Best AMD Cpu vs Intel i7 980

[Dabombinable]

nope

 

i have owned both core 2 quad and core 2 duo my self.

And nothing executes faster on a Q2Q.

Prove your experience then, photos of the CPU and motherboard, then screen shots of the benchmarks. I could easily do that right now (might need to get more thermal paste though).

Edit: While I'm at it, look here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

and that isn't being done by review sites but by someone who is doing a straight comparison.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

dudes all im gonna say is my xeon e5450 (which is pretty much a core2quad q9650 but much better overclocking abilities) gets its ass kicked by my 8350 in everything. even when i clocked it to 4ghz,it still stumbled in areas where my fx did not. it would heavily bottleneck my 280x to the point my gpu usage would be in the 30% range.

 

ask anyone whos owned a core2quad or 771 xeons if they would bottleneck a 280x,they'll say yes. even if someone got dual socket 771 motherboard and ran 2 xeons it wouldnt be better because its ram is slow as hell and its pcie gen is 1 and it lacks so many new updated extended instructions,you have to load micro bios just to have sse4. its slower in everything or i would have never upgraded.

 

i know people love to make amd look like they are shit..but they beat core2quads easily...cmon now

[Sintezza]

cinebench does.

 

 

I talked about Cinebench multithreaded offcourse.

 

I dont have a spare HDD laying arround to built into the C2Q to doe single threaded tests.

But lets say those graphs are vallid (which seems like if i look at the single threaded scores)

then it means that cinebench single threaded does run better on the c2q.

 

So for that part you are basicly right, and i´m wrong.

simple is that

 

Multithreaded, the FX8350 simply wins by a huge amount.

And in rendering applications, so as we simulate with Cinebench, the FX8350 is better.

Because rendering real world is mostly multi threaded.

 

Everyone can create or simulate unrealistic situations, like a dual C2Q vs a single FX8350.

Yea sure the dual C2Q wins duh.

 

But in the real world, real performance in applications.

As far as my experiance goes with both cpu´s.

The FX8350 feels better in everything that i do with my system.

 

Offcourse there could be some specific applications, or situations, that a C2Q is better.

So wenn i say the FX8350 is better in everything, You are right, thats a wrong claim from me.

Because i only talk about the experiance that i have with both systems, i dont do "everything" with my systems offcourse.

 

Still its very awfull to see the 4690K kicking the living shit out of the FX8350 single core´d lol.

But yeah, that isnt an supprice lol.

[Dabombinable]

dudes all im gonna say is my xeon e5450 (which is pretty much a core2quad q9650 but much better overclocking abilities) gets its ass kicked by my 8350 in everything. even when i clocked it to 4ghz,it still stumbled in areas where my fx did not. it would heavily bottleneck my 280x to the point my gpu usage would be in the 30% range.

 

ask anyone whos owned a core2quad or 771 xeons if they would bottleneck a 280x,they'll say yes. even if someone got dual socket 771 motherboard and ran 2 xeons it would wouldnt be better because its ram is slow as hell and its pcie gen is 1.

 

i know people love to make amd look like they are shit..but they beat core2quads easily...cmon now

I already explained why that happens, and try comparing a 2012 FX 6300 to a X5450/E5450, they perform about the same with the Xeon getting more performance when overclocked than the FX 6300 overclocked. And the FX 6300 is 4 years newer! And with older CPUs do not forget that LGA775 motherboards can take a socket 771 AND can be bought with PCIe 2.0. Plus there is the fact that RAM speed has little impact in games.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

I already explained why that happens, and try comparing a 2012 FX 6300 to a X5450/E5450, they perform about the same with the Xeon getting more performance when overclocked than the FX 6300 overclocked. And the FX 6300 is 4 years newer! And with older CPUs do not forget that LGA775 motherboards can take a socket 771 AND can be bought with PCIe 2.0. Plus there is the fact that RAM speed has little impact in games.

oh yes a SINGLE xeon works great on my old GA-EP45T-UD3LR it had ddr3 1600 and pcie 2...and still lost to 8350. i was referring to someone who uses dual socket motherboards which there is no 775 one only 771.

[Dabombinable]

oh yes a SINGLE xeon works great on my old GA-EP45T-UD3LR it had ddr3 1600 and pcie 2...and still lost to 8350. i was referring to someone who uses dual socket motherboards which there is no 775 one only 771.

AGAIN, I explained why that is, and I did tell you compare to an FX 6300, which is also 4 years newer than the Xeon. And do not forget that those dual socket motherboards are intended for servers, which is why they have old features.

[Faa]

lol But the FX8350 still kicks the living shit out of that Q2Q with 22k cpu score.

Like you broaght your evidence of that your self lol.

 

THe FX8350 kicks the living shit out of a core 2 quad in everything.

 

Even with those dual Q2Q 880 cinebench R15 points or something lol.

thats 440 per Q2Q. lol

FX8320 still scores significantly higher even at stock speeds, then a core 2 quad lol.

And dont come with dual core 2 quads vs a FX8350, becauses thats 8 cores vs 8 cores, thats offcourse the biggest BS ive ever readed.

 

Like i said the FX8350 is simply faster then a core 2 quad.

You can keep ignoring it, but you have delivered that evidence your self.

 

Like i said, you lost this battle.

Everyone here knows a 8350 has far better multithreaded performance than a single C2Q, I'm showing you here two C2Q's on a dual socket board which the 9590/8350 completely loses.

To confirm those are two QX9775 -> http://hwbot.org/submission/774107_hybridchiller_3dmark_vantage___performance_radeon_hd_3870_x2_9850_marks/

[i_build_nanosuits]

I talked about Cinebench multithreaded offcourse.

 

I dont have a spare HDD laying arround to built into the C2Q to doe single threaded tests.

But lets say those graphs are vallid (which seems like if i look at the single threaded scores)

then it means that cinebench single threaded does run better on the c2q.

 

So for that part you are basicly right, and i´m wrong.

simple is that

 

Multithreaded, the FX8350 simply wins by a huge amount.

And in rendering applications, so as we simulate with Cinebench, the FX8350 is better.

Because rendering real world is mostly multi threaded.

 

Everyone can create or simulate unrealistic situations, like a dual C2Q vs a single FX8350.

Yea sure the dual C2Q wins duh.

 

But in the real world, real performance in applications.

As far as my experiance goes with both cpu´s.

The FX8350 feels better in everything that i do with my system.

 

Offcourse there could be some specific applications, or situations, that a C2Q is better.

So wenn i say the FX8350 is better in everything, You are right, thats a wrong claim from me.

Because i only talk about the experiance that i have with both systems, i dont do "everything" with my systems offcourse.

don't go mad i know i owned a 3.6Ghz Q6600 (won't take no more, hardly stable) and the upgrade to a 4.6GHZ FX-8320 (ceiling for this CPU: 4.93ghz with proper cooler and motherboard) was really a huge step-up in just about everything, the FX has more cache, faster cache, support newer instruction sets and what not.

Also it's quite hard to run a Q9650 @ 4.2ghz like that they are not meant for that and i must question the stability in the long term of this overclock where as the FX is a fish in water at 4.2ghz...

[Sintezza]

Everyone here knows a 8350 has far better multithreaded performance than a single C2Q, I'm showing you here two C2Q's on a dual socket board which the 9590/8350 completely loses.

To confirm those are two QX9775 -> http://hwbot.org/submission/774107_hybridchiller_3dmark_vantage___performance_radeon_hd_3870_x2_9850_marks/

 

 

No im not stupid lol.

Offcourse the dual c2q´s demollish a FX8350 in multithreaded.

They even score better then a 4770K on stock lols.

 

You totaly got your point dont get me wrong.

But i was talking about straight up compairisson.

 

If we gonne talk about vishera vs haswell, which makes more sense to me personaly now days.

Then it isnt a secret, that haswell blows vishera out of the watter any day of the week.

Vishera is just realy getting old.

Thats one of the reasons i stopped recommending FX cpu´s for gaming rigs a long time ago.

Because even a FX9590, simply gets beated by a locked i5 at 3.4Ghz.

[Sintezza]

don't go mad i know i owned a 3.6Ghz Q6600 (won't take no more, hardly stable) and the upgrade to a 4.6GHZ FX-8320 (ceiling for this CPU: 4.93ghz with proper cooler and motherboard) was really a huge step-up in just about everything, the FX has more cache, faster cache, support newer instruction sets and what not.

Also it's quite hard to run a Q9650 @ 4.2ghz like that they are not meant for that and i must question the stability in the long term of this overclock where as the FX is a fish in water at 4.2ghz...

 

Well im not going to argue.

I switched to FX8350 in 2012 after a core 2 quad, and it felt as a huge step forward.

 

But just a simple and hard truth, that the single core performance of an FX is simply awfull, compaired to haswell.

Even multithreaded haswell is realy better.

 

The problem with AMD is that they stood still too long realy.

Like i said the only vallid reason, i still use the FX is because those 8 cores realy bennefiting me in Virtualization.

 

But thats it.

 

I will switch asap.

[Dabombinable]

Well im not going to argue.

I switched to FX8350 in 2012 after a core 2 quad, and it felt as a huge step forward.

 

But just a simple and hard truth, that the single core performance of an FX is simply awfull, compaired to haswell.

Even multithreaded haswell is realy better.

 

The problem with AMD is that they stood still too long realy.

Like i said the only vallid reason, i still use the FX is because those 8 cores realy bennefiting me in Virtualization.

 

But thats it.

 

I will switch asap.

Well the Q6600 is an early quad core don't forget, you'd have noticed a large boost in performane just by going to the Extreme range.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well the Q6600 is an early quad core don't forget, you'd have noticed a large boost in performane just by going to the Extreme range.

7% if you run them at the same clock speed side by side...i wouldnt consider this a ''large boost'' by any means..

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=50

But the Q9XXX chips should theoraticaly overclock higher so i don't know...it's an ''okay'' boost i guess...but nothing ground breaking.

[Faa]

No im not stupid lol.

Offcourse the dual c2q´s demollish a FX8350 in multithreaded.

They even score better then a 4770K on stock lols.

 

You totaly got your point dont get me wrong.

But i was talking about straight up compairisson.

 

If we gonne talk about vishera vs haswell, which makes more sense to me personaly now days.

Then it isnt a secret, that haswell blows vishera out of the watter any day of the week.

Vishera is just realy getting old.

Thats one of the reasons i stopped recommending FX cpu´s for gaming rigs a long time ago.

Because even a FX9590, simply gets beated by a locked i5 at 3.4Ghz.

Well a Q9550 gets like a 8-10K CPU score at stock in 3dmark vantage, overclocked by 1.2GHz it hits 16K.

40% OC with a 60% performance boost that's quite massive, I always found those CPU's actually special. At stock extremely outdated performance, when overclocked to 4GHz+ they were literally beasts. In 3dmark vantage it was the difference between a CPU bottleneck and a GPU bottleneck on a 6950 for me, biggest disadvantage of C2Q's were limited multipliers and you needed fast RAM to achieve higher clocks along with a proper board that had LLC (which many didn't - I had to give 1.55V in to get 1.37V in prime >.>). CPU would have most likely hitted 4.4GHz  if I had the right board and faster RAM. C2Q stock vs Vishera stock, Vishera wins obviously, when both of them are at 4.5GHz I doubt Vishera would do good enough considering it's an architecture that's 7 years newer.

All CPU's at 4GHz;

 

Even Phenom struggles badly which has more IPC than Vishera. If you haven't brought a new CPU out with more IPC in 7 years time or so, you can your CPU's turning somehow to be trutly laughable. CPU monopoly is all about IPC, Intel can throw 500 cores at you but it will take them a year or two giving you a 10% stronger core. CPU's shouldn't be judged based on the multithreaded performance. When BD/Vishera got released, after seeing the IPC I told everyone it's a dead CPU and it will never futureproof itself. Rather than multithreaded performance being the future, it's just literally singlethreaded performance just being the future how ironic. I wouldn't buy a 100 core AMD CPU at 250MHz 1000W thing for 800$, would have better multithreaded performance than a 5960x but what are you going to do with that many cores if launching your browser takes 30 seconds? Anyways AMD 8xxx/9xxx CPU's don't deserve any love especially if you can get better performance for a lower price, they're horrible products 99% of the time and in terms of value.

When are you switching? You gotta start bashing FX CPU's

[Dabombinable]

Well a Q9550 gets like a 8-10K CPU score at stock in 3dmark vantage, overclocked by 1.2GHz it hits 16K.

40% OC with a 60% performance boost that's quite massive, I always found those CPU's actually special. At stock extremely outdated performance, when overclocked to 4GHz+ they were literally beasts. In 3dmark vantage it was the difference between a CPU bottleneck and a GPU bottleneck on a 6950 for me, biggest disadvantage of C2Q's were limited multipliers and you needed fast RAM to achieve higher clocks along with a proper board that had LLC (which many didn't - I had to give 1.55V in to get 1.37V in prime >.>). CPU would have most likely hitted 4.4GHz  if I had the right board and faster RAM. C2Q stock vs Vishera stock, Vishera wins obviously, when both of them are at 4.5GHz I doubt Vishera would do good enough considering it's an architecture that's 7 years newer.

All CPU's at 4GHz;

 

Even Phenom struggles badly which has more IPC than Vishera. If you haven't brought a new CPU out with more IPC in 7 years time or so, you can your CPU's turning somehow to be trutly laughable. CPU monopoly is all about IPC, Intel can throw 500 cores at you but it will take them a year or two giving you a 10% stronger core. CPU's shouldn't be judged based on the multithreaded performance. When BD/Vishera got released, after seeing the IPC I told everyone it's a dead CPU and it will never futureproof itself. Rather than multithreaded performance being the future, it's just literally singlethreaded performance just being the future how ironic. I wouldn't buy a 100 core AMD CPU at 250MHz 1000W thing for 800$, would have better multithreaded performance than a 5960x but what are you going to do with that many cores if launching your browser takes 30 seconds? Anyways AMD 8xxx/9xxx CPU's don't deserve any love especially if you can get better performance for a lower price, they're horrible products 99% of the time and in terms of value.

When are you switching? You gotta start bashing FX CPU's

Well a dual Xeon rig, with the CPUs overclocked to 4GHz or higher = FX 8350 getting beaten by 8 true cores that are 4 years older and fabricated with a larger process. AMD really needs to give up on their computer designed CPUs as they are getting hurt in the CPU market.

[Demonking]

 

Difference is a few more multipliers that's all, FSB can still be heavily overclocked on a 980, so other than the extra multipliers theyre exactly the same.

 

The Teksyndicate video was proven to be fabricated and paid by AMD. No retard, will ever claim AMD's singlethreaded performance is 4x faster than Intel when a freaking half million people watched that video unless you're paid to do so.

 

Who proved it to be fake & they got paid off ?

[Sintezza]

When are you switching? You gotta start bashing FX CPU's

 

 

i´m aiming for March, i still a bit debating on going with a 4790K and keep the FX for my Virtualization projects.

Or just go all the way, and grab a 5820k lol.

 

Also looking for a 380X or 390X, hope they come soon.

So i will still keep a little piece of AMD, if i go all the way lol

[Faa]

Who proved it to be fake & they got paid off ?

Logic

[i_build_nanosuits]

Who proved it to be fake & they got paid off ?

 

Logic

of course those videos paid for pistol's FX9590 why do you think they promote that piece of shit to anybody willing to listen...come on!..he also got two r9 280x (or hd7970 cant remember)

[I/O]

of course those videos paid for pistol's FX9590 why do you think they promote that piece of shit to anybody willing to listen...come on!..he also got two r9 280x (or hd7970 cant remember)

Logan has an Intel i7 now because he said "he want's the best" his words. Logan also has a 980 now. Pistol is rocking the FX 9590 cause Logan gave her no other choice LOL.

[-iSynthesis]

And the 980 was always the better performer. It makes you wonder how AMD prices their CPUs.

I feel bad for the people that bought it at 900$

[Sintezza]

of course those videos paid for pistol's FX9590 why do you think they promote that piece of shit to anybody willing to listen...come on!..he also got two r9 280x (or hd7970 cant remember)

 

Non of Logans videos about AMD cpu´s where paid off.

 

Infact, AMD didn´t even respond to any of the video´s.

They also never sended any stuf to test.

They have boaght the FX9590 just for the lols.

 

Also Logan allways had an intel system himself.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Non of Logans videos about AMD cpu´s where paid off.

 

Infact, AMD didn´t even respond to any of the video´s.

They also never sended any stuf to test.

 

They have boaght the FX9590 just for the lols.

still...to this day teksyndicate is the ONLY source that has come up with such numbers...i find that pretty interesting :huh:

[Sintezza]

still...to this day teksyndicate is the ONLY source that has come up with such numbers...i find that pretty interesting :huh:

 

Which numbers?

 

The Xplit streaming numbers, where not that interessting.

Xplit runned better on AMD then on sandy and ivybridge that time.

 

But we talk about 2 year old video´s.

Time´s and technology have changed, also for streaming.

Those video´s where not about gaming generaly, but gaming + streaming with xplit

 

In pure gaming the ivybridge cpu´s where better.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Which numbers?

 

The Xplit streaming numbers, where not that interessting.

Xplit runned better on AMD then on sandy and ivybridge that time.

 

But we talk about 2 year old video´s.

Time´s and technology have changed, also for streaming.

Those video´s where not about gaming generaly, but gaming + streaming with xplit.

 

In pure gaming the intel ivybridge cpu´s did better

talking about THESE numbers:

[Sintezza]

talking about THESE numbers:

 

 

Crysis 3 is a heavaly GPU bound game, it will perform very similar on both AMD an intel cpu´s for that matter.

There is nothing strange on those numbers.

Because ti was single player.

 

Dont forget that the 7970Ghz was the limited factor, and not the CPU.

But it was the fastest GPU out there that time.

 

Wenn playing Crysis 3 multiplayer, then you will become GPU + cpu bound, and then the numbers will be slightly diffrent.