8320 vs 8350 vs 4670k

[JujuShinobi]

Since when i7 is meant for server operations? Just get your facts straight, you are arguing that 4 cores + hyper threading is not equivalent of i7.

 

So what does make i7 being i7? I5 has quad core and everything i7 has, but i7 has hyper threading. That Xeon has everything i7 has, therefore i am free to call it i7 in my own vocabulary.

Stop twisting my words, I never said i7s. I said Xeons. Whatever, just do what you mean. No one will believe a biased source such as you. It's also annoying how you can't admit defeat

[Dravic]

Yes, your best bet is an Asus M5A99FX board as it will have all the features you need or may want + it offers best-in-class overclocking results.

Second board I'd recommend is the Gigabyte 990FX UD3, you get 98% of the features on the Asus board + better aesthetics, the sacrifice is slightly lower RAM overclocking results & a slightly more out-dated BIOS layout.

If you're interested in a more budget friendly 970 based board, your best option is the Asus M5A97 R2.0.

 

At the price point of 990fx you can get i7 and non-OC mobo so nope.avi

 

m5a97 r2.0 is just 30$ cheaper, that's not really price difference between 990fx and 970.

[slasher0161]

Since when i7 is meant for server operations? Just get your facts straight, you are arguing that 4 cores + hyper threading is not equivalent of i7.

 

So what does make i7 being i7? I5 has quad core and everything i7 has, but i7 has hyper threading. That Xeon has everything i7 has, therefore i am free to call it i7 in my own vocabulary.

Mate go fanboy over swifty's rig seeing you believe xeon's to be the be all end all of gaming. You blatantly have no fucking clue what you are on about, your rig specs in your sig tell me you haven't played with modern hardware and tested for yourself, you also refuse to even conduct a proper discussion. Please do yourself a favour and bugger off.

 

Gaming is on average more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The few games that are held back by the cpu are quite well known (if people mention those games as their top priority then that changes things) but perhaps the funniest part is your outlandish claims that intel is 50% stronger, World of Warcraft, probably the most cpu restricted game out there and an A8-6600k @ 4ghz only gets beaten by an i5-3570k @ 4.5ghz by 60%... Now just take a moment for that to click through the cogs before you throw a toms hardware benchmark of a flightpath back at me.

 

You can't rely on what is written only mate it is that simple, for example one of my cars has a listed top speed of 175km/h I can tell you for a fact without red lining 5th gear, stock standard it hits over 190km/h, however in your world that is impossible because the sheet of paper says so.

 

If you won't conduct proper discussions and bring something meaningful to the table just do us all a favour and piss off, hell I throw that challenge out to the mod team i'll donate another $50 to have your account banned.

[Dravic]

Stop twisting my words, I never said i7s. I said Xeons. Whatever, just do what you mean. No one will believe a biased source such as you. It's also annoying how you can't admit defeat

 

Is Intel ARK database a biased source for you? I guess so. it speaks to me that Xeon e3-1230v3 is equivalent of i7 but it's cheaper.

 

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75122,75054,65719,65732

[Hunter259]

Is Intel ARK database a biased source for you? I guess so. it speaks to me that Xeon e3-1230v3 is equivalent of i7 but it's cheaper.

 

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75122,75054,65719,65732

Can you not notice that the clocks are lower as well. These are not equals. The i7 will win in every benchmark because the zeon runs at lower frequencies.

[slasher0161]

Is Intel ARK database a biased source for you? I guess so. it speaks to me that Xeon e3-1230v3 is equivalent of i7 but it's cheaper.

 

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75122,75054,65719,65732

Lower frequency, not overclockable... yes must be superior.

[Dravic]

Mate go fanboy over swifty's rig seeing you believe xeon's to be the be all end all of gaming. You blatantly have no fucking clue what you are on about, your rig specs in your sig tell me you haven't played with modern hardware and tested for yourself, you also refuse to even conduct a proper discussion. Please do yourself a favour and bugger off.

 

Gaming is on average more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The few games that are held back by the cpu are quite well known (if people mention those games as their top priority then that changes things) but perhaps the funniest part is your outlandish claims that intel is 50% stronger, World of Warcraft, probably the most cpu restricted game out there and an A8-6600k @ 4ghz only gets beaten by an i5-3570k @ 4.5ghz by 60%... Now just take a moment for that to click through the cogs before you throw a toms hardware benchmark of a flightpath back at me.

 

You can't even read what i write, no?

 

I even repeated myself. Go check what approximately means. Anything from negative numbers to X. I said approximately 50% faster than FX 8350. That means it may be same performance at times.

 

He didn't test any CPU-bound games. Any heavily scripted game will work better on i5/i7 Intel CPU unless the game is using more than 6 cores (if a game uses 6 cores, AMD CPUs are still slower or the same speed. They start winning at 7 & 8 cores).

 

I said Intel CPUs are approximately 50% faster than AMD FX 8320/8350 at the start of the thread, you can go and see that i did. See? Do you even know what approximately means?

 

 

BTW I am not Intel fanboy.

[Dravic]

Lower frequency, not overclockable... yes must be superior.

 

I never said Xeon e3-1230v3 is faster than equivalent i7. I said it is the same class of a CPU for much much cheaper.  200MHz on turbo is gonna make a difference for you?

[slasher0161]

You can't even read what i write, no?

 

I even repeated myself. Go check what approximately means. Anything from negative numbers to X. I said approximately 50% faster than FX 8350. That means it may be same performance at times.

 

 

 

BTW I am not Intel fanboy.

I can read perfectly, however here i'll do you a favour lets test your reading.

 

ap·prox·i·mate  (-prks-mt)

adj.

1. Almost exact or correct: the approximate time of the accident.

2. Very similar; closely resembling: sketched an approximate likeness of the suspect.

3. Botany Close together but not united.

v. (-mt) ap·prox·i·mat·ed, ap·prox·i·mat·ing, ap·prox·i·mates

v.tr.

1. To come close to; be nearly the same as: This meat substitute approximates the real thing.

2. To bring near.

3. To bring together, as cut edges of tissue.

v.intr.

To come near or close, as in degree, nature, or quality.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/approximately

 

 

Do you really want to debate what is approximate as well?

 

I never said Xeon e3-1230v3 is faster than equivalent i7. I said it is the same class of a CPU for much much cheaper.  200MHz on turbo is gonna make a difference for you?

 

 

No it wouldn't for me because I wouldn't buy a locked processor, let alone one that was binned for stability even if it meant sacrificing clocks.

[JujuShinobi]

Mate go fanboy over swifty's rig seeing you believe xeon's to be the be all end all of gaming. You blatantly have no fucking clue what you are on about, your rig specs in your sig tell me you haven't played with modern hardware and tested for yourself, you also refuse to even conduct a proper discussion. Please do yourself a favour and bugger off.

Gaming is on average more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The few games that are held back by the cpu are quite well known (if people mention those games as their top priority then that changes things) but perhaps the funniest part is your outlandish claims that intel is 50% stronger, World of Warcraft, probably the most cpu restricted game out there and an A8-6600k @ 4ghz only gets beaten by an i5-3570k @ 4.5ghz by 60%... Now just take a moment for that to click through the cogs before you throw a toms hardware benchmark of a flightpath back at me.

You can't rely on what is written only mate it is that simple, for example one of my cars has a listed top speed of 175km/h I can tell you for a fact without red lining 5th gear, stock standard it hits over 190km/h, however in your world that is impossible because the sheet of paper says so.

If you won't conduct proper discussions and bring something meaningful to the table just do us all a favour and piss off, hell I throw that challenge out to the mod team i'll donate another $50 to have your account banned.

THANK YOU good sir. I support your cause!

As a closing statement, there is no such thing as "The Best CPU" but there is such thing as "The Best CPU for YOUR Needs". For example, an Intel Pentium may be the best option for said person if he or she only does web browsing and watching videos. An 8320 will suit the needs of a person who needs more cores but can't afford to pay the premium of an i7 4770k or 3970X. Obviously the 3970X right now gets the job of rendering videos and such the fastest but the premium for it is out of reach for most people and barely anyone maxes all the cores w/o synthetic benchmarks (Edzel/Diesel maxes all the cores LOL). Same applies for GPUs. If you mainly or only game, NVidia is a good option. However if you use Adobe and/or mine Bitcoins, OpenCL on AMD cards will benefit you a lot.

Hence Dravic, go away and don't bother us people who want to have a civilised discussion. Also it is proven that the 8350 beats all, and I mean ALL Intel CPUs in Integer based operations

[KidneyStoner]

Dravic is a blight on this forum I can't believe that after all the warnings he wasn't eventually banned.
Personal attacks on the forum are against the rules but somebody has to put a stop to his destructive efforts.

[Dravic]

THANK YOU good sir. I support your cause!

As a closing statement, there is no such thing as "The Best CPU" but there is such thing as "The Best CPU for YOUR Needs". For example, an Intel Pentium may be the best option for said person if he or she only does web browsing and watching videos. An 8320 will suit the needs of a person who needs more cores but can't afford to pay the premium of an i7 4770k or 3970X. Obviously the 3970X right now gets the job of rendering videos and such the fastest but the premium for it is out of reach more most people and barely anyone maxes all the cores w/o synthetic benchmarks (Edzel/Diesel maxes all the cores LOL). Same applies for GPUs. If you mainly or only game, NVidia is a good option. However if you use Adobe and mine Bitcoins, OpenCL on AMD cards will benefit you a lot.

Hence Dravic, go away and don't bother us people who want to have a civilised discussion. Also it is proven that the 8350 beats all, and I mean ALL Intel CPUs in Integer based operations

 

"it is proven" - where?

 

You are saying that 8 core beats 4 cores. OKay, i agree. But that doesnt mean AMD beats intel, that means 8 amd cores beats 4 intel cores except that Intel can throw more cores at the problem as well. Compare 8 amd cores to 8 intel cores and say that again.

[Dravic]

Dravic is a blight on this forum I can't believe that after all the warnings he wasn't eventually banned.

Personal attacks on the forum are against the rules but somebody has to put a stop to his destructive efforts.

 

Yes, destructive efforts to defend Intel CPUs on a forum full of blind AMD fanboys raging when somebody proves them wrong.

 

Cry me a river - I feed on your tears, people.

 

I have no problem with AMD crappy modular design except that it's slower than Intel in 99% of tasks. if it didnt, my next CPU will be AMD modular design.

 

Now, the problem with you people:

 

You are saying FX CPU is faster because it is and it must be true because you've seen 1 benchmark that says so so all people out there should be blessed with your knowledge and they should buy AMD FX because it must be faster cuz it has more cores for all tasks it will be faster bla bla bla bla.

 

That's pretty much all you are saying. When I say that it is not faster in 99% of tasks (the ones that arent multi threaded) you guys start throwing shit at me for being Intel fanboy. All tasks for up to quad threads will be faster on Intel by a lot. 5-6 threads will still be faster or as fast on Intel i5 as FX 6300. 7-8 threads will be faster with FX 8320/8350 than i5 and in some cases faster than i7.

[JujuShinobi]

"it is proven" - where?

 

You are saying that 8 core beats 4 cores. OKay, i agree. But that doesnt mean AMD beats intel, that means 8 amd cores beats 4 intel cores except that Intel can throw more cores at the problem as well. Compare 8 amd cores to 8 intel cores and say that again.

You'll never know, AMD is slowly catching up to Intel and with consoles coming out... AMD will have more money to R&D APUs which may very well be tomorrow's enthusiasts EXTREME edition. And not forgetting that consumer grade Intel 8 cores are quite some distance away.

Also, it is proven in a lot of websites. Not sure about AnandTech and I'll give you that. But I have seen such results on multiple sites. The more sources agree with each other, the more credible said result is hence making it more reliable.

[slasher0161]

"it is proven" - where?

 

You are saying that 8 core beats 4 cores. OKay, i agree. But that doesnt mean AMD beats intel, that means 8 amd cores beats 4 intel cores except that Intel can throw more cores at the problem as well. Compare 8 amd cores to 8 intel cores and say that again.

Yes lets compare a $200 cpu with a $1000 cpu. That seems like a valid hypothesis for a test.

You just keep missing the point, beware of rabbits would be my personal suggestion, if you want to know why do some research on carrots, when you understand the statement you will no longer need to beware of rabbits.

[Dravic]

Yes lets compare a $200 cpu with a $1000 cpu. That seems like a valid hypothesis for a test.

You just keep missing the point, beware of rabbits would be my personal suggestion, if you want to know why do some research on carrots, when you understand the statement you will no longer need to beware of rabbits.

 

You'll never know, AMD is slowly catching up to Intel and with consoles coming out... AMD will have more money to R&D APUs which may very well be tomorrow's enthusiasts EXTREME edition. And not forgetting that consumer grade Intel 8 cores are quite some distance away.

Also, it is proven in a lot of websites. Not sure about AnandTech and I'll give you that. But I have seen such results on multiple sites. The more sources agree with each other, the more credible said result is hence making it more reliable.

 

My post above.

[JujuShinobi]

Also Dravic, you are labelling many people AMD fanboys when most of these fanboys use Intel. Hell I'm using a mobile Intel Pentium at the moment. I love both sides and just choose what is better for MY needs.

In addition, I see you in almost every AMD vs Intel thread instantly recommending the Xeons without looking at the person's needs. It is most unfortunate to have someone such as you spoiling the beauty of the LinusTechTips forums

[Dravic]

You'll never know, AMD is slowly catching up to Intel and with consoles coming out... AMD will have more money to R&D APUs which may very well be tomorrow's enthusiasts EXTREME edition. And not forgetting that consumer grade Intel 8 cores are quite some distance away.

Also, it is proven in a lot of websites. Not sure about AnandTech and I'll give you that. But I have seen such results on multiple sites. The more sources agree with each other, the more credible said result is hence making it more reliable.

 

I don't know if I will still be alive tomorrow, the same time. I don't know if there won't be a catastrophic accident somewhere in the universe that will destroy Earth and/or humans as we know it.

 

AMD APUs might be quite good in the future. But those will be totally different architectures than the ones we have right now. So buying AMD CPU that is slower now but has more cores (even tho gaming is what you want to do and I5 will be faster for this) is stupid.

When we need APUs we will buy APUs. You aren't sticking any APUs in AM3+ motherboard so why do you even bring APUs to this discussion? Good APU platforms for PC do not exist as of today. Consoles will have one on the market soon (altho still crappy performance versus PC).

[slasher0161]

Your post above says absolutely nothing. Lets look at the average use case scenario, the bulk of what the masses do on their computer.

- Internet browsing

- Media consumption

- Gaming (gpu intensive)

- Smaller portion of gaming that is cpu intensive (note the volume of cpu intensive games that require high fps to be maintained is relatively low to none)

- light editing work

- text documents

- light programming tasks

- light editing / rendering

 

 

In this use case scenario you know what the average end user will notice in difference between an i5 and an fx.

 

SFA

 

The people who will notice the difference in tasks, in 99% of cases know what they want and are willing to pay for it.

[pooh00018]

OK, obviously there are lots of disagreements. To Dravic, do you think that the extra 80 bucks is worth the performance gain over the 8320? Because that is all I care about (80 bucks can be spent on a better GPU - that would definitely provide better gains) 

[Dravic]

Also Dravic, you are labelling many people AMD fanboys when most of these fanboys use Intel. Hell I'm using a mobile Intel Pentium at the moment. I love both sides and just choose what is better for MY needs.

In addition, I see you in almost every AMD vs Intel thread instantly recommending the Xeons without looking at the person's needs. It is most unfortunate to have someone such as you spoiling the beauty of the LinusTechTips forums

 

I never recommended Xeon here. I only brought Xeon e3-1230v2 o show you that you can get i7 + mobo at around same price as 8350 + mobo + cooler to cool it. Altho you arent OCing Xeon, no, that's obviously not possible with locked CPU.

[Dravic]

OK, obviously there are lots of disagreements. To Dravic, do you think that the extra 80 bucks is worth the performance gain over the 8320? Because that is all I care about (80 bucks can be spent on a better GPU - that would definitely provide better gains) 

 

that depends on the mobo [if you want to overclock and/or SLI/Crossfire in the future] + CPU + [cooler if you want to overclock] combo you are thinking about.

[JujuShinobi]

I don't know if I will still be alive tomorrow, the same time. I don't know if there won't be a catastrophic accident somewhere in the universe that will destroy Earth and/or humans as we know it.

 

AMD APUs might be quite good in the future. But those will be totally different architectures than the ones we have right now. So buying AMD CPU that is slower now but has more cores (even tho gaming is what you want to do and I5 will be faster for this) is stupid.

When we need APUs we will buy APUs. You aren't sticking any APUs in AM3+ motherboard so why do you even bring APUs to this discussion? Good APU platforms for PC do not exist as of today. Consoles will have one on the market soon (altho still crappy performance versus PC).

Consoles naturally have inferior performance to PCs as they are cheaper and meant to be that way. Also, with consoles being released soon with many huge titles coming out on consoles be it exclusive or not, AMD is not dying anytime soon. And I nobody said APUs need to be on AM3+ to be a performance CPU. APUs as they are right now are more of a test to see if they are effective, which they are. Given more time and research, we may see the future of computing being based on APUs.

Linus said in one of the WAN show streams that AMD leaning towards APUs may very well be the best option for them

[Hunter259]

Yes, destructive efforts to defend Intel CPUs on a forum full of blind AMD fanboys raging when somebody proves them wrong.

 

Cry me a river - I feed on your tears, people.

 

I have no problem with AMD crappy modular design except that it's slower than Intel in 99% of tasks. if it didnt, my next CPU will be AMD modular design.

 

Now, the problem with you people:

 

You are saying FX CPU is faster because it is and it must be true because you've seen 1 benchmark that says so so all people out there should be blessed with your knowledge and they should buy AMD FX because it must be faster cuz it has more cores for all tasks it will be faster bla bla bla bla.

 

That's pretty much all you are saying. When I say that it is not faster in 99% of tasks (the ones that arent multi threaded) you guys start throwing shit at me for being Intel fanboy. All tasks for up to quad threads will be faster on Intel by a lot. 5-6 threads will still be faster or as fast on Intel i5 as FX 6300. 7-8 threads will be faster with FX 8320/8350 than i5 and in some cases faster than i7.

I think its time to hit you with the ban stick.

[Dravic]

I think its time to hit you with the ban stick.

 

For what? I am not Intel fanboy.

 

And even if I was... you people would ban me for preffering Intel overally across the board?

 

Laughing so hard.