So why is the 3570k always reccomended?

[Deleted]

You are still missing the point that the 8350 would have to overclock to around 7GHz to outscale the 3570k by that much.

Yeah I'd like to see that one answered as well if possible.

[yurano]

Weren't you the one going on about needing absolute fact for any "scientific" reason why processors are performing the way they're performing?

No, I was the one 'going on' about how you can't extrapolate results because its not good science.

The 'Maybe' question follows from the extrapolation criticism by presenting the possibility of a bottleneck beyond 4.5 Ghz on the FX-8350 in TechSpot's tests.

Please don't misrepresent my words.

[glo]

Because it's very hard to describe for me, and i'm not entirely sober. Sorry about that :P

But yeah, that's the TL: DR version. The intel hits the 99% mark way faster in regard to the amd processor. That in now way means the AMD scales better, that means the AMD is slower per calculation, and requires a higher frequency to saturate the GPU. Honestly, if it requires 4.5ghz just to saturate a single 7970, it has no hope of any future cards, whereas with the 3570K has much more headroom.

Oh please, you're pulling all of this out of nowhere. Go ahead and link a single source showing where you're getting your information from.

[Majesticii]

Oh please, you're pulling all of this out of nowhere. Go ahead and link a single source showing where you're getting your information from.

The very same link you listed in the first place. I'm sorry but if you find this so difficult to understand i can't help you. I will try to explain it 1 more time, and then i'm going to hit the sack.

Say the 7970 does 70fps at 99% load (yes it does, the 3960x maxes out a 7970 at FC3 very high 1200p, i know this because i can max out the same performance on an old i5-760).

So, you test the 8350 vs the 3770K going from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz.
For the 8350, 2.5ghz results in 44fps.
For the 3770K, 2.5ghz results in 65fps.

Now, i can't tell for sure how much % this actually is, but you can safely say the intel is saturating the 7970 GE by almost 90%, because it caps off at 70fps. Whereas the 8350 has a significantly lower saturation %. Meaning it still has allot to gain from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz, whereas the 3770 immediatly caps off at the next 500mhz bump.

Any simpler then this i cannot do, so if it's not clear at this point then ...yeah.

[glo]

No, I was the one 'going on' about how you can't extrapolate results because its not good science.

The 'Maybe' question follows from the extrapolation criticism by presenting the possibility of a bottleneck beyond 4.5 Ghz on the FX-8350 in TechSpot's tests.

Please don't misrepresent my words.

Just like saying "maybe giant spaghetti meatballs from space landed on earth and gave us elephants because we just don't know".

Being baseless is still being baseless no matter how hard you try to make yourself sound smart.

[Cyanotical]

honestly, it seems many people are missing the point of that video, it's not about which cpu is better, or what bottlenecks what, the video simply points out that if you build two comparable systems using the same gpu, what kind of performance do they get, and to make the comparison more realistic, with commonly played games, as well as similar systems, with the exception of SB-E owners who all seem to settle for a 4.6 clock, everyone else pushes their cpu to the max they can get, nobody gets the exact same performance,

the problem with complaining about the tests, the clock speeds, or the motherboards etc, is that it doesn't take into consideration the point that the synthetic benchmarks and testing done by reviewers are not true to life, building two separate systems, and then using them the way real people actually use their computers is much better than anything you will read off of tomshardware, anandtech, sweclockers, etc

[Majesticii]

...

There is, however, an issue if their results are complete bonkers. Which i'm trying to explain.

@glo, i updated my post.

[glo]

The very same link you listed in the first place. I'm sorry but if you find this so difficult to understand i can't help you. I will try to explain it 1 more time, and then i'm going to hit the sack.

Say the 7970 does 70fps at 99% load (yes it does, the 3960x maxes out a 7970 at FC3 very high 1200p, i know this because i can max out the same performance on an old i5-760).

So, you test the 8350 vs the 3770K going from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz.
For the 8350, 2.5ghz results in 44fps.
For the 3770K, 2.5ghz results in 65fps.

Now, i can't tell for sure how much % this actually is, but you can safely say the intel is saturating the 7970 GE by almost 90%, because it caps off at 70fps. Whereas the 8350 has a significantly lower saturation %. Meaning it still has allot to gain from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz, whereas the 3770 immediatly caps off at the next 500mhz bump.

Any simpler then this i cannot do, so if it's not clear at this point then ...yeah.

You don't need to be simpler, you just need to point out where you're getting these saturation amounts that you seemingly pulled out of nowhere.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

There is, however, an issue if their results are complete bonkers. Which i'm trying to explain.

@glo, i updated my post.

*consistently bonkers. Because they say they repeated the tests multiple times because THEY weren't expecting those results.

[Majesticii]

You don't need to be simpler, you just need to point out where you're getting these saturation amounts that you seemingly pulled out of nowhere.

Now, i can't tell for sure how much % this actually is

I said i dont know for sure, but giving the fact it walls off at 70fps, i can assume 65fps is nearly maxing it.

Cyanotical can maybe help us by proving the 3960x is enough to max 99% a 7970 on FC3. Pretty sure he even maxes out the quad SLI on that game.

[yurano]

Just like saying "maybe giant spaghetti meatballs from space landed on earth and gave us elephants because we just don't know".

Being baseless is still being baseless no matter how hard you try to make yourself sound smart.

You're the one being baseless by taking extrapolation as fact when it may or may not be true.

*consistently bonkers. Because they say they repeated the tests multiple times because THEY weren't expecting those results.

Systematic error is still an error.

[Majesticii]

Systematic error is still an error.

Think he wasn't disagreeing.

[Cyanotical]

There is, however, an issue if their results are complete bonkers. Which i'm trying to explain.

so, you are saying that either they don't know what they are doing with computers, which is obviously not true to anyone who has watched more than the i5 vs FX videos

or you are saying that they have completely made the whole thing up, which would lead to a full loss in credibility and systematically destroy their entire website and channel, and everything they have worked to build up in the last few months

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I'm just saying that if somebody gets repeatable results that are within margin of error each time, then maybe one of the "professional" benchmarking sites needs to look at it again. And if "real life" game-play differs so starkly from "synthetic" game-play, then what is actually the point of the synthetic benchmark when recommending hardware to a buyer?

[Majesticii]

so, you are saying that either they don't know what they are doing with computers

Pretty much yes. And this is not the first time i've seen these mistakes before. I usually see some variable they miss, or disregard.
In this case i'm not sure what happened, because i wasn't the one who took the test and monitor the GPU load.
I'm having difficulty believing a 8350 trumps the 3570K by 200%, whereas it loses by a small margin to the 3570K on every other review.

Besides, what real-world test is a benchmark where you set the settings so high you get 15fps anyway.

[glo]

I said i dont know for sure, but giving the fact it walls off at 70fps, i can assume 65fps is nearly maxing it.

Cyanotical can maybe help us by proving the 3960x is enough to max 99% a 7970 on FC3. Pretty sure he even maxes out the quad SLI on that game.

So what you're saying is:

You don't get why I'm finding it "so hard to understand" your wall of math that you just recently admitted had no factual base whatsoever.

Sounds legit.

[Majesticii]

So what you're saying is:

You don't get why I'm finding it "so hard to understand" your wall of math that you just recently admitted had no factual base whatsoever.

Sounds legit.

What flippin' math D:

[glo]

You're the one being baseless by taking extrapolation as fact when it may or may not be true.

I'm not being baseless, there's an entire linear progression from 2.5Ghz all the way up to 4.5Ghz. I'm suggesting that factoring in every other benchmark available for the processor not showing any sign of a scaling wall beyond 4.5Ghz -should- translate into gaming gains.

You're sitting there saying just because they didn't test that high that any informed guess is immediately invalid.

[Cyanotical]

I'm just saying that if somebody gets repeatable results that are within margin of error each time, then maybe one of the "professional" benchmarking sites needs to look at it again. And if "real life" game-play differs so starkly from "synthetic" game-play, then what is actually the point of the synthetic benchmark when recommending hardware to a buyer?

well, anymore, there is no point in a synthetic benchmark, a quadfire 7970 setup will consistently score higher than my dual 690s, but a quadfire setup also runs like crap for daily use

benchmarks are for epeen status, heaven 3.0 will not tell you how well your computer will run farcry

[glo]

What flippin' math D:

What else would I be referring to?

Say the 7970 does 70fps at 99% load (yes it does, the 3960x maxes out a 7970 at FC3 very high 1200p, i know this because i can max out the same performance on an old i5-760).

So, you test the 8350 vs the 3770K going from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz.
For the 8350, 2.5ghz results in 44fps.
For the 3770K, 2.5ghz results in 65fps.

Now, i can't tell for sure how much % this actually is, but you can safely say the intel is saturating the 7970 GE by almost 90%, because it caps off at 70fps. Whereas the 8350 has a significantly lower saturation %. Meaning it still has allot to gain from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz, whereas the 3770 immediatly caps off at the next 500mhz bump.