AMD cores vs Intel cores

[Arbiter]

Because the price of the 8350 should have dropped, as well as many other AMD chips. If not by competition from Intel then at least its age. It was also something AMD was going to do with the introduction of the 8370's and 8320E. Except now the 8370 is $200. At least the A10-7850K dropped to $150 but I could get a 760k and a 750Ti for that price. The Core i5-4430 is $5 more and that makes the 8350 junk.

And I know you're thinking I'm a AMD fanboy but no. AMD was better in that price range but that couldn't last forever without new CPUs.

Fair enough argument. I just never thought I'd see a negative AMD statement coming from you lol.

It would be nice to see some good AMD CPU solutions though. Even if not power efficient, let it make up for it in raw performance.

[Gnomorepuns]

Putting it bluntly, performance metrics aside.
Average at best core (AMD) against Superior core (Intel).

Intel is superior and most likely always will be. End of story. I've also experienced both processers and Intel trumps AMD.

[MrPaladinGuy]

Unless you have an actual need for extra cores, go with whatever has the highest IPC per core, which AFAIK ATM are the quad Intel procs.

But don't buy it just because it's quad from Intel, check unbiased benchmarks, and pay attention to the games in the benchmark as well as the settings. Such as if it's CPU Bound, GPU bound, vsync is enabled or disabled, and the resolution.

Check forums for quotes about CPU usage as well in a specific app/game too, you'll need the other relevant info from them as well.

Games are not moving towards using more cores, that's a bunch of bullshit that publishers like EA are spouting out.

Multithreaded programming for games is still a nightmare, and almost all games are still dual-threaded, and even if they claim to be triple-threaded or more, that doesn't mean those extra threads are actually important.

And since you want to stream, consider an Nvidia GPU, Shadowplay is amazing and it can stream. Just be aware that above 1080p you're limited to 30FPS captures on pre-Maxwell architecture.

[ActiveTroll]

Games are not moving towards using more cores, that's a bunch of bullshit that publishers like EA are spouting out.

Multithreaded programming for games is still a nightmare, and almost all games are still dual-threaded, and even if they claim to be triple-threaded or more, that doesn't mean those extra threads are actually important.

And since you want to stream, consider an Nvidia GPU, Shadowplay is amazing and it can stream. Just be aware that above 1080p you're limited to 30FPS captures on pre-Maxwell architecture.

I was planning on going with a GTX 970. But I've been reading that the 4 gigs mem is a lie and it is really 3.5g as well about a loud coil whine. is it still the best card in this price range despite these drawbacks? Are any of the brands better at addressing the noise issue than others? I usually go with Asus, as they seem to have the most reliable construction from my experience, but certainly am not against going with any other brands.

[Pyrophobia]

To the OP i'd say don't take anything said here to be set in stone. Instead question everything and do your own research.
1. Prices you can purchase the products matter. You can't compare 2 CPU on different prices and say that the expensive one is performing better. That's why it's more expensive
2. Energy consumption also matters but it also matters how much energy those CPU consume in rest and how much money it will add to the CPU cost in the end. 20 w difference ? Multiply that by the hours used and add it to the price.
3. Test what you want for the purpose you gonna use the processor. Both end Intel and AMD spread to 4 real cores and some games might value single threaded performance more but others use multithreaded quite good. WoW is multithreading quite good not ideal but quite good.

Because the price of the 8350 should have dropped, as well as many other AMD chips. If not by competition from Intel then at least its age. It was also something AMD was going to do with the introduction of the 8370's and 8320E. Except now the 8370 is $200. At least the A10-7850K dropped to $150 but I could get a 760k and a 750Ti for that price. The Core i5-4430 is $5 more and that makes the 8350 junk.

And I know you're thinking I'm a AMD fanboy but no. AMD was better in that price range but that couldn't last forever without new CPUs.

Your last statement that "The Core i5-4430 ... makes the 8350 junk" is just so wrong that all i need to do is post a simple link to disproove it.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1924&cmp[]=1780
Maybe the 4430 is better in singletreaded performance but in multithreaded the 8350 is way better. And then it matters if you gonna run 1 process on it or many ...

[Jtbrig7390]

I was planning on going with a GTX 970. But I've been reading that the 4 gigs mem is a lie and it is really 3.5g as well about a loud coil whine. is it still the best card in this price range despite these drawbacks? Are any of the brands better at addressing the noise issue than others? I usually go with Asus, as they seem to have the most reliable construction from my experience, but certainly am not against going with any other brands.

For the bolded part don't worrie about the other 512mb. The chances of you hitting it without doing 1440p gaming is slim to none. I got http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B...?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and it with the other fans in my case I barely hear it.

Also if your super worried about the GTX 970 here is a benchmark you can watch. It took Digital Froundy running UNity on Ultra 1440p settings to hit the 512mb mark and have some shutter.



the GTX 970 is a good card. So to answer ur question yes the GTX 970 is the best card in that price range.

[Vash The Stampede]

Putting it bluntly, performance metrics aside.
Average at best core (AMD) against Superior core (Intel).

Intel is superior and most likely always will be. End of story. I've also experienced both processers and Intel trumps AMD.

I really hope not. Though we'll see when AMD releases their Zen chips in 2016. Cause if AMD backs off competing with Intel then who do we have in the x86 market? That brings us to ARM vs X86 and we'll have to start begging developers to port their applications to ARM.

Your last statement that "The Core i5-4430 ... makes the 8350 junk" is just so wrong that all i need to do is post a simple link to disproove it.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1924&cmp[]=1780
Maybe the 4430 is better in singletreaded performance but in multithreaded the 8350 is way better. And then it matters if you gonna run 1 process on it or many ...

There are going to be some games and some synthetic benchmarks that the 8350 is going to win. In some applications the 8350 can really compete against even an i7, but for majority of benchmarks and games the i5's win. That wasn't a big issue before when an 8350 was $180 and the cheapest i5 was $200. The difference in performance was small so it made sense to buy an 8350. That's no longer the case anymore. The 8350 had the overclocking advantage with unlocked multipliers but so do all the Intel K parts. Right now the 4670K on NewEgg is sold out probably because of unlocked multiplier.

I own an 8350 and it's my main machine, but by now the 8350 should be like $150. The 8370 should be $170 and the FX-9590 $200. That's what happens when you don't release new CPUs to compete with Intel. When you're not the King, it sucks not to be the King.

[Arbiter]

I really hope not. Though we'll see when AMD releases their Zen chips in 2016. Cause if AMD backs off competing with Intel then who do we have in the x86 market? That brings us to ARM vs X86 and we'll have to start begging developers to port their applications to ARM.

Agree with this. It's pretty ignorant to assume that Intel "will always be superior" considering I don't think any of us can predict the future. A brand doesn't make something superior, the product is what makes it superior and the product can always change or something new can always be introduced.

[Vash The Stampede]

Agree with this. It's pretty ignorant to assume that Intel "will always be superior" considering I don't think any of us can predict the future. A brand doesn't make something superior, the product is what makes it superior and the product can always change or something new can always be introduced.

Intel pumps a lot into R&D. It's likely mostly towards manufacturing instead of design. AMD on the other hand has been declining. Even significantly behind Nvidia, though it could be because Nvidia invests a lot in the mobile market. But for a company that does both CPU and GPU you'd think they would invest in more R&D.

[Lathais]

Intel pumps a lot into R&D. It's likely mostly towards manufacturing instead of design. AMD on the other hand has been declining. Even significantly behind Nvidia, though it could be because Nvidia invests a lot in the mobile market. But for a company that does both CPU and GPU you'd think they would invest in more R&D.

Well, that's probably because they have more money to spend on R&D. Seeing as AMD is losing money and has been in danger of going out of business, kept afloat by intel giving them money in order to avoid anti-trust, they likely don't have any more money to spend on R&D.

[Deleted]

And thats not good for a simple reason. No competition and then intel/nvidia can ask whatever prices they want...

[Cyanotical]

Seeing as AMD is losing money and has been in danger of going out of business, kept afloat by intel giving them money in order to avoid anti-trust, they likely don't have any more money to spend on R&D.

they don't really have to either, i doubt intel would care if AMD went under from an anti-trust standpoint.

[Lathais]

they don't really have to either, i doubt intel would care if AMD went under from an anti-trust standpoint.

You bet they would care. Do you even know what happens to a company when they have a monopoly? They would be under scrutiny and in danger of eithre being split up or having all sorts of government regulations shoved down their throat. Something they do not want. If they did not care, why did they bail AMD out? Why not just keep their money and let AMD fail? The fact that they gave them money shows they care quite a bit. They want AMD to stay alive so they avoid having a monopoly.

[Cyanotical]

You bet they would care. Do you even know what happens to a company when they have a monopoly?

im willing to bet not a damn thing, you can scream monopoly all you want, but there is nothing illegal about simply being a monopoly

[Lathais]

im willing to bet not a damn thing, you can scream monopoly all you want, but there is nothing illegal about simply being a monopoly

You missed my edit.

I'll re-iterate though, if they don't care, why did they bail AMD out? Why not keep their money and let them fail?

While yes, there is nothing illegal about a monopoly inherently, it can easily lead to illegal things happening and would they would likely be scrutinized.

[Cyanotical]

You missed my edit.

I'll re-iterate though, if they don't care, why did they bail AMD out? Why not keep their money and let them fail?

While yes, there is nothing illegal about a monopoly inherently, it can easily lead to illegal things happening and would they would likely be scrutinized.

and again, i doubt they care, intel has reasons to help AMD, but not to avoid being a monopoly, the thing to keep in mind is that Intel is an american company, meaning an enforceable anti-trust can only come from the US, not the EU or Asia. the last company to deal with this was microsoft, and they pretty much won.

nobody in the US government is going to want to break apart an american company that publicly "symbolizes our state of the art technology and development" because they defeated a rival in a free market capitalist society. and an attempt by EU or Asia to force it wouldn't go over well at all (americans would encourage monopolistic behavior on principal)

companies like microsoft, google, apple and intel play nice with EU/Asia regulations to stay in the market, but if it came down to an antitrust breakup, they would get the US government involved to force the EU/Asia to back down, or leave the EU/Asia hanging and just pull out of that market.


edit, nevermind that IBM and ARM are still around and doing very good

edit 2, comcast is easily the most hated company in the US. and i do mean hated. yet we can't get anyone to consider an anti-trust case against them, and you think intel even has a mild concern about this?

[Lathais]

and again, i doubt they care, intel has reasons to help AMD, but not to avoid being a monopoly, the thing to keep in mind is that Intel is an american company, meaning an enforceable anti-trust can only come from the US, not the EU or Asia. the last company to deal with this was microsoft, and they pretty much won.

nobody in the US government is going to want to break apart an american company that publicly "symbolizes our state of the art technology and development" because they defeated a rival in a free market capitalist society. and an attempt by EU or Asia to force it wouldn't go over well at all (americans would encourage monopolistic behavior on principal)

companies like microsoft, google, apple and intel play nice with EU/Asia regulations to stay in the market, but if it came down to an antitrust breakup, they would get the US government involved to force the EU/Asia to back down, or leave the EU/Asia hanging and just pull out of that market.


edit, nevermind that IBM and ARM are still around and doing very good

edit 2, comcast is easily the most hated company in the US. and i do mean hated. yet we can't get anyone to consider an anti-trust case against them, and you think intel even has a mild concern about this?

and what exactly did/does Microsoft have a monopoly on? What about IBM? ARM? Comcast?

[Stefy]

AMD GPUs are better than the Nvidia counterparts. They've just been too slow to releases them.

[Cyanotical]

and what exactly did/does Microsoft have a monopoly on? What about IBM? ARM? Comcast?

here's the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

ARM and IBM are competitors to intel, ARM makes chips for phones and tablets, and IBM makes monster server CPUs and is currently R&Ding next gen processors, including graphene based chips and synaptic processing


oh and comcast, they are an abusive monopoly, all of their customers would rather have someone else but have no choice, they intentionally antagonize and insult customers and do all they can to screw as many people out of as much money as they can. no anti trust. while intel is a very well liked and respected company in the US, a household brand, if comcast isn't worrying about getting in trouble for anti-trust violations, why should intel?


- - - Updated - - -

AMD GPUs are better than the Nvidia counterparts.

please explain why.

[Lathais]

here's the wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Microsoft_Corp.

ARM and IBM are competitors to intel, ARM makes chips for phones and tablets, and IBM makes monster server CPUs and is currently R&Ding next gen processors, including graphene based chips and synaptic processing

- - - Updated - - -



please explain why.

Ah yes, the browser thing. Well, they did not have a true monopoly. There are other browsers and Windows allows you to use them. It was getting more difficult to use other browsers, now it is not. So I'd say things are fine.

Yes, but those are not regular consumer CPUs where intel will still have a monopoly. Also, Comcast does not have any sort of monopoly. I can get internet access from at least 4 different providers.

If AMD goes away, intel has no competition in several markets. Period. None of the other things you pointed out have the same effect. They are entirely different scenarios.