This is fucking ridiculous.
because it's that much better.
>>52136222
>because it's that much better.
somehow I doubt it.
>>52136228
that's because you're poor and never got to experience a decent processor
High R&D costs
Low die yields
Costs of setting up/hiring a fab
>>52136244
Also:
>because they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want
>>52136210
>amd
>cancer-tier fake 8 core with mobile centrino performance, outdated technology and all that jazz
>5960x
>DDR4, blazing fast, can overclocked to hell and beyond, 8 real cores and 16 threads, perfect for high-end workstations
Now delete this shitty thread.
Because the customers for those products can afford the premium.
It's not about how good it is, it's about it being the best and so people are willing to pay for it.
The AMD processor is cheap because people aren't willing to pay a premium, because it's not a premium processor.
Halo processor, halo prices.
>>52136258
>implying that intel has 8 physical cores
>>52136210
Kek, i have this exact CPU (FX-8350) at work. thos funny 4 cores... After fresh install of Win 7 in runs worse than my bloated 2 years old Win7 install at home, problem is i have C2D E8600 in my internet browsing CP.
So c'mon, i liked AMD in the odl days, but now it's just marketing shizzle.
I seriously hope they don't still fabricate those FX chips, there's no doubt surplus of stock to go around before thousands of them get dumped in mexico landfills.
>>52136326
>After fresh install of Win 7 in runs worse than my bloated 2 years old Win7 install at home,
This isn't AMD's fault.
If this is happening, you're doing something wrong.
The 8350 is much better than the old c2ds. The problem with the 8350 is not that it's bad, it's that it's worse than sandy bridge.
>>52136323
>barely twice the performance for 5x the price
>jewtel
why do we support this company again?
>>52136413
Because the competition isn't there.
>>52136323
So what CPU does AMD have that can get a similar score as the intel chip?
>>52136326
>problem is i have C2D E8600 in my internet browsing CP
>C2D E8600 in my internet browsing CP
>in my internet browsing CP
>browsing CP
>CP
>>52136412
> This isn't AMD's fault.
I thought that at first, checked drivers configuration, even went into ssd meme, there are no bottlenecks other than CPU, checked with perfmon. 4 cores seem to be very busy when i start doing anything on windows.
>>52136427
They don't have one.
>>52136457
Well it really doesn't make sense.
>>52136323
>that cherrypicking
Even more affordable skylake i3's beat anything AMD in gaming
>>52136477
And so this answers OP's question.
>>52136321
technically they don't. the 6/8 core -e cpus and 4/6/8 core -ep cpus are all binned from the 12 core chips.
>>52136210
because benchmarks show it's a fuckton better than that amd piece of shit
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>>52136482
Anyway on the bright side, i can say that virtualizing 4 winXps (for old bookkeeping and warehouse programs) works pretty good.
>>52136210
duopoly can charge what they want
>>52136510
>5960x fuckton better than that amd
>literally less than 2x better
>FOR 5 TIMES THE PRICE
>>52136222
If you paid for as much as it's better than an 8350, you'd be paying 280 dollars for it.
>>52136493
The X4 860K beats the i3 6320 and costs 100€ less.
>>52136210
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/
because intel are jews
5960x is shit
>>52136556
>intel
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
>>52136427
Probably they are going to come with zen arch
>>52136210
This is my 2008 Core 2 Quad @ 3.7. Compared to a 8150 @ 3.6.
You can find a 45nm C2Q\xeon for 40$. Can you show me what that 179$ FX-8350 can do compared to an Intel quadcore from 8 years ago?
BECAUSE
PROPRIETARY BENCHMARKS
>>52136525
$800 is an hour or two's labor for some people.
>>52136556
>testing CPUs in GPU bound scenarios
Well stop the presses! We've just proved that there's been no CPU advancement since 1999 since no CPU gets more than 45fps at 1024x768 in Half Life when paired with a TNT.
>>52136605
>You can find a 45nm C2Q\xeon for 40$.
HAHAHA, no. PARDON ME.
You can find a Xeon E5440 for 17 DOLLARS on ebay.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, even better.
Show me what 10x more expensive 8350 can do compared to a Xeon E5440/Q9550.
>>52136252
Who are you quoting?
>all this AMD shilling
i have a piledriver CPU and it's a pile of shit, I would buy a 5960x in a heartbeat if it wasn't $1k.
>>52136605
The 8150 is shit, but not that shit.
But thanks to the magic of intels C++ compiler, it looks like it.
Want to have efficient compiled code? Only if your CPU is genuine intel! Who cares if your CPU can support the increased efficiency with no extra effort?
Intel put effort into making AMD chips less efficient.
>>52136540
what? x4 860k loses to a pentium g3258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoT638ErboU
>he bought an intel cpu
top cuck
>>52136690
>>52136690
>AMD user
>posting outdated benchmarks
>not a cuck
lmao
>>52136648
implying ppl aren't giving 8350 for free on ebay moron. NOW PROVE THAT THE E5440 IS BETTER THEN THE INFINITELY CHEAPER FX
Israel ain't gonna feed itself you fucking miser
>>52136653
tfw a 2C/2T 60$ intel beat everything from AMD
>>52136510
Nice proprietary unverifiable benchmarks you got there.
>>52136653
>being a goymer
>>>/v/
amd cpus aren't that bad
>>52136653
God that graph is atrocious to read
AMD MAD
>>52136744
I thought the same thing. To look at a result you basically have to count how far it is down then count that many bars down. Holy shit what a shitty graph.
>>52136394
They sell well in markets other than the north american and western Europe.
>>52136326
did you try downloading the hotfix for bulldozer for windows 7?
>>52136412
this.
what really happened
>AMD gives more power the marketing
>Marketing doesn't care about engineering
>they take server processors and tell engineering to turn them in "gaming" cpus to compete with Intels i3,i5,i7 tiers. so fx-4xxx would compete against the i3, fx-6xxx against the i5 and the fx-8xxx to compete with i7
>Everyone says it wont work and wont be comparable to the processors that Intel is making
>AMD announces bulldozer
>reality was the fx-8350 (after OC) is comparable to an i5 at the time that everyone was buying for almost a hundred dollars less
>PC gaming meme really shot off around this time and everyone started buying PC parts
>Everyone which experience saying "the fx-8350 is great for the price to performance, but is not comparable to an i7"
>new tech guys that want nothing to do with productive and just want a gaming PC saying that AMD sucks
But competition is good, Intel really holding the consumer PC market for almost seven years now, AMD told its marketing department to fuck off and went back to the drawing board.
Why doesn't anyone post benchmarks of stuff that matters, like database performance or compiling software?
>>52136761
Never write again.
>>52136789
Because AMD processors are good at those
Pajeet doesn't get paid for showing that
>>52136789
m-m-muh games!
>>52136806
>Because AMD processors are good at those
I thought it was the exact opposite?
AMD is excellent for gaymers, but when you want to do serious stuff, you switch to intel?
>>52136821
Serious stuff means GNU/Linux which has a compiler that is able to optimize for AMD.
Toy Windows software is usually compiled with Microsoft C/C++ or Intel C/C++. The latter not only does not optimize for AMD, it deliberately sabotages performance.
>>52136240
>Maxed out high interest credit cards = rich
Keep telling yourself that, peasant.
>>52136668
>Different parts of the games are used for both CPUs
This alone already makes the "test" a joke.
>>52136789
> like database performance
Server farms are power and cooling constrained, thus Intel wins.
Nobody's gonna be running a million dollar database on a $350 AMD PC.
>>52136789
or compiling software?
When the fuck is software compiling relevant?
>>52136821
No dude. That's just marketing.
Intel processors are better at gaming because they have better single threaded performance.
AMD processors are better at compiling and such because that's highly threaded, and AMD has moar cores.
>>52136885
>AMD processors are better at compiling and such because that's highly threaded, and AMD has moar cores.
I always here this meme from customers when I try to convince them to goto intel.
Is it really true?
>>52136252
Not a monopoly when you made a better product than your competitors
>>52136821
The physical cores of the FX8350 really make a difference in software that can make use of them. Databases and anything number based especially due to the integer cores included in each Bulldozer "Module".
When it comes to compiling. More cores is better. Hyperthreading need not apply unless the compiler is designed to make efficient use of it.
Intel tend to be more of the Gaymen image due to the superior single threaded performance. But now games are starting to be made to be able to use increased numbers of cores, which really closes the performance gap.
But, as hard as it may be to tell. This is not a board for video gaming.
If you're on a sub $800 budget for an at-home workstation, then an 8350 is a really strong choice. As are used Xeons on eBay, so long as it's a trusted seller.
>>52136902
Yes.
You just (normally) dont see it in windows.
>>52136926
>Windows
>>52136926
>>52136902
It's true if you're not doing baby work on windows.
>>52136880
>When the fuck is software compiling relevant?
When you develop software?
>>52136934
>You just (normally) dont see it in windows.
So basically "you never see it" since only autists use linux.
>>52136917
It is a monopoly when you prevent anyone else from playing except that one retarded kid you keep around so it looks like you're letting other people play.
IMO, Intel should be forced to license x86 under FRAND terms to anyone with the cash.
>>52136885
Considering that new games are going to make much better use of multicore CPUs, does that mean AMD will be better overall?
>>52136413
Where did you get the idea that performance and costs should necessarily scale linearly?
>>52136957
Lol nobody does that except maybe Bill Gates. Literally the only use for PCs is FB and Farmville (casual scum, nana, etc.), or hardcore (as in badass, and totally not a virgin, really) gaming like CoD or WoW. Programming is something only eggheads do, and 3d art is like for liberal faggits.
>>52137012
No.
The reason why is pretty complex.
But in short- it's not 'better use of multicores' but 'worse use of fewcores'.
The consoles force better threading, but it's for 8 very weak cores (fucking netbook processors), so games are actually limited in the CPU they use.
Then when ported to PC, they tend to just fuck up the threading anyway, meaning that it'll use one thread a lot, so you need a big single threaded core, and then 3 smaller threads, so you can't just use a dual core.
It's a mess, but single threads are still valuable.
>>52137057
>hardcore
>CoD or WoW
>>52136954
>>52136950
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-6600k-linux&num=3
>>52136210
amd is fake multi core: there only one fpu per two cores.
Because they can. They could sell these chips at $500 a piece and still make profit but they're jews like that. Let's hope the 8-core Zen chips will be around $400-500.
Performance-wise though, the i7-5960x is about twice as powerful as the FX-8350 and can easily be overclocked to 4.2+GHz.
Still, unless you are running a server it's cheaper to build two fx-8350 desktop builds for around $1,000 and get the same performance. But at this point it's highly unrecommended as zen is set to be released around Q3 2016.
>>52137124
*wrong picture
1) Intel also sells cheaper high thread count processors.
2) You're comparing a 2012 processor to a 2014 processor both at contemporary prices.
3) your comparison only looks at core count and price, ignoring both synthetic benchmark performance and real world performance
>>52137139
You're wasting your time.
There's basically no benchmark where AMD comes ahead. If there was, AMD would be charging at least 50% more for their chips.
It's funny how AMD sympathizers are always like "muh shilling", but if Zen is actually good, they'll be like "muh bencharks" "Intel BTFO" and so on.
btw Intel's next 8-core will be closer to $500-600 I think. The high end ones will be bumped to 10 cores / 20 threads.
>people trying to defend Bulldozer even though AMD themselves apologized for its abysmal performance
I mean it's 2016, come on, let go.
>>52137139
AMD FX-8370: $199 for 109.85 seconds ~~ 1.8
Intel Core i5 6600K: $279 for 100.68 seconds ~~ 2.8
279$/199$ ~~ 1.56
100.68 s / 109.85 s ~~ 0.92
You're paying 56% more for an 8% performance increase
>>52137193
>he thinks CPUs work by themselves
>he thinks $80 is a meaningful amount of money when you're paying your software engineers six figures
>>52137193
Now modify a single file and compile again (which is what you'd be doing 90% of the time while actually working). Let's see that fabulous single-thread performance then :^)
Next you'll tell me you can get better performance with 100 $1 ARM SOCs.
>>52136413
Because performance gets exponentially expensive
>>52136210
Because fags like almost everyone on /g/ pay the said amount without a second thought.
>>52137185
Zen will be gud, bruh. Phenom all over again.
Trust me, im a time traveler. Shit like this is cyclical.
Zen only gets beat late in the cycle by lukestine from Intel.
>>52136244
Forgot to factor in Jews
>>52136998
There's nothing stopping someone from making an x86 cpu right now. The most important instruction sets were covered under patents that have expired. The biggest hurdle would actually be licensing AMD64. AMD has more incentive than Intel maintaining the duopoly. Imagine how shit they'd be competing against multiple x86 vendors.
>>52137185
If you have highly parallel code that DOESN'T use the FPU, the fx series beats or Intel on a price to performance chart, for that particular application. But that's about it
>>52136278
And thus continues the cycle of amd not making money because they're the infiniti to intel's mercedes
How come Intel charges so much for its hyperthreaded processors that aren't good at anything at all except a couple of content creation programs?
>>52136210
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1317
I mean obviously the performance isn't linear to the price but the more you pay generally the more you get fucked over.
>>52136258
>Muh Fake cores
>Muh convenient courtroom definitions
>Muh FPU's
>2012 mid-high end processors should be in tow with 2014 enthusiast-server class processors
If you're not a PooInLoo tier software developer, and actually spread your workloads out across the available threads, there are no issues. Enjoy your $500 'R&D' markup, you cuckold.
>>52137252
>Phenom all over again.
amd should aim a lot hire than that, phenom wasn't totally terrible but core 2 was still a bit of a step up
zen should aim to be the next athlon 64, a processor that made people feel embarrassed to own netburst
>>52137299
Content creation is where money is made, which translates into customers willing to pay more.
>>52137318
>If you're not a PooInLoo tier software developer, and actually spread your workloads out across the available threads
You mean like across the 16 in the 5960x?
>>52137013
:^)
>>52137252
>Zen will be gud, bruh. Phenom all over again.
phenom was a disaster, it was outperformed by core 2 and had it's performance reduced by 10% on top of that because of the cache bug
>>52137361
GTAV isn't CPU bound, it runs on a damn 360 for goodness sakes.
>>52136690
>>52136701
>>52136759
>>52136750
>>52136737
>>52136707
>>52136759
I only trust Intel performance reviews from Intel. Anything else is nerfed or gimped, meaning lies.
>>52137252
>phenom all over again
>gud
You're being contradictory here
>>52137338
8 will be enough to beat the FX by 50%
Actually, now that I think about it, with any number of threads (including 1) Intel will come out at least 50% ahead.
>>52137193
i7 4790k: $340
i7 4790k load power: 102W
FX 8370: $200
FX 8370 load power: 204W
Average US power cost: .12/kWh, which is $1.05 per watt per year.
Cost after 1 year:
4790k: $454
8370: $414
Cost after 2 years:
4790k: $569
8370: $628
Intel: Giving you 30% more performance while saving you money.
>>52137373
Well, bad news AMD didn't get the memo :^)
It's actually excellently threaded, I wonder why AMD is struggling? Oh yeah, their IPC deficit "literally worse than Phenom II per cycle"
>>52137361
fps/USD performance is still better with AMD or not?
>>52137373
Except the port IS CPU bound.
GTAV doesn't like dual cores.
GTAV for PC is more than just a port though, it's like GTAIII for the PC- it's an all around improvement.
>>52136210
Because good Goy!
>>52137426
You can get AMD chips for free in the garbage bin, so I guess it is.
>>52137448
Poor merchant is concerned about the dear customer, wouldn't want him to get sub-par performance.
>>52136210
because intel is better
>>52137393
You're a fucking retard. Those are not real world scenarios for using a cpu. Nobody puts their cpu under load 24-7-365.
>>52137426
I picked up an i7 3770/12GB system for $175. So no.
This is barely 3 times faster than a $10K shitmobile, how is it possible that they charge $250K for it?
>>52137473
There's a 47W difference in idle, too.
AMD: Costing you an extra $50 a year, every year.
>>52136210
Because insecure neckbeard virgins get bigger e-peens by spending more of their parents' money.
>AMD literally produced its last good CPU series (Athlon 64 X2 Windsor) on May 23 2006
>it's been almost 10 years since AMD produced a good CPU series
>>52137503
* wrong pic again.
AMD apologists are like fat acceptance SWJs
>I can't be fast so being slow is wonderful
>Have you checked your fast privilege today?
>Slow is the new fast, look at all these cores!
>>52137510
I had a Windsor X2 5200+. Picked it up in a $350 Dell in 2006. That thing lasted me until the end of 2013, when I got a Phenom II X4 for free.
>>52137535
*end of 2014
Speedy little devil.
>>52137518
So AMD's 4 module / 8 thread processors are groups right with Intel's 4 core / 8 thread processors? that seems about right. Its just unfortunate we never got a 28nm FX chip.
>>52137503
I have the special case of electricity being $0.08/kwh
I run shit 24/7 and don't even look at how much power I'm using
>>52137479
Yeah but it's $260 on ebay.
So in the end if you buy CPU for regular price and have for example $200 you still get more fps with AMD than Intel?
>>52137507
So I guess all these people doing cost/benefit analysis for datacenter purchases (where Intel has 90% marketshare) are also insecure neckbread virgins? You should tell them they could save millions by going AMD!
>>52136504
>binned from the 12 core chip
No.
>>52136210
Because their's is actually good... Just get an intel quad core, it's still better than and AMD octo...
>>52136867
>implying all rich people just max out credit cards
>implying that this thread is anything but bait
>>52137510
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/server/opteron-a-series
Maybe not. Omilex is playing with the idea of a 64bit ARM laptop, and there had been suggestion that they might try using the AMD 8 core board.
Why didn't anyone bother to make chart with USD/FPS ratio for few popular games?
>>52137593
You fags aren't curing cancer. You're playing games and jacking it to loli hentai. The extra 10fps in games can't really be worth the massive additional cost, can it?
>>52137647
The CPU isn't important for video games.
>>52137518
>people never put their computer into hibernation or shut it off completely
ok boss
You have a cow that produces 100 bottles of pure milk a day.
Your neighbor has one that produces 20 bottles of milk a day, but waters down each bottle and claims it also produces 100 bottles of milk a day.
You would naturally charge more money for you bottles of milk than your neighbor right?
Your neighbor for sure has customers that will claim there is no difference in taste, that the neighbors cows have better fans or that you are a jew just trying to milk your jew cows for more money than they're worth. But you know the truth. And so do your, undoubtedly wealthier customers. Because you produce a higher quality product.
This is why AMD is 2 BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT.
This is why they have had 17 red quarters in a row.
This is why they will only release 2 graphics cards next year.
Stop buying their watered down inferior shit. Unless you are a poorfag, then carry on because poorfag dollars only matter to Walmart.
>>52137691
>hey guys, if I never ever use my computer, AMD is cheaper than Intel!
A Raspberry Pi is cheaper still.
Heck, just get a P4 machine from a dumpster.
>>52136210
Aren't those 8 cores of AMD's not really cores? They're better than threads but each two cores are tied together.
>>52137699
You say $2 Billion like it's a lot.
For international companies, that's literally 1 quarter of revenue. Even less in most cases.
>>52136244
Wrong
Amd puts out almost the exact same r&d budget as Intel, the difference in budget goes to advertising
>>52137660
>$50 extra in a $4500 ecosystem of game library, computer, and peripherals for 25% better performance
>"massive"
>>52137699
>be AMD
>buy ATI for $5.4B
>now the entire company is worth less than $1B, with $2B debt, and nobody wants it even for free
This is the power of re-inventing the Pentium 4.
>>52137774
>get a 8320e instead of a epic gamer i7
>use saved money for better gpu
still better game performance with the amd cpu
>>52137769
This is not 100% true, but there's something to it.
Designing the chip isn't that expensive, but AMD intentionally decided to go full retard with Bulldozer and its offspring.
>>52137796
Yeah it seems AMD has better performance/USD ratio.
Only if you want to pay last 20% of top tier performance for another 100% of price you should go with Intel.
>>52137796
>Get an actually decent processor now
>New graphics card 2 years down the road
You end up better then. It's much easier to upgrade the card than the processor.
>>52137819
>20%
More like 50% for $50.
>>52136210
I dont have a problem with intel or AMD, i just buy whatever is the best value for money.
AMD CPUs generally are more value for money, but if you want an intel one, get a pentium chip. They're plenty powerful and not too expensive
tl;dr buy stuff that is value for money, not just overpriced stuff. Value for money comes first, then everything else
>>52137707
>A Raspberry Pi is cheaper still.
>Heck, just get a P4 machine from a dumpster.
The htpc boards with a soldered on CPU are often even cheaper than a pi2. And unbelievably more powerful.
Pic related: $27 after rebate, but can sometimes be found cheaper, or no rebate needed.
>>52137707
You're an idiot. Please kill yourself immediately with a butter knife.
>>52137755
They're cores. Each pair of cores shares an FPU.
>>52137837
Where?
>>52136210
The Intel chip costs more since it includes an extra CPU core running a sekret OS.
www.libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
>>52137882
meme : ^)
>>52136605
>fx 8320
ITT: Anon's genuinely believe that price per dollar should be upheld by each and every competing company.
Please get a hold of yourselves. AMD's processors work fine for what you pay for. Intel's premium processors are more expensive but perform better, last longer, are far more quality controlled, and are used in many more pc's.
It's that simple. If you can't afford Intel, then dont fucking buy it. You people are like the idiots who claim their v6 swapped twin turbo civic that has all of the frame missing, no seats, spewing black fog from the front exhaust that isn't road legal is better than a Porsche because it goes faster. Kek
>>52136902
>more cores, better at compiling
no
having one fast core would compile software faster than lots of slow cores.
>>52137361
why are there no results for the G3258?
>>52138123
Doesn't even run.
GTAV hates dual cores.
>>52138064
But BCLK overclocking i5 6400 gives a damn good price/performance nowadays. And i5 6400 is same price as fx 8350
>>52136244
also
>paying people on the internet to shill their products
>>52138155
Hey I like i5's. I think they're pretty solid old and new. Wish they had hyperthreading though.
>>52136591
Baitiest bait I've ever seen.
>>52138192
I loved old nehalem, but newer not overclockable non-k were meh and K series were too overpriced. Now they are back in the price/performance with the good old BCLK, that is also great because it will force AMD to not lock Zen multipliers and maybe give hyperthreading for free.
>>52138123
Couldn't complete the test half the time.
The times it did, the game was unplayable.
>>52137445
Wasn't PC GTA3 really poorly optimized though?
>defending the interests of your favorite company
Classcucked as fuck
>>52138343
No that was GTAIV
>>52137707
Real world scenario:
2 hours fun posting on various websites and watching youtube. Load average: ~25%
4 hours playing vydia gaems. Load average: ~50%
18 hours in hibernation or completely shut off.
Haswell i5: ~250 watts used per day
FX-8320: ~500 watts used per day
Let's assume the person in question is doing the tasks I mentioned 20 days a month for a year. 20*12= 240 days a year.
Haswell i5: 60 kW/year
FX-8320: 120 kW/year
For shits and giggles let's add 48 hours of video encoding.
Haswell i5: 65 kW/year
FX-8320: 130 kW/year
>Cost to run the i5 for a year at 16¢/ kWh: $10.4
>Cost to run the FX-8320 for a year at 16¢/ kWh: $20.8
Good job goyim, you managed to save a staggering~$10 of electricity per year
Look I respect intel, they have very power efficient chips which greatly benefit supercomputers and large scale servers but to the average joe the cost of electricity he saves with intel is insignificant. The only significant advantage intel has is poorly optimized vydias get more FPS. That's about it.
In addition to all this Zen is coming soon and will fix the poor single thread performance problem and overall greatly reduce power consumption (not like it really matters though).
>>52138397
>real world
>>52137851
I've never tried Celerons, but I'm always tempted to buy one and fuck around with it.
How's the performance? I'm expecting something like a high end P4 from 2006?
Because Intel has shills like these >>52136222
>>52138450
>23597 power on hours
Did you have your CPU running on heavy load for all those hours? No?, now stfu.
>>52136917
it's a monopoly when nobody else can compete in any effective way
>>52136605
you can also find a 32nm 6-core xeon with HT for $80, which will easily overclock to 4.0ghz and beat the shit out of any amd cpu
Here you go, Intel 8 core for less than the cost of a 212 Evo.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Intel-Xeon-X7550-B1567-58-2-0GHz-18MB-6-4-GT-s-SLBRE-LGA-1567-Server-CPU-/272083838857?hash=item3f5975e789:g:np4AAOSwWnFV72Cx
>>52138655
>ebay
>>52138678
And? On the off chance it's DOA you could buy another 8 before you match AMD's price.
>>52138455
Which celeron?
J1800 can get by. Passmark of 554 single threaded, ~1000 dual. My X2 5200+ from 2006 gets 811/1387.
The Sandy/Ivy/Haswell Celerons are comparable to C2Ds.
>>52138516
$40 a year idle. $40 a year.
And let's not forget heat. Your Faildozer/290X build puts out half as much as my electric space heater does.
I used to find it uncomfortable to game in summer with an X2 5200+ and 8800GTS, I really feel sorry for anyone who fell for the "AMD beats Nvidia/Intel in price/performance" meme.
>>52136431
You act as if you don't enjoy Cat Pictures.
>>52138710
It's true for AMD gpus, and at every price level as well
Only their cpus are inexcusable garbage. I have an 8350, I'd know. Can't even get fucking 60fps in Oblivion or Crysis and it's been a decade
>>52137483
race me fgt
>>52138882
Except that's not very fast. And it's really expensive.
Reminder that /g/ could accomplish the same stellar successes in computing as they do now, with a 7 year old Intel Core 2 Quad or AMD Phenom, $30 used on eBay. Anything newer is bling bling.
>>52138865
I've got an A10 6600k, and I can manage 80fps in Oblivion.
>>52138397
>watts per day
>kW/year
>>52138908
Ariel Atom top out at what, 190mp/h?
0-60 in 3.1 seconds?
It's fast.
>>52138710
>$40 a year idle. $40 a year.
Why can't you put your PC in hibernation or shut it off completely like a normal human being when you don't use it? Do you also leave the lights on 24/7?
>>52138977
>expecting any kind of intelligence whatsoever from a weeb tripfag
>>52138908
k m8
>>52138977
Saying 0.250 kW per day feels weird to be honest.
>>52138984
>Why can't you put your PC in hibernation or shut it off completely like a normal human being when you don't use it?
Because he's shitposting for the sake of shitposting.
Logic has no meaning here. It's all about that .1 fps difference in gaming benchmarks.
>>52137104
>this is the one thing that triggers you from that bait
>>52138397
>being this poor that the power consumption of your personal computer's CPU is relevant
>>52137013
Welcome to /g/.
>>52139007
Watts per unit of time does not make sense
Watt is a unit of power
Watt-hours (Wh) is a unit of energy
A device that uses 140W of power and runs for 2 hours, uses 140W * 2 hours = 280Wh or 0.28 kWh of energy
>>52138977
i don't get it.
>>52138983
Tesla is more faster
>>52138983
I thought it topped out at like 130 due to the drag. What the hell am I thinking of? The Elise?
>>52139047
see
>>52139044
Watt = power
Watt hour = energy
>2 core $40 Intel processor beats a $180 8 core AMD
>>52138984
>he doesn't use his computer
>>52139079
>proprietary benchmarks, video games nonetheless
>>52139055
And 3 times more expensive.
And runs on batteries that run dry in a handful of miles.
Electric cars are the future. But battery technology hasn't reached a point where they are viable. Right now, they are too heavy, and don't last long enough.
Hybrids on the other hand. That is what car companies should be pushing for right now.
>>52139044
It's implied that the CPU is using x amount of watts "per hour". It's not the correct terminology but it gets the message across. When people refer to watts they almost always refer to amount of watts used per hour.
>>52139059
>The Elise?
Quite likely.
Or the Caterham r400
>>52139079
>He doesn't know about hardware optimization.
>>52139080
>Using your main pc as a seedbox
ISHYGDDT
Just use a chinkpad or an android tablet to seed torrents. Uses less electricity and gets the job done.
>>52139122
>When people refer to watts they almost always refer to amount of watts used per hour.
OK, I vow to stop responding to tripfags for a day or two.
>>52139080
>not having a headless server for torrents
>>52139079
Arma 3 is THAT badly optimized huh? Jesus christ is it only using a single CPU thread?
>>52139105
You sound like you took a page right out of the oil industrial complexes book
Electric cars aren't going to get better until they get adopted
>>52139208
Yeah, it's p. bad.
>>52139181
>Uses less electricity
Turn on power saving features and there you go. Only muh gaymen kids leave their PCs on full overclocked "performance" mode all the time.
>>52137185
5930k is $579.
>>52139229
That's just my opinion famalam.
Hybrids are fuel efficient, and low on emissions, and can be made to be powerful and fast. Look at the BMW i8, or the Mercedez Benz AMG E-cell.
As well as the emissions, you don't have the weight of (as many) batteries, the governments don't need to spend the money converting every gas station in the country to electrical charging points.
>>52139105
>3 times more expensive
No it isn't
Ludicrous mode starts at 102k usd
Ariel atom 3s STARTS at 89k, and the 6 speed transmission adds another 35k to that price
Tesla is same price
>>52139208
Bohemia Interactive still haven't finished DayZ. Nuff said.
>>52139304
You also don't have the weight of an ICE on an electric car
Look up the weight of the Tesla, it comes out the same as most other cars because where the battery is super heavy the motors are significantly lighter
Can we go back to comparing cpus in the same price bracket? This is seriosuly retarded.
> classic /g/ logic, comparing a chip to another that costs like 6 times as much.
>>52136304
Now when u say halo, do u mean the game or something else?
>>52139185
Do people really say watt hours though? I've never heard people refer to electrical use like that. They always say "this thing uses something something watts".
I would rather pay a premium price than some piece of shit amd in their spare time for 1/4 the price. Buying anything from amd is like buying cheap chinese knockoffs and hope it performs as well as the original product. They can go fuck themselves. I am never going buy anything from those cunts again.
>>52139364
>They always say "this thing uses something something watts".
Yes, that's the power.
Power over time = energy = Watt hours
Picture W as water pressure
... and Wh as water pressure over time
>>52136210
>>52139377
Power consumption like tripfag said is completely meaningless for the average user.
The only reason to go with intel is if you have no life and play video games all day long. If that's the case then you need to fuck off to /v/.
>>52139414
>CineBench
>the benchmark that was caught red-handed favoring Intel CPUs
absolutely ebin
>>52139422
If you think that people buy Intel only for gaming then you're either delusional or just stupid.
>>52136867
You're broke as fuck and you suck at lying...
>muh credit cards...
>cant afford the 5960x
1/10 for not even trying..
>>52136210
Because the first is twice as fast whilst using less power. There's nothing comparable from AMD at this point, which enables Intel to dictate the price as much as they want.
Nothing to discuss about that. Everything else is just shitposting, but it's holiday season anyway.
>>52137510
>Implying the Phenom IIs weren't good
Inb4
>B-b-but they weren't like the Athlon 64s!!!!111111
>>52139397
So most people are fucking retards? I always hear people refer to how many watts only something uses. I then assume they are talking about watts per hour and I'm right almost 100 percent of the time. Overheard some people saying an ac unit used around 12 kilowatts a day. They never mentioned hours.
>>52139525
Please explain to me how someone who doesn't play video games benefits from having an i5-4690k as opposed to and fx-8350.
>>52139574
>So most people are fucking retards? I always hear people refer to how many watts only something uses. I then assume they are talking about watts per hour and I'm right almost 100 percent of the time. Overheard some people saying an ac unit used around 12 kilowatts a day. They never mentioned hours.
That would be 12 kilowatt-days or 288 kWh
(12 kW day) * (24 hour/day) = 288 kWh
>>52139597
You get good goy points with jewtel
>>52139597
Less power consumption, better FPU, memory and single-thread performance.
>>52139597
well
more performance
>>52139574
>So most people are fucking retards?
Just uninformed.
>>52139574
>They never mentioned hours.
You can use any unit of time
Megawatt seconds (MWs)
Gigawatt years (GWa)
Kilowatt hours (kWh)
...
Power * Time = Energy
>>52139685
>You can use any unit of time
Sure, but if you're not using standard units, don't be surprised if people don't understand you
>>52139719
Watt is a standard unit
Seconds, hours and years are standard units
What is the problem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
>>52138655
>LGA 1567
Please show me a standard ATX motherboard with this socket.
>>52139744
A kilowatt hour is a standard unit and so are watts and seconds, but hours and years aren't
>>52139663
It has already been established power consumption is an insignificant problem for the average user.
>>52139790
Having your computer running hot as balls in the summer sucks ass. Lower power consumption is still a good thing.
>>52136591
>BioShock infinite benchmarks
Gtfo
>>52137226
this
if you're paying someone $50-80/hour
you'd need to save only 2 hours of time over the life of the CPU to break even
2000 hours/year*.08=160 hours a year
shit pays for itself in the first week
>>52139673
They both have around the same multi-core performance you ultra retard.
>>52139784
>people don't understand what an hour or a year Are you actually serious?
Anyway, hours are mentioned in the SI and standardized by the General Conference on Weights and Measures; and the discussion was about the proper measurement of energy and difference between power and energy.
>>52139597
Find me a amd alternative to the top intel most expensive processors for scientific work.
Oh... you can't.
>>52138704
you still gotta worry about the $400 motherboard
