>AMD FX-8370 btfo Intel i5 6500
>>52188600
>8 core only marginally better than quadcore.
nice cherry picked benchmark
>>52188600
> amd uses 125 watts
> intel uses 65 watts
AMD HOUSEFIRES
AMD HOUSEFIRES EVERYWHERE
>>52188600
Glorious 4790k
>>52188600
>A 4GHz 8 core just barely beating a 3.6GHz quad core.
4GHz per core
That's like comparing a V8 100HP/cylinder car vs a 4cyl 100HP/cylinder car.
Its not like the Intel chip has a massive node advantage, is 4 years newer and often (though I doubt in this case) has compiler fuckery in its favour.
/g/ just refuses to admit that vishera is good.
>>52188818
why is AMDs inability to spin new architectures or keep up with silicon nodes my problem senpai
>look I finally found a benchmark that amd looks decent on!
My FX-8350 build from 2013 still has a good four or five years of life left in it before I need to do a full replacement. The only thing I see coming up is replacing the GPU with an AMDGPU-compatible card so I can use Wayland in a year or two.
>>52188860
The chips still compete in many, many areas so lack of new silicon isn't an issue if your usages fall within those areas. See pic - 8350 on par with a 4770k.
>>52188644
>>52188786
Oh, NOW it's a 8 core?
>>52188905
It always was - just because some dipshit who doesn't understand cpu architectures tried to sue AMD doesn't change reality.
>>52188905
Pretty sure it's always been known as an 8 core.
>>52188927
To be fair it's not a traditional 8 core and it lacks hardware resources in total a traditional 8 core would have.
It's an 8 core but is bottlenecked similar to how the GTX970 bottle neck the last partition of RAM, the Vishera does it through L2, L3 memory instead.
>>52188600
Is the 8370 about the same as the 8350?
>>52188931
It's 8 half cores.
Not 8 real cors.
>>52188935
If you stretch the defintion of what a cpu is some old chips don't qualify as cpus due to lacking the hardware. Off the top of my head though I forget what it was he was citing that stopped bulldozer being 8 core. Neither Intel or AMD has ever really defined (legally) what a core is.
>>52188891
> he thinks people still render on CPUs
>>52188935
But a traditional 8 core barely exists anyway, so it can't really qualify as 'traditional'.
>>52188962
>It's 8 AMD cores, not 8 real cores
ftfy senpai
>>52188935
There's no strict definition of a CPU core, but if you take Intel's cores(1 fetch, 1 decode, 1 INT/1FPU, dedicated L1/L2) and pre-Bulldozer AMD cores, heck, even Jaguar as a standard then it's not 8
>>52188818
> /g/ refuses to admit Vishera is good
Its not the same /g/ again my friend, this place is filled with autist manchild intel/nvidia shills / dumbass gamer kids now
the only thread to look at is the wdg/dpt
>>52188999
It is sad to see /g/ slide to rivalling /v/ for post quality.
The BD family is only really good at integer loads, the more threads the better.
It falls flat on its face on FP loads and mixed loads, then at memory/cache latency
>>52188999
>4GHz CPU getting beat in everything when both hardware is running the same MHz.
>Intel is crazy easy to OC
>Only reason AMD isn't full ass raped is because it's running twice the cores at higher stock speed.
Overclock both to 5GHz and AMD falls back, way back in the charts.
>>52188905
I personally never said otherwise, you must have mistaken me for someone who lies.
>>52188999
>intel/nvidia shills
Its not like your post quality is helping the situation friendo.
