Best AMD Cpu vs Intel i7 980

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

My Xeon in the only time I had it stable at 4GHz (unstable 3+1 phase VRM and cooling issues) was faster overall than the FX 8350 my Core 2 Duo beat in single threaded performance (the E8500 was at 4GHz, with the 8350 limited to 4 cores). Which as usual shows that AMDs direction with the FX line was a step backwards. And I had forgotten about the hyperthreading on i7s since I've never actually even touched a computer that uses one. (i5s are a lot more common).

 

 

the 771 xeons were beast.

 

i also had e5450(same as x5450) at 4 ghz and its only faster than the 8350 on single core speed but not by much. at stock thier single core speed is 1277 and oc'd to 4 ghz there around 1700.

 

but they are still tanks and i loved my xeon

 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

Ok, just looking at the 980 (http://ark.intel.com/products/58664/Intel-Core-i7-980-Processor-12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-4_8-GTs-Intel-QPI) it has 6 cores and a total of 12 threads. It is a better choice by far than an FX 8350.

[Dabombinable]

 

the 771 xeons were beast.

 

i also had e5450(same as x5450) at 4 ghz and its only faster than the 8350 on single core speed but not by much. at stock thier single core speed is 1277 and oc'd to 4 ghz there around 1700.

 

but they are still tanks and i loved my xeon

 

 

 

 

Its just a shame that I need a better motherboard and cooling to hit 4GHz (managed to get 3.4GHz barely stable this morning). And one thing I noticed about my E8500 is that it actually approached an i7 4790k's (i7 at stock) single core speed at 4GHz, I'm going to be testing it soon with a 4.5GHz OC to see if it gets even closer.

[Faa]

An 9xxx series CPU will beat it but not by much and it consumes ungodly amounts of power so not worth it. Sandy Bridge was like a 30% IPC increase so the gap between AMD and intel is smaller here, but it still exists.

 

A 980 at stock outperforms a 9590 and will easily extend the gap by 30% when oc'ed. AMD is at least honest about how much better the 9590 performs than the 8350. 9590-8350/8350 * 100 = 15%. Think again if a quad core with CMT enabled with a 15% boost will match a 6 core with HT and a 30-40% IPC difference.

 

Well it's not the unlocked (980x) version so I'm not sure how well it would overclock. I'm pretty new to manual overclocking but I heard it's difficult on the 980 (not 980x).

Doesn't matter, the few extra multipliers won't be a huge deal, the FSB can be overclocked like hell. You should be easily getting 4GHz orsomething out of it.

 

 

the 980 is neck and neck with a 8350

 

980 single core speed is 1443

8350 is 1508

 

at stock ofcourse.

 

the 980 however will still slightly outperform the 8350 (by 3-5%)

 

however when both overclocked the 980 will  get faster single core speed and then it beats the 8350 in everything but not by much.

 

the 980 was a $600 cpu at one time

Stop lying, don't you do anything else than lying to people who want honest advice?

[patrickjp93]

Sure as hell seems like it

FOR VIDEO EDITING AND STREAMING YOU IGNORANT TWAT! In which case, the FX is better. He will need to upgrade to Sandy or Ivy or Haswell quad I7s to match FX 8xxx for video editing/rendering and streaming content from his computer (to doesn't matter).

People forget that chip was before AVX 2 and before SSE 4.2. For his particular workloads Vishera would be the better architecture, and this is coming from someone the forum considers (wrongfully) an Intel shill.

Maybe with a strong overclock he'll be happy, but otherwise it's an upgrade to an 8370 or quad I7 Sandy/Ivy/Haswell or higher SKUs thereof.

[Fate]

FOR VIDEO EDITING AND STREAMING YOU IGNORANT TWAT! 

Woah there calm down, the 980 generally performs better than the 8350 in multithreaded synthetic benchmarks. Of course they're not the end all be all, but they're generally pretty accurate.

[Dabombinable]

Woah there calm down, the 980 generally performs better than the 8350 in multithreaded synthetic benchmarks. Of course they're not the end all be all, but they're generally pretty accurate.

I'll see what passmark has, being user generated makes them a better source for comparisons. Hopefully the results will calm some people down.

[Dabombinable]

Ok, this is the comparisons I got from passmark, with ALL system details:

 

(It is also nice to see that Core 2 Duos still have some way to go before becoming useless.)
Edit: My i5 rig seems to be missing its details, but its my main rig anyway (with the GTX 970 in it currently).

[Spev]

So many mixed opinions idk what to think

[Dabombinable]

So many mixed opinions idk what to think

Well at least you can see how AMD's FX line compare to some of Intel's cpus (the FX 9xxx is AMD's method to solving the no-new-cpu problem, even though they are effectively 8350s OC'd). Also note that the core count of the Core 2 series is what prevents them from equaling and exceeding AMD in all tests. But looking at the results, the i7 980 is the CPU to go with.

[Opcode]

Yeah I'm not using this one for gaming though. More for rendering/editing. I know that the AMDs bottleneck GPUs in some games but I'm not using this for gaming. Render times/productivity is what I'm looking at. I figured a newer 8 core would be better...

I would aim for the FX-8320 and overclock it. Tho in thread heavy tasks like rendering the i7 980 should still stand its ground quite well.

[Hieb]

i7-980 is slightly better than FX-8350, comparing both out of the box (3.3 vs 4GHz)

Push the 980 to >4GHz and it will surpass a 9590.

[harrynowl]

A 980 @ 4GHz will beat the face off a 83x0

[Dabombinable]

A 980 @ 4GHz will beat the face off a 83x0

It beats the face off one at stock speeds.

[harrynowl]

It beats the face off one at stock speeds.

certainly does

[FellTheSky]

 

the 980 was a $600 cpu at one time

 

The 9590 was a 900$ cpu at one time

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-fx-9590-costs-920-usd.html

[Dabombinable]

The 9590 was a 900$ cpu at one time

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-fx-9590-costs-920-usd.html

And the 980 was always the better performer. It makes you wonder how AMD prices their CPUs.

[Mush Brain]

FX simply sucks shit really.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

 

A 980 at stock outperforms a 9590 and will easily extend the gap by 30% when oc'ed. AMD is at least honest about how much better the 9590 performs than the 8350. 9590-8350/8350 * 100 = 15%. Think again if a quad core with CMT enabled with a 15% boost will match a 6 core with HT and a 30-40% IPC difference.

 

Doesn't matter, the few extra multipliers won't be a huge deal, the FSB can be overclocked like hell. You should be easily getting 4GHz orsomething out of it.

 

 

Stop lying, don't you do anything else than lying to people who want honest advice?

 

 

lol at this noob. first off that bench is for a 980x extreme and op is talking about a regular 980. second you cant go by something as unreliable as cinebench. we all know of the cinebench intel/amd scandel for years. which is shown at 3:40 of this video.

 

dont wanna watch? pretty much cinebench was designed to make intel go the easiest route and force amd to go the absolute hardest route to make intel appear much higher than it should be..there was even legal documents of it and a patch (that you manually have to install ) for it.

 

cinebench will have people thinking the x5650 is the best cpu which is far from true lol

 

also..i said the 980 was better....but not by much which at stock is true. i also said if both overclocked the 980 wins.  not sure where you're going with all this.

 

come at me bro..but you better come correct with your BS

[sgloux3470]

For rendering and other heavily multithreaded tasks, an FX 8 core like an 8350 or 8370 is about on par with a 3770K. Not sure how the 9379 or 9590 fit in there, my guess is they would slightly edge out the 3770K.

Even n gaming FX will beat those old i7's. Plenty of CPU comparison test will demonstrate this.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

a overclocked 8350 matches a 3770k at stock and i can benchmark to prove this.

 

actually the oc'd 8350 will score higher at lots of things except mainly single core speed.

 

but to answer ops question, going from 980 to best amd is a waste of money for about same performance. should sell 980 and get a 4790k in all honesty

[Briggsy]

Not a thorough comparison - but if the 970 can beat the 8350 in a few things, than the 980 probably will too with its slight higher clocks.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/157?vs=697 i7 970 vs. 8350

[i_build_nanosuits]

so much ignorance from the amd fanboys in this thread:

the core i7 980 is a 6 core 12 threads beastly cpu that brings to the table around 20% better per core performance clock for clock over amd vishera...so, it will be noticeably faster at both multi-threaded and single-threaded work loads...it's a much better cpu, plain and simple.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

so much ignorance from the amd fanboys in this thread:

the core i7 980 is a 6 core 12 threads beastly cpu that brings to the table around 20% better per core performance clock for clock over amd vishera...so, it will be noticeably faster at both multi-threaded and single-threaded work loads...it's a much better cpu, plain and simple.

 

then how come at stock the 8350 actually has faster single core speed than the 980?

[i_build_nanosuits]

then how come at stock the 8350 actually has faster single core speed than the 980?

well first it does not...

and if it would, it would be because the FX has a higher clock speed...if you start overclocking the 980 the gains from overclocking will be much more significant because it has higher IPC and it will quickly close the gap in single-thread and will dominate even further in the multi-threaded loads.

 

I suggest you consult this thread:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

Here's what you can see in it..harrynowl has tested these cpu's at those clockspeeds:

 

And here are the results for per core performance at those speeds:

 

 

So as you can see even the old Core 2 series chips tops the AMD FX in per core performance and they are doing it at LOWER CLOCK SPEED...let alone a first gen nehalem based core i7...

 

So if you ask me, something like a Q9650 is better than an FX-4300 in both multi-threaded and single-threaded loads, it's a better CPU...and the 6 core 12 threads nehalem i7 beast is the CPU

that AMD has always dreamed about being able to offer.

 

When we say the per core performance of the vishera's FX CPU's is abysmal we are not exagerating one bit...some 7 years old chips in this line up and they still outperform the FX vishera significantly.