Daily reminder that the only thing AMD cpus are better at than Intel's is being a space heater
>There are people who actually want an Intel monopoly
Anon did say "low-end". (Also, I can't speak for the Pentium, but i3 hyperthreading works wonders.)
Tell me, which AMD chip should I buy instead of the £50 G3258 that will perform better? And the same for the £90 i3-4160?
Dude stop trying I agree with you but its a bait thread don't even try to explain
In single core performance which doesn't matter anymore lol
Thinking that 10$ a year extra on your electricty bill matters lol
Don't already try to meme zen
They just have bigger heat spreaders and soldered heat spreaders which makes them more efficient at transferring heat. If Intel wasn't so cheap and would use a quality heat spreader and actually solder them down properly, they'd transfer more heat too. But no. You'd rather have you CPU baking itself so your room doesn't get hot.
>how much is a FX-6300?
Cheaper (~£70), and it has more cores- but single core performance is awful. I like the Dolphin benchmark to test this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AunYlOAfGABxdFQ0UzJyTFAxbzZhYWtGcGwySlRFa1E#gid=0
FX-6XXX isn't on here, but you will notice that an 8320 takes over 15 minutes to complete the benchmark, while the higher clocked Haswell i3s are more like 9.
meh either way you're a sheep boychick you just pinched your pennies a little and saved that money like a good jew. we don't buy retail. now it's time to sell that amd chip for a profit.
glory to isreal.
The reason AMD makes good space heaters is because they use actual solder to equally dissipate the heat. Intel only uses thermal paste so all the heat stays inside of the processor which causes it to overheat, and is the equivalent of putting a blanket over a normal space heater. Stay mad kikefags.
1/10 i can barely play BF3 and ARMA2 with my core2QUAD oc'd to 3,1GHz you retarded fuckstain
Intel/Nvidia guy here with my current parts. Had AMD like probably most gamers in the past.
Company wise AMD may not be thinking in as many directions as its competitors and honestly probably is only in business thanks to supplying all the current gen console hardware. They dont seem to have much luck with developers supporting their shit.
I can recommend amd's sub $100 processors all day long though for compatibility reasons for gamers that may fire up the occasional game that doesnt work on 2 core pentiums or i3s. Plus an option to overclock isnt bad.
I can usually recommend AMD's single gpus in almost any price range as well, easily just recommend usually mid to high range Nvidia gpus.
The areas I feel their processors are lacking is performance at high end and the areas I feel their graphics cards are lacking is features either mature enough to use or unique enough. Nvidia already has more features with eye candy physx or shadowplay streaming or 3d that are way ahead, AMD's eyefinity is top notch though but their only exclusive technology I can see using.
If you want the most performance for a while now you simply cant go AMD but if you want a lot of value you can in mid to low end systems.
What does it matter what processor from 2012 competes? Its 2015...
Why would you be comparing what was great years ago in the world of computers that moves so fast? The fact that AMD doesnt have the $ to RnD to get something out to succeed what they had in 2012 still on the shelves 3 years old is a problemo
arma/dayz games all of those are not optimized well especially for multi gpu.
I had a gtx 295 and that was one of the only games it actually didnt like, along with Minecraft but thats not really needed is it? Besides that SLI worked on virtually every new game up until the 980 was popped in.
I see several people with a 7990 having to disable the xfire to play GTA 5... That would piss me off if I got a flagship $1000 card and only 1 generation behind their current flagship they dont have a crossfirex down on a giant release.
>AMD doesn't have the $ to RnD
True. And if they did, they could give Intel a run for their money considering in 2012 the FX-6300 was the best CPU for $130. Now imagine if they had the cash to refresh their line of CPUs often like Intel does.
Luckily AMD is currently working on the ARM CPUs, which is set to over take x86 based CPUs in the next decade or so. By the time Intel realizes this, AMD will be ahead in the ARM market.
Faggot, stop comparing a line of GPU's that was meant to topple the 780/ti to the best Nvidia could shit out in one year, everything will change in June, what with the 390x being revealed and shit, calm your tits down.
That's the opposite of a goy lol... Goy would be supporting Intel but I don't have brand loyalty injudt choose which product is the best for the price and that is amd hands down no debate
Kek enjoy your cheap shit? I don't care if you own amd, buddy, someone has to buy the inferior cheap shit. We don't need a monopoly on our hands anon.
pretty much every benchmark out there will prove my point. An i3 with hyperthreading beat the amd 8 core.
>moar cores amirite?
Beating it in single core performance lol... Even google chrome uses more then one core enjoy getting more the same fps in kerbal space program... I find this pretty funny seeing your buyers remorse I don't have anything to prove all I need is the same fps as you and more money in my pocket and I have both of those. Pleb
>I love it when you Intel fags try to insult amd but you can't lol its always the same meme shit never true facts its so cute
It's really hard to read what you are typing. Could you rephrase what you mean?
I bought an i7 for 250 bucks at microcenter. Not sure why you are spewing buyers remorse. Last reply kiddo.
>spending money on your hobby
>this anon is talking about saving money and buying cheap parts
all my keks. Good ole cheap fags jelly mads.
Intel kids always try and shit talk amd. But the stuff they say is always fake info or irrelevant. Like heat which isn't true anymore. Or single core performance because nothing uses just one core. Etc hopefully that cleared things up
>People actually enjoy their cheap fag performance.
Ok, well Intel just has better performing processors and goes high end, while AMD just has better value at the mid and low end.
There's really no debate you either want more performance or more for your money.
Next year probably. I've only had the high refresh rate monitor since August last year. I want to make it last a while, I honestly want to buy 4k, but I don't want to buy another 60hz panel. I don't ever want to do that again. When I get another 980 I'll probably just get an 144hz/ips/1440p panel.
We'll see though.
M8 it's a fact amd is worse. But continue on please.
In reply to your shitty pic. Intel paid for this graph... Paid real fucking money to try and tweak a graph and they fucked it up...
The face when I get like 8 fps less and had an extra 200$ in my pocket
Thank you, I want to buy 4k in the future too but I don't think I've seen a single 4k monitor with greater than 60hz. That's why I'm planning on one 980 now, and maybe another when 4k monitors improve.
Why doesn't AMD just step up there game and I wouldn't need to go to Intel?
How about AMD having some competence and making mid and high end cores instead of just making them all low end instead?
>being this new
PowerPC is the only real housefire in the CPU industry, they never could make it cool enough to run on laptops, eventually Jim Keller made the impossible and got a cool PPC chip at PA Semi, but it never went anywhere
True, I personally had a budget this time that was a bit out of 8350 making sense though for my games.
I went along with an i5 4460 because I didnt really care to spend more for a few frames to OC it and at the same time it was a step up it seemed from the 8350 even oc.
I couldnt really justify an AMD Gpu either, the r9 290x while not $600 insane overpriced from buttcoin miners being a great $300-350 today didnt seem right when I wanted a little more with money I had and also something current gen (I didnt want to wait 3 months or more for good aftermarket 980 tis or 390xs to be in stock). So I got a 980.
I also plan to pop another 980 in there in a year or two to SLI and I dont like AMD's slower release cycle of support for drivers which is basically essential to have in multi gpu situations I know coming from a gtx 295 and 2 560 tis I had at different points in machines.
Just.. nothing made sense going with AMD. They need more money to release newer products and they need more money to support those products more often.
I actually respect what you just said... Cival dispute going on with you. I have money for Intel it just didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't I run all my games well above 60 fps so I'm happy and have extra money in my pocket. There is also the fact that amd overclocked better so if the need be I had that option
>He uses Intel for high end gaming.
dude amd is better. everyone here knows that. this is g
Yeah my last CPU that I had for a while was a phenom ii x4 965 I think. I had AMD cpus on everything after the pentium 3s till now Intel is just better choices for me again. Same way with nvidia gpus with the nvidia 256 then an geforce 4 ti 4200 then all ati/amd gpus for a bit till later
>here is that same guy that was cross posting tweaktown benchs and the same blog in the g and v thread last week
O man. I gotta get outa here. amd cheap fags are literally the saddest cheap fags ever
I would buy amd again if I had the same experience with my next chip however I might switch to amd next time after my 970 is done because of the whole 3.5 shit kid of pissed me off
I use Intel you fucking clown.I just hate gaymers and their influence on technology.All you faggots ruin everything by creating a false need for things to be YOUR way.Not all of us want our cpu's to be optimized for your childish pastimes.Go put some red led's on a rope and hang yourself with it.
Got me bad, anon
Remember: facts are bullshit when they don't show our lord and master Intel and/or Nvidia winning.
Daily reminder that unless you have your machine on for only 2 hours a day or change CPU every 6 months the extra money spent on an Intel CPU will give you not only more performance but also pay for itself in reduced power consumption.
>no original tests done
>pulled random numbers from a bunch of sites
>averages ALL his findings
Holy shit, AMD buyers remorse got this guy good.
Step it up anon - evidence has been provided to refute the original claim. Now you have to provide evidence and not memes.
Unless that is your claim is without basis and thus trolling.
(we all know that is exactly what it is)
I've got this and it runs nice and warm under full load. Probably has something to do with it being a 6 core haswell-e at 4.5ghz... Either way, the bitch gets hotter than a 8350 at 4.5ghz.
The FX-6300 competes with the i7 860 which was released in 2009. I just picked up a server with a Xeon X3450 (i7 860 equivalent) and 16GB RAM for $150. Standard mATX motherboard so I'm not even stuck keeping it in the 1U. AMD can't compete.
The problem with AMD is that they've been stagnant for so long they're competing with Intel processors going back EIGHT years. If you have a q6600 there'd be no reason for you to move to an AMD APU, and a six and a half year old i7 920 has no reason to move to a FX. You can pick up six core Xeons for the price of a FX-6300.
I never made that claim, I merely said that at 4k the chart would probably not look like that.
This information is important as you can do 4k on a budget if you know where to cut corners - the difference between and 8350 and 4770k here will nearly buy you a 290, so it is very possible to get an 8350 and 2x290 for the sameish cost as a 4770k and single 290.
If by raw speed you mean single core performance then you're probably still overestimating a bit, and either way, a large chunk of the reason you perceive the 8350 to be so slow is that you're almost certainly using few to no programs that are actually threaded well enough to even use 4-6 cores, let alone 8.
Unfortunately there are, they don't realize that as long as intel is "the best" and doesn't have major competition they will have no reason to make more than marginal improvements with each new generation, and will probably invest their enormous revenue into dominating the graphics market as well
I too only buy AMD products, unfortunately, as much as I tend to prefer them subjectively, the main reason I still buy AMD is merely because I am poor (I usually don't even buy new or current AMD, I have to buy used)
Except that even an AM1 CPU can beat an i7 in tests
The phenom was a lot cheaper and the 955/965 CPUs were great overclockers too (and 2 years older than the 2500k)
Just in a lower priceclass
And it can still play GTA V
Unfair to hate on the Phenom, great cheap CPU that punched way above his weightclass when overclocked.
Wow, you're fucking retarded, it was comparing rh i3 against any FX 83XX CPU
i3 4160 is under $100, where does an 8320 or 8350 end up? 120-150, and it still gets spanked by a hyperthreading dual-core, stay jelly fanboy
It will, the Phenom 965 overclocked runs it.
Overclock that little beast and put on the CPU intensive features lower.
>using dual cores
If they have hyper-threading I can understand but otherwise it's getting handicapped.
Quad-core is the sweet spot.
I can personally confirm that the G3258 is not the most pleasant experience trying to do much of anything beyond single application work with few background processes, especially on winblows, but you are correct about i3 hyperthreading, it is pretty impressive what they can do for the low tdp and clock speeds
I can't speak to single core performance but the lower end of the AMD FX line will probably be a bit better overall than the 3258, I got an FX-6300 brand new for around 100USD and if you aggressively look for a deal or go used you could find that or a 4350 for quite a bit less
Similarly you could probably push up to an FX-8300 or similar and match the i3, though no matter what you do the single core performance will be worse, thoguh you can close that gap fairly well with overclocking
if you're interested in running every application on a single threaded workload, then I guess you have something to say about it
I tend to like AMD but to be fair, unless you have a thermal probe stuck in between your cpu and heatsink, your temperature readings for amd will be off by 15-20 degrees C on any processor since the phenom II or so I believe. I haven't been able to find any good reason why amd added this offset, but it is there, as evidenced most obviously by well cooled AMD processors reporting a temperature often below the ambient temperature of the case, or even the room
Honestly, people who still buy dual core CPUs for gaming have really dumb priorities. Yes, you might get better single core performance but so many games and applications are able to use 4 threads that it is not worth it. Not so mention some games actually require a quad core to run well.
The FX chips do not use a traditional sensor for temperature (which is why programs like speccy report silly temps) - the sensor (which is very accurate) measures the thermal margin available before the chip shuts down.
Further reading: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/faq/id-2122665/understanding-temperature-amd-cpus-apus.html
I know the feeling living near microcenter, but why is an AMD cpu so laughable to you? sure if I need high end performance it isn't the right choice but on the low end AMD is still viable. Furthermore what do you think you need a 4790k for? what are you doing that you think that is worth it? if it's games I can tell you it isn't even close to necessary
Except if AMD is consistently only bought as "inferior cheap shit" then you still have a monopoly, just limited to mid range and up, and intel will have no motivation to make major improvements in their middle and high end chips
Also, I'll give you that single threaded, an i3 can usually beat the FX-8000 series but if you were to run a benchmark that measures using all the threads, you would see that AMD would definitely still win out
It may be better, but what, pray tell, do you need that extra power for? Because the way I see it that extra power amounts to nothing more than epeen and you could have bought a much cheaper AMD chip to do everything it does just about as well
Unless money is no object saving dosh by going for an AMD and getting a beefier gpu is basically flatout superior to i5 and lesser gpu.
except if you do the math (which is dead simple by the way) the difference is fairly small even running your pc 24/7/365
say you have an 8350 vs a 4790k
assuming they're running at tdp there's a 40w difference (technically slightly less really), run that for an hour, a difference of 40 watt-hours, run it for a day, 960 watt-hours, a year and you have 350400 watt-hours or 350.4 kilowatt-hours. power companies charge for electricity by the kW/hour, in my area it's fairly cheap, about $0.10 per kW/hour, meaning that running your pc significantly more than 2 hours a day (literally all the time in fact) will only cost you around 35USD per year more, much more than the price difference between almost any two AMD or intel products
tl;dr: your argument is invalid
>mfw AMDs 8 "cores" can't even beat an dual core with hyperthreading
In single core performance so shut up already
Again that's in single core performance
Nice quads other then that you're retarded you can't cherry pick the things in the thread for benchmarks... You can't be like oh here is some non gaming benchmarks then amd beats it and you change the topic to gaming benchmarks... PIC related for gaming for you though
There is a 3 fps difference from the top to the 8350 and a 860$ price difference...
Thanks for that, oddly enough I actually had never been able to find a good explanation for that, despite asking some informed groups of people and doing a bit of my own research. D you know of a good, simple way to accurately read not the thermal margin, but the actual cpu temperature not using amd's software? I'm on debian and don't have their software for my gpu or cpu (both amd) and at the moment I'm using lm-sensors iirc and it reports around 7-10 degrees C temperatures essentially all the tie in a usually above room temp environment (and the cooler is pretty decent but certainly not amazing, it is a bit old)
>posts a benchmark of a game optimized for AMD
>a shit one at that
This is the definition of cherry picking, and it took you this long to find a benchmark where it doesn't even mention an i3 let alone a recent one, truly pathetic
I'd really like to buy an AMD processor and I would seriosuly consider doing so if it weren't for the fact that my overclocked 920 bloomfield is on-par/better than 8350. Which is pretty fucking sad considering the release date gap.
I haven't actually posted benchmarks, you're argument is invalid, there are plenty of benchmarks out there that I'm sure you skipped over because they didn't favor your argument, pleb
If I was mad I would be posting more benchmarks to price you wrong lol see I don't care if you like Intel or think its better all I need to know is that I get the same if not better fps for half the price and I have that satisfaction
By putting them in a side by side test? Like in that benchmark... Are you fucking retarded?
He is meant to be the if you can't tell that then your underage...
Lol see you have no comeback because you know you're wrong lol idiot
You must actually eat paint chips...
How does an i3 cost twice as much as an 8350? You're delusional
7/10 if trolling, 2/10 if not
In the cpuboss benchmark posted above it destroys the 8350 in single threaded operations, where does it barely beat an 8350 in single threaded performance?
>How does an i3 cost twice as much as an 8350? You're delusional
Yeah wtf, the only reason why I would not consider an i3 is because it is Dual Core and that shit locked me out of Far Cry 4
More like 30-40% in single threaded performance, see >>47772157
Show me where a 4160 costs $200, pcpartpicker shows 99 and some change for the 4160, and the 8350 does worse in games than the 4160-4360
Wow. One of the shittiest threads I've seen on /g/ in some time.
In any case, generally I agree with >>47772393
. I'm perfectly happy to have gotten 80% of the performance for a chip that cost 30% as much.
It's fast enough for me.
Can an intel CPU do THIS!? APUs are master race
In single core games aka nothing that anyone plays... The 8350 is far superior in every aspect but single cores shit that no one uses
Again that's single core nothing is run one one core anymore...
Apus are hands down WAY better its 120$ and you can do hardcore gaming in it medium to high settings
That's cherry picking a test no one uses single core as a benchmark anymore that's the only think Intel has going for them if programs use more cores amd wins that's why new games are mostly getting amd on the high end of benchmarks...
when is the ideal time to buy a new intel cpu. been using this amd 8350 for 2 years and /g/ finally convinced me that i should switch over
For real though, why hasn't AMD put out a high end CPU in fucking years?
Swap Intel and AMD, and it would be like if Intel's last high end CPU was an i7 920.
At the end of their tick tock.
Unfortunately, since the 9xx and 2xxx, there has been fuck all improvement, just 5~% across the board each iteration.
If you were going to get something, I'd get the 4690k if you can't be bothered waiting.
you can just slam a new card onto a core2quad, and expect everything to be okay. with older chips from that series, you get to a point where your CPU is going to bottleneck your GPU.
Phones don't use Intel chips, Intel has been a massive failure in the phone market
Ultrabooks are a result of Intel classic jew strategies, actually there can't be a non-Intel ultrabook, to use the brand they have to use Intel chips