Makes no sense...

[OsuMasterz]

I was looking around and I saw that the AMD FX-9590 is about $200, about the same price as a Intel core I5-4690K. So I looked around at benchmarks and such, keep in mind the FX chip has 4 more cores, clocked over 1 GHZ higher, and has 4 more threads... Yet, wherever I looked, I found that the I5 beats the FX chip by over 20 FPS in most games, and adobe rendering was faster on the I5.. I know that not all GHZ are created equally, but seriously someone explain this to me.

[Aytex]

FX has old Architecture and slower IPC (Instructions Per Cycle)

More cores/threads does not always mean More FPS

 

CPU's aren't all created the same from the same base model, they are mostly all different

[wangyuji431]

The fx 9590 is based on (i think) piledriver architecture. This architecture is less efficient than that of intel's lineup of devil's canyon cpus, which use both hyperthreading, more efficient cpu construction (less electricity and more cashmoney) and more efficiency per ghz.

[OsuMasterz]

4 minutes ago, Aytex said:

FX has old Architecture and slower IPC (Instructions Per Cycle)

More cores/threads does not always mean More FPS

 

CPU's aren't all created the same from the same base model, they are mostly all different

And yet it was close to $1k when released... Good job AMD

[Zyndo]

If you had an I7 2700k against an i7 6700k both running at 4 GHz (4 cores 8 threads) the 6700k is quite a bit better even though their "specs" are identical. Cores and frequency comparisons are only really valid against chips that are in the same family, or have the same architecture. Our high end i7's have been basically the same as far as core count and frequency goes for quite a few years now, and yet each time there is a new one, its a bit better than the last.

 

CPU speed Isn't as simple as (Cores+Threads)xFrequency = Power

There are many other factors at play.

[OsuMasterz]

20 minutes ago, Aytex said:

FX has old Architecture and slower IPC (Instructions Per Cycle)

More cores/threads does not always mean More FPS

 

CPU's aren't all created the same from the same base model, they are mostly all different

 

3 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

If you had an I7 2700k against an i7 6700k both running at 4 GHz (4 cores 8 threads) the 6700k is quite a bit better even though their "specs" are identical. Cores and frequency comparisons are only really valid against chips that are in the same family, or have the same architecture. Our high end i7's have been basically the same as far as core count and frequency goes for quite a few years now, and yet each time there is a new one, its a bit better than the last.

 

CPU speed Isn't as simple as (Cores+Threads)xFrequency = Power

There are many other factors at play.

I thought I just said that not all GHZ are not created equally?

[Zyndo]

1 minute ago, OsuMasterz said:

 

I thought I just said that not all GHZ are not created equally?

Then you had your own answer before you even started...

[OsuMasterz]

1 minute ago, Zyndo said:

Then you had your own answer before you even started...

im asking how can it be such a SIGNIFICANT difference. I'm not asking why it performed worse.

[Zyndo]

2 minutes ago, OsuMasterz said:

im asking how can it be such a SIGNIFICANT difference. I'm not asking why it performed worse.

That IS the reason.

 

Then there's also how games themselves are programmed. MOST games cannot take advantage of any more than 4 cores. Once you get more than that, the extra cores are basically useless 99% of the time. In some situations and games, having more than 4 cores (even if they're at the same speed as a 4core) can even hinder framerates a bit (not 100% sure why that happens, but I've seen a couple of benchmarks that have shown that), they might interfere with each other or become less efficient or something.

You combine that point with worse architecture and you end up with your result (more or less)