AMD processors
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
>AMD cards more powerful on dx12
>AMD cards consume more power on dx12
That got me thinking. What's wrong with their processors?
High energy consumption? Fx 8350 is only 30w more than i7 3770k.
Horrible ipc? Vishera was an incredible overclocker and multithreading has been on the rise for a few years.
Price? Fx6300 is cheaper than any i3, ia unlocked for oc, and can match an Ivy i5 in multithreading. Fx 8320 is 60 dollars cheaper than an i5 4460 here too.
Also if an application only uses 4 threads, does that mean the AMD is using less power because half it's cores aren't under load? That's what I was thinking off when I saw the dx12 power draw graphs.
The cores are always under load. Multiple programs make use of different cores at the same time.
>>53706832
Bulldozer was designed for parallelism and really fucking high clocks, unfortunately programs didn't catch up in parallelism fast enough and the node was leaky as fuck and limited clocks a lot
>>53706832
>AMD 4GHz "8" core on par with 4 core 3.4GHz Intel
Still that bench is stupid since a serious bottleneck going on there
>>53707242
>node was leaky as fuck
Weren't there people overclocking fx6300 past 5ghz on air?
>>53706832
>tfw my1100T is still relevant
>>53707706
The FX6300 is Piledriver, it improved a lot on Bulldozer but unfortunately anything related to Bulldozer was already tarnished
>>53707757
An fx83xx would still be a really nice upgrade without needing a new board. Upgrade to a used one when zen comes out for maximum performance, now that multi thread ing is being pushed through the industry.
>>53706832
>Horrible ipc? Vishera was an incredible overclocker
And with all the overclocking in the world it will still be worlds below the IPC of any i3.
>>53707765
>it improved a lot on Bulldozer
10~12% IPC increase over bulldozer's absolutely pathetic IPC rate, IF that. It's nothing more than a polished turd, but a turd nonetheless.
>>53707876
But faster than a i3, increasing clocks won't improve IPC you dumbfuck
>>53707904
>but faster than an i3
In single-threaded performance? In your fucking dreams maybe.
>>53707961
Not him, but.
Fx 6300 is 40% slower per core
Has 3 times as many cores. Therefore it is 80% faster for multithreading. Because of hyperthreading let's drop that down to 50% (because it usually adds 20-30% multithread performance).
Then fx 6300 can be overclocked 30% pretty easily, but thanks to diminishing returns blah blah you get the fucking point.
>>53706832
>judging CPU performance based on video game benchmarks
Stop.
>>53708013
Pathetic scores for that 4.1GHz 6 core 6300.
It's barely beating a 3.5GHz 2 core i3.
>>53708097
>not understanding ipc
Wow.
>>53708097
>amd i3 competitor beating an i5 2 generations newer than the intended AMD competitor.
>hurr durr but teh AMD has mur jiggahurtz and corz
HELLO INTEL SHILL
>>53708123
You're quoting the wrong person.
If a 3.5GHz 2 core have almost the same performance as a 4.1GHz 6 core, it's because of Intels IPC being so good it rapes AMD.
But I guess you're the one starting the IPC threads yesterday because you just learned about it.
Intel have had more efficient IPC than AMD ever since Core2 came.
>>53708144
Where?
I only see a 6 core AMD having to run at 4.7GHz to come even with a 4 core Intel running only 3.2GHz.
>>53708162
>deliberately ignoring the AMD is unlocked and when overclocked matches a haswell i5
>deliberately ignoring the fact that the AMD is almost half the price of the i5
>deliberately ignoring the fx8350 which is completely destroying the i5 in multithread and hasn't even been overclocked yet
Definitely a shill
>>53708199
Completely ignoring that nobody cares if it's cheaper if it in the end have to be overclocked to beat a stock Intel that have less than half the cores and much lower MHz, which ALSO can be overclocked.
Compare CPUs MHz for MHz and core for core.
Spot the AMD.
>>53708237
Now post the multithread performance. No demanding application is going to be limited to only a single core. Or is that something you deliberately ignored too :')
>>53708237
>implying you can overclock an i5 4460 or an i3 4150
What's better, fx 4300 or i5 4690k?
GTAV loves more cores.
That didn't take long for AMD people to finally understand this time.
>>53708294
>>53708327
how the fuck does the x6 beat some of the newer 8 cores?
What the fuck AMD?
Wut
a
t
last time i touched amd cpus for gaming it was back in 2009 when i got a x4 phenom for my dad.
Fuck that never going near amd again.
>>53708294
>posting a completely different benchmark
I guess passmark disagreed with you.
>>53708316
>gta v loves more cores.
No it fucking doesn't. Shill if you want but don't fucking lie. Battlefield 4 loves more cores. Crysis 3 loves more cores. Call of duty ghosts loves more cores.
Gta V doesn't.
>>53706832
>API capable of giving a GPU more workload
>surprised when GPU uses more power
This truly is a board for retards.
>>53708435
you still dont understand
>>53708435
It was earlier than that for me.
I had a Athlon X64 3700+ San Diego
Even though it was just 2.2GHz it beat 3.4GHz Intel EMT64, but that all changed once Core2 Duo came.
AMD haven't recovered since then.
>>53708441
>GPU bottlenecked benchmark with Intels in the lead and some AMDs running 25% higher clocks in the middle while also dominating the lowest scores.
Seems about right.
>>53708435
shared FPU scheduler
basically each core has their own ALU for integer processing but two cores share the FPU scheduler
so for raw integer processing you have 8 logical cores but for FP you really only have 4 units
>>53708491
AMD CPUs are like Nvidia 3.5GB sharing the same same pipeline with different memory banks.
But for AMD it's FPU
>>53706832
it's painful
>>53708491
What I gather from this is if the 2-core modules had a coherent-two-fpu-schedular setup, there wouldnt be such a bottleneck (for 128b operations, obviously, and as well ignoring that it would essentially be normal CPU cores)
>>53708538
but they don't.
Supposedly Zen will ditch the shared FP scheduler setup
>>53708527
Are you seriously comparing a 4 year old i5 competitor to the latest i7?
Good lord the shilling is getting extreme in here
>>53708525
That's why they're called modules, not cores.
>>53708554
For productivity, AMD processors offered i7 performance at i5 prices.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that's not worth it.
>>53708554
No, he's comparing an 4 core with hyperthreading vs AMD's most effective 8 core CPU.
>>53708575
Yes he fucking is. Fx8350 is an ivy bridge competitor. I7 6700k is fucking skylake.
Stop spreading FUD if you don't know what you're talking about.
>>53708527
Shit this makes me glad I got myself an fx8320 instead of an i5 3470 if it's managing to perform this close to an i7 6700k, a 4 year newer processor despite costing less.
Directx12 is only going to make things better :3
>>53708294
>>53708327
scientific computing software is never optimized for AMD because they do all their shit with default intel compiler flags and no optimization flags for any AMD processor.
>>53708615
>competitor
It's only a competitor in price.
Unless you can slap two of those 8350 to actually beat an Intel it's not competing where it matters.
A PC runs multiple programs at all times so a CPU that is bad and single core performance will fall behind at all times during everyday usage.
A program running on 8 cores vs 8 programs running on 1 core would rape AMD CPUs because they have shitpoor IPC and thus can't into single core performance.
And as always, AMD need to have their CPUs running 4GHz+ to break even to Intels 3.2 to 3.5GHz CPUs running half the core count.
>>53708667
Nah, competitor in performance. It's actually cheaper
>>53708615
in the real world, no one's buying ivy bridge parts anymore, so why restrict comparisons to ivy bridge?
>>53708681
>It's actually ______
It's actually what?
Oh, it's red, well it's slower, doesn't matter what it cost if it's slower.
>>53708700
Because in the real world no ones buying bulldozer either anymore.
>>53708734
>cherry picking
I CAN DO THAT TOO!
>>53708760
We need the X scale range to be 25.5 to 28.5
>>53708760
>Cherry picking
>Only posts GPU bottle necked images.
At least try to find some where the AMD have more FPS in games.
To see AMD getting more FPS you have to go back before Intel released the Core2.
>>53708839
And after Core2
>>53708813
See
>>53706832
>>53708013
>>53708441
AMD doesn't win in performance. It wins in performance/price. Especially with mantle/dx12.
>>53708741
you gotta go with what's for sale if you want meaningful benchmarks about the market and what's viable in terms of price and performance
or are we just gonna argue theoretical scenarios about several year old processors at a specific point in time
>>53708873
>Top 3 are 3.0, 3.5 and 3.5
>Top..well, not the top but 4th and 5th spot are 4.7GHz and 4.4GHz 8 cores
>then back to 3.4GHz
>Another 4GHz AMD
>3.4GHz
The only Intel that have more than 4 cores only need 3GHz to rape the 8 core AMD running 4.7GHz
So thanks for further proving my point.
Multitasking while gaming
>>53708940
>6 core 12 thread processor beating a 4 module 8 thread processor
Wow, who would have guessed?
Why are you posting an old retarded benchmark?
While we're on the subject, is there any reason to buy a skylake i5 over an 8320E + 50 dollar motherboard? Basically $300 vs $200
unsure if I'll end up buying the higher end AM3+ board
>>53706605
>>53708963
>4 module
AMD have lower performance, how hard is that to understand?
The reason they are so cheap is because nobody would buy them if they were prized as the Intel equivalent version because AMD don't have a CPU fast enough, so they compare their top of the line to the slower Intel CPU.
>>53709016
DDR4 and better instructions.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph9483/76727.png
>>53709057
I know like total war requires a strong CPU, same with CoH 2, but I don't really play those games, my only plan is to stream dota/others, and maybe do VM stuff, hence why I'm considering AMD, I won't be changing it out for a while, maybe if zen is decent and cheap, but that's in like 6 months
>>53709087
Everything done on Intel is faster than AMD.
Oh and don't even think of emulating on AMD.
>>53709102
I already emulate on my 750K, the games run fine, they just won't run ultra fast
and an FX 8 is better than an i5 when it comes to streaming though, although I could probably just use 3 cores of the i5 on a game and be fine with the 1 left over to dedicate to streaming
>>53709016
I'm the AMD shill and even I'll say AMD is too outdated to buy now. See
>>53708741
>>53708615
Wait for zen or buy skylake.
>>53709151
On the other hand, a used fx83xx or 86xx + board could be incredible value
>>53709102
F-Zero GX on Dolphin runs at 60fps on my FX-8350 at 4.57Ghz.
>>53709162
At it runs at 110-120FPS on my 3.5GHz 3570K.
>>53709174
I doubt that.
>>53709245
Considering my 3570K runs at 4.8GHz right now I don't doubt it, I know it.
>>53708667
Do the people who made this benchmark ran the intel compiler patcher?
>>53709293
>Did they use a feature making CPU run fast?
Why wouldn't they use any means to get fast performance?
Send a mail to AMD to make something so their CPU doesn't suck.
>>53709272
>fx 8150 is overclocked
>fx 8350 is at stock frequency
Lol okay super reliable
Why do they always use the cost argument
I want a fast CPU, not a bargain bin so-so CPU.
>>53709057
>HURR ITS 8 COARZ
No, dumbass, its 4 modules, 8 threads. lrn2 research.
>>53709087
During the i5 2500 vs the fx 8350 times, some people benchmarked the performance of these processors while streaming. AMD ones managed to get better fps's than the Intel counterparts, even when compared against some other Intel processors.
>>53709316
Are baiting me?. The only reason to run the ICP is to unfuck some dirty shit Intel does when their compiler detects a cpu from any other brand.
>>53706832
Intel processor, AMD gpu master race
My 4790k/390 I bought last year gives me boners to this day.
I eat shit on software that benefits from CUDA cores tho
>>53709348
So?
Disable it then. That still doesn't make your CPU faster than the Intels.
>>53709401
faster is a relative term desu
>>53709401
What?, it improves the performance of AMD and VIA processor on software that used the ICP. I had an athlon 250 x2 back then, and the ICP really helped me in Bethesda games
>>53709422
Yeah it is.
If a 5GHz AMD runs 60FPS and a 3.7GHz Intel runs at 80FPS the AMD is relatively slower.
Because it gets lower FPS even though it have higher MHz and more cores.
>>53708441
>Gta V doesn't
>>53709174
My refresh rate is 60Hz so I have always kept the cap on 60fps. Without caps it averages at 80fps (depends on the course).
What I mean is that for old or special applications which aren't multithreaded my FX has enough strength and newer multithreaded applications is where the architecture of the CPU shines (for the price).
>>53709460
>CPU shines (for the price).
Another way of saying
>The Intel was more expensive but it's also faster.
>>53709470
intel doesn't have good performance per dollar, AMD has very good performance per dollar
>>53709448
Looks like its limited to 4 threads. Let
Pretty pathetic for a modern game
>>53709448
Intel 3.0GHz 71/97 FPS
AMD 3.5GHz 32/47 FPS
>>53708441
>Gta V doesn't
Holy Kekasaurus Rektx
>>53709496
read >>53709331
>>53709503
5960X is an 8 core CPU, try again next time and use a hook if you wanna bait.
>>53709503
>>Looks like its limited to 4 threads
>the 6 core CPU clocked at 3GHz beats the 4 core CPU at 3.5GHz
sure thing mate.
>>53708441
>>53709470
More expensive and faster, yes. But also not as good value. An overclocked fx 6300 matches an i5 4460 in crysis 3. As someone who bought an fx 8320 because it was 60 dollars cheaper than the i5 4460, I'm pretty happy knowing my cpu will continue to perform competitively at its price point just from having 8 integer units.
>>53709520
>implying cores and hurtz are all that affect cpu performance
When did g get this bad?
>>53709534
>good value
read >>53709331
>>53709545
You've had all this time to prove otherwise, why haven't you done it so far?
All people do is post budget tier arguments.
>>53709339
>HURR MODULES
It's literally 8 integer cores. It's just that the pairs of cores block on floating point operations
>>53709520
if you get a $300 amd cpu it will have petter performance that a $300 intel cpu. it is almost as if you dont know that performance per dollar is
>>53709530
Ouch.
>>53709562
Gives me 60fps now, Will continue to do so longer than an i5 3470 or 2500 would have.
>>53709568
read >>53709331
Then put two of those AMD CPUs on a motherboard to get equal performance per dollar as an Intel.
But then again, Intel have the two CPU AMD killer right here.
And then it's back to square one where AMD have no advantage.
>but muh cores.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75258/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8890-v2-37_5M-Cache-2_80-GHz
Oh and since Intel already have faster performance per core it's suicide for AMD to even try to benchmark against this.
I am perfectly happy with my [email protected].
It's a great holdover until Zen is released.
I'm not looking for the best performing CPU ever, and the 8320 offers compelling value when combined with a good cooler for overclocking.
I am also happy with my R9 380X. I got it for the price of a 380 2GB, and it's a great balance of price/performance/efficiency.
>>53709636
>but muh cores.
i said nothing about cores, but if you were new to pc gameing and you wanted a $200 cpu you would get amd because it is FASTER THAN INTEL FOR $200, Not every one wants and cant afford a $600 i7. If you refer me to that post one more time (witch you cant) you are just spewing shit because you cannot refute my statement
>>53709707
>(witch you cant)
If you can't afford a decent CPU you shouldn't buy it yet.
>spewing shit
I haven't spewed any AMD since I came here.
>>53709585
Fucking this. Intel fags have no argument against this.
Also let's not forget another reason to buy AMD. Phenom ii owners can upgrade to fx processors without needing a new motherboard.
>>53709707
As the GTA V benchmark shows, it's clearly not the case.
Though even FX 6300 is good enough for gaming if you have a decent GPU, so it's pretty silly to spend more, and if you do, i5 is clearly the better choice and costs less in the long run due muh efficiency.
>>53709751
>Going from one slow and inefficient MHz&Core CPU to another less inefficient MHz&Core CPU
Convenient, sure, but why?
>>53709742
>If you can't afford a decent CPU you shouldn't buy it yet.
>resorting to trying to insult me because you cant refut my statement
>I haven't spewed any AMD since I came here.
>panicking so much that you just lost a fight on the internet that you forgot how to type.
lel, btfoing intel fags is always so fun
>>53709759
this guy gets it
>>53709792
Because going from a phenom ii x4 to an fx8320e is still a pretty decent upgrade.
Not as fast as a 6600k, but much cheaper and much better performance/dollar.
And don't you dare claim an fx 8320e isn't fast enough. It'll only be a couple of frames below the i5 4670k, has 8 cores, and is still competitive in multithread performance against haswell.
>>53709806
So back to the topic.
Is AMD faster than Intel?
Current gen 8 core vs current gen 8 core with the same MHz.
Factors: CORE COUNT, MHZ and lastly PERFORMANCE
>>53709852
That benchmark shows two things.
AMD needing twice the core count and needing more than 25% more MHz to reach similar FPS.
>Not as fast as a 6600k, but much ____ and much better performance/_____
What? It's not faster than a 6600K.
>>53709870
Is a core2quad faster than an fx8350?
Don't say that's an unfair comparison because they still sell those. Using your own logic for comparing a 4 year old processors to a new one.
So shut the fuck up.
Also.
>trusting launch day unoptimised drivers as a fair comparison
>>53708419
>victory posting
Jesus Christ, I never thought /g/ could get this autistic
>>53709909
Huh, could've sworn I said GURRENT GEN and that it had to be the Same CORE COUNT
But you're obviously meaning Phenom X4 9850 vs Q6600 although the X4 have 100MHz more and is also much newer.
Sure, bring up some benchmarks because if I post them you'll just cry cherry picked.
>>53709870
>Is AMD faster than Intel?
yes if you look at cpus in the same price range yes if you look at cpus released at the same time at the same pricerange
tl;dr : apples to apples .yes
>>53709962
>price range
So they are still slower than Intel versions in the generation and tier range.
All there is to AMD is that it's a poor mans CPU.
>>53709974
>All there is to AMD is that it's a poor mans CPU.
why do you feel the need to put an insult in your posts
anyway as i said b4 an $200 amd cpu will be faster than an $200 intel cpu
>>53709956
But the fx 8350 isn't current gen.
Current gen is budget oriented APUs.
>trying this hard
Good goy, spread all the misinformation.
You want to compare current gen? Look at pic.
Fx 6300 has slightly worse single thread, but much better multithread. That means the fx6300 will perform decent now, and will continue to perform decent in the future as multithreading gains popularity.
Who cares which one is faster? I just want 60fps. Anyone buying an i3/fx 6300 most likely won't have a 144hz monitor. The fx6300 will be able to provide that 60fps for longer than the i3 will.
>inb4 more benchmarks
Find me something that isn't launch benchmarks, since updates make a lot of performance improvements and optimisations.
tl;dr
Intel processors age like sour milk, AMD ages like fine wine. If you want something that'll last, get the AMD, if you want to upgrade every 2 years, get the Intel.
>>53707802
Mobo is socket AM3, not AM3+, I can't.
Though I'm planning on doing a new build if Zen ends up being any good (it's looking like it will be). The real question will be whether I should wait for new chipsets or the graphics card generation after Polaris or not. (last build had 1100T, 890fx, and 6990s so the prospect of $2K+ isn't offensive, single gfx card this time though)
>>53710036
A few am3 motherboards work with a bios update iirc
Ok,so i know that the FX Series is a disaster,but i need a replacement for my 1100T,as my 970 is being slowed down and i would like to keep my board.
so do i buy or just wait and suffer ?
>>53710000
You mean that a 5GHz 8 core have to sell at a loss so it can compete with Intels 2 core 3.1GHz entry level CPU?
Cool.
>>53710020
>i3 3220
>current gen
>Anyone buying an i3/fx 6300 most likely...
Shouldn't use it for more than calculator.
>Intel processors age like sour milk, AMD ages like fine wine
So an AMD Opteron (Bulldozer) although newer is better than an i5 2700K running at the same MHz?
Post some facts to back that up.
>>53710051
>i need a replacement for my 1100T,as my 970 is being slowed down
Probably not the issue in all but a few games.
>>53710020
>Intel processors age like sour milk, AMD ages like fine wine.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post but this ... is only the case for their dual cores, with HT or not, they are just silly. Otherwise they age pretty much the same.
>>53710056
knowing the facs that a lot of games dont even run on 2 core cpus people would go for the 8 core, plus the fact that new apis use cores more efficantly
>>53710115
So buy computers for with recycling money.
>>53710070
You're right. I have 2 computers at home, I7 870 and an fx 8320. Both have aged pretty well I'd say.
But even still, an fx 83xx would age better than a sandy or Ivy i5. It has twice as many threads, but is still a little better than half the ipc.
These days any quad core should be enough though.
>>53710122
>So buy computers for with recycling money.
What are you talking about?
>>53708419
>That didn't take long for AMD people to finally understand this time.
Replace AMD with Intel :')
>>53709272
Where all the 8350 at 5Ghz?
Power consumption is a non-factor considering the price of electricity but I want performance if I am going to have higher consumption. Then again most of the performance issues are shitty multithreading and programmer incompetence / laziness than anything
>>53710248
Where the 3.3GHz i5 2500 is and the 4.6GHz 8150 is.
>>53710240
Intel users already know they cost more but unlike AMD users, Intel users can pay more and get faster CPUs while AMDs top of the line competes with Intels mid segment 4 core CPUs.
You can't buy performance CPUs from AMD, and even AMD have given up on it, so all you have are dated 8350 and 8370 that compete with 2500K and 2600K.
>>53710270
>shitty multithreading
And that's where single thread performance comes in.
Intel have both good single thread performance, good IPC and 8 core CPUs though those also have 8 extra threads.
>>53710270
heat and laptops,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...............
>AMD shills says their 8 core CPUs are as good
as Intel
>Checks benchmarks comparing AMD's fastest 8 core to i7-5960X which also is an 8 core.
Murder, rape and slaughter.
>>53710284
>implying a laptop does anything to generate much heat
AMD A8 P and M series perform quite ok on what you do on a laptop (save gayming)
>>53710278
adapting to lacks in software only encourages programmer laziness and incompetence desu, for example game devs don't bother with optimizations anymore knowing the suckers will buy a 970 to run a shitty 1080@60 game
>>53710278
But how much does the 8 core Intel cost?
How much does the 8core amd cost?
Considering I only need 60fps, which one should I have gotten?
>>53710304
Who said that? Please link the post.
>>53710304
>comparing a 4 core 8 threads cpu to a 8 cores 16 threads cpu
let the tech talk to the adults, kid.
>>53710278
So you're saying the only cpu worth buying is an Intel 8 core?
Good goy
>>53710314
>cost
Doesn't matter, all that matters is performance/processor count since you only have room for one CPU on most motherboards thus needing the fastest possible.
>>53710333
CPU-z, AMD themselves call it 8 core.
>>53710340
So you're saying you wouldn't buy the 8core AMD?
>>53710358
>believing what companies tell you
>using incorrect data to support your argument
heh, you are a nigerian's dream
http://youtu.be/T-y7SjTA0hA
http://youtu.be/MjdxhKz6wp0
>>53710395
>incorrect
Post facts where the 8 core AMD is faster than an 8 core Intel MHz for MHz and Core for Core.
135 posts and still not a single post to prove it.
Just a constant whining about price price muh price.
Or comparing a quad to an octa core at much higher MHz.
>>53710415
>8 core AMD
THEY MADE THOSE? HOLY SHIT WHERE CAN I BUY THEM???
Last I checked it was 4 module, 8 thread processors priced against the i5 Ivy bridge chips from Intel.
>>53710415
>tell him that the 8 core thing is a lie
>it follows up with bullshit about amd being supposedly better
nigga you can't even follow sentences, no use trying to argue with you
>>53710415
>>53710415
>135 posts and still not a single post to prove it.
intel MHz=/=AMDMHz
intel''''''cores''''''=/=AMD cores
you cant make a fare comparison of two chips on different arches like that
also this >>53710434
its 4 large modules that can handle 2 threads each
>>53710429
>Last I checked it was 4 module, 8 thread processors
So you're admitting to being tech-illiterate and not having any idea how these chips work?
>>53710446
>implying amd does any sort of hyper-threading (pre-ZEN)
Who is the tech-illiterate one in this thread again?
>>53710446
Nope, but it seems like you are.
Intel uses smt to add more threads, amd used cmt.
>>53710462
>hurr what is a single core processing two instructions at once
you are the tech illiterate lel
>>53710483
No, you :3
>>53710462
What the fuck are you talking about, you goddamn retard?
>>53710468
Tech-illiterate confirmed, spouting buzzwords he read on Currytech. AMD's current CPUs don't use any form of trickey to create extra threads. They have eight physical cores and eight threads. This isn't up for debate, given we can just look at the die shot and see it.
Keep memeing as hard as you can though. Maybe some other passing /v/ cretin will buy Intel as a result of your posts.
>>53710487
No you! *tackles anon on the ground* :3
>>53710495
4 FPUs matched with 2 integer units. 4 modules, 8 threads.
Thanks for proving me right anon
>>53710502
No stop! That tickles :3
*blushes*
>>53706832
>GTX 690
How the fuck is this relevant?
>>53710560
*lays on top of anon and tickles belly and giggles while his hammer pressing on him* Say that AMD has 4 cores and I might let you go!
why would i not factor in price? do people actually spend $600 on home cpus?
>>53710617
*squirms under you trying to get free*
>phenom ii x4 955 HAS 4 CORES!!!
*grin triumphantly*
>>53710638
>$600
You can buy a 12 core Xeon E5-2658 v3 for less than $300 on ebay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-E5-2658-v3-ES-LGA2011-3-12C-Compatible-with-X99-i7-5820K-5930K-5960X/151989476551
>>53710646
I said AMD in general, not phenom ii x4
*grins triumpanthly and holds arms* a-anon why are your pants bulging so hard? you are such a gay whore :3
>>53710667
aren't the motherboards for those super expensive? i usually spend ~$70 on a motherboard not like $200
>>53710720
nevermind i thought you meant 2 6 cores
>>53707524
Tomb Raider is stupid for CPU benchmarks as it doesn't care what CPU you have. A game lite Cities: Skylines would be a lot better.
>>53710773
Isn't that using an outdated engine limited to 2 cores?
>>53710673
Oh anon
I'm not happy to see you, that's a gun!
>>53710824
*grabs anons gun and strokes* sure, and it shoots white web right? such a degenerate~
>tfw zen is still 7 months away
hold me bro's
>>53710515
modules =/= cores
2 cores per module
why am i even responding
>>53712139
AMD processors don't have cores in the traditional sense like Intel anymore.
Intel core != AMD core
2 integer units and one floating point unit for each module in AMD fx processors, and 1 integer unit and 1 floating point unit in Intel processor per core.
How can you be this dense and still solve the captcha?
>>53712202
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions
memes aside the integer unit is similar between amd and intel, amd went with cmt which sucked dick because of the split floating point between two cores while intels smt is a bigger meme than make more coars.
>>53712291
Actually cmt worked out a lot in their favor, even though their cores had almost half the ipc, they were still using physical cores which turned out to be much more effective than hyperthreading at multitasking.
See fx 8350 vs i7 3770.
CMT vs SMT.
>>53712329
Yeah, but CMT meant dick all single core performance in an era where developers can't into multi threading, it is a case of 'if you build it they will come' gone wrong.
Still, I went with a 6300 because it was $150 cheaper than the cheapest 4th gen i5 in my country and still matches it in certain tasks clocked at 4.5ghz. Would buy again.
>>53712356
CMT didn't kill single thread performance. It improved multi threading massively.
>if you can't make stronger cores, make more cores.
They played that bet too early.
Mediatek is pulling it off pretty well though with their 10 core HelioX10 and 8 core mtk6752 and 6753.
If I want a brand new build and don't want to wait for Zen, aren't all current AMD sockets dead ends? If I go 1151 with a Skylake at least I can upgrade to Kabylake down the road. However the new Wraith cooler does look good for stock as I don't care about overclocking. What's an upgradefag to do right now?
>>53712543
Current specs?
>>53708013
We got fun and games
Vishera is pretty tasty these days - especially the 8320 (or 8320e) and some overclocking.
These links are also fairly interesting.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user
http://www.overclock.net/t/1535399/500-intel-vs-amd-same-budget-shootout-8350-4-5ghz-r290-vs-4670k-4-4-ghz-280x
tl;dr fx chips are pretty solid given their current pricing.
>>53712659
Not really. An fx-6300 retails for £85 and a used one isn't much cheaper. You can get a used intel quad core (eg 2500k) for between £50-£90 which has miles better performance.
>>53712807
>new vs used
An important distinction - especially considering the age of the 2500k.
>>53712606
Last build was almost 8 years ago lol
Q6600
4GB DDR2
Asus P5QE
Radeon HD4870 512
Only thing I'm gonna keep is 1TB HDD (will get SSD) and PSU. Gonna ditch massive and heavy case (Antec P182) and looking at ITX options (or small mATX). Cool, quiet, compact, energy efficient if possible.
Want to go native Linux on new build - surfing, shitpoasting, light 1080P gaming (Steam e.g. CS:GO or Day of Defeat, The Dark Mod, GOG, emulation), VMs.
The new high end APUs with Wraith cooler might fit my needs but I'm put off by either shitty Catalyst or less efficient open source drivers, plus dead-end socket, though it would be good to switch to AMD for a change after running my Core2Quad for a long time. If Zen was out next month I would hold off for that. I always end up on shittily timed upgrade cycles (e.g. last build was Vista).
>>53712659
So what would be better:
>AMD
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3XWFFT
>Haslel
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/RWwd4D
>Skymeme
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4tR7cf
Assuming all of them will be OC'ed as high as they run stable?
>>53712977
Well the haslel can fuck off - two threads is not enough this day and age if you want to have a fun experience. Skymeme overclocking is still asking for trouble given the steps Intel has taken to stop it.
Still i'd have to think long and hard between the 8320e and the 6100 builds. I'd lean towards the fx chip simply because games can into cores and going forward you are likely to see it murder the i3 buuut on that mobo and cooler you will probably only get to 4.2-4.4ghz if you are lucky.
>>53712949
I'd probably go for miniITX. mATX systems aren't much smaller than a compact ATX system, and you won't be able to fit more than one extra card in there once you've added the graphics card.
