4790k vs FX-8350 NEED help

[FinestRyeBread]

I own both cpus with the same gpu and I can tell you that the i7 is way better

[Mikjul]

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.

Benchmarks suggest that it possibly is a new arch altogether, K10 is faster per core.

[Dabombinable]

I own both cpus with the same gpu and I can tell you that the i7 is way better

If you ever do extreme overclocking, make sure the FX 8350 goes under LN2 first.

[Tim Drake]

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.

*sigh* when people try to be smart.

 

They both accomplish the same thing in different ways.

[i_build_nanosuits]

So, there are still people on the face of this planet that could possibly think that a 120$ AMD CPU could compete in any way shape or form with a 350$ modern intel CPU and that's what worries me.

[Dabombinable]

Benchmarks suggest that it possibly is a new arch altogether, K10 is faster per core.

AMD pretty much split the ALU, reducing single threaded performance. I know K10 has a higher IPC becuase its performance is very close if not above that of Intel's Wolfdale (I need to drop my Xeon X5450 down to 2.2GHz to compare it with my Phenom II N970), and my X5450 smashes an FX 8350 clock for clock in tasks that use up to 6 threads.

[Andrew Sh]

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

Just get some benchmarks. Not only is the i7 faster by quite a lot, it also eats about half the power and makes a lot less heat. The fx chips are like 220w. I'm an Intel fanboy ever since the phantom 2 955 x4 disappeared. Those were the last AMD glory days. Since then any time I build people a PC, o ly reason to throw an AMD CPU into a system is if its a Low budget build, in which case I throw in an fx4100/4150. If he has 300eu+ to spend on a CPU then an i7 is the way to go, no doubt

[Dabombinable]

*sigh* when people try to be smart.

 

They both accomplish the same thing in different ways.

You can't call ALU cores-because they aren't. CMT is always * modules *threads.

[Morgan MLGman]

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.

I have read some articles that AMD will finally put way more into single threaded performance of the Zen line and they will make a 12 cored one, don't know if it's true, more of a speculation I guess =) But I really do hope they're good just for the sake of CPU segment improving, Intel with no real competition right now did almost no improvements 4790k->6700k which is kinda a bummer

[Dabombinable]

I have read some articles that AMD will finally put way more into single threaded performance of the Zen line and they will make a 12 cored one, don't know if it's true, more of a speculation I guess =) But I really do hope they're good just for the sake of CPU segment improving, Intel with no real competition right now did almost no improvements 4790k->6700k which is kinda a bummer

The rumours about AMD adding more cores worries me. They would be putting the cart before the horse again and the CPU will be shit overall. There is a reason Intel has decided that 4 cores with SMT is ample-more isn't actually needed apart from a relatively small niche of the PC market.

[Mikjul]

Six cores can definitely benefit, see the Phenom II x6, that thing is a beast for K10...

[Dabombinable]

Six cores can definitely benefit, see the Phenom II x6, that thing is a beast for K10...

Here is a snip from the cinebench topic:

Oh and the FX 8320 got rekt (and that's only my i5, not my 4790K).

 

[Dabombinable]

Stock i7 4790k 3 CB behind an FX 8350 at over 5.3GHz:

[Mikjul]

Here is a snip from the cinebench topic:

Untitled7.jpg

Oh and the FX 8320 got rekt (and that's only my i5, not my 4790K).

 

I see a FX 6200 at 4.7ghz losing to a 3.5 ghz Phenom II x6

[Morgan MLGman]

The rumours about AMD adding more cores worries me. They would be putting the cart before the horse again and the CPU will be shit overall. There is a reason Intel has decided that 4 cores with SMT is ample-more isn't actually needed apart from a relatively small niche of the PC market.

Well yeah I didn't say that they'd put them in the mainstream ones, I assumed these would be the highest-end ones like Intel's got in the 5820k (12T) or higher, I really do hope that Zen is not a failure...

All in all the FX series wasn't that big of a failure either, in the end some these CPUs are being sold from 2011 up until today and many people have them, I'm not saying that they're good or bad, they definitely have their use though ^^

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Here is a snip from the cinebench topic:

Untitled7.jpg

Oh and the FX 8320 got rekt (and that's only my i5, not my 4790K).

 

to be fair that 8320 was at stock , my 8350 oc'd was a couple hundred points higher than that.

[Dabombinable]

to be fair that 8320 was at stock , my 8350 oc'd was a couple hundred points higher than that.

My i5 was only running 100MHz below its single threaded boost clock, so technically still stock.