Why is there a constant flame war on this thread?

[PlayModeOn]

I'll edit this post once i have it, loads of results to search through, and I will try to put a 4GHz benchmark up just to show the difference.

 

Update

 

At 4GHz an i7 4790k can do 2762 mops (each cpu will get slightly better or worse results).

 

 

@ Thanks. EDIT: That is a large number.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

nvrmind..already answered. 4790k is boss

[Dabombinable]

 

Update

 

 

 

@ Thanks. EDIT: That is a large number.

 

Yep, and part of the reason why I'm quite content with even old Intel cpus.

[WoodenMarker]

U.S.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....zy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($132.98 @ OutletPC)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($26.75 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($75.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $235.72

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 20:17 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....t6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpick...P6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpick...D3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

 

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpick...cf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpick...GX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpick...rH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpick...xr/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpick...FT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpick...D3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpick...ZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpick...D3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpick...ZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpick...D3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpick...ZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpick...D3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

Do note that the Intel boards in these comparisons tend to have less featured boards with only have 2 dimm slots and/or less fan headers--both of which serve very practical uses.

[Faceman]

Do note that the Intel boards in these comparisons tend to have less featured boards with only have 2 dimm slots and/or less fan headers--both of which serve very practical uses.

Thats true, but this is a very simple work around.

 

You can either A. Shell out the extra cash($10-$20) for a motherboard with 4 DIMMs and more motherboard fan headers

or B.  2 DIMMs is really all you need, either 8GB(4GBx2) or 8GBx1 for future expansion.  and buy some fan splitters.  This is by no means an elegant option, but it is doable and the main thing to remember is the in-game performance is going to be superior, and that is what the majority of us are after.

[Majestic]

repost pic, this is my 8350 at stock 4.2 turbod with stock 280x playing bf4 ultra everything inclucing aa and all while i surf the web and play music videos from youtube at the same time i avg 80-120 sometime more sometimes less...so whoever says its not awesome for gaming is missing out.

 

 

 

I grow tired of this "i run everything fine" argument,  shove it already. It's been said 2x10^6 times now; noone is saying they run games at 3fps, the i5's are just objectively more bang for buck when it comes to gaming. 

All you're doing is patting yourself on the back for making "the right decision". Because you possibly cannot be wrong for opting into the FX. No no, that's ignorant.

 

That's life, deal with it. And stupid memes only cause inflamatory responses.

 

Why we respond this way?

I got fooled into buying the FX-8350 by people and sites like these.

 

Because we are actually humans and have genuine issues when people post stuff like this. That wouldn't have happened had some self-congratulatory arsehole not lied to his face.

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

AMD is flawed.

Rant: The very design of FX Cpus were considered flawed in its conception. The FX cpus uses modules which each containing 2 cores. However the cores within each module share resources thus would explain their multithreading performances. The name or marketing term given to it by AMD is CMT or Clustered Multithreading but this is only a marketing term not an actual true cpu architecture. AMD's design for the fx was to sacrificed IPC for higher clock speeds(why amd fx have won world records) however this gives the drawback in single threading performance. And to overclock the cpu requires more power, thus the TDP is higher. 

 

The fact that the cores share resources, the exact same cache, etc means they the resources are split. Thus by disabling a core on each module gives better performance., proving that it is flawed and wasting resources on making the extra 4 "cores" on each module.

 

Which is why AMD's next line of desktop cpus ARE USING SMT ARCHITECTURE, the same as intel's.

 

[harrynowl]

AMD is flawed.

Well the idea is to get as much integer performance into as little a die space as possible, at the expense of floating point power. But the intention is to push FP off to the GPU as it's typically faster to do FP on a parallel processor. CMT was really about paving the way for a scalable APU architecture.

 

In multithreaded integer it does well

 

I wouldn't say the actual CMT design idea itself is flawed, just AMDs implementation of it on FX didn't work and they opted for a longer pipeline to clock higher on SOI and they should have started with the dual 256bit FPUs to begin with. And there was no onboard GPU for FP.

 

Zambezi was expected to clock 30% higher than Thuban- it got 7% higher.

 

It was built as a server arch anyway, so it's flawed for gamers/general use but not as a concept

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

Well the idea is to get as much integer performance into as little a die space as possible, at the expense of floating point power. But the intention is to push FP off to the GPU as it's typically faster to do FP on a parallel processor. CMT was really about paving the way for a scalable APU architecture.

 

I wouldn't say the actual CMT design idea itself is flawed, just AMDs implementation of it on FX didn't work and they opted for a longer pipeline to clock higher on SOI and they should have started with the dual 256bit FPUs to begin with..

It is flawed. The fact that the 'cores' use the same resources at the same time while being recognized as two individual cores, meaning it handicaps the performance of a individual core. The graphs prove it as the 4 module/4 core setup beat out the 4 module/8 core setup.

The FPU on the FX cpu is dual 128bit FPUs to form 1 256bit FPU.

 

Also the CMT architecture was designed before AMD had conceived the idea of the APU.

 

Thread scheduling on the FX cpu is still a major problem has the 2 cores on a module have to compete for resources.

 

Edit: The cpu also bottlenecks itself on intensive workloads, since 2 cores are using the same instruction decoder.

[PlayModeOn]

Because we are actually humans and have genuine issues when people post stuff like this. That wouldn't have happened had some self-congratulatory arsehole not lied to his face.

 

What do you mean by "genuine issues when people post stuff like this"?

I'm not good at english...

[PlayModeOn]

While you people talk about performance this is the sound of my FX-8350 right now

It runs hot and ramps the fan at 6000+ RPM

Intel stock fan any better?

 

 

EDIT: This is not my video!

[Majestic]

What do you mean by "genuine issues when people post stuff like this"?

I'm not good at english...

 

That I feel genuinly sad when I see those posts.

 

 

Intel stock fan any better?

 

It has twice less heat to dissipate, so yes, by miles.

[PlayModeOn]

That I feel genuinly sad when I see those posts.

Ah ok.

[harrynowl]

It is flawed. The fact that the 'cores' use the same resources at the same time while being recognized as two individual cores, meaning it handicaps the performance of a individual core. The graphs prove it as the 4 module/4 core setup beat out the 4 module/8 core setup.

 

Also the CMT architecture was designed before AMD had conceived the idea of the APU.

AMD started the whole "The future is fusion" (e.g. APU concept) thing a while ago, it's on boxes for CPUs I bought in 2008. AMD bought ATI back then for a reason.

 

There was a patch ages ago that fixed core scheduling in Windows to stop the individual core stuff.

 

Shared cache is fine, there's 2MB of L2 per module (Intel gives 256KB on Haswell), and both arch share the L3 so that's fine- the cache issue is with the speed.

 

And the scaling is 80% performance when both integer units in the module are active, so I assume as that's what the cinebench graphs show, it doesn't show the 4C 4T setup being faster in total multithreaded performance.

 

I'm not an AMD fanboy by any means I don't recommend the FX series to 98% of people but I don't think they're flawed because of the design approach, even if it was SMT it'd still be a slow CPU with weak single threaded performance and even weaker multithreaded performance (assuming highest CPU is 4c8t).

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

AMD started the whole "The future is fusion" (e.g. APU concept) thing a while ago, it's on boxes for CPUs I bought in 2008. AMD bought ATI back then for a reason.

 

There was a patch ages ago that fixed core scheduling in Windows to stop the individual core stuff.

 

Shared cache is fine, there's 2MB of L2 per module (Intel gives 256KB on Haswell), and both arch share the L3 so that's fine- the cache issue is with the speed.

 

And the scaling is 80% performance when both integer units in the module are active, so I assume as that's what the cinebench graphs show, it doesn't show the 4C 4T setup being faster in total multithreaded performance.

 

I'm not an AMD fanboy by any means I don't recommend the FX series to 98% of people but I don't think their flawed because of the design approach, even if it was SMT it'd still be a slow CPU with weak single threaded performance and even weaker multithreaded performance (assuming highest CPU is 4c8t).

If it was SMT, every core is individual and doesn't utilize the same cache and instruction decoder.

[harrynowl]

If it was SMT, every core is individual and doesn't utilize the same cache. 

L3 is shared on Intel CPU designs. That's the purpose of their smartcache tech

[Faceman]

While you people talk about performance this is the sound of my FX-8350 right now

It runs hot and ramps the fan at 6000+ RPM

Intel stock fan any better?

 

 

EDIT: This is not my video!

Dude, I could hear it all the way in the hallway at around 10s into the video!

 

The Intel stock cooler is not amazing by any stretch of the imagination, but it is better than the AMD one.  Its physics.  The FX8 CPU is 125W at stock, while the Intel i5 is 84/88W.

 

What I think Majestic meant by his earlier post is that we get angry when people are lied to.  Random people on the internet are being lied to saying the FX is fine, it runs all games just fine when there is evidence out there, freely available that refutes that.  We are trying to help people, and it is hard enough breaking through the persons own misconceptions, when we have to deal with people running around with nothing to back up their claims and lying about performance. "It worked just fine for me in my own world of games, so it will work just fine in the games you specifically enjoy too."  Nothing, and I mean nothing infuriates me more than people recommending FX processors when the person specifically states I play ARMA, or DayZ, or MMOs.

 

There is a lot of marketing jargon out there that tricks us consumers.  I work in marketing(different field), got my major in marketing, and I know the tricks that are being used, but it doesn't mean I'm immune to it.  I've been duped before, even after doing what I thought was good research, I still got duped when I finally got my hands on the product.

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

L3 is shared on Intel CPU designs. That's the purpose of their smartcache tech

except that, i was going to correct it.

[harrynowl]

except that, i was going to correct it.

well I stated that in my post, and I mentioned how I don't see the l2 being shared as an issue as even if you split the 2mb of l2 per module into 4 it's still double the l2 provided by intel to each of their cores

 

the issue with the cache on amd is that it's barely faster than RAM

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

well I stated that in my post, and I mentioned how I don't see the l2 being shared as an issue as even if you split the 2mb of l2 per module into 4 it's still double the l2 provided by intel to each of their cores

 

the issue with the cache on amd is that it's barely faster than RAM

And the issue with the one instruction decoder being used by 2 cores?

[harrynowl]

And the issue with the one instruction decoder being used by 2 cores?

Guess that'd tie into this

 

And the scaling is 80% performance when both integer units in the module are active, so I assume as that's what the cinebench graphs show, it doesn't show the 4C 4T setup being faster in total multithreaded performance.

[CDHoward]

Again, we have a thread of bitter Intel users sneering at the AMD FX.

[Faa]

Again, we have a thread of bitter Intel users sneering at the AMD FX.

We aren't bashing AMD FX, we're bashing here the lies people keep spreading. Intel is just the better choice for price/performance for gaming and you only have to accept it and not come to us "AMD is fine, you fanboy, only few more fps, 200$ is cheaper than 200$" when the freaking question was which is better. I'll give you a good example of what kinda lies people here spray;

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/48571-intel-amd-architectural-discussion-how-far-ahead-is-intel/

All benchmarks he included AMD won. Only used that GameGPU as source when 500 other sources are saying the opposite while matching each others result even.

Here that guy salesman managed to sell the OP a 8320; http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/79053-fx-8320-vs-i5-3570k-and-new-mobo/

Halfyear later the OP was reporting CPU bottlenecks; http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/230750-issues-with-fx-8320/

Later on the OP upgraded to a 4670K and showed the difference; http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/245290-fx8320-to-i5-4670k-performance-gains/

When I joined this forum, everyone was literally spamming the thread with 8320 nonsense in any 4670K vs 8350 thread, haven't even seen a single guy recommending the i5. I was literally the only one who was recommending the i5, can't even remember a guy going with the 8350 anymore since I joined this forum, proving all AMD fanatics wrong hence why they hate me like shit. Theyve even gone down to the level of fabricating benchmarks. Many of the people who have advertised the shit out of the 8350 have upgraded to Intel and you'll do the same soon.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

 

I grow tired of this "i run everything fine" argument,  shove it already. It's been said 2x10^6 times now; noone is saying they run games at 3fps, the i5's are just objectively more bang for buck when it comes to gaming. 

All you're doing is patting yourself on the back for making "the right decision". Because you possibly cannot be wrong for opting into the FX. No no, that's ignorant.

 

That's life, deal with it. And stupid memes only cause inflamatory responses.

 

ALOT of assumptions going on there fella. i own both intel and amd and im sick of all the hate amd recieves from intel fanboys who never used a fx.  

 

intel fanboys gonna fanboy lol. amd is a good chip that loses to intel on synthetic benchmarks but in real world usage its not a big difference at all.   who cares if it takes my cpu 8 minutes to render something that 4790k can render in 7 minutes.

 

so what the i5 get better fps in games..its mostly 1-5 fps and once again who cares when you're already over 100fps.

 

these guys go out of thier way trying to convince you amd suck cause it gets outperformed by 15% of intels best cpus. they wont credit it for being better than 85% of cpus out there lol

 

"ohhh 10 different cpus perform better than the 8350 so amd sucks "  <-----fate,faa,faceman lol

[harrynowl]

ALOT of assumptions going on there fella. i own both intel and amd and im sick of all the hate amd recieves from intel fanboys who never used a fx.  

 

intel fanboys gonna fanboy lol. amd is a good chip that loses to intel on synthetic benchmarks but in real world usage its not a big difference at all.   who cares if it takes my cpu 8 minutes to render something that 4790k can render in 7 minutes.

 

so what the i5 get better fps in games..its mostly 1-5 fps and once again who cares when you're already over 100fps.

 

these guys go out of thier way trying to convince you amd suck cause it gets outperformed by 15% of intels best cpus. they wont credit it for being better than 85% of cpus out there lol

 

"ohhh 10 different cpus perform better than the 8350 so amd sucks "  <-----fate,faa,faceman lol

You've yet to provide a supporting benchmark/source