Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 6, 2012.
AMD should flood the market with these new CPU's.
Well the good news is this thread got out of hand. Since we are on the subject of silliness
Did anyone else see AMD perform well in an actually multithreaded game?
or any of these?
Since everyone loves to throw skyrim in. Take any BD or PD chip disable it down to 1 module with a single core and clock the holy heck out of it. Post back if it outperforms an i3.
^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.
I recommend keeping the forum code saved for when another thread like this pops up.
Be careful they might post benchmarks specifically written for Intel based CPU's, where it cripples AMD CPU's from properly performing.
or claim how they are better since superpi says so.
All I know is 8350 + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850 + 120GB SSD = 3770K + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850.
Its ok if my eyes cannot see 5 to 10 fps that I7 churns extra.
No Ocing, put it in, finish setup, have a drink, start to fire bullets.
LOL AMD fanboys vs Intel fanboys! )) And all started with an innocent remark, haha. 1 stone in the lake created a big tsunami. Seriously guys, you need to take a break. ))
Not an Intel fanboy, but it fits perfectly into what I said. In heavily threaded applications the AMD CPU's are great. Every single one of those benchmarks proves it considering even the BD CPU did well in most of them.
Er... it appears you agree with the post you quoted, so why the aggression?
Regarding FX performance in multithreaded apps, nobody's disputing it, least of all "Intel fanboys" (am I an Intel fanboy? With both of my rigs running AMD CPUs?). Trouble is, some of the most demanding applications that a lot of people run aren't well threaded (yet).
Such as what? Skyrim? Some games that are still pushing over 60fps? Because it sure isn't rendering, sure isn't compiling so there isn't exactly much left that's demanding.
Even if it was the case that FX CPUs were pushing a solid 60FPS in every poorly threaded game, that wouldn't be an argument for buying an FX-8350 - it would be argument for buying the cheapest CPU possible with respectable single-threaded performance. Which is probably an eBay Phenom II X2, E8400 or socket 1156 i3. Unless you do a lot rendering, compiling or other demanding tasks, of course, but many people don't. The most demanding things that my PC does aren't very demanding.
So why are yup bothering to comment in a thread about a high end AMD? I personally fail to see what any of this has to do with yet another low cost good overclocking chip from AMD.
But hey if skyrim bad superpi are your thing I highly suggest a heavily overclocked I3.
I've just responded to other posts. Follow my comments back and you'll find that I've never pushed this thread off-topic. I've merely corrected or answered posts by others that have done so.
SuperPi isn't my thing, this very post is the first time I've ever mentioned it on this forum. But I'm perfectly fine with my Phenom II, thanks. If I was building a new PC tomorrow, I'd buy an FX-4300. It has a better blend of single-threaded performance and "future-proofing" than a dual-core from 2008 could ever provide.
Although what you said was 100% true. Lets be honest, the FX-4300 also has a better blend of single threaded and "future proofing" than a dual core i3 from 2012 too.
Separate names with a comma.