No, it's not. Those ''benchmarks'' are games, not synthetic benches. It is literal gaming performance.
I guess every game favors intel then
Does AMD FX-9370 overperform Intel Core i5-4670K
- Thread starter Gordon.C
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not. Those ''benchmarks'' are games, not synthetic benches. It is literal gaming performance.
I guess every game favors intel then
PCunicorn
Active Member
I wasn't referencing synthetics, I don't know where you got that from.
Its pretty obvious your a Intel fanboy. I am neither a fanboy of Intel or AMD, I have owened several if each. My current CPU is a FX 8350, but I would be running Intel if I hadn't got my board for a good deal.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YiUxtD7MYkxZqGBMQ&sig2=m_8H40aBRnwU21KLTc-Gmw
I trust these people more then pretty much any other tech site or channel.
Also I don't trust AnandTech at all, their benchmarks are never similar to other sites. I never reference them and I disregard it when not her people dom
Its pretty obvious your a Intel fanboy. I am neither a fanboy of Intel or AMD, I have owened several if each. My current CPU is a FX 8350, but I would be running Intel if I hadn't got my board for a good deal.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YiUxtD7MYkxZqGBMQ&sig2=m_8H40aBRnwU21KLTc-Gmw
I trust these people more then pretty much any other tech site or channel.
Also I don't trust AnandTech at all, their benchmarks are never similar to other sites. I never reference them and I disregard it when not her people dom
Last edited:
You said ''that bench''.
lol you trust a YouTube reviewer over the actual respected and well known reviewers? umm, ok.
How about Toms Hardware?-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
How about Guru3d?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
How about techradar?
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-8350-1110369/review
I'm not a ''fanboy''. I've owned and tested all these CPU's, I go by my own experiences....and those experiences have shown me that AMD cpu's are crap compared to current intel offerings.
I would rather run an I5 2400 than an FX8350. Not because I'm a fanboy, but rather I had better FPS with that CPU at 3.6 than the 8320 I tested at 4.6ghz. Also, the I5 was just snappier at simple tasks, even down to internet browsing. Furthermore, the 8320 ran ridiculously hot, and consumed massive amounts of power.
So if preferring and defending a faster, cooler running, less power consuming product makes me a fanboy, than I say whatever to you and keep running your AMD crap and somehow thinking it's better.
lol you trust a YouTube reviewer over the actual respected and well known reviewers? umm, ok.
How about Toms Hardware?-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
How about Guru3d?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
How about techradar?
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-8350-1110369/review
I'm not a ''fanboy''. I've owned and tested all these CPU's, I go by my own experiences....and those experiences have shown me that AMD cpu's are crap compared to current intel offerings.
I would rather run an I5 2400 than an FX8350. Not because I'm a fanboy, but rather I had better FPS with that CPU at 3.6 than the 8320 I tested at 4.6ghz. Also, the I5 was just snappier at simple tasks, even down to internet browsing. Furthermore, the 8320 ran ridiculously hot, and consumed massive amounts of power.
So if preferring and defending a faster, cooler running, less power consuming product makes me a fanboy, than I say whatever to you and keep running your AMD crap and somehow thinking it's better.
Last edited:
I have to agree with you 87dtna;I use to work for Ameican forces and they used the AMD stuff for office tasks and i must say they were realy peace of crap compared to Intel machines,why they carried AMD?because they cheap.
So what are we going to do? You pick CPU bound games running at lower settings and I pick GPU bound games running at higher settings. Who proved anything?
Don't get it. I'm talking about a 6 core 3960X running at 4.8 using more power then a 8 core 9590 running at 5.0. What does multithreaded benches have to do with anything?
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/
Last edited:
G80FTW
Active Member
We have already had this battle in another thread. In the end, the Intel comes out ontop in real world performance.
I am not an Intel fanboy, as I have stated before, I didnt even want to get this i7 build I have now but when I researched into what AMD had at the time their Phenoms were hardly any better than the Brisbane I currently had so I felt there was no need to go the AMD route. I love AMD, and wish they would get back into the high performance CPU market, but they appear to be going a whole different route with their R&D and if thats working for them then great. Their purchase of ATi might have actually been the smartest move they ever made as Im pretty sure the graphics card sales are the only thing keeping the company afloat. And in that market, they seem to be doing rather well.
Last edited:
PCunicorn
Active Member
Intel does beat AMD in overall gaming over performance. But not by a landslide like verybidy seems to think. In fact, usually Intel isn't anymore then 10 percent better.
87, yes, I trust Tek Syndicate more then any other benchmark place. What's wrong with YouTube anyways? You said I'd trust a Youtuber over a blog, yeah, so? And besides they run their own blog as well as a YouTube channel.
But you want a trusted blog that's actually running a modern game on high settings that isn't real CPU bound like all your benchmarks you're posting?
87, yes, I trust Tek Syndicate more then any other benchmark place. What's wrong with YouTube anyways? You said I'd trust a Youtuber over a blog, yeah, so? And besides they run their own blog as well as a YouTube channel.
But you want a trusted blog that's actually running a modern game on high settings that isn't real CPU bound like all your benchmarks you're posting?
Last edited:
I don't get your guys logic at all. What does picking games that aren't CPU bound prove? The point of topic is to measure CPU performance, so your arguments make absolutely no sense.
In non CPU bound games an Athlon II 640 performs just fine. So why did you guys waste the extra money buying an FX-8350 then? We could have all saved a lot of money and just got Athlon II's since they perform within 10% of a 4770k right?
See how stupid that is yet?
Because you were the one that brought up comparing them. No one in this thread was comparing the 3960x until you did. Stating that the FX-9590 was better in one aspect, when the 3960x blows the 9590 out of the water in every single other aspect.
And we all know it's not 8 true cores, so stop babbling that crap.
It gets dragged on because the AMD fanboys on this forum make ridiculous arguments like that I'm choosing CPU bound games for comparison lol. How dare I choose CPU bound games to compare....cpu's.
Found another review that's great because it shows results for average overclocks as I stated....4.6ghz for a 4670k and 4.8ghz for an 8350.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5
Also, check out Cinebench multithreaded performance here-
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6
At stock VS stock, the 8350 is faster simply because of it's clockspeed. But when you go 4.6 VS 4.8ghz like the average overclocks are, the 4670k quad core overtakes the 8350 ''8 core'' in this multithreaded bench.
And of course, the power consumption is simply laughable. It's more than double the power consumption overclocked and almost 60 watts idling. 60 watts more at idle......that's obscene.
Overclocked VS overclocked the 4670k outperforms the 8350 at literally everything, most things by large margins. Heck, a stock 4670k beats an overclocked 8350 at 95% of things anyway.
Found another review that's great because it shows results for average overclocks as I stated....4.6ghz for a 4670k and 4.8ghz for an 8350.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5
Also, check out Cinebench multithreaded performance here-
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6
At stock VS stock, the 8350 is faster simply because of it's clockspeed. But when you go 4.6 VS 4.8ghz like the average overclocks are, the 4670k quad core overtakes the 8350 ''8 core'' in this multithreaded bench.
And of course, the power consumption is simply laughable. It's more than double the power consumption overclocked and almost 60 watts idling. 60 watts more at idle......that's obscene.
Overclocked VS overclocked the 4670k outperforms the 8350 at literally everything, most things by large margins. Heck, a stock 4670k beats an overclocked 8350 at 95% of things anyway.
Last edited:
The link I gave in my previous post to bit-tech shows 1080p performance differences. It's not all about the resolution, some games are just more CPU bound. But to the AMD fanboys, I'm just being an intel fanboy when I post those up. As I stated in my last post, how dare I choose CPU bound games to compare....cpu's. 
Last edited:
PCunicorn
Active Member
AMD fanyboys dragging this on?! Lol your the one who is primarily dragging this on, Intel fanboy.
Pay no attention to the BF4 chart BF4 is quite CPU bound. Alnost any C2D or Athlon (like you mentioned) will get murdered in it.
Okedokey, 1080p is all most people run. If you can afford a 1440p or better, you can afford a 4770K or better. And first of all I never said the 8350 had 8 cores, but, now that you bring it up, show me a couple references on how the FX architecture works and how they aren't "real" cores. They are modules which work a lot different then cores so its not fair to say that at all.
You know what, I say we just pause this thread. Then when I get my CPU running I can compare it to 87s 4670K in a CPU bound benchmark as games won't work because of the GPU difference.
Pay no attention to the BF4 chart
BF4 is quite CPU bound. Alnost any C2D or Athlon (like you mentioned) will get murdered in it.Okedokey, 1080p is all most people run. If you can afford a 1440p or better, you can afford a 4770K or better. And first of all I never said the 8350 had 8 cores, but, now that you bring it up, show me a couple references on how the FX architecture works and how they aren't "real" cores. They are modules which work a lot different then cores so its not fair to say that at all.
You know what, I say we just pause this thread. Then when I get my CPU running I can compare it to 87s 4670K in a CPU bound benchmark as games won't work because of the GPU difference.
Last edited:
Pay no attention to the BF4 chart
.
We're not paying attention to it because it's bogus. Look at the Athlon II 640, it's hanging in there only 10% under all other top dog CPU's. It makes no sense.
We were responding to stranglehold, try and keep up and actually read the thread posts.
lol bring it. I can hear the excuses already....every single bench will be Intel Biased....and then, it's just a bench this isn't real world performance........can't wait.
Last edited:
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Not true. Steam Hardware Survey Jan 2014 shows that only 32% of people use 1080p, with only a further ~2% above that. That means that around 75% of people use BELOW 1080p.
The reason i complained about the resolution, is that the lower the resolution, the higher the CPU dependency. That means, the results you posted were testing the GPU and therefore pointless. The results i posted were at much lower resolutions, thereby ACTUALLY testing the cpu.
The reason I have rightfully claimed that it is not a true 8 core processor is that when processing floating point operations (e.g. physics calculations in games) it is left with the equivalent of half the Floating Point Scheduling Units found in a traditional processor.
The AMD 8 cores are only 8 cores in certain situations, for floating point math, no. For integer based calculations, yes. This is not the case with cores on intel which do both.
Last edited:
mr.doom
Member
Wow, this really turned into a mahoosive argument. 
How about we start respecting each other's points of view?
The thing is, that because of the massive architecture differences, it is hard to do proper comparisons. AMD and Intel processors work in different ways.
I think the question to be asked is not which is a better cpu, but which is better for what I need? Both brands will do nicely in gaming, some better than others, some will be more efficient.
Few years back, AMD was the way to go. Now, Intel seems to have the crown, and from what I seen and all the reviews I read (both online and in magazines) , AMD plays catch up. In very general way: high-end AMD will match a mid-range Intel - both with price and performance.
So look this way: will you be upgrading processor soon? Get Intel, as the high-end Intel cpus have no alternatives in the AMD range.
Are you planning to stay with your processor? Choose AMD as they tend not to change their chipsets all that often, and in few years they should catch up nicely, or maybe even get ahead of Intel, who knows?
As far as all they years of my experience goes:
1. Low-end: choose AMD;
2. Mid-range: it doesn't matter, but prioritize higher clock speeds than amount of cores;
3. High-end: choose Intel, as AMD does not have a cpu to fit this spot, yet.
How about we start respecting each other's points of view?
The thing is, that because of the massive architecture differences, it is hard to do proper comparisons. AMD and Intel processors work in different ways.
I think the question to be asked is not which is a better cpu, but which is better for what I need? Both brands will do nicely in gaming, some better than others, some will be more efficient.
Few years back, AMD was the way to go. Now, Intel seems to have the crown, and from what I seen and all the reviews I read (both online and in magazines) , AMD plays catch up. In very general way: high-end AMD will match a mid-range Intel - both with price and performance.
So look this way: will you be upgrading processor soon? Get Intel, as the high-end Intel cpus have no alternatives in the AMD range.
Are you planning to stay with your processor? Choose AMD as they tend not to change their chipsets all that often, and in few years they should catch up nicely, or maybe even get ahead of Intel, who knows?
As far as all they years of my experience goes:
1. Low-end: choose AMD;
2. Mid-range: it doesn't matter, but prioritize higher clock speeds than amount of cores;
3. High-end: choose Intel, as AMD does not have a cpu to fit this spot, yet.
That question was asked by the OP, and is the entire point of the thread. GAMING performance, which intel wins at...period.
There's no need for discussion on low end VS high end VS mid range, a specific question was asked. The thread title kind of explains that
Last edited:
- Status