Why would you consider AMD?

[Fate]

Well here where I live, the difference between a locked i5 and an 8000 processor is almost 100$, so I would think it would be a logical decision to go with the 8000 processor.

Yup, that's perfectly fine, in the US a locked i5 is the same price though.

 

 

"He doesn't go with our hive mind, must be shitposting!"

"If they don't agree with what I'm saying, I'll say they're wrong for saying I'm wrong!"

Pointless post.

[minibois]

I would maybe consider a AMD processor, because of my Mobo.

I would definitely consider a AMD GPU in the 150-230 euros/dollars range

[BovinePoptart]

If you are going to quote, please use the quote button

I've been using the quote button this entire time, you're just nitpicking now

[Sauron]

Someone here can't read a benchmark sheet... that or he somehow missed the 171% extra multicore performance...

 

Oh well what can you expect from an auto-defined @BovinePoptart

 

So people expressing opinion should be banned? 

 

People bringing nothing to the table but a screenshot from a random website and one line inciting a flame war for no reason should at the very least reconsider their attitude. If someone asks what cpu they should buy, you have all the right to tell them you prefer intel. Making a thread to declare your opinion (based on facts which actually prove you wrong, see what I wrote above) in an insulting and generalizing manner, that's pointless and only creates said flamewar.

[QuadNine]

"He doesn't go with our hive mind, must be shitposting!"

Is this a legitimate quote?

I was Also making a joke

[BovinePoptart]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/540/811/e45.png

 

Also, learn how burden of proof works. Everyone is perfectly allowed to reject your statement. 

I don't care if people don't agree with me, but resorting to saying i'm shit posting without saying anything else is retarded

[crystal6tak]

Why would one consider AMD? People who are doing media production on a budget. 

 

For $140-150. AMD offers the FX 8320 while intel offers the i3 4340. 

 

CPUBOSS

GeekBench

8320: 11,631

4340:   7,453

 

Passmark

8320: 8,183

4340: 5,294

 

Obviously for games the 4340 will most likely beat the 8320 senseless due to it's superior single core performance but for media production where all cores are utilized. 8 AMD cores will obviously beat 2 intel cores. 

 

So there you have it. Why people would consider AMD. Now can we please stop with these pointless posts.

[GloriousPain]

So in multicore performance AMD wins? Otherwise it's not so good? Since when is this news?! This has been known! But do remember otherthings this isn't mentioning, 9590 is absurd and no stronger than an OC'ed 8320/8350 (which can be found for $100-140) so the pricetags on this are misleading... and do remember lots of games are starting to REQUIRE Quad cores, and Pentium G3258 doesn't even have 3 -.- granted there is software solutions but can backfire a misclick could cause you to need to reinstall or redownload or as the gaming companies say cause glitches in the game visual or otherwise... Multi cores can also help with other things such as rendering an 8320/8350 will do significantly better than G3258...And there are things like say Mantle that alleviate   single core performance and Mantle is only spreading to games themselves or to OpenGL and DX12, Even linus mentioned on the Wanshow that it lowered usage of each core infavor of using more cores granted there will be a lag delay on that to be implemented into games...and Multitasking an 8Core with much stronger multicore performance is gonna do quite a bit better at extreme multitasking.. But G3258 still will do better in games that use fewer cores that's given,  it'll be a bit "snappier" at random tasks that use fewer faster cores,  and I'm not even gonna mention  the FM socket APUs/CPUs

There's pros and cons to each depends on workflow and preference and budget  AMD falls into a small niche, and they know that the company has said and donethings indicating that

[QuadNine]

Why would one consider AMD? People who are doing media production on a budget. 

 

For $140-150. AMD offers the FX 8320 while intel offers the i3 4340. 

 

CPUBOSS

GeekBench

8320: 11,631

4340:   7,453

 

Passmark

8320: 8,183

4340: 5,294

 

Obviously for games the 4340 will most likely beat the 8320 senseless due to it's superior single core performance but for media production where all cores are utilized. 8 AMD cores will obviously beat 2 intel cores. 

 

So there you have it. Why people would consider AMD. Now can we please stop with these pointless posts.

THANK YOU!

[Majestic]

 

Obviously for games the 4340 will most likely beat the 8320 senseless due to it's superior single core performance but for media production where all cores are utilized. 8 AMD cores will obviously beat 2 intel cores. 

 

So there you have it. Why people would consider AMD. Now can we please stop with these pointless posts.

 

Except, that 8320 has no iGPU, so you have to buy a discrete graphics card. Also, that 8320 needs an aftermarket cooler. Add that money and you can buy an i5-4460 which beats the 8320.

So comparing them on a CPU-price basis is unfair and incomplete.

 

Actually, it's ignorant posts like this that perpetuate the discussion and is ultimately what the OP was after.

[stconquest]

$70 G3258 vs $1000 i7 5860X: same sh*t

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJACZ5iStWw

[pALdesu]

Why would one consider AMD? People who are doing media production on a budget. 

 

For $140-150. AMD offers the FX 8320 while intel offers the i3 4340. 

 

CPUBOSS

GeekBench

8320: 11,631

4340:   7,453

 

Passmark

8320: 8,183

4340: 5,294

 

Obviously for games the 4340 will most likely beat the 8320 senseless due to it's superior single core performance but for media production where all cores are utilized. 8 AMD cores will obviously beat 2 intel cores. 

 

So there you have it. Why people would consider AMD. Now can we please stop with these pointless posts.

That's it. Case closed. time to go home.

[Majestic]

That's it. Case closed. time to go home.

 

You mean, before someone comes along that proves this statement is fa...ohwait I already did.

 

Seriously, It's been years and still the same ignorant arguments are used. Simpletons.

[Vrbas]

Childish post that has no legit facts just to start a flame war.

[Suika]

So you mean every area except for multi core performance?

There still exist applications that use three or four threads rather than one or two. In gaming I believe the 8320 does a little better than the G3258 on average.

 

Yes, I despise AMD CPUs, you will never catch me purchasing or recommending one again, but I would still pick the 8320 over the Pentium G3258.

[harrynowl]

I had a pretty poor experience with a G3258. If someone was buying a system for me, and I couldn't upgrade it. I'd choose an AMD solution such as a 860K over the 3258 because that works better for what I spend most of my time doing.

 

That aside this is a pointless comparison as there are lots of scenarios where a 9590 crushes a 3258. Sure you shouldn't buy a 9590 as it makes no sense over the similarly priced Intel alternatives but that's beside the point.

 

You're not expressing an opinion, you're just opening a can of worms on purpose to cause unrest within the community with stupid flame war ridden threads like this.

 

Begone with you.

[pALdesu]

You mean, before someone comes along that proves this statement is fa...ohwait I already did.

 

Seriously, It's been years and still the same ignorant arguments are used. Simpletons.

I take it that this is what you refer to, no?

"Except, that 8320 has no iGPU, so you have to buy a discrete graphics card. Also, that 8320 needs an aftermarket cooler. Add that money and you can buy an i5-4460 which beats the 8320.

So comparing them on a CPU-price basis is unfair and incomplete."

 

Sure. This is a legit argument if you don't intend to get a graphics card. But if you do then this does not apply?

 

Intel does make the most sense in most situations but to completely dismiss AMD as an option in any instance seems a bit ignorant don't you think?

[crystal6tak]

Except, that 8320 has no iGPU, so you have to buy a discrete graphics card. Also, that 8320 needs an aftermarket cooler. Add that money and you can buy an i5-4460 which beats the 8320.

So comparing them on a CPU-price basis is unfair and incomplete.

 

Actually, it's ignorant posts like this that perpetuate the discussion and is ultimately what the OP was after.

As someone have mentioned. The 8320 is for a very niche market. It is true you'll need to get a dedicated GPU if one gets the 8320. However if the person is already going to get one for GPU accelerated purposes. He wouldn't need the iGPU.

 

The stock cooler by AMD is adequate at best. It depends on the ambient temperature. The user won't know if he/she will need an aftermarket cooler until he/she uses the stock cooler in his environment. Even then a cheap $20 cooler, which is by no means good, will cool the 8320 decently. That brings the price bracket up to a point where one can get the lowest end quad core intel. Which still performs slightly worse than the 8320 in media production. 

 

I'm not saying the 8320 is KING in the budget media production market. Again, only users who are under specific condition would go after the 8320. Users who have relatively cool ambient temperature and is already planning to get a dedicated GPU anyways for GPU accelerated task would consider the 8320.

 

Personally, I by no means recommend the 8320. I much rather the person save up and go intel due to the CPU upgradability by going LGA 1150. Sure the 9590 can compete with the 4690K in media production but the user will most likely have to upgrade his/her AM3+ motherboard to support the 9590 power draw which means money wasted on the budget AM3+ board. Also, the highest end LGA 1150 chip, the 4790K, runs circles around the 9590... I'm merely stating the facts so please don't take my posts on an emotional level.

[rentaspoon]

Sure this thread breaks COC.

But I would consider AMD due to the bad luck I've had with Intel followed by poor customer service.

[Majestic]

Sure. This is a legit argument if you don't intend to get a graphics card. But if you do then this does not apply?

 

Then you need to specify which market you're appealing to. GPU acceleration isn't that great, so if you're on a budget an i5 is a much cheaper solution than a 8320 for rendering machines.

If you're willing to spend the extra cash, Xeon would probably be a much better candidate.

 

Sorry for lashing out there, but it's just getting a little tired seeing the "AMD is cheaper" trope being used when it clearly isn't true anymore.

[eamonpowell]

The only positive to AMD's CPU line is that they're also a low end GPU which if you're building a very budget build can help.

I'm not particularly and AMD fan and regret getting a 290X (so loud and hot) when I could have gotten a 780 / ti or for now around the same price and 970.

The point being that most of AMD's technology is slightly old and not as good as Intel's performance but it's still a very valid option for people wanting a low end gaming pc or a compact machine for things like LAN party's is all I'm saying.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i would consider an Fx8320 for a budget workstation that would do only multi-threaded loads and nothing else.( no gaming!!)

the 860k is also imho a good choice for a VERY tight budget gaming pc where even a low-end i3 would be out of budget.

[Priller]

-snip-

Haswells and just about every Intel CPU run hotter then AMD.

 

 

If AMD had refined the Phenom II core, Die shrunk it to 32nm and made it an 8 core with a better IMC then it would be much closer performance wise. Phenoms have a 1+ Ghz per core advantage over FXs.

[Nicodemus]

I would consider AMD if i was looking at a budget build...anything of any value i would make would be Intel, but thats just my  preference.

[Jumper118]

Haswells and just about every Intel CPU run hotter then AMD.

 

 

If AMD had refined the Phenom II core, Die shrunk it to 32nm and made it an 8 core with a better IMC then it would be much closer performance wise. Phenoms have a 1+ Ghz per core advantage over FXs.

the run at high temperature but they dont put out as much heat