Discussion in 'Desktop Computers' started by Intel_man, Jun 23, 2016.
I don't think so, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=697 the 6600K beats the FX-8350 in some multi-threaded benchmarks. Granted, not by much, but given that the 6600K has half the number of cores of the 8350, it shows that the 8350's architecture is pretty poor by comparison. An i7 6700K with 4 cores and 8 threads would blow the 8 core 8350 out of the water.
Oh I never doubted how poor the architecture and manufacturing technology is. Still, the fact that nearly useless CPUs can compete with the Skylake architecture shows how extreme and inaccurate your first statement was. I'm not trying to start a fight here but I do not appreciate the sarcasm and hatred when it comes to AMD CPUs this forum members show.
You are, indeed..
I don't believe the new high-end CPU will be able to compete with the 5960X. I hope it's an improvement over Vishera (though to be honest, anything would be - as I've said, even 5-6 year old CPUs from Intel are!), but I have my doubts that it will even come close to the 5960X, especially given it's price point and AMD's lack of new products over the past 4 or 5 years that show they are capable of that. However, I will be the first to say that I was wrong if it does turn out to be close to the 5960X. I haven't always 'hated' AMD CPUs, I even considered buying a Phenom II X4!
It's true that Intel hasn't really progressed since the Sandy Bridge days in terms of massive performance leaps, as you can see in my earlier posts in this thread, but the 6600K is faster than the 2500K, maybe not jaw-droppingly faster in single-threaded performance, but when it comes to multi-threaded performance it is better: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1544. It's also true that Intel has made more progress over the past 4-5 years than AMD has, that's for sure. The replacement for Vishera has taken 4 years to arrive, Intel generally replaces their CPUs every year.
Our reasoning for not liking AMD CPUs as a whole on this forum is simply because what they offer at the moment is a dead-end path. The Vishera CPUs are old and weren't even that great when they were new - the only thing they had going for them was value, which is gone now. The FX-81xx and 83xx chips promised great things but massively under-delivered. Maybe when a replacement finally surfaces next year we can start recommencing them again, but for the time being it's Intel all the way and it has been like that for several years now. Even the most die-hard of AMD fans on this forum are admitting this now (and have done for a few years). An AMD CPU is simply not a good choice in 2016 - there is no benefit. In its day the FX-8350 may well have been the 'multi-threaded king' for under a certain price point or whatever, but we are seeing now that the quad-cores from Intel are beating it. It's just an old CPU that nobody should buy anymore.
True. AMD has always been behind and tries to compete with Intel by offering low prices for outdated technology. Also I don´t think Zen will be able to compete with the extreme versions like the 6950X (in dreams perhaps). I mean, just hearing the plan indicates how dissapointing the single core performance will be. 8 cores and 16 threads? What for? A server maybe. Not to mention that hyper-threading was implemented by Intel first.
What I always found intriguing was the fact that Intel is charging the same (or even more) as the 6600K for an old CPU like the 2500K. I guess the reason is if the 2500K was cheaper, no one would buy the 6600K.
Look. I'm a big AMD fan (see avatar and specs), but their CPU's just flat suck right now pretty much any way you slice it. Bulldozer was a forward thinking design that flopped for a variety of reasons and Vishera was only a mild improvement. I love my 8320, it was 150 bucks when I bought it 3 years ago, overclocks like crazy, and still games well. I'm excited for Zen, but I can't recommend any AMD CPU's as of the past year or two since the platform is long dead and you can get upgrade ability going with an Intel setup.
Why wouldn't they charge the same? AMD charged the same for the FX-8320 as they had done for the 8120. The 760, 2500K, 3570K, 4670K and 4690K were priced pretty similarly, but the 6600K was more expensive than the 4690K had been. I think it's partly due to the 6600K supporting new technology like DDR4 and also the severe lack of competiton from AMD.
I think his point is that prices have stayed the same or even risen slightly despite marginal improvements jumps between each generation.
Why would you expect them to charge less for each new generation? When other companies replace products, the replacement usually comes in at around the same kind of price, if not slightly higher to start with.
I dunno what he meant really, especially since you can't buy 2500K's new anymore.
Exactly. I'd understand his point if they were still making the 2500K or the 4690K and charging much less for that than the 6600K, but they're not. The only way you can get an older CPU is if you buy used or find a shop selling off old stock.
Not being manufactured anymore doesn´t mean you can´t buy new units. If you look at the prices The 6600K costs the same as a 2500K or a 4690K. You would think the old units get cheaper because superior ones are in the market, but still they remain the same. I didn´t mean anything by it, it was just a comment.
It's pretty good in integer specific workloads. Once you start using the combined FPU it starts sucking pretty bad.
Depending on what cherry picked benchmark you choose it can be either awesome or horrible. Realistically it depends on your workload but it is becoming a pretty dated platform, the CPU itself was released in 2012.
This is a stupid argument.
Then it would appear that the older CPUs are holding their value because they are still decent and desired by people who have older LGA 1155 or 1150 boards and want to maybe upgrade from a Pentium or an i3 to an i5 (or i7, since the story is the same) without the need to replace their board and/or RAM if they'd have to upgrade from DDR3 to DDR4 to use Skylake.
You might be able to find new ones still, but they're few and far between and likely more expensive as a result.
Let's not derail this thread too far, we've got other threads for CPU discussion.
Separate names with a comma.