amd/intel chip comparrison

[RUWO_builder]

i'm not lokking for a pc atm,but i just wonderd,why does no one use amd?

i mean, a 7700k is 350$, while this AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz 8-Core higher clocked, true 8 core is only 190$.

there are the Obvious things, like DDR3 onny, but linus learned us that thats not a big preformance hit.

it can overclock, on any amd chipset, the boards are cheaper, but he tdp is higher, wich is not a big deal for me, since only 20 bucks more on a psu is np.

any ideas for other reasons? would the 7700k outperform the FX-9590?

 

 

[ShadySocks]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/02/09/amd-ryzen-prices-revealed-massive-blow-to-intel/#4450e1126e7c

 

Ryzen is coming out next month (ideally)

[RUWO_builder]

i

1 minute ago, ShadySocks said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/02/09/amd-ryzen-prices-revealed-massive-blow-to-intel/#4450e1126e7c

 

Ryzen is coming out next month (ideally)

i know, thats not my question.

[Zyndo]

@RUWO_builderCouple of reasons....

1. Its not just about cores x clockspeeds = performance. Some programs (such as games) cannot even really leverage 8 cores most of the time.

2. that specific AMD chip is very very old. If you compare an i7 840 to an i7 6700, they both have 4 cores, both have 8 threads, and both have similar clockspeeds.... but the 6700 will OBLITERATE the 840 because of its architectural improvements. It is designed differently, which makes it more efficient, thus allowing it to have more "IPC" (instructions per clock). in 10 years if you compare any 4c 8t CPU to the current i7 7700k, it will also follow this same pattern. We've been stuck in the 4-5GHZ speed barrier of consumer CPU's for quite some time now, but what you can get out of 4-5GHz is always steadily improving.

3. Yes. the 7700k is significantly more powerful than the FX-9590. Depending on exactly what you're doing that difference can be larger or smaller and you may not necessarily opt for the 7700k if price:performance ratios are your concern, but in general terms the 7700k is vastly superior.




I should clarify though. This doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with AMD cpu's or gpu's as a whole. several years ago when the AMD chip was recent it was actually a good buy and a good investment for the right uses. Its simply several years old now and had been outgrown by the competition.

[ShadySocks]

I am not certain on this information, but here is what I got:

 

Why intel is better right now

1) single threaded performance is better

2) lower power usage (noise, heat, etc)

3) more common

4) the AMD is not a true 8 core

5) AMD Ryzen is about to make all current AMD chips obsolete

[SnowyMus]

Yes, the i7-7700K will vastly outperform the FX-9590 in both single and multi threaded workloads. Clock speed isn't going to be relevant unless you overclocked it all the way to the moon.

 

AMD FX processors aren't bad, though. You will still get good gaming performance on both processors without overclocking. I'd personally wait for Ryzen if you're looking for an AMD CPU, but if you must get one now, I'd personally go for the cheaper FX-8300 or FX-8350.

[Enderman]

Typical newbie mistake is thinking that more cores + more click speed = more performance.

This is wrong.

Go look at real benchmarks, an i7 is better than all current AMD processors.

 

Also, the 9590 is pretty much the worst CPU currently in existence, it should die in a fire

[RUWO_builder]

ok, thanks im not going to buy any of them sonn anyway, but why is it not a trough 8core

[ShadySocks]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Also, the 9590 is pretty much the worst CPU currently in existence, it should die in a fire

It will literally light on fire if you don't use a fancy cooler

[RUWO_builder]

1 minute ago, ShadySocks said:

It will literally light on fire if you don't use a fancy cooler

haha

[ShadySocks]

2 minutes ago, RUWO_builder said:

ok, thanks im not going to buy any of them sonn anyway, but why is it not a trough 8core

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excavator_(microarchitecture)

[RUWO_builder]

ok thx

 

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, RUWO_builder said:

ok, thanks im not going to buy any of them sonn anyway, but why is it not a trough 8core

it is because of how fx chips are made 

[tp95112]

Because keeping a fire extinguisher around is a waste of space

[CatXice]

An i5-6600k laughs the amd 8 core out the door there god awful tbh ryzen should fixed that

[komar]

28 minutes ago, RUWO_builder said:

ok, thanks im not going to buy any of them sonn anyway, but why is it not a trough 8core

it is 8 core but the cores are 2 in 1 module (4 modules - 8 cores)  witch sucks beacause they share resources between the 2 cores in 1  module. As a user of amd athlon 760k (4 cores 2 modules) for quite a few years you only see it in things like cinebench  - when all of my 4 cores got hit 2 are faster and 2 are slower (from witch 1 is terribly slower).

Why in general fx 9590 sucks  - it uses a lot of power! - you need good mb (you cant get the cheapest crap with the same socket and hey it works) and not just that  - this chip if i remember uses like 200W+ and if you try to OC it (theres a video of this in YT) the motherboards will freak and turn off (thats because this chip is already super OCed 8350)

This is why it sucks and why it doesnt suck that much  - if you use some program that benefits from more cores and you need it NOW   - yeah still better wait for ryzen . I watch 1 YT channel that the guy used the 9590  to make a secound recording or rendering pc and said it works dope.

 

(https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

and here you can see that its not that terrible performance wise also)