Outlander_04 :
RedJaron :
Except no one here is trying to say, "Since the i3 wins at one game, it must win at all games" like you're doing.
I havent said anything of the kind.
Really? Let's try a little fact checking.
Outlander_04 :
The cpu work load in a multiplayer map is much higher . More threads will help,
Not necessarily. A CPU offering more logical cores only helps if the game has been programmed to run on multiple threads. Just because a game is "multi-threaded" doesn't mean it will instantly use every core your CPU has available. A game that has only two threads is still multi-threaded. But that game won't care whether you've got four cores or eight, it still can't use them all. The vast majority of games now use four cores or less. So, considering Intel currently has better per-core performance, and considering that most games can only use up to four cores, why do you think a game will run better on four slower AMD cores than on four faster Intel cores? On games that can use more, yes an FX might have a little benefit, but let's explore that below.
Outlander_04 :
but total usable cpu horsepower is more important. And since an FX 8350 is more powerful than even a skylake i5 the i3's weaknesses appear .
Even an overclocked FX6300 will be better than an i3 in loads like that.
Here we go, what you said you didn't actually say. You've said repeatedly that the 8350 is more powerful than a Skylake i5, though you didn't bother to quantify what that means. The only supporting evidence you gave is a Guru3D link and specifically the Espresso and Handbrake benchmarks. So, you're suggesting that because the 8350 beats an i5 in just one test ( since you haven't offered any other supporting points ), it must be a far more powerful CPU than the i5.
I suggest you look more closely at benchmarks before you provide them as support for your arguments. In the Espresso test, the 6600K loses to the 8350 by two seconds ( 47s to 49s ), but
only when AVX acceleration is disabled. Turn on AVX and the i5 can do the task in 12 seconds The i5 actually beats every FX CPU on that list in the Handbrake portion. I'm unsure how you reason these results are evidence of the FX being "a way more powerful CPU" than a Skylake i5. The fact that a CPU with twice the cores as an i5 barely beats it in only one out of three tests suggests to me that the i5 has almost twice the efficiency per core of the 8350. So, even if it can't handle all eight threads of some extremely threaded game, it seems to me it can deal with each of those threads almost twice as fast as the 8350. So by juggling the threads around it could have almost the same overall performance.
Outlander_04 :
Even an overclocked FX6300 will be better than an i3 in loads like that.
Well I would hope so, because an OC'd 6300 platform costs more than a regular i3 platform.
Outlander_04 :
You are right . Multiplayer and multithread is not the same thing . But in those games that support multithreading then multi thread processors perform relatively better under a high multiplayer load.
Whew, I guess it's a good thing that the i3, i5, and most of Intel's CPUs are multi-threaded then, isn't it!
So, all in all, that's another big swing and a miss. Care to try for strike three?
Now then, we have rules here at TH. One of those rules is to not mislead other users asking for advice by giving them false information or presenting opinions as though they were fact. If you insist on making controversial statements, I suggest you back them up with supporting evidence ( the more sources the better, usually ). We enforce the rules here, so breaking them leads to consequences. And if you cannot understand what I have written here, I suggest you take a deep breath and read it more slowly.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram