prankstare

Okay people. Everybody is quite aware Intel processors are often more efficient per thread/core than AMD, but let's get realistic here; when you are gaming, you probably have more than a few other processes/programs going on simultaneously in the background taking up resources from the CPU (could be antivirus, firewall, messenger, download manager app, torrents, many-tabbed browser, etc). Now I am not necessarily saying the FX-8350 will beat the i5 3570k in all situations, but maybe CPU benchmarks like this should be more carefully analysed in terms of what "synthetic" and "real-world" usage performance should be like. With all those other processes going on there will be performance penalty, no doubt about it, but I am not one who is freaking dying for say a 5-10FPS difference if game itself is already being rendered perfectly @60FPS (I will most definitely turn on Vsync in this case if system can handle it). From a gaming perspective, you're better off with lower framerate dips than higher averages.
 
Plus I think we are being kind of "unfair" to AMD products overall I mean, of course Intel is clearly better at manufacturing processes and stuff but AMD is not that far behind. For one thing, AMD's hexa-octacore processors could be just as fast (if not faster) if game/software developers would give the right attention to things like multicore and multitasking performance rather than just single-threaded sheer speed (this is completely non-sense since we, as well as computers I'd say lol, do more than just one task at a time nowadays). You cannot deny the fact that the future of computing technology is all about parallel processing (APU's and SoC's) and heavy multitasking, and for this sole reason I think AMD has a little bit of an edge -- although the FX8350 might be "slower" than all i7's in general terms, it is certainly more future-proof.

Okay people. Everybody is quite aware Intel processors are often more efficient per thread/core than AMD, but let's get realistic here; when you are gaming, you probably have more than a few other processes/programs going on simultaneously in the background taking up resources from the CPU (could be antivirus, firewall, messenger, download manager app, torrents, many-tabbed browser, etc). Now I am not necessarily saying the FX-8350 will beat the i5 3570k in all situations, but maybe CPU benchmarks like this should be more carefully analysed in terms of what "synthetic" and "real-world" usage performance should be like. With all those other processes going on there will be performance penalty, no doubt about it, but I am not one who is freaking dying for say a 5-10FPS difference if game itself is already being rendered perfectly @60FPS (I will most definitely turn on Vsync in this case if system can handle it). From a gaming perspective, you're better off with lower framerate dips than higher averages.
 
Plus I think we are being kind of "unfair" to AMD products overall I mean, of course Intel is clearly better at manufacturing processes and stuff but AMD is not that far behind. For one thing, AMD's hexa-octacore processors could be just as fast (if not faster) if game/software developers would give the right attention to things like multicore and multitasking performance rather than just single-threaded sheer speed (this is completely non-sense since we, as well as computers I'd say lol, do more than just one task at a time nowadays). You cannot deny the fact that the future of computing technology is all about parallel processing (APU's and SoC's) and heavy multitasking, and for this sole reason I think AMD has a little bit of an edge -- although the FX8350 might be "slower" than all i7's in general terms, it is certainly more future-proof.