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

[USER8000]

An SSD would make for a smoother experience for general day to day uses like web browsing and word processing rather than a stupid E-PENIS war between CPUs,as long as the graphics are decent enough for video playback and any basic interface acceleration tasks.

Its why plenty of companies only really replace their laptops and desktops when they have outlived the usefulness and why the PC market is having decreased sales as more and more people just keep their PCs longer.

It wouldn't surprise me that in a double blind study if someone was given a Core i3 4330 PC with an SSD and a Core i7 6700 PC without one,they would feel the former was faster,but if they knew the specs it would be the latter.

Try something like Adobe Lightroom (raw converter and photo library). Some operations - especially face recognition - run on a single core, other operations are capped at 2 or 4 cores or at least scale a lot worse after the fourth core.

https://translate.google.com/transl...r-Photoshop-und-Lightroom-1109093/&edit-text=

Thats with 30 RAW files from a D800 which are around 1.23GB in size.

At least Lightroom 5 didn't seem to use HT very well,but I don't know with Lightroom 6. It also seems to scale reasonably well upto 6 cores,but falls off after that.

 

[Gikaseixas]

A turd is a turd no matter how much you polish it.

You are ignorant when it comes to FX experience. You never used one so i call your post as a lie.

AMD FX line up gives you very good desktop experience. My own FX 8350 is provides an excellent experience. I can not say it is better than my i7 but it definitely is a great cpu at desktop usage.

 

[Gikaseixas]

An SSD would make for a smoother experience rather than a stupid E-PENIS war between CPUs.

this a thousand times

 

[ShintaiDK]

You are ignorant when it comes to FX experience. You never used one so i call your post as a lie.

AMD FX line up gives you very good desktop experience. My own FX 8350 is provides an excellent experience. I can not say it is better than my i7 but it definitely is a great cpu at desktop usage.

Yes and so is everyone else not buying the "FX experience" it seems.

AMD CPUs do not give a "smoother desktop experience" as the topic suggest. Its a rerun of the same old rubbish, "slower but smoother".

 

[LPCTech]

AMD chips are not even cost effective.

Even if you had 2 chips with equal processing capability the intel chip would use less power and run cooler.

Over time you will spend more in electricity for an AMD chip.

There just is not an argument for a 2008 based technology AMD chip.

They are freakin stuck on 32nm, like sandy bridge.

How can anyone defend them, I dont get it at all.

Old tech, hot, power hungry, slower chips. Even at same clock rate.

here is a bench mark...from THIS SITE comparing an i3 4330 3.5ghz(54w) and a 8350(125w @ 4.0ghz)

The AMD chip barely squeaks out a win with more than double the power used by the intel, 4 times the cores, and .5ghz more clock speed and still the i3 BEATS it on certain tasks. And they cost about the same. lol

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1192

Laughable.

 

[Erenhardt]

The AMD chip barely squeaks out a win with more than double the power used by the intel, 4 times the cores, and .5ghz more clock speed and still the i3 BEATS it on certain tasks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1192

Laughable.

My washmachine has 1300 Watt engine, while my dishawasher has only 15W engine in a pump. Guess what, my dishwasher is better at clearing dishes than a Waschmachine despite the huge difference in power.

There are tasks at which FX edges i7.

 

[dark zero]

AMD lost against Intel in performance... however they are still useful since still fights against big Cores despite their bad situation.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Regarding Hyperthreading:
Even a low priority background task doing lots of computations (like Prime95) might slow down higher priority foreground tasks as long as the latter doesn't run enough threads to throw Prime95 completely off the cores with help of the OS scheduler. If it is a 1 Prime95 thread + 1 foreground task thread on a single core, the latter will feel like being performing at ~60-70% the usual performance, when running alone.


And as I said before, I'd like to quantify user experience ("snappiness"). This can partly be done with games (min fps, 99% percentiles, etc.), but still a lot if missing (screen response times to clicks etc.) as the PS4 BF4 server tick increase and monitor refresh rate induced input lag show, for example. Also working with questionnaires and blind tests would be more fruitful.

Everything else doesn't add much to the discussion and looks to me like mobbing behaviour, BIRGing, sports fans behaviour, group dynamics, and the like.

 

[Dr.Reid]

Intel processors' individual cores are much stronger and as such still overshadow AMD multi cores..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Above a certain level you're unlikely to notice any difference between a slower and faster CPU in general use.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea spider, I agree with you on this one. pretty much any modern big core cpu is going to do basic desktop use just fine. personally, I would avoid single module APUs and the lowest end intel dual cores, but even they are probably adequate.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Intel processors' individual cores are much stronger and as such still overshadow AMD multi cores..

This sounds like an oversimplification. Or did you include Silverthorne, Larrabee, KNL, Willamette, Tualatin, etc.?

And it also sounds like being related to compute power. Typical user tasks and their perceived performance might also depend on latencies (mem latencies, prefetcher accuracy, HDD/SDD access latencies), or throughput.

 

[2is]

Which is what WinRAR and other unzip programs do as well.

Only if you specifically tell it to work in the background, it's not it's default setting. Again, i'm not making a case for FX or WinRAR or anything else. It's very simple. I'm telling you why you still have a smooth experience. It's not because the processor is badass, it's because the software is designed to do just that. A much better test isn't how responsive your computer is, it's now much less output your DC projects are giving you over a fixed period of time when you're also using your PC for other tasks. That's the real test, not how "responsive" the system is. All you're saying, by saying it's still responsive is that it's doing what it should be doing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I have a couple AMD systems at the moment. The A8 5600k and FM2 board I picked up in FS/FT for $100 years back. With a SSD and 16GB DDR3 it is more than enough for my wife to play farmville 2 with her friends. Log in and do work from home, HD vids, normal stuff. System is snappy and responsive at all times. BTW, FV2 eats up way too much ram and CPU cores in Chrome for what it is.

I recently picked up a FX-8320e for $90 here in FS too. Added a MSI 970 Gaming for $80, and it has so far proved as good a 1080p gaming experience as the i5 4570 rig I have been using for months. Of course I had to overclock it to 4.5 GHz and buy a $25 cooler for it. AMD shipped coolers are worthless even running stock because they are so loud. Where as the i5 required zero extra time or effort to enjoy. I am able to use the exact same settings for Fallout 4 that I had already settled in on with the i5. Same system specs right down to the Zotac GTX970 except the FX has 16GB 1866 ram instead of 24GB 1600.

They both coast along at the 60FPS cap I leave on, then dip in the same places, like looking down into diamond city. The AMD dips lower, but not to unplayable levels. Playing on the FX stock with turbo enabled, however, had weird hitches. I could just be walking along and it would suddenly hitch and drop down into the low 20s for a moment. Then go back to 60fps with nothing changed on POV. Turn around and walk the same path and no hitch in basically identical circumstances. Perhaps due to the turbo implementation? Or the board/chipset and its drivers are responsible? As the i5 with turbo does not experience the hitches at all. Both have the steam folder on a 1TB black label. And the hitches vanished with the manual overclock.

Larry already addressed the hyperbolic laced blanket statements leveled at inexpensive Intel CPUs. It is odd how hands on experience often fails to reflect the terrible experience predicted. Be it due to people painting with too broad a brush, PICNIC, faulty components, OS, software, or driver issues, unrealistic expectations, confirmation bias, or failure to properly pair hardware with intended usage. Whatever the cause, it seems Larry and I are not suffering adequately.

So my own answer to the question of AMD providing a smoother experience is NO. But with a bit of effort, and manual multiplier overclocking, AMD has some good values. I.E. plenty smooth enough. Superior to Intel? Again no, but a viable alternative, even for inexpensive gaming builds. And believe it or not, some want an alternative, and have yet to be assimilated by the CPU forum collective. All the other divisive language and hyperbole aside.

 

[Paul98]

Using both an i5 3570k and an 8350 daily doing similar tasks I see differences. Basically anytime where I would max out the 3570k the 8350 does much better than it.

 

[TheELF]

Regarding Hyperthreading:
Even a low priority background task doing lots of computations (like Prime95) might slow down higher priority foreground tasks as long as the latter doesn't run enough threads to throw Prime95 completely off the cores with help of the OS scheduler. If it is a 1 Prime95 thread + 1 foreground task thread on a single core, the latter will feel like being performing at ~60-70% the usual performance, when running alone.

Any source on that?
Cause Intel is claiming the complete opposite.
Foreground task will run normally as if alone and the second task will only get the idle cycles/commands.
If by low priority background task you mean it being set to Idle,after all that is in the hands of the user he can put it to low or below normal if he wants it to take away for the main task or he may choose not to.
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/performance-insights-to-intel-hyper-threading-technology

 

[ShintaiDK]

Maybe its how Zen SMT will work

 

[Zstream]

I'm not sure why everyone is attacking the poster who linked to multitasking tasks and showing AMD is pretty good at it. I always have YouTube, Word document, and other items running when I play games and I notice a difference between my 8150 and my i5. In fact I've always used AMD when I was doing a multitude of tasks. It's just the way things have been for me and I'm not sure why people are angry or calling them a liar.

It's two processor companies people. You shouldn't base your life one or the other. Some have strong points while others have weaknesses.

 

[Vortex6700]

Everything else doesn't add much to the discussion and looks to me like mobbing behaviour, BIRGing, sports fans behaviour, group dynamics, and the like.

The op should have gone to a tech forum like SA or Toms.

If a flaw was found on an intel chip here, 3/4 of the population would try to bury it.

FX 8xxx provides an excellent desktop experience. It only starts to suffer when you compare pure single app performance.

On heavy multitasking of light apps, the ssd and preloading common apps matters more.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Yes and so is everyone else not buying the "FX experience" it seems.

AMD CPUs do not give a "smoother desktop experience" as the topic suggest. Its a rerun of the same old rubbish, "slower but smoother".

Never said they give a smoother experience. Stop twisting other people words.
Go back to my post please

It's similar to i5, cannot match i7 but it's better than i3.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Never said they give a smoother experience. Stop twisting other people words.
Go back to my post please

It's similar to i5, cannot match i7 but it's better than i3.

It depends on the task. For single threaded or lightly threaded use, the i3 will be as fast or quite likely faster than FX. In fact, in a lot of games, (older games or new games based on an older engine) i3 will be faster than FX.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Using both an i5 3570k and an 8350 daily doing similar tasks I see differences. Basically anytime where I would max out the 3570k the 8350 does much better than it.

This

My FX 8350 is a beast for desktop, good for gaming but it does suck a bit of power. Good compromise IMO.

 

[Gikaseixas]

It depends on the task. For single threaded or lightly threaded use, the i3 will be as fast or quite likely faster than FX. In fact, in a lot of games, (older games or new games based on an older engine) i3 will be faster than FX.

I beg to differ. I've used a i3 and it's not better than my FX 8350 period in general tasks. For games it's a wash, some games you'll see the i3 in front and others you'll see the FX winning.

 

[2is]

The op should have gone to a tech forum like SA or Toms.

If a flaw was found on an intel chip here, 3/4 of the population would try to bury it.

FX 8xxx provides an excellent desktop experience. It only starts to suffer when you compare pure single app performance.

On heavy multitasking of light apps, the ssd and preloading common apps matters more.

Nah, it's just the ADF trying to make their ~5 year old processors, that are still sold as new, seem relevant when they really aren't.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I beg to differ. I've used a i3 and it's not better than my FX 8350 period in general tasks. For games it's a wash, some games you'll see the i3 in front and others you'll see the FX winning.

Actually, for general light desktop use like the op was describing, I would argue that if one insists on AMD, an FM2 apu is a better choice. Uses less power and you get a nice igp. With FX you have to add a discrete card, adding to the already excessive power consumption, or live with motherboard graphics. It all depends on what you describe as "general tasks" I suppose.