8350 more 'futureproof' than 4670k ?

[mrthuvi]

Please note that why we have no idea how future games will play, we can only speculate. And remember, 4670k is absolutely more "presentproof" than 8350 right now.

[Xelithium]

@Kuzma

 

Really? Dude, you don't seem to be as smart as you portray yourself. If you are going to show me benchmarks. Don't cherrypick the only one where it beats the Intel by far.

 

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/8#pagehead - x264 benchmark, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/7#pagehead - Cinebench, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/10#pagehead - Blender, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/11#pagehead - Truecrypt, decent performance here.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/12#pagehead - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Intel beat it here, but barely.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/9#pagehead - 7zip, beats 4670k and almost 4770k but gets demolished by Intel 6 core.

 

Conclusion: I want me one of them 6 cores from Intel. And the sad thing is, if you check single core performance on Cinebench the 8350 performs worse than Phenom 2 x4 980. And basically, the 8350 has to use all it's power to even be useful.

[TechFan@ic]

Are you kidding me? 720p benchmark?

 

Really? Who the hell plays @ 720p.

Not many play @ 720p, however it's meant to take the GPU performance out of the equation, to differentiate between the CPUs.

[Kuzma]

@Kuzma

 

Really? Dude, you don't seem to be as smart as you portray yourself. If you are going to show me benchmarks. Don't cherrypick the only one where it beats the Intel by far.

 

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/8#pagehead - x264 benchmark, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/7#pagehead - Cinebench, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/10#pagehead - Blender, barely beats it.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/11#pagehead - Truecrypt, decent performance here.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/12#pagehead - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Intel beat it here, but barely.

http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/17016-intel-core-i7-4770k-och-i5-4670k-haswell/9#pagehead - 7zip, beats 4670k and almost 4770k but gets demolished by Intel 6 core.

 

Conclusion: I want me one of them 6 cores from Intel. And the sad thing is, if you check single core performance on Cinebench the 8350 performs worse than Phenom 2 x4 980. And basically, the 8350 has to use all it's power to even be useful.

Of course the 8350 has to use all it's power to be useful; that's what it's designed for, to be used 100% and you just cherry picked benchmarks from a specific website? "are you kidding me?" .

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697 - You can see which tasks quite clearly are using all 8 cores fully and which aren't easily .

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+%40+3.40GHz&id=1921

Compare.

 

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/AMD+FX-8350/review

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/Intel+Core+i5-4670K/review

Compare.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

Read.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6

Read.

 

http://www.goldfries.com/hardware-reviews/intel-core-i5-4670k-processor-review/

Read.

 

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/?page=4

Read.

 

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/56853-intel-core-i5-4670k-22nm-haswell/?page=3

Read.

 

Do you want more? Do really want more? ._. I can get you more...

[MsTrMind]

._. barely? Please refer to this:

 

That's your barely? okay ^_^ I'd like to see your destroys.

 

 

Refer to the title; futureproof notice how the OP set the title of the thread to "8350 more futureproof than the 4670k" . The stock cooler is fine O.o it's better than what Intel's stock cooler is like. 8 cores will be more futureproof than 4 always... just because we're going to end up reaching the quantum effect with transistors doing nothing but getting smaller and we'll either put in more cores to allow more power because we always need more processing power or we'll have to find something else; until that something else is found I'm a firm believer that we're going to end up with more threads and more threaded applications.

 

You know what? the 3960x will be even more futureproof than the 8350! 

The stock cooler is absolute shit, it wasn't able to keep my fx6100 below 50°C at stock speed.

You are obviously an amd fanboy, not able to think straight. 

The OP asked if the 8350 would be more futureproof than the 4670k for gaming, the short answer remains NO. Gaming would not make any difference in at least 3-4 years. In today's (today as in 2013-2018) the 4670k will still beat the fx8350 in gaming area's, just because the single-threadded performance.

The fx8350 can do more tasks at the same time, but takes longer to complete those tasks. The 4670k can do less but will finish earlier because it can do 2 jobs in the same time a 8350 does one.

 

You are just another 15-year old, thinking you know it all because you read a magazine and do a little programming.

You lack one thing, experience.

[Xelithium]

Of course the 8350 has to use all it's power to be useful; that's what it's designed for, to be used 100% and you just cherry picked benchmarks from a specific website? "are you kidding me?" .

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697 - You can see which tasks quite clearly are using all 8 cores fully and which aren't easily .

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+%40+3.40GHz&id=1921

Compare.

 

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/AMD+FX-8350/review

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/Intel+Core+i5-4670K/review

Compare.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

Read.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6

Read.

 

http://www.goldfries.com/hardware-reviews/intel-core-i5-4670k-processor-review/

Read.

 

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/?page=4

Read.

 

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/56853-intel-core-i5-4670k-22nm-haswell/?page=3

Read.

 

Do you want more? Do really want more? ._. I can get you more...

Finally you understand my point. The derp in you is strong young one. But you will learn. Control your anger.  Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering...

 

My entire point was, that the 8350 is very strong when used to it's maximum potential. AMD are ahead of the time with this architecture and software needs to catch up. But when you don't use the 8350 and utilize all it has. Then it isn't so strong.

[Kuzma]

You know what? the 3960x will be even more futureproof than the 8350! 

The stock cooler is absolute shit, it wasn't able to keep my fx6100 below 50°C at stock speed.

You are obviously an amd fanboy, not able to think straight. 

The OP asked if the 8350 would be more futureproof than the 4670k for gaming, the short answer remains NO. Gaming would not make any difference in at least 3-4 years. In today's (today as in 2013-2018) the 4670k will still beat the fx8350 in gaming area's, just because the single-threadded performance.

The fx8350 can do more tasks at the same time, but takes longer to complete those tasks. The 4670k can do less but will finish earlier because it can do 2 jobs in the same time a 8350 does one.

 

You are just another 15-year old, thinking you know it all because you read a magazine and do a little programming.

You lack one thing, experience.

the 3960x is even more future proof than the 8350... :/ you're right.

I'm an obvious AMD fanboy that is planning on building an Intel machine? nice logic there.

You know what I'm going to bookmark this post and reply to it with all the benchmarks of the new games with 8350 > 4670k ^_^.

In terms of multi-tasking I think the best thing to look at in regards to that is TekSyndicate's video in which the 8350 beats the 3570k and 3770k while streaming ^_^.

 

^_^ Also; I don't think I know it all, there are many others that know WAY more than me and I respect that and their opinions but I'm simply arguing the truth.

 

P.S. Almost 9 years of experience doesn't seem lacking to me ^_^ and I don't think it will look lacking to anyone else. I've been programming since before I even know how to use a semi-colon, it's been one of the most prevalent parts of my life and I actually used to dream in code o.o 

[Dravic]

FX series bottlenecks the GPU heavily (single one, not to mention SLI) if the game is CPU dependant and it still looks bad compared to Intel in games that are GPU dependant.

 

Nvidia cards work better on FX series than Radeons but both are bottlenecked on FX.

 

There's one game, Crysis 3, which uses FX-8320/8350 modules to their full potential but it's rare, very rare.

[Kuzma]

Finally you understand my point. The derp in you is strong young one. But you will learn. Control your anger.  Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering...

 

My entire point was, that the 8350 is very strong when used to it's maximum potential. AMD are ahead of the time with this architecture and software needs to catch up. But when you don't use the 8350 and utilize all it has. Then it isn't so strong.

Suffering leads to the dark side* I'm a Star Wars fan too.

That's my point though >_< if AMD are ahead of time then the 8350 is going to be future proofed for longer than the 4670k because software will catch up and games certainly will very soon.

[Kuzma]

FX series bottlenecks the GPU heavily (single one, not to mention SLI).

 

Nvidia cards work better on FX series than Radeons but both are bottlenecked on FX.

^+1 this is true :p until you hit 4.5ghz xD it's an overclock true but it's the sweet spot for Haswell and Vishera & the number of 8350s that don't hit 4.5ghz is negligible.

[Dravic]

^+1 this is true :P until you hit 4.5ghz xD it's an overclock true but it's the sweet spot for Haswell and Vishera & the number of 8350s that don't hit 4.5ghz is negligible.

 

You still need a hell of a cooler to get 4.5GHz which makes the cost difference between Xeon e3-1230v3 or i5 4670k nonexistant because you dont need to OC them at all to get same experience -and- you can OC 4670k as well to get superior experience.

[Dravic]

 

 

 

 

Skyrim has lots of scripting and even freakin more when you play it with mod. Bad CPU like FX severly bottlenecks it. And it's moddable game so optimsing for more than 1 thread is almost impossible, you would be asking modders to optimise code like pros with multiple thread in minds which will never happen cuz its too much work in moddable game.

 

Starcraft 2 has lots of AI and stuff about controlling units, very CPU heavy as you can see and FX cant deliver in this game. Same thing, optimising Starcraft 2 where a lot of stuff happens for multiple threads would be overkill for programmers.

[Kuzma]

 

 

 

 

Skyrim has lots of scripting and even freakin more when you play it with mod. Bad CPU like FX severly bottlenecks it. And it's moddable game so optimsing for more than 1 thread is almost impossible, you would be asking modders to optimise code like pros with multiple thread in minds which will never happen cuz its too much work in moddable game.

 

Starcraft 2 has lots of AI and stuff about controlling units, very CPU heavy as you can see and FX cant deliver in this game. Same thing, optimising Starcraft 2 where a lot of stuff happens for multiple threads would be overkill for programmers.

Past games are irrelevant here since we're talking about the future :p but if an i3 is performing on par with a 6300? that game is horribly optimised.

If we're talking about moddable games being optimised for more than 1 thread; look at minecraft o.o but that's off topic; if you want to discuss it then PM me.

[Dravic]

Past games are irrelevant here since we're talking about the future :P but if an i3 is performing on par with a 6300? that game is horribly optimised.

If we're talking about moddable games being optimised for more than 1 thread; look at minecraft o.o but that's off topic; if you want to discuss it then PM me.

 

I see it more like:

 

games that more care about gameplay value than optimisation for multiple threads show how bad AMD processor's are.

 

Any game that requires lots of single thread code execution (Minecraft coded in java) will make FX suffer.

 

Any game developer who makes multiple thread games doesnt really want to go past 4 threads cuz Intel owns this world, those 4 threads are really fast (4x fastest single thread of the world) and not really much point for them to optimise it for more cores than Intel offers at most on consumer priced CPUs.

[Kuzma]

I see it more like:

 

games that more care about gameplay value than optimisation for multiple threads show how bad AMD processor's are.

 

Any game that requires lots of single thread code execution (Minecraft coded in java) will make FX suffer.

 

Any game developer who makes multiple thread games doesnt really want to go past 4 threads cuz Intel owns this world, those 4 threads are really fast (4x fastest single thread of the world) and not really much point for them to optimise it for more cores than Intel offers at most on consumer priced CPUs.

._. Okay I was fine with it until the last little bit; if Intel owns this world it'd be optimised for 6 cores because of the 2011 platform.... & threads are irrelevant here since threads make no difference it's cores that make a difference in games.

 

Games that care about gameplay would make sure that the game runs smoothly on everything :/ it's impossible to have good gameplay when everything is super jerky, a good example of this is how when I play Call of Duty: World at War I can play at 60fps stable but it feel less smooth then Crysis Warhead at 15-20fps. Also Minecraft has pretty good multi-core rendering (My friend's 8320 @ 3.7ghz getting 300fps while my friend's 3770k @ 4.2ghz getting 500fps) o.o it's VERY single core based but it still runs well multi-core.

 

Also the moment you start splitting your code from it's initial single threaded form into a multi-threaded application it becomes much easier to keep adding support for more threads (hence why most benchmarking tools support up to 64 threads).

[YellowDragon]

You know what? the 3960x will be even more futureproof than the 8350! 

The stock cooler is absolute shit, it wasn't able to keep my fx6100 below 50°C at stock speed.

You are obviously an amd fanboy, not able to think straight. 

The OP asked if the 8350 would be more futureproof than the 4670k for gaming, the short answer remains NO. Gaming would not make any difference in at least 3-4 years. In today's (today as in 2013-2018) the 4670k will still beat the fx8350 in gaming area's, just because the single-threadded performance.

The fx8350 can do more tasks at the same time, but takes longer to complete those tasks. The 4670k can do less but will finish earlier because it can do 2 jobs in the same time a 8350 does one.

 

You are just another 15-year old, thinking you know it all because you read a magazine and do a little programming.

You lack one thing, experience.

So now you want to compare a cut down server level chip that's binned as "enthusiast" vs a Mainstream level chip? Thats a fanboy comment if I ever heard one, look at the price difference between those platforms with a straight face and you would see that you would have to be a hardcore enthusiast or out of your mind to buy an X79 platform just for gaming.

 

Lets work through this an x79 Platform board with decent features and fully fleshed out bios runs you around $250, Now take the 3960X which comes in at no less then $1000. You are spending $1250 on just a Mobo + CPU combo alone, for that price you could buy two 8350 chips and two of the the highest end AM3+ board and still have some left over for a decent GPU.

 

It will be more future proof as games will lean towards the AMD chips because of the consoles. The core designs of Intel and AMD are completely diffrent in nature and likely you will see some jump in performance with intel chips, but nowhere near the delta of change with the AMD designs because they basically are using a physical equivalent of hyperthreading with shared Caches.

 

No optimizations will not take 3 years, 3 years is an eternity in the tech world, the consoles will launch in the fall and optimization will be in full swing by the end of Q1 2014 when more games launch.

 

Single core optimization is going the way of the DoDo, completely obsolete. Intel will hit a limit or further diminishing returns in IPC improvements, look at haswell the performance gains were pathetic and that was a complete architecture change over Ivy. Silicon is reaching the end as a primary processor material, with this thought going forward you want a highly parallel processor instead so your not hampered by simple single core IPC. With this AMDs version of "HyperThreading" is on par if not more advanced then Intels hyper threading.

[Dravic]

So now you want to compare a cut down server level chip that's binned as "enthusiast" vs a Mainstream level chip? Thats a fanboy comment if I ever heard one, look at the price difference between those platforms with a straight face and you would see that you would have to be a hardcore enthusiast or out of your mind to buy an X79 platform just for gaming.

 

Lets work through this an x79 Platform board with decent features and fully fleshed out bios runs you around $250, Now take the 3960X which comes in at no less then $1000. You are spending $1250 on just a Mobo + CPU combo alone, for that price you could buy two 8350 chips and two of the the highest end AM3+ board and still have some left over for a decent GPU.

 

It will be more future proof as games will lean towards the AMD chips because of the consoles. The core designs of Intel and AMD are completely diffrent in nature and likely you will see some jump in performance with intel chips, but nowhere near the delta of change with the AMD designs because they basically are using a physical equivalent of hyperthreading with shared Caches.

 

No optimizations will not take 3 years, 3 years is an eternity in the tech world, the consoles will launch in the fall and optimization will be in full swing by the end of Q1 2014 when more games launch.

 

Single core optimization is going the way of the DoDo, completely obsolete. Intel will hit a limit or further diminishing returns in IPC improvements, look at haswell the performance gains were pathetic and that was a complete architecture change over Ivy. Silicon is reaching the end as a primary processor material, with this thought going forward you want a highly parallel processor instead so your not hampered by simple single core IPC. With this AMDs version of "HyperThreading" is on par if not more advanced then Intels hyper threading.

Don't agree.

 

Intel can throw more cores at the problem same like AMD can throw more cores at the problem.

 

But Intel has 50% single core faster than  AMD's single core. That means equivalent 4 core from Intel gonna be 50% faster.

 

You can see that they got Xeons for years now with 8 core on LGA 2011.

 

They will also sell Haswell Extreme 8 core chips next year. If the price tag wont change from 3960x/4960x - then the delta is gonna be even bigger.

 

And when we're talking about FX vs Intel you guys forget how weak AMD's architecture is overally. L3 cache has HUGE latency (double the Intel's), l2 is not that bad but still slower than Intel's solution, etc.

 

Multi-thread optimisations will improve performance of Intel processors in games. You dont optimsie for 1 architecture, you optimise for amount of threads.

 

AMD has some other processors as well. 2 module FX 4xxx and 3 module FX 6xxx.

 

Let's say that magically, somehow all developers get god-like skills and lots of money and time to spent on optimising for multiple threads. Do you want to know what will happen? I will tell you. If they pick to optimise for 8 threads... God save the FX 4xxx and 6xxx... God save them... they will have to calculate additional 2 threads on their weak architecture. Gonna kill them.

 

Current Intel chips on the other hand will 'survive' anyway because it's as fast as 6 cores from AMD (i5) or even faster (i7) and they are overally more polished and just fast.

 

So if developers don want to doom the FX series completely they will try to optimise for 6 threads where Intel will obviously be faster (i7) or as fast as FX (i5).

 

But then the entry level FX-4xxx will be left in dust anyway.

 

And consoles have only 4-5 TURTLE-SLOW threads available for gaming. That means PC ports will have to be re-optimised to support more cores than 4-5 native from consoles.

 

That's why i dont expect new games to be optimised for more than 4 threads.

[YellowDragon]

Don't agree.

 

Intel can throw more cores at the problem same like AMD can throw more cores at the problem.

 

But Intel has 50% single core faster than  AMD's single core. That means equivalent 4 core from Intel gonna be 50% faster.

 

You can see that they got Xeons for years now with 8 core on LGA 2011.

 

They will also sell Haswell Extreme 8 core chips next year. If the price tag wont change from 3960x/4960x - then the delta is gonna be even bigger.

 

And when we're talking about FX vs Intel you guys forget how weak AMD's architecture is overally. L3 cache has HUGE latency (double the Intel's), l2 is not that bad but still slower than Intel's solution, etc.

 

Multi-thread optimisations will improve performance of Intel processors in games. You dont optimsie for 1 architecture, you optimise for amount of threads.

 

AMD has some other processors as well. 2 module FX 4xxx and 3 module FX 6xxx.

 

Let's say that magically, somehow all developers get god-like skills and lots of money and time to spent on optimising for multiple threads. Do you want to know what will happen? I will tell you. If they pick to optimise for 8 threads... God save the FX 4xxx and 6xxx... God save them... they will have to calculate additional 2 threads on their weak architecture. Gonna kill them.

 

Current Intel chips on the other hand will 'survive' anyway because it's as fast as 6 cores from AMD (i5) or even faster (i7) and they are overally more polished and just fast.

 

So if developers don want to doom the FX series completely they will try to optimise for 6 threads where Intel will obviously be faster (i7) or as fast as FX (i5).

 

But then the entry level FX-4xxx will be left in dust anyway.

 

And consoles have only 4-5 TURTLE-SLOW threads available for gaming. That means PC ports will have to be re-optimised to support more cores than 4-5 native from consoles.

 

That's why i dont expect new games to be optimised for more than 4 threads.

 

The new Socket 2011 (X99 I believe) is not a consumer platform and never will be, most people out there will not drop $500 on a 8 core CPU. So its not worth even bringing it up as if you buy those platforms for-gaming anyways, they are a workstation level platform and a hyper enthusiast platform, most people I know that have a socket 2011 rig do not need a socket 2011 rig and they just bought i because they could. Even I dont have a use for silicon on that level. It would be nice to have but thats it. If you just bought 2011 for gaming you have to seriously consider getting your brain checked, the very same with 4 ways graphics cards it does not make sense from a practical standpoint and you might want to get your head checked, I only did it for the looks and some very specific application usage outside of gaming, when gaming I only use 1 or 2 cards depending on the resolution that I want, if its an RTS I play at 1080P and if its a FPS or MMO I play at 5760x1080P. Even at this insane resolution a CPU bottleneck rarely rears its ugly head as you run into far more GPU problems. 

 

Also yes in the console world you optimize for one set of hardware as all you have is one set of hardware to work with and worry about. Games will be optimized based off the Module architecture, argue all you want about it but thats how it is going to be as its easy coding for one piece of hardware over the blanket approach. Consoles get as close to the hardware as possible, its what allows then to stay relevant for the 10year lifespans that they have.

 

I come from a programming background and have delt with all sorts, optimizing for one platform is far easier then doing a good set of code that runs off all platforms. Its cheaper and thus more developer hop to AMD.

 

By all means go ahead and scream 8 Core x99, no one buys them for games, the Mainstream intel Cpus are staying with 4 cores for awhile and thats what many are forgetting is that very few people go out and buy a Titan or 3970X. Considering an 8350 is already knocking skulls with the 3770k and 4770k in multithreaded applications its easy to see how steamroller could come in and be a game changer in the mainstream market. Dont worry AMD is not threatining the 1% of consumers with x79 workstations.

[Cryptonite]

wow, this thread is starting to get ridiculous, and I couldn't help but laugh at some of these graphs, if I gave you a graph of people eating their own vomit over people eating dirt most of these guys would believe whatever those statistics said, luckily I'm in the position to experience a lot of different chips and experiment with them, you guys even underestimate dual core processors to be honest, the E6500 overclocked to a mere 3.3 GHz can perform a lot better in for example skyrim than the benchmarks would make you believe. stop bullshitting around and wake up and give credit where credit is due. The 8350 more so the 8320 is in fact quite future proof and the best bang for your buck CPU's out there at the moment and will in fact perform.

[SSOB]

 

LOL

[Kuzma]

The new Socket 2011 (X99 I believe) is not a consumer platform and never will be, most people out there will not drop $500 on a 8 core CPU. So its not worth even bringing it up as if you buy those platforms for-gaming anyways, they are a workstation level platform and a hyper enthusiast platform, most people I know that have a socket 2011 rig do not need a socket 2011 rig and they just bought i because they could. Even I dont have a use for silicon on that level. It would be nice to have but thats it. If you just bought 2011 for gaming you have to seriously consider getting your brain checked, the very same with 4 ways graphics cards it does not make sense from a practical standpoint and you might want to get your head checked, I only did it for the looks and some very specific application usage outside of gaming, when gaming I only use 1 or 2 cards depending on the resolution that I want, if its an RTS I play at 1080P and if its a FPS or MMO I play at 5760x1080P. Even at this insane resolution a CPU bottleneck rarely rears its ugly head as you run into far more GPU problems. 

 

Also yes in the console world you optimize for one set of hardware as all you have is one set of hardware to work with and worry about. Games will be optimized based off the Module architecture, argue all you want about it but thats how it is going to be as its easy coding for one piece of hardware over the blanket approach. Consoles get as close to the hardware as possible, its what allows then to stay relevant for the 10year lifespans that they have.

 

I come from a programming background and have delt with all sorts, optimizing for one platform is far easier then doing a good set of code that runs off all platforms. Its cheaper and thus more developer hop to AMD.

 

By all means go ahead and scream 8 Core x99, no one buys them for games, the Mainstream intel Cpus are staying with 4 cores for awhile and thats what many are forgetting is that very few people go out and buy a Titan or 3970X. Considering an 8350 is already knocking skulls with the 3770k and 4770k in multithreaded applications its easy to see how steamroller could come in and be a game changer in the mainstream market. Dont worry AMD is not threatining the 1% of consumers with x79 workstations.

FINALLY, someone that understands me from a developers point of view.

 

Don't worry ^_^ they're not going to understand you so leave it, programmers will understand why the games will be optimised and even when faced with benchmarks wont accept

[Xelithium]

FINALLY, someone that understands me from a developers point of view.

 

Don't worry ^_^ they're not going to understand you so leave it, programmers will understand why the games will be optimised and even when faced with benchmarks wont accept

Again you are speaking like you are employed at Crytek, CD Project RED, Dice or any other company with high end engines. I doubt you even have 1% knowledge of how they really develop. Maybe ask if you can go visit one of these companies once?

 

We can put all of this fucking bullshit to rest as soon as BF4 comes out. There you have the Frostbite 3 engine. If Intel beats AMD there, even though the game is "AMD optimized" then Intel is the king and you can't change that.

 

 

Hey guys, I can program Frostbite 10. 48 core optimization guys.

 

 

Oh, and I fucking love AMD. Some stuff they do is truly amazing. But some people here seem to think that next-gen engines will revive the 8350 and make it 1000% better.

[MetalLobster]

I found myself in a similar decision a couple years back with AMD Phenom II 1100T and an Intel sandy bridge i5 2500k.

 

I choose the 1100T because I was going to running VMs and occasionally using software like AutoCAD and PS, all programs that can use the extra cores. Also, the 1100T was only 200 at the time, opposed to 320 for the i5, so I used to money I saved to buy a 670 and an SSD and still be within my budget. I'm still using the 1100T today and I can run AAA games at max or near-max settings, so I'm confident it will last me another year before I begin to desire more performance. 

 

I'm not sure if my personal experiences will help form your opinion about the 8350 and 4670K, but I hope it prevents you from going "Intel>>>>>>>>>>AMD, AMD 4 newbzzz".   

 

edit: remembered which intel CPU I was talking about on line 1 =D 

Edited August 13, 2013 by MetalLobster

[GrievingJosh]

I think AMD should just abandon FX, and give us like a Phenom III, and a Athlon 64 X4 or something ridiculous like that, then they'd be back in the game.  

[Cryptonite]

I think AMD should just abandon FX, and give us like a Phenom III, and a Athlon 64 X4 or something ridiculous like that, then they'd be back in the game.

Athlon 64 X4 would be quad core I'd prefer Phenom III but still AMD is in the game, they just don't cater for the "upper class".