Do AMD cpus at least give a smoother desktop experience w/more cores?

[desura]

They can't match Intel's single threaded performance, but how do they fare for desktop?

 

[monstercameron]

They can't match Intel's single threaded performance, but how do they fare for desktop?

ssds matter more in those scenarios.

 

[2is]

no

 

[CHADBOGA]

Smooth as a baby's bottom.

 

[leper84]

I had a 960T unlocked to 6 cores @ 3.8 for about 5 years, just last month decided to give up the ghost.

Upgraded to a 4790k. Notice almost zero difference desktop wise. Minimum FPS are a completely different story, but the AMD chip was more than smooth enough for basic stuff.

I'd agree that the biggest improvement desktop wise would be a SSD.

 

[Abwx]

In multitasking the FXs trounce anything that is below the i7 and even this latter is no better, the 2 modules designs should be vastly superior to i3s :

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/intel-core-i5-6500-5675c-4690-test/6/

In some instances when FPU is used concurently to Integer the ST and MT perf of the FPU task collapse completely for CPUs below the i7..

 

[nerp]

No, the AMD will be slower. You might not perceive it, but it will be slower.

 

[hawtdawg]

In multitasking the FXs trounce anything that is below the i7 and even this latter is no better, the 2 modules designs should be vastly superior to i3s :

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/intel-core-i5-6500-5675c-4690-test/6/

In some instances when FPU is used concurently to Integer the ST and MT perf of the FPU task collapse completely for CPUs below the i7..

that's not "multitasking", thats throwing the strangest combination of stuff possible at a CPU in hopes of finding something an FX might actually be decent at.

 

[LTC8K6]

In normal desktop use, you would be hard pressed to tell any difference between an i3, an i7, an FX4300, or an FX8350.

An SSD will make a big difference to you if you are currently using a hard drive.

You can almost always come up with a rare scenario to make your favorite CPU look good.

 

[2is]

In multitasking the FXs trounce anything that is below the i7 and even this latter is no better, the 2 modules designs should be vastly superior to i3s :

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/intel-core-i5-6500-5675c-4690-test/6/

In some instances when FPU is used concurently to Integer the ST and MT perf of the FPU task collapse completely for CPUs below the i7..

Lies. You cherry picked a MT test that no one actually does, including yourself. When was the last time you ran Cinebench and WinRAR? And why would you?. Get real, you haven't and you wouldn't. In any real world MT test that people actually do, an i5 wins the vast majority of the time. Please don't make the BS so obvious next time.

 

[Ma_Deuce]

I bounce between an i3 3220, i5 4670k and i7 4850HQ constantly and the i3 is noticeably the worst experience of the bunch. Both the i5 and mobile i7 are a pleasure to use.

I don't have a machine with an FX CPU in it right now, but the AMD APUs I was using until just recently were a much better experience than the i3. Especially with several programs and web pages running. The A8 6600K and A10 6800K provided a desktop experience that was head and shoulders above the i3 3220. All running on integrated graphics.

I think that with a dGPU, it would be much harder to notice the difference.

 

[videogames101]

Non gaming they are fine, it's very workload dependent. For desktop/office use, they are more than fine.

 

[Abwx]

Lies. You cherry picked a MT test that no one actually does, including yourself. When was the last time you ran Cinebench and WinRAR? And why would you?. Get real, you haven't and you wouldn't. In any real world MT test that people actually do, an i5 wins the vast majority of the time. Please don't make the BS so obvious next time.

Lol, you could take any FP + Integer task the result will be the same as this one, so please keep the liar moniker and BS spreader for yourself...

Get used to it, Intel low and mid range CPUs have not constant IPC and this is what theses tests show, that it please you or not, indeed there s also an Integer + Integer test that is representative of consumer tasks that somehow load the CPU.


http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/...m-multitasking-test-winrar-plus-the-witcher-3

 

[LPCTech]

AMD CPUs = inferior in every respect to intel. :thumbsdown:

AMD cpu tech is stuck in 2008.

They only still exist from partnering with OEMs to put out cheap garbage laptops. And because their GPUs are actually competitive.

Would never purchase. Even if gifted a PC with an AMD processor I would attempt to sell or exchange it.

A haswell i3 beats almost any AMD cpu in single core speed and rarely will a normal desktop user require multiple cores.

Its laughable really. Some people seem desperate to defend them and Im not really sure why.

 

[bbhaag]

My 965 handles the desktop just fine. I don't notice any smoothness issues when using the desktop.
It's a 4 coar machine though so you know it's pretty good.

 

[2is]

Lol, you could take any FP + Integer task the result will be the same as this one, so please keep the liar moniker and BS spreader for yourself...

Get used to it, Intel low and mid range CPUs have not constant IPC and this is what theses tests show, that it please you or not, indeed there s also an Integer + Integer test that is representative of consumer tasks that somehow load the CPU.


http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/...m-multitasking-test-winrar-plus-the-witcher-3

I can't keep BS to myself when you keep filling this thread with it. When was the last time you played TW3 and ran WINRAR, besides never? Following up one chart with a useless test with another one that's equally useless is more BS. You may be able to fool yourself, but we have members here that have a clue that will call you out on it, as several have already. FX is a shit chip and makes no sense for anyone to buy one today or the past 2 years for that matter.

 

[Abwx]

that's not "multitasking", thats throwing the strangest combination of stuff possible at a CPU in hopes of finding something an FX might actually be decent at.

That s several apps (two in this case..) loading a CPU, do not pay attention to the softs used, they could have used whatever else..

I can't keep BS to myself when you keep filling this thread with it. When was the last time you played TW3 and ran WINRAR, besides never?

Because when you re gaming your PC use threads for a lot of routines, should a routine require a timely CPU loading that your main app, gaming, will stutter with a Celeron or a Pentium, that s what the Integer + Integer test is meant for..

Following up one chart with a useless test with another one that's equally useless is more BS. You may be able to fool yourself, but we have members here that have a clue that will call you out on it, as several have already. FX is a shit chip and makes no sense for anyone to buy one today or the past 2 years for that matter.

In an era of multicores and multitasks thoses tests have more relevance than tests done in ST without even an antivirus, firewall or let s say a flash player running in some hidden tabs, i guess that it s what it takes to show some brand in good light, even the much hyped ST perf vanish once the CPU is asked some effort...

 

[Ventanni]

I have to second 2is. Running WinRAR and my favorite game at the same time is just not something I ever do, or have ever heard of anyone doing. If you're going to bench anything, bench running Witcher 3 and a 60fps Twitch/YouTube stream and lemme know the results.

 

[myocardia]

Lol, you could take any FP + Integer task the result will be the same as this one

Yes, you could take any of the cherry-picked examples from that one website, that seemingly only exists in an attempt to keep AMD from going out of business, and the result would be the same. Now, take any normal computer task whatsoever that needs to be performed by any normal human who is not attempting to make AMD's 8 threaded CPUs look better, and the Intel 'Core' CPUs win the vast majority of them, sometimes by well over a 50% margin.

 

[Abwx]

Yes, you could take any of the cherry-picked examples from that one website, that seemingly only exists in an attempt to keep AMD from going out of business, and the result would be the same. Now, take any normal computer task whatsoever that needs to be performed by any normal human who is not attempting to make AMD's 8 threaded CPUs look better, and the Intel 'Core' CPUs win 85-90% of them, sometimes by well over a 50% margin.

Actualy it s you who is cherry picking because you are limiting the thing to either a single task in ST or a single task in multithread but never multitasking with ST apps or Multithreaded apps or both at the same time, exactly what Computrerbase.de did and wich exposed the weakness of the Intel low and mid range, explicitely they are not good multitaskers...

 

[Sweepr]

In multitasking the FXs trounce anything that is below the i7 and even this latter is no better, the 2 modules designs should be vastly superior to i3s :

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/intel-core-i5-6500-5675c-4690-test/6/

In some instances when FPU is used concurently to Integer the ST and MT perf of the FPU task collapse completely for CPUs below the i7..

While you're copying and pasting this nonsense everywhere, the same website (ComputerBase) recommends Core i5 over FX for those spending €150-250 on a CPU. Either they don't trust their own results or they know it's just a corner case.

ComputerBase: Recommendations for January 2016
www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste

Even pro-AMD websites like this one know Vishera gets demolished by a modern Intel quad-core in most tasks.

 

[VirtualLarry]

wich exposed the weakness of the Intel low and mid range, explicitely they are not good multitaskers...

I don't know that I would say that. I run two CPU project instances, one GPU (that also uses the CPU slightly) on BOINC, have my web browser open browsing, listening to internet radio in the background, and running Skype, and my web browsing stays smooth and mostly pleasurable, even with 100 tabs open in Firefox 44.0 x64.

Oh yeah, all on a tiny little dual core skylake (Edit: Pentium G4400) rig.

Edit: For those that don't know, BOINC is a distributed-computing project "controller" app, that manages the apps for individual projects. Distributed-computing in general really hammers CPU cores, so that's a pretty intensive thing to do with the PC, doing that on all available cores. And yet, it doesn't bog down. Explain that, Abwx?

 

[myocardia]

Actualy it s you who is cherry picking because you are limiting the thing to either a single task in ST or a single task in multithread but never multitasking with ST apps or Multithreaded apps or both at the same time, exactly what Computrerbase.de did and wich exposed the weakness of the Intel low and mid range, explicitely they are not good multitaskers...

What grade are you in, kid? How is it that each and every time you are called out on cherry-picking things to make AMD's pitiful CPUs look better, your only response happens to be "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Abwx]

While you're copying and pasting this nonsense everywhere, the same website (ComputerBase) recommends Core i5 over FX for those spending €150-250 on a CPU. Either they don't trust their own results or they know it's just a corner case.

ComputerBase: Recommendations for January 2016
www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste

Even pro-AMD websites like this one know Vishera gets demolished by a modern Intel quad-core in most tasks.

Actualy they look at everything, not only the CPU, and this article date from 17.12.2015, i guess that they didnt knew then that 4690K plateforms would be outdated by now in respect of the recently updated (at low cost) FX plateforms...

As for the corner case dont know but FYI you should perhaps ask to people who make a heavy usage of their PCs, at the limit you could do a rendering efficently with a FX while gaming or browsing with lots of tabs open all while downlaoding and so on, wich is not possible with the same perfs on whatever i5..

 

[Sweepr]

Actualy they look at everything, not only the CPU

Yes, we all know AMD's platform is ridiculously outdated and Vishera is a power-hog.

...and this article date from 17.12.2015, i guess that they didnt knew then that 4690K plateforms would be outdated by now in respect of the recently updated (at low cost) FX plateforms...

Also from ComputerBase:

Overall Rating Applications & Games (Full HD)
Intel Core i7-5930K
232%
Intel Core i7-6700K
227%
Intel Core i7-4790K
225%
Intel Core i7-5820K
225%
Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3
193%
Intel Core i5-6600K
190%
Intel Core i5-5675C
188%
Intel Core i5-4690K
187%
Intel Core i7-3770K
184%
Intel Core i7-2600K
172%
AMD FX-8350
157%
Intel Core i5-2500K
152%
Intel Core i3-4330
140%
Intel Pentium G3440
121%
Intel Celeron G1840
• 100%

FX-8350 is barely faster than 5-year old Core i5-2500K and slower than any modern Intel quad-core according to your beloved website. No wonder why they don't recommend AMD above €150. I don't see your multitasking claims anywhere in the article.