AMD Offers New Thermal Solutions and Processors for Near-Silent Performance

[newtekie1]

i rather to use an intel i3 over using any FX processor, they are just crap lad...

The FX CPUs are just fine, they are a bit slower and they consume a bit more, true, but nothing that would put them in the thrash bin and together with an i3.

You really can't make broad generalizations like this. This applies to both sides.

All FX processors aren't crap, they certainly all aren't at or below the i3 level. But some are.

I'd take a haswell/skylake desktop i3 over an FX-4XXX, but I'd take an FX-6XXX or FX-8XXX over an i3. And when you can get an FX-8300 for the same cost as an i3, I'd go with the FX...

 

[Jborg]

i rather to use an intel i3 over using any FX processor, they are just crap lad...
im gonna check the link ... thanks ...

Edit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...64&cm_re=intel_core_i5-_-19-117-564-_-Product
another great deal!

FX Processors work just fine. I used mine for gaming for 2 years straight with no issues. They just lose to intel in single threaded performance and do not run games as well.

The logical choice is intel... but the FX processors have worked well for me all the way since my FX 4100.

The point is.... its not worth investing into an AM3 build at this point in time. But saying they are just crap is not a fair assessment

 

[Frick]

for many builds I have done with amd for customers they use to get back intel, they also claim better experience with intel that amd

That's some sort of placebo effect fo so. Like how de.das.dude claimd AMD feels snappier.

 

[cdawall]

I am just glad to see they are packaging this with 95w+ CPU's the stuff they used to include with those was junk this is actually useful if that is AMD's plan because it really does remove the need to buy an aftermarket cooler for light overclocking and normal system usage.

That's some sort of placebo effect fo so. Like how de.das.dude claimd AMD feels snappier.

There is literally no feeling difference between my dual 12 core AMD's at 4.6, FX9370@4.8, A6-6400K@4.6,

i7 5500u and i7 5820k in normal windows applications. All of them have SSD's for the OS and at least 8GB of ram. People now seem to think you need the biggest baddest thing on earth to do anything and everything when in reality my dual core i7 mobile chip would run any game out there just fine if you paired it with a proper video card. Shit is getting to be a joke.

 

[GreiverBlade]

i rather to use an intel i3 over using any FX processor, they are just crap lad...
im gonna check the link ... thanks ...

Edit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...64&cm_re=intel_core_i5-_-19-117-564-_-Product
another great deal!

i will not contest your reason, tho for me they are wrong, even if i have a i3-4130T and a i5-6600K, when i did the switch from a FX-6300 to a i5-4690K i noticed nothing worth to prove me a AMD cpu at 140chf was a crap compared to a 259chf Intel CPU

ofc for single thread higher IPC is great but the FX-6300 is already superior to the i3 in many task (mine is a dualcore + HT ) and a 83XX is on par or above the i5 depending the situation (and even reaching a i7 in a few select conditions ) so ... price to price AMD is still the best alternative if bound by a budget.

your customer that go AMD 1st and Intel after, are mostly in a "placebo effect" scenario were they get : "AMD? bah you should go Intel they outperform them by a huge margin"

bottom line, Vishera is not a crap nor are the APU and Athlon based on Piledriver/Excavator, they are still cost efficient and slightly competitive enough to be considered as viable alternative (and nope the difference in TDP will not make up for the product prices difference )

edit:

That's some sort of placebo effect fo so. Like how de.das.dude claimd AMD feels snappier.

ahhh i am not the only one to notice a placebo effect .... i answered the thread before reading that post

 

[nem]

toms hardware.

 

[TheGuruStud]

I can see these idiots, now....

idiot: "Intel feels snappier"

nondelusional person: "what is your OS drive?"

idiot: " this sweet 5400 rpm Seagate that I got for 40 bucks!"


And that's about all you need to know when conversing with these crack heads.

Also, to stir the pot, didn't blind tests result in people picking AMD as more responsive in their normal tasks... LOL

 

[cdawall]

I can see these idiots, now....

idiot: "Intel feels snappier"

nondelusional person: "what is your OS drive?"

idiot: " this sweet 5400 rpm Seagate that I got for 40 bucks!"


And that's about all you need to know when conversing with these crack heads.

Also, to stir the pot, didn't blind tests result in people picking AMD as more responsive in their normal tasks... LOL

I have both all with SSD's they all feel oddly the fucking same.

 

[TheGuruStud]

I have both all with SSD's they all feel oddly the fucking same.

Bingo. That's why anyway that claims different with modern hardware has quite the imagination.

 

[agent00skid]

Looks very similar to me, just a fan change it seems.

But which one of them? There's both a 65 and 95 Watt version.

 

[medi01]

Guys,

if I am not multi-threading much, is any of the listed CPUs worth upgrading from i5 750? (Ancient 45nm 2.66Ghz piece from 2009)
http://ark.intel.com/products/42915/Intel-Core-i5-750-Processor-8M-Cache-2_66-GHz

 

[cdawall]

But which one of them? There's both a 65 and 95 Watt version.
View attachment 71885

The 140w version.