I spend a decent amount of time in the Build a PC forum... and I'm generally bothered by people suggesting AMD CPUs for people with budgets over $1000. I have a FX 6300 in my work build that was built for $700... it's a good computer... but my 2500k home build is obviously noticeably faster... the 8350 is just not a better processor than the 4670k... in basically every real-life circumstance...
I'm not an AMD hater... I openly suggest AMD builds for things that require the budget that AMD brings to the table... but the fact is, an AMD 8350 matches an i7 920 at stock speeds... just to put this in perspective... Bloomfield got released about 5 1/2 years ago... I was graduating from UTC with an IT major/Graphic Design minor at that time...
It really struck me when a guy posted that he wanted a CPU/mobo upgrade for $350... he had an i7-920 and he was suggested to get an 8320 / Asus 990 mobo... they basically suggested that he spend $350 to be able to overclock...
In my opinion, price/performance goes only so far... and around $1000-1200 budget is the threshold where performance is just more important...
Am I crazy? Or are there just that many AMD fanatics in the Build a PC forum...?
I would at least like to hear a solid defense... because the multi-threading defense is overplayed and not nearly as important as single-threading.... which 95% of CPU tasks are...
and just to further add to this... the FX series is NOT separate cores... the 6300 is 3 Bulldozer modules... the 8320/50 is 4 Bulldozer modules.... depending on the task they can function as 3-6 core or 4-8 core.... not true 6 core or true 8 core... it's AMD's version of hyper threading just not nearly as efficient...
AMD is like a muscle car. They're not efficient, but they have quite a lot of raw power and are cheap (in comparison to other sports cars). AMD's extra cores would be like the extra cylinders in a muscle car's engine. Intel is like a European sports car. They're fast and efficient, but not cheap. Intel's hyperthreading would be like a turbo in a sports car.
They're both fast, they just have different ideas on which way is better.
As for my opinion on AMD's use of "cores", I think of the FX 6300 as having 3 cores and 3 pseudo-cores. The FX 8350 having 4 cores and 4 psuedo-cores.
So it's just preference for what somebody thinks is a better idea. If they want something with more bulk, go AMD. If they want something more streamlined, go Intel.
well, the 8350 has 8 integer clusters, but 4 floating-point. integer calc is the vast majority of the cpu workload.
and, to say that multithreading is not important is pure bullshit. games are becoming multithreaded, and video encoing/editing, and 3d rendering are already highly multithreaded.
trust me, having used both, the 8350 is significantly faster than the i7 920.
you need to compair a FX8350 with an Intel i7-3770K. if you do gaming, you will see how close thease cpu´s are, there are only a few games with realy bad optimized gaming engines like ARMA DayZ and lol, thease games just favour the per core performance of an intel cpu. But most todays games works just great on both cpu´s
In productivity, the FX8350 is realy close to a i7-3770K, there is realy not much of a diffrence. Definitely not worth the price diffrence, for a gaming rig. If you take the price in concideration the i7 costs alot more. the FX8350 is even cheaper then the i5. in gaming and streaming, the FX8350 will do a better job then the i5.
This does not mean that intel is a bad choice offcourse, because neither AMD nor Intel is bad. in the end, it only counts where you wanne pay for.
people who say that intel is better then amd and all the bullshit realy gives me headaces, honnestly.. both intel and amd have theire pro´s and Con´s. It just all comes to the individual. and the tasks he's using his system for.
I get so tired of haters and fanbois, Buy what you can afford without breaking the bank, but lets put one thing in perspective, neither processor is like the other, it is comparing apples to oranges just for that reason.
I'll stick with AMD until intel gives me the right price to performance for my needs, Intel has never been able to keep up with my needs.
I have had a system with a 3570k and currently have a Xeon 1230 V3 and an FX-8350 based rig.
In my experience The 8350 and Xeon are quite close in productivity. Rendering, encoding and 3D modeling they do extremely well. Way better than the 3570k did. In streaming they both destroy the 3570k.
Against each other they are about the same. Sometimes the 8350 wins and sometimes the Xeon wins.
But I can say without a doubt that the 8350 is a superior part to the 3570k if you are doing more than gaming.
Gonna call you out on your single core claim too. It is total bullshit. A majority of applications are multithreaded and now more and more are being optimized for more cores.
We aren't AMD fanatics or fanboys either. We just suggest what we believe is best for the particular task and budget. I was the one who suggested the 8320 and the M5A99FX. It is a good CPU and a good board. With an OC it will perform very well. Even without one it will. It is a much newer platform with much more features as well.
Seems to me you are projecting a bit. Especially when you call other people fanboys.
My 8320 OC has never let me down,and are you serious?Intel is not worth the price point gaming wise,We'll see how the 5930k performs in a couple of months. But other than that,I payed under 150$ for a monster CPU. If I went for intel I would have payed a lot more FOR NOTHING IN REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE and - 4 cores. the 8320 OC to 4.5 is blazing fast and has never let me down,never ever. I multi task alot,and I've stressed and pushed the cpu as far as I could and it did not fail me,now you tell me why would I pay double the price for possibly worse multi tasking performance. And if you bring your "OH IT RENDERS 10 SECONDS FASTER" argument you might as well just not say it,that's pathetic to me,I can wait 10 seconds more,I don't mind. I've been an intel user for more than a decade now so don't call me a fanboy. I chose what I found to be the best for my needs and my budget. And If I could chose again I would go for AMD again. The only thing that would make me go back to intel would be an 8 core i7,the 5930k to be precise. But considering the fact that it's going to cost me 999$ I think I'll pass.
Intel will perform better in very poorly CPU-optimized games such as Arma 3 and Starcraft 2.
But that's exception. AMD CPUs are great for the price, Intel does have more powerful solutions, but then you end up spending $500+ for a 6-core LGA 2011.
That's exactly my point,it's way too expensive.. Don't get me wrong,the upcoming 5930k would be a dream come true,but 999$ for a cpu is too much, way too much.
It's tough to make blanket statements about CPUs. There is so much overlap, and so much diversity in performance between tasks that it makes it hard to generalize. There are $1000 builds that could be better suited with an AMD platform, just as there are $400 builds that could be better suited with an Intel platform. It REALLY depends on what you are doing, and what other parts you have to work with.
Yes. In general Intel is where you go for maximum performance, and AMD is where you go to get bang for your buck. But there are exceptions and there are niches. You can't just go by budget.
It doesn't irk me, I understand that human beings are inherently biased, and even someone with the best intentions can make a mistake (by not reading the latest review or benchmarks, for example).
Also, I call bullshit on your statement that the FX 8350 is equal to an i7 920. Please prove me wrong by showing me benchmarks (notice the "s", I would like to see than one to be convinced).
The benchmarks he posted on the thread he's ranting about showed tests done on an I7 4 years ago compared to new tests done in 2012 for the 8350. No retesting was done just comparing numbers on an old synthetic test done 4 years ago compared to an updated test done on the 8350. One of the sites literally gave both the I7 and 8350 10/10 stars even though the I7 lost EVERY test they did when compared to the 8350. He also is using cpuboss stats to say the 8350 is inferior. When cpuboss is the WORST most unreliable cite around. It doesn't show benchmark scores it just give a number 1-10. No benchmarks were shown, they just said the I7 got 8.3 and the 8350 got 8.2. Its complete bullshit, they showed no reasoning to there rankings just a number for both parts.