What do AMD CPUs have over Intel?

[vm'N]

Shadow play, gsync, physx, cuda, shield, etc. They have a history of providing technologies I desire, therefore they rightfully have my loyalty.

When they let me down that will change.

IMO it's not a mindset to spend your money on a historically innovative and proven company. Loyalty is how a business should be rewarded and thus flourish. I see it more as logical than state of mind.

You should only look at what the product you are buying. Not on the manufacturers previous products. If that product feature some of the old technologies then that is certainly a big plus.

Business is rewarded by money. If they make a good product, people will buy that product. They should not continuously be rewarded for something of the past.

[AEA]

Only thing I can still of is more cores.

[ZeroBreaker]

Im curious as to how a discussion about CPUs turned into one about Jews, but too lazy to look.

Nazis were mentioned, Godwin's law mate

[totjup5]

Intel holds the top performance crown, but AMD cpus often will fit better into budget builds.

[Judist]

You should only look at what the product you are buying. Not on the manufacturers previous products. If that product feature some of the old technologies then that is certainly a big plus.

Business is rewarded by money. If they make a good product, people will buy that product. They should not continuously be rewarded for something of the past.

Considering a fair portion of what I spend goes towards rnd, past accomplishment is a good indicator of sound investment. Common sense, I pay for the tech AND invest in future solutions.

Edited to expand upon:

If 100% of money spend went ONLY towards the product, I'd 100% agree that you should buy top dog period. But profits go towards future products, so I factor that in.

[TechFan@ic]

There simply are some wrong points throughout.

I will quickly point them out;

- Piledriver can process two floating point operation at the same time. So it can function as 8 threads for the SIMD cluster (I gave a explanation in my previous post).

- HSA is NOT meant to replace SIMD cluster as he refer to. I have also previous pointed out (not in this thread) what exactly HSA will be useful for.

- "however anything that utilizes all threads available runs faster on the smaller more parallel architecture of the AMD module" - Again he is wrong. I have previously mention in this thread where exactly the module shines, and where it doesn't.

- "So architecturally speaking, Intel isn't really ahead of AMD nor is AMD ahead of Intel so to speak" - Extremely big no. Intel is far ahead in certain technologies. Especially the frontend and SIMD cluster.

This was simply something I quickly spotted.

So let's talk about this, I welcome criticism & in fact I demanded it in my thread.

 

"- Piledriver can process two floating point operation at the same time. So it can function as 8 threads for the SIMD cluster"

That doesn't mean that the floating point unit has enough throughput to match the two integer cores/threads. Even if the floating point can process two FMACs at the same time it doesn't mean that it can run two threads at the same time, there is only one FP backend so the FP is fundamentally single-threaded in Bulldozer.

Similarly each Integer core has 2 AGen pipelines it doesn't mean that a single integer core can simultaneously run two threads.

If we look at traditional AMD cores like K10 & K8 which are conceptually similar you will find that exclusive Floating Point real-estate in each core matches the exclusive integer real-estate in terms of die area. In AMD's Bulldozer module we see that AMD allocated significantly more die area (about double) to integer execution over floating point execution.

K10.5 Core on the left (Stars core in Llano), Bulldozer/Piledriver core on the right.

Blue = Integer, Red = Floating Point.

"- "So architecturally speaking, Intel isn't really ahead of AMD nor is AMD ahead of Intel so to speak" - Extremely big no. Intel is far ahead in certain technologies. Especially the frontend and SIMD cluster."

Again AMD is significantly ahead in Integer, in fact they lead in integer even outperforming the extreme editions from Intel, AMD is also significantly ahead in high frequency, low-gate count design.

Each architecture excels in different areas in terms of the architecture itself there is no clear winner like I said AMD wins in multi-threaded Intel wins in single-threaded and the benchmarks reflect that.

Intel maintains an efficiency advantage through their smaller process which I mention in my thread as well.

 

[vm'N]

So let's talk about this, I welcome criticism & in fact I demanded it in my thread.

"- Piledriver can process two floating point operation at the same time. So it can function as 8 threads for the SIMD cluster"

That doesn't mean that the floating point unit has enough throughput to match the two integer cores/threads. Even if the floating point can process two FMACs at the same time it doesn't mean that it can run two threads at the same time, there is only one FP backend so the FP is fundamentally single-threaded in Bulldozer.

Similarly each Integer core has 2 AGen pipelines it doesn't mean that a single integer core can simultaneously run two threads.

If we look at traditional AMD cores like K10 & K8 which are conceptually similar you will find that exclusive Floating Point real-estate in each core matches the exclusive integer real-estate in terms of die area. In AMD's Bulldozer module we see that AMD allocated significantly more die area (about double) to integer execution over floating point execution.

K10.5 Core on the left (Stars core in Llano), Bulldozer/Piledriver core on the right.

Blue = Integer, Red = Floating Point.

"- "So architecturally speaking, Intel isn't really ahead of AMD nor is AMD ahead of Intel so to speak" - Extremely big no. Intel is far ahead in certain technologies. Especially the frontend and SIMD cluster."

Again AMD is significantly ahead in Integer, in fact they lead in integer even outperforming the extreme editions from Intel, AMD is also significantly ahead in high frequency, low-gate count design.

Each architecture excels in different areas in terms of the architecture itself there is no clear winner like I said AMD wins in multi-threaded Intel wins in single-threaded and the benchmarks reflect that.

Intel maintains an efficiency advantage through their smaller process which I mention in my thread as well.

I shall respond tomorrow. Sleep well.

[TechFan@ic]

I shall respond tomorrow. Sleep well.

Awaiting your response, have a good night.

Please leave your comment at the original thread or PM me, no need to derail this thread any further.

[Bansh33]

So let's talk about this, I welcome criticism & in fact I demanded it in my thread.

 

"- Piledriver can process two floating point operation at the same time. So it can function as 8 threads for the SIMD cluster"

That doesn't mean that the floating point unit has enough throughput to match the two integer cores/threads. Even if the floating point can process two FMACs at the same time it doesn't mean that it can run two threads at the same time, there is only one FP backend so the FP is fundamentally single-threaded in Bulldozer.

Similarly each Integer core has 2 AGen pipelines it doesn't mean that a single integer core can simultaneously run two threads.

If we look at traditional AMD cores like K10 & K8 which are conceptually similar you will find that exclusive Floating Point real-estate in each core matches the exclusive integer real-estate in terms of die area. In AMD's Bulldozer module we see that AMD allocated significantly more die area (about double) to integer execution over floating point execution.

K10.5 Core on the left (Stars core in Llano), Bulldozer/Piledriver core on the right.

Blue = Integer, Red = Floating Point.

"- "So architecturally speaking, Intel isn't really ahead of AMD nor is AMD ahead of Intel so to speak" - Extremely big no. Intel is far ahead in certain technologies. Especially the frontend and SIMD cluster."

Again AMD is significantly ahead in Integer, in fact they lead in integer even outperforming the extreme editions from Intel, AMD is also significantly ahead in high frequency, low-gate count design.

Each architecture excels in different areas in terms of the architecture itself there is no clear winner like I said AMD wins in multi-threaded Intel wins in single-threaded and the benchmarks reflect that.

Intel maintains an efficiency advantage through their smaller process which I mention in my thread as well.

 

i like your backing information very informative thank you

[AxelPeeters]

Question twist :

 

What do consumer level intel cpu's (i3 , i5) have over an AMD cpu if you're just using it normally ?

 

I have an FX6100 @ 4.6Ghz and an I3-4130 and I cant notice the diffrence if they are clocked the same

[Legitsu]

why people wanna waste endless hours on discussing this I don't understand 

Intel chips: faster,lower power consumption, expensive

AMD: slower, cheaper,high power consumption

it really is that simple 

[Faa]

I back everything I say with evidence rather than preconceived notions or spite.

A 4670K is in fact only 15-25% ahead a 4Ghz Nehalem in single threaded & slower in multi-threaded.

If he clocked his nehalem to 4GHz then you're guaranteed that he would clock his 4670k as well and there's no 15-25% difference like you claimed.

The single threaded performance would only be a consideration for games: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/09/SC2HotS-pcgh.png

No such thing as 15-25% difference. For someone who's rendering winrar benchmarks are irrelevant, http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f2/500x1000px-LL-f2817090_9-5-20124-11-35AM.png, a 4670k is around 8.0 in cinebench 11.5 around 4.2GHz so no again wrong. Bad advice.

 

I never said Haswell consumes more than Ivy at Idle I said Haswell consumes more at load. Now you're basically putting words in my mouth.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/2

You did and you used this source instead: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Haswell-Review-Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Performance-and-Architecture/Power-Consumption

Haswell doesnt consume more power at load: http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4435/45/intel-core-i7-4770k--core-i5-4670k--core-i5-4430-review-haswell-getest-stroomverbruik-hd-7970-cinebench-115-max

 

Again what happens when there is a CPU bottleneck, GPU utilization drops. So how can we make sure that the low GPU utilization is due to a CPU bottleneck rather than some driver anomaly especially when the user was using a multi-GPU setup, we disable crossfire or SLI & then test again, if GPU utilization goes significantly up we know that the CPU was holding the multi-GPU setup back, if GPU utilization only increases marginally then we know that it's an entirely different issue.

That's not what you said:

 

 

Disable CrossfireX via the Catalyst Control Center, if GPU usage goes significantly up in the same gameplay sequence then you probably have got a CPU bottleneck.

 

 

As for your accusation that I cherry picked benchmarks to showcase AMD winning here is a direct quote from my thread :

And then I went on to give examples to some of those new engines.

Dude, you're biased enough to post something like this in your arcticle:

That you decided to post this graph means you agreed with:

- 8350 faster than 3930K

- 6300 faster than 2600K

- 4300 faster than 2500K & Phenom x6 & i5 760

- 4300 faster than 6100

At this point its too obvious that you have been biased. 

 

 

As things stand right now, the majority of games are either coded for two or four threads which gives the larger intel cores the advantage here, however recently game engines that support up to 6 threads have started to appear.

Followed by:

You agreed that 6 cores of a 8350 outperforms a 2600K/2500K/4670K.

Cherrypicking is freaking obvious at this point, you've only included 5 of the 100000 benchmarks 8350 outperform the 3770K. At this point everyone agrees you've been biased there.

Now, you bothered to update the gaming benchmarks but you haven't bothered adding Haswell to the synthetic benchmarks at all because you probably found the Haswell outperforming them.

 

Yes I'm obviously sponsored by AMD because in both threads that YOU linked to I actually recommended INTEL processors.

You did recommend AMD.

 

The 8320 is a phenomenal chip. $30 cheaper than the 8350 and overclocks nearly just as well. Converting CPU savings into better performing GPUs is always a great approach in my book.

And you've called it phenomenal and you claimed the 8320 with a better GPU would outperform a i5 with a cheaper GPU in WoW.

 

So are we supposed to take you me seriously ?

 

After all your flaws?

[Judist]

indeed being loyal to any company is the most stupid thing a human being can do...get what fits the best for you and offers you the most performance and reliability for what you do and fits your budget.

And this is not only for computer parts it applies to litteraly everything one can buy.

Your paying for more than just silicon. Your also paying for product support, compatibility pushing, future solutions, etc etc etc.

This also applies to almost everything you can buy, and it's hardly a stupid concept.

From consoles to cars to cell phones, the fastest or newest or best for budget isn't always a smart buy. Anyone who bought a Panasonic 3DO, a Saturn, or a Nokia N-Gage knows this.

Staying informed and remaining loyal to historically proven companies who make sound decisions, provide good support, have a high level of compatibility and remain innovative is pretty damn smart.

Your probably referring to grasping loyalty where the company is no longer providing but you can't let go. Thus I forgive you.

[Faa]

Similarly each Integer core has 2 AGen pipelines it doesn't mean that a single integer core can simultaneously run two threads.

It's not a core, each sheduler has 2 alu's meaning it can process two integer instructions at the same time. Bobcat has 3 meaning it can process 3 integer instructions at a time.

Each of the two x86 execution units in a Bulldozer module is made up of two ALUs (arithmetic logic unit) as well as two AGUs (address generation unit). Where K10 architecture has three ALUs for a maximum of 3 instructions executed per cycle, the Bulldozer module offers a maximum speed of 2 x 2 full instructions per cycle. The entire theoretical raw performance of a Bulldozer module is therefore equal to 2 x 2 / 3 x 3 = 67% of that of a K10 dual core.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/833-3/amd-bulldozer-architecture.html

 

 

That doesn't mean that the floating point unit has enough throughput to match the two integer cores/threads. Even if the floating point can process two FMACs at the same time it doesn't mean that it can run two threads at the same time, there is only one FP backend so the FP is fundamentally single-threaded in Bulldozer.

There's just one front-end/back-end for the entire module, complety destroying the octacore name. You aren't even understanding the concept of their flexfpu's, 128bit is enough its not the cause of the low IPC at all, pumping a single thread into your module the FPU will just run alone at 256bit but whenever you pump a 2nd thread the FPU will split itself into two 128bit FP's. Saying that 8350's can't process 8 threads (FP cals) at the same time is hilarious, run cinebench all blocks are showing activity at the same time. I've tried to run cinebench the multithreaded mode with one core assigned to the process through taskmanager, basically you see blocks just pausing. If that flexFPU can't process two threads at the same time that would translate to 4 threads would perform equal to with 8 threads

 

 

Again AMD is significantly ahead in Integer, in fact they lead in integer even outperforming the extreme editions from Intel, AMD is also significantly ahead in high frequency, low-gate count design.

Each architecture excels in different areas in terms of the architecture itself there is no clear winner like I said AMD wins in multi-threaded Intel wins in single-threaded and the benchmarks reflect that.

Intel maintains an efficiency advantage through their smaller process which I mention in my thread as well.

 

Hell no.

You just cherrypicked that one. Look at how much difference there is between the 4770 & 3960x, just 2% far from a meaningful test that literally favors AMD.

[EmmaLong]

@ Faa

If he clocked his nehalem to 4GHz then you're guaranteed that he would clock his 4670k as well and there's no 15-25% difference like you claimed.

The single threaded performance would only be a consideration for games: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/09/SC2HotS-pcgh.png
No such thing as 15-25% difference. For someone who's rendering winrar benchmarks are irrelevant, http://cdn.overclock.net/f/f2/500x1000px-LL-f2817090_9-5-20124-11-35AM.png, a 4670k is around 8.0 in cinebench 11.5 around 4.2GHz so no again wrong. Bad advice.

You did and you used this source instead: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Haswell-Review-Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Performance-and-Architecture/Power-Consumption
Haswell doesnt consume more power at load: http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/4435/45/intel-core-i7-4770k--core-i5-4670k--core-i5-4430-review-haswell-getest-stroomverbruik-hd-7970-cinebench-115-max

That's not what you said:

Dude, you're biased enough to post something like this in your arcticle:
That you decided to post this graph means you agreed with:
- 8350 faster than 3930K
- 6300 faster than 2600K
- 4300 faster than 2500K & Phenom x6 & i5 760
- 4300 faster than 6100
At this point its too obvious that you have been biased. 

You agreed that 6 cores of a 8350 outperforms a 2600K/2500K/4670K.
Cherrypicking is freaking obvious at this point, you've only included 5 of the 100000 benchmarks 8350 outperform the 3770K. At this point everyone agrees you've been biased there.
Now, you bothered to update the gaming benchmarks but you haven't bothered adding Haswell to the synthetic benchmarks at all because you probably found the Haswell outperforming them.

You did recommend AMD.

And you've called it phenomenal and you claimed the 8320 with a better GPU would outperform a i5 with a cheaper GPU in WoW.

After all your flaws?

So any benchmark that demonstrates an advantage that AMD has is biased ? and any reviewer that shows AMD doing well in benchmarks is instantly an ignorant AMD fanboy, Including Tek Syndicate and Austin Evans whom both have now broken the Guinness world record with Linus.
 

And? Logan, who is complety ignorant, has a bunch of subs too when he has no proper explanation why a 8350 outperforms a i5 by 350% in a gpu bound game. Linking video's from some clueless youtubers doesnt prove yourself right and the amount of subs they have doesn't make themself right either. Austin never goes technically deep enough because he knows nothing, his video's are even more basic than Techquikie.

linustechtips.com/main/topic/165085-would-this-bottleneck/page-2#entry2198580

 

You even accused Tek Syndicate of fabricating results do you realize how insane that is ?! when they actually went extensively into their benchmarking procedures and people even replicated their results !

We don't have AMD vs Intel fights for years anymore other than a few stupid fanboys claiming AMD is just as good as Intel or even better. Logan gave nearly all amd fanboys a reason to fight by fabricating the results, full of errors & misinformation

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/109695-which-of-these-would-be-better-for-a-gaming-rig/page-2
 

[TERAFLOP]

This thread warrants a lock. Thanks faa for destroying yet another thread after all that's what you do best.

[D3MON]

after 10 pages im not going to get into a debate in any way shape or form but i will say this....I came from amd (athlon k6, athlon xp, athlon 64) then intel ((pentium 3, 4 prescott, e5200, q6600) but for the forseeable future unless AMD becomes a dick-wad i'll be sticking with them for a little while.

1- I cant afford a console (in 1 shot) but I can afford a pretty damn good pc and while it might cost 50% more than a console (over time) its WAY more powerful so I wanna thank the pcmasterrace for giving me the ability to game properly. which ties into....

2- amd has worked better for me in terms of bang/buck, while lots of people will say amd beats intel in bang for buck to the point its become a cliche, depending on the circumstances its not worth it skimping TOO much (a6-5400k?), i stand by.... if your on a budget get a fx6300, less of a budget??.. 8320, and nothing else from there on from amd with the exception of some apu's and thier  am1 lineup, WITH THAT SAID if you play badly coded pieces of ***** from years ago (wow, lol, bioshock, arma2, FFX etc...) sure get a pentium-k and overclock the hell out of it, but those who play modern games would be better off with a 4670k for gaming or the aforementiend amd with the cash saved put towards a better card, true 10 years ago, true now, if you do video work AND gaming together 4930k......i dont get who the 4770k is for...your that tight you wont buy an i7-e but you need threads more than an i5???

a 4770k costs 2.5x more than my 8320 and when overclocked is maybe 15% better in multithreaded apps (y'know, apps that give you a reason to buy the i7 over an i5 in the first place....). if i needed more cpu performance id be looking at i7-e personally and if i wanted more gaming performance id rather spend £100 for an 8320+£300 for a r9-290(£400total) than £260 for a 4770k+£140 for an r9-270 (£400total).

as it is wheras i might of otherwise been using an i3 3220 and been suffering due to it being locked when it comes to transcoding (with a r15 of 229) i have plenty of performance with my 8320 (with a r15 of 725) to play the games i want without risk of bottlenecking and i can even assign a module or 2 to do other tasks while im at it...

anyone ever wonder if the pentium-k is £55 why isnt the 4670k £110? or does noone care about what they're paying for anymore and i'm just wierd like that.

[Faa]

 

@ Faa

So any benchmark that demonstrates an advantage that AMD has is biased ? and any reviewer that shows AMD doing well in benchmarks is instantly an ignorant AMD fanboy, Including Tek Syndicate and Austin Evans whom both have now broken the Guinness world record with Linus.

That's not even what I said; he's only posting benchmarks where AMD is on top complety on purpose. It's obvious what he did. 

 

You even accused Tek Syndicate of fabricating results do you realize how insane that is ?! when they actually went extensively into their benchmarking procedures and people even replicated their results !

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/109695-which-of-these-would-be-better-for-a-gaming-rig/page-2

Which is true.

How do you explain that they manage to get a 350% difference in a complete GPU bound game like Far Cry 3? Unless you really think a 780 would perform 3.5 times faster in Furmark with an AMD cpu than an Intel you must be delusional to believe his benchmarks.

400+ people agree with my statement: http://www.overclock.net/t/1353440/teksyndicate-amd-fx-8350-oc-vs-i5-3570k-oc-using-an-evga-gtx-670/0_100

Linus even dismissed Teksyndicate's benchmarks:

Believing that 8350's complety wipe the floor with any Intel cpu in cpu or gpu bound scenario's that's insane. That they've needed to fabricate those results to gain subs, that's insane. Maybe you should bother getting some comprehensive understanding of all I'm saying before you judge me.

 

 

This thread warrants a lock. Thanks faa for destroying yet another thread after all that's what you do best.

Don't accuse me of this when you have problems facing the reality. You just fill every thread up with your AMD fanboyism nonsense, not only you.

 

 

Not true, clock for clock 8350 beats i7 3770K but 8350 can clock much higher thanks to the clock resonant mesh that AMD is using.

Clock for clock 8350 matches devil's canyon in multicore but then again 8350 achieves much higher clock rates.

Dollar for dollar 8350 steals the show and beats everything from intel.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/176664-devil%E2%80%99s-canyon-proves-intel-doesn%E2%80%99t-care-about-pc-enthusiasts/page-2#entry2369622

Basically in your world the 8350 clock for clock beats the 3770K/4770K and you wouldn't deny that the 8350 is better than the 3930K since you praise those benchmarks. Just answer my question; do you realize that you were blatantly wrong? Let me answer it for you; "yes I do". Your amd gangstah 7850 50000MHz special FX gpu tweak boost buddies are perfectly aware of this as well, in every new post you are trying to find new tactics to claim that Intel can't compete with AMD. There's just no need that you do this, in every thread where people ask for advice you do the same thing, people have the right on honest advice and not on your fanboyism. Whatever CPU offers more IPC, I'd be recommending them for gaming can be Intel or AMD - we all used to call people fanboys who recommended Intel back in the days before conroe now it's the other way around. 

I've only seen in total like 20 graphs from you and your homies. Why? Because you guys couldn't find any other that matched your nonsense.

[vitor_cut]

So in the same way that some dont belive that in the  teksyndicate bench because in a " gpu bound situation" shows the 8350 with a very good advantage over the 3570k, why should i belive in some bench in the same situation "gpu bound"( games at 1440p res and max out) i see the new intel processors with 25% advantage over an 8350 , and the last time i check in the foruns i do not see anybody denying that results.

 

the fx-8350 is a solid cpu for gaming, and yes the intel are better cpus overall, but for playing at high resolutions at max settings( gpu bound situations) they should perform about the same( 5~8% max diference)

[Faa]

So in the same way that some dont belive that in the  teksyndicate bench because in a " gpu bound situation" shows the 8350 with a very good advantage over the 3570k, why should i belive in some bench in the same situation "gpu bound"( games at 1440p res and max out) i see the new intel processors with 25% advantage over an 8350 , and the last time i check in the foruns i do not see anybody denying that results.

When you're gpu bound, you don't have any difference between the cpu's that are dealing with gpu bottlenecks.

It looks like this:

Your gpu is the source of your performance, everything that needs to happen to get the gpu running at its full potential is all up to the CPU. CPU's dont render frames what you see in your game, theyre rather telling your gpu how a frame should look like among a bunch of more things like physics calcs, UI, <fill in> etc. You get my point, right? According to many other sources, they haven't showed a difference between the i5 & 8350 in Far Cry 3 mainly again gpu bound being the reason. Any 8350 owner would confirm they get the gpu running at 99% in Far Cry 3, same goes for i5 owners.

If you bring out a massive cpu bound game like an mmo, there's a difference.

[vitor_cut]

When you're gpu bound, you don't have any difference between the cpu's that are dealing with gpu bottlenecks.

It looks like this:

Your gpu is the source of your performance, everything that needs to happen to get the gpu running at its full potential is all up to the CPU. CPU's dont render frames what you see in your game, theyre rather telling your gpu how a frame should look like among a bunch of more things like physics calcs, UI, <fill in> etc. You get my point, right? According to many other sources, they haven't showed a difference between the i5 & 8350 in Far Cry 3 mainly again gpu bound being the reason. Any 8350 owner would confirm they get the gpu running at 99% in Far Cry 3, same goes for i5 owners.

If you bring out a massive cpu bound game like an mmo, there's a difference.

 

So for gaming at high resolutions(1440p or 4k or multimonitor setings) at high to max game settings there is no obvious reason ,beside personal preference, to go for an Intel cpu over Amd cpu because they will perform about the same?

[Faa]

So for gaming at high resolutions(1440p or 4k or multimonitor setings) at high to max game settings there is no obvious reason ,beside personal preference, to go for an Intel cpu over Amd cpu because they will perform about the same?

It depends complety on the game and many other variables. BF3 is atm more of a CPU bound game with a i5 and a 780 but you'd definitely be gpu bound at 4K.

[MPX309]

Has anyone seen Tech Yes City's video ?

 

 

are these results conclusive? 

[Faa]

Has anyone seen Tech Yes City's video ?

 

are these results conclusive? 

I did and yes it's atm the best video.

[Kamina]

The cores. If all you do is video rendering and you're on a budget between the 8320 and i5 4690k, the 8320 would be the better choice for price/performance as their multi-core performance are almost on par, although may perform better on some multi-core synthetic benches. And you also have more cores to play with but they share resources so that's the down side and single core performance is crippled because of it.