could of bought a 2600k 2 year's ago and
get the performance of your FX-3850 today.

Your response:

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?

1) Notice who put the 1100T BE in the conversation, that would be you.
2) What did you say the 1100T is good at, "was flat out better at everything there as well."
3) You also said this: "The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?"

These are all your asinine claims, and I called you out on each and everyone,
proving to you that your boasting is completely unfounded.

8350rocks said:

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

My response:

I compared the 1100T BE only after you make false claims about it being better then the
2600k in the same things you use the 8350 for.

8350rocks said:

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

My response:

This another one of your BS moments, NO you're no right the 2600k is over 2 year older
then the 8350 and still beats it at will, you do know the 2600k can overclock as good or
better then 8350, so running them at the same clock speed the 2600k will best the 8350
in pretty much everything: the graph below proves this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

The problem with you is when proven wrong, you try to twist words, double talk,
and blame people for thing you actually did. Watch the insults.

No, I didn't twist my words at all...when I bought the 1100T BE, it was compared to the i7-950. The 2600K came out a full year later.

So...how about you do as you said you were going to do on page 4 and take your Intel toys and go home.

 

[earl45]

You talk like I was disappointed with my purchases...which is a complete fallacy. Also, I don't want sympathy from you or any other Intel nut. You might think that whatever minor performance gains mattered to you are important to me...but in the end, only I have to worry about the PCs I use. I am completely happy with every PC I have ever built. I have no regrets. If you think that having the 2600k is what it takes to make you happy...great! You have what you wanted. I am personally happy with my AMD CPUs...they do everything I have ever asked of them, and they do it well. I could care less if buying Intel saves me 15 seconds of rendering time...what's 15 seconds in the grander scheme of things? Though, if I had bought Intel, I would have regretted it from day one for supporting such an ethically and morally challenged business.

Just to give you an idea about the company you're supporting...you should read this article. Like your Intel CPU with a dedicated GPU? Don't count on them allowing you to do that for too much longer...they're already cutting back on the bandwidth on many of their boards to prevent you from using anything but their crappy iGPU effectively.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

This entire conversation was about showing everyone how your claims where,
just so ridiculous and AMD fan boyish, at the end your just left grasping at straws.

I know you're ok with the purchase of both cpu's, but your claims for purchasing
them were completely bogus.


Like I said you bought them because you don't like Intel, and that perfectly ok,
just say that, don't start fabricating lie's about performance.

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/336/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-950.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1484/4/

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

Further, in things like video encoding, etc. The 1100T does very well, and in file compression and other things it holds it's own.

Here's the problem with your last post.

8350rocks said:
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.


My first post: The question is how long have you been working with these programs, would you say
about 3 year's or more, now if that's so you could of bought a 2600k 2 year's ago and
get the performance of your FX-3850 today.

Your response:

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?

1) Notice who put the 1100T BE in the conversation, that would be you.
2) What did you say the 1100T is good at, "was flat out better at everything there as well."
3) You also said this: "The 2600K is miles behind the 8350 in all of those applications...LOL...how on earth would I get the same performance?"

These are all your asinine claims, and I called you out on each and everyone,
proving to you that your boasting is completely unfounded.

8350rocks said:

When I bought the 1100T, the 2600k was not out...it compared to the i7-950. So you made a false comparison, and I didn't catch it until after I looked back at release schedules (memory isn't as good as I would like it to be). The 2600k did not come out until after I bought my 1100T, and though it wouldn't have mattered in my purchase, it matters that your comparison is not apples to apples.

My response:

I compared the 1100T BE only after you make false claims about it being better then the
2600k in the same things you use the 8350 for.

8350rocks said:

So, I was right...you were just comparing the AMD architecture to a newer Intel architecture, which is always an unfair comparison no matter who is newer/older.

My response:

This another one of your BS moments, NO you're no right the 2600k is over 2 year older
then the 8350 and still beats it at will, you do know the 2600k can overclock as good or
better then 8350, so running them at the same clock speed the 2600k will best the 8350
in pretty much everything: the graph below proves this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod%5B5759%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on&prod%5B5945%5D=on

The problem with you is when proven wrong, you try to twist words, double talk,
and blame people for thing you actually did. Watch the insults.

No, I didn't twist my words at all...when I bought the 1100T BE, it was compared to the i7-950. The 2600K came out a full year later.

So...how about you do as you said you were going to do on page 4 and take your Intel toys and go home.

when you said this:
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?

You ran off at the mouth, I completely checked you on your lie's, and now
it was all about the cpu's you never mentioned. Lol CLASSIC OWNAGE!!!!!!!!!

 

[4745454b]

Cleaned up again. I highly suggest taking a break before people lose posting abilities.