I have some money burning a hole in my pocket so I was looking at maybe an intel based PC. But none of the offerings from intel make sense to me their Quad cores cost as much as AMD 8 cores I saw intel dualcores That are more expensive then 6 cores, so could someone please explain to me the rational behind buying intel. I would like to clarify I'm not an AMD fanboy/fangirl.
They're about 40-50% faster per core, multi-core evens up a bit when an FX 8 core is heavily overclocked, but ya, AMD's CPUs are really only good for builds around 600 and under, and the 8 cores are only useful for specific workloads at that.
1 Like
When it comes to real world performance they are faster across the board.
AMD hasn't properly updated their CPUs in 5 years. look it at from a realistic scenario. you think something from 5 years ago is faster than what's made today with the advancements in technology? they are good for what you pay for, but they just don't cut it anymore. if you need a good CPU for your money. the AMD chips are fine.
1 Like
Cores are not everything.
Frequency is not everything.
Intel current offerings all have very good IPC, modest core count and modest frequency.
In contrast AMD offerings have modest/low IPC Great core count and good frequency
IPC or instructiosn per clock is how much math a processor can do in a single clock.
Per clock Intel is crushing AMD. This appeal is great for applications that don't use many cores. These are work loads that can't be parallelized or optimized. Games often don't use many cores, so you're better off using fewer more pwoerful ones.
While the AMD chip would be great in a rendering/server envoirnment where multiple cores (while less powerful) can be used together.
5 Likes
Soo... a 4690k will out perform a 9590
yup.
and that's cause modern day software doesn't take advantage of anything beyond a quad-core processor. though there are exceptions like professional software.
Probably not on a multi-threaded workload
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2284&cmp[]=2014
but really no one should ever buy a 9590
Why?
Unless of course they want to burn down their place of residence that is.
because it has absurd heat output and you need a strong durable motherboard with a lot of phases to handle the power draw that it will pull.
If you throw it on a cheap 970 motherboard or a cheap 990FX board and it will catch fire. (literally)
1 Like
The 9590 is a factory overclocked 8350. It is the exact same old ass chip just clocked higher out of the box.
It's over priced and draws way too much power, so much so liquid cooling, is required.
I guess I'll try intel again I havent used one since the athlon x2 I still have that build
They make fantastic chips but you will probably spend a little bit more for them.
Choose what's best for you honestly.
Because you need to buy a 200 dollar motherboard with it for it to have a chance at functioning correctly, and for that price you could get a Xeon 1231v3 or even an i7
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2014&cmp[]=2246
the 9590 beats it out by a tiny ammount, but the power requirements to do so are crazy
-
-
A list of builds where AMD CPUs make sense, for me at least
https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/600-and-under-gaming-pc-suggestions-guide-amd-cpu-focused/93341/2
Interesting feedback I just kinda gave up when I got a pentium 4 No thats wrong I had a compaq presario sr5310f god I hated that thing.
Step one. Good marketing.
Step two. Good positioning.
Step three. Make a chip that can run what the user wants.
Step four. Have all god darn form factors. AMD lacks in this department with AM3 and AM3+, they have FM2 boards, but like come on...
Something about the socket being big stops AM3+ ITX Boards from existing, plus you'd need to have one of those little riser cards as well so the board has good power delivery for the 8 core chips.
And the irony of it all is the architecture used for the APUs they could of used it for the FX line. All they did was remove two dual core modules so they could have space for the iGPU.
So what would be about equivalent to my FX6300
A modern day Intel i3..
From a performance standpoint anyways..