What parts? gaming pc

Okedokey said:
You chart doesn't factor in overclock. The AMD chips are overclocked within their life
Click to expand...

What overclock are you talking about? If its the 4ghz, that's no where near its life.

PCunicorn said:
If the 8320 had one core enabled and the 6300 did too, the 8320 would win. It has a higher IPC.
Click to expand...

No its not. The 6300 and 8320 or any Vishera has the same IPC. They are really all the same. The X4 and X6 just has two or one module disabled. One core on any of them have the same IPC.
 
PCunicorn said:
And why does this matter in this thread? And besides a 4770K is $150 more than a 8320.

And
Crysis3.png

In some games the 9590 won, in Crysis 3 the 4960X won

That's a 4960X which will be significantly better than a 4770K at 4.5 GHz. The 9590 is something AMD makes and doesn't look to me like a 4770K comes close to raping it.
Click to expand...

Your comparing processors that have a 1GHz difference between them in clock speed. I would expect a processor that is clocked 1GHz higher to perform better. And it didnt.

While AMD has always been the best cost for performance, those who just want performance do not choose AMD. Not even today. And even from that bench that you posted the review stated that in non-gaming applications the Intel was better.

I respect AMD. I was a huge AMD fan back in the day. My first build was AMD. I respect all the technologies they pioneered in processors in the past 2 decades. However, from the release of the Core 2 Duo AMD has had almost no answer but to lower prices and serve a whole different market from Intel. Which is perfectly acceptable.

However, at the end of the day, clock for clock the Intel is still miles ahead of AMD.

In short, the AMD is clocked 1GHz higher, has 2 more cores, and still cant beat the Intel. Only in price.

EDIT: After fully going over that review, the AMD did not actually beat the Intel in anything they benched. So even being clocked 1GHz higher it was still slower than the Intel.
 
Last edited:
That's not the point. He said a 4770K at 4.5 GHz will rape anything AMD makes. It won't.

StrangleHold, I suppose your right but why is single core performance higher than a 6300?
 
PCunicorn said:
That's not the point. He said a 4770K at 4.5 GHz will rape anything AMD makes. It won't.

StrangleHold, I suppose your right but why is single core performance higher than a 6300?
Click to expand...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html

Sure about that? If its significantly faster at 3.9GHz, it will dominate at 4.5GHz. And if we went clock for clock at 5GHz it would be a landslide easily.

In this respect, AMD doesnt even have the price market either.
 
Last edited:
The 9590 is cheaper than the 4770K on New egg. And I call those benches complete BS, there's no way in hell a 4770 is that much better, when a 8350 and 4670K are within 7 percent.
 
Last edited:
Jiniix said:
Which OS are you going to use OP? Windows 8 has a lot better core management for newer AMD CPUs than Windows 7, which you guys should factor in when you look at the benches.

Above review is benched on W7
I'm not calling the review BS, but the AMD would've done a lot better in Skyrim (a very CPU dependent game) on Windows 8/8.1.
Click to expand...

Windows 7
 
a CPU that draws far more power than the Intel equivalent and doesn’t sweep benchmark results, even running at a much higher clock speed.
Click to expand...

At 4.7GHz (on all eight cores), the FX-8350 brings nearly 40GHz of CPU power to the table (37.6GHz to be exact). Four Haswell cores, in contrast, are running at a total of 14GHz, with Hyper-Threading pitching in about another 20% performance.
Click to expand...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/159619-5ghz-showdown-overclocked-5ghz-amd-haswell-ivy-bridge/2
 
Last edited:
This is what's funny about this. Not referring to anybody in this thread. But back in the Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 days. When AMD had Intel beat at about the same IPC and wattage, Intel fanboys gave the Pentium 4 the same excuses for Intel.

My opinion is AMD could have pulled off what Intel tried with the Pentium 4. But they decided to go with the module and just could not keep the wattage down to hit the clock speeds they wanted. Not enough of L1 and a slow L2. More and faster L1 with less and faster L2 with the same L3 would have made a big difference in IPC even with the single fetch and decode. This baffles me because its so apparent. When AMD lost all of the NexGen people it really hurt. But while Ruiz was there it didn't really matter, still stunned that Sanders even picked him.
 
PCunicorn said:
The 9590 is cheaper than the 4770K on New egg. And I call those benches complete BS, there's no way in hell a 4770 is that much better, when a 8350 and 4670K are within 7 percent.
Click to expand...

Im confused. In every link posted in this thread, all the AMDs have lost to their Intel rivals. Yet you call them all BS. Even the one you posted gave the same results. So why are you doubting it if you cant find a single one where the AMD pulls ahead?

And the 9590 and 4770k are in the same price range:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

For $40 extra, the i7 is well worth it considering it consumes half the power and runs at a lower speed and is still faster.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top