Difference between Highend Intel and AMD CPU

[Okedokey]

The 8120 is a POS, slower than an i3 and is just rubbish. But this thread is not about the low end, shall i say it again, read the title. At the high-end as the OP requested, AMD suck.

 

[spynoodle]

PI is testing per core, mine is testing when all cores work together. The 8 core amd is doing great in multithreaded but singlethreaded?

Exactly. Yeah, the FX series is still decent when all of its eight threads are being utilized, but Bulldozer's IPC is significantly worse than anything else on the market. I would venture to bet that my OC'd Pentium Dual Core is faster per core than an FX-8120. The FX series does have the advantage that it's overclockable, though. That is one thing that really annoys me about Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

 

[jonnyp11]

The 8120 is a POS, slower than an i3 and is just rubbish. But this thread is not about the low end, shall i say it again, read the title. At the high-end as the OP requested, AMD suck.

You are the most fanboy person here

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289

I can get an 8120 system for the same price as an i3 at microcenter and other than gaming id be way better off, and it games perfctly fine.

 

[wolfeking]

Again, the thread is not about the low end. You would need to run the same benches on a 2700/3770/3930 over a 8150. AMD will get its ass kicked there, especially seeing how close the low mid range i3 does about it.
In fact it only wins 3 benches. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287 and 1 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=552. From the thread question, AMD is sucktastic. And really there is no reason to use AMD with a high end build. Your only fooling yourself by thinking that it is better.

 

[spynoodle]

I still am holding out hope for Piledriver, though. The Bulldozer architecture is actually pretty nice IMO, and I think Bulldozer would have been great if AMD hadn't butchered it by not paying enough attention to the small stuff.

 

[Virssagòn]

yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....

 

[spynoodle]

yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....

Dang...

 

[jonnyp11]

yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....

I saw them but couldnt find the comparable numbers from the bulldozer

And if you compare the 8120 to a 2400 then they arent that far apart really.

 

[wolfeking]

again, the question of the dang thread is the "difference between highend Intel and AMD" a 2400 is upper middle. 2600/3770/3930 are highend. 3960x is top end. Really all you are doing here is trying to make them equal. Highend from both lines do not compare. Intel is far better.

 

[Okedokey]

You are the most fanboy person here

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289

I can get an 8120 system for the same price as an i3 at microcenter and other than gaming id be way better off, and it games perfctly fine.

You're the fan boy if you read that review or any other and come to that conclusion. Im no fan boy and this is a thread about high end, so your 8120 comments are ill founded in this thread. Btw, look again, it gets smashed in almost every case...

 

[spirit]

yeah, I saw some,tests already from a vishera SE chip, they were very dissapointing....

As per the usual for AMD these days. It's a shame.

And if you compare the 8120 to a 2400 then they arent that far apart really.

Shame that AMD's 'high end' chips get beaten by Intel's mid-range quad from the previous generation.

again, the question of the dang thread is the "difference between highend Intel and AMD" a 2400 is upper middle. 2600/3770/3930 are highend. 3960x is top end. Really all you are doing here is trying to make them equal. Highend from both lines do not compare. Intel is far better.

^ Exactly.