He's not the only one sadly...His website is still active. I think he forgot about this forumhttp://blackholetec.com/main/
*STABLE* Black Hole Benchmark
- Thread starter Virssagòn
- Start date
Calin
Well-Known Member
@Intel_man But mine is faster overall
Benches or it didn't happen@Intel_man But mine is faster overall
All I see is you getting whipped in the multithreaded score
Intel_man
VIP Member
I ran my w3690 on air with that score...
let's just say... it was way too hot for normal use.
Anyhow, not bad for a 5 year old westmere chip. I see no reason to upgrade to a newer socket/chipset anytime soon.
Calin
Well-Known Member
True. Unless you do a lot of things that require good single core performance
Holy shit, 1.7v? Mine's set at 1.3725, which is +.05 above my stock voltage, but HWMonitor usually has it at 1.38v and sometimes pushes it above 1.4v during some things. I usually see people recommending to keep them at or under 1.4v on anything other than water cooling. My 212+ keeps it under 60oC 99% of the time, even with my 390 right underneath it.
I can definitely feel the 8320 holding me back in some games though, notably GTA V, Cities Skylines (<25 FPS when zoomed in), Just Cause 3, and a few others here and there. Overall though it's still kicking along and I've gotten way more than my money's worth out of it. It was a great CPU for me but it's single core performance is just brutal at times. Torchlight 2 even would drop to 20 FPS for a second or two if too much was going on.
*sobs*
Intel_man
VIP Member
It's as fast as a similarily clocked 4790k in single thread performance, faster in both 4 thread and multithreaded performance. Like... why would I drop nearly $700 on a skylake platform to gain that 18% in single core performance. Not to mention it still smashes anything AMD has to offer... and my CPU is 5 years old. How's AMD still in business?
Besides, I like the X-series chipsets.
I feel like you and I are going to joust a bit between AMD and Intel from time to time.
Incoming AMD data dump.Up to the Phenom II chips AMD was relatively or equally competitive with Intel. The next chip, Bulldozer was a big change in direction from a design standpoint as they focused heavily on using multiple "real" cores (not threads like Intel) and at a high clock speed while not being terribly efficient. The single core performance was roughly on par or even a little lower than the Phenom's in some instances, but they did have incredible multithread performance considering the cost and when they came out. I think the 8120's were $200 or so when new.
Vishera followed and somewhat improved core performance but overall was just a minor refresh and AMD has been a budget option since. The real problem here is that AMD was expecting or hoping that high core count would be useful and viable sooner than it was. Intel stuck with quad cores for a long time, and still are really with their i5's and HT'd i7's. Programming for multiple cores is more intensive than fewer, and that coupled with Intel holding more market share gave little incentive for software to make much use of all 8 cores. Windows at the time also had some slight issues with managing extra cores (core parking I think it was) and didn't really have much performance benefit from them.
AMD's survived the past few years off of their APU's, which were decent budget . The PS4 and Xbone both are powered by custom AMD APU's, so that certainly helped keep them afloat. Also they've been making GPU's that compete or even beat Nvidia throughout all of that. Their stock has doubled since the start of 2016, Polaris is anticipated to increase their GPU market share (which is already going up), and Zen is coming out at the end of 2016. Zen, if rumors and some benchmarks hold true, will compete with Intel again in performance and price. The single core performance is supposed to be I think somewhere around Broadwell/Skylake while offering higher core and thread counts.
/endAMDfanboyism
I really am not terribly biased towards AMD products, believe it or not, I just respect them as a company and how they do business. Especially compared to Nvidia and Intel to a lesser degree. My first computer was on a budget and naturally had a Phenom II, a good choice at the time, and 5770 to match. I only got my 8320 since I couldn't afford a new board. That combined with my good GPU experiences with them just made me stick with them.
They definitely stumbled on the CPU front with Bulldozer/Vishera but to their credit they were just too ahead of the game in some regards. DirectX12 has made my mediocre old CPU breathe again and still hammer through new games with comfort. That combined with consoles moving to more cores has if anything made my CPU more viable now than it was a few years ago. GTA V runs better than GTA IV for me because it actually can use my processor to it's extent rather than half of it at the most.
They do seem to get longevity for their products right at least. AMD cards have routinely increased in performance as they age compared to Nvidia's competition when they launched.
Hopefully they will be back in the CPU game in the next year. If not, I'm getting an Intel chip.
Edit: Sorry for the book, it just kinda kept going.
Intel_man
VIP Member
I do follow AMD's releases on processors and fully understand why people buy them. Most of the time, it comes down to price even on their Phenom II lineup. I know the Phenom II had a big following but let's face it, it was not a real performance winner. Great for it's price, but nothing to brag about? It seems to me, the last time AMD had a proud moment goes all the way back to their Athlon x64 which was a great processor for it's time.
You would think I'm an uber Intel fanboy, but I'm not. If AMD had the fastest processor on the market out right now and a chipset offering tons of features/expansion capability, I'd be running an AMD right now. As of right now though, I don't think I'll be swapping in my X58 for something else.
My computer history goes all the way back to when my dad bought his PC. A Pentium Pro and later to a Pentium 3. My first true computer had a Core 2 Duo E6300, before my current computer which started life with a Core i7 920. If you see the trend here, I usually wait for that "jump" in CPU performance before grabbing a replacement. So far, that hasn't really happened yet.
P.S. I have nothing against AMD's... I just poke fun at them for the sake of not putting out a processor that would make Intel piss their pants. I would do the same if it was reversed. Maybe have to change my name to AMD_man if that happens.
You would think I'm an uber Intel fanboy, but I'm not. If AMD had the fastest processor on the market out right now and a chipset offering tons of features/expansion capability, I'd be running an AMD right now. As of right now though, I don't think I'll be swapping in my X58 for something else.
My computer history goes all the way back to when my dad bought his PC. A Pentium Pro and later to a Pentium 3. My first true computer had a Core 2 Duo E6300, before my current computer which started life with a Core i7 920. If you see the trend here, I usually wait for that "jump" in CPU performance before grabbing a replacement. So far, that hasn't really happened yet.
P.S. I have nothing against AMD's... I just poke fun at them for the sake of not putting out a processor that would make Intel piss their pants. I would do the same if it was reversed. Maybe have to change my name to AMD_man if that happens.
I dumped all that info because I have no idea what most people know about them. Glad to see you're informed on both sides. You honestly sound a lot like how I feel about the whole situation, just with several years more exposure. I've had my own computer since I was 5 and every single one was an Intel and eventually also Nvidia. I'd heard of AMD but knew nothing about them and just dismissed them as the "off brand". When I built my first computer I was on a tight budget so of course ended up with them. I generally am vocal about them now, (particularly their GPU's) because I think they get way more hate than they deserve and overall misunderstood.
You're right, the Phenom's weren't top of the line, but they were capable of competing in terms of respectable performance at an affordable price without just being the throwaway bargain option. You could probably still game semi decently on a 1100T even. Bulldozer/Vishera just sucked because it was the wrong product at the wrong time and didn't improve on the right things. If they'd done that approach a year or too later with improved efficiency to boot then I think we'd see a very different CPU market now. I won the CoFo Forum Prize draw a few years ago and decided to spring for a CPU upgrade, which locked me at an 8320 in my AM3+ board. Had I not bought that then I'd probably be rocking a 4690K or similar by now.
Of course I'm also a student and was a kid when I built my Phenom rig and naturally on a budget. If I did more than gaming I probably would have ditched this thing a while back. That said, I spent $80 on a motherboard nearly 5 years ago and paired it with a $140 CPU 3 years ago that still lets me play whatever I want. Core efficiency or not, I'm not upset about that performance for the money. If I'd gone Intel at the time I'd probably be running an i3 Dual Core that wouldn't be able to keep up with an 8320 today.
I just hope they can seriously bring something to the table again. At least their GPU's have been good.
And I don't have anything really against Intel, just Nvidia a bit.
Intel_man
VIP Member
AMD GPU's are good... just very power hungry. Intel and Nvidia need to get off their high horse on their flagship products and lower the prices damnit!
However, even with the $/performance aspect, I'd go Intel, but not their consumer stuff. Which is why I went the X58 route and not the P55. Intel loves to screw with consumer level sockets and jump ship every 50 seconds and go to another socket. Atleast with the X-series chipset, they generally last longer and offer more CPU selection towards the end. This is exactly where I'm at right now. I spend more initially, but I can stretch out my hardware for much longer without being significantly slower than current stuff. My i7 920 was a 08' processor I bought in ~2010. Tbh, I could've stuck with it right now and still be a great processor, but I wanted something better. But rather than dropping nearly a grand on a X99 platform, I picked up a used Xeon W3690 (2011 release) for USD $160 and bam as good as new.
Seriously, that is the great thing about X-series chipset and the socket they support. There's bound to be a Xeon equivalent processor of an "Extreme" model that will be flooding the market after a few years of server use and you can grab them for the price of an AMD processor. I mean comon, I basically grabbed an used i7-990X for $160.
However, even with the $/performance aspect, I'd go Intel, but not their consumer stuff. Which is why I went the X58 route and not the P55. Intel loves to screw with consumer level sockets and jump ship every 50 seconds and go to another socket. Atleast with the X-series chipset, they generally last longer and offer more CPU selection towards the end. This is exactly where I'm at right now. I spend more initially, but I can stretch out my hardware for much longer without being significantly slower than current stuff. My i7 920 was a 08' processor I bought in ~2010. Tbh, I could've stuck with it right now and still be a great processor, but I wanted something better. But rather than dropping nearly a grand on a X99 platform, I picked up a used Xeon W3690 (2011 release) for USD $160 and bam as good as new.
Seriously, that is the great thing about X-series chipset and the socket they support. There's bound to be a Xeon equivalent processor of an "Extreme" model that will be flooding the market after a few years of server use and you can grab them for the price of an AMD processor. I mean comon, I basically grabbed an used i7-990X for $160.
RujoKinJal
Member
holy shit i just learn a ton of information i will not use
oh well at least i know now
oh well at least i know now
Like me. Hoping the new CPUs are better!