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!

 

[NappySlapper]

It doesnt really matter between the 2600k and 8350 as we are talking about gaming right?

 

[4745454b]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

 

[Master467]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

 

[4745454b]

Problem for us is AMD has said they aren't competing with Intel anymore. They are "going small" and want in on the mass market that is mobile devices. Their APUs are great. They just got wins doing all the silicon for the next gen consoles. Their money is now in lower power devices. Yes they will continue to give us 8350s and the like, but they aren't concerned with all out performance anymore. Can't say I blame them as most people buy laptops and tablets now. Why worry about the small performance market when the larger mobile market beckons?

 

[Master467]

Problem for us is AMD has said they aren't competing with Intel anymore. They are "going small" and want in on the mass market that is mobile devices. Their APUs are great. They just got wins doing all the silicon for the next gen consoles. Their money is now in lower power devices. Yes they will continue to give us 8350s and the like, but they aren't concerned with all out performance anymore. Can't say I blame them as most people buy laptops and tablets now. Why worry about the small performance market when the larger mobile market beckons?

Specificly

They just got wins doing all the silicon for the next gen consoles

I read this article, but cannot find it now. However, the story went more like

Sony And Microsoft

Hey Intel, we want you to make CPU's with integrated graphics for us.

Intel

Alright, how about 75 bucks a piece?

AMD

Ill do it for 50 bucks each...

Intel

Ain't worth it.

Sony and Microsoft

Spoiler

OK!

 

[4745454b]

Not quite but funny...

 

[prankstare]

I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

Yeah, you're right AMD's new FX-9000 series processors do not represent a great leap in terms of innovation and architecture, and especially because of their high TDP makes them even more unattractive, being anything over 125W overkill. If they'd come up with a Vishera 12-core CPU, or an enhanced version of the same 8-core CPU at least, then I think it'd have made things pretty much different considering the same price point.

But what I really wanted to say here is that both AMD and Intel are somehow pushing innovation to some point, but just in subtle different ways. What perhaps may be difficult for us to see is where AMD intends to take a lead on the market in say the next 3-5 years from now, because Fusion, GCN and all that good stuff still pretty much new, and we're not seeing the real benefits of GPU-accelerated applications until this very next-gen consoles finally catch up. Though I have to say, well maybe I've done a real bad decision going with the EVGA 650Ti Boost SC over the ASUS 7850 DirectCU II since the AMD card has 16 compute units, but anyways uuugh!

 

[8350rocks]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...my FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 draws more than 220W at load. That means, the same 10-15% reduction in power consumption they got with Richland, they rolled into "Vishera 2.0" as they've dubbed it.

Also, I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller. To give you a rough idea...from SB to IB to 4th gen is about 15% improvement from Intel between the last 2 generations from SB. The FX 8350 performs on par with IB (and better in some instances) in multi threaded applications, and, while it lags in single threaded applications, some of the major changes in AMD's next architecture will remedy that entirely. There is an expected 25% increase in lightly threaded performance with SR...they're behind about 20% now in lightly threaded applications. I'd say we end up pretty close after Steamroller on the desktop.

We just have to wait to see...

 

[4745454b]

Innovation? Not sure I follow. Assuming the 8350 even keeps up with IB/HW, it needs 125W most of the time to do so while Intel does it in 77W. I don't see higher clocked/volted CPUs changing that any. SR might, but its not here yet.

I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller.

I am. I haven't seen a 30% jump in performance in one generation in a long time. I'm not even sure Intel did that though maybe when they went from the P4 to C2D. Sorry, just don't see that happening.

 

[8350rocks]

An 8350 clocked @ 4.7-5.0 GHz will consume close to 280W at peak load.

Richland was a 10-20% power consumption decrease from Trinity depending on the application.

20% of 280W is 56W...meaning those power consumption process improvements are present in the FX 9XXX series. Yes, the TDP is higher...but it's not 280W which many who already have their 8350's overclocked that far or higher would be dealing with. So, in the grander scheme of things...Vishera 2.0 did what haswell did, but with a clockspeed increase...(and a dramatic one at that).

As for being skeptical, AMD expects a 15% boost in IPC from architecture improvements alone. If you factor in a clockspeed bump, which will likely occur, 30% is not at all unreasonable as an expectation. After all, a 15% improvement in clockspeed from the 8350 would be 4.6 GHz, they have already shown that they are capable of making the architecture go that fast. With less power drawn and a clockspeed around 4.4-4.6 I think we could easily see a 125W SR CPU with 25-30% performance improvement.

 

[Master467]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...my FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 draws more than 220W at load. That means, the same 10-15% reduction in power consumption they got with Richland, they rolled into "Vishera 2.0" as they've dubbed it.

Also, I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller. To give you a rough idea...from SB to IB to 4th gen is about 15% improvement from Intel between the last 2 generations from SB. The FX 8350 performs on par with IB (and better in some instances) in multi threaded applications, and, while it lags in single threaded applications, some of the major changes in AMD's next architecture will remedy that entirely. There is an expected 25% increase in lightly threaded performance with SR...they're behind about 20% now in lightly threaded applications. I'd say we end up pretty close after Steamroller on the desktop.

We just have to wait to see...

|

This whole freaking thread needs to read this.

Please, buy what ever crap you want, no skin off my teeth. However i do have an issue with people who intentionally start troll threads, such as This, for no reason other then to hate on Haswell.

 

[Master467]

An 8350 clocked @ 4.7-5.0 GHz will consume close to 280W at peak load.

Richland was a 10-20% power consumption decrease from Trinity depending on the application.

20% of 280W is 56W...meaning those power consumption process improvements are present in the FX 9XXX series. Yes, the TDP is higher...but it's not 280W which many who already have their 8350's overclocked that far or higher would be dealing with. So, in the grander scheme of things...Vishera 2.0 did what haswell did, but with a clockspeed increase...(and a dramatic one at that).

As for being skeptical, AMD expects a 15% boost in IPC from architecture improvements alone. If you factor in a clockspeed bump, which will likely occur, 30% is not at all unreasonable as an expectation. After all, a 15% improvement in clockspeed from the 8350 would be 4.6 GHz, they have already shown that they are capable of making the architecture go that fast. With less power drawn and a clockspeed around 4.4-4.6 I think we could easily see a 125W SR CPU with 25-30% performance improvement.

5.0 is there boost clock and will run one core, maybe 2. Not 8 at 5.0. The increse from Versha is little or none, considering your OC is on all 8 cores.
Also, LEL, AMD screaming about more efficiency when Intel has had CPU's at half the TDP beating them for years.

 

[8350rocks]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...my FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 draws more than 220W at load. That means, the same 10-15% reduction in power consumption they got with Richland, they rolled into "Vishera 2.0" as they've dubbed it.

Also, I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller. To give you a rough idea...from SB to IB to 4th gen is about 15% improvement from Intel between the last 2 generations from SB. The FX 8350 performs on par with IB (and better in some instances) in multi threaded applications, and, while it lags in single threaded applications, some of the major changes in AMD's next architecture will remedy that entirely. There is an expected 25% increase in lightly threaded performance with SR...they're behind about 20% now in lightly threaded applications. I'd say we end up pretty close after Steamroller on the desktop.

We just have to wait to see...

|

This whole freaking thread needs to read this.

Please, buy what ever crap you want, no skin off my teeth. However i do have an issue with people who intentionally start troll threads, such as This, for no reason other then to hate on Haswell.

That wasn't trolling any more than your fake "conversation" above. Reality is dual cores are going away...and 4th gen Intel is a flop. The only saving grace Intel has for this blunder is that sheep to the slaughter will still buy Intel product because it's Intel. If AMD did such a thing as this, you would be crowing from the rooftops as to how terrible AMD is because Intel had some radical new change. So don't play coy with me...you're team blue, and I am team green. So stop flame baiting all together and keep the thread civil.

The difference between you and I, is that I will recommend Intel product if it makes sense...you wouldn't recommend AMD product if it makes sense. Loss of objectivity falls squarely on your shoulders my friend.

Have a nice day!

EDIT: Your logical fallacy is ad hominem. 😉

 

[Master467]

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...my FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 draws more than 220W at load. That means, the same 10-15% reduction in power consumption they got with Richland, they rolled into "Vishera 2.0" as they've dubbed it.

Also, I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller. To give you a rough idea...from SB to IB to 4th gen is about 15% improvement from Intel between the last 2 generations from SB. The FX 8350 performs on par with IB (and better in some instances) in multi threaded applications, and, while it lags in single threaded applications, some of the major changes in AMD's next architecture will remedy that entirely. There is an expected 25% increase in lightly threaded performance with SR...they're behind about 20% now in lightly threaded applications. I'd say we end up pretty close after Steamroller on the desktop.

We just have to wait to see...

|

This whole freaking thread needs to read this.

Please, buy what ever crap you want, no skin off my teeth. However i do have an issue with people who intentionally start troll threads, such as This, for no reason other then to hate on Haswell.

That wasn't trolling any more than your fake "conversation" above. Reality is dual cores are going away...and 4th gen Intel is a flop. The only saving grace Intel has for this blunder is that sheep to the slaughter will still buy Intel product because it's Intel. If AMD did such a thing as this, you would be crowing from the rooftops as to how terrible AMD is because Intel had some radical new change. So don't play coy with me...you're team blue, and I am team green. So stop flame baiting all together and keep the thread civil.

The difference between you and I, is that I will recommend Intel product if it makes sense...you wouldn't recommend AMD product if it makes sense. Loss of objectivity falls squarely on your shoulders my friend.

Have a nice day!

(reading your own image would help you some too...I am reminded of an old adage...you're the pot and I am the kettle...you follow?)

Yeah, except i own an FX 6350... And its great for what i use it for. By no means am i spewing across the internet that its the greatest thing that ever freaking existed and that everyone else is "sheeple" for not owning and bowing down to it.

This is quite the interesting discussion. I am reminded of an old adage...you're the pot and I am the kettle...you follow?

 

[Cazalan]

That wasn't trolling any more than your fake "conversation" above. Reality is dual cores are going away...and 4th gen Intel is a flop.

You can't say you're not trolling in 1 sentence and the very next call the 4th gen Intel a flop.

 

[4745454b]

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...20% of 280W is 56W...meaning those power consumption process improvements are present in the FX 9XXX series. Yes, the TDP is higher...but it's not 280W

So? Innovation? We still don't even know if it beats Intel's performance/watt. Just because its better then what they had before doesn't mean it can beat the competition.

and 4th gen Intel is a flop. The only saving grace Intel has for this blunder is that sheep to the slaughter will still buy Intel product because it's Intel.

HW is a flop? Because??? And why is it so hard for you to believe/accept that some people want IB/HW because it's faster? I've put up benchmarks myself showing the 8350 is slower then the 3770K all the time, and has issues keeping up with the 3570k in games. And that's because I'm a sheep buying Intel only because its Intel? Or because in gaming the 3570K is faster then the 8350? I haven't seen one benchmark yet from Anand or Toms or other mainstream site where the 8350 really beats the 3570k. I have seen you (I think) post from that one guy who just rattles off a bunch of numbers. Somehow he found a way to get you the numbers you want.

The difference between you and I, is that I will recommend Intel product if it makes sense

I would LOVE to see a thread where you suggest buying Intel. I bet if I looked at your posts over the last 3 months I can't find even one.

So stop flame baiting all together and keep the thread civil...4th gen Intel is a flop. The only saving grace Intel has for this blunder is that sheep to the slaughter will still buy Intel

So much for civil... I see Cazalan gets it.

 

[8350rocks]

So? Innovation? We still don't even know if it beats Intel's performance/watt. Just because its better then what they had before doesn't mean it can beat the competition.

I never said it was world beating...I said it was an improvement...that's innovation considering there was no die shrink or major process improvement.

HW is a flop? Because??? And why is it so hard for you to believe/accept that some people want IB/HW because it's faster? I've put up benchmarks myself showing the 8350 is slower then the 3770K all the time, and has issues keeping up with the 3570k in games. And that's because I'm a sheep buying Intel only because its Intel? Or because in gaming the 3570K is faster then the 8350? I haven't seen one benchmark yet from Anand or Toms or other mainstream site where the 8350 really beats the 3570k. I have seen you (I think) post from that one guy who just rattles off a bunch of numbers. Somehow he found a way to get you the numbers you want.

HW is a flop because 4% improvement and 1% in gaming is not any more improvement than the step from Vishera to Vishera 2.0. I personally consider Vishera 2.0 to be a flop because it's over priced, and offers little in advantage over the 8350. It does lower power consumption to a degree. If you undervolted and underclocked the FX 9590 to 4.0 GHz, I bet power consumption would be a fair margin less than the 8350.

My ultimate point is, if you're going to buy Intel, save money and buy IB, it's just as effective and draws less power under load.

I would LOVE to see a thread where you suggest buying Intel. I bet if I looked at your posts over the last 3 months I can't find even one.

You might want to take a look at my post history...I have recommended Intel on numerous occasions, as a moderator I know you can look it up. You might be shocked to see what you find in there. I am really not biased.

So much for civil... I see Cazalan gets it.

I wasn't trolling...HW is virtually no improvement over IB for the desktop crowd, and when I recommend Intel to someone, I recommend they save money and buy IB for the same performance for less money....(better performance when overclocked).

 

[Master467]

Spoiler

Depends. This thread has seen a number of twists and turns. I've seen some wild claims and other stuff. But the name calling and attacks on people/kids isn't going to fly.

Going strictly from the title it would seem the gaming perspective should be the thing we are looking at. I thought I saw an article on toms about how some new game set to release on the next gen consoles were going to do great on AMDs APUs. Can't seem to find it now. If so, the "tuning" of games to run on AMDs hardware might come a lot faster then I thought. No, I'm not saying those of us with 3570ks or other chips will have issues running next gen games. But AMD might be catching up really fast.

I honestly doubt AMD's ability to "Catch up", especially fast. Look at the fx-9000 or what ever, its a rehash put out at 5ghz (Turbo, too. That's not even normal running speed), and all the fanboys jump on it like its the second coming of Jesus, thinking it can compete with anything Intel puts out.
Thing is that AMD is being kept alive BY Intel, Intel is so far ahead of AMD that if they put out there best stuff at a reasonable price AMD would surly go out of business and the FTC would mess with them for being a monopoly.
I want AMD to survive, and PUSH innovation, not keep it down. Im not sure if AMD's leaders are just incompetent, or if they really just don't have the funding to excel in this market.

For the performance/watt crowd, the FX 9XXX series is an innovation...my FX 8350 overclocked to 4.7 draws more than 220W at load. That means, the same 10-15% reduction in power consumption they got with Richland, they rolled into "Vishera 2.0" as they've dubbed it.

Also, I think everyone here is severely underestimating 30% improvement from Steamroller. To give you a rough idea...from SB to IB to 4th gen is about 15% improvement from Intel between the last 2 generations from SB. The FX 8350 performs on par with IB (and better in some instances) in multi threaded applications, and, while it lags in single threaded applications, some of the major changes in AMD's next architecture will remedy that entirely. There is an expected 25% increase in lightly threaded performance with SR...they're behind about 20% now in lightly threaded applications. I'd say we end up pretty close after Steamroller on the desktop.

We just have to wait to see...

|

This whole freaking thread needs to read this.

Please, buy what ever crap you want, no skin off my teeth. However i do have an issue with people who intentionally start troll threads, such as This, for no reason other then to hate on Haswell.

That wasn't trolling any more than your fake "conversation" above. Reality is dual cores are going away...and 4th gen Intel is a flop. The only saving grace Intel has for this blunder is that sheep to the slaughter will still buy Intel product because it's Intel. If AMD did such a thing as this, you would be crowing from the rooftops as to how terrible AMD is because Intel had some radical new change. So don't play coy with me...you're team blue, and I am team green. So stop flame baiting all together and keep the thread civil.

The difference between you and I, is that I will recommend Intel product if it makes sense...you wouldn't recommend AMD product if it makes sense. Loss of objectivity falls squarely on your shoulders my friend.

Have a nice day!

(reading your own image would help you some too...I am reminded of an old adage...you're the pot and I am the kettle...you follow?)

Yeah, except i own an FX 6350... And its great for what i use it for. By no means am i spewing across the internet that its the greatest thing that ever freaking existed and that everyone else is "sheeple" for not owning and bowing down to it.

This is quite the interesting discussion. I am reminded of an old adage...you're the pot and I am the kettle...you follow?

So? Innovation? We still don't even know if it beats Intel's performance/watt. Just because its better then what they had before doesn't mean it can beat the competition.

I never said it was world beating...I said it was an improvement...that's innovation considering there was no die shrink or major process improvement.

HW is a flop? Because??? And why is it so hard for you to believe/accept that some people want IB/HW because it's faster? I've put up benchmarks myself showing the 8350 is slower then the 3770K all the time, and has issues keeping up with the 3570k in games. And that's because I'm a sheep buying Intel only because its Intel? Or because in gaming the 3570K is faster then the 8350? I haven't seen one benchmark yet from Anand or Toms or other mainstream site where the 8350 really beats the 3570k. I have seen you (I think) post from that one guy who just rattles off a bunch of numbers. Somehow he found a way to get you the numbers you want.

HW is a flop because 4% improvement and 1% in gaming is not any more improvement than the step from Vishera to Vishera 2.0. I personally consider Vishera 2.0 to be a flop because it's over priced, and offers little in advantage over the 8350. It does lower power consumption to a degree. If you undervolted and underclocked the FX 9590 to 4.0 GHz, I bet power consumption would be a fair margin less than the 8350.

My ultimate point is, if you're going to buy Intel, save money and buy IB, it's just as effective and draws less power under load.

I would LOVE to see a thread where you suggest buying Intel. I bet if I looked at your posts over the last 3 months I can't find even one.

You might want to take a look at my post history...I have recommended Intel on numerous occasions, as a moderator I know you can look it up. You might be shocked to see what you find in there. I am really not biased.

So much for civil... I see Cazalan gets it.

I wasn't trolling...HW is virtually no improvement over IB for the desktop crowd, and when I recommend Intel to someone, I recommend they save money and buy IB for the same performance for less money....(better performance when overclocked).

Love how you just skip over me having an AMD product. The fanboy crying fanboy is like the wolf crying to the towns people that there is a wolf, and he needs to be saved from him.

 

[8350rocks]

Where did I post you were a fanboy? I said you would be crowing about how terrible it is if AMD did that same thing Intel did.

Also, glad you like the FX 6300. It is a great CPU for the money.

Additionally...that doesn't change that HW offered so much improvement over IB, when you round the % increase to the nearest 10...it rounds down to 0.

That's not progress...that's stalling.

 

[Intel God]

I just found this thread and its hilarious :lol:. 8350 id love some links to those so called linux benchmarks of an 8 core FX beating a 3960X. Let me guess the FX is clocked at 5Ghz and the 3960X at 3.5Ghz right?

 

[8350rocks]

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

EDIT: stock clocks...btw

 

[MajinCry]

This whole back-forth over which company made the better block of silicon...Sheesh. This is no different than those fellas who get worked up over who bought the better store grass for their lawn.

Or a couple o' teenagers over who has the biggest wiggy-woogle.

*Sigh*

 

[prankstare]

man I gotta say, i'm loving this shit lol...

 

[FlintIronStagg]

So yet another thread turning into Intel vs Amd. Has anyone thought about the core allocation on the new consoles? The games wont be utilizing all 8 cores. A few core will be dedicated to the 3 OS'S on the Xbox one for example.

 

[8350rocks]

By the time new games start rolling out, AMD will release Steamroller. So my suggestion would be not to build a new system at the moment if you have a decent one now. Wait and see what happens as it pure waste of time trying to predict if games will be running better on more cores or on less more powerful cores.

So yet another thread turning into Intel vs Amd. Has anyone thought about the core allocation on the new consoles? The games wont be utilizing all 8 cores. A few core will be dedicated to the 3 OS'S on the Xbox one for example.

Not familiar with Xbone at this time, but the PS4 OS is run off the GPU and an ARM core in the background...8 cores are available on the PS4...though you honestly end up using 1 maybe 2 cores for middleware fairly frequently. Expect to see 6-7 cores used predominantly in that console.

EDIT: OS on PS4 is something very similar to some Linux Distros. I think it's based on FreeBSD 9, iirc, though the code has been altered quite a bit by Sony...so Linux ports could potentially be forthcoming, but they won't port without reworking some things.