Negatives about amd cpu

[Morgan MLGman]

No, you pointed out a couple of points in my post 3 days after I posted it and managed to derail the thread.

I was still right, and you were not, that's the point, I don't like people spreading misinformation, which you did in this thread

[FruitBasketSilex]

I was still right, and you were not, that's the point, I don't like people spreading misinformation, which you did in this thread

Then PM me about it and don't derail a thread. If you didn't know, it's pretty fucking annoying to have your thread derailed. There's a PM function on this forum for a reason.

[Glenwing]

The Intel chips have enough real advantages as it is, there's no need to pretend it has even more that aren't really there. 16 Gen3 lanes is no better than 32 Gen2 lanes provided by 990FX. If you want to talk about Intel advantages then fire away, but PCIe lanes isn't one of them.

EDIT: looks like the discussion has moved on sorry. Posting from a phone is slow

[Prysin]

It's relevant to the point of THE TOPIC. Bud, THE TOPIC.

 

The point of this thread is a user inquiring (at basics) FX-8320 vs 4690k, is it worth a little bit more? To which the answer is yes, not debating about all of the specific downfalls of the 970/990FX chipsets.

 

The OP is wondering if the downfalls of the 8320 are worth spending a little bit more on an i5-4690k to which the answer is most definitely yes.

 

Sorry I insulted your precious FX chips, and chipsets, but the truth is that the FX series is pretty quickly on its way out. (Excluding future FX branded CPUs that are not released as of yet)

going from FX8 to i5 is a fucking waste. Even if you manage to sell your stuff at minimal loss, you are still gonna have to fork out 75-150 bucks. In return you get maybe 15FPs on a good day.

There is two ways to upgrade from FX8.

i7 4790k

or Skylake i5 to get the features from the 100 series chipset.

i5 4690k is a waste. you buy into a outdated chipset, get little performance increase in return and upgrading later on costs shitloads more then just going i7 right away.

If you seriously think goin from FX8 to i5 4690k is worth spending money on, then you have two issues.

first issue is that you are definetively a fanboy

second issue is that you are a massive idiot for wasting other peoples time and money.

@Dabobminable

point in case about chipset features....

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/520052-negatives-about-amd-cpu/?p=6923690

here's some facts for you dab.

PCIe Gen3 x1 = PCIe Gen2 x2

it has twice the bandwidth of Gen2. That is all.

@Glenwing

from how i read this. the 990FX NB supports up to 38 gen2 lanes. With 2x dedicated x16 graphics and 6x x1 "misc" lanes.

@Dabobminable

2x x16 Gen2 is as good bandwidth as ANY 80,90 and 100 series intel chipset offers. Only the LGA 2011-3 platform offers the possibility for multiple x16 gen3 lanes for GPUs.

also fun fact> Hawaii based GPUs, or rather GCN "gen2" and later, such as Bonaire, Hawaii, Kaveri, Tonga and fiji uses the PCIe bus for CF. AMD has officially validated CF over PCIe Gen2 x8 to show no bottlenecks. So aslong as the mobo or CPU can push dual x8 gen2 or equivalent, AMDs CF will work fine.

Also, bear in mind that far from all of Intels boards have proper 20GBs Gen3 x4 M.2 slots. quite a few of them run Gen2 X4, which is like 10GBs. Most of AMDs boards uses the Gen2 x4, if it has a M.2 slot.

Currently, only 4 ASRock board and a Gigabyte board that apparently just recently launched, feature M.2

In case you need to verify, the boards in question are>

ASRock 970 Performance/ASrock 970 Fata1ity Performance

ASRock 990FX Killer

ASRock 990FX Extreme 6 (probably also Extreme 9)

Gigabyte 990FX G1 Gaming

What kind of advantage does intel really have over FX?

IPC and Skylake.

Sandy was faster, but the 990FX chipset gave you more features then the competing offer.

Ivy was even faster still, and had equal features.

Haswell/DC was even faster then ivy, had a few more modern features, but in some areas it was still lacking (80 series chipset for example).

In the end, the real "FX buster" is SKylake. it has everything, from sheer speed to sheer feature set. There is not a damn shit FX has to offer over skylake. Be it for productivity or gaming. NOTHING.

But haswell/DC and below?

FX can compete, if only by value for your money.

AM3+ is maybe old, but the 970 and 990FX chipset has features to match pretty much any 80 or 90 series board barr the top end Z97 boards (ROG boards and the like).

@TheToucan

The only thing you gain from going from FX to i5 4xxx is wasting a fucton of money for nothing much in return.

I went from FX 8320 and a ASUS 990FX Sabertooth R2.0 board, to a i7 4790k and a ASUS Z97 MAXIMUS HERO VII board. In all honesty, i see little performance increase, i lost a few SATA ports and lots of USB ports.

in the end, in some areas, my i7 is a godsent. In others, my FX would match it or be so close to it that the "upgrade" wasnt worth it.

If you are going to upgrade from FX 8320, you got four options:

A: Wait for ZEN

B: Buy Skylake i5 or i7

C: Buy haswell i7

D: Buy X99 5930k

anything outside of these options are waste of money. Like, wasting ALOT of money.

[FruitBasketSilex]

It's cute how you think this is at all about a user switching from FX to i5. The dude hasn't bought anything yet, and is wondering beforehand whether it's worth it to go the i5 route.

Continue on with your spiel, but the rest of us will sit well knowing that we don't necessarily have to read your shitpost.

[FruitBasketSilex]

i lost a few SATA ports and lots of USB ports.

Mmmhhhmmmmm.....say that to my 16 USB ports and 8 sata ports. <3 Sounds like you didn't make the best mobo choice then.

[a3venom]

the 8320 cannot win against an i3 in gaming / budget benchmarks, you need to know that. i5 is not a competitor for 8320/8350 - i3 is.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/page4.html

[Prysin]

It's cute how you think this is at all about a user switching from FX to i5. The dude hasn't bought anything yet, and is wondering beforehand whether it's worth it to go the i5 route.

Continue on with your spiel, but the rest of us will sit well knowing that we don't necessarily have to read your shitpost.

read the quote above to find the difinition of "shitpost".

 

was there something helpful in the post i quoted? 

no

[Prysin]

the 8320 cannot win against an i3 in gaming / budget benchmarks, you need to know that. i5 is not a competitor for 8320/8350 - i3 is.

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/page4.html

it can beat the shit out of a i3 in gaming. it can also lose.

depends on the game.

 

FX8 vs i3 in Witcher 3., Good luck scoring better with the i3. Like seriously, i dare you make an i3 run better then a FX8 in that game.

[a3venom]

This is the i3 4th Gen, the i3 6100 is about 10% faster, so you just got rekt m8

 

Fx 8350 CANNOT win against i3 in gaming when you look at total number of games tested. Sure it will win in some, it DEFINITELY loses badly in DX 12 at any setting (Ashes of singularity benchmark) against the i3.

 

it can beat the shit out of a i3 in gaming. it can also lose.

depends on the game.

 

FX8 vs i3 in Witcher 3., Good luck scoring better with the i3. Like seriously, i dare you make an i3 run better then a FX8 in that game.

[FruitBasketSilex]

read the quote above to find the difinition of "shitpost".

was there something helpful in the post i quoted?

no

Sounds like you're mad you wrote out that long of a post for the wrong topic.

[Prysin]

This is the i3 4th Gen, the i3 6100 is about 10% faster, so you just got rekt m8

 

Fx 8350 CANNOT win against i3 in gaming when you look at total number of games tested. Sure it will win in some, it DEFINITELY loses badly in DX 12 at any setting (Ashes of singularity benchmark) against the i3.

 

That site has been "busted" for doing weird benchmarks.

yes FX is usually not much faster then that in Witcher 3. but the i3 is scoring WAY too high. Look at clock speed vs core.... its way too fast when comparing it with the i5s further up. i3s are decent, but not that good in NPC heavy titles.

 

Also, given that the minimums are like up in the 70s or above, i think that they didnt enter Novigrad. Because tests using Titan X's show that FPS will drop down to mid 50s to low 60s on i3s when you enter that city. Simply because of NPC density.

 

Sounds like you're mad you wrote out that long of a post for the wrong topic.

sounds like you are just mad that i got back at you.

 

if you want to cry, there is a corner over there, right next to the log off button

[FruitBasketSilex]

That site has been "busted" for doing weird benchmarks.

yes FX is usually not much faster then that in Witcher 3. but the i3 is scoring WAY too high. Look at clock speed vs core.... its way too fast when comparing it with the i5s further up. i3s are decent, but not that good in NPC heavy titles.

Also, given that the minimums are like up in the 70s or above, i think that they didnt enter Novigrad. Because tests using Titan X's show that FPS will drop down to mid 50s to low 60s on i3s when you enter that city. Simply because of NPC density.

sounds like you are just mad that i got back at you.

if you want to cry, there is a corner over there, right next to the log off button

I'm sorry, how did you get back at me? Did I miss something? *yawn*

[Dabombinable]

going from FX8 to i5 is a fucking waste. Even if you manage to sell your stuff at minimal loss, you are still gonna have to fork out 75-150 bucks. In return you get maybe 15FPs on a good day.

There is two ways to upgrade from FX8.

i7 4790k

or Skylake i5 to get the features from the 100 series chipset.

i5 4690k is a waste. you buy into a outdated chipset, get little performance increase in return and upgrading later on costs shitloads more then just going i7 right away.

If you seriously think goin from FX8 to i5 4690k is worth spending money on, then you have two issues.

first issue is that you are definetively a fanboy

second issue is that you are a massive idiot for wasting other peoples time and money.

@Dabobminable

point in case about chipset features....

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/520052-negatives-about-amd-cpu/?p=6923690

here's some facts for you dab.

PCIe Gen3 x1 = PCIe Gen2 x2

it has twice the bandwidth of Gen2. That is all.

@Glenwing

from how i read this. the 990FX NB supports up to 38 gen2 lanes. With 2x dedicated x16 graphics and 6x x1 "misc" lanes.

@Dabobminable

2x x16 Gen2 is as good bandwidth as ANY 80,90 and 100 series intel chipset offers. Only the LGA 2011-3 platform offers the possibility for multiple x16 gen3 lanes for GPUs.

also fun fact> Hawaii based GPUs, or rather GCN "gen2" and later, such as Bonaire, Hawaii, Kaveri, Tonga and fiji uses the PCIe bus for CF. AMD has officially validated CF over PCIe Gen2 x8 to show no bottlenecks. So aslong as the mobo or CPU can push dual x8 gen2 or equivalent, AMDs CF will work fine.

Also, bear in mind that far from all of Intels boards have proper 20GBs Gen3 x4 M.2 slots. quite a few of them run Gen2 X4, which is like 10GBs. Most of AMDs boards uses the Gen2 x4, if it has a M.2 slot.

Currently, only 4 ASRock board and a Gigabyte board that apparently just recently launched, feature M.2

In case you need to verify, the boards in question are>

ASRock 970 Performance/ASrock 970 Fata1ity Performance

ASRock 990FX Killer

ASRock 990FX Extreme 6 (probably also Extreme 9)

Gigabyte 990FX G1 Gaming

What kind of advantage does intel really have over FX?

IPC and Skylake.

Sandy was faster, but the 990FX chipset gave you more features then the competing offer.

Ivy was even faster still, and had equal features.

Haswell/DC was even faster then ivy, had a few more modern features, but in some areas it was still lacking (80 series chipset for example).

In the end, the real "FX buster" is SKylake. it has everything, from sheer speed to sheer feature set. There is not a damn shit FX has to offer over skylake. Be it for productivity or gaming. NOTHING.

But haswell/DC and below?

FX can compete, if only by value for your money.

AM3+ is maybe old, but the 970 and 990FX chipset has features to match pretty much any 80 or 90 series board barr the top end Z97 boards (ROG boards and the like).

@TheToucan

The only thing you gain from going from FX to i5 4xxx is wasting a fucton of money for nothing much in return.

I went from FX 8320 and a ASUS 990FX Sabertooth R2.0 board, to a i7 4790k and a ASUS Z97 MAXIMUS HERO VII board. In all honesty, i see little performance increase, i lost a few SATA ports and lots of USB ports.

in the end, in some areas, my i7 is a godsent. In others, my FX would match it or be so close to it that the "upgrade" wasnt worth it.

If you are going to upgrade from FX 8320, you got four options:

A: Wait for ZEN

B: Buy Skylake i5 or i7

C: Buy haswell i7

D: Buy X99 5930k

anything outside of these options are waste of money. Like, wasting ALOT of money.

A negative is still a negative, and while those may be the equivalent of 16 PCIe Gen 3.0 lanes, its still a negative as a lot of lanes (and therefore possible bandwidth) and space are wasted in the socket.

[iHardware Shelden]

Well I think the FX vs Core line is now officially bigger than the Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 war O_O Actually some good discussion and points in this thread though.

[Dabombinable]

Well I think the FX vs Core line is now officially bigger than the Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 war O_O Actually some good discussion and points in this thread though.

There was an Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 war? Even though when clocked 1GHz lower a Pentium M was just as fast (their large cache helped as well) as the Pentium 4?

[iHardware Shelden]

There was an Athlon XP vs Pentium 4 war? Even though when clocked 1GHz lower a Pentium M was just as fast (their large cache helped as well) as the Pentium 4?

Early Pentium 4s (-478) era ones, then when the 775 models came out it was Pentium 4 & Ds vs Athlon 64 &64x2s I do believe.

[Dabombinable]

Early Pentium 4s (-478) era ones, then when the 775 models came out it was Pentium 4 & Ds vs Athlon 64 &64x2s I do believe.

Yeah....during those times without a doubt Athlon 64 and 64 x2 were the best choice (if it wasn't a laptop) - netburst is worse than Vishera and Bulldozer. Those are at least a lot closer to their previous architecture K10. 1GHz slower and anything on K10 isn't the same speed single threaded as Vishera and Bulldozer.

[Prysin]

Yeah....during those times without a doubt Athlon 64 and 64 x2 were the best choice (if it wasn't a laptop) - netburst is worse than Vishera and Bulldozer. Those are at least a lot closer to their previous architecture K10. 1GHz slower and anything on K10 isn't the same speed single threaded as Vishera and Bulldozer.

actually, K10 and K8 has a issue vs Vishera and Bulldozer, mainly the lack of AVX. Making certain tasks on Vishera and Bulldozer a "blow out" compared to K8 and K10

[Dabombinable]

actually, K10 and K8 has a issue vs Vishera and Bulldozer, mainly the lack of AVX. Making certain tasks on Vishera and Bulldozer a "blow out" compared to K8 and K10

Single threaded K10 is still not as far ahead compared to Vishera and Bulldozer than Netburst and P6. Granted that K10 is missing AVX, but with all other instruction sets that are found on both, K10 is faster at the same clock speed.

[Prysin]

Single threaded K10 is still not as far ahead compared to Vishera and Bulldozer than Netburst and P6. Granted that K10 is missing AVX, but with all other instruction sets that are found on both, K10 is faster at the same clock speed.

but, K10 suffers from shitty Turbo. it cannot turbo more then half the CPU at once.

FX, as a whole, can turbo all 8 "cores" to their full speed if your cooler allows it. (aka ambient temps arent so high the stock cooler cannot keep up)

[Dabombinable]

but, K10 suffers from shitty Turbo. it cannot turbo more then half the CPU at once.

FX, as a whole, can turbo all 8 "cores" to their full speed if your cooler allows it. (aka ambient temps arent so high the stock cooler cannot keep up)

I'm talking about the IPC, aka single threaded performance at the same clock speed disregarding the CPU derived from them and focusing on the architecture itself. K10 is by design faster single threaded than Vishera and Bulldozer, however the disparity between them isn't any where near as great as it is between P6 and Netburst.

[Prysin]

I'm talking about the IPC, aka single threaded performance at the same clock speed disregarding the CPU derived from them and focusing on the architecture itself. K10 is by design faster single threaded than Vishera and Bulldozer, however the disparity between them isn't any where near as great as it is between P6 and Netburst.

single threaded performance is always dependent on clock speeds.

 

let me show you:

 

you may be surprised by this. but most reviews are made WITHOUT turbo activated. because turbo, both for AMD and Intel is reliant of thermal "margin".

So if you live in a hot place, you may never reach turbo on stock coolers. Whilst being in a cool place, you would turbo hard-core all year long. So many benchmarks are made without turbo.

 

If you go to Anandtechs benchmark tool, you notice that the CPU speeds listed at stock speeds rather then turbo.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1260

just as an example.

 

As we can see above. Anandtech is posting results without turbo. meaning the scores you see there, is with turbo disabled. Both for intel and AMD.

FX 8350 has 4GHz stock and 4.5GHz turbo speed.

i7 4790k has 4GHz stock and 4.4GHz turbo speed.

 

so both CPUs are being tested under "worst case" conditions. Aka turbo not activating at all.

 

however, as we can see, turbo is REALLY a dealbreaker with FX

[Dabombinable]

@Prysin

Clock for clock, AKA if they are at the same frequency. Talking about the architecture and CPU based on them as a whole-not specific CPU. Not if they were at different frequency or turbo'd differently. I'll use bold+caps+ a larger font so you don't miss it again (well maybe not caps-removed capslock because its annoying in games).

 

 

Clock for clock, AKA if they are at the same frequency. Talking about the architecture (K10 and Bulldozer+Vishera, aka AMD's architecture) and CPU based on them as a whole-not specific CPU. Not if they were at different frequency or turbo'd differently.

[Prysin]

@Prysin

Clock for clock, AKA if they are at the same frequency. Talking about the architecture and CPU based on them as a whole-not specific CPU. Not if they were at different frequency or turbo'd differently. I'll use bold+caps+ a larger font so you don't miss it again (well maybe not caps-removed capslock because its annoying in games).

 

 

Clock for clock, AKA if they are at the same frequency. Talking about the architecture (K10 and Bulldozer+Vishera, aka AMD's architecture) and CPU based on them as a whole-not specific CPU. Not if they were at different frequency or turbo'd differently.

and clock for clock is a stupid comparison, because you aint gonna downclock a CPU to run as slow as another. In the case of K10 vs Bulldozer/Vishera this is counter productive.

 

if 8350 is 100% @ 4GHz, then downclocking it to 3.3GHz to "match" a K10 x6 1100T is FOOLISH.

you would pretty much be running the FX at sub-optimal speeds, whilst running the K10 at optimal speeds.

 

Since both are DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE YOU CANNOT SIMPLY COMPARE CLOCK SPEEDS.  IT ISNT AND NEVER WILL BE THAT SIMPLE!!!!.

but why is that??

because there is other things at play. Cache latencies, IMC, bus speeds, fetch, decode, schedulers... shits too complex to boil down to "at same clock speed".