Is it bad I wish I got an FX 8320? :O

[Majestic]

The tek syndicate video, shows a very specific scenario. Xplit + gaming. In this case FX has a huge edge over a 3570K.

 

No not really, it has en edge at the played settings. The reduced framerate gives it the necessary idle time to multitask, we are talking 20-30fps in most of the results here.

If you were to couple it with a 970 or 980 now, you'd have way more FPS and the 8350 would struggle much harder to multitask and buckle under it's shared resources.

 

The Intel would edge over the 8350 with a better GPU, it might be weird to understand but it's true. You can see that in the TekYesCity video. The minimum framerates are also drastically worse, you'll notice dropped frames more in a stream than you'd do 2-3 avg fps more/less.

[harrynowl]

have you tried using the quicksync renderer

[Tim Drake]

have you tried using the quicksync renderer

I have to enable integrated graphics and I have no clue how

@ OP

You have multiple answers now. Please mark this thread as answered so everyone can move on. Thanks.

There is no correct answer on this thread in my opinion. I will select an answer when I see fit, do not ask me to select answer.

[Majestic]

I have to enable integrated graphics and I have no clue how

 

Set it to multi-display in the bios. You might also have to force a vga-screen through windows. I think Luke made a video about it.

 

 

There is no correct answer on this thread in my opinion. I will select an answer when I see fit, do not ask me to select answer.

 

You mean, noone gave you the answer you wanted to hear. 

[harrynowl]

I have to enable integrated graphics and I have no clue how

try enabling "igpu multi monitor" in uefi

[Tim Drake]

try enabling "igpu multi monitor" in uefi

What section would it be in?

[harrynowl]

What section would it be in?

not sure on msi but on mine its on advanced, asus uefi

[Opcode]

It wouldn't have been much better at any of those compared to your 4670K. 

FX-8320 will crush the i5-4690k all day long in rendering. Tho them types of workloads is all you would be wanting to use the machine for. If you're gaming I would go with the 4690k even with it taking a bit longer to render them videos.

[Faa]

No not really, it has en edge at the played settings. The reduced framerate gives it the necessary idle time to multitask, we are talking 20-30fps in most of the results here.

If you were to couple it with a 970 or 980 now, you'd have way more FPS and the 8350 would struggle much harder to multitask and buckle under it's shared resources.

 

The Intel would edge over the 8350 with a better GPU, it might be weird to understand but it's true. You can see that in the TekYesCity video. The minimum framerates are also drastically worse, you'll notice dropped frames more in a stream than you'd do 2-3 avg fps more/less.

I haven't seen a 8350 having an edge over a i5 in streaming yet other than Teksyndicate who claimed the i5 does 50% better than the i7. Teksyndicate has been the first "source" that actually showed a performance difference of 400% between AMD & Intel (using evga gtx 670 video in Arma 3), they're the first source that went full idiotmode in the form of an APU is 50% faster than the 4770K in this video -> watch?v=9bsRcp8z8Gw

He left JJ's system out on purpose in the tests where the APU outperformed the 4770K by 50%.

No encoding;

With encoding;

I don't really see an advantage here, both CPU's by roughly the same performance hit which would include in this case the "30%" multithreaded performance advantage 8350's have which most 8350 fanboys claim doesn't prevent the performance hit of game's main thread at all. Or just that the 2500K takes a bigger hit but I'm seeing here the 8350 having a bigger hit here 24% vs 23%.

 

 

The tek syndicate video, shows a very specific scenario. Xplit + gaming. In this case FX has a huge edge over a 3570K.

Also 8 weak cores CAN and do beat 4 strong cores (this is a very general claim). ie: 7zip performance is a LOT better in FX than on any intel quadcore not hyperthreaded cpu at any given clockspeed. 

 

Is this enough to say fx is canonically better? ofc not! would anyone recommend a fx over an sandy/ivy/haswell i5 (performance wise) Hell no! It's just a particular scenario were things turn arround. 

Few things; in almost any multithreaded workload the i5 will outperform the 8350. With AVX2 the i5 will outperform the 8350 up to 100% and having twice as much singlethreaded performance. You'll only see the 8350 outperforming in synthetic benchmarks or applications with high-level parallelism and near perfect multithreading. Pushing the max performance out of 4 threads is far easier than with 8 threads. Also even if all cores are being used that doesn't mean you're getting perfect scaling out of it. Xsplit vs OBS doesn't matter, Bryan actually used OBS for his review but by himself he uses Xsplit and he says that Xsplit is even much better on Intel.

Teksyndicate shows a very specific scenario of how to fabricate benchmarks, only idiots would believe him. If you would believe that the FX has such a huge edge over the i5, I mean it's like twice as fast or even more than that, that would come down to a 8350 outperforming an Intel hexa-core or even a 5960x. If you believe that, have fun living in a fantasy world.

[Dabombinable]

Damn, has this turned into Red vs Blue? Because the FX series should always be compared to cpus of THE SAME AGE, not newer ones that have gone through a die shrink and as a result can squeeze better performance out of the cpu. AKA, compare to the Sandybridge Core i series.

[Tim Drake]

Damn, has this turned into Red vs Blue? Because the FX series should always be compared to cpus of THE SAME AGE, not newer ones that have gone through a die shrink and as a result can squeeze better performance out of the cpu. AKA, compare to the Sandybridge Core i series.

Touché

[Majestic]

Damn, has this turned into Red vs Blue? Because the FX series should always be compared to cpus of THE SAME AGE, not newer ones that have gone through a die shrink and as a result can squeeze better performance out of the cpu. AKA, compare to the Sandybridge Core i series.

 

That is the most stupid argument i've heard in a AMD vs. Intel discussion. So because AMD hasn't made advancements in IPC or dieshrinking, we should therefor discard ivy and haswell ever happening (for that matter, the IPC stems from the core2duo era)? Newsflash; they exist, and are pitted against the FX-series in a competitive pricerange. Therefor, you cannot disregard them. That's the same argument as saying; you cannot compare a 290 to a 970, they aren't the same age.

 

Maybe you also missed the fact that the topic was started on a AMD vs Intel question. Namely; should i have bought a 8320 instead of a 4670k

 

 

FX-8320 will crush the i5-4690k all day long in rendering. Tho them types of workloads is all you would be wanting to use the machine for. If you're gaming I would go with the 4690k even with it taking a bit longer to render them videos.

 

It won't "crush" it, maybe trade blows. Especially when you factor in overclocking, which is cheaper for intel.

[Faa]

Damn, has this turned into Red vs Blue? Because the FX series should always be compared to cpus of THE SAME AGE, not newer ones that have gone through a die shrink and as a result can squeeze better performance out of the cpu. AKA, compare to the Sandybridge Core i series.

Overclock your E8500 to 4.7GHz and run a C15 singlethreaded benchmark, you'll see it outperforms a 8350 at 5.4GHz

[Opcode]

It won't "crush" it, maybe trade blows. Especially when you factor in overclocking, which is cheaper for intel.

The FX-8320 is equally overclockable. And it does indeed crush it in rendering. We are talking easily 15-20 seconds on a 1 minute video that also scales up. Render a 10 minute video and the FX will cut rendering time down by minutes. Tho that's really the only beneficial place that the FX series comes out on top and that is highly threaded heavy workloads. I would get a Xeon E3 over a FX which would offer equal or better rendering times while matching the price of an i5.

[MEC-777]

Damn, has this turned into Red vs Blue? Because the FX series should always be compared to cpus of THE SAME AGE, not newer ones that have gone through a die shrink and as a result can squeeze better performance out of the cpu. AKA, compare to the Sandybridge Core i series.

 

No, they should be compared to what is currently available on the market for around the same price range. It just so happens the best AMD currently has to offer is the same part they've had for going on 2 years now.  

[FuzzyYellow]

Yes, actually FX8 can do a lot better gaming + live streaming vid. Is one combination that benefits from multiple cores rather than beefier ones. (Tek syndicate showed last year on 3570K Vs FX8350) It's just how it is.

 the 4690k is a fairly decent upgrade from a 3570k. also, the difference was 0-5 fps, and they didn't show what their run was, of even if they had the same settings/resolutions on their benchmarks.

according to this, the haswell is 12% faster. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3570K/2432vs1316

[FuzzyYellow]

 

8350 4.8ghz vs 3570k 4.3ghz (AMD build had 1866mhz ram while Intel had 1600mhz ram)

 

8350: 119 seconds

3570k: 138 seconds

 

Now consider:

His intel build had slower ram.

Haswell cores are 6-8% faster than Ivy bridge cores

Your 4670k is at 4.4ghz. His is at 4.3ghz.

His 8350 was clocked at 4.8ghz.

 

I highly doubt an 8350 would be any better than your current 4670k clocked at 4.4ghz.

exactly! except for the fact that haswell cores are about 12% faster according to this. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3570K/2432vs1316

[jameshumphries47]

I'm not trolling?

Really? I never noticed any? Did you mean the FX 8320/8350?

Haha, I mean't I can't afford x99 and an i7 extreme and DDR4. They ain't cheap

just leave the keyboard worrier...  make him regret his choice!!!

[Dabombinable]

Overclock your E8500 to 4.7GHz and run a C15 singlethreaded benchmark, you'll see it outperforms a 8350 at 5.4GHz

I can only get it stable at 4GHz, anything over and either the VRM (no heatsink, need to ghetto one) throttles or the CPU does. And even then it still hits 25-26Gflops (intel burn test, both cores-about a 3rd slower than my i5 4440).

[Fate]

I can only git it stable at 4GHz, anything over and either the VRM (no heatsink, need to ghetto one) throttles or the CPU does. And even then it still hits 25-26Gflops (intel burn test, both cores-about a 3rd slower than my i5 4440).

Throw some of these on there http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835708012

[Dabombinable]

Throw some of these on there http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835708012

Thanks, if they are about the width and length of a mosfet they'll be fine, the capacitors crowd everything.

[Tim Drake]

FX 8320 + A mb that can handle that power delivery = you can afford an i7 ._.

If you could read the thread before posting that would be great. I'm not bloody buying a new processor or motherboard. I asked if it was bad that I WISH I GOT. Learn your past tenses bro

[Tim Drake]

just leave the keyboard worrier... make him regret his choice!!!

What are you on about?

[Tim Drake]

Double post mistake

[jameshumphries47]

What are you on about?

no offence but you posted this topic to stir the crap and start a war...