The 4670K (or 3570K) vs. 8350 Aggregate Comparison

[paulsterio]

Older isn't an excuse? Really? So how far back do we want to push this age thing since it doesn't matter now. Also X79 is older then Haswell and still out performs it. Since haswell is newer it should outperform it then.

 

Hence why I said it depends on the game and specific task.

 

If you add up the so called "Generational Improvements" over the last 3 generations of Intel CPUs you will find about 15% improvement in IPC give or take? AMD did that 15% jump in 1 generation with the same die size, the same socket, and the same manufacturing process.

 

Of course older doesn't matter, it is still AMD's latest chip. The fact that they haven't had an FX refresh apart from the 9000-series which are just overclocked 8350s, is their own fault. On top of that they actually don't have any plans for an FX refresh anyway. 

 

It does depend on the game and specific task, but the 8350 is better than the 4670K or neck and neck in 20% of applications (say) and is worse in 80%. You can harp on about that 20% as much as you want, but at the end of the day for the majority of tasks, for the majority of users, the 8350 is a worse option.

 

 

This is true. AMD 2 integer cores per module is actually pretty smart idea. And it does and it is still competitor to haswell, even if its older. As you said 4670k is similar to 8350 when all cores are used ( sorry to use this term so often, but new games do use em ). Who cares if its old, in fact that makes it so haswell seems bad since is newer and not even so much faster. In some cases 4670k migh be for a small margin faster. But we are talking here a difference cuple tens and not hundrends of mhz in favor of haswell. So not so much.

Haswell is ok, not great but ok. The ipc is good, but the fact that it has on die voltage regulator and thermal paste instead of solder is what it makes it not so big improvement for overclockers.

Ok this is very, very general comparison. Please correct me if i am wrong.

on air with same cooler ( for example xigmatek dark knight ) average 3570k with latest stepping can be overclocked to 4.7 while 4670k hits wall at 4.3. Thats 400mhz difference. In favor of ivy. So i still consider unlocked IVY as good or even better as haswell for overclocking AND performance.

Please correct me if my estimates are wrong.

 

So no, haswell is not such a good deal and "obvious choice". However here are cuple processors that are tho. if you dont OC 4570 and xeon 1230v3 are amazing deal.

 

Haswell has a 10% or so IPC improvement, so a Haswell chip clocked at 4.0 GHz is around the same as an Ivy chip clocked at 4.4 GHz. Yes, in terms of averages Ivy is better because of the off-die voltage regulator which can add heat. If you're willing to de-lid, however, you can easily get to 5.0 GHz on Ivy Bridge and you should be able to hit that with Haswell as well (Haswell haswell...excuse the pun ). 

 

Yes, the 8350 is competitive with Haswell in some tasks, okay, let's take your example, when all cores are used. However, most games, most applications and most users do not use all 8 cores. In fact, there are only a few games which use all 8 cores. Would you buy something which is better in 20% of tasks, or something which is better in 80% of tasks? Yes, there are areas where the 8350 will beat the 4670K. I've acknowledged that from the start. However, I also said that in the majority of tasks, the 4670K is better and hence, it is the better all-round choice. 

 

 

Exactly. That is what I was trying to tell the guy the whole time, but he doesn't seem to understand, or he just doesn't want to agree I'd go with the 8320 so I can get a 770 instead of a 760 if I was in that situation, because for less money and a bit of time for a little OC, you can get the same performance for less money, or a better GPU. Plus you get a processor that is better a t streaming if you're into it.

 

Shit bro. Looks like fanboyism is a factor for you an OC'd 8320 to 4.2 GHz vs a 4670K are within margin of error. And it's 60-70$ cheaper. There is a couple games where 4670K beats the 8320 significantly. Example (Skyrim and some other ones). And there are also a couple of games where 8320-8350 beat the 4670K. Example: (BF4 and Crysis 3) So, yeah......

 

And sorry for double posting. Forgot to put them together. 

 

Look, if I were a fanboy, I would just go out and say Intel is better. I have done research, I have provided the evidence to say that the Intel is a better choice. 

 

There are games where the 8320-8350 beats the 4670K, that is true, but they are narrow victories compared to where the 4670K wins. This is because the games which are close are ones which can use all 8 cores. There are not many of those games available at the moment. So the intelligent choice would be to go with an option which is good for the majority of tasks and games. 

 

Okay, first of all. You can't say 8320 OC'd to 4.2 GHz vs. a stock 4670K are within a margin of error. Let's look at some information before we start talking to make this fair. Since we are talking about AMD OC'd vs. Intel stock, there is no reason to use an overclocked Intel processor. Let's use the cheapest i5, the 4430.

 

1) 8320 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285 - $160

2) 4430 - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CO8T9VC/?tag=pcpapi-20 - $185

 

First of all, the difference is only $25. You do realise that in order to overclock your 8320, you're probably going to need a good heatsink, that thing pumps out a tonne of heat. Let's say a Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO. That tips things in favour of Intel.

 

Assuming that you can overclock your 8320 to an 8350, here are some benchmarks - 

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/702?vs=697

 

That is the 3470, a 3.20 GHz Ivy, which should perform more or less as the 3.00 GHz Haswell (the i5 4430) against an 8350. Yeah, the 3470 wins, thus, the i5 4430 should win against your 8320 overclocked to an 8350 anyway. 

 

Have I proben you wrong yet, or are you still going to sit there and yell "fanboy" just because someone doesn't agree with you and has the evidence to back it up. I can sit there and say "oh, Intel is better, look it's cheaper, look higher overclocks, wow, much performance, pls game", but I don't because that is stupid. If you have an 8350 and want to defend your purchase, that's okay, but accept that AMD is the worse option, even the 8320 against the 4430. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

However i would not recommend the 8350 as it is an 8320 OCed

 

Nope, it's a higher binned chip. IE, better silicon. On average 8350s OC further than 8320s.

[tryphaa]

Sick of seeing this argument. The way I see it is now:

 

8350 if you can afford an i5 but not i7.

 

4670k for gaming only.

 

3570k if its astronomically cheaper than 4670k.

[Dubonfire]

honestly who care ( my dad is stronger than.....  ). It's a old and useless debate. When you buy those mid level cpu your priority is not ultimate performance it's a good price to performance ratio.   Buy the one you like within your budget constraint  and enjoy it. I prefer buying some brand over others and on a longer horizon i think it's always better buying stuff that you actually like/love over some review you saw on youtube or in magazine about X brand.  3-4 years down the road you will need a major upgrade aka a good occasion to buy another brand 

[paulsterio]

8350 if you can afford an i5 but not i7.

 

Why?

 

This is the reason why there are arguments, because people say things without any sort of evidence. 

 

 

honestly who care ( my dad is stronger than.....  ). It's a old and useless debate. When you buy those mid level cpu your priority is not ultimate performance it's a good price to performance ratio.   Buy the one you like within your budget constraint  and enjoy it. I prefer buying some brand over others and on a longer horizon i think it's always better buying stuff that you actually like/love over some review you saw on youtube or in magazine about X brand.  3-4 years down the road you will need a major upgrade aka a good occasion to buy another brand 

 

Sure, but don't tell other people, who need help, that the 8350 is better than the 4670K, because it's not. What you buy for yourself, is your own choice, but spreading misinformation is bad. 

[Demonking]

Why?

 

This is the reason why there are arguments, because people say things without any sort of evidence. 

 

 

 

Sure, but don't tell other people, who need help, that the 8350 is better than the 4670K, because it's not. What you buy for yourself, is your own choice, but spreading misinformation is bad. 

Preach!!!!!!! 

[Dubonfire]

Why?

 

This is the reason why there are arguments, because people say things without any sort of evidence. 

 

 

 

Sure, but don't tell other people, who need help, that the 8350 is better than the 4670K, because it's not. What you buy for yourself, is your own choice, but spreading misinformation is bad. 

 

1. i never said that

2.  it seem you are taking it a little bit to personal  (i think) 

3.you made your point

.

[paulsterio]

1. i never said that

2.  it seem you are taking it a little bit to personal  (i think) 

3.you made your point

.

 

 

I have better things to do than to debate with people who are not in touch with reality and can't spell. 

[Guest GRRigger]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

8320 4.2 on stock, you dont need even up the voltage, you can even downvolt. well depends on the sample. some can hit 4.7 while some are voltage hungry. but most are able to run normally just like 8350.

 

and we know ipc from intel is better. we are talking here price / performance for current and future games

[deathjester]

Infact i WILL post benchmarks, but not now. Later.

 

1) you should read my post higher up about never trusting sites that showed an AMD = to an I5 in bBF4 after Mantle showed the I5 on a OC did not need an optimization and the 83xx profited GREATLY from it. AMD themselves exposed these benchmarks as laughable.

 

2) See step 1.

 

3) LOL at CPU Boss. It is a media company who only made the site to get traffic. It is inaccurate. Search this forums cinebench r 15 thread and view single core results. Compare it to cpu boss. Never go to cpu boss, tek syndicate, russian website again? Profit.

 

This is the age of propaganda and media deception and paid for benchmarks, or controversial (fake) benchmarks to get internet traffic. A site that shows AMD as good drove tons of traffic and made someone no one cared about a internet sensation. Logan is laughing at the stupidity of people who bought into his video. He prob made more on that video from ad's then he had in a year. 

 

Linus doesn't pull this crap. He could make a ton of money off a video showing that premium z87 motherboards were the bomb, and high clocked memory was awesome in games. Instead he dismissed both myths. Prob why people with a clue? Are here instead of on Tek Syndicate. There they just get banned for showing how bad the tests were done, and how inaccurate they were.

[Demonking]

An I3 is faster then a 8350 at stock in Mantle, clocked 500 mhz slower on 2 real cores.

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

1) you should not think about an AMD for GAMING unless pairing it with an AMD GPU. This absolutely sucks past a r9 270 (and even those went up in price), because a GTX 770 can be had for 330 and the 280x costs a metric @#%^ ton in the U.S. 

 

2) you are buying it on the HOPE that Mantle becomes mainstream. Also AMD's official benchmarks show that previous benchmarks showing the 8350 being as fast as an I5 in BF4 was complete and utter BS. You should never trust those sites again.

 

3) if Mantle does becomes mainstream? An I3 on a stock cooler and the cheapest board imaginable would be a better budget GAMING choice with an AMD card. The I3 will kill it in most older games and = it in new games. 

 

4) Logan from Tek Syndicate is the biggest snakeoil salesman I have ever seen. You might as well go to IGN for reviews on EA games and expect honesty.

 

5) The 8 "integer core" can't even beat a I5 in streaming BF4 on an Nvidia GPU. Like this guy (video below)? I hate both companies. You shouldn't recommend an AMD over an I5 for gaming EVER though. He also has a good video about being a fanboy. He has no sponsors. He could care less who is better. Intel is simply a much better gaming chip atm.

 

6) AMD cpu's have been good in the past but have been far worse for GAMING for awhile now. This may change, but they simply can't match Intel R&D costs. I hope AMD catches up on FPU. Until they do? You should never recommend them gaming based on one idiot "tech site" whom the entire tech world disagrees with.

 

 

To put it simply? Buy an I5 and call it a day for GAMING. It is faster when the AMD chip has optimization, can SLAUGHTER it without optimization and the AMD can't play some games well enough to stream them, making it a pointless feature, and it can still get beat streaming in an 8 thread game as well.

 

FPS isn't a fanboy. FPS says I5 all day long in every game, on every thread count. It is not even debatable, and people have to rely on deceptive GPU bound scenario's to push AMD as a gaming chip. 

don't post that video it will make people angry since they hate facts 

[paulsterio]

An I3 is faster then a 8350 at stock in Mantle, clocked 500 mhz slower on 2 real cores.

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

1) you should not think about an AMD for GAMING unless pairing it with an AMD GPU. This absolutely sucks past a r9 270 (and even those went up in price), because a GTX 770 can be had for 330 and the 280x costs a metric @#%^ ton in the U.S. 

 

2) you are buying it on the HOPE that Mantle becomes mainstream. Also AMD's official benchmarks show that previous benchmarks showing the 8350 being as fast as an I5 in BF4 was complete and utter BS. You should never trust those sites again.

 

3) if Mantle does becomes mainstream? An I3 on a stock cooler and the cheapest board imaginable would be a better budget GAMING choice with an AMD card. The I3 will kill it in most older games and = it in new games. 

 

4) Logan from Tek Syndicate is the biggest snakeoil salesman I have ever seen. You might as well go to IGN for reviews on EA games and expect honesty.

 

5) The 8 "integer core" can't even beat a I5 in streaming BF4 on an Nvidia GPU. Like this guy (video below)? I hate both companies. You shouldn't recommend an AMD over an I5 for gaming EVER though. He also has a good video about being a fanboy. He has no sponsors. He could care less who is better. Intel is simply a much better gaming chip atm.

 

6) AMD cpu's have been good in the past but have been far worse for GAMING for awhile now. This may change, but they simply can't match Intel R&D costs. I hope AMD catches up on FPU. Until they do? You should never recommend them gaming based on one idiot "tech site" whom the entire tech world disagrees with.

 

 

To put it simply? Buy an I5 and call it a day for GAMING. It is faster when the AMD chip has optimization, can SLAUGHTER it without optimization and the AMD can't play some games well enough to stream them, making it a pointless feature, and it can still get beat streaming in an 8 thread game as well.

 

FPS isn't a fanboy. FPS says I5 all day long in every game, on every thread count. It is not even debatable, and people have to rely on deceptive GPU bound scenario's to push AMD as a gaming chip. 

 

Thank you, looks like there are still smart people who value evidence around here. 

[Faa]

don't post that video it will make people angry since they hate facts 

Start listening at 25:20 - that's pretty much genious.

[Guest GRRigger]

1) you should read my post higher up about never trusting sites that showed an AMD = to an I5 in bBF4 after Mantle showed the I5 on a OC did not need an optimization and the 83xx profited GREATLY from it. AMD themselves exposed these benchmarks as laughable.

Interesting.

2) See step 1.

 

3) LOL at CPU Boss. It is a media company who only made the site to get traffic. It is inaccurate. Search this forums cinebench r 15 thread and view single core results. Compare it to cpu boss. Never go to cpu boss, tek syndicate, russian website again? Profit.

I know 4670k is at least about 50% better in single core results. Brb browsing.

 

This is the age of propaganda and media deception and paid for benchmarks, or controversial (fake) benchmarks to get internet traffic. A site that shows AMD as good drove tons of traffic and made someone no one cared about a internet sensation. Logan is laughing at the stupidity of people who bought into his video. He prob made more on that video from ad's then he had in a year. 

I dont think so...

Linus doesn't pull this crap. He could make a ton of money off a video showing that premium z87 motherboards were the bomb, and high clocked memory was awesome in games. Instead he dismissed both myths. Prob why people with a clue? Are here instead of on Tek Syndicate. There they just get banned for showing how bad the tests were done, and how inaccurate they were.

NO idea, should have seen the comments myself.

Okay, i saw the cinebench spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

And still, 8320 and 8350 have better results than i5 4670k and 3570k clocked higher. Am i missing something here?

 

 

 

I really dont care about single core performance. I totally agree, and i know its 50% faster intel in per core.

I allready comfirmed that i know intel beats amd in single thread heavy games. That is not the point of this conversation.

 

I dont know if you read my previous posts, but if you want to tell me something, i am happy to discuss it.

I explained my views on what processor you should buy for what use and budget.

[Faa]

Okay, i saw the cinebench spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

And still, 8320 and 8350 have better results than i5 4670k and 3570k clocked higher. Am i missing something here?

 

 

 

I really dont care about single core performance. I totally agree, and i know its 50% faster intel in per core.

I allready comfirmed that i know intel beats amd in single thread heavy games. That is not the point of this conversation.

 

I dont know if you read my previous posts, but if you want to tell me something, i am happy to discuss it.

I explained my views on what processor you should buy for what use and budget.

This thread is about gaming performance, if you don't care about single core performance then you shouldn't argue here. It's been since the beginning till now that IPC is all that matters. And it's not just 50% it's up to 100% in games, Cinebench gives 50% but games can go up to 100% like SC2, WoW, BL2, Planetside 2, BF3 etc..

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/05/Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-SC2-HotS-v2.png

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html (i5 performs exactly the same as an i7 those games dont take any advantage of more than 4 cores.)

If we would see soon a 200$ midrange card performing like a 7990 well the scenario above kicks in.

Years ago Intel was making the same mistake AMD is doing now as you could pull your conclusion from this screenshot out, the days they aimed for IPC instead of clocks -> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/world%20of%20warcraft%20performance_032305120358/6553.png

Now we see Intel aiming for IPC -> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35049.png

CPU monopoly is pretty much IPC, it's sad to hear but it won't change. If your game is very cpu bound, even a 8320/8350@5GHz won't be a match for an i5@stock so I don't see any reasons why you would buy them.

[Guest GRRigger]

This thread is about gaming performance, if you don't care about single core performance then you shouldn't argue here. I dont care, because i allready told my opinions at least 10 times in this thread, why and at what circumstances i would go 8320 or 6300. I am not arguing that i5 3570k or 4670k is better overall than 8350. I know that. I allready expressed all what i was trying to say.

It's been since the beginning till now that IPC is all that matters. And it's not just 50% it's up to 100% in games, Cinebench gives 50% but games can go up to 100% like SC2, WoW, BL2, Planetside 2, BF3 etc..

It is true that it is dependant on the task. But that doesnt make it much faster. Not 100% more. This is a lie, and a number you made up.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/05/Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-SC2-HotS-v2.png

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html (i5 performs exactly the same as an i7 those games dont take any advantage of more than 4 cores.)

If we would see soon a 200$ midrange card performing like a 7990 well the scenario above kicks in.

Years ago Intel was making the same mistake AMD is doing now as you could pull your conclusion from this screenshot out, the days they aimed for IPC instead of clocks -> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/world%20of%20warcraft%20performance_032305120358/6553.png

Now we see Intel aiming for IPC -> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35049.png

CPU monopoly is pretty much IPC, it's sad to hear but it won't change. If your game is very cpu bound, even a 8320/8350@5GHz won't be a match for an i5@stock so I don't see any reasons why you would buy them.

Why do people click on last page of thread, then start arguing without even reading anything?

[deathjester]

Okay, i saw the cinebench spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

And still, 8320 and 8350 have better results than i5 4670k and 3570k clocked higher. Am i missing something here?

 

 

 

I really dont care about single core performance. I totally agree, and i know its 50% faster intel in per core.

I allready comfirmed that i know intel beats amd in single thread heavy games. That is not the point of this conversation.

 

I dont know if you read my previous posts, but if you want to tell me something, i am happy to discuss it.

I explained my views on what processor you should buy for what use and budget.

 

Yes you are missing something here. Cinebench is not a game. Neither is unzipping files. The 83xx is farther from a 4770k then a 4670k is from a 83xx in rendering. The 83xx isn't even a better work chip in EVERYTHING then the 4670k. 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697

 

Single core performance is what matters in GAMING.

 

We have posted 8 thread game benchmarks. We have posted AMD mantle optimized benchmarks. Benchmarks showing the AMD = or surpassing the I5 in BF4 were exposed as lies from AMD themselves.The 83xx NEVER is as fast as a I5 in gaming in any cpu bound scenario in a game. It can't match an I5 with PERFECT optimization using all 8 cores in gaming.

 

 

Add to this? Not all games are Mantle. Optimization and 8 thread games are already here. There is nothing else the AMD can gain. It can be an "ok" value on a r9 270 for instance. Here is the problem. That card will be a 60 dollar video card in 2 years and today's GTX 770/280x will be in the r9 270 price range. With an intel? You upgrade the card. With a AMD? You are screwed. The AMD is going to bottleneck that card. Past entry level? The performance drop gets even bigger.

 

Now we get into propaganda. The AMD starts at 4.0 ghz. The Intel at 3.4. I don't know who decided that a 1 ghz overclock on an AMD was god's gift to overclocking, but not all of them will do that. If you get to 4.4 on an Intel that is also a 1ghz overclock and a higher percentage. It would be BETTER then a 1ghz oc on the AMD. You can do a 1ghz oc on a evo 212 on the Intel on the cheapest z87 you can buy, if you get lucky. If you are unlucky? All you get is a 800 mhz OC (but somehow 500 mhz overclocks are celebrated on AMD). Good luck getting to even 4,8ghz on an AMD on a cheap motherboard without water cooling. The MB will catch on fire and the chip will throttle before that.

 

There is one scenario I would buy a fx chip. A rendering only machine with very light gaming on a mild overclock. I wouldn't touch AMD for gaming on the cpu side. They are mediocre now, and will get worse as GPU's progress (even on the low end). To OC them you spend more then you would to OC a Intel, and their overclocking is vastly overblown and hyped up.

 

The entire tech world has been saying this forever. Mantle proved that "8 core/thread optimimzation" means jack and that people like Logan are liars or inept. I don't think he is stupid. I think he is manipulative and a BS artist. I would prefer he was stupid. 

[f22luke]

 

Source 8 - Tek Syndicate - 3570K vs 8350

 

- with GTX 670

- with 7870

 

I'm interested in this video, purely because it is generally the AMD fanboys' favourite video, they harp on about it again and again.

I think it's a perfectly valid video, despite having some pretty bad flaws. 

 

The first flaw is that the 8350 is overclocked to 5.0 GHz, I'm not sure how many of them can actually reach that far whereas most 3570Ks

that I have come across can reach 4.5 GHz pretty easily. 

 

Note - I did not watch the whole video in great detail, but I skimmed it and this was what I noticed. 

 

1) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins marginally

2) Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - 8350 wins by 100% 

3) Far Cry 3 - 8350 wins by more than 100%

4) Natural Selection 2 - 8350 wins by around 20 - 30%

5) Skyrim - 3570K wins marginally

6) Trine 2 - 3570K wins marginally

 

These benchmarks are a little funny in my eyes, especially when the 8350 beats the 3570K by more than 100%, especially given that

LinusTechTips' testing shows that Far Cry 3 was actually very close. I don't know if anyone has been able to replicate these results,

but even here, AMD didn't "wipe the floor" with Intel as a lot of people claimed, but simply just beat Intel on a few games. Intel won back

on a couple of games. 

 

Okay, the 7870 video is also quite interesting. 

 

1) Crysis 2 - 3570K wins 

2) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins

3) Black Mesa - Irrelevant (I have an issue with this, I'll address it in a second)

4) Metro 2033 - 8350 wins

5) Trine 2 - 8350 wins

 

Now, there are a few issues. Firstly, the Black Mesa benchmark is irrelevant. Nobody cares if a game runs at 196.320 fps or 262.600 fps.

You're not going to even be able to see that difference. 

 

Second issue is Trine 2, in which the 3570K wins with the GTX670 and the 8350 wins with the 7870. Strange. 

 

Anyway, conclusively, yes, Tek Syndicate gives the edge to the 8350, however, it is not the whitewash of Intel that many fanboys seem

to suggest. 

 

So to end it all up, awarding Tek Syndicate to the AMD side, we get 5-2 to Intel. 

 

I don't always agree with what Logan and Tek Syndicate do but I thought I should defend them a little here.  Logan makes it really clear that they are using a modified version of windows 7 that fixes some multi-thread issues.  Microsoft has been in bead with Intel for a while so it's not shocking that they don't optimize right out of the bock for the AMD platform.  This could explain why Their benchmarks are different than the rest.

 

I think AMD realized that games were starting to get CPU bound so they made Mantle.  Mantle only makes sense because DX11 is old and Microsoft doesn't care about the PC gamers any more.  Frankly I find it amazing that AMD can be competitive in such a hostile environment.  Even when their chips were better as the OP readily admits, Intel made deals under the table in oder to prevent mass adoption.  It is disappointing that they are unable to come out with a new high end chip this year but they have been busy else where trying to keep the company afloat.  

 

AMD is the only thing standing between us and massive price hikes and stalled performance.  Which is what would happen if Intel becomes a monopoly.  Weather or not you are an Intel fan you have to appreciate competition.  Automatic Intel recommendations are disheartening especially when an AMD alternative can get within a few frames per second on most occasion.  

 

One thing that I will agree on and has been pointed out is the lack of motherboards on the AMD side.  Motherboard manufactures rarely put any effort in to an AMD board.

[novasae]

*sigh*

 

AM3/AM3+ mITX don't exist

AM3/AM3+ mATX are all complete BS

AM3/AM3+ ATX are too big, because at the price point we're looking at here not many people would Crossfire/SLI, ATX is often too expensive and ATX cases are more expensive too.

 

IMO Intel wins flat out here because of all the terrible motherboards and outdated chipset.

[natelliot123]

some people just don't want to spend 100$ more  for mere 10-20 fps increase ,so they choose amd

[vm'N]

I don't always agree with what Logan and Tek Syndicate do but I thought I should defend them a little here.  Logan makes it really clear that they are using a modified version of windows 7 that fixes some multi-thread issues.  Microsoft has been in bead with Intel for a while so it's not shocking that they don't optimize right out of the bock for the AMD platform.  This could explain why Their benchmarks are different than the rest.

I'm pretty sure he said he had downloaded the official hotfix for CMT processors. Which are now all included in all windows releases. This have nothing to do with Intel been in bed with microsoft. AMD came out with an entire new architecture, that require special thread-management and much much more.

Also all benchmarks since that hotfix, is mostlikely (99%) using that hotfix. The hotfix didn't suddenly increase performance by 100%, however it did increase performance in some scenarios.

When hyper-threading arrived, microsoft also had a shitty support for SMT (hyper-threading), which was also fixed after some hotfixes.

 

I think AMD realized that games were starting to get CPU bound so they made Mantle.  Mantle only makes sense because DX11 is old and Microsoft doesn't care about the PC gamers any more.

Simple answer: No

Longer answer: AMD's architecture (both GPU and CPU) have always been very depended on the software to fully utilize itself. This means that if the software aren't aimem towards their architectures, the performance will be lower. Lets take an example; The CMT design. Bulldozer, piledriver, steamroller and excavator will be using it.

When the bulldozer architecture first arrived (was directed towards servers), they expected to gain higher marketshare, because it could provide higher throughput. If the software was directly coded for that architecture, and the workloads also was. What happend was that the bulldozer architecture didn't have higher throughput without been optimized for (and only slightly higher in most cases where it was). This means that noone will be wasting resources coding their software for the bulldozer architecture.

AMD have a much smaller marketshare than their opponent. So therefore, AMD are trying to suit themselves in a more aggressive position. They are trying to take control over the software, so it can utilize their hardware better. Because devs wouldn't, AMD is.

Why it is "open-source" (or whatever AMD calls it), is because if they offered a closed standard (AMD have smaller marketshare on both CPU and GPU market), noone would even consider adapting to it.

They company with the highest marketshare would have a easier job making a closed standard.

AMD needs to offer it open, so they can try to compete against other. Meanwhile those who already are at the top, try to avoid combat (logic right?).

This is why Nvidia offer closed software, meanwhile AMD is fighting for open software. AMD are not in the position to offer closed standards.

 

Frankly I find it amazing that AMD can be competitive in such a hostile environment.  Even when their chips were better as the OP readily admits, Intel made deals under the table in oder to prevent mass adoption.

Because the CPU isn't the major bottleneck in 9/10 scenarios. You could bring a CPU (not with anything integrated) from 2114, and you would only experience any difference in 1/10 scenarios. Intel and AMD have realized this. Bigger corporations have also. This is why Intel and AMD now are advancing in areas like having more and more integrated, provide better performance for lower powerconsumption and so on and so on.

Intel is a company. AMD is too. Don't expect any kind of moral.

 

AMD is the only thing standing between us and massive price hikes and stalled performance.  Which is what would happen if Intel becomes a monopoly.  Weather or not you are an Intel fan you have to appreciate competition.  Automatic Intel recommendations are disheartening especially when an AMD alternative can get within a few frames per second on most occasion.

I have disconfirmed this multiple times.

Intel could essentially raise their prices on their high-end products with an additional 20%, without the great loss of marketshare.

Remember that Intels pricingscheme have remained the same for the entire core I series. AMD haven't been the big contender for a very long time. If your statement was true, Intel would already have raised their prices on most products. Remember Intel have enough marketshare to be considered monopoly.

Remember if prices rises on their products, constumers will wait longer before upgrading.

EDIT:

@ALL

Forget EVERYTHING about IPC on CISC processors (both Intel and AMDs processors).

As the complex instruction will be decoded into micro/macro-operations. Noone have ANY idea of how many and which micro/macro-operations are been executed.

Therefore you cannot count the amount of instructions per cycle. Also because of CISC, it can be decoded into different ways of solving the complex instruction.

So please stop this nonsense.

[Faa]

Ugh Logan even showed us that the Richland APU is 50% orsomething faster than the 4770K both with a 780 tested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bsRcp8z8Gw

He even showed us a 350% difference between the 8350 & 3570K in Far Cry 3 & Arma 2 (youtube 8350 vs i5 using 670). Arma how is it multithreaded again? One big thread, 2nd a bit smaller and all others are minor? The game doesnt seem to be seeing performance advantage over more than 2 cores. Never really seen anyone claiming 2 cores of a 8350 are 3.5 times faster than 2 cores of a i5... Far Cry 3 is somewhat known as a GPU bound game, nope another 350% difference. It's just too damn clear he's abusing people's ignorance and milking money out of it. Before he posted that video, he only had 30K subs few months later kicked to nearly 100K all of them are probably owning AMD.

[paulsterio]

some people just don't want to spend 100$ more  for mere 10-20 fps increase ,so they choose amd

 

No. A 4690K is not $100 more than an 8350. You know what? Even a cheaper Pentium Annivesary Edition overclocked to 5.0 GHz will be faster than an overclocked 8350 in games. 

 

This is not even a discussion. The evidence is there that the 8350 was beaten comprehensively by the 3570K two generations ago. It is beaten by the 4670K and will be beaten by the 4690K. 

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

I'm still disappointed that there is an AMD processor that beats an i5. Oh well, they have to deal with the insane heat of the 9590.

[paulsterio]

I'm still disappointed that there is an AMD processor that beats an i5. Oh well, they have to deal with the insane heat of the 9590.

 

The 9590 is just an overclocked 8350.