4790k vs FX-8350 NEED help

[Cam Bam]

EDIT: Thanks everyone He's very stubborn though haha. Still refuses to believe. But he's a good guy


I am unsure if this is the correct section to be posting this, so I apologize in advance.

 

My friend and I are debating whether the 4790k is faster/better than the FX-8350.

His argument is that the FX-8350 is better than the 4790k because it has the same stock speed of 4.0GHz but it has 8 cores, 8 threads in comparison to 4790k which has 4 cores, 8 threads. But I am very sure the 4790k is better simply because of the architecture.


Can someone please explain to me which one is better and why with detail? All I know or think is that the architecture in the 4790k is better, I know nothing of why haha. And then please give a comparison between the two.

It would be much appreciated




P.S. It's a friendly argument haha

[Morgan MLGman]

Hhahahahahahahahaha no it's not better than the i7. Do some reading on IPC and the architecture of AMD Piledriver "cores" which are actually 8 "cores" put in 4 modules if you're interested why it's not better

note: I own this exact CPU.

[techguru]

I am unsure if this is the correct section to be posting this, so I apologize in advance.

 

My friend and I are debating whether the 4790k is faster/better than the FX-8350.

His argument is that the FX-8350 is better than the 4790k because it has the same stock speed of 4.0GHz but it has 8 cores, 8 threads in comparison to 4790k which has 4 cores, 8 threads. But I am very sure the 4790k is better simply because of the architecture.

Can someone please explain to me which one is better and why with detail? All I know or think is that the architecture in the 4790k is better, I know nothing of why haha. And then please give a comparison between the two.

It would be much appreciated

P.S. It's a friendly argument haha

your friend is a moron who has never looked at any benchmarks

[The_Dillster]

4790k, i recently had this argument with others, even though the amd processor has more cores the 4790k has more power than core

[Samppa221]

Intel is better atm

[Mikjul]

4790k absolutely shits on the FX CPU's.

[arronleeds]

there is no comparison, the 4790k blows its brains out.

 

tell your friend nicely from me, that he needs to first learn about cpus and he needs to look at real world benchmarks.

 

infact let me get some up for you to show him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Dillster]

Well if that doesn't answer your question, i don't know what iwll

[arronleeds]

take a look at the graphs above, the 8350 has shit single core performance, its supposed to be okish at multithreaded, but take a look how much it gets hammered.

[OfficialJsP]

When will people learn that none of the FX cpus can out perform a current Intel cpu whether that be a pentium to an i7 or xeon. like other people say the 8350 has bad per core performance.

[arronleeds]

When will people learn that none of the FX cpus can out perform a current Intel cpu whether that be a pentium to and i7 or xeon.

they do outperform pentiums, dont stoop that low bro.

[Tim Drake]

Hhahahahahahahahaha no it's not better than the i7. Do some reading on IPC and the architecture of AMD Piledriver "cores" which are actually 8 "cores" put in 4 modules if you're interested why it's not better

note: I own this exact CPU.

I don't see your point about the modules.

 

The i7 is a similar technology, it is not a con.

[comicsansms]

It pissed me off when people compare FX CPU's to i3.

(They should be for two different markets)

 

It pisses me off even more when people compare an FX to an Xeon or i7.

(They are in the same kind of market, but very different prices and they preform very differently)

 

Anything more than a FX 6300 is a waste of money, and you should be spending your money on a Xeon instead.

 

 

An i7 will smash a FX in every category! 

[OfficialJsP]

they do outperform pentiums, dont stoop that low bro.

 

the pentium anniversary has way better per core performance than any fx cpu....

[daniellearmouth]

Unless Zen comes out to change the course of AMD, Intel reigns king with regards to their CPUs.

[Dabombinable]

take a look at the graphs above, the 8350 has shit single core performance, its supposed to be okish at multithreaded, but take a look how much it gets hammered.

Even by AMD's own older Phenom II X6.

[Dabombinable]

I don't see your point about the modules.

 

The i7 is a similar technology, it is not a con.

It kind of is, AMD calls the ALU in each module cores when that's far from what they are.

[arronleeds]

the pentium anniversary has way better per core performance than any fx cpu....

it has better single core yes, multi really doubt that.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

I don't see your point about the modules.

 

The i7 is a similar technology, it is not a con.

Don't see my point? I wanted to show OP and his friend that these so-called cores in FX CPUs are not regular cores as in other architectures

Was a pretty straightforward point to me

[OfficialJsP]

it has better single core yes, multi really doubt that.

 

 

well I mean obviously dual core vs an 8 core I would bloody hope so.

[Dabombinable]

Don't see my point? I wanted to show OP and his friend that these so-called cores in FX CPUs are not regular cores as in other architectures

They are only part of a core. AMD just put 2 in/split 1 into 2 instead of just using 1. I've talked about it before with the Phenom II X2/X3/X4. You only need to look at a die shot to see the similarities between K10 and 4 module Vishera.

[Morgan MLGman]

They are only part of a core. AMD just put 2 in/split 1 into 2 instead of just using 1. I've talked about it before with the Phenom II X2/X3/X4. You only need to look at a die shot to see the similarities between K10 and 4 module Vishera.

Yep, I am aware of that, the dude that 'didn't see my point' not so sure ^^

[Tim Drake]

It kind of is, AMD calls the ALU in each module cores when that's far from what they are.

I know it isn't but in very basic terms, it can be considered similar.

[Dabombinable]

Yep, I am aware of that, the dude that 'didn't see my point' not so sure ^^

My take on the FX line is that AMD didn't have enough to actually design an entirely new architecture (Zen is probably K10 revamped BTW-where has the R&D money come from?) with CMT, just take an old one (K10) and modify it to be something technically new. Its why I go by the Phenom II/FX core/module comparison. AMD went with the cheapest option.

[Dabombinable]

I know it isn't but in very basic terms, it can be considered similar.

No it actually can't. ALU aren't cores and never will be. CMT can not be described the same way as standard CPU architectures due to its very nature. However the components can be described the same way.