Discussion in 'System Builder's Advice' started by Altered, Jan 25, 2013.
lay off the crack. and as for anandtech, they are always biased towards intel.
Actually the i5 and i7 perform about as good as the i3 as well so why do people buy those more expensive intel i5's and i7's when an i3 performs just as good in the games when it performs the same as the FX chips? You are digging a hole right now and there are actually some quite funny reviews on youtube about the FX 8350 and gaming. Metro 2033 there is a 10FPS jump between the 8350 from a 3570/3770/3820 in the FX series chips benefit. Heck if you like to stream video as well the 8350 makes all the same chips look like junk as well in all games including the wonderful Skyrim people like to compare.
As for power consumption again who the heck cares if you want to save 70 watts buy a freaking raspberry pi.
i can see another intel amd war lol
Your idea gaming isn't the norm. Some people are OK with 20FPS. If that's you fine. I've actually came from an overclocked 4850 series, so very similar to the 4870 and it's performance was dreadful in BF3. Dropping in my 5850 was the difference between low detail / poor frame rate. To high detail / good frame rate in BF3.
Don't worry RCoon, Ghost won't reply to you lol.
In all seriousness, reviews which say FX are not for gaming are talking relative to Ivy Bridge I5 and i7, but that doesnt mean it isnt capable or cant compete with the lesser i3.
That is a very blanket statement. Gamers buy the i5 and i7 over the i3 beause of the advantage it has in new multi threaded games, the same reason why gamers should buy the FX series over the i3. Now, that doesnt mean the i3 can't compete with the i5, i7 or FX series in single threaded games or lesser optimised multithreaded games too.
It's a blanket statement to say the FX sucks at gaming yet it may as well be plastered on the front page of TPU. In new multithreaded games the FX series is better so I ask you what are you buying a new CPU for single threaded junk from 3-4 years ago that I can play on my netbook or new games like Metro, Crysis 3, Dirt all of which actually use more than 2-4 cores?
10 FPS over the 3770K in Metro 2033 isn't exactly something to shake a stick considering it was going from 20FPS to 30FPS. That's not playable to playable.
The $180 FX series octa-core chip is a bloody bargain and anyone to dense to see that may as well own a crapple.
OK I'm looking at YOUR links
Application Average: (specific to 3D games)
FX 8350 - 171 FPS
Core i3-3240 - 95.6 FPS
core i3-2130 - 92.1 FPS.
3D Games Average
FX 8350 - 128.5 FPS
Core i3 3240 - 131.1 FPS
Core i3 2130 - 125.6 FPS
Your own website shows the FX is as fast or faster than the i3.
I agree, if we're talking about a high tier 3770K vs the FX in gaming. But The FX X6 and X8 seems more than capable of competing with the i3 in gaming today.
Added some stuff in there since we are saying the i3 is faster. If it is faster I guess the i5/i7 suck.
Wait lets quote his article too.
Now look specifically at the games tested and you will notice the vast majority seem cherry picked as they are not multithreaded titles.
Weird this isn't even a well multithreaded game...yet not slow...
You don't even understand those charts.
'Applications average' chart doesn't include games at all. It's application performance. I did say FX is good in these sort of things.
'3D games average' chart includes only games (1920x1080, max settings). And here AMD's fastest, expensive and power hungry FX performs at i3 level.
These are the two facts I stated in the first place.
At best it is a piss poor grouping of games there is next to nothing that utilizes the cores of the FX chip. Heck the benchmark Skyrim to show CPU performance.
Ivy i3's can go toe to toe against the FX6300 in most games (less than 5% difference in most cases), so I don't know where you are heading with this post :<
If you guys continue calling each other names infractions will be handed out.
Please do continue your little argument
Come on guys i was in a meeting for an hour and now infractions are being threatened. All the guy wanted to know what if he could game with a budget AMD cpu.
The answer is yes. They ALL perform admirably.
I didnt hear him ask about i3's nor did he express concern about power usage.
Stop answering your own arguements/questions.
You posted the link. Don't get pissy because the link doesn't show the i3 as impressive as you made out.
Put 6 extra cores on the i3 and lets see if it's power hungry too.
Also your chart didn't include the less expensive FX 6300, its NOT expensive and performs at the level of the i3 in gaming too.
Unless OP has a 120hz monitor, who cares.
Show me some minimum fps, that's all that matters
this thread now - >
Oh, oh, I want to join!
Actually reading this thread, I think the majority of people do understand these numbers and it's you who is confusing it. Just because a game doesn't run faster than an i3 doesn't mean the full potential of an 8-core CPU is being used. If you're running a game optimized for 2 cores, then you still have 6 cores on the 8320-8350 that can still be used.
The i3 can not over-clock, where the FX chips can. So it's not very hard to eliminate that gap if you really wanted to.
AM3+ motherboards tend to run cheaper than skt1155 CPUs with more features at a similar price point.
With the i3 running max power.
You want to multi-task? The i3 will roll over and cringe and the FX chip will hit the ground running.
So let me make some clarifications here that everyone I think needs to hear.
Pro i3 (con FX):
A: The i3 is faster in single-threaded applications due to Intel's better IPC ratio.
B: The i3 has fewer cores so most games that benefit from the i3 will be optimized for dual-core and will have slight gains with more because of hyper-threading.
C: The i3 uses less power, FX uses more.
Con i3 (pro FX):
A: FX has a lot of cores, you can multi-task to your hearts content. You want to encode video while you play a game, have a blast! Do that on an i3 and your rig will cry for mercy. It also prepares you for future games that are heavily multi-threaded.
B: FX can overclock, i3 can not. So this "gap" you describe can be easily closed. Simple as that and by the time you get to the i5 k-edition CPU you've already saved money getting an FX chip.
C: Socket 1155 is approaching their EoL. AM3+ has a little ways to go before AMD replaces it. (I suspect that will happen when DDR4 starts becoming mainstream.) So the only upgrades you can get are other CPUs with similar single-threaded performance on 1155.
So here is the primary reason why I would get an AMD CPU and not an Intel one.
If you get an i3, upgrading to and i5 or i7 will cost a lot of money and give you minimal gains and in the places where you do get gains (optimized beyond dual-core,) the FX chip is going to fly with it. So your targeting a very specific niche of games that aren't optimized for multi-core which are, in all honesty, a dying breed.
So all in all, there is no reason to get an i3 unless your only goal is power consumption and in that case, I will quote cdawall.
As always, my hero.
I got a really low budget pc and im verrrryyyyy pleased with FX, and who cares about energy consumption, if you did you'd have solar panels! and now I see why i3 compared to 4100 wins all the reviews etc due to single threaded tasks and not multi!
This allows us to state that AMD FX-8320 is one of the most interesting choices for computer enthusiasts in terms of price-to-performance (multi-threaded).
The six-core Vishera modification, FX-6300, seems to make a pretty weak overall impression at first glance. One of the four dual-core modules in this processor is disabled that is why its peak performance is relatively low compared with Intel’s quad-core processors even under multi-threaded load. This is quite logical, because two contemporary AMD cores are pretty much as fast as one Intel core: this is exactly what we saw throughout our today’s test session.
Someone with an Intel chip (SB-E to be exact) needed to chime in and defend AMD, because honestly if I decided to get a CPU now, I wouldn't have discounted the 8350 over the 3820 as quickly as I did for the 8150.
Also another great video which seems to show the FX in a very good light in gaming against the higher tier i5.
For power consumption nuts, they worked out that even with lower power consumption you end up paying more on the Intel rig in electricity bill once you factor in the upfront having of the AMD rig.
But that is relative to comparing the FX-6300 to the upper-end i7.
When you look at xbitlabs gaming section you see the FX6300 and i3 is virtually identical in gaming today. Then when you factor in future games the i3 wouldn't stand a chance, then factor in non-gaming tasks the FX 6300 would then further demolish it.
FX 6300 - 67 / 104 FPS
i3-3240 - 65 / 92 FPS
FX 6300 - 58.1 / 67.8 FPS
i3-3240 - 59 / 70.2 FPS
FX 6300 - 60.1 / 60.4 FPS
i3-3240 - 60.8 / 61.3 FPS
Dirt show down
FX 6300 - 57.9 / 81.1 FPS
i3-3240 - 59.5 / 87 FPS
FX 6300 - 102.5 / 107 FPS
i3-3240 - 106.5 / 111.9 FPS
FX 6300 - 28.6 / 94.6 FPS
i3-3240 - 28.6 / 78 FPS
As you can see from the results both CPUs perform virtually identical in today's gaming results - I'm just posting the numbers.
Lol, that vid make me laugh, they've got a great way of presenting things
soooo much crapping going on here.
how about we just simplify it to:
intel is faster, but more expensive. a 15% performance boost for 50% more price isnt worth it to everyone.
...but it's not. The IPC that AMD offers isn't all that far under SB/IVB and it's only single-threaded apps that really see that bottleneck. It's really not when you consider that you can easily overclock an FX chip to overcome that IPC gap.
Yes, Intel is faster for single-threaded apps and might offer 15% more in that case, but if I was building a rig that needed to multi-thread well then I would seriously consider a 8350 over my i7 3820 because most multi-threaded benchmark shows FX chips dominating them. Granted now that i have the i7 I wouldn't replace it but my views would have changed if I had waited to get it.
Either way, you're not getting a bad CPU. You're just paying more if you go with Intel when AMD is keeping up just fine despite all the flaming going on.
Dent1 I have a word about playing in full-HD: video card first and CPU for the remaining budget.
Both AMD and Intel are playing very nice in full-HD with same video card. I have an 2500k stock and a 560Ti and my brother-in-law an 960T and a 560Ti. Both we're playing in full-HD and everything is fine for me and for him.
Maybe in some benchmarks he's behind me but in usual gaming my naked eye could not see any differences in gameplay fluidity.
So basically I agree with Mussels.
Seems like 80% of the contributors here want to ignore the Op's origional question and use the thread as a playground, the OP's question is pretty much answered anyhow.... thread closed.
Separate names with a comma.