FX 8350 better with SLI @4k than 4930k.

[nokturrduk84]

If you read my statement, and you understand the performance penalty the bulldozer architecture gets under some workloads, the fx 6300 and fx 8320 is a far more solid product.

Most benchmark only present the FPS count, which should not be the only measurement.

The FX 4300 often get a horrible latency.

Same reason why a I3 can get the same FPS as an I5, but you will still be able to tell the difference because of the latency.

Also you are only taking gaming into consideration.

No it isn't. It's just a waste of money. Even i3 is better than any AMD has offer us.

[vm'N]

No it isn't. It's just a waste of money. Even i3 is better than any AMD has offer us.

If you have read anything I mentioned in this thread, you would understand why a fx 6300 or fx 8320 is a far more solid product.

The FX 4300 will overload its first module much quicker than a fx 6300 or fx 8320. This often causes a performance penalty across the entire module.

This was the reason why windows added a fix, so windows scheduler will first load core 0, 2, 4, 6 before loading the second core in a module to avoid the performance penalty.

[nokturrduk84]

If you have read anything I mentioned in this thread, you would understand why a fx 6300 or fx 8320 is a far more solid product.

The FX 4300 will overload its first module much quicker than a fx 6300 or fx 8320. This often causes a performance penalty across the entire module.

This was the reason why windows added a fix, so windows scheduler will first load core 0, 2, 4, 6 before loading the second core in a module to avoid the performance penalty.

There's no need to get any fx & any amd cpu when intel exists, which provides better performance.

[vm'N]

There's no need to get any fx & any amd cpu when intel exists, which provides better performance.

I wonder how AMD have kept floating if there are absolutly no need for them.

AMD and Intel offer different product.

[nokturrduk84]

I wonder how AMD have kept floating if there are absolutly no need for them.

AMD and Intel offer different product.

Because of some amd hardcore fanboys who still buy their products even they are total crap.

[vm'N]

Because of some amd hardcore fanboys who still buy their products even they are total crap.

Do you actually beleive that?

[Vrbas]

Because of some amd hardcore fanboys who still buy their products even they are total crap.

So how are AMD products crap? Just because they don't perform as well as another product, which cost more and is current get? Um...?

[nokturrduk84]

So how are AMD products crap? Just because they don't perform as well as another product, which cost more and is current get? Um...?

• AMD got ancient technology, which means they have 8 core, but those cores are weak & slow, comparing to the Intel's cores, which are much stronger & based on a new technology.
• AMD also got bad memory controller. We tested 2400mhz memories both on my CPU & on AMD CPU in memory benchmarks & AMD got much slower score, something similar to the 1333mhz RAMs owners. And he had 2400mhz RAMs. So it bottlenecks high speed RAMs too.
• AMD also is far behind with nm's, while Intel got 22nm CPUs & they are already moving to the 14nm, AMD's still staying with ancient 32nm. Actually they are in a pretty bad shape when it comes to the CPU competition.
• Intel CPUs also consume less power, than AMD, thx to the better architecture.

[vm'N]

• AMD got ancient technology, which means they have 8 core, but those cores are weak & slow, comparing to the Intel's cores, which are much stronger & based on a new technology.
• AMD also got bad memory controller. We tested 2400mhz memories both on my CPU & on AMD CPU in memory benchmarks & AMD got much slower score, something similar to the 1333mhz RAMs owners. And he had 2400mhz RAMs. So it bottlenecks high speed RAMs too.
• AMD also is far behind with nm's, while Intel got 22nm CPUs & they are already moving to the 14nm, AMD's still staying with ancient 32nm. Actually they are in a pretty bad shape when it comes to the CPU competition.
• Intel CPUs also consume less power, than AMD, thx to the better architecture.

• Ancient technology? You will need to explain further on this one.
• Overclock the NB and the IMC and prefetcher will be fine.

  Most memory benchmark does not actually covers the memory bandwidth, because most can be done internally (cache).

• That is not AMDs fault. You can go out and blame GloFo and TSMC instead.
• Not only because of better architecture. A lower node also helps.

[nokturrduk84]

 

• Ancient technology? You will need to explain further on this one.
• Overclock the NB and the IMC and prefetcher will be fine.

  Most memory benchmark does not actually covers the memory bandwidth, because most can be done internally (cache).

• That is not AMDs fault. You can go out and blame GloFo and TSMC instead.
• Not only because of better architecture. A lower node also helps.

 

You have no idea what are you talking about. You seem one of those hardcore amd fanboys I mentioned above. I don't wanna argue with you. You still won't understand, even if I say black is black & white is white...

[vm'N]

You have no idea what are you talking about. You seem one of those hardcore amd fanboys I mentioned above. I don't wanna argue with you. You still won't understand, even if I say black is black & white is white...

So, because I explain why half of your points are invalid, I'm a hardcore AMD fanboy?

[Sintezza]

Why does anybody still pay's attention to that @nokturrduk84 ?

[nokturrduk84]

So, because I explain why half of your points are invalid, I'm a hardcore AMD fanboy?

No, because you decline all facts I explained & stop quoting me anymore.

[airdeano]

soooooo.

 

if no one has any more information about: FX 8350 better with SLI @4k than 4930k

rather than attacking companies as a whole, we might have gotten derailed from

point of the OP. can we just get back to the topic, than running down companies

and each other, please or this thread will get locked down.