Hey, is there something as an equivalency table for processors, gpus, etc? Is such a thing even possible?
I keep seeing stuff like the AMD FX 8320 is equivalent to the i5, but those usually vary wildly. I'm starting to thing trying to claim something is equivalent to another in this field as inherently bogus.
>baitpic unrelated
This is what benchmarks are for.
>>51649268
Yeah, but I'm asking about some sort of permanent comparison matrix. Benchmarks are kind of task-specific.
>>51649326
Everything in computers is task-specific when it comes to performance. You can calculate mean of several different benchmarks if you feel like it, but i fail to see any purpose except fanboy wars.
Who is this semen demon?
>>51649326
No because it's all subjective.
Benchmarks change with time too, task change with time.
You need to keep track of relative performance.
>>51649456
Not op but there's got to be a more efficient way than keeping updated on every release and diver development.
What I mean is take a look at this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
Just from a glance you can see that putting the GTX 560 on the same tier as a HD 7790 makes no sense. So what's even the point of those types of charts?
>>51649452
Seconded
>>51649452
yuki suzuki
You tube tutorials desu
>>51649258
There is nothing equivalent. The architecture is different, so there is absolutely no comparable.
For instance, across Intel's linup, an i3, i5, and an i7, all largely have the same single-threaded performance (if clock speeds are equal). Going up a tier gets you better multi-threaded performance. i3 is dual core with hyper threading, i5 is 4 cores, and i7 is 4c/HT.
Same with AMD. X4 860k, FX-6350, FX-8350, all largely have the same single-threaded performance. You just get more modules as you go up.
Intel's cores are MUCH more powerful, always, so there's no comparison. There is no AMD CPU with equivalent single-threaded performance to even an i3.
>>51652622
Wait, aren't intel cpus supposed to be memes? As in they're way more expensive while the cheaper alternatives are more powerful, sort like the iphone?
>>51652686
lol
Sure, in 2008, amd was a better bang for your buck
but they come nowhere near intel now
people dont buy desktops anymore, and a 500watt CPU wont work in a laptop/tablet
>>51652738
So it is true for desktops then
>>51652796
No, Intel CPUs are now cheaper for the money when you factor in motherboard cost except for the low-end, where the x4 860k reigns supreme. But you've got to be ultra pleb to only be able to afford a $350 desktop.
