Best AMD Cpu vs Intel i7 980

[Sintezza]

i7-980 better then a FX9590 in streaming?

 

meh idk lol.

 

i would say post some proof for those claims.

 

In terms of raw rendering performance the 6 core 12 threads, would theoreticly be faster.

However this still higly depends on which rendering application you are using.

[Sintezza]

Core 2 duos beat FX in single threaded performance at the same clock speed...

 

Thats a realy funny statement.

 

infact, i have a FX8350 and a core 2 quad rig.

And do you realy think that the core 2 quad is better then the FX8350?

 

No fucking way.

 

The FX8350 is better in everything i have trown to it.

its not even close, i´m sorry

[Hieb]

i7-980 better then a FX9590 in streaming?

 

meh idk lol.

 

i would say post some proof for those claims.

 

In terms of raw rendering performance the 6 core 12 threads, would theoreticly be faster.

However this still higly depends on which rendering application you are using.

 

Well this is the only video I've found that includes streaming benchmarks, so I'll leave it here... doesn't go too in-depth so take anything in it with a grain of salt.

 

Streaming benches start at about 16 and a half mins into the video.

If an 8320/8350 @ 4.4GHz performs worse than a 4670K in streaming, I imagine the same would be the case when comparing an FX 8350 to an i7-980, and likewise a 9590 to an overclocked i7-980.

[Sintezza]

Well this is the only video I've found that includes streaming benchmarks, so I'll leave it here... doesn't go too in-depth so take anything in it with a grain of salt.

 

 

Streaming benches start at about 16 and a half mins into the video.

If an 8320/8350 @ 4.4GHz performs worse than a 4670K in streaming, I imagine the same would be the case when comparing an FX 8350 to an i7-980, and likewise a 9590 to an overclocked i7-980.

 

No, the i7-980 is realy an old cpu, and has realy slow cores.

you cannot compair a haswell cpu to an old first gen i7 core for core performance.

Its a diffrence from night and day realy.

[Hieb]

Thats a realy funny statement.

 

infact, i have a FX8350 and a core 2 quad rig.

And do you realy think that the core 2 quad is better then the FX8350?

 

No fucking way.

 

The FX8350 is better in everything i have trown to it.

its not even close, i´m sorry

 

Of course... that would be similar to comparing an FX-4300 to an FX-8350. Of course the 8350 is better. The Core 2 Quads are quite slow IPC, comparable to Piledriver. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q9650-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-740#performance (Q9650 @ 3GHz / Athlon 740 @ 3.2GHz)

 

He said apples to apples. That is comparing an i5 to an FX-8350, for example, the number of cores doesn't matter much because each of the i5's cores are leaps and bounds better than each of the FX-8350's (along with cache and memory performance)... so comparing the number of cores isn't a great mode of comparison due to the huge discrepancy in core performance.

 

But comparing an i7-4790K to an i7-5960X, or an FX-4300 to an FX-8350 then it makes sense to count the # of cores.

[Dabombinable]

Thats a realy funny statement.

 

infact, i have a FX8350 and a core 2 quad rig.

And do you realy think that the core 2 quad is better then the FX8350?

 

No fucking way.

 

The FX8350 is better in everything i have trown to it.

its not even close, i´m sorry

Switch that to a Core 2 Duo E8500, and overclock it to 4GHz. It easily surpasses the FX 8350. Core 2 Quads were known for being weaker at single core performance anyway. (Single threaded remember, the extra cores of the FX 8350 make a massive difference in all other tests).

[Hieb]

No, the i7-980 is realy an old cpu, and has realy slow cores.

you cannot compair a haswell cpu to an old first gen i7 core for core performance.

Its a diffrence from night and day realy.

 

Of course, but the 980 has superior multi-threaded performance (albeit not by a huge margin) than the 4670K... so if the implications here are that the FX-9590 would be better than the i7-980 due to multi-threaded performance, it doesn't really add up considering the 4670K has better streaming performance than the 8350, and the 980 has better multi-threaded performance than 4670K.

 

i7 980 has slightly better IPC than FX CPUs (not a big difference)... so six 980 cores overclocked, plus hyper-threading, would likely outperform an FX-8350/9590 in streaming and gaming.

[Sintezza]

Of course, but the 980 has superior multi-threaded performance (albeit not by a huge margin) than the 4670K... so if the implications here are that the FX-9590 would be better than the i7-980 due to multi-threaded performance, it doesn't really add up considering the 4670K has better streaming performance than the 8350, and the 980 has better multi-threaded performance than 4670K.

 

i7 980 has slightly better IPC than FX CPUs (not a big difference)... so six 980 cores overclocked, plus hyper-threading, would likely outperform an FX-8350/9590 in streaming and gaming.

 

Well its basicly very simple, you cannot realy compair a FX cpu which are 3 year old architecture to todays haswell i7´s.

But since amd has nothing else in the market right now. You can only compair those 2 basicly.

the 4790K will be better then a FX9590 in streaming + gaming, and in some rendering applications, especialy adobe.

 

But that wasnt realy the point of the topic i suppose

[Sintezza]

Switch that to a Core 2 Duo E8500, and overclock it to 4GHz. It easily surpasses the FX 8350. Core 2 Quads were known for being weaker at single core performance anyway. (Single threaded remember, the extra cores of the FX 8350 make a massive difference in all other tests).

 

same cpu same architecture?

How can it have weaker single threaded performance, if i dont look at the clock speed for an instance?

[Dabombinable]

yes its basicly very simple, you cannot realy compair a FX cpu which are 3 year old architecture to todays haswell i7´s.

But since amd has nothing else in the market right now. You can only compair those 2 basicly.

 

the 4790K will be better then a FX9590 in streaming + gaming, and in some rendering applications.

BTW, this is the 3rd or 4th time I've done this:

CPU Performance Tests

System Configurations

That is my evidence, what do you have other than hearsay? (Damn shame I fried my old mobo, the replacement should also allow me to compare an Xeon X5450 (QX9775 is the lower binned non-server version) @ 4GHz to all of the other CPUs in the list).

[Dabombinable]

same cpu same architecture?

How can it have weaker single threaded performance, if i dont look at the clock speed for an instance?

I do my research. Check what I found when I was initially comparing GPU-CPU bottlenecks with my GTX 970 and the Core 2 Duo E8500.

[Sintezza]

I do my research. Check what I found when I was initially comparing GPU-CPU bottlenecks with my GTX 970 and the Core 2 Duo E8500.

 

its not that i dont believe you dont get me wrong.

But i have experianced diffrently with my core 2 quad.

So thats why i´m asking for an explanation.

 

jumping from the core 2 quad to the FX8350 was realy a huge diffrence for me personaly.

main tasks run allot better, installing things goes allot faster.

Windows feels snappier, everything loads up quicker.

Writing to disks goes faster due faster better sata controllers and what not.

Also every game that i play runned better.

Zipping / unzipping was faster, encoding video was faster.

Virtualization, multiple VM´s, worked better.

 

THe only thing which runned better on the core 2 quad, was adobe Flash player.

[Dabombinable]

its not that i dont believe you dont get me wrong.

But i have experianced diffrently with my core 2 quad.

So thats why i´m asking for an explanation.

As I said, Core 2 Quads were known to be slower in single threaded tasks than a Core 2 Duo. And because the Core 2 Quads had 4 cores single threaded performance wasn't quite as important.

[Sintezza]

As I said, Core 2 Quads were known to be slower in single threaded tasks than a Core 2 Duo. And because the Core 2 Quads had 4 cores single threaded performance wasn't quite as important.

 

Thats the question, what is the diffrence between the core to duo and core 2 quad then?

if they are the same architecture?

 

Because i also have worked with a core to duo cpu. (dont know the exact model no anymore)

And its also no where near a FX8350, as far as my experiance goes.

i experianced the core 2 duo and core 2 quad as realy slow, compaired to my current FX8350.

 

like i said the only thing which runned smoother on the core 2 quad, where flash games on facebook.

Which i still dont realy understand why..

 

But thats more related to the issue, that i have with my current mobo.

high DP latency, between lan and sound chips, due crappy realtek lan chips.

[Dabombinable]

Thats the question, what is the diffrence between the core to duo and core 2 quad then?

if they are the same architecture?

 

Because i also have worked with a core to duo cpu. (dont know the exact model no anymore)

And its also no where near a FX8350, as far as my experiance goes.

i experianced the core 2 duo and core 2 quad as realy slow, compaired to my current FX8350.

 

like i said the only thing which runned smoother on the core 2 quad was flash.

Which i still dont realy understand why..

The reason flash ran smoother was because the cores themselves were faster than the ones of the FX 8350. Don't get me wrong Core 2 Quads are good cpus, but I've found that with my Xeon (OC'd to 3.25GHz-only dedicated LGA 775 coolers will seat properly on the CPU-it overheated with a liquid cooler), caused a 29% GPU bottleneck and whilst it ran games smoother than the E8500. In tasks that require more than 2 cores (4 with your Core 2 Quad) the FX 8350 will be faster. And remember that when I was doing comparisons I was going off my 4GHz overclock which dramatically increased the single thread performance.

[Sintezza]

well the thing is. in Windows 8.1 pro i dont have any issues with flash and it runs smoothly.

i do know that the problem is related to Windows 7, and the audio service audiodg.exe

Flash games with audio, causing the audiodg.exe service to ramp up the cpu, and then the flash game starts to lag.

This is caused due high DP latency.

Windows 8.1 doesnt have that particular audio service.

 

Unfortunatly there is not much to do about this issue.

Thats why i said facebook flash games runned better on my core to quad.

Because that system did not had this particular issue.

And honnestly, im still very dissapointed about that.

The only solution would be running windows 8.1 which i hate, or buying an AM3+ board with intel lan.

But for me its not worth it, to invest in a 3 year old dead am3+ platform anymore.

 

I allready decided to switch to intel by the way.

Since i´m doing allot of virtualization, i basicly have my eye on a 5820k setup.

4790k wont be interessting for me

 

p.s i´m sorry for going offtopic by the way

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

 

*snip

 

bro, i admit you guys are right about alot of things

 

i admit buying amd's fx line is pointless now with intels new line up being close to price, im going to be upgrading soon to intel unless amd comes with something much better.

 

i also admit op would be making a huge mistake crossing over from the 980 to fx. its a waste of money for a downgrade...but its not that much of one is all i was saying.

 

it seems that everyday im here i am battling in a amd/intel war and im not interested in that.  so i will say that you guys win the war and yes intel is better but also say fx 8350 is still a solid cpu.

 

the fx 8350 is still better than at least 70% of all cpus out there,in my definition that is not "crap" but not the best either.

[Guest DollarPC]

Take it from the AMD fanboy:

FX-8320

FX-8370

FX-9370

FX-9590

[i_build_nanosuits]

well the thing is. in snip!

just read the thread we have proven this i7 is vastly superior both in single thread and multi thread performance...good read

 

edit: in fact just read my posts in page 3 and 4

[BurgerBum]

the i7 980 beats any amd fx cpu both in single thread and multithread performance . and it overclocks very good .amd is absent in the high end cpu market

currently! hopefully soon they'll release a badass new cpu thingy like they used to. ^~^

[BurgerBum]

i can assure you that's not what he's thinking, or implying.

i hate it when people do that... >_> 

its like ''yeah just cause im considering it doesnt mean im an idiot like you think everyone else is...............................

 

 

( not posted to insult or assume that anyone is thinking anything of one another, just stating what goes through my head when people assume becaues im considering a certian brand that im inexperienced.

[arnavvr]

The only upgrade you would be doing would be to a i7-5960X, as the 980 still has 6 cores 12 threads

[79wjd]

currently! hopefully soon they'll release a badass new cpu thingy like they used to. ^~^

Not until at least 2016.

The only upgrade you would be doing would be to a i7-5960X, as the 980 still has 6 cores 12 threads

a 5820k would also be a massive improvement. 

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

just read the thread we have proven this i7 is vastly superior both in single thread and multi thread performance...good read

 

edit: in fact just read my posts in page 3 and 4

 

when overclocked yes, at stock..not so much

 

passmark score

 

single core speed

 

 

once again..when overclocked the 980 will surpass it easily.

i only posted these because not everyone overclocks.

[arnavvr]

Not until at least 2016.

a 5820k would also be a massive improvement. 

 

How... there are both Intel CPU's that have 6 cores 12 threads, I would only upgrade if you want things like M.2 and Sata Express