I am building my first rig and would like to know why one would want a AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor vs a Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor. What does number of cores and data width have to do with performance? (Yes I know im a complete noob, some help would be much appreciated)
>>51560956
Get the 4790K
/thread
AMD basically has a different architecture where 2 cores make up a "unit" which shares a certain amount of cache (fast memory for the CPU to work with). An Intel quad-core is better than a comparable octa-core AMD in terms of absolute perfromance.
>>51560956
the 4790K definitely. it's desireable to have more cores of course (pun not intended, heh) but not if those cores are shit like on the AMD processor.
The 8350 and 4790K don't even compare. If you are willing to spend the money, it should be a no-brainer.
>>51560996
Thanks dude, I might be back for other parts.
>>51560956
You can't compare different CPU families by their spec sheets. There's whole lot of stuff going on that makes Intel 1GHz faster than AMD 1GHz.
For us mortals it's just something that has to be measured with benchmarks.
>>51561381
Where do I find benchmarks?
>>51561393
All over the web.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1260
>>51560956
AMD could be an interesting proposition, depending on your workload. If you're doing heavily threaded integer workloads, such as compiling large projects, AMD has a fighting chance.
I've been thinking of getting the AMD not only cuz its cheaper but because they don't change their sockets every fucking processor.
>>51561724
They don't because their "new" processors are the same old shit.
>>51561724
Well, the FX-8350 came out in 2012, that's why. AMD hasn't released a successor microarchitecture since. They withdrew from the high-performance CPU market, wisely so, in my opinion.
>>51561797
they're coming out with a new socket/CPU sometime next year... supposedly.
>>51560956
if you just want to game, go amd. the amount of money saved will allow you to buy a better gpu, more ram, etc etc.
I can buy a fx 8350 and an i5 4460 at the same price. Which is worth more for gaming?
>>51561885
I'd say most games need good single-thread performance, so stay away from AMD.
>>51561849
>they're coming out with a new socket/CPU sometime next year... supposedly.
Midish-high end? I haven't been keeping up, but if they're trying to compete with desktop i5 and i7, they better be cooking a really, really good chip.
>>51562004
it's only like 40% better than bulldozer iirc. intel will still be better
>>51561849
>>51562004
New platform called Zen, supposed to save AMD etc.
I'm not holding out high hopes.
From jet.
Still able to be used right now.
>>51562067
What is better? i7 4790 or i5 4690k? Assuming overclocking the i5 of course senpai
Does anyone know if there's any problems dropping a Xeon X3470 into a p55 s1156 board? Being so old google is sparse on details.
>>51562029
40% better than excavator, which is approximately 15% better than bulldozer.
It's assumed to be very close to haswell performance on release which is 0-10% behind skylake. I'm personally going to be looking at the upper mid range price/perf segment (around top i5 tier) to see if there is something like 6core+mt thing going on.
>>51562144
the i5 probably unless maybe if you're doing multithreaded stuff like compiling large programs or rendering video
>>51562144
The i7.
>>51562029
>>51562037
Just looked it up. Well, they're moving to 14 nm at last, that's a good thing, and focusing on per-core performance, which is another good thing. I just fear this is going to arrive too late to make a difference, even if it's good enough to compete.
Personally, for a desktop I wouldn't mind worse performance per watt than Intel, if performance per buck is better.
>>51561951
i'd say you're a retarded shillfag who doesn't do any real gaming.
>>51561885
it depends on the game desu. but so long as it isn't some poorly optimized trash that can't handle moar cores. AMD will be more than enough.
either way why would you want to spend twice as much on the mobo+cpu by going intel? when you're going to be getting the same performance in games that aren't made by retards.
then there's the fact that anyone who gives intel their money is killing the market.
>locks their multipliers preventing consumers the ability to overclock.. unless you pay over 30% of the total cost for a MAYBE 0%-5% increase in performance
intel should be sued out the ass for this bullshit.
fucking cocksucking money grubbing cunts and their terrible marketing practises.
>>51561951
Probably Intel. Gives way more performance if you want to do emulation
>>51562171
>0-10% behind skylake.
Absolutely NOT the case. Skylake is ~2-5% SLOWER
>>51562176
>>51562180
Thanks, probably gonna go with the i5 since it's $30 cheaper and it's only for
>gaymen
>>51562218
first off I'm not paying twice as much
second "games that aren't made by retards" what's that supposed to mean? games that you personally like? I know there are bad ports (such as arkham knight or AC unity) but I'm looking for something to play the average AAA release which is a pretty broad thing. I'm not after MOBAs or simulators.
