I made a mistake...

[Guest]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117404

 

Mate... You're comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Fiesta. You can't compare those.

[LegacyStijncat]

Mate... You're comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Fiesta. You can't compare those.

1. I will compare what needs comparing
2. Please reread everything that I wrote

    

   Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend AMD. If you look at my guide, I clearly show my disgust against the bad engineering of AMD when it comes to IPC, and thus IPS. But, they are the more budget friendly option in very specific places. They do still remain a bad general choice.

    

   AMD tries to compensate with more cores for lower prices, which is great for specific tasks that get barely affected by IPC and need lots of cores, REALLY tight budget builds, or basic tasks (web browsing, mails etc.) _{(Do keep in mind that Intel can do all of these things as well, but more cores is expensive at their side)}

   But, did you notice that compensate is underlined? Because you need to keep the word into context. Compensate. An AMD CPU will almost never reign superior overall over an Intel CPU, even though it may be better bang for the buck. If you have the money, Intel is the way to go.

    

   .If you have the money, Intel is the way to go. AMD is just in some situations budget friendly.

[flibberdipper]

I suggest you go to cpuboss.com

Never mind then.

CPUBoss is cancer. Never again.

 

Anyways, poor OP.

 

Only AMD chip I'm thinking about getting is an Athlon II X4 for my weekend rig since an Athlon 64 X2 7850 BE will probably hold my 480 back a lot.

[TheMcSame]

800 dollar difference (AMD 8 core FX vs 8 core Intel i7)

Just saying, an i5 is more powerful than an 8 core FX chip in a lot of situations, there's some situations where the FX chips come out on top but if you bring out a Xeon 1231 v3 (or a better xeon for a touch more) and you've got yourself a chip that'll beat the 8000 and 9000 chips left right and centre for the price of an i5 (or a touch more)... 

[Agent181]

Just stick with the fx 6300 for now I have it and I'm fine with it, I max all my games out at 1080p not going to upgrade until 2+ years also cpu boss is completely shit

Edit: I have a 280x with my fx 6300, if you have a card lower than my 280x you will not see a difference at all

If you want to see proof pcper just released a video about it that will show you a lot

[Agent181]

800 dollar difference (AMD 8 core FX vs 8 core Intel i7)

Here you may be right in some cases.

Older AMD APU's can be gotten for dirt cheap. Still, at max a 40 dollar difference, but when you do a build for a family member you'll prefer to keep the price low.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend AMD. If you look at my guide, I clearly show my disgust against the bad engineering of AMD when it comes to IPC, and thus IPS. But, they are the more budget friendly option in very specific places. They do still remain a bad general choice.

You forgot to mention that architecture is 6 years old now compared to the new Intel line that has come far from what it was 6 years ago, when a part is that old it shouldn't be used unless it's the best around

[iCrushDreams]

 

1. I will compare what needs comparing

A 5960X is completely irrelevant in terms of performance/dollar. It's not a sensible option at all and it's basically throwing money at your screen for what is not much benefit over other chips. Yes, you do get some benefit, but not worth $700.

 

A realistic comparison would be an i5-4690k for $50 more than the FX 8350. I'm sure you can come up with an extra $50 for some serious performance gains where the 8350 can beat the 4690k in only certain cases by an insignificant amount.

 

I have no idea how you came up with the idea that a 5960X is a good comparison against really anything AMD has to offer.

[LegacyStijncat]

You forgot to mention that architecture is 6 years old now compared to the new Intel line that has come far from what it was 6 years ago, when a part is that old it shouldn't be used unless it's the best around

Indeed, but it's also the only 8 core architecture of AMD that I'm aware off (since AMD's loose standards). Please correct me if they do have other/better 8 cores now, though.

[LegacyStijncat]

A 5960X is completely irrelevant in terms of performance/dollar. It's not a sensible option at all and it's basically throwing money at your screen for what is not much benefit over other chips. Yes, you do get some benefit, but not worth $700.

 

A realistic comparison would be an i5-4690k for $50 more than the FX 8350. I'm sure you can come up with an extra $50 for some serious performance gains where the 8350 can beat the 4690k in only certain cases by an insignificant amount.

 

I have no idea how you came up with the idea that a 5960X is a good comparison against really anything AMD has to offer.

I compared it because of the cores. Yes, I know, the IPS is gigantically different. But, if you do something that doesn't need IPC, and just needs as much cores as possible, then you'll go for an 8 core. If you want 8, physical cores, and gain absolutely no benefit from IPC, then AMD just seems like a more budget friendly choice.

 

I can't deny that Intel has indeed i5's and i7's that deliver the same overall performance.

 

[LegacyStijncat]

Just saying, an i5 is more powerful than an 8 core FX chip in a lot of situations, there's some situations where the FX chips come out on top but if you bring out a Xeon 1231 v3 (or a better xeon for a touch more) and you've got yourself a chip that'll beat the 8000 and 9000 chips left right and centre for the price of an i5 (or a touch more)... 

Indeed!

But, that is not the situation that I'm talking about. I am talking about the very specific situations that AMD can rock on a budget. For example, when you don't benefit from IPC, and only from true physical cores. Then, AMD would be better. In that situation only of course. Intel remains the general winner, but you can't say that AMD is useless.

[Agent181]

Indeed, but it's also the only 8 core architecture of AMD that I'm aware off (since AMD's loose standards). Please correct me if they do have other/better 8 cores now, though.

Not really everything has been focused on the new hbm and anything server side, nothing will come out until zen but that's if they make it until then

[LegacyStijncat]

Not really everything has been focused on the new hbm and anything server side, nothing will come out until zen but that's if they make it until then

I hope the new AMD CPU line is good, I would love it if Intel would have some competition.

[Agent181]

I hope the new AMD CPU line is good, I would love it if Intel would have some competition.

It would set Intel back into tick tock pattern and then bring more performance back instead of pure efficiency every other release

[LegacyStijncat]

It would set Intel back into tick tock pattern and then bring more performance back instead of pure efficiency every other release

^This

Newer generations should mean better performance Intel, not only lower TDP and better iGPU.

[Agent181]

^This

Newer generations should mean better performance Intel, not only lower TDP and better iGPU.

That's what I liked about the fx processors when they came out years ago, if you know you will have a dedicated gpu why have an igpu

[itachipirate]

Upgrade that video card first. The FX-6300 will only ever bottleneck a 750ti if you only ever play MMOs, indie games, and Total War games (LOL) you will upgrade to an i5 and think WAIT MY PERFORMANCE IS STILL THE SAME? That's because your weakest link right now is your graphics card