There s a saying in Africa that say that when one wants to deffame someone or something he generaly start by ridiculizing his name.
Am I talking to a child? Derp chips?
AMD chips only get worse day by day vs Intel chips. No amount of cherry picking benchmark or creating some kind of illusional world will change this.
Should be a real big hint when even AMD called their own design for a failure.
If not, then the sales numbers. But I am sure someone got a great excuse for those.
AMD chips only get worse day by day vs Intel chips. No amount of cherry picking benchmark or creating some kind of illusional world will change this.
Should be a real big hint when even AMD called their own design for a failure.
If not, then the sales numbers. But I am sure someone got a great excuse for those.
Lol, day by day the perfs of the FX8350 increase in real world, this has been demonstrated by hardware.fr, the FX perform quite better than an i5 in applications in 2014 than in 2013, same in games where the i5 is better but the FX did gain quite a substancial amount dutring the same period.
Perhaps you want the links as source..?.
No problem to provide them, as said i m talking real numbers while your post is without the slightest number as argument, you see i can say that AMD CPU get better and better by the day compared to Intel s CPU, i have the numbers that say so, show us yours if you have some or else just stop your perpetual FUD.
It's okay, AMD is going to save the day with a 100MHz turbo frequency raise D:
I'd say, the FX 8000 series processors are decent in general use, general use often involves quite a bit of multi-tasking as well (something that most of those benchmarks dont' show). Windows 8.1 feels pretty snappy at that. Those 95W SKUs can be undervolted, and power consumption isn't that bad if you do that. It's only a problem when you OC/overvolt, but that's true to any SKU, though. And if you need onboard GPU, AM3+ is no longer a good choice. But you can use them, no problem. In some demanding / low thread count games you get visibly less FPS, but other than that, it's fine (in BF4 it performs quite well though). It's hard to recommend that platform in 2015, but if you get a nice deal, why not. Especially, if you are replacing an old Core 2 Duo or even a Quad. Personally, I'd only bother to spend money and my time on 4790K/5820K, though. But if you don't have the budget, a 95W AMD 8-core SKU is a good buy. It's much better to be IPC limited, than "Thread" limited, imo. Multi-threading is a must these days. Don't really understand those people that are still wasting money on dual-core designs. My another rig has a G2020 which is faster than a 8300 95W SKU in some loads but it's not that noticeable, however in the uses where multiple threads can be are used, G2020 is really bad. It's like a DVD-RW drive, it's absolutely useless unless... until there is a time when you need to read a disk, and then you are thinking why you didn't spend an extra tenner for that. When you need it, it matters. Again, it's better to be ST limited than MT, imo.No it doesnt. And your own precious hardware.fr links shows exactly why you try to portrait a case that isnt real. Its more or less only consisting of rendering, encoding and file compression.
No it doesnt. And your own precious hardware.fr links shows exactly why you try to portrait a case that isnt real. Its more or less only consisting of rendering, encoding and file compression.
Newsflash: even web browsers are multithreaded. Just clock a multi-core CPU down to it's minimum frequency and load a single webpage and look at CPU usage. On the "Jesus's Middle Name Was Hume" thread in off topic, the FX-83xx series at 1400MHZ hits a utilization of 55% in chrome. That's over four cores completely utilized! And it's still very smooth and responsive. Almost all webpages are butter smooth on an FX-83xx @1.4GHZ. 4.2GHZ? Overkill really.
Content consumers need only an average APU at best. Content creators need cores and high throughput. Guess what? The FX series is overkill for one and a great performer for the other.
The "overwhelming vast majority of computer users" watch Netflix and talk to their friends on Facebook, not rely on single threaded tasks. The "overwhelming vast majority of computer users" are better off with an original Phenom/C2Q and an SSD than a heavily overclocked 4790k and a mechanical hard drive, even in the business sector. Be it encoding, compiling, decoding, streaming, compressing... Anything you use your CPU for with actual work is multithreaded. If not you and your IT department did a horrible job picking what software goes into your images. Multi-core in the professional space has been present since the Pentium days and even professional software then took advantage of it. If your software can benefit from an i5 or i7 above a Pentium, it can also benefit from an FX bulldozer or piledriver CPU.
If chrome can hit 85% utilization on a quad-core Bay-Trail, any system with 3+ desktop class cores is sufficient for the "overwhelming vast majority of computer users." Not only that, but most professional users as well. If you find that you're a part of that tiny niche group that needs single threaded software speed and that's all, microcenter is selling unlocked Pentiums for $49. But that's a niche, and should be treated as such.
It's okay, AMD is going to save the day with a 100MHz turbo frequency raise D:
It's okay, AMD is going to save the day with a 100MHz turbo frequency raise D:
AMD sales are cratering and their answer is to refresh the very family responsible for their woes and rename it. I'm sure the guys in the channel will be happy to sell those rebranded chips... after they get rid of Richland/Jaguar inventory AMD shoved down their throats in the last couple of quarters.
It is clear the thing will be a failure from a sales/marketing POV and that it will not stop AMD market share bleed. Why do they bother?
What is pathetic is that Core i3 Broadwell at 14nm will still be slower in iGPU performance at the same price and TDP in desktop than even last year Kaveri at 28nm.
CPU performance at $100 is more than enough from both players for everyday jobs.
But the iGPU metric is not something that most people are coveting for desktop.
In a nutshell, I believe AMD has been mistaken in thinking a large premium can be charged for iGPU on desktop.
And this is weakening an already tenuous relationship the company has with its customers.
1.) Trouble is the Core i3-4150 cost less money than the A10-7700K and yet is faster than the even pricier A10-7850K in most cpu tasks.
AMD should develop a discrete CPU card for their MBs, that way you can have the *awesome* performance of their iGPU parts but put an Intel CPU add-in card if you need more CPU power. oh, wait... :awe::awe::awe:
And yet the only people who care about Intel's iGPU performance for desktop "gaming" always seem to be AMD users who loudly declare they aren't part of Intel's target market... :whiste: (Hint: Amazon were recently selling R7 260's for under $70 with +75-80% higher GPU perf than Kaveri and no DDR3 bottleneck. When matched with a $70 CPU (X4 750K / G3258, it really is a no brainer if dirt-cheap sub $150 "bottom rung" GPU perf is priority...)What is pathetic is that Core i3 Broadwell at 14nm will still be slower in iGPU performance at the same price and TDP in desktop than even last year Kaveri at 28nm.
No, it s not faster, it had a few % advantage in Hardware.fr old test suite that favoured i3s but with their updated suite the 7850 is undoubtly better.