The jump from AMD

[Goldensapling]

So as we all know, Intel is faster. I hurts me to say so, but it's just plain faster. I know this, so I'm hoping to take the jump from my 8320 and 970A DS3P (This mobo gives me cancer) to go to Intel. I'm wondering, how big of a performance increase would I be looking at if I go a i5 4460 and a MSI Z97 Krait? I don't want to waste money, but how much of a boost will I be looking at? Is it better in the long run to get the i5 4690k? Thanks forums people

[JebKerman]

4690K is fantastic, get it and the board you mentioned (or any other, so long as it's Z97) if you can

[Enderman]

the 4690k would give you better performance in the long run, expecially if you choose to overclock it

 

but personally I would stick with your 8320 until skylake is released

[incarnate]

hard to say, in games, the difference will be huge. you'll probably notice better stability as well. 

<amd fan here too

 

this is my first intel build and was amazed at how awesome of an experience it is. games see a decent increase (noticeable maybe not all games but it is there), system responsiveness seems a bit better and then there is the security of knowing i won't be bottlenecking a single gpu for years to come.

[Texhnlyze]

Do you do just gaming?

[Goldensapling]

Do you do just gaming?

Currently, yes. I might get back into YouTube in a few months and I do stream sometimes

 

 

 

hard to say, in games, the difference will be huge. you'll probably notice better stability as well. 

<amd fan here too

 

this is my first intel build and was amazed at how awesome of an experience it is. games see a decent increase (noticeable maybe not all games but it is there), system responsiveness seems a bit better and then there is the security of knowing i won't be bottlenecking a single gpu for years to come.

Thanks

[Z17]

All Z97 boards are unlocked boards which allow for overclocking.

i5 4460 is a locked processor and can't overclock.

 

Getting Z97 with the i5 4460 is a waste of money since you wouldn't be able to use the motherboard to it's fullest potential.

 

Get either a locked motherboard with that locked cpu, or an unlocked cpu (such as the 4670k that people mentioned) with that Z97 motherboard.

[Goldensapling]

All Z97 boards are unlocked boards which allow for overclocking.

i5 4460 is a locked processor and can't overclock.

 

Getting Z97 with the i5 4460 is a waste of money since you wouldn't be able to use the motherboard to it's fullest potential.

 

Get either a locked motherboard with that locked cpu, or an unlocked cpu (such as the 4670k that people mentioned) with that Z97 motherboard.

I honestly just love how the Krait Edition looks Will go nice with my S340. But you're right, and thanks for saving me money I could've potentially wasted

[incarnate]

I honestly just love how the Krait Edition looks Will go nice with my S340. But you're right, and thanks for saving me money I could've potentially wasted

 

i agree it is a sexy looking mobo, but ya not worth spending extra money if you're not gonna get an unlocked i5.

[CoolaxGaming]

Please don't compare companies to companies for which is faster...

An 8320 IS FASTER THAN A GOD DAMN I5...

Not in games, causes devs are lazy as shit in optimizations.

BUT IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER? THE 8320 IS FASTER.

DEAD WIth it

[Goldensapling]

Please don't compare companies to companies for which is faster...

An 8320 IS FASTER THAN A GOD DAMN I5...

Not in games, causes devs are lazy as shit in optimizations.

BUT IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER? THE 8320 IS FASTER.

DEAD WIth it

I know it's better for productivity and things that use all the cores. I'm an AMD fanboy as well. But for gaming, it should be well known by EVERYONE that i5 has better single core performance. I know it's hard, but just cry it out with me ;_;

[Dabombinable]

Please don't compare companies to companies for which is faster...

An 8320 IS FASTER THAN A GOD DAMN I5...

Not in games, causes devs are lazy as shit in optimizations.

BUT IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER? THE 8320 IS FASTER.

DEAD WIth it

Faster with integers yes, but not where it counts, floating point operations.

[Dabombinable]

I know it's better for productivity and things that use all the cores. I'm an AMD fanboy as well. But for gaming, it should be well known by EVERYONE that i5 has better single core performance. I know it's hard, but just cry it out with me ;_;

Lol, even a Core 2 Duo E8500 has better single core performance, and it only takes an overclock to 4.4GHz for one to match an i5 4440's single threaded performance.

[CoolaxGaming]

I know it's better for productivity and things that use all the cores. I'm an AMD fanboy as well. But for gaming, it should be well known by EVERYONE that i5 has better single core performance. I know it's hard, but just cry it out with me ;_;

Faster with integers yes, but not where it counts, floating point operations.

Yeah but integers are love, integers are life

[Dabombinable]

Yeah but integers are love, integers are life

Integers don't allow smooth gameplay.

[CoolaxGaming]

Integers don't allow smooth gameplay.

Don't break my heart.

LET ME BELIEVE THERE IS HOPE LEFT

[Goldensapling]

Lol, even a Core 2 Duo E8500 has better single core performance, and it only takes an overclock to 4.4GHz for one to match an i5 4440's single threaded performance.

Alright, bringing up the Core 2 Duo EVER on LTT Forums is unacceptable. Unless you're talking about school PCs or my grandma's PC, NEVER SAY CORE 2 DUO HERE AGAIN

[Clyne]

Please don't compare companies to companies for which is faster...

An 8320 IS FASTER THAN A GOD DAMN I5...

Not in games, causes devs are lazy as shit in optimizations.

BUT IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER? THE 8320 IS FASTER.

DEAD WIth it

Most of the games that i play on my 8320 don't have much difference to a i5(FPS) or i already get 60+FPS....like CS:GO or CS:S.

So pointless to me to upgrade.

[Dabombinable]

Alright, bringing up the Core 2 Duo EVER on LTT Forums is unacceptable. Unless you're talking about school PCs or my grandma's PC, NEVER SAY CORE 2 DUO HERE AGAIN

I did the benchmarks, a Core 2 Duo E8500 tells AMD what to do with their failure know as the current FX line. As it is a Celeron M which is based on the P6 architecture from 1995 has an IPC that's pretty damn close.

[incarnate]

Please don't compare companies to companies for which is faster...

An 8320 IS FASTER THAN A GOD DAMN I5...

Not in games, causes devs are lazy as shit in optimizations.

BUT IN COMPUTATIONAL POWER? THE 8320 IS FASTER.

DEAD WIth it

 

it has nothing to do with "lazy devs". it is an architectural failure that makes the FX chips not perform well in gaming. I agree in certain applications it is faster than an i5, which is straight integer calculations with about 6 cores fully used or so. but in gaming, instructions per cycle and floating point operations count for a hell of a lot more than integer calculations (which the gpu is pretty much better at so guess where the devs send that code to.... just saying). And as long as two companies exist providing the same class of products, why the hell shouldn't we compare them and determine which is faster at what.

 

its like saying you can't say a Ferrari is faster than a Corvette because they are from different manufactures. AMD stopped development on the fx line for a reason, because the fx line couldn't compete in the performance sector where it was meant to. No need to get mad about this. Hell I am a huge AMD fan too, i just stopped fanboying and opened my eyes. Yes i5s are better for gaming, nothing is going to change that. The FX has a place, as a lower cost option to an i7 for productivity. Outside of productivity work, it gets stomped by an i5, benchmarks prove that.

[incarnate]

Don't break my heart.

LET ME BELIEVE THERE IS HOPE LEFT

 

There is hope left. AMD killed off the FX line, the hope being that hopefully they are using this extra time and money saved to launch a new performance cpu after excavator runs its course. I personally don't think that we've seen the last of AMD in the cpu market. And they do like to push boundaries and tech innovation (you know, like that little thing we like to call 64 bit computing ). they tried something clever and different with bulldozer. it just didn't work out as well as they hoped.

[CoolaxGaming]

Most of the games that i play on my 8320 don't have much difference to a i5(FPS) or i already get 60+FPS....like CS:GO or CS:S.

So pointless to me to upgrade.

Same here, benchmarks I've seen shoe the fx looses only in a multi GPU configs. Otherwise, it's usually 2-3 fps behimd

it has nothing to do with "lazy devs". it is an architectural failure that makes the FX chips not perform well in gaming. I agree in certain applications it is faster than an i5, which is straight integer calculations with about 6 cores fully used or so. but in gaming, instructions per cycle and floating point operations count for a hell of a lot more than integer calculations (which the gpu is pretty much better at so guess where the devs send that code to.... just saying). And as long as two companies exist providing the same class of products, why the hell shouldn't we compare them and determine which is faster at what.

 

its like saying you can't say a Ferrari is faster than a Corvette because they are from different manufactures. AMD stopped development on the fx line for a reason, because the fx line couldn't compete in the performance sector where it was meant to. No need to get mad about this. Hell I am a huge AMD fan too, i just stopped fanboying and opened my eyes. Yes i5s are better for gaming, nothing is going to change that. The FX has a place, as a lower cost option to an i7 for productivity. Outside of productivity work, it gets stomped by an i5, benchmarks prove that.

The FX is slow NOT because of architecture failure but because of architecturel DESIGN. AMD thought devs would adopt multi core CPUs well, so they did something radical. Instead of doing ,4 modules/4 cores/4 threads, they used a Technology to use 2 cores per module. This resulted in 4 modules / 8 cores/ 8 threads, which cause single threaded performance to drop massively but multi thread to increase.

So if they had used only 1 module per core and made their CPUs quad core, theoretically, the fx would perform twice as fast in games.

[incarnate]

Same here, benchmarks I've seen shoe the fx looses only in a multi GPU configs. Otherwise, it's usually 2-3 fps behimd The FX is slow NOT because of architecture failure but because of architecturel DESIGN. AMD thought devs would adopt multi core CPUs well, so they did something radical. Instead of doing ,4 modules/4 cores/4 threads, they used a Technology to use 2 cores per module. This resulted in 4 modules / 8 cores/ 8 threads, which cause single threaded performance to drop massively but multi thread to increase.

So if they had used only 1 module per core and made their CPUs quad core, theoretically, the fx would perform twice as fast in games.

 

if the did have 1 core per module then they would have had a bigger transistor count to work with and could have improved the ipc, which is where the gains would come from. and sorry, if my choice of words offended you. yes, the design is flawed FOR GAMING (totally great for productivity). you can't expect devs to adopt tech for 25% of the market share, and even if they did, an 8 core wouldn't see enough use on all cores within a game's code to fully utilize those cores. a gpu is much better at parallel calculations than any cpu in existence. and there are games with a single gpu that an 8350 will bottleneck in and others that it lags behind intel. its pretty telling that bulldozer didn't even surpass the phenom IIs in single core performance. Piledriver helped but that is where bulldozer should have been. Had bulldozer released with piledriver's performance we could be having an entirely different discussion now. Sadly the FX line failed to deliver IPC which is what was needed for most use (outside of productivity) so ya, now we just gotta wait for amd's next cpu line to see if they can bounce back.

 

I hope they do, but time will tell.

[SeriousDad69]

I'm waiting for the new AMD Zen processors come out in 2016 to upgrade my system. It's not that I particularly like AMD, it's that I dislike Intel for reasons.
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/351868-amd-zen-quad-core-unit-block-diagram-32-core-opteron/
If this thread is any indication they are finally going to be competitive with Intel. All AMD needs to do is beat Sandy Bridge in IPC and make them competitively priced with current Intel processors(Which looks like they're doing and then some). Let's be honest here, no one needs anything above a decent i5 for gaming. My friend has a stock i7-2600 from like 2011 and it barely gets to 40% usage on every game he's played, and with better APIs coming out like Mantle, Vulkan and DX12 processors will become even more irrelevant for gaming.

I honestly have no idea how Intel gets away with releasing new processors so often when their old shit from 2011 is still much more than good enough.

[Dabombinable]

I'm waiting for the new AMD Zen processors come out in 2016 to upgrade my system. It's not that I particularly like AMD, it's that I dislike Intel for reasons.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/351868-amd-zen-quad-core-unit-block-diagram-32-core-opteron/

If this thread is any indication they are finally going to be competitive with Intel. All AMD needs to do is beat Sandy Bridge in IPC and make them competitively priced with current Intel processors(Which looks like they're doing and then some). Let's be honest here, no one needs anything above a decent i5 for gaming. My friend has a stock i7-2600 from like 2011 and it barely gets to 40% usage on every game he's played, and with better APIs coming out like Mantle, Vulkan and DX12 processors will become even more irrelevant for gaming.

I honestly have no idea how Intel gets away with releasing new processors so often when their old shit from 2011 is still much more than good enough.

Because each new generation improves over the previous, unlike AMD who went backwards after the Phenom II.