>bulldozer was bad
>phenom ii was better than the fx series
>it's not worth upgrading from a phenom ii x6 to an fx 8350
Never listen to /g/
>>53841580
The fuck are you talking about?
Ph II often has better single threaded performance, and considering the cheaper cost and even the older process node of most Ph II's during the transition, hell yeah it was the 'better' Arch.
You've also cherry picked 5 benchmarks. It really depends on what you're actually doing.
>>53841632
Show me one benchmark where an fx8350 loses to a phenom ii
> Benchmark
Focus on the real world retard
>>53841580
>implying the 1090t isnt perfectly fine and doesnt bottleneck
>>53842079
>autism
FX 8350 is Piledriver which was a huge improvement over the original Bulldozer.
>>53841580
So the Phenom is better in benchmarks and the FX is better at actual things. How is the Phenom better, exactly? Do you only use your PC for running benchmarks all day?
>>53841580
>phenom ii was better than the fx series
Nope.mkv
> thread discarded / 10
> go the fuck back to /pol/
>>53843147
>>53843101
You'd be surprised how often that shit gets thrown around on g.
Also the fx processors is shit meme is literally just a meme when an fx 6300 destroys an i3 3220 despite costing around the same.
>>53843171
>destroys
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/350/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html
>>53843171
i have fx6350 and it's definitely fucking shit, i am pretty sure it's bottlenecking my r9 290 pcs+ as well i am never falling for amd meme anything again
>>53843216
Maybe not on release, but look at current performance now that 4 threads or more are used in most modern games.
Rendering benefits from moar cores too, as does general pc use and web browsing.
>>53842021
I was talking about in relation to Bulldozer, not Vishera. But here you go:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=697
There's a small handful where it's faster. The Linux benches near the bottom, for instance. A handful of the games. The 4 core 980 with its higher clocks also manages to be better in some single thread limited games:
http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-99th.gif
Not many, granted - But you only asked for one. And this is from a CPU built on 45nm. A 32nm version would've (after clockspeed adjustments thanks to the new node) would've been a real contender.
>>53843279
It better have a bit better performance to have a chance, considering it has almost double TDP and 4 more cores. It also doesn't have integrated graphics. i3 was never marketed as gaming CPU.
>>53843279
Even in modern games where more threads are being used, modern i3's still crush FX 63XX chips - Because i3's are Hyperthreaded for a damn good reason. Take GTA 5 for example - Generally considered pretty good at optimisation.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/482x1034q90/661/9E8eL8.png
http://i.imgur.com/s1Em8AI.jpg
Even with an overclock (which would add the cost of a cooler) it's not faster.
And as much as 'moar cores' benefits general PC usage, having far greater single core performance is better even just alone, but the i3 when running 4+ threads does pretty damn respectably even compared to a 6 core FX in programs with 6+ threads.
>>53843513
Games are mostly float load, which Piledriver sucks at.
Hyperthreading also doesn't work often when executing float loads.
Everything you stated was known. Your post betrays your ignorance, please return to /v/
