Better AMD cpu than Intel

[IateMApoo]

That makes no sense, FX line over clocks differently from haswell.

And its a fact that the 9590 runs hot, while a 4690k doesn't need to to get better performance.

Its like you're getting mad simply because FX is worse and someone said something about it.

Ignorance that you express is what makes me mad, nothing else.

[FruitBasketSilex]

Ignorance that you express is what makes me mad, nothing else.

Whatever man, Keep hugging your Fx6300, i'm leaving this topic, good day.

[desertcomputer]

Better AMD CPU than Intel? You won't see that anytime soon, mate.

Maybe when the Zen comes out...

[DaRk0]

Maybe when the Zen comes out...

 

I don't think Zen will be better than Intel's lineup.

[TheCaptain53]

An 8320 at 5.3GHz is still slower single threaded than an i5 4440 at 3.1GHz (3.3GHz boost). Which is one of the reasons why I only recommend anything from the FX line for specific tasks. And then I only recommend the FX 8320.

8320 OC'd @ 5.3GHz!? Crikey!

I'd love to try out that space heater!

[Syntaxvgm]

Smells like a fanboy.

pot calling the kettle black 

[flipped_bit]

Neither do i, but you look like one if you defend a guy who blames an overclocked FX 8350 which basicly is FX 9590 running hot and barely beating i5, overclock 4690K to 5GHz and lets see the temps.

 

Why would you need to overclock a 4690K to 5GHz?  A stock 4690K has 30% more single-threaded performance than a stock 9590, and that's with roughly a quarter of the TDP.  Overclock the 4690K to 4.5GHz and you're looking at >50% more single-threaded performance than AMD's flagship product.  There is no competition.

 

I'm not a fanboy of either company, BTW.  I currently own an Athlon II and before that a S939 machine.  But there is absolutely no reason to go AMD today.  None. 

[flipped_bit]

Whats so wrong with a xeon? You can get a xeon 1231 v3 and an h97 board for less than a 4690k and a z97 board.

 

EDIT: Damn ninjas Enderman

 

If he's designing a system for gaming, the H97 board isn't a great option because it doesn't support SLI.  With DX12 and Vulkan expected to bring major benefits to SLI setups, if it were me I'd future-proof my build by going with the Z97 board.  It should only be an extra $20-$30. 

[typographie]

overclock 4690K to 5GHz and lets see the temps.

 

The beauty of this argument is that an i5 doesn't have to be overclocked to 5 GHz. It's already faster than an FX-9590 at stock.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8

[FilipSebik]

Neither do i, but you look like one if you defend a guy who blames an overclocked FX 8350 which basicly is FX 9590 running hot and barely beating i5, overclock 4690K to 5GHz and lets see the temps.

Lets see that wont even boot bro

[Dabombinable]

8320 OC'd @ 5.3GHz!? Crikey!

I'd love to try out that space heater!

 

If you want to see the benchmarks, go to the cinebench thread, open the Cinebench R15 benchmark spread sheet, go to single threaded and look for my name, You'll even see older CPU's at lower clock speeds running faster. And 5GHz+ seems to be what's needed for an FX 8*** to actually perform well, but dat 220W+ TDP......which Intel nearly had with their 4GHz Pentium 4, but decided against for very good reasons-mainly temps and actual power consumption.

[Watsyurdeal]

Until Zen comes out no, 4690K is the best deal as far as gaming CPUs go.

[Elapo]

If you want an AMD CPU I suggest waiting for Zen to come out. As of currently the best CPU they have is the 8350 - which is objectively determined to be "not good"

 

The best they have is the 9590. It is  just a higher clocked 8350 though.

 

You should have asked this in 2009/2010. Because those were the years AMD made CPU's that could truly compare to Intel's offerings. (And I blame AMD's very poor management for that).

 

AMD's "poor management" is what kept them alive. They would've been bankrupt if they had tried to compete with Intel, who has mountains of cash to pour into R&D

[Clyne]

For current stuff? Nah, 4690K will always be better than a 9590 for gaming.

If you want to talk about 64 bit era(K7), the AMD Athlon 64 is better than a P4 at it's time. Even the AMD Athlon 64 X2 is better than a Pentium D.

Also the 486.......AMD had a 486 CPU that was clocked faster and cost the same as a Intel 486......

[Dabombinable]

The best they have is the 9590. It is  just a higher clocked 8350 though.

 

 

AMD's "poor management" is what kept them alive. They would've been bankrupt if they had tried to compete with Intel, who has mountains of cash to pour into R&D

AMD's poor management are the reason they came near to bankruptcy in the first place.

[Dabombinable]

For current stuff? Nah, 4690K will always be better than a 9590 for gaming.

If you want to talk about 64 bit era(K7), the AMD Athlon 64 is better than a P4 at it's time. Even the AMD Athlon 64 X2 is better than a Pentium D.

Also the 486.......AMD had a 486 CPU that was clocked faster and cost the same as a Intel 486......

Don't forget the 386 DX 40, cheap, reliable and it outperformed all other 386 and Intel's 486 until a 66MHz 486 was released.

[Guest trucker2]

I saw somewhere someone asked a guy who writes software for a major game co. Without hesitation he said amd 85xx series. Now games requiring 4 cores are coming out that will run on amd x4's and up but won't run on an i3 no matter what gpu is in it. In volume console games rule the roost and Amd owns that market. Anyone serious about gaming will go Amd every time

[Razzaa]

I saw somewhere someone asked a guy who writes software for a major game co. Without hesitation he said amd 85xx series. Now games requiring 4 cores are coming out that will run on amd x4's and up but won't run on an i3 no matter what gpu is in it. In volume console games rule the roost and Amd owns that market. Anyone serious about gaming will go Amd every time

Cant tell if serious or trolling.........

[Dabombinable]

I saw somewhere someone asked a guy who writes software for a major game co. Without hesitation he said amd 85xx series. Now games requiring 4 cores are coming out that will run on amd x4's and up but won't run on an i3 no matter what gpu is in it. In volume console games rule the roost and Amd owns that market. Anyone serious about gaming will go Amd every time

i3's have hyperthreading, so that's 2 cores 4 threads, which means it can play any modern title.

[Guest trucker2]

Far Cry 4 lists minimum cpu as an I5 or Amd x4. Needless to say people who built i3 rigs are fuming about it. And yes an i3 will smoke an old x4 but Games will require 4 physical cores ancient or not.

[Dabombinable]

Far Cry 4 lists minimum cpu as an I5 or Amd x4. Needless to say people who built i3 rigs are fuming about it. And yes an i3 will smoke an old x4 but Games will require 4 physical cores ancient or not.

Lmao, you really have no clue. The i3 is recognized as a quad core by games even though it isn't.

[Razzaa]

Far Cry 4 lists minimum cpu as an I5 or Amd x4. Needless to say people who built i3 rigs are fuming about it. And yes an i3 will smoke an old x4 but Games will require 4 physical cores ancient or not.

What game requires 4 physical cores?

[Guest trucker2]

EA is encouraging Dragon Age: Inquisition users who can’t launch the game on a dual-core machine to ask for a refund. Guys this is no troll althought i admit the last sentance was over the top and unkind.

[Elapo]

AMD's poor management are the reason they came near to bankruptcy in the first place.

 

Yep, then they replaced the CEO with Rory Read in 2011, who pulled AMD out of the race (hence the last flagship CPU's being from around that time) and refocused the company on markets other than the PC market. Guy kinda fixed up AMD, and brought them back in fighting shape.

 

 

EA is encouraging Dragon Age: Inquisition users who can’t launch the game on a dual-core machine to ask for a refund. Guys this is no troll althought i admit the last sentance was over the top and unkind.

 

i3 CPUs with HT aren't considered a dual core by games though. Far cry 4 and DA:I have always ran on i3 CPUs, just not on Core2Duo or any dual core without Hyperthreading for that matter.

 

In fact, if I recall correctly, it's impossible for a top-level application (such as a game) to actually distinguish virtual cores from real cores. Even windows lists virtual cores in device manager. A game wouldn't know whether it was running on an i3 or an i5 without checking system information.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Far Cry 4 lists minimum cpu as an I5 or Amd x4. Needless to say people who built i3 rigs are fuming about it. And yes an i3 will smoke an old x4 but Games will require 4 physical cores ancient or not.

Please, go on YouTube and watch videos of people benchmarking FC4 using an i3. They didn't do anything to the coding to get it running, the game booted fine because it recognizes the 4 threads of the i3. You are either ignorant, a troll, or both. But now that you have the knowledge (because I just gave it to you) anything further you post on this subject in regards to AMD being better for gaming (which it isn't) will be stupidity.

@Faceman if you have some FC4 benchmarks I'd appreciate it (can't link vids using my phone)