Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
ultima_trev wrote:AMD makes fantastic processors for their respective price points.
Chrispy_ wrote:I wouldn't beat myself up about buying an FX-8350 if I had done, though. It's fast enough in games and the massive power consumption is sometimes reflected in i7-beating application performance for i5-beating prices. It's certainly a compromise many people are glad to make - people just need to stop deluding themselves that AMD's (yes, even Piledrivers) are competetive high-end gaming chips.
Dizzytaz00 wrote:I'm waiting for the day that we just be buying proprietary brands, without no choices. Meaning Soc which will becoming fortunately sooner than later.
ronch wrote:Hey guys. I ran across this video on Youtube comparing the FX-8350 and several Intel chips. Looks pretty legit to me, if a bit strange. Still, it makes me glad I opted for the FX-8350, although I have to admit choosing between it, the Core i5-3470 and the i5-3570K has caused me many sleepless nights.
ronch wrote:Regardless of the occasional hiccups that TR has pioneered in exploring, I think the fact alone that FX is able to beat the average FPS scores of those popular Intel CPUs has to count for something. This guy here, assuming he's not making this stuff up, is saying that the FX-8350 may not be such a bad choice for gaming after all compared to Ivy Bridge chips. In fact, he's saying the FX is a better choice 9 out of 10 times. If he's right, then it's just sad to see Intel pummel away at AMD with benchmark scores that aren't indicative of performance users will actually see in most other titles, or scores that are limited to just a few hand-picked titles designed to favor Intel.[...]
Scott Wasson wrote:Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.
just brew it! wrote:Dizzytaz00 wrote:I'm waiting for the day that we just be buying proprietary brands, without no choices. Meaning Soc which will becoming fortunately sooner than later.
Umm... what? Not even sure what you're getting at here.
Dizzytaz00 wrote:graphics horses
ronch wrote:Regardless of the occasional hiccups that TR has pioneered in exploring, I think the fact alone that FX is able to beat the average FPS scores of those popular Intel CPUs has to count for something. This guy here, assuming he's not making this stuff up, is saying that the FX-8350 may not be such a bad choice for gaming after all compared to Ivy Bridge chips. In fact, he's saying the FX is a better choice 9 out of 10 times. If he's right, then it's just sad to see Intel pummel away at AMD with benchmark scores that aren't indicative of performance users will actually see in most other titles, or scores that are limited to just a few hand-picked titles designed to favor Intel.
Btw, I just started playing System Shock 2 on my FX-8350 after what seems like ages. The last time I played this was, what, 2005 or 6, maybe? Back then I was still using a Pentium 4 2.8C (Northwood) with an ATI 9600XT (I think it had 128MB) and a gig of DDR400 RAM in Dual Channel mode. First thing I noticed was the loading time: It's really really fast!!
Our CPUs today, even the much-booed FX lineup, really are absolutely incredible compared to what we had just a few years ago. I'm amazed how such an awesome chip was designed by AMD, a much smaller company with nowhere near the R&D budget of Intel.
Dizzytaz00 wrote:What i'm trying to say is that Intel is gravitating towards SOCs, a clear sign being the amount of integration expected for Haswell. Meanwhile AMD has no short term plans for such chips and it will be hard for them, if not impossible, to ever catch up to Intel.
I'm waiting for the day when we will be able to buy only proprietary brands (what? Intel and AMD already sell products based on proprietary designs and what not, the brands have been trademarked for decades), without any choices.
@jbi: example Microsoft is trying to be like Apple, a hardware & software company.
As for frame rates in games, they are more dependent on the GPU than on the CPU (wrong, frame times are greatly affected by the CPU).
Geonerd wrote:Everyone moans about peak power consumption, when the chip is running a fully multithreaded application or stress-test program, but has anyone measured the 8350's energy needs under real-world gaming conditions?
EDIT
Oops! Nevermind - the referenced video does just that!
I'd call it a draw after factoring in price to be honest, a $190 FX 8350 is not a bad cpu....
Arclight wrote:Dizzytaz00 wrote:What i'm trying to say is that Intel is gravitating towards SOCs, a clear sign being the amount of integration expected for Haswell. Meanwhile AMD has no short term plans for such chips and it will be hard for them, if not impossible, to ever catch up to Intel.
I'm waiting for the day when we will be able to buy only proprietary brands (what? Intel and AMD already sell products based on proprietary designs and what not, the brands have been trademarked for decades), without any choices.
@jbi: example Microsoft is trying to be like Apple, a hardware & software company.
As for frame rates in games, they are more dependent on the GPU than on the CPU (wrong, frame times are greatly affected by the CPU).
Did i fix it?
rogue426 wrote:Are you trying to convince people who build Intel machines for gaming or yourself that your choice of an FX8350 is the better choice? Your facts are weak and handpicked to back up your preference in CPU's in your arguments.Give it a rest already.