Daily reminder that the only thing AMD cpus are better at than Intel's is being a space heater
Exactly.
When you buy an intel processor, you have to get a space heater as well, but AMD is 2 in 1, so you save money.
>>47767132
Except with AMD you don't get a processor.
>>47767178
What do you get then, a banana?
>>47767110
AMDs are great for lower to mid range PCs
>World's first 8-core processor
MOAR COARS
>>47767270
More cores less performance
>logic
Face it amd is trash, the only reason they are still in business is because of poorfags
The Core 2 Duo E7500, from years ago, has about 75-80% the raw speed of the FX-8580, yet it uses about 33% as much electricity. I got rid of my 8-core shitstain for a reason.
>>47767132
>>47767323
>>47767398
All this samefagging and intel shilling..
amd beats intel for performance per dollar, intel has better performance in the high end chips, nothing new here.
>>47767472
Yeah, I'm a samefag with one post. The Pentium G3258 kicks the shit out of the FX-8350 and it even costs less.
>MAKE MORE CORES!
>>47767492
>muh single threaded!
Oh sorry, I got distracted with doing actual work and having more than 2 windows open at a time.
How's Far Cry 4 playing for you?
>>47767521
time to project? :^)
>There are people who actually want an Intel monopoly
>>47767261
No. Low-end: Pentium G3258. Low-mid: i3.
time to double my electric bill in order to finish my thesis
>>47767492
look up what samefagging means.
Sorry, I only buy AMD products
I'm redpilled
>>47767584
I saw that word on 9gag too!
>>47767574
>buying a dual core in 2015
>>47767594
In this moment, are you euphoric?
>>47767211
Kek
>>47767614
yes
because im not a bluepilled sheep
>>47767614
only when symmetrical docking with your mom.
>>47767609
Anon did say "low-end". (Also, I can't speak for the Pentium, but i3 hyperthreading works wonders.)
Tell me, which AMD chip should I buy instead of the £50 G3258 that will perform better? And the same for the £90 i3-4160?
>>47767110
pls be
Z E N
E
N
>>47767563
>>47767472
Dude stop trying I agree with you but its a bait thread don't even try to explain
>>47767492
In single core performance which doesn't matter anymore lol
>>47767398
Thinking that 10$ a year extra on your electricty bill matters lol
>>47767704
Don't already try to meme zen
>>47767669
If you're okay with a dual core, the G3258 is unparalleled.
As for the i3, how much is a FX-6300?
>>47767813
The same price as a i3-4160
AMD CPUs are actually cooler in temperature than Intel Ivy Bridge beyond.
>>47767833
I'd take the 6300 over an i3. They perform about the same in vidyas, but you get more for your money with the 6300.
Being able to OC tips it over the i3 pretty handily.
>>47767893
Oy vey the AMD cpus are the ovens for the third shoah.
>>47767929
But they're not lol clearly you've never had one
>>47767893
And they produce more heat overall, which is why they make better space heaters.
>>47767833
The FX8320E is $10 more than the i3 4160. There's no reason to get the i3.
>>47767923
>>47767968
Except that both the 6300 and 8320E(low power chip lel) get their shit pushed in in games by the 4160
>>47767941
They just have bigger heat spreaders and soldered heat spreaders which makes them more efficient at transferring heat. If Intel wasn't so cheap and would use a quality heat spreader and actually solder them down properly, they'd transfer more heat too. But no. You'd rather have you CPU baking itself so your room doesn't get hot.
>>47767813
>how much is a FX-6300?
Cheaper (~£70), and it has more cores- but single core performance is awful. I like the Dolphin benchmark to test this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AunYlOAfGABxdFQ0UzJyTFAxbzZhYWtGcGwySlRFa1E#gid=0
FX-6XXX isn't on here, but you will notice that an 8320 takes over 15 minutes to complete the benchmark, while the higher clocked Haswell i3s are more like 9.
>>47767993
>What is overclocking
Show me an overclocked i3 that can keep up with an overclocked 8320E.
>>47768018
>implying an i3 has to be OC'd to beat an FX 8XXX
Kek, show me your "benchmarks" then
>>47768018
>overclocked i3
fucking lol
i bet they'll come back with "muh power draw!"
>>47767666
meh either way you're a sheep boychick you just pinched your pennies a little and saved that money like a good jew. we don't buy retail. now it's time to sell that amd chip for a profit.
glory to isreal.
>>47767132
It's because the stock AMD cooler is crap. I have the cooler master 212 and it works great I get 20-30°C will not gaming.
The reason AMD makes good space heaters is because they use actual solder to equally dissipate the heat. Intel only uses thermal paste so all the heat stays inside of the processor which causes it to overheat, and is the equivalent of putting a blanket over a normal space heater. Stay mad kikefags.
>>47768129
>Intel only uses thermal paste
Lol wut? Are you actually this dumb?
>>47767323
>because of poorfags
This guy gets it. here in the 3rd world it would be nonsense to buy anything but AMD. Most desktop PC's nowadays are in the 3rd world.
>>47768153
i think >>47768129 refers to the IHS
>>47767398
1/10 i can barely play BF3 and ARMA2 with my core2QUAD oc'd to 3,1GHz you retarded fuckstain
>>47768199
What is your graphics card?
>>47768153
It's true, but that's only half the problem. The thermal paste they use between the lid and die is shit but there's also a LOT of it between the die and the IHS.
>>47768207
i tried ARMA2 with crossfire 6850s and a GTX470. less than 2 FPS difference, and every FPS config in existence didnt do jack shit.
>>47768226
Those are pretty old cards anon
>>47768245
so are those games, anon
>>47768341
BF3 is pretty modern, anon.
It's weird, i can run the game at 40-50 fps on my APU on medium settings@720p
>>47768226
>arma 2
>any cpu + gpu
>expecting over 15 fps
>>47768359
arma2 came out in 2009
also APUs are newer than Core2
>>47768212
You're actually retarded
>>47768410
then why do AMD's APUs (which also use TIM between the lid and die instead of solder) run cooler than Intel's with the same cooling solution?
Intel doesn't make a bulldozer cpu, though
>supporting intel
>literally sucking jewish cocks
>>47767833
FX-6300 Release Date: October 2012
i3-4160 Release Date: July 2014
Find me an intel CPU from 2012 that can compete with the FX-6300 both in price and performance.
>>47768795
But that's not the point, you're moving goal posts, the initial question was what to buy today and the 4160 is the better choice
>>47768814
Agreed, but if you're gonna shit on AMD at least compare CPUs from the same time frame.
/g/ - Consumerism and shilling
>>47767110
Intel/Nvidia guy here with my current parts. Had AMD like probably most gamers in the past.
Company wise AMD may not be thinking in as many directions as its competitors and honestly probably is only in business thanks to supplying all the current gen console hardware. They dont seem to have much luck with developers supporting their shit.
I can recommend amd's sub $100 processors all day long though for compatibility reasons for gamers that may fire up the occasional game that doesnt work on 2 core pentiums or i3s. Plus an option to overclock isnt bad.
I can usually recommend AMD's single gpus in almost any price range as well, easily just recommend usually mid to high range Nvidia gpus.
The areas I feel their processors are lacking is performance at high end and the areas I feel their graphics cards are lacking is features either mature enough to use or unique enough. Nvidia already has more features with eye candy physx or shadowplay streaming or 3d that are way ahead, AMD's eyefinity is top notch though but their only exclusive technology I can see using.
If you want the most performance for a while now you simply cant go AMD but if you want a lot of value you can in mid to low end systems.
>>47768795
What does it matter what processor from 2012 competes? Its 2015...
Why would you be comparing what was great years ago in the world of computers that moves so fast? The fact that AMD doesnt have the $ to RnD to get something out to succeed what they had in 2012 still on the shelves 3 years old is a problemo
>>47768226
arma/dayz games all of those are not optimized well especially for multi gpu.
I had a gtx 295 and that was one of the only games it actually didnt like, along with Minecraft but thats not really needed is it? Besides that SLI worked on virtually every new game up until the 980 was popped in.
I see several people with a 7990 having to disable the xfire to play GTA 5... That would piss me off if I got a flagship $1000 card and only 1 generation behind their current flagship they dont have a crossfirex down on a giant release.
>>47768936
>AMD doesn't have the $ to RnD
True. And if they did, they could give Intel a run for their money considering in 2012 the FX-6300 was the best CPU for $130. Now imagine if they had the cash to refresh their line of CPUs often like Intel does.
Luckily AMD is currently working on the ARM CPUs, which is set to over take x86 based CPUs in the next decade or so. By the time Intel realizes this, AMD will be ahead in the ARM market.
>>47768915
Faggot, stop comparing a line of GPU's that was meant to topple the 780/ti to the best Nvidia could shit out in one year, everything will change in June, what with the 390x being revealed and shit, calm your tits down.
>>47768410
Yes, good goy. You just keep telling yourself that.
>>47769340
That's the opposite of a goy lol... Goy would be supporting Intel but I don't have brand loyalty injudt choose which product is the best for the price and that is amd hands down no debate
>>47767211
Apples and oranges.
feels good living near microcenter.
>amd cpu
kek
>>47769442
I love it when you Intel fags try to insult amd but you can't lol its always the same meme shit never true facts its so cute
>>47769507
Kek enjoy your cheap shit? I don't care if you own amd, buddy, someone has to buy the inferior cheap shit. We don't need a monopoly on our hands anon.
>true facts
pretty much every benchmark out there will prove my point. An i3 with hyperthreading beat the amd 8 core.
>moar cores amirite?
ITT:Jew lies.
>>47769550
>inferior cheap shit
Posted from my Intel powered iMac.
>>47769572
Good for you anon. I do not buy apple.
>>47769550
Beating it in single core performance lol... Even google chrome uses more then one core enjoy getting more the same fps in kerbal space program... I find this pretty funny seeing your buyers remorse I don't have anything to prove all I need is the same fps as you and more money in my pocket and I have both of those. Pleb
>>47769099
What are you even talking about? You seem aggressive, I didnt mention specific gpu generations comparing between companies. You just brought up a whole nother topic
I have a 8310 and it idles at 7 celsius, never goes over 30.
>>47769507
>I love it when you Intel fags try to insult amd but you can't lol its always the same meme shit never true facts its so cute
It's really hard to read what you are typing. Could you rephrase what you mean?
>>47769601
>buyers remorse
I bought an i7 for 250 bucks at microcenter. Not sure why you are spewing buyers remorse. Last reply kiddo.
>spending money on your hobby
>this anon is talking about saving money and buying cheap parts
all my keks. Good ole cheap fags jelly mads.
>>47769585
You sure sound like a Macfag though.
>>47769622
Intel kids always try and shit talk amd. But the stuff they say is always fake info or irrelevant. Like heat which isn't true anymore. Or single core performance because nothing uses just one core. Etc hopefully that cleared things up
>>47769637
Good post anon
>>47769442
I'm working on a build very similar to yours and I have a question.
Are you thinking of adding another 980 onto that sometime in the future?
>>47769648
>People actually enjoy their cheap fag performance.
ayy lemow
>>47769635
Literally backing up my point with every reply lol please stop posting already. So anything that costs less is worse right! Lol you're an idiot
>>47769648
Ok, well Intel just has better performing processors and goes high end, while AMD just has better value at the mid and low end.
There's really no debate you either want more performance or more for your money.
>>47769665
Not an accurate graph the 8350 is lower then the 8310 lol... Actual shit reply
>>47769662
Next year probably. I've only had the high refresh rate monitor since August last year. I want to make it last a while, I honestly want to buy 4k, but I don't want to buy another 60hz panel. I don't ever want to do that again. When I get another 980 I'll probably just get an 144hz/ips/1440p panel.
We'll see though.
>>47769667
M8 it's a fact amd is worse. But continue on please.
>>47769665
In reply to your shitty pic. Intel paid for this graph... Paid real fucking money to try and tweak a graph and they fucked it up...
>>47769700
tfw you bought amd
>>47769683
I agree but the 8350 is way more then enough for gaming
>>47769691
Amd worse lol at what single core performance its better St anything elsr
>>47769710
The face when I get like 8 fps less and had an extra 200$ in my pocket
>>47769720
I wish you could speak english.
>>47769635
>last reply kiddo.
>then goes on to post>>47769691
The Intel butthurt is real.
>>47769743
I posted my amd build anon. What?
>>47767492
>The Pentium G3258 kicks the shit out of the FX-8350
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUPJdcChzE&feature=youtu.be&t=213
>>47769691
Thank you, I want to buy 4k in the future too but I don't think I've seen a single 4k monitor with greater than 60hz. That's why I'm planning on one 980 now, and maybe another when 4k monitors improve.
>>47767563
Why doesn't AMD just step up there game and I wouldn't need to go to Intel?
How about AMD having some competence and making mid and high end cores instead of just making them all low end instead?
>>47767398
>has about 75-80% the raw speed of the FX-8580
topkek
>>47769827
Why don't you grow up and quit your remote controlled cartoons and get a life?
>>47769816
pretty much my though process anon. 4k doesn't have true 120hz panels yet. I plan to wait. I'll sli and consider a different monitor in 2016
>>47769764
That's not your build lol but okay I've seen that PIC on threads before
>>47769852
>Implying a amd cpu is faster in video editing
>implying I just play games
Nigger. Amd is slow
>>47768006
Emulators are one of the few modern cases where AMD isn't better
>>47769872
Amd is slow lol keep talking funny how anyone with and amd chip games just fine
>>47769866
>>47769720
>>47769866
>>47769684
>>47769601
>lol
Cringe worthy
Daily reminder that Intel shills are going in full damage control since Jim Keller is going to wreck the shit out of everyone
>>47769891
I know Intel is cringe worthy
>>47769665
As cherrypicked as it gets
Try harder shill
>>47769914
lol
>>47769872
>Implying a amd cpu is faster in video editing
But it literally is, anon.
>>47769904
Agreed lol that all they do is damage control because they're scared that if games can handle more cores that they will have to pay even more for fake reviews and benchmarks
>>47769920
my 4790k is better than any cpu amd has to offer. for 250 bucks. twas a good choice.
>>47769923
Just stop trying they're just doing damage control
>>47769921
Buyers remorse?
>>47769881
>being this new
PowerPC is the only real housefire in the CPU industry, they never could make it cool enough to run on laptops, eventually Jim Keller made the impossible and got a cool PPC chip at PA Semi, but it never went anywhere
Based microcenter.
feels gud owning a good pc.
>>47769720
True, I personally had a budget this time that was a bit out of 8350 making sense though for my games.
I went along with an i5 4460 because I didnt really care to spend more for a few frames to OC it and at the same time it was a step up it seemed from the 8350 even oc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFqQdrs5wEU
I couldnt really justify an AMD Gpu either, the r9 290x while not $600 insane overpriced from buttcoin miners being a great $300-350 today didnt seem right when I wanted a little more with money I had and also something current gen (I didnt want to wait 3 months or more for good aftermarket 980 tis or 390xs to be in stock). So I got a 980.
I also plan to pop another 980 in there in a year or two to SLI and I dont like AMD's slower release cycle of support for drivers which is basically essential to have in multi gpu situations I know coming from a gtx 295 and 2 560 tis I had at different points in machines.
Just.. nothing made sense going with AMD. They need more money to release newer products and they need more money to support those products more often.
>>47769938
Dual HPC Xeon's are better than any consumer Intel CPU's, for 8000 dollars they were a good choice
>>47769940
ah, just got in this thread. Didn't realize I was walking into a full on shitstorm...
Also, I'm now a tripfag.
>>47769965
nice post
>>47769956
I actually respect what you just said... Cival dispute going on with you. I have money for Intel it just didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't I run all my games well above 60 fps so I'm happy and have extra money in my pocket. There is also the fact that amd overclocked better so if the need be I had that option
>>47769977
Yea man its terrible in here just then throwing shit
>>47769852
Why don't you get a job instead of defending a product for free?
Then maybe you could actually afford using a better product.
>>47770003
>fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck, that was so close
>He uses Intel for high end gaming.
Top kek.
>>47770024
dude amd is better. everyone here knows that. this is g
>>47770031
? What? Oh ya the Intel kids throwing it it'd getting close
>>47769987
Yeah my last CPU that I had for a while was a phenom ii x4 965 I think. I had AMD cpus on everything after the pentium 3s till now Intel is just better choices for me again. Same way with nvidia gpus with the nvidia 256 then an geforce 4 ti 4200 then all ati/amd gpus for a bit till later
>>47770037
>here is that same guy that was cross posting tweaktown benchs and the same blog in the g and v thread last week
O man. I gotta get outa here. amd cheap fags are literally the saddest cheap fags ever
>>47770054
I meant you almost got tripquads
>>47770057
I would buy amd again if I had the same experience with my next chip however I might switch to amd next time after my 970 is done because of the whole 3.5 shit kid of pissed me off
>>47770067
Oh lol 3 away man
>>47770024
I use Intel you fucking clown.I just hate gaymers and their influence on technology.All you faggots ruin everything by creating a false need for things to be YOUR way.Not all of us want our cpu's to be optimized for your childish pastimes.Go put some red led's on a rope and hang yourself with it.
>>47770127
How much is AMD paying you?
>>47770192
>you mean saving
>>47770207
Got me bad, anon
>>47770062
Remember: facts are bullshit when they don't show our lord and master Intel and/or Nvidia winning.
>this thread got 137 replies
Daily reminder that unless you have your machine on for only 2 hours a day or change CPU every 6 months the extra money spent on an Intel CPU will give you not only more performance but also pay for itself in reduced power consumption.
>>47770207
How much money does a house fire save you from anon?
Does AMD provide home insurance as well?
>>47770369
That meme is over now that i7s temp is the same and higher now lol
>>47767110
It would've been better to use a FX-4300, which is the same size.
>>47770362
Yeah, nah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0
>>47767110
>>47770501
>no original tests done
>pulled random numbers from a bunch of sites
>averages ALL his findings
>average pull
>average pull
>avaerage kwph
Holy shit, AMD buyers remorse got this guy good.
>>47770501
>>47770385
It's after 5 in the first world how much is AMD paying you for after hours?
Do you have an oncall rate or benefits?
>>47770561
If you think JayZ puts AMD hardware in his system you are sadly mistaken. 99% of reviews he does are praising nvidia and he runs and intel cpu.
>>47770362
Actually AMD APUs and Athlon X4s use less power than Intels.
>>47770603
Step it up anon - evidence has been provided to refute the original claim. Now you have to provide evidence and not memes.
Unless that is your claim is without basis and thus trolling.
(we all know that is exactly what it is)
I've got this and it runs nice and warm under full load. Probably has something to do with it being a 6 core haswell-e at 4.5ghz... Either way, the bitch gets hotter than a 8350 at 4.5ghz.
>>47767110
and cheaper, and generally more accepted amongst enthusiasts. or this is bait.
>>47768795
The FX-6300 competes with the i7 860 which was released in 2009. I just picked up a server with a Xeon X3450 (i7 860 equivalent) and 16GB RAM for $150. Standard mATX motherboard so I'm not even stuck keeping it in the 1U. AMD can't compete.
The problem with AMD is that they've been stagnant for so long they're competing with Intel processors going back EIGHT years. If you have a q6600 there'd be no reason for you to move to an AMD APU, and a six and a half year old i7 920 has no reason to move to a FX. You can pick up six core Xeons for the price of a FX-6300.
>>47770804
>more accepted among enthusiasts
>every speccy thread nothing but Intel
>>47770037
>>47771710
I bet if that was tested at 4k it would reflect the earlier picture - 4k is so enormously gpu bound 99% of cpu's are left waiting on the gpu.
>>47771754
So the extreme minority using 4k it doesnt matter but to most gamers it does at normal resolutions?
>>47768064
So?
The CPU still emits the same amount of energy.
I wouldnt mind trying amd for my next build
>>47771835
I never made that claim, I merely said that at 4k the chart would probably not look like that.
This information is important as you can do 4k on a budget if you know where to cut corners - the difference between and 8350 and 4770k here will nearly buy you a 290, so it is very possible to get an 8350 and 2x290 for the sameish cost as a 4770k and single 290.
>>47771710
> mfw overclocked i5 2500k is still keeping up
> haven't upgraded in years
Those who bought a same gen phenom however...
>>47767398
If by raw speed you mean single core performance then you're probably still overestimating a bit, and either way, a large chunk of the reason you perceive the 8350 to be so slow is that you're almost certainly using few to no programs that are actually threaded well enough to even use 4-6 cores, let alone 8.
>>47768129
10/10
It's funny how you see the same type of projection you see in Apple threads. You payed a premium, great, now stfu about it
>>47767492
The G3258 is a fun little processor to OC but single threading simply doesn't cut it any longer, and it isn't particularly amazing at that either
I haven't seen any Intel CPUs for Mini-ITX builds, so there's that.
>>47768006
Really because I play super smash bros brawl with my FX 8320 at a solid 50 fps (what it natively runs on the wii)uncapped in shoots into 200 fps
>>47767563
Unfortunately there are, they don't realize that as long as intel is "the best" and doesn't have major competition they will have no reason to make more than marginal improvements with each new generation, and will probably invest their enormous revenue into dominating the graphics market as well
>>47767594
I too only buy AMD products, unfortunately, as much as I tend to prefer them subjectively, the main reason I still buy AMD is merely because I am poor (I usually don't even buy new or current AMD, I have to buy used)
>>47767110
Except that even an AM1 CPU can beat an i7 in tests
>>47771895
The phenom was a lot cheaper and the 955/965 CPUs were great overclockers too (and 2 years older than the 2500k)
Just in a lower priceclass
And it can still play GTA V
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GEd0oV8kvw
Unfair to hate on the Phenom, great cheap CPU that punched way above his weightclass when overclocked.
>>47769765
Man, it's fucking incredible how much modern consoles suck. Why does anyone buy those pieces of crap anymore?
>>47768040
You went all in for that one, anon. An i3 and an 8X chip? Wow.
>>47772018
Even the ancient phenom still runs GTA V above a locked 30 fps.
See >>47772010
>>47768057
>>47768040
if you're actually shilling a dual core processor for "muh gaymes" over an 8 core that costs nearly as much, you're out of your mind and/or extremely good goys
So my i5 2320 is still better than pretty much all AMD processors.
Oh AMD, what are you doing?
>>47772041
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more
Pentium won't even run GTA V.
>>47771956
Brawl happens to be one of the lighter games. Still, I'm curious to know what revision of Dolphin you're using and whether/how much you've overclocked.
>>47772024
Wow, you're fucking retarded, it was comparing rh i3 against any FX 83XX CPU
>>47772041
i3 4160 is under $100, where does an 8320 or 8350 end up? 120-150, and it still gets spanked by a hyperthreading dual-core, stay jelly fanboy
>>47772070
It will, the Phenom 965 overclocked runs it.
>>47772010
Overclock that little beast and put on the CPU intensive features lower.
Then again
>using dual cores
>In 2015
If they have hyper-threading I can understand but otherwise it's getting handicapped.
Quad-core is the sweet spot.
>>47767669
I can personally confirm that the G3258 is not the most pleasant experience trying to do much of anything beyond single application work with few background processes, especially on winblows, but you are correct about i3 hyperthreading, it is pretty impressive what they can do for the low tdp and clock speeds
I can't speak to single core performance but the lower end of the AMD FX line will probably be a bit better overall than the 3258, I got an FX-6300 brand new for around 100USD and if you aggressively look for a deal or go used you could find that or a 4350 for quite a bit less
Similarly you could probably push up to an FX-8300 or similar and match the i3, though no matter what you do the single core performance will be worse, thoguh you can close that gap fairly well with overclocking
>>47767110
>AMD better at space heater
>They have a threshold of 60c
>Intel go up to 90c
>Intel aren't space heaters
Ok.
>>47772139
Wattage.
>>47772090
>spanked
if you're interested in running every application on a single threaded workload, then I guess you have something to say about it
>>47768426
I tend to like AMD but to be fair, unless you have a thermal probe stuck in between your cpu and heatsink, your temperature readings for amd will be off by 15-20 degrees C on any processor since the phenom II or so I believe. I haven't been able to find any good reason why amd added this offset, but it is there, as evidenced most obviously by well cooled AMD processors reporting a temperature often below the ambient temperature of the case, or even the room
>>47767110
Honestly, people who still buy dual core CPUs for gaming have really dumb priorities. Yes, you might get better single core performance but so many games and applications are able to use 4 threads that it is not worth it. Not so mention some games actually require a quad core to run well.
>>47772157
>posting cpuboss
Get some gaming benchmarks faggot, that's what's being discussed
>>47772179
The FX chips do not use a traditional sensor for temperature (which is why programs like speccy report silly temps) - the sensor (which is very accurate) measures the thermal margin available before the chip shuts down.
Further reading: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/faq/id-2122665/understanding-temperature-amd-cpus-apus.html
>>47769442
I know the feeling living near microcenter, but why is an AMD cpu so laughable to you? sure if I need high end performance it isn't the right choice but on the low end AMD is still viable. Furthermore what do you think you need a 4790k for? what are you doing that you think that is worth it? if it's games I can tell you it isn't even close to necessary
>>47772222
nice trips + quads
forgot that i'm posting on /v/ 2.0
>>47769550
Except if AMD is consistently only bought as "inferior cheap shit" then you still have a monopoly, just limited to mid range and up, and intel will have no motivation to make major improvements in their middle and high end chips
Also, I'll give you that single threaded, an i3 can usually beat the FX-8000 series but if you were to run a benchmark that measures using all the threads, you would see that AMD would definitely still win out
>>47769938
It may be better, but what, pray tell, do you need that extra power for? Because the way I see it that extra power amounts to nothing more than epeen and you could have bought a much cheaper AMD chip to do everything it does just about as well
>>47772393
http://www.overclock.net/t/1535399/intel-vs-amd-same-budget-shootout-8350-4-5ghz-r290-vs-4670k-4-4-ghz-280x
Unless money is no object saving dosh by going for an AMD and getting a beefier gpu is basically flatout superior to i5 and lesser gpu.
>>47770362
except if you do the math (which is dead simple by the way) the difference is fairly small even running your pc 24/7/365
say you have an 8350 vs a 4790k
assuming they're running at tdp there's a 40w difference (technically slightly less really), run that for an hour, a difference of 40 watt-hours, run it for a day, 960 watt-hours, a year and you have 350400 watt-hours or 350.4 kilowatt-hours. power companies charge for electricity by the kW/hour, in my area it's fairly cheap, about $0.10 per kW/hour, meaning that running your pc significantly more than 2 hours a day (literally all the time in fact) will only cost you around 35USD per year more, much more than the price difference between almost any two AMD or intel products
tl;dr: your argument is invalid
>>47772487
Exactly, so instead of getting an 8350, you get an i3, save even more money and get better performance than the 8350
>>47772487
I assume that was not meant for >>47772393
>mfw AMDs 8 "cores" can't even beat an dual core with hyperthreading
>>47772053
In single core performance so shut up already
>>47772090
Again that's in single core performance
>>47772222
Nice quads other then that you're retarded you can't cherry pick the things in the thread for benchmarks... You can't be like oh here is some non gaming benchmarks then amd beats it and you change the topic to gaming benchmarks... PIC related for gaming for you though
There is a 3 fps difference from the top to the 8350 and a 860$ price difference...
>>47772227
Thanks for that, oddly enough I actually had never been able to find a good explanation for that, despite asking some informed groups of people and doing a bit of my own research. D you know of a good, simple way to accurately read not the thermal margin, but the actual cpu temperature not using amd's software? I'm on debian and don't have their software for my gpu or cpu (both amd) and at the moment I'm using lm-sensors iirc and it reports around 7-10 degrees C temperatures essentially all the tie in a usually above room temp environment (and the cooler is pretty decent but certainly not amazing, it is a bit old)
>>47772701
>posts a benchmark of a game optimized for AMD
>a shit one at that
This is the definition of cherry picking, and it took you this long to find a benchmark where it doesn't even mention an i3 let alone a recent one, truly pathetic
>>47772728
>only posts optimised benchmarks
>someone posts one that isn't optimised for either it's not biased
>loses his shit because he has no other argument
I'd really like to buy an AMD processor and I would seriosuly consider doing so if it weren't for the fact that my overclocked 920 bloomfield is on-par/better than 8350. Which is pretty fucking sad considering the release date gap.
>>47772820
If only that were true m9
>>47772766
I haven't actually posted benchmarks, you're argument is invalid, there are plenty of benchmarks out there that I'm sure you skipped over because they didn't favor your argument, pleb
>>47772820
dont let the shills in this thread fool you, you good goy
get an 8320E
lower TDP, lower price, overclock that shit
>>47772885
First game on my steam list but okay
>>47772943
>responds about his steam list
You are a fucking retard that proves nothing
>>47772968
That's just the first game I saw in my list and I looked up the benchmark why are you so heated that you are wrong
>>47771836
No it doesn't. Hence temps rise under load since more heat is generated in the chip...
>>47772993
I'm not heated or wrong, you're just a fucking retard with buyers remorse and ass blasted that a chip cheaper than your made by a rival is better than yours at gaming
>>47772701
How can you compare a 1200€ to a 200€ CPU?
It is like comparing an iPhone to the fastest low end android phone feature wise.
>>47773037
If I was mad I would be posting more benchmarks to price you wrong lol see I don't care if you like Intel or think its better all I need to know is that I get the same if not better fps for half the price and I have that satisfaction
>>47773040
By putting them in a side by side test? Like in that benchmark... Are you fucking retarded?
>>47773072
Good job, you completely missed the point and insulted me in addition to this.
>>47773072
>i3
>costing twice as much as an 8350
Wow, you are fucking retarded
>>47773103
If you were he second person then you deserved to be insulted that was a retarded reply
>>47773118
I3 gets the same performance in single core threading not in whole country usage that's like you racing a bugati and a bicycle but the Bugatti can only have 2 wheels used...
>>47773127
Is this even english
>>47773153
Wow, yet another useless metaphor, you're proving everyone right, fanboys are fucking retarded
>>47773153
Annndd you're wrong again, the 8350 has nowhere near the single threaded performance of an i3
>>47773182
For the fact that it costs twice as much and performs better at mutitasking, this argument is a joke.
>>47773164
He is meant to be the if you can't tell that then your underage...
>>47773165
Lol see you have no comeback because you know you're wrong lol idiot
>>47773182
You must actually eat paint chips...
>>47773182
not that guy, but it isn't thaaat far off, depending on the i3 (aka not the highest-end newest gen i3)
>>47773294
There like the same depending if you take the newest and the highest i3 its almost par depending on what bs benchmark you're looking for
>>47773288
you're
>>47773294
for half the price of an i3, you actually get multitasking performance + a faster rendering cpu for 2D/3D (literally the only reason you'd buy an i7 for)
>>47773342
You have no argument so you correct grammar... What a faggot
>>47769943
What is the Powe book g4
>>47773280
How does an i3 cost twice as much as an 8350? You're delusional
>>47773288
7/10 if trolling, 2/10 if not
>>47773324
In the cpuboss benchmark posted above it destroys the 8350 in single threaded operations, where does it barely beat an 8350 in single threaded performance?
>>47773368
>How does an i3 cost twice as much as an 8350? You're delusional
Yeah wtf, the only reason why I would not consider an i3 is because it is Dual Core and that shit locked me out of Far Cry 4
>>47768006
Jesus christ my Nehalem at stock did the Dolphin test in like 13 minutes, ~11 and some change when OCd properly.
The FX line really is that bad?
>>47773417
That only happens on the Mememium, the i3 is "seen" as having 4 threads due to hyperthreading and will launch the game, unless its a SB or IB i3
I'm currently on an i7 3630QM with 8 Cores, I think AMD is dead as in dead pixel.
>>47773368
Beats it by less then 3% calling that a spanking
fx 6300 is cheap and powerful enough to run games at its maximum expression.
why will i pay $200 for an Intel processor that performs the same as a $130 AMD processor. I also get a space heater free with AMD too so like gg intel shil.
>>47773623
More like 30-40% in single threaded performance, see >>47772157
>>47773678
Show me where a 4160 costs $200, pcpartpicker shows 99 and some change for the 4160, and the 8350 does worse in games than the 4160-4360
>>47773652
>powerful enough to run games
>still gets spanked by an i3
Wow. One of the shittiest threads I've seen on /g/ in some time.
In any case, generally I agree with >>47772393
. I'm perfectly happy to have gotten 80% of the performance for a chip that cost 30% as much.
It's fast enough for me.
Can an intel CPU do THIS!? APUs are master race
>>47773763
In single core games aka nothing that anyone plays... The 8350 is far superior in every aspect but single cores shit that no one uses
>>47773770
Again that's single core nothing is run one one core anymore...
>>47775158
Agreed buddy
>>47775187
Apus are hands down WAY better its 120$ and you can do hardcore gaming in it medium to high settings
>>47773763
That's cherry picking a test no one uses single core as a benchmark anymore that's the only think Intel has going for them if programs use more cores amd wins that's why new games are mostly getting amd on the high end of benchmarks...
>>47776960
It will be pretty interesting in the coming years to see how gracefully the FX series actually ages with multithreaded becoming the new paradigm.
>>47769442
>windows 8
>>47775187
Bitch please
Noob here, aren't AMD CPUs better for rendering since you divide the processing load between the larger amount of cores?
Tell me if I'm just talking out of my ass
>>47777211
If the program supports it, yeah. Video cards matter more for video rendering, though.
>>47777084
In games with engines that scale up to 8 cores like GTAV and Dragon Age Inquisition, don't Intel quadcores still beat AMD octocores?
when is the ideal time to buy a new intel cpu. been using this amd 8350 for 2 years and /g/ finally convinced me that i should switch over
>>47777345
Why would you switch over? There's no point to upgrade if you're on SB or Piledriver
Wait for Zen and whatever ensues from Intel
>>47777362
i would imagine i would get better FPS. i get about 50-60ish in gta 5 atm with this build and want to get 60+ with new games coming out/etc
For real though, why hasn't AMD put out a high end CPU in fucking years?
Swap Intel and AMD, and it would be like if Intel's last high end CPU was an i7 920.
>>47777376
You wouldn't get much improvement
Just OC your 8350
>>47777404
They have focused on the lower end market and the mobile markets
>>47777345
At the end of their tick tock.
Unfortunately, since the 9xx and 2xxx, there has been fuck all improvement, just 5~% across the board each iteration.
If you were going to get something, I'd get the 4690k if you can't be bothered waiting.
