Why would you consider AMD?

[Priller]

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

 

That's because Intel cheaped out on the IHS design so it doesn't have the ability to transfer as much heat as the larger, soldered AMD CPUs.

[MageTank]

Oh boy, what a thread. I don't see how these two chips can even be used as a comparison, or how one could even compare a g3258 to even the 8320. I own both chips (g3258 mini itx build, and a 8320 workhorse build, respectfully named David and Goliath) and I enjoy both of them equally in different scenarios. Put simply, the G3258 is snappier, and can go toe to toe with most CPU's in the current gen games that I like to play. However, the 8320 can also handle the same games as well, while also multi-tasking several browser tabs while also benching in the background. I can run prime95 AND game on my 8320 at the same time. Do I need to? Nope. Can I? Yes. The same cannot be said about the G3258. While it performs wonderfully while gaming, it cannot handle the same stressful scenario's that I put my 8320 through.

 

The whole "AMD Vs. Intel" battle should be long dead by now. Same with the AMD Vs. Nvidia battle. What wins the consumer at the end of the day is not the brand, but the Price:Performance. I bought my 8320 over a year ago on NCIX, along with a Gigabyte 990 FXA UD3 bundle. Both the board and CPU combined only cost me $220. That's $110 a piece, for at the time, a very solid board and CPU. My g3258 cost me $70, and my Z97m-ITX/AC motherboard cost me $110 just last week. Gaming wise, the Price:Performance favors the G3258, but as a whole, for gaming and working alike, the 8320 wins in my general usage. Granted, my 8320 isn't OC'd, and my G3258 is only lightly OC'd to 4.0 (this is due to Asrock's Z97m-ITX/AC mobo's limited bios options, lacking LLC and the ability to touch VRIN).

 

Other factors also come into play, depending on what you want out of your PC. Some people buy things just to OC them as high as they can go, often ignoring real-world performance benefits. Some people want the best performance, for the least amount of money. Then you have those that want the best performance per watt. Find out what you want from your CPU, and buy it.

 

To blindly trust a synthetic bench (which by the way, I would not take every bench you see as solid facts, as real world scenario's tend to differ substantially) blindly enough to down right insult anyone that considers a different CPU, would be a very ignorant way of thinking.

 

Sorry for the giant wall of text, just gets rather old seeing this argument pop up in every forum I have ever been apart of.

 

-MageTank

[Jumper118]

That's because Intel cheaped out on the IHS design so it doesn't have the ability to transfer as much heat as the larger, soldered AMD CPUs.

it know. even when you've dellided them they still aren't as cool temperature wise  

[-iSynthesis]

Im just mad that people are seriously telling people to get AMD cpus when one of Intels low end processor beats AMDs flagship

Guess what, a hd 7990 is going to "beat" a Firepro 7000 - The firepro beeing more expensive.

Guess what gaming is not the only thing that people use their pc for, single threaded applications are not the only thing that people use their pc for. Stupid topic seriously

[Mush Brain]

Fucking sick of this bollocks.

If you need to big up your purchase, you obviously have an inferiority complex and must tell everyone how good your inefficient overpriced cunt cheese is, sorry for the rather foul words, just sick of seeing the same plebeian threads.

If you want performance you are after, work for it just like many if us here do, fuck your excuses.

[Faa]

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.

Hows AMD exactly running cooler than Intel (solder ones such as SB/SB-e/IBE/HWE) when AMD doesn't even have sensors in the cores and uses algorithms to calculate the temperatures instead of reporting the actual data? Besides socket temps can't be compared with core temps and core temps will be easily 20° higher than the socket temp. The hotter AMD cpu's run the more accurate the temp reading becomes.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=446&threadid=160921&enterthread=y

[Priller]

Hows AMD exactly running cooler than Intel (solder ones such as SB/SB-e/IBE/HWE) when AMD doesn't even have sensors in the cores and uses algorithms to calculate the temperatures instead of reporting the actual data? Besides socket temps can't be compared with core temps and core temps will be easily 20° higher than the socket temp. The hotter AMD cpu's run the more accurate the temp reading becomes.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=446&threadid=160921&enterthread=y

 

If that was true then the CPU would shut off according to the link you posted.

"The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius"

 

So 70C Socket would be 90C which would shut off the CPU. Since many people have seen 70+ C socket temps without the CPU shutting down, your statement is incorrect.

 

From what you posted.

The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

That post is also in reference to a 1090T. 

[Faa]

 

If that was true then the CPU would shut off according to the link you posted.

"The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius"

 

So 70C Socket would be 90C which would shut off the CPU. Since many people have seen 70+ C socket temps without the CPU shutting down, your statement is incorrect.

 

From what you posted.

The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

That post is also in reference to a 1090T. 

 

 The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures.

The warmer the CPU is the better the reading is. Your core temperatures will be at least 15-20° higher than the socket, that's always the case.

Tjmax set to 71° pretty much makes sense that the core temps are 20° higher as that guy has been saying it shuts off at 90°.

[Priller]

 The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures.

The warmer the CPU is the better the reading is. Your core temperatures will be at least 15-20° higher than the socket, that's always the case.

Tjmax set to 71° pretty much makes sense that the core temps are 20° higher as that guy has been saying it shuts off at 90°.

 

That is why you use the mobo software utility rather then a 3rd party program. The difference is typically about 10C and most people report having higher socket temps then core temps with FXs.

[Faa]

That is why you use the mobo software utility rather then a 3rd party program. The difference is typically about 10C and most people report having higher socket temps then core temps with FXs.

There are no sensors in the cores, only the socket has one. That screenshot was just to show the Tjmax.

8350's won't run cooler than soldered Intel CPU's unless it consumes less power.

[Jumper118]

That is why you use the mobo software utility rather then a 3rd party program. The difference is typically about 10C and most people report having higher socket temps then core temps with FXs.

i wouldn't even bother arguing with Faa, unless you like upping your post count. he will just throw random screenshots and graphs at you all day. 

[Priller]

i wouldn't even bother arguing with Faa, unless you like upping your post count. he will just throw random screenshots and graphs at you all day. 

 

lol

[Kherm]

Holy crap I have a headache, this thread needs to STOP.

Pentium wins at single threaded tasks

FX wins at multi threaded tasks

//thread/

[Faa]

i wouldn't even bother arguing with Faa, unless you like upping your post count. he will just throw random screenshots and graphs at you all day. 

That's what you were saying to the guy who was fabricating benchmarks;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/97404-intel-i7-3770k-vs-4670k-vs-4770k-plus-motherboard-gaming-and-video-editing/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/100393-which-processor-is-most-suitable-for-gaming/page-3

Also random screenshots? Care to elaborate?

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. (1090) the maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO

How exactly is this random? He's saying what I'm saying, there are no sensors for the cores but only for the cores and it's calculated by hardcoded algorithms that are built in the CPU. I showed you a core temp screenshot for the Tjmax and Ive been claiming core temps are always around 15-20° higher than the socket and add that to 71° that should make 90° like I marked in bold.

You're actually one of those that actually has trouble making sense, I've never seen you managing to prove someone wrong here. Also it's not because I proven you in every debate we had wrong that you should come here and say there's no point arguing with me. And you're right you shouldn't be arguing with me if you're always wrong like many others on this forum whom we have to take his word for instead of getting evidence. 

[WinNut]

Everybody has their own reasons for purchasing what they purchase, be it personal or performance-wise.

 

I was going to pull the emergency brake on the shitpost train but I see a BCO has been performed. RUN WHILE YOU CAN

[rentaspoon]

i wouldn't even bother arguing with Faa, unless you like upping your post count. he will just throw random screenshots and graphs at you all day.

Faa is correct it, the FX series don't have sensors in but does use a complex algorithm, that said it is accurate until it hits below 15°c

[Priller]

That's what you were saying to the guy who was fabricating benchmarks;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/97404-intel-i7-3770k-vs-4670k-vs-4770k-plus-motherboard-gaming-and-video-editing/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/100393-which-processor-is-most-suitable-for-gaming/page-3

Also random screenshots? Care to elaborate?

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. (1090) the maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO

How exactly is this random? He's saying what I'm saying, there are no sensors for the cores but only for the cores and it's calculated by hardcoded algorithms that are built in the CPU. I showed you a core temp screenshot for the Tjmax and Ive been claiming core temps are always around 15-20° higher than the socket and add that to 71° that should make 90° like I marked in bold.

You're actually one of those that actually has trouble making sense, I've never seen you managing to prove someone wrong here. Also it's not because I proven you in every debate we had wrong that you should come here and say there's no point arguing with me. And you're right you shouldn't be arguing with me if you're always wrong like many others on this forum whom we have to take his word for instead of getting evidence. 

 

So if 90C is the cut off why didn't mine shut off at what would have been 96C? I've pushed it to where Easytune was reporting 80C. Which would have been 100C. Well past the cut off.

 

Fact is your wrong and HWmMonitor,Coretemp are incorrect and typically report temps 10C higher/lower then factual. This was also the case with @bamerx98 reporting thermal throttling at 80C(same as my UD7) by the motherboard utility on his Asus board.

[Priller]

Faa is correct it, the FX series don't have sensors in but does use a complex algorithm, that said it is accurate until it hits below 15°c

 

Some of the cheaper boards start to become incorrect even before that. Sometimes anything below 30C and they start acting very oddly.

[Sauron]

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.

 

Just adding that there are 15$ gpus that are more than enough if you don't care about gaming

[Faa]

So if 90C is the cut off why didn't mine shut off at what would have been 96C? I've pushed it to where Easytune was reporting 80C. Which would have been 100C. Well past the cut off.

 

Fact is your wrong and HWmMonitor,Coretemp are incorrect and typically report temps 10C higher/lower then factual. This was also the case with @bamerx98 reporting thermal throttling at 80C(same as my UD7) by the motherboard utility on his Asus board.

Seems like you have issues understanding; "the hotter the CPU becomes the more accurate the reading becomes". So if we get 40° reported, the cores might be at 60° instead, if it's 50 it might be 60, if we get 60 it might be 65, if we get 70 we get 70 etc.

So lets get some real evidence out; http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/faq/id-2122665/understanding-temperature-amd-cpus-apus.html

There's no such thing as core temps.

The first thing to know is that recent AMD CPUs and APUs have two indicators involving temperature. 

One is CPU socket temperature. Socket temperature is a real temperature of what your motherboard sees and reports in your BIOS and motherboard utility software (Easytune, A tuning, MSI Command Center, ect). Socket temperature is a great indication of your idle CPU temperature, but it is much less accurate during heavy loads. 

The second, and trickier temperature to understand, is thermal margin. "Thermal Margin indicates how far the current operating temperature is below the 

maximum operating temperature of the processor." -AMD. Further information can be found in the BIOS and Kernal Developer's Guide This temperature is based off of precise calculations that are very accurate during heavy loads. This is what you should be concerned with while stress testing your CPU. This is also the signal that is most often erroneously interpretted by 3rd party programs like HWMonitor, ect. Use AMD Overdrive to measure thermal margin. 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/faq/id-2122665/understanding-temperature-amd-cpus-apus.html

[Abdulrahman]

Reasons to consider AMD:

 

1. They have more cores on cheaper products
2. Their CPUs are way cheaper than Intel's
3. All their CPUs have a lot of L2 and L3 Cache
4. Better performance per dollar
5. Most of their CPUs are unlocked
6. They are easier to overclock
7. AMD APUs have way better on-board graphics than Intel CPU

Reasons to consider Intel:

 

1. Better single threaded performance
2. Lower heat and power usage 
3. More programs are optimized for Intel CPUs
4. Hyperthreading
5. Newer manufacturing process

I have used both Intel and AMD and they both make great CPUs. In the end, its a personal choice to choose from Intel or AMD. 

[rentaspoon]

Some of the cheaper boards start to become incorrect even before that. Sometimes anything below 30C and they start acting very oddly.

Yeah depends on what you get I do know my mobo does have a sensor that must be close to chip temps, as it's off by a degree or two.

I think the difference is Intel's are core temps where as AMD are heat spreader temps, personally it doesn't bother me as long as temps don't get to high and they are with margin of error.