Durant Carlyle, on 24 February 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:
lol
The 3.2 GHz Turbo-speed quad-core Intel CPU (3632QM) beat the 4.2 GHz Turbo-speed hex-core AMD CPU (FX 6350).
In other words: Even with two extra cores and a 1.0 GHz speed advantage, the AMD CPU still couldn't win.
Gotta love it...
But do you think someone could run that Mobile chip over 500Mhz higer than stock clocks...... remember AMD doesnt require a special K edition chip to up the out of the box performance.
My 8350 @ 4.8ghz is roughly the same performance(give or take a benchmark or two) as a 4770@ stock clocks. but cost considerably less.......
My 8350 @ 4.8ghz is roughly the same performance(give or take a benchmark or two) as a 4770@ stock clocks. but cost considerably less.......
Does it? Now factor in the additional power requirements of the already comparably inefficient AMD processor PLUS the additional voltage to overclock it. . figure in about $.11/Kwh, and how long does it take for the intel chip to catch up in value? Granted, there's a lot of variables to it, but if you figure an average rebuild target of 3 years, you'd PROBABLY at least break even. Plus, you haven't factored in the extra gear to require overclocking [slightly higher end motherboard, advanced cooling] that someone running a STOCK intel setup could technically skip completely. [especially with a non K sku]
As an enthusiast, that's DOUBLY true. You know what it's going to take to get the performance numbers you want, and you're going to plan in advance to bulletproof it so you can get there. As a result, that saved $$$ isn't typically so much "saved" as "reallocated" into other components of the build.
Does it? Now factor in the additional power requirements of the already comparably inefficient AMD processor PLUS the additional voltage to overclock it. . figure in about $.11/Kwh, and how long does it take for the intel chip to catch up in value? Granted, there's a lot of variables to it, but if you figure an average rebuild target of 3 years, you'd PROBABLY at least break even. Plus, you haven't factored in the extra gear to require overclocking [slightly higher end motherboard, advanced cooling] that someone running a STOCK intel setup could technically skip completely. [especially with a non K sku]
As an enthusiast, that's DOUBLY true. You know what it's going to take to get the performance numbers you want, and you're going to plan in advance to bulletproof it so you can get there. As a result, that saved $$$ isn't typically so much "saved" as "reallocated" into other components of the build.
unless of course i already had a liquid cooler, fans and complete system AM3+ based ASUS board 3yrs strong, so going from phenom X2 555 @ 4.21ghz, to fx4100@ 4.760ghz. to this 8350 @ 4.7ghz, wasnt so difficult in the last half dozen years.......without needing 1366LGA 1150LGA 1155LGA AND OR 2011LGA
allowing me to upgrade CPU(2X)+GPU for about what a stock 4770K would net me.
**EDIT** I omitted any thoughts on your electricity concerns..........as I really could care less about the power it sucks from the wall, Just like I would want my performance car under boost to to suck gas back faster than a college kid funnels keg beer.
Edited by Smokeyjedi, 25 February 2014 - 06:01 AM.
LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.
Posted 25 February 2014 - 07:25 AM
Ridersofdoom, on 24 February 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:
a bad joke with extra 100 bucks
That's just raw performance utilised at it's best, mate.
This would apply if you were, say, rendering something on that CPU, or running some really advanced calculations, but as far as gaming goes, that i5 blows the FX-6350 out of the water.
http://www.canadacom...&item_id=057457
30$CDN /W fan as far as extra requirements goes... to uncork that 6300..........The smallest amount of ingenuity or critical problem solving can put you miles ahead of the path of least resistance. oh you may need to spend 2.00+$ on a single application of thermal paste....Leaps and bounds have been made.
I just checked out that I5 4570 @ 3.2Ghz... My OLD (still used) Phenom II x6 1045T 2.7Ghz gives it a run for its money. That was before I overclocked it to 3.0Ghz on all the cores, but wait that's on a stock cooler. Now if I find that £40 Water cooler I could clock it to 3.4Ghz on all core quite easily.
Used to love Intel now its all about the AMD cant wait for MANTLE to be implemented more.
P.s. the FX series of chips aren't really gaming spec chips to be fair. I got this 1045T from my mate who thought he'd upgrade to an FX 8 core... Wa waaa for him unfortunately.
unless of course i already had a liquid cooler, fans and complete system AM3+ based ASUS board 3yrs strong, so going from phenom X2 555 @ 4.21ghz, to fx4100@ 4.760ghz. to this 8350 @ 4.7ghz, wasnt so difficult in the last half dozen years.......without needing 1366LGA 1150LGA 1155LGA AND OR 2011LGA
allowing me to upgrade CPU(2X)+GPU for about what a stock 4770K would net me.
**EDIT** I omitted any thoughts on your electricity concerns..........as I really could care less about the power it sucks from the wall, Just like I would want my performance car under boost to to suck gas back faster than a college kid funnels keg beer.
Not only that, but the added power consumption of an AMD processor compared to an Intel (the generation being talked about) won't matter for years overclocked running 24/7 at full throttle... And how many people run their machines like that? I've seen the power consumption debate brought up in forums on sites dedicated to just discussing the PC. Those posts have me convinced unless the CPU's costs were a much smaller margin it's a useless argument to bring up doing the AMD vs. Intel debate.
unless of course i already had a liquid cooler, fans and complete system AM3+ based ASUS board 3yrs strong, so going from phenom X2 555 @ 4.21ghz, to fx4100@ 4.760ghz. to this 8350 @ 4.7ghz, wasnt so difficult in the last half dozen years.......without needing 1366LGA 1150LGA 1155LGA AND OR 2011LGA
allowing me to upgrade CPU(2X)+GPU for about what a stock 4770K would net me.
**EDIT** I omitted any thoughts on your electricity concerns..........as I really could care less about the power it sucks from the wall, Just like I would want my performance car under boost to to suck gas back faster than a college kid funnels keg beer.
Ok, YOU have that stuff lying around, *I* have that stuff lying around. . but what about John Q Moron who knows about as much about computers as I do about the math involved in quantum physics? The intel is still the stronger contender, as there is much less additional cost in terms of cooling and time/effort to learn how to effectively overclock. It wasn't TECHNICALLY about you PERSONALLY, because I know how die-hard AMD fans will defend AMDs relatively garbage desktop offerings. You're not going to like that statement, but let's face it: Outside of Thuban, AMD hasn't really had a DECENT performance contender since socket 939 [I still have my 4400 X2] I really REALLY like what I'm seeing with Kaveri, and if it comes into it's own by 2nd or 3rd generation I'll be happy as all get out. . but for now I'll be sticking with Intel.
And you may not give a rat's whiskers about power consumption, but some of us dance on the edge of a REALLY tight budget. If I can save $5 or $10 a month per computer in my household, I'll take everything I can get.
[Unrelated PS: Whoever came up with the IDIOTIC idea of Homeowner's Associations and stupidly high HoA fees can suck the blank out of my big fat blanking blank!!!!!!!!!!!!]
PPS:
Quote
[color=#959595]Just like I would want my performance car under boost to to suck gas back faster than a college kid funnels keg beer.[/color]
Actually, TECHNICALLY the leaner you can get it and the tighter you can get the timing, the "hotter" it's gonna run. This gave rise to the old saying "The engine is most efficient right before it blows" Just dumping fuel into it can actually adversely impact performance, ESPECIALLY if the air/fuel mixture is F'd up. If you stop and think about it, this says a lot about your position vs mine in this discussion. I've been where you are, and I've since learned that there are easier and smarter ways to do things. . but I will admit I kinda miss those days...
Ok, YOU have that stuff lying around, *I* have that stuff lying around. . but what about John Q Moron who knows about as much about computers as I do about the math involved in quantum physics? The intel is still the stronger contender, as there is much less additional cost in terms of cooling and time/effort to learn how to effectively overclock. It wasn't TECHNICALLY about you PERSONALLY, because I know how die-hard AMD fans will defend AMDs relatively garbage desktop offerings. You're not going to like that statement, but let's face it: Outside of Thuban, AMD hasn't really had a DECENT performance contender since socket 939 [I still have my 4400 X2] I really REALLY like what I'm seeing with Kaveri, and if it comes into it's own by 2nd or 3rd generation I'll be happy as all get out. . but for now I'll be sticking with Intel.
And you may not give a rat's whiskers about power consumption, but some of us dance on the edge of a REALLY tight budget. If I can save $5 or $10 a month per computer in my household, I'll take everything I can get.
[Unrelated PS: Whoever came up with the IDIOTIC idea of Homeowner's Associations and stupidly high HoA fees can suck the blank out of my big fat blanking blank!!!!!!!!!!!!]
PPS:
Actually, TECHNICALLY the leaner you can get it and the tighter you can get the timing, the "hotter" it's gonna run. This gave rise to the old saying "The engine is most efficient right before it blows" Just dumping fuel into it can actually adversely impact performance, ESPECIALLY if the air/fuel mixture is F'd up. If you stop and think about it, this says a lot about your position vs mine in this discussion. I've been where you are, and I've since learned that there are easier and smarter ways to do things. . but I will admit I kinda miss those days...
You missed the fact that I am a Ford Mechanic, and Boost uses fuel, Yes a lean mixture of fuel to air is req.-14:7 but PSI means big fuel injectors......not small economy injectors-clearly a turbine would make different power and use less gas, but thats not the point here..were talking piston engines/....My point was you don't make power without fuel, And you cant win a marathon without gettin a chafed nipple......or two.......I see you rely on the path of less resistance,(see easy mode-also known as pay to have the same as someone with initiative or inginuity) thats a shame, you take away from your own hardness. challenge yourself more, step outside of the norm, become more than a sheeple.
Id rather own a fully custom 1000HP galxie(know every detail of its creation+possibly build entirely myself) than shell out cash for a mass produced Porche 911turbo,just cause its popular, or hip. Even though, at a track the 911 will eat that hunk of meaty badass'ness, I wouldn't be happy with following the norm.
"I live my life one multiplier setting at a time" to steal a quote from the fast and furious.
I got an FX 8320 4gbs of ram and a damn 9600gt 512mb and i still get 35ish fps on medium say what you want about AMD or Intel it doesn't really matter its all a pointless subject if its what you can afford or what you want to splurge on then get it. If it works whats the problem? The guy started this post with a simple question now its just degraded to useless drivel over which is better its pointless.
I got an FX 8320 4gbs of ram and a damn 9600gt 512mb and i still get 35ish fps on medium say what you want about AMD or Intel it doesn't really matter its all a pointless subject if its what you can afford or what you want to splurge on then get it. If it works whats the problem? The guy started this post with a simple question now its just degraded to useless drivel over which is better its pointless.
Yep, per typical over such a subject.
When it comes to gaming, which the OP's question was pertaining to - It shouldn't matter if you go AMD or Intel, especially the AMD processor you're talking about. The GPU is going to be much more dependent on your fps.
Now, if you're wondering which is better overall, I'm on the Intel side. I've got an AMD 1055T@3.5GHz - Games just fine. My primary rig is an i7 930@4.0 GHz. It benches between 50% and 100% better depending on what's being benched (AMD has a much lesser video card as well) yet I can game just fine on both. Sometimes I've got to lower the graphics a bit on the AMD machine, but that's on the GPU, not the CPU. Aside from the internal advances between CPU generations gaming is more dependent on CPU frequency over efficiency - The higher the better. Granted, what you currently have compared to a newer Intel that's ~three years newer isn't going to compare clock for clock.
Im just sayin the fx series can be overclocked, they have kinda been that way for almost 10 years. If you buy it not prepared to learn how to go that extra step that AMDs being unlocked are made for, than u havent made the right purchase. A safe buy is always going to be Intel, But id rather live on the edge and push my hardware, after all I have dozens of compenents that are all outdated wont keep up with my current needs and/or tastes in games and they work just fine, because they spent thier lives at stock clocks and are useless now,
"I have something to say, its better to burn out, than to fade away-Kurgan
Intels tend to benchmark better than AMDs, sure, but guess what, I don't play benchmarks.
I went from an FX-4100 which ran MW:O at an 88-95% load to an FX-8350 which runs it at 33% load. Not even overclocking. I get no lag unless everybody else in the game is getting lag (sometimes happens).
You get an intel for a few reasons, one of which is simply to brag that you have one. I get similar/same game performance with my AMD as with an equivalent Intel CPU - to my brain anyway. $200. Good deal I think.
Adridos, on 25 February 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:
, but as far as gaming goes, that i5 blows the FX-6350 out of the water.
How can you tell?
Edited by Gremlich Johns, 26 February 2014 - 01:59 PM.
Durant Carlyle, on 24 February 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:
lol
The 3.2 GHz Turbo-speed quad-core Intel CPU (3632QM) beat the 4.2 GHz Turbo-speed hex-core AMD CPU (FX 6350).
In other words: Even with two extra cores and a 1.0 GHz speed advantage, the AMD CPU still couldn't win.
Gotta love it...
THIS ^ ... Also: This post not to be concerned with Mobile versions of CPUs or gaming laptops.
Any recommendations or comparisons will have nothing to do with gaming laptops or mobile devices.
In the begining I saw the Zambezi (Bulldozer) release to unimpressive reviews a while back before Vishera was released.
I got my hands on a free FX-8120 from someone that was not pleased by it's performance, I suggested to them that they get a FX-8350 if they did not want to go Intel 1150 socket 4770K, it would be cheaper then going intel, "BUT" they would indeed need a bigger power supply to OC to the 4.9 to 5.0Ghz that they had seen posted by many FX-8350 users. They run a power hungry dual GPU card as well as several other devices for music recording and multple drives. Keep in mind the Zambezi is not quite as good as the newer Vishera FX CPUs.
So here's what I did with the FX-8120 x8, I slapped it into a 990-FX Asus Crosshair V mobo, and used a GTX-560 ti, 1866 Mhz Dominator RAM, and clocked the FX-8120 to 4.2 GHZ. Adjusting to keep RAM as close 1866 MHZ as I could (1900 MHZ and change)
Then I took one of my other systems, Sabertooth 990-FX rev 1 Asus mobo, Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban OC'd to 4.2 GHZ, used Dominator RAM OC'd to 1866 mhz, and an indentical GTX-560 ti card, both with single rail 850 watt PSUs.
Ran the snot out of both of them, saw "NO" advantage by the FX-8120 x8 over the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban, clock for clock "UNTIL" I ran a couple RTS titles (LAN hosted by Intel 1150 socket i7 clocked to 4.6GHZ on water) with lots and of units on the map, then I saw a Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban pull ahead. By that I mean the FX-8120 began to bog down more then the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban, it was noticeably different, enough to warrant a higher OC on the FX-8120 to match almost exactly what the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban was experiencing.
FX-8120 clocked to 4.67GHZ (on water) Ram at 1900mhz and change = Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban at 4.23GHZ Ram OC'd to 1872MHZ (on water).. At that point they performed almost exactly the same on RTS titles and MWO.
"THEN" I decided to mix this up and bring out the old Phenom IIx4 960t (thuban) a CPU that was originally a 6 core but due to a bad core was locked to a 4 core and sold as such.
960t was unlocked to 5 cores (6th core was not viable) on Sabertooth 990-FX mobo, clocked to 4.21 ghz on water, RAM was just under 1866 MHZ. Ran the exact same game save on the RTS versus the FX-8120 results were too close to call compared to the other test.
5 and 6 cores of a previous generation model CPU slightly beating the performance of a newer 8 core FX series CPU going head to head, CLOCK for CLOCK, and the newer CPU needing around a 400mhz HIGHER OC to get almost exactly the same results or better... This is what kept me from so called Upgrading from the top of the, end of the line Phenom IIx6 Thuban when the FX series first came out, and it's the reason for NOT staying with AMD and going Intel. Now keep in mind none of these titles tested were fully optimized for multi core support, especially MWO, so results would have most likely been a little bit different in this little test, and I have seen as such with a friend that runs an FX-8350 at 4.8ghz on water 24/7, but still not enough for me to keep from switching to Intel. Also the Intel rig I mentioned earlier absolutely stomped the guts out of all AMD examples while hosting those RTS titles with lots and lots of units on the board.. Example: both AMD CPUs pegged at 100% usage versus the Intel system that was pegging at 80% CPU usage with enough in reserve to keep the AMD systems at a slow laggy chug.
Leaving PRICE completely out of the discussion I would say go with an FX-8350 and clock it up on water if you are planning to stay with AMD and your current motherboard, if you have the VRM to deal with it, or if you want to save some cash and get a smaller all in one water cooling solution then go with the FX-6350 for cheap and clock it to 4.2 to 4.3 GHZ if money is an issue.
Really trying to stay out of the Intel versus AMD debate, but if money isn't an issue, and you plan on building a new rig (motherboard & CPU), then go with the Intell 2011 socket or 1150 socket make (make sure you get a K series chip).
Even overclocked the Intel CPUs use less power, and many have a much more superior memory controller you can get 2400mhz RAM speeds out of them no problem, and also Intel CPUs can take a rather junky set of RAM and make it run like a sports car.
Cherry picking Intel i3s and i5s should not be used to compare against AMDs flagship CPUs.
You don't even need to put Intel's flagship up against AMD's flagship, and that should say something.
If money is your issue then FX-6350 and clock it, if not so much FX-8350 and clock it's guts out.
If money is a non issue, well, I already said it.
Smokeyjedi, on 25 February 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:
But do you think someone could run that Mobile chip over 500Mhz higer than stock clocks...... remember AMD doesnt require a special K edition chip to up the out of the box performance.
My 8350 @ 4.8ghz is roughly the same performance(give or take a benchmark or two) as a 4770@ stock clocks. but cost considerably less.......
I would NEVER run a laptop for gaming and OC to get high performance, Mobile series CPUs are usually gimped (in a fashion) to allow for less power drain, hence a little less performance versus their Tower mounted, water cooled brothers. There are already gaming laptops on the market, but don't expect the exact same performance that you can get out of their big brothers.
M stands for (mostly).. LOL
You're right performance is similar, UNTIL the OC begins on the 4770k, I have a friend with that and a 780ti versus my other friend with the 8350 clocked to 4.8ghz on water. The Intel CPU 4770k sips power compared to the FX-8350 the energy guzzler, the difference is really quite high, but performance in applications that are fully optimized there isn't an overwhelming difference UNTIL you get into an RTS with lots and lots of units on the map, then the 8350 starts losing some ground (around 15% to 20% after full load). Also the memory controller on the Intel 1150 socket CPUs just beats up on the FX-series, it's way more forgiving to get your RAM where you want it, and 2400mhz is quite nice.
Edited by Odins Fist, 26 February 2014 - 04:09 PM.
I heard chains so... fx8 core runs at about 8% @3.8 to 4.2 in mwo with about 4% of 16gram utilized win8 and runs what i would say High fps my ati cards crossed up are modest and @ stock speed. btw rise and fall cores , meaning, 2 up 2 down I usually only see 1 up and one down in mwo....unload your drivers and reinstall them and leave them alone before attempting tweaking the sweat out of them, before you run your game.It helps running clean set ups with all that registry cycling. Ok now give me grief for this...
THIS ^ ... Also: This post not to be concerned with Mobile versions of CPUs or gaming laptops.
Any recommendations or comparisons will have nothing to do with gaming laptops or mobile devices.
In the begining I saw the Zambezi (Bulldozer) release to unimpressive reviews a while back before Vishera was released.
I got my hands on a free FX-8120 from someone that was not pleased by it's performance, I suggested to them that they get a FX-8350 if they did not want to go Intel 1150 socket 4770K, it would be cheaper then going intel, "BUT" they would indeed need a bigger power supply to OC to the 4.9 to 5.0Ghz that they had seen posted by many FX-8350 users. They run a power hungry dual GPU card as well as several other devices for music recording and multple drives. Keep in mind the Zambezi is not quite as good as the newer Vishera FX CPUs.
So here's what I did with the FX-8120 x8, I slapped it into a 990-FX Asus Crosshair V mobo, and used a GTX-560 ti, 1866 Mhz Dominator RAM, and clocked the FX-8120 to 4.2 GHZ. Adjusting to keep RAM as close 1866 MHZ as I could (1900 MHZ and change)
Then I took one of my other systems, Sabertooth 990-FX rev 1 Asus mobo, Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban OC'd to 4.2 GHZ, used Dominator RAM OC'd to 1866 mhz, and an indentical GTX-560 ti card, both with single rail 850 watt PSUs.
Ran the snot out of both of them, saw "NO" advantage by the FX-8120 x8 over the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban, clock for clock "UNTIL" I ran a couple RTS titles (LAN hosted by Intel 1150 socket i7 clocked to 4.6GHZ on water) with lots and of units on the map, then I saw a Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban pull ahead. By that I mean the FX-8120 began to bog down more then the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban, it was noticeably different, enough to warrant a higher OC on the FX-8120 to match almost exactly what the Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban was experiencing.
FX-8120 clocked to 4.67GHZ (on water) Ram at 1900mhz and change = Phenom IIx6 1100 thuban at 4.23GHZ Ram OC'd to 1872MHZ (on water).. At that point they performed almost exactly the same on RTS titles and MWO.
"THEN" I decided to mix this up and bring out the old Phenom IIx4 960t (thuban) a CPU that was originally a 6 core but due to a bad core was locked to a 4 core and sold as such.
960t was unlocked to 5 cores (6th core was not viable) on Sabertooth 990-FX mobo, clocked to 4.21 ghz on water, RAM was just under 1866 MHZ. Ran the exact same game save on the RTS versus the FX-8120 results were too close to call compared to the other test.
5 and 6 cores of a previous generation model CPU slightly beating the performance of a newer 8 core FX series CPU going head to head, CLOCK for CLOCK, and the newer CPU needing around a 400mhz HIGHER OC to get almost exactly the same results or better... This is what kept me from so called Upgrading from the top of the, end of the line Phenom IIx6 Thuban when the FX series first came out, and it's the reason for NOT staying with AMD and going Intel. Now keep in mind none of these titles tested were fully optimized for multi core support, especially MWO, so results would have most likely been a little bit different in this little test, and I have seen as such with a friend that runs an FX-8350 at 4.8ghz on water 24/7, but still not enough for me to keep from switching to Intel. Also the Intel rig I mentioned earlier absolutely stomped the guts out of all AMD examples while hosting those RTS titles with lots and lots of units on the board.. Example: both AMD CPUs pegged at 100% usage versus the Intel system that was pegging at 80% CPU usage with enough in reserve to keep the AMD systems at a slow laggy chug.
Leaving PRICE completely out of the discussion I would say go with an FX-8350 and clock it up on water if you are planning to stay with AMD and your current motherboard, if you have the VRM to deal with it, or if you want to save some cash and get a smaller all in one water cooling solution then go with the FX-6350 for cheap and clock it to 4.2 to 4.3 GHZ if money is an issue.
Really trying to stay out of the Intel versus AMD debate, but if money isn't an issue, and you plan on building a new rig (motherboard & CPU), then go with the Intell 2011 socket or 1150 socket make (make sure you get a K series chip).
Even overclocked the Intel CPUs use less power, and many have a much more superior memory controller you can get 2400mhz RAM speeds out of them no problem, and also Intel CPUs can take a rather junky set of RAM and make it run like a sports car.
Cherry picking Intel i3s and i5s should not be used to compare against AMDs flagship CPUs.
You don't even need to put Intel's flagship up against AMD's flagship, and that should say something.
If money is your issue then FX-6350 and clock it, if not so much FX-8350 and clock it's guts out.
If money is a non issue, well, I already said it.
I would NEVER run a laptop for gaming and OC to get high performance, Mobile series CPUs are usually gimped (in a fashion) to allow for less power drain, hence a little less performance versus their Tower mounted, water cooled brothers. There are already gaming laptops on the market, but don't expect the exact same performance that you can get out of their big brothers.
M stands for (mostly).. LOL
You're right performance is similar, UNTIL the OC begins on the 4770k, I have a friend with that and a 780ti versus my other friend with the 8350 clocked to 4.8ghz on water. The Intel CPU 4770k sips power compared to the FX-8350 the energy guzzler, the difference is really quite high, but performance in applications that are fully optimized there isn't an overwhelming difference UNTIL you get into an RTS with lots and lots of units on the map, then the 8350 starts losing some ground (around 15% to 20% after full load). Also the memory controller on the Intel 1150 socket CPUs just beats up on the FX-series, it's way more forgiving to get your RAM where you want it, and 2400mhz is quite nice.
I specifically mentioned the 4770, non K model....... the oc model(4770K) costs 40$ more and lands it near 400$ cnd, thats almost 2 8350's........no thanks!
**EDIT** bulldozer is not a good example to use for anything.........specially OC........vishera is 15% IPC improvement, and 10% lower TDP............bringing it leaps ahead of the 8150(I upgraded from 8150 to 8350) cinebench11.5 scores 8150@4.55ish ghz were the same as stock 8350's i was pleased right off the hop, than I peeled the 80MM fan off of my stock vishera stock heatsync, and custom cooled my vrms to allow me a 30% overall improvement......4.0->4.760ghz, leaving the 4770, behind me, for half the price.
Edited by Smokeyjedi, 26 February 2014 - 05:36 PM.
I specifically mentioned the 4770, non K model....... the oc model(4770K) costs 40$ more and lands it near 400$ cnd, thats almost 2 8350's........no thanks!
**EDIT** bulldozer is not a good example to use for anything.........specially OC........vishera is 15% IPC improvement, and 10% lower TDP............bringing it leaps ahead of the 8150(I upgraded from 8150 to 8350) cinebench11.5 scores 8150@4.55ish ghz were the same as stock 8350's i was pleased right off the hop, than I peeled the 80MM fan off of my stock vishera stock heatsync, and custom cooled my vrms to allow me a 30% overall improvement......4.0->4.760ghz, leaving the 4770, behind me, for half the price.
And I specifically mentioned the 4770 "K" model, also I said go Intel if price wasn't an issue.
If you are going to overclock and AMD CPU, why wouldn't you try to compare an Intel CPU that is overclockable?
Cherry picking examples to put against each other is not fair, price point aside.
The example of the 4770k that my friend runs is a fair comparison to use versus the FX-8350 that my other friend runs, and here is the skinny on that.
The 4770k overclocks using less voltage, thus less wear and tear on the VRM/Mobo, the FX-8350 when overclocked FAR exceeds the 140 watt tdp spec on "ANY" AM3+ 160 watts (idle) 4.8ghz and a big 364 watts at full load, that's "364 watts at full load", that's more then DOUBLE any TDP spec listed on any AM3+ mobo, 140 watts.
The 4770k clocked at 4.7ghz uses 100 watts at (idle)- my friend stays just over 4.6ghz 24/7, and the 4770k uses 171 watts at full load. That's (364 watts for the 8350) versus (171 watts for the 4770k).
So who's Mobo is going to bork quicker..?? I can tell ya this, i'm not giving these examples for an electric bill issue/concern, i'm showing what kind of stresses one CPU puts on a mobo versus the other, and the difference is very obvious.
I mean we aren't even talking AMD Flagship CPU versus Intel Flagship CPU at all, and other Intel CPUs are pretty high on wattage as well, but not the 4770k versus the 8350. I just do not think it is a valid argument to put a fully overclockable AMD CPU against an Intel CPU that isn't set for overclocking, forget the price difference, that's a non issue here.
I know the Bulldozer FX-8120 wasn't the best example to use, but it is the only FX CPU that I own personally, it was a gift from a friend that was unhappy with it, and I have to tell you the FX-8120 was really touchy when overclocked past 4.2ghz, also hot and hungry as a hippo. I have NEVER put money on a FX-series CPU for personal use, the upgrade from my Phenom II 1100 thuban was not justifiable as a performance upgrade in the least, so I decided to NOT stay with AMD, and I have run nothing but AMD CPUs since 2007, but AMD's time has come and gone for me now. My friend made the switch to Intel with a 2011 soocket, then he decided to buy the 1150 socket mobo and 4770k CPU, and proceeded to show what kind of performance he was getting, and it was very impressive on a 700 watt PSU. My other friend has a FX-8350, and he likes it, but he had to spend a lot more money for a much bigger PSU and Water cooling to get the performance he wanted he in the end compared to my buddy with the 4770k, they compete, they really compete. In the end the 4770k wins for what my friends and I do in terms of gaming, especially RTS games with lots & lots of units on the map. They both spent money on water cooling, but in the end the cost difference was not a big issue, even though the 4770k can do things on air cooling that the 8350 cannot do, and the 700 watt PSU the 4770k uses would be insufficient as an example, friend with his FX-8350 couldn't OC to the extent he wanted on his 2 year old 850 watt PSU, so he had to throw another $180.00 at the power hungry 8350 for a better spec PSU. I will ask them both again what the costs were in the end, I won't be surprised if the system with the 4770k came in under the 8350 rig.
Oh, the freind with the 8350 has his mobo on the water loop as well as his GPU.
Price versus performance is a slippery slope at the high end of that slope.
How much was your VRM cooling loop, and what size and model is your PSU?
How much extra to get your specs?
Edited by Odins Fist, 26 February 2014 - 09:01 PM.
Went from CM 212+ to H80i(on sale <90$, and i used the 80MM AMD stock heatsync fan from 8350 package.(0$ additional cost)
The AMD fan is hella loud, but it is rammed under my radiator held in place by a small black screw on the chip set heatsync and 2 sided foam-tape "pucks" above on the actual vrm heat sync. allowing my vrms on my asus M5a97evo to act/feel like better quality vrms...... managed to go from 4.560 stable to 4.760 stable......or 1 multiplier click up,with a single voltage bump. aw yeah
**EDIT**
And I can not argue with a lot of things you said, but as I mentioned ^^^ that car would roll alot sweeter than your designer made hipster car complete with Bluetooth earpiece and sporty matching sunglasses.....
My Trogdorr the Burninator(PC name) will slay benchmarks and blast hella quick frame times......and thaw my house if I so need it to/ nothing like a touch of anxiety every time I hover my finger over the power button......at start up sequence.
Edited by Smokeyjedi, 27 February 2014 - 04:12 AM.
0
Durant Carlyle, on 24 February 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:
cant wait for MANTLE to be implemented more. 
