AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Discussion of all forms of processors, from AMD to Intel to VIA.

Moderators: Flying Fox, morphine

AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:54 am

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.
Last edited by ronch on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:46 am

Not gonna sit through the whole thing, but do they discuss power consumption at all?

If you look at TR's review of the 8350, performance per dollar is quite good for general workloads, and mediocre (but not terrible) if you focus just on gaming.

The issue is the amount of power the 8350 gulps to achieve that performance.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:08 am

Logan talks about power consumption in this video.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:23 am

AMD makes fantastic processors for their respective price points. Bulldozer obviously was well below expectations but Piledriver puts AMD back into the game as far as I'm concerned. The only games where AMD seems to lag are CPU limited games like WoW or SC II, where AMD's performance is going to be "good enough." In GPU limited games, there's no difference what so ever. If AMD wants to sell a "good enough" product for less money than the Intel equivalent, I'm all for it.
Dell XPS 8100 - Core i7 860 - 8GB DDR3-1333 - Gigabyte HD 7850 - 1.5TB 7200rpm HDD - Acer 20" LED monitor (1600*900) - 350W PSU
ultima_trev
Gerbil
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:14 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:54 am

ultima_trev wrote:AMD makes fantastic processors for their respective price points.

Ehh... that's a bit of a stretch. I'd say they make *decent* CPUs for their respective price points, but gaming isn't one of their strengths these days. The FX series is better suited to building a power user workstation or server on the cheap, since on the Intel side you need to step up to a Xeon platform to get high-end features (like ECC support).
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:49 pm

Not that I want to rain on TekSyndicate's parade, but they're reducing games to single fps-average scores.
That tells us nothing new because we have known for months that Piledriver is enough of an improvement on Bulldozer to make AMD price-competetive again.

What all these sites still using average FPS as a sole metric fail to actually mention, is that AMD processors have more frequent and longer-latency frames when gaming; 60fps is better when it's one frame every 60th of a second, not when the median frame is faster but there are slow frames interspersed.
The scores aren't wrong, they're just misleading in the same way that two vastly different cars can complete a circuit lap in the same time. If you have one with power and no agility, and another with agility but no power, how is the lap time going to help you distinguish between them?
With the Ivy vs Piledriver contest it basically comes down to similar FPS averages for a "lap" but the Ivy handles the "circuit" smoothly without any slow bits, and the car-analogy for Piledriver is an overpowered drift-car that barrels 800hp down the straights and slides around uselessly in the corners in a cloud of burning tyres.

If I had to encode on-the-fly all the time when gaming, then I would assess a CPU based on these tests - whilst the FX-8350 looks better it's still not the best choice purely for a gamer.
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.
<insert large, flashing, epileptic-fit-inducing signature (based on the latest internet-meme) here>
Chrispy_
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:47 pm

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.

Yup, you can count me among those who have willingly made that compromise. (Well, close... I currently run an FX-8320.)
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:14 pm

I have to amit that i'm amd fanboy, but thinking on switching to intel for my next build. Don't see how much to reason to over amd vs. Intel. That's intel going to be ever 1st build. As I have read power consumption is a major play in todays cpu market. 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.
Image
Dizzytaz00
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:50 pm
Location: Berwick , PA USA

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:52 pm

Well, the fx-8350 is $179 nowdays, and beat even Intel i7-3770k flasgship when all core are fully utilized. Its rare but it does happen, showing the true potential of that CPU.

And for gaming, unless you plan to run your game in 1024x768 at low settings on a 7970 at 240fps (ok might have exaggerated her a bit), the 8350 will be not be your bottleneck.

Look at the crysis2 and BF3 numbers , both well above 60FPS... so you have the 8350 delivering 83+ FPS on the most demanding games for 179$.. do you really need to spend an extra $100 for an extra 2fps and zero extra eye candy ?

The only thing that is unquestionable is high power consumption. I think that you can reduce power dramatically (by a third!), fully unlocked parts, for maybe 10% lower performance.

The FX-8350 in the right hands is actually decent, to almost the best value per $ on the market today. Unless you plan to run superpi single threaded all day long....
sschaem
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:05 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:08 pm

When you consider how bursty the 8350's performance is in games... It's not a good buy for that reason. It's passable, not good. In many gaming cases it's better to buy a Phenom II X4 980.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd- ... reviewed/5 TR's own results for gaming usage of it.
I.S.T.
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:18 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:20 pm

I'm not convinced, the games he tested (apart from Crysis) don't interest me that much and he set it up so that the results are mostly academic at 30 fps or bellow. Also Logan's voice was trembling, i wonder........
nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more info
Disclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.
Arclight
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:50 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:47 pm

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.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:05 pm

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.

Eh... He's measuring FPS difference during streaming... Why? Any serious streamer would simply use a second PC with a capture card (something like Avermedia Live Gamer HD or whatever) to encode and stream, which will give you 0 impact on your in-game FPS on your primary PC and will "free up" extra processing power for your backgound progs like Twitch.tv's chat panel, your VoIP programs (Teamspeak or whatever), your Pandora/Spotify music players, your Twitter/Email/Skype clients, etc.
Also, he's not using more CPU-intensive games like GW2, PS2 and such... Or more relevant streaming games (not many ppl still stream BF3 or Crysis games)... Such a pointless video.
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:04 am

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.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:24 am

But it's not just about fps averages, but also frame latencies.
mganai
Gerbil
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:00 pm

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:37 am

Just watched few more videos by this dude... Especially the one about building "The best budget gaming rig", where he only advertises AMD products (CPU/GPU) with no other alternatives given... I have no further questions, so to speak :wink:
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:24 am

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.[...]



From TR's review of the FX 8350, the average frame rates in games were:

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Average fps
FX 8350: 77
Core i5 3750K: 104
Core i7 3770K: 104

Batman: Arkham City
Average fps
FX 8350: 70
Core i5 3750K: 84
Core i7 3770K: 88

Battlefield 3
Average fps
FX 8350: 84
Core i5 3750K: 88
Core i7 3770K: 86

Crysis 2
Average fps
FX 8350: 86
Core i5 3750K: 88
Core i7 3770K: 87

Skyrim & video encoding
Average fps
FX 8350: 62
Core i5 3750K: 84
Core i7 3770K: 86

Power consumption:
Peak power consumption - x264 encoding (W)
FX 8350: 196
Core i5 3750K: 87
Core i7 3770K: 100

As you can see, it doesn't score wins all that often (unless you consider double power consumption a win). All without exposing the frame times, which generally speaking will still show the Intel chips as winners.

That said, the FX 8350 closed the gap quite a bit compared to the 8150, even i was surprised when i saw the review, but given that the 3750K is slightly better for slightly more money i'd still consider it a better purchase. Fanboys will be rejoiced though as it doesn't get trumped like the first Buldozer SKUs.

Regarding FX 8350 performance in games, Mr. Wasson had this to say in the conclusions:
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.


Personally i've watched Logan's video reviews on youtube since 2007. I liked his reviews a lot back then thanks to his humourous remarks and what not but i've seen him jump boats from one company to another and frankly he became quite bitter and his jokes aren't that funny anymore (at least for me). As a consumer i've grown a finer taste and even in the begining i knew his reviews were biased. I distinctly remember back when he was touting HD 2000 cards against the GTX 8800 when the AMD had nothing going for them. My feeling is that his making a living from sponsors more so than from views and community support. Who those sponsors might be? I wonder........
nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more info
Disclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.
Arclight
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:50 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:38 pm

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.



What i'm trying to say SOC which intel was or is going to becoming in the future, while amd isn't ready for the SOC. I don't see how amd will catch up to intel.

I'm waiting for the day that we just be buying proprietary brands, without no choices.
@Brew: example Microsoft is trying to be like Apple hardware & software companies.

As for video frame rates in gaming need to be judge not by cpu but by graphics horses power & consumption.
Image
Dizzytaz00
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:50 pm
Location: Berwick , PA USA

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:11 pm

Dizzytaz00 wrote:graphics horses

What are those mystical "graphics horses" that you speak of? Something like

Image
?
:wink:
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:15 pm

@johnc LoL
Image
Dizzytaz00
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:50 pm
Location: Berwick , PA USA

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:16 pm

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.


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.
ASUS P5B-E,ConroeE6400,2GB Mushkin DDR2 800,
EVGA 8800GTS,Corsair 520HX,Antec 900,WD320 GB,Samsung 204B
rogue426
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:51 pm

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 pm

@rogue426:

Why are you thinking that? First, I presented the video which I found, and which I did not, in any case, say that it is conclusive. I only said it looks legit. It's just another point of view, presenting some other data points that the prospective buyer may want to check out. TBH, I think it's a head-scratcher.

Second, I'm just sharing my experience with my OWN FX-8350. I am very well aware that Intel is the go-to brand these days, but obviously, once you buy Intel, you probably won't get to buy another AMD system, and that's where my comments come in because I do have first-hand experience with my AMD FX. I admit I'm very happy with it and that's what I'm saying. The longer I own it the more apps I try on it and it continues to impress me, particularly with productivity apps. Now, I tried System Shock 2 on it and I'm impressed because the last time I played this game was on an older CPU, but I'm sure it'll also run as quick, if not quicker, on an i5 or i7. But I don't have an i5 or i7 so I don't have the info on that.

Thirdly, I'm also saying that today's processors, even the much-down thumbed FX series, are frickin' awesome compared to what we had just a few years ago, especially coming from AMD which has a far smaller R&D budget.

So you see, yes, I am happy with my purchase, but I am not telling everybody to buy an AMD FX. Perhaps you should email the guy there at Tek Syndicate directly and troll him about his findings.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:43 pm

One minor thing about gaming FPS, regardless of CPU or GPU or APU.

As far as I am aware, most typical LCD monitors here in North America have a 60hz (60 fps) refresh rate, there are a few that have 120hz (fps, I own one)

So any game benchmarks that exceed 60 fps regardless of GPU or CPU, get labelled as a pass to me. And all options are viable.

Now for the hardcore gamer(s) that may not fly though.
Life doesn't change after marriage, it changes after children!
anotherengineer
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:53 pm
Location: Timmins, ON Canada, Yes I know, Up in the sticks

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:29 am

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?
nVidia video drivers FAIL, click for more info
Disclaimer: All answers and suggestions are provided by an enthusiastic amateur and are therefore without warranty either explicit or implicit. Basically you use my suggestions at your own risk.
Arclight
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:50 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:39 am

.
Last edited by clone on Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
neg
clone
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 am

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:33 am

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! :D
Geonerd
Gerbil
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:29 pm
Location: Sunny Aridzona

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:00 am

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! :D


The only "moaning" here I see is yours :roll: The others are discussing the "price vs. performance", as well as relevance and validity of "gameplay streaming" benchmarks in that video.
My subscription allows you people to exist on this site and makes me a better human being than you'll ever be
JohnC
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm
Location: NY/NJ/FL

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:26 am

I'd call it a draw after factoring in price to be honest, a $190 FX 8350 is not a bad cpu....


Said like a true, fine gerbil. If they were selling it for the same price as an i7-3770K, I wouldn't be as happy as I am now with my FX-8350. But I got it for $190. $190. Does anybody here remember how much we paid for our Pentium 4 CPUs? I guess I'm just as appreciative of the FX-8350 when comparing it against today's offerings from Intel as I am comparing it to our past CPUs.

As for power consumption:

There will always be haters out there who will never fail to point out the FX's power consumption, but I think it's not really something to cry about unless one's running a bunch of these things. It's like buying an expensive sports car and complaining about fuel consumption, only in this case, you got the sports car for a lot less than competing models.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:38 am

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?


Thanks Arclight that's what i was trying to get at!
Image
Dizzytaz00
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:50 pm
Location: Berwick , PA USA

Re: AMD FX-8350 vs. Core i5 and i7

Postposted on Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:41 am

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.

I've got nothing against ronch but I mostly agree with this. It's fine to continue finessing one's evaluation of the CPU, but as far as I'm concerned I would take a Sandy or Ivy i5 model over anything AMD offers and not have a single hesitation in making that choice.

I don't see the point in continuing to try to revise the reputation of the FX 8350. It can beat Intel's chips in highly multithreaded scenarios, but it can lag pretty far behind in lightly threaded or single threaded scenarios. It uses a lot more power at load, but at idle it's very decent. Intel's K chips overclock better. The FX 8350 costs less than an "equivalent" Intel processor, even though there's really no such thing as an "equivalent" Intel processor since the differences between the two are too many and too much. Usually people mean the i5 3570K, but I still say they're not very equivalent. Then there are the platform differences, and as far as I can tell the AMD platform lags in all ways except support for ECC memory on some boards; but even then there are options (though not many) on the Intel side - like the Xeon 1230v2 on a C204 chipset board.
flip-mode
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Next

Return to Processors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest