A stupid question

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

 

Eurogamer is pure BS...here's why:

Eurogamer is sponsored and hosted by Digital Foundry which produce the chips for AMD including the FX line of CPU's...

Here's an arctile they've put out on april of 2013, right at the time the ''new gen'' console where launching...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

 

See that? Back in 2013 they where already claiming that the 8 core FX would be better than the intel core i5-3570K for playing ''new gen'' titles developped with those ''8 core'' APU consoles...what do we know now 2½ years later...is that true? does those ''experts'' picking the AMD FX over the i5-3570K where right?! i leave the decision up to you...but read this arcticle...and then you'll realise how weak your source is.

 

Eurogamer is a joke, they are all over the place...they where claiming that Mantle would revolutionize the gaming world and that it was the best reason ever to buy an AMD FX processor...they are as far is gets from being an unbiaised credible and reputable source when it comes to AMD products...and this comes to no surprise since they actualy manufacture them.

 

There's a reason why you don't see true reputable and well informed PC hardware reviewers websites such a Anandtech, Tom's hardware or maximum PC making stupid claims like that you know?

[Nena Trinity]

Eurogamer is pure BS...here's why:

Eurogamer is sponsored and hosted by Digital Foundry which produce the chips for AMD including the FX line of CPU's...

Here's an arctile they've put out on april of 2013, right at the time the ''new gen'' console where launching...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

 

See that? Back in 2013 they where already claiming that the 8 core FX would be better than the intel core i5-3570K for playing ''new gen'' titles developped with those ''8 core'' APU consoles...what do we know now 2½ years later...is that true? does those ''experts'' picking the AMD FX over the i5-3570K where right?! i leave the decision up to you...but read this arcticle...and then you'll realise how weak your source is.

 

Eurogamer is a joke, they are all over the place...they where claiming that Mantle would revolutionize the gaming world and that it was the best reason ever to buy an AMD FX processor...they are as far is gets from being an unbiaised credible and reputable source when it comes to AMD products...and this comes to no surprise since they actualy manufacture them.

 

There's a reason why you don't see true reputable and well informed PC hardware reviewers websites such a Anandtech, Tom's hardware or maximum PC making stupid claims like that you know?

Maybe I am not saying its 100% guarantee that they will make it much better but its not only that page that claims it...

https://www.google.no/search?site=&source=hp&q=direct+x12+multi+core&oq=direct+x12+multi+core&gs_l=hp.3..0i13i10l2.735.735.0.1421.2.2.0.0.0.0.74.137.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.1.73.0.SEVqs-ucTiQ

Are all of these bad to?

[Guest trucker2]

Chip to chip A10 7850k SMOKES an I7, 110 w/ free MB at microcenter

FX-8350 149 cpu 169 w/MB smokes i5 in many games see here:

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Maybe I am not saying its 100% guarantee that they will make it much better but its not only that page that claims it...

EVEN assuming perfect scalability of games across 8 threads...even if it was indeed possible to optimise dx12 games so they use 100% of the available CPU ressources...even then the FX wouldnt beat the core i5-4690K...

 

here's why:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

See that? even when all 8 threads of the AMD FX are in use it won't really do any better than 4 haswell CPU cores with 4 threads...intel has twice the per core performance and then some...that's why.

 

LTT cinebench R15 multi-threaded user submitted results:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

 

LTT cinebench R15 single-threaded user submitted results:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxzGshuqVtFe_2zgRhN3gXCraR7d8p-NazJ6z0nsGGc/edit#gid=1

[Majestic]

8320 because its cheap and you can overclock it yourself

 

for mobo 970 gaming from msi probably

 

Except you need an expensive board if you're going to overclock it (4+1 phase boards aren't going to cut it) and a good cooler since it puts out a lot of heat during overclocking. And even at that premium, the i5 is still beter in every respect.

 

YOu're fooling yourself if you think the 8320 is good value.

[Nena Trinity]

EVEN assuming perfect scalability of games across 8 threads...even if it was indeed possible to optimise dx12 games so they use 100% of the available CPU ressources...even then the FX wouldnt beat the core i5-4690K...

 

here's why:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

See that? even when all 8 threads of the AMD FX are in use it won't really do any better than 4 haswell CPU cores with 4 threads...intel has twice the per core performance and then some...that's why.

 

LTT cinebench R15 multi-threaded user submitted results:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

 

LTT cinebench R15 single-threaded user submitted results:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxzGshuqVtFe_2zgRhN3gXCraR7d8p-NazJ6z0nsGGc/edit#gid=1

That is 8320 but it can be OCed to 8350 or 8370 speed if you are lucky.

Then again the 4690K can be OCed to the only thing is who gets better lottery!

And well the other two can also be OCed but then you play with fire! >=D

[i_build_nanosuits]

That is 8320 but it can be OCed to 8350 or 8370 speed if you are lucky.

 

it's overclocked to 4.3ghz for the multi-threaded test...here is single-threaded cinebench...AMD FX running a whooping 4.7ghz:

 

 

BTW those Q9560 and E8400 chips running at lower clockspeed defeating AMD FX...you see those?...well...guess what...those are 8 years old intel chips

[Nena Trinity]

it's overclocked to 4.3ghz for the multi-threaded test...here is single-threaded cinebench...AMD FX running a whooping 4.7ghz:

 

 

BTW those Q9560 and E8400 chips running at lower clockspeed defeating AMD FX...you see those?...well...guess what...those are 8 years old intel chips

But 1 core is such a world of tanks thing to do! lol

And well FX can be clocked over 4.7 but then its hazard!

Edit:

Also the FX-43XX only has 2 real cores while FX-83XX has actually 4, if 4 was shut off(1 per real core) and rest was OCed then they can be clocked much higher! Well Linus told me not sure how much that will do.

[i_build_nanosuits]

But 1 core is such a world of tanks thing to do! lol

And well FX can be clocked over 4.7 but then its hazard!

Edit:

Also the FX-43XX only has 2 real cores while FX-83XX has actually 4, if 4 was shut off(1 per real core) and rest was OCed then they can be clocked much higher! Well Linus told me not sure how much that will do.

 

I don't really know how much longer you want to argue this or what it would take for you to understand this, but all i'm saying is that the AMD FX chips has never been good chips to begin with...they have more weaknesses than strenght, and those flaws are very much obvious especialy when it comes to gaming...and no amount of optimisation will ever turn that old Cadillac Deville V8 into a Ferrari. i'm done.

[Nena Trinity]

I don't really know how much longer you want to argue this or what it would take for you to understand this, but all i'm saying is that the AMD FX chips has never been good chips to begin with...they have more weaknesses than strenght, and those flaws are very much obvious especialy when it comes to gaming...and no amount of optimisation will ever turn that old Cadillac Deville V8 into a Ferrari. i'm done.

If you say so!