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

[Arachnotronic]

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.

+1

 

[Arachnotronic]

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?"

Bro, transconductance. That's all you need to know.

 

[Abwx]

Bro, transconductance. That's all you need to know.

You should really stop this kind of callout, indeed you are trying to ridicule what you know being well above your undestanding, hence your pathetic behaviour..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET

Go learn and then perhaps that you ll talk in other terms than marketing, ad hominems and your usual methods when it comes to defend fanaticaly your beloved Intel...

Yes, we all know AMD's platform is ridiculously outdated and Vishera is a power-hog.



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.

I Suggest that you look at the bench suite :

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-10/.../2/#diagramm-gesamtrating-anwendungen-windows

 

[2is]

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only the CPU, and this article date from 17.12.2015, i guess that they didnt knew then that 4690K plateforms would be outdated by now in respect of the recently updated (at low cost) FX plateforms...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

There's a reason everyone is disagreeing with you, and it isn't because everyone else is wrong.

 

[Abwx]

There's a reason everyone is disagreeing with you, and it isn't because everyone else is wrong.

By the time we should be talking about those benches and what they mean, what i m trying to do, but seems that some people are more interested in dismissing them, not that they are irrelevant but simply because the numbers
are annoying...

Hey, i guess that everybody thought that a CPU throughput is linear whatever the number of threads and apps, that s simply not the case., even a few thReads can stall a pipeline if the requirements are simultaneous and mandate a peak loading..

 

[deasd]

New visitors from outside can realize from this thread(especially thread's title), that very few users in this forum own AMD's product, even ever.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

For AMD the 8320E is where it's at. Single thread is fast enough for desktop, multithread is better than an i5 for anything 5+ threads for obvious reasons, and it's available for under $150.

Given the choice between an i5 and an 8320E I'd say get whatever has the lowest total platform cost. Or put the $50 you save in getting the 8320E vs, say, an i5-4460, into a larger SSD or more RAM.

Gamers will want the i5 for its ST performance, and heavy users of embarrassingly-parallel workloads will be fine with the FX. It would be my choice as a Gentoo user since compilation will happily nom on as many threads as you can throw at it.

Right tool, right job, right price.

 

[Abwx]

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?

How do i explain it..?..

Well, are not you the guy in this forum who seems the more satisfied with gear that about anybody else is saying is slow as death..?.

So that s surely all a question of perspective, but anyway thank you for the exemple...

 

[2is]

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?

That's actually quite easy to explain. BOINC runs tasks on the CPU at a "very low" priority state. That means anytime something else needs CPU time, the OS takes it away from BOINC and gives it to whatever needs it. The CPU time is not divided up evenly. As far as the GPU processing goes, by default BOINC will not crunch on the GPU until the system has been idle for several minutes (I think 3 is the default)

I'm not making a case for an FX 8, I think Abwx is quite delusional if he believes what he's saying, I'm just explaining how BOINC works.

 

[lakedude]

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

This is not true. It is nearly true but it is not completely true, especially if you consider cost a factor.

AMD CPUs are dirt cheap by comparison to Intel and if you happen to have a use for them that can make use of moar cores AMD might be just the chip for you.

For example if you run distributed computing in a cold environment like Alaska where you could use the heat. AMD has the advantage of more cores and low cost.

Finally as relates to the OP's question (depending on the exact model) the AMD desktop experience is just fine, especially when doing many things at once that can make better use of all the cores.

Intel is the way to go if you need performance per watt (especially mobile) or if single threaded performance is your main need. I mostly have Intel stuff but Intel isn't really worth the price premium for basic web surfing and the like.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hey, i guess that everybody thought that a CPU throughput is linear whatever the number of threads and apps, that s simply not the case., even a few thReads can stall a pipeline if the requirements are simultaneous and mandate a peak loading..

Are you talking about HyperThreading and two threads sharing a core? Because normally, threads are time-sliced, and assigned to cores, and excluding HyperThreading, they have a core to themselves. CPUs don't run "a few threads" per pipeline, they only assign one (or two, as the case may be, with HyperThreading). The fact that you said "few", rather than "two", makes me wonder if you really comprehend how CPU pipelines, and multi-tasking OSes work.

 

[VirtualLarry]

How do i explain it..?..

Well, are not you the guy in this forum who seems the more satisfied with gear that about anybody else is saying is slow as death..?.

So that s surely all a question of perspective, but anyway thank you for the exemple...

But you were saying that Intel CPUs couldn't multi-task well, that they got "clogged up" from multi-tasking with CPU-heavy threads. My example proves you wrong.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's actually quite easy to explain. BOINC runs tasks on the CPU at a "very low" priority state. That means anytime something else needs CPU time, the OS takes it away from BOINC and gives it to whatever needs it. The CPU time is not divided up evenly. As far as the GPU processing goes, by default BOINC will not crunch on the GPU until the system has been idle for several minutes (I think 3 is the default)

I'm not making a case for an FX 8, I think Abwx is quite delusional if he believes what he's saying, I'm just explaining how BOINC works.

I know how BOINC works, but having the CPU pinned at 100% constantly, doesn't make anything sluggish. Which is what I thought Abwx was basically saying about Intel.

 

[svenge]

This is not true. It is nearly true but it is not completely true, especially if you consider cost a factor.

AMD CPUs are dirt cheap by comparison to Intel and if you happen to have a use for them that can make use of moar cores AMD might be just the chip for you.

You're putting the cart before the horse, as the precise reason that AMD CPUs are "dirt cheap" is because the marketplace will not bear a higher price for them due to their abysmal performance.

A classic illustration of performance dictating pricing independently of an OEM's wishes would be AMD's launch of the Bulldozer-based FX-8150 for $245, or $29 more than the then-current Core i5-2500K. Of course it paled in comparison to its Intel competitor and immediately flopped in the marketplace, and thus was sold on a very deep discount within months thereafter.

 

[VirtualLarry]

as the precise reason that AMD CPUs are "dirt cheap" is because the marketplace will not bear a higher price for them due to their abysmal performance.

Exactly. And the market has largely ignored any perceived additional value from AMD's APU concept. Perhaps this wouldn't be so, if the supporting CPU cores were themselves more powerful.

Or possibly, it's all down to a conspiracy of tech web sites, only running Intel-controlled benchmarks in their reviews.

 

[2is]

I know how BOINC works, but having the CPU pinned at 100% constantly, doesn't make anything sluggish. Which is what I thought Abwx was basically saying about Intel.

Right, that's because it's at a very low priority, not a normal priority. Change the affinity to "normal" like 90% of other processes are running at and you'll see it get sluggish. Any processor will be nearly just as responsive with 100% load as it is with 0% load if the load that's causing 100% is set at a very low affinity, which is what BOINC is, so it's really not a very good example, it doesn't really prove anything other then process affinity works. It's designed specifically to use IDLE cycles, that's why it's still responsive, it's using cycles that aren't being used by anything else.

 

[superstition]

Exactly. And the market has largely ignored any perceived additional value from AMD's APU concept. Perhaps this wouldn't be so, if the supporting CPU cores were themselves more powerful.

Or possibly, it's all down to a conspiracy of tech web sites, only running Intel-controlled benchmarks in their reviews.

APUs are not the only CPUs from AMD, although one might not know that from reading Anandtech's reviews (like their review of Broadwell).

$100 8320E with $40 off a motherboard = inexpensive and perfectly adequate for some workloads, especially when overclocked with a good cooler like the D15.

 

[SPBHM]

I would think any CPU with a decent clock these days would feel smooth for basic use, as long as you avoid AM1 you should be good.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Right, that's because it's at a very low priority, not a normal priority. Change the affinity to "normal" like 90% of other processes are running at and you'll see it get sluggish. Any processor will be nearly just as responsive with 100% load as it is with 0% load if the load that's causing 100% is set at a very low affinity, which is what BOINC is, so it's really not a very good example, it doesn't really prove anything other then process affinity works. It's designed specifically to use IDLE cycles, that's why it's still responsive, it's using cycles that aren't being used by anything else.

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

 

[Gikaseixas]

i7's trash anything AMD has out right now but FX 8 series and 9 series put out a good fight vs i5's

SSD's make the biggest difference for desktop use experience. Can we stop with the fanboy arguments now?

 

[dark zero]

I would think any CPU with a decent clock these days would feel smooth for basic use, as long as you avoid AM1 you should be good.

Even the Athlon 5350 is decent and overclock it and becomes even better...

Cherry Trail on the other side.... Is a federal crime itself

 

[ShintaiDK]

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

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

 

[ShintaiDK]

There's a reason everyone is disagreeing with you, and it isn't because everyone else is wrong.

Exactly :thumbsup:

 

[Timur Born]

To this date a lot of software is still bottlenecked by lack of being multi-threaded properly.

Try something as simple as starting a sessions of World of Warcraft when many addons are installed. The whole of the lists of addon scripts is compiled through a single CPU core.

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.

And the list goes on: Firefox (1 - 2 cores), Faststone Image Viewer (2 cores), Splashtop or Teamviewer (1 to 2 cores at startup), Adobe Reader DC (1 core), Symantec Endpoint Protection (1 core during scan), Dropbox (1 - 2 cores), GDrive (1 core), iCloud (1 core), ElstarFormular (German taxes, 1 core), various services falling under the SVHOST moniker (1 core).

So unfortunately in normal daily computing there are various (lots) of situation where users are CPU frequency/single-thread bottlenecked.

 

[Giorgosgr]

Guys i need to tell that i was amazed yesterday to see how a cheep FX4170 with one GTX 760 +16BG@2400 was performing so good and comparable to a couple of new heavy games with my 3930k@4.8Ghz 760GTX in SLI +32@2400Mhz