Intel killing off enthusiast PCs?

[Cyanotical]

"Most people" must all be using 3960x chips along with dual (quad SLI) GTX 690s then, right?

i should hope not, makes me feel less special

Price matters to many. This entire thread derailed regardless, but the point still stands. AMD topples Intel at every price point up to $220~, and is perfectly viable later down the line.

when you consider that your average computer user buys their computer from best buy, and doesn't expect to pay more than $400-500 for it

for a daily use computer, you are correct, personally i really like the FX4170 and a good SSD, for most people that is the fastest computer they have ever used and it costs very little

however, AMD starts to fall behind in gaming around the i3's price point, and the 3570k can be had for $189 at microcenter

Am I personally using AMD? No. Is the misinformed nerd rage and hate against them warranted? No. Vishera is perfectly capable of maxing out any game available.

except wow, to date nobody has been able to pull a solid 60FPS in 25 man combat with all settings at full max, i get close with about 55-58, but even with a 3960x, sometimes i get significant fps drops in heavy AoE




the biggest problem is that people immediately discount AMD for everything because Intel is better for gaming, if you are building a cheap web/office pc, you can built a much better pc with an AMD chip

[glo]

Well, I suppose what I should have said is that "Any game that Intel can safely max at 60 FPS, AMD can as well". I suppose that's going to exclude CPU intensive games, but you get my point. <.<

However, I must disagree on the i3 > 4300 (or 6300) statement. While they're close to even at stock settings, AMD is a mile ahead once overclocked. The 4300 can be pushed so, so far.

[vesseblah]

However, I must disagree on the i3 > 4300 (or 6300) statement. While they're close to even at stock settings, AMD is a mile ahead once overclocked. The 4300 can be pushed so, so far.

On WoW specifically i3 is faster than 4300 or 6300 if nothing is overclocked. It's not night and day difference in performance, but when you're hovering around the "playable" point of 30fps in 25man raids 10fps difference is huge before overclocking. And when AMD processor is at comfortably high clock speed it only just goes above i3 in WoW.

Reading (and writing) this forum daily has shown me that surprisingly low number of people who are interested in buying decent gaming computers or even building it themselves is willing to take the last step and overclock. That's why I can safely say that i3+H61 will be always right choice for WoW in low budget computers over anything AMD offers. Exceptions are exceptions, and will get different advice.

[jmacphee9]

One per customer + forced motherboard combo + finding and convincing someone to go drive to a microcenter, buy them a processor and then drive to a UPS store for a mere $15 = highly unlikely.

that is the price for the processor alone, the savings after that are an extra 40$ off the motherboard of choice, z77 only. for sandy bridge it was z68 only. not that this effects this topic much, but that is how microcenter works. so the processors are considerably cheaper, plus you get a nice chunk out of the price of the motherboard when you buy them together.

[dwarven]

What will happen to multimedia PCs, gaming rigs, workstations, servers? You can't run those on mobile technology. Gamers will never want to game on a freaking tablet, and the interface of a keyboard and mouse is just better for productivity in any setting. Tablets are really a fad I think. Sure, the desktop pc will evolve, but it can't be phased out. I think AMD will step up their game and maybe we'll see a third chip manufacturer get in the game. Seriously, screw intel if this is really what they're doing. AMD is cheaper anyway.

[Deleted]

What will happen to multimedia PCs, gaming rigs, workstations, servers? You can't run those on mobile technology. Gamers will never want to game on a freaking tablet, and the interface of a keyboard and mouse is just better for productivity in any setting. Tablets are really a fad I think. Sure, the desktop pc will evolve, but it can't be phased out. I think AMD will step up their game and maybe we'll see a third chip manufacturer get in the game. Seriously, screw intel if this is really what they're doing. AMD is cheaper anyway.

Like I said: screw Intel.

Finally no competition for them and they have to be the dickwad.

[vesseblah]

What will happen to multimedia PCs, gaming rigs, workstations, servers? You can't run those on mobile technology.

It's not about mobile technology, but shipping processor and motherboard as single unit which takes away choices.

Basically currently recommended platform for gaming on this forum is ASRock Z77 Extreme4 motherboard + Intel i5-3570k processor. If ASRock would start selling a fictional "ASRock 3570K Extreme4" board at lower price with pre-soldered CPU it would probably be the most recommended purchase still on this forum.

My only real (not imaginary like some people have) problem with this plan is what if the motherboard breaks outsides warranty? Replacing it will be really expensive because 2/3 of the price comes from the processor part. Fried USB or LAN ports on motherboard are pretty common issues, while CPU itself can last for decades.

AMD is cheaper anyway.

Cheaper does not always/usually/in this case mean better.

[Faithh]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Last time I checked I mentioned nothing about core count, but thanks for the pointless read anyway.

AMD is still superior at the $1-220 price point no matter which way you slice it. For users that only care about threaded performance, it's often at times better than the 3570k.

That post: was a reply to this which has been posted earlier.

No, they aren't "twice as fast". Read reviews please. Also, there's no such thing as a "psych core".

Yet you still understand that most games are limited to 2 cores. Overclock that FX8350 to 5GHz, yet it still won't stand a chance to beat the i3 in 2-core apps.

You still don't get it that loads of intel fanboys are laughing fx8xxx out with: "It's just a quadcore, not an octacore!"

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

You still don't get it that loads of intel fanboys are laughing fx8xxx out with: "It's just a quadcore, not an octacore!"

I laughed the 8150 out because it was beaten resounded by the i3 2100 in gaming benchmarks.

Hang on, so a processor with a quarter of the cores, clocked 400 MHz lower, with about 5% of the L2 cache and third of the L3 cache, which costs less than half of the price of the 8150 produced 20% higher frames per second in a WoW benchmark?

WoW isn't known for multi-core support but still...

[Faithh]

I laughed the 8150 out because it was beaten resounded by the i3 2100 in gaming benchmarks.

It's just this.. AMD lies everytime that they're going to be xx% faster than intel/nvidia but they never could make it true. With the FX8350 really this is just an overclocked edition. The architecture stood the same but they "fixed" the leakage of the electricity inside the die so it's better to overclock and less power hungry..

http://content.hwigroup.net/images/a...ity-slide3.PNG

Lying it's 25% faster >.< - It's only 16% and that's because of their overclock to 4GHz.

Tbh I rather prefer a dual core which performs the same as an "octacore". No wonder why Intel is just playing a monopoly game and deciding everything by themself and you get solderattached cpu's -_-. Worst of all, the sandy bridge E is an octacore with 2/4 cores lasercutted (disabled) just because they wanted to have: "a reasonable TDP". Who really cares about 50 more TDP.

[glo]

That post: was a reply to this which has been posted earlier.



Yet you still understand that most games are limited to 2 cores. Overclock that FX8350 to 5GHz, yet it still won't stand a chance to beat the i3 in 2-core apps.

You still don't get it that loads of intel fanboys are laughing fx8xxx out with: "It's just a quadcore, not an octacore!"

An 8350 would absolutely dominate an i3 at 5Ghz. Where in the hell are you getting your information?

At stock settings (no gaming benches available on the 3220):

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Produ...i=60.61.62.129

Again, Vishera isn't bad for the money and is better than everything up until the 3570k. People can spin the information every which way they want, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Vishera will outpace the i3 line at stock settings, and -easily- overtake locked i5s. Obviously when you get into the 3570k's price range Intel becomes the clear choice.

[Faithh]

An 8350 would absolutely dominate an i3 at 5Ghz. Where in the hell are you getting your information?

At stock settings (no gaming benches available on the 3220):

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Produ...i=60.61.62.129

Again, Vishera isn't bad for the money and is better than everything up until the 3570k. People can spin the information every which way they want, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Vishera will outpace the i3 line at stock settings, and -easily- overtake locked i5s. Obviously when you get into the 3570k's price range Intel becomes the clear choice.

And you still don't get it yet. >.>

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

I was having it about single threaded. WoW utilizes only 2 cores orwhatever so it's obvious the i3 is better.

The i3 is like 40% faster or 50%, shave the 4GHz off to 3.3GHz just to have a fair play.

You're saying that the i5 is better than the FX8350 but the i3 is exactly the same with 2 cores less and 3MB less L3 cache.

Vishera is bad for the money, especially in apps which only uses 1 or 2 cores. For WoW the i3 dominates. Linking the benchmarks of those cpu's is irrelevant because the task of the CPU is just so low that both cpu's are performing equally. During raids the CPU gets it a lot harder and will be bottlenecking any high-end card. With AMD is happens more clearly.

Surely I have to admit that the fx8350 outperforms the i3 by a chunk in heavily multithreaded apps but was I talking about that? No. My point been that most of apps are only using 2 cores max.

[glo]

And you still don't get it yet. >.>

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

I was having it about single threaded. WoW utilizes only 2 cores orwhatever so it's obvious the i3 is better.

The i3 is like 40% faster or 50%, shave the 4GHz off to 3.3GHz just to have a fair play.

You're saying that the i5 is better than the FX8350 but the i3 is exactly the same with 2 cores less and 3MB less L3 cache.

Vishera is bad for the money, especially in apps which only uses 1 or 2 cores. For WoW the i3 dominates. Linking the benchmarks of those cpu's is irrelevant because the task of the CPU is just so low that both cpu's are performing equally. During raids the CPU gets it a lot harder and will be bottlenecking any high-end card. With AMD is happens more clearly.

Surely I have to admit that the fx8350 outperforms the i3 by a chunk in heavily multithreaded apps but was I talking about that? No. My point been that most of apps are only using 2 cores max.

A 8350 @ 5.0Ghz is far ahead of any i3 in single threaded tasks and WoW. Take the whopping 2 seconds to visit the link I provided, and that's at stock settings, not 5Ghz.

Again, I would love to know where in the world you're coming up with these numbers.

[Faithh]

A 8350 @ 5.0Ghz is far ahead of any i3 in single threaded tasks and WoW. Take the whopping 2 seconds to visit the link I provided, and that's at stock settings, not 5Ghz.

Again, I would love to know where in the world you're coming up with these numbers.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

I was having it about single threaded. WoW utilizes only 2 cores orwhatever so it's obvious the i3 is better.

Why do you ask a question why you could answer it by yourself?£

An fx8350 doesn't do 5GHz unless you push the voltages over the max. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SFJVH9AZmw

He reaches a score of 9.0 which means per core a score of 1.3 which is still lower than the i3 score of 1.35-1.4 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

Again, we are comparing a single core. Just to say it once more, the i3's individual core have like 30-40% more transistors than the FX. And you're going to start comparing them? >.>

In our Skyrim CPU benchmark, the FX-8350’s poor single-threaded CPU performance really shows through, as it gets comprehensively demolished by the competing Intel chips. A minimum frame rate of 50fps at stock and 61fps when overclocked, while improvements over the FX-8150, are both well below the 94fps stock minimum frame rate possible with an Intel Core i5-3570K, with overclocking driving that minimum frame rate up to 111fps.

In Shogun 2’s CPU test the gap isn’t as jarring, and the FX-8350’s minimum frame rate of 17fps at stock is close to its predecessor’s minimum frame rate of 18fps when overclocked to 4.8GHz. However, again the Core i5-3570K comes out the easy victor, with a minimum frame rate of 28fps at stock and up to 36fps when overclocked. Clearly for those interested in high-performance gaming, the FX-8350 is a sub-standard CPU.

Source -> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...-8350-review/8

For gaming single core performance is more important.

[glo]

Why do you ask a question why you could answer it by yourself?£

An fx8350 doesn't do 5GHz unless you push the voltages over the max. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SFJVH9AZmw

He reaches a score of 9.0 which means per core a score of 1.3 which is still lower than the i3 score of 1.35-1.4 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

Again, we are comparing a single core. Just to say it once more, the i3's individual core have like 30-40% more transistors than the FX. And you're going to start comparing them? >.>



Source -> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...-8350-review/8

For gaming single core performance is more important.

Your flip flopping is astounding. You're the one that brought up 5.0Ghz, not me.

An 8350 is going to be better than an i3 for gaming. Just accept that simple fact and move on. I've already provided you links showing proof. If you want to ignore them and write walls of nonsensical arguments, be my guest, but I'm done responding to them.

[Keller]

Your flip flopping is astounding. You're the one that brought up 5.0Ghz, not me.

An 8350 is going to be better than an i3 for gaming. Just accept that simple fact and move on. I've already provided you links showing proof. If you want to ignore them and write walls of nonsensical arguments, be my guest, but I'm done responding to them.

An 6300 would also be faster then an i3. so would a fairly OC'd FX-4300. You don't have to pay the intel tax either.
The benchmarks he's posting are in something completely not game-related, a.k.a. cinebench, the single benchmark that benefits most of single-threaded performance.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

An 6300 would also be faster then an i3. so would a fairly OC'd FX-4300. You don't have to pay the intel tax either.
The benchmarks he's posting are in something completely not game-related, a.k.a. cinebench, the single benchmark that benefits most of single-threaded performance.

The people likely to be buying an i3 processor are probably also those that wouldn't be overclocking. So comparing an overclocked 4300 to an i3 is quite an unfair comparison IMO.

[Faithh]

Your flip flopping is astounding. You're the one that brought up 5.0Ghz, not me.

An 8350 is going to be better than an i3 for gaming. Just accept that simple fact and move on. I've already provided you links showing proof. If you want to ignore them and write walls of nonsensical arguments, be my guest, but I'm done responding to them.

The 5GHz was just a hypothesis dude.

Uhm you just linked me a benchmark with an FX8150 being overclocked to 4GHz and comparing it with an i3 lol. If you really want to compare the fx8350 reduce this to 3.3GHz and have a look at those gaming benchmarks where the FX is getting beaten by an i3.

Vishera is exactly the same as the bulldozer except they've fixed the leakage in their cpu's.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434 Gaming benchmarks?

It's just exactly the same as comparing which car reaches a higher topspeed a bmw M3 or a golf GTI, but the acceleration speed should have been compared not the topspeed.

[glo]

The 5GHz was just a hypothesis dude.

Uhm you just linked me a benchmark with an FX8150 being overclocked to 4GHz and comparing it with an i3 lol. If you really want to compare the fx8350 reduce this to 3.3GHz and have a look at those gaming benchmarks where the FX is getting beaten by an i3.

Vishera is exactly the same as the bulldozer except they've fixed the leakage in their cpu's.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434 Gaming benchmarks?

It's just exactly the same as comparing which car reaches a higher topspeed a bmw M3 or a golf GTI, but the acceleration speed should have been compared not the topspeed.

Your lack of basic comprehension is stunning, you can't even follow your own discussion. I never linked you an 8150 benchmark since we're talking about the 8350.

1. Stop bringing in hypothetical "well if the 8350 was clocked at 3.3Ghz it would be fair wah wah". The 8350 isn't clocked at 3.3Ghz. With that stupid logic you could say that the i7-3960X at 3.3Ghz would be on par with an i3-2100.

2. Vishera is a revision of Bulldozer, not "exactly the same". Again, with your poor logic we should simply say that Ivy Bridge is exactly the same as Sandy Bridge. Go on and tell everyone that they should just buy SB since it's exactly the same and a little cheaper. Right? Also, they didn't fix "leakage". The changes were numerous, and I'm pretty sure you just straight made that up to sound somewhat intelligent.

Here, stock clocks against the i3-3240. See how AMD is above it in EVERY SINGLE bench?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0

Go ahead and keep trying to argue, you're still wrong and misinformed (just as you have repeatedly been on these forums with every topic you post in).

The people likely to be buying an i3 processor are probably also those that wouldn't be overclocking. So comparing an overclocked 4300 to an i3 is quite an unfair comparison IMO.

A wiser choice would be a 6300 anyway over the i3. On par or better at stock clocks, much better multi-threading, and the choice to overclock.

[Faithh]

etc

I was having it about single threaded performance lol. You are linking games which are utilizing more cores than 2. A silly i3 only 2 cores would be used due that games are not recognizing the HT'ed threads.

You're telling me that I'm misinformed -> http://content.hwigroup.net/images/a...ity-slide3.PNG

"LEAKED"

Check that picture atleast. The architecture is the same. If you can't read cpu architectures, just don't argue with me.