Need Help picking the right PC parts!

[8350rocks]

BTW munkee, what type of build do you have, let's see those specs. I'm kind of curious.

Oh and this 8350 guy is ALWAYS trolling. That's why I started an argument with him. He comes in all the intel threads and recommend AMD, saying since they make use of higher MHZ RAM they are 10x's better and I know it's BS. So I finally called him out on it. I didn't mean for you to get mixed up in it. It just happend haha.

You need to learn to google properly...if you're so intelligent you should have found both the above links quickly...

Or you have your head buried in the sand and made 0 effort to even try...

I am inclined to think it's user error...though ignorance/laziness has a way of popping up in places like this...

 

[tadej petric]

If you are animating and rendering, the AMD FX-8350 will serve you better.

AMD FX-8350 is half the money of the i7 you chose, and it renders WAY better AND runs more applications at once without much load at all...

joke of the year:lol:

i7 3980k will destroy fx 8350 in every task

- http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=552

Er...NO! Those benchmarks are old...now that AMD boards can utilize all the memory bandwidth for 2133 MHz you intel boys need to run for the hills...the FX-8350 was being bottlenecked by RAM bandwidth cause it couldn't utilize more than 1600 MHz memory bandwidth...your 25% bandwidth advantage is gone now...

Check the newest benchmarks...FX-8350 blows intel away at anything close to using all 8 cores/4 FPUs...if you OC, the advantage is only shifted FURTHER in the FX's favor.

*facepalm*

 

[ericjohn004]

BTW munkee, what type of build do you have, let's see those specs. I'm kind of curious.

Oh and this 8350 guy is ALWAYS trolling. That's why I started an argument with him. He comes in all the intel threads and recommend AMD, saying since they make use of higher MHZ RAM they are 10x's better and I know it's BS. So I finally called him out on it. I didn't mean for you to get mixed up in it. It just happend haha.

You need to learn to google properly...if you're so intelligent you should have found both the above links quickly...

Or you have your head buried in the sand and made 0 effort to even try...

I am inclined to think it's user error...though ignorance/laziness has a way of popping up in places like this...

Those links don't bring me to any benchmarks. I looked up my own links and posted them to prove my point. Why can't you do the same? Is it that hard?

No it's not hard. It's just that you wouldn't dare post some BS link on Tom's Hardware for everyone to see, and laugh at your dumb ass. If anyone seriously thinks an 8350 will beat a 3930k in rendering of all things(the 3930k has 12 theoretical cores), the've got a serious problem.

Sure there might be 1 or 2 benchmarks that favor AMD. Afterall they should win at least 1 benchmark that's been optimized for AMD. But they have hundreds that favor Intel. Are you really going to go by one benchmark? This alone proves how your being a homer.

BTW, the difference between 1600Mhz memory and 2133Mhz memory, is about a 2-3% performance increase. And I know because I just went from 1600Mhz to 2133Mhz and I barely saw an increase and I have the best RAM you can buy with tight timings and all. PLUS all those benchmarks comparing AMD to Intel that I posted are all using 1600Mhz memory. So they are on an even playing field ALREADY. You can even read an article on Tom's Hardware that shows the benefit or higher clocked memory. If you had some common sense. Maybe common sense is expecting too much from you.

I can agree with you that an AMD 8350 is a good processor. Well worth the money. You've got a nice processor, one of the better ones, I'm not arguing that. But can you at least just admit that a 3930k is better in rendering than an 8350 and just be honest with yourself and everyone else? Even 3770k will beat the 8350 in rendering.

Why can't you use a normal benchmark like Cinebench 11.5? Why must you find a benchmark that no one has ever seen that AMD finally win's. And I haven't even seen that yet.

 

[8350rocks]

Watch the Video...just watch it...read the comments, he posts a link to the benchmark results in graph form on page 2 of the comments section with results for that test plus the test with GTX670...the video for the GTX670 test video should be up in some reasonably soon timeframe...

The benchmarks were things like Metro2033...nobody benchmarks that huh? Crysis 3...nobody benchmarks that either I suppose...and he runs them in 1440p!

Open your mind, watch the video at Teksyndicate.

 

[ericjohn004]

Watch the Video...just watch it...read the comments, he posts a link to the benchmark results in graph form on page 2 of the comments section with results for that test plus the test with GTX670...the video for the GTX670 test video should be up in some reasonably soon timeframe...

The benchmarks were things like Metro2033...nobody benchmarks that huh? Crysis 3...nobody benchmarks that either I suppose...and he runs them in 1440p!

Open your mind, watch the video at Teksyndicate.

Dude you seriously expect me do believe "tek syndicate" over Tom's Hardware? Really? Tom's Hardware goes at it in a precise and scientific matter. In this video, he would read out one number, and the number on the screen would be a totally different number. You expect me to believe this video favoring AMD over many others that don't.

If you want to see the real performance difference AMD gets with higher MHZ memory. I found this article from Tom's Hardware for you. Check this out.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-ddr3-overclocking,3209.html

It examines what performance benefits AMD gets when paired with high MHZ memory. I haven't read it yet but I will read it now. I'm expected hardly any difference at all.

But seriously, you and I know, that Tom's Hardware is the most trust worthy benchmark site in the world. You can't denie that. So why go looking for sites that favor AMD just for the fact you like AMD. Why not go to an anti biased site instead of a biased one?

 

[ericjohn004]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

 

[ASHISH65]

+1 thanks ericjohn004 for providing info.see that tech sydicate bench how can fx 8350 can be 68% faster than i5 in metro 2033 game lol lol.anyways mr 8350 we said that i7 3980 on faster than 8350 in rendering and you showed us bench of gaming!

really that tech sydicate is cannot be trustable with unvariable results

 

[munkeepc]

+1 thanks ericjohn004 for providing info.see that tech sydicate bench how can fx 8350 can be 68% faster than i5 in metro 2033 game lol lol.anyways mr 8350 we said that i7 3980 on faster than 8350 in rendering and you showed us bench of gaming!

really that tech sydicate is cannot be trustable with unvariable results

Like I said before, the Tek has questionable results but I have heard others out there that say the same thing. The issue isn't that the i7's will destroy it's that they destroy margainally compared to price. And yes those benchmarks are gaming because percapita more people game than render..

That's a pretty vague question as to what I run in my personal system. Do you want my gaming rig, office rig, laptop, photoshop rig? Or do you want my VP's rig, Art tech's rig, office assistants rig? LoL! If you're looking for my gaming rig let's just say it will stack up in the 95th percentile for performance.

Thanks for the convo. Nice meeting you all.

 

[kwillis]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

I am going to go with the 3930k. But I would also like to know, would you say the AMD 7970 GHz edition or the GTX 680 Superclocked is the better card for rendering/animation, etc?

 

[tadej petric]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

I am going to go with the 3930k. But I would also like to know, would you say the AMD 7970 GHz edition or the GTX 680 Superclocked is the better card for rendering/animation, etc?

Find some workstation cards (firepro, quadro), they are better at that kind of stuff

 

[8350rocks]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

You really don't listen to a word I say...

Read the comments at the bottom of the video...

Also...here are some comparisons...talk about power hungry AMD chips...if you're not doing extremely top end rendering, the AMD will serve you better:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3930K+%40+3.20GHz

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?276245-AMD-quot-Piledriver-quot-refresh-of-Zambezi-info-speculations-test-fans&p=5138192&viewfull=1#post5138192

Go down about half a page on this one to see the Cinebench 11.5 results...they're comparable to high end i7 results

Another Cinebench result: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1722207

That's an older benchmark, but you can still see performance.

If you want a minor boost in raw performance, that draw more wattage at idle and under load, sure...get the 3930K...if you want 95% performance for 30% of the cost...get the AMD, for $169.99 vs. $509, many of these benchmarks have basically stated..."You visually cannot perceive the difference without staring at a benchmark program"...why blow $340.00 for an imperceptible difference? Spend that money on your GPUs.

 

[munkeepc]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

I am going to go with the 3930k. But I would also like to know, would you say the AMD 7970 GHz edition or the GTX 680 Superclocked is the better card for rendering/animation, etc?

Find some workstation cards (firepro, quadro), they are better at that kind of stuff

Agreed. If you're doing high end rendering then the get 2-3 workstation cards, or even 1 Titan card. If you're just an enthusiast renderer then the 680 will be fine. If you ever plan on adding a second card thou step down to the 670 because the performance vs price comparison between 2x 670's and 2x 680's is so close that the price you pay for the 680's isn't justifiable.

 

[Flightsimluke]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

You really don't listen to a word I say...

Read the comments at the bottom of the video...

Also...here are some comparisons...talk about power hungry AMD chips...if you're not doing extremely top end rendering, the AMD will serve you better:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3930K+%40+3.20GHz

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?276245-AMD-quot-Piledriver-quot-refresh-of-Zambezi-info-speculations-test-fans&p=5138192&viewfull=1#post5138192

Go down about half a page on this one to see the Cinebench 11.5 results...they're comparable to high end i7 results

Another Cinebench result: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1722207

That's an older benchmark, but you can still see performance.

If you want a minor boost in raw performance, that draw more wattage at idle and under load, sure...get the 3930K...if you want 95% performance for 30% of the cost...get the AMD, for $169.99 vs. $509, many of these benchmarks have basically stated..."You visually cannot perceive the difference without staring at a benchmark program"...why blow $340.00 for an imperceptible difference? Spend that money on your GPUs.

Look, I'm an AMD person too, but I know when it is time to go for intel. You need to learn when to shut up, you really are blinded by your own lack of intelligence. I wish that people like you would get of these forums, with your pathetic trolling attempts. If what you think is legit, you are an idiot. If you are trolling, you are simply a wimp who enjoys trying to make nice people waste money on obviously worse PC parts. Get a life, and GTFO.

 

[ericjohn004]

Here you go. This is Tom's Hardwares conclusion.

"The primary goal of today’s test was to find out if the reports of an AMD FX-based performance boost with high-speed RAM were true. The secondary goal was to find the best module set to get us that performance advantage. And while most of today’s benchmarks demonstrated negligible performance gains going from DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2400, one application really did jump by 6%. That’s a small gain in performance for such a big push in data rate, but it’s still noticeable. Dropping some of our RAM to CAS 6 at DDR3-1600 didn’t give us the same speed-up."

We can go all day about which processor is better for gaming. It's obvious the 3570k is a whole lot better if you believe the most trustworthy website in the world, Tom's Hardware. And if you think your website is better than Tom's then why don't you stay on their forum with all of your AMD buddies cause this is a neutral website.

But our primary argument was about an 8350 beating a 3930k in rendering and so far you havn't produced any kind of factual argument whatsoever, where I have produced many, many benchmarks proving my point. And you can find all of these gaming/program/rendering benchmarks all over the internet. But you can only find an AMD winning over Intel on an extremely limited number of websites that seem to obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is benchmarking processors with the goal of AMD winning. It seems the whole point of these video's you link me to, are to purposely find ways AMD beats Intel. When you start off benchmarking processors trying to prove that one wins over another, then the results are hardly going to be honest. And the results that do show the truth, won't be included. I usually try to stay away from biased websites while you seem to favor them. Why is this?

For example, I bet you any money this website will never test the game Skyrim. Because this game shows Intel doubling the performance of AMD. So you won't find that comparison, even though it's one of the most popular gaming benchmarks, because it conflicts with their agenda. If you really wanted to have an "open mind", you would read some of Tom's Hardware's reviews of the 8350. The 8350 doesn't score a whole lot lower on most gaming benchmarks, but the 3570k is clearly superior. Don't you trust Tom's Hardware to give you the truth over some agenda driven website like tek syndicate.

BTW, isn't tek syndicate way late on their benchmarks. These processors came out almost a year ago. This is all really old news and their still comparing these processors.

You really don't listen to a word I say...

Read the comments at the bottom of the video...

Also...here are some comparisons...talk about power hungry AMD chips...if you're not doing extremely top end rendering, the AMD will serve you better:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3930K+%40+3.20GHz

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?276245-AMD-quot-Piledriver-quot-refresh-of-Zambezi-info-speculations-test-fans&p=5138192&viewfull=1#post5138192

Go down about half a page on this one to see the Cinebench 11.5 results...they're comparable to high end i7 results

Another Cinebench result: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1722207

That's an older benchmark, but you can still see performance.

If you want a minor boost in raw performance, that draw more wattage at idle and under load, sure...get the 3930K...if you want 95% performance for 30% of the cost...get the AMD, for $169.99 vs. $509, many of these benchmarks have basically stated..."You visually cannot perceive the difference without staring at a benchmark program"...why blow $340.00 for an imperceptible difference? Spend that money on your GPUs.

Look, I'm an AMD person too, but I know when it is time to go for intel. You need to learn when to shut up, you really are blinded by your own lack of intelligence. I wish that people like you would get of these forums, with your pathetic trolling attempts. If what you think is legit, you are an idiot. If you are trolling, you are simply a wimp who enjoys trying to make nice people waste money on obviously worse PC parts. Get a life, and GTFO.

THANKS YOU GOD! Haha. An AMD fan comes in here and tells the truth. I appreciate that. I really like AMD too. I'd buy an 8350 any day of the week if I had a strict budget. Good PC's. They just can't keep up with an i5 in gaming. But for 179.99 what do you expect right? It's a great all around PC. It's not necessarily great in everything like some people want to believe. And the 3930k really just detroys it.

If you read what people say under that video 8350rocks posted. It just goes to show how ignorant some people are. I mean, they are going to completely forget about the other 100 benchmarks they saw because this one favors their build. Outright ridiculous. And who in their right mind is not going to trust Tom's Hardware. Why can't they just get their results right here, at the most respected site in the WORLD.

 

[ericjohn004]

+1 thanks ericjohn004 for providing info.see that tech sydicate bench how can fx 8350 can be 68% faster than i5 in metro 2033 game lol lol.anyways mr 8350 we said that i7 3980 on faster than 8350 in rendering and you showed us bench of gaming!

really that tech sydicate is cannot be trustable with unvariable results

Like I said before, the Tek has questionable results but I have heard others out there that say the same thing. The issue isn't that the i7's will destroy it's that they destroy margainally compared to price. And yes those benchmarks are gaming because percapita more people game than render..

That's a pretty vague question as to what I run in my personal system. Do you want my gaming rig, office rig, laptop, photoshop rig? Or do you want my VP's rig, Art tech's rig, office assistants rig? LoL! If you're looking for my gaming rig let's just say it will stack up in the 95th percentile for performance.

Thanks for the convo. Nice meeting you all.

I was asking a simple question to try and stop arguing with you. But I see you just won't have that. Like bragging much? WOW you have so many PC's.

And I like how you get 8350's back and say "well he just chose to use a gaming benchmark video because parcapita, most people game". Yeah and I guess cause more people game, a gaming benchmark should have relevance to a rendering argument huh? Yeah if that makes since.

Do you always take up sides with the guy who doesn't make any since. I obviously tried to get you off of this subject but it seems you not only won't have that. But you mocked me for even asking the question. What a dick.

edit: By the way, you still haven't provided any benchmarks of the 8350 beating a 3930k. In which I would absolutely LOVE to see. But obviously none of you can find any. I believe I've destroyed you just like the 3930k destroys the 8350 lol.

 

[munkeepc]

Edited. Not worth my time. kwillis if you have any further questions for me please feel free to PM us or shoot us a support question via the site. We'll be happy to help in anyway we can.