If Intel weren't a monopoly, would Hyper-Threading be considered junk?

[Faa]

Intel literally sells $1000 CPU's.  I don't know how you can say they don't have premium prices.  Yes, there are cheaper options in their product line, but they absolutely put huge price barriers between their low end/mid range components and their high end ones.  I'm sure AMD would too, if they had competitive chips at that level. (They seemed to have wanted to do it with the 9590 which was pretty laughable.)  But more competition would mean more aggressive pricing from intel, just like how as AMD became more competitive in the GPU market we started to see Nvidia become more competitive in pricing.

You're forgetting a few things,

- Intel sells a 8core/16 threads 2.4GHz for 670$; http://ark.intel.com/products/83356/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2630-v3-20M-Cache-2_40-GHz

- AMD CPU's that are the closest to the 5960x are the Opterons which cost 1000$ as well and perform way worse and overclock dramatically worse

- A 5960x can be overclocked if youre lucky to 5GHz matching what a 12 core's multithreaded performance?

 

 

Anyway, 8350 was great value for a lot of people in 2012 and even 2013 when it was going up against the 2500k/2600k/3570k/3770k.  

 

It wasn't, 2500K's MSRP was 200$ so was a 8350. A 8150 was released at 250$, later on cutted down to 200$ after the reviews bashed them for releasing a horrible product. 

 

 

It was a great value chip for youtubers, streamers etc and gaming performance was more than adequate for a lot of people running mid range cards. (And still is, quite frankly.)  Comparing it to intel's offerings today isn't fair, because it's a 3 year old chip on 4 year old architecture.  I'd be more concerned in a modern dual core didn't beat a 4 year old architecture that wasn't very impressive to begin with.

 

So was the 4300, 6300 that literally performed jack the same as the 8350 so saying the 8350 is a good value when you can get the same gaming performance for half the price is totally illogical. Streaming? Sorry no, there's no proof they were good enough for streaming.

A 2500K at the 8350's clock would have been easily 50% here, so if you're streaming playing at 60 fps on a 2500K, you'd be playing at 30 fps with a 8350. The 8350 hardly had any competition with i5 nehalem, so saying it was a good alternative to the 2500K is totally laughable. Lets not argue about being CPU or GPU limited, plenty of games that are CPU limited there aren't even any benchmarks for, many people were still using 720p monitors so being CPU limited is more common there.

Review June 2011; http://www.bjorn3d.com/2011/06/sli-tests-intel-sandy-bridge-vs-amd-phenom-ii/

8350 was not better than the Phenom X6.

 

Comparing it to intel's offerings today isn't fair, because it's a 3 year old chip on 4 year old architecture.  

 

How so? Haswell added 10% performance clock-for-clock over Ivy Bridge, ofc we shouldn't compare an Ivy Bridge + 10% or a Sandy Bridge + 20% with a 8350 because it's not fair but whenever AMD updates Bulldozer which was trutly seen as a major fail with Vishera with 5% more IPC while cheating it's ass off with laughable power consumption and clock speeds it's all good to a point AMD fanboys are fabricating benchmarks. If we're playing like that, Vishera should be compared to Conroe. Conroe is the only CPU that's fair to compare Vishera with.

[sgloux3470]

 

 

How so? Haswell added 10% performance clock-for-clock over Ivy Bridge,

 

 

Because when it comes to gaming, there is a performance ceiling in most engines.  That's why you'll often see a whole whack of differently clocked CPU's get the same framerate +/- 1-5%.  Upgrading from Sandy Bridge still doesn't make any sense for gaming.  You want to talk about how the 8350 performs the same in gaming as a 4300, why don't you go talk about how how a 4960x performs the same as a 4 year old i5 2500k. (Okay that's not fair, they're GPU bottlenecked.  But my point is that there isn't really a GPU config that requires anything more than a lowly 2500k.)

[Dabombinable]

Comparing it to intel's offerings today isn't fair, because it's a 3 year old chip on 4 year old architecture.  I'd be more concerned in a modern dual core didn't beat a 4 year old architecture that wasn't very impressive to begin with.

I compared an FX 8350 to a 4 year older Core 2 Duo E8500. The E8500 has a higher IPC, with its single thread performance at 4GHz being better than that of the FX 8350.

[Legitsu]

O for fucks sake how many AMD vs Intel threads do we need 

bottom line is that amd exist exactly where they should be which is behind intel and nvidia ... 

there is no conspiracy going on AMD's chips are in every mensurable way slower then the competition's the pricing is illrevalvent 

 

pay for a slower less efficient product ... get a slower less efficient product ...  pay for a faster more efficient product ... get a faster more efficient product

if you can't understand simple concepts  like that then you need to kill your self 

[Faa]

You want to talk about how the 8350 performs the same in gaming as a 4300, why don't you go talk about how how a 4960x performs the same as a 4 year old i5 2500k. (Okay that's not fair, they're GPU bottlenecked.  But my point is that there isn't really a GPU config that requires anything more than a lowly 2500k.)

Difference is; we never recommend X79/X99 CPU's for a gaming rig. And nobody here will say a 4960x is better than a 2500K for gaming, the 2500K at 4.8GHz IPC equals a 4960x IPC at 4.5GHz. Since when is a 2500K a lowly CPU? It's still a worldclass CPU compared to a 9590. Besides AMD released Kaveri in 2014, right? I'm not seeing it touching Haswell at all. Quad core vs Quad core still half as fast.

 

Because when it comes to gaming, there is a performance ceiling in most engines.  That's why you'll often see a whole whack of differently clocked CPU's get the same framerate +/- 1-5%.  

Except that you forgot to include the rest;

Stop fabricating your opinions.

[sgloux3470]

 

Difference is; we never recommend X79/X99 CPU's for a gaming rig. And nobody here will say a 4960x is better than a 2500K for gaming, the 2500K at 4.8GHz IPC equals a 4960x IPC at 4.5GHz. Since when is a 2500K a lowly CPU? It's still a worldclass CPU compared to a 9590. Besides AMD released Kaveri in 2014, right? I'm not seeing it touching Haswell at all. Quad core vs Quad core still half as fast.

 

Except that you forgot to include the rest;

Stop fabricating your opinions.

 

I didn't include triple crossfire because of the PCI-E lane nonsense.  PCi-E 2.0 is slower than PCI-E 3.0.  Comparing an i5-2500K/2600K which can only have PCi-E 2.0 to PCI-E 3.0 doesn't seem fair, does it? Especially when we're talking triple gpu set ups.

[Dabombinable]

I didn't include triple crossfire because of the PCI-E lane nonsense.  PCi-E 2.0 is slower than PCI-E 3.0.  Comparing an i5-2500K/2600K which can only have PCi-E 2.0 to PCI-E 3.0 doesn't seem fair, does it? Especially when we're talking triple gpu set ups.

Lol, well your the one defending CPUs outdated in every single way.

[Faa]

I didn't include triple crossfire because of the PCI-E lane nonsense.  PCi-E 2.0 is slower than PCI-E 3.0.  Comparing an i5-2500K/2600K which can only have PCi-E to PCI-E doesn't seem fair, does it? Especially when we're talking triple gpu set ups.

990 FX will run a triple setup of 8x/16x/8x and a 2500K will either do (varies from board to board) 8x/4x/4x or 8x/8x/4x - so AMD has here an advantage. With Ivy Bridge/HW it's 8x/8x at 3.0 vs AMD at 16x/16x at 2.0 which is the same bandwidth and it's still 80% faster. My bad didn't notice Metro 2033 3 way was still GPU bound. Anyways you shouldn't just say "most game engine have a performance ceiling" when you dodged the graph below showing a 80% gain; http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/8

Like I said, don't fabricate your opinions just to defend the 8350. Thats fanboying to me.

[sgloux3470]

990 FX will run a triple setup of 8x/16x/8x and a 2500K will either do (varies from board to board) 8x/4x/4x or 8x/8x/4x - so AMD has here an advantage. With Ivy Bridge/HW it's 8x/8x at 3.0 vs AMD at 16x/16x at 2.0 which is the same bandwidth and it's still 80% faster. My bad didn't notice Metro 2033 3 way was still GPU bound. Anyways you shouldn't just say "most game engine have a performance ceiling" when you dodged the graph below showing a 80% gain; http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/8

Like I said, don't fabricate your opinions just to defend the 8350. Thats fanboying to me.

You seem confused.

 I'm pointing out that 2500k/2600K perform more or less identical to modern intel CPU's and that there's not much reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge for gaming.

 

I stopped talking about the 8350 awhile ago.  Try to keep up hun.  

[Faa]

You seem confused.

 I'm pointing out that 2500k/2600K perform more or less identical to modern intel CPU's and that there's not much reason to upgrade from Sandy Bridge for gaming.

 

I stopped talking about the 8350 awhile ago.  Try to keep up hun.  

Whatever Logan's padawan, but tell me why isn't fair to compare Sandy Bridge + 20% aka Haswell with Vishera? Because of the date, right? Sandy Bridge is 2 years older than Vishera, Haswell is only a year older (June 2013 vs may 2012). Can also start right away with AMD cheating with 8 cores, would you like to compare the 8350 against an octocore Sandy Bridge at 4GHz turbo'ing to 4.2GHz?