Well, the 3570K would probably be as fast at a closer clock speed.
Why is your 3570K at 3.7 instead of the 3.4 base or the 3.8 turbo speed?
I mean, you have a 38% / 1.2Ghz overclock on the G3258...
I notice the difference between a 4.4GHz G3258 and a 3.7GHz 3570K when doing normal desktop stuff. And yes, the G3258 machine is much much faster. I have the two machines literally side by side. The 3570K is a beast when it comes to transcoding, but the G3258 is way better for general PC usage.
FX-8320E is currently $150.00 though. The fact that it "keeps up" with an i5 with 4 less cores in certain situations is not really praise. An i5-4570 is currently about $200.00.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd832ewmhkbox
I picked one up for $119.99 shipped a few weeks ago. I'm going to try it out for a budget build I'm putting together for my wife.
I had a 4360 in my rig before the 4690k... It was all around pretty disappointing, and the i5 is just snappier at everything including web browsing. There's just no way I'm going to build around an i3 in this price range, so I'll see how the FX does.
A budget build doesn't need 8 cores, though. Nor does it need a 95W cpu.
Why spend way more on a CPU than you need to? Both for the CPU and for the power it will consume.
A budget build doesn't need 8 cores, though. Nor does it need a 95W cpu.
Why spend way more on a CPU than you need to? Both for the CPU and for the power it will consume.
Which part of the transfer limit and disk I/O makes my fans run high then? Or maybe it *is* the CPU burning hot instead?Again the transfer is limited by disk I/O and speed of your internet connection...
Then this Gdrive process maxing out a single CPU core for over half an hour now surely is not doing anything anyway. To be fair, this is a prime example of badly written software causing unnecessary load, unfortunately not too uncommon with cloud service utilities....The CPU is not making anywhere as much difference - not to the extend that a SB or Haswell CPU made much of any difference IMHO,and in terms of the whole length of the process especially from a new PC.
Of course they are, but gaming server performance is not the topic here, it's daily desktop experience. And with Warcraft the only thing that keeps me waiting - beside data transfer - is when addons are compiled and refreshed (especially during game start, but also with some load screens). A single CPU core is maxed out for well over 15 seconds (running lots of addons) while the rest of the computer (and internet line) is running idle.Even,online games which are touted as the bastion of the importance of single threaded performance,can be massively limited by server side performance.
But the topic was if modern AMD CPUs with their high number of cores give a smoother desktop experience than Intel's higher IPC, but lower core CPUs. My own experience with still far too many programs out there is that higher core count doesn't help as much in daily life as does higher 1-2 core performance. Regretfully...But not to the extent it makes such a massive difference going between CPUs being released within two generations of each other. Its one thing going from an Atom to a Core i7 6700K,but another thing going from maybe a Core i5 2500K to the same CPU.
How do you know what the build needs? What makes you think TDP is a deciding factor? I'm sure as heck not going to buy a dual core that hangs on everything... Already learned about that first hand
I got my son's 4690k for $200 2014 holiday season. I would buy another (even at $230), over spending $150 on an FX. Once you overclock the devil's canyon, its value is still immense for gaming. Being under $100, and not having played with the FX platform before, it seemed like it could be a good time. Which it has been, a good time, that is. BTW, the 8320e is going for $129 shipped BNIB on Amazon market place. a great throw in replacement for guys that have been on AM3+ boards, not rated for the 200W+ chips, for years already. You get 8 cores, and very likely, more than a GHz overclock minimum. Most will already have the cooling for overclocking too.FX-8320E is currently $150.00 though. The fact that it "keeps up" with an i5 with 4 less cores in certain situations is not really praise. An i5-4570 is currently about $200.00.
WUT? You posted in the CPU and overclocking forum. Yet you ask what the point of overclocking is? This place is turning Orwellian. :thumbsdown:Given that you had to overclock the hell out of your FX just to reach parity with a stock Intel processor, what's the point of it? Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
WUT? You posted in the CPU and overclocking forum. Yet you ask what the point of overclocking is? This place is turning Orwellian. :thumbsdown:
I am not noticing this after a few 100 RAWs after the last airshow I went to. I have tried SB Core i5,IB Core i7 and Haswell Core i7 chips,and honestly much of a sameness. The biggest upgrades in performance for me in day to day usage were the upgrades to the disk systems.
Neither am I but the lag is more to the way Firefox handles RAM - anytime it lags look at the RAM usage,and memory leaks on Firefox especially with plugins installed has been a known on and off issue for yonks - CPU usage is not really as big a problem. Chrome in comparison has tended to be better upto a degree IMHO.
Which again I am not seeing - not to the extend that a SB or Haswell CPU made much of any difference IMHO.
Again the transfer is limited by disk I/O and speed of your internet connection and I should know having 100+ GB of online backup for pictures and stuff using such services. The CPU is not making anywhere as much difference - not to the extend that a SB or Haswell CPU made much of any difference IMHO,and in terms of the whole length of the process especially from a new PC.
You also need to consider,Cloud services are also as limited on the providers side.
What do you think they are using for storage - most likely to be HDDs still and those often rated for reliability and not throughput.
What CPUs are they using??
Google is moving towards using more ARM based solutions. Now ,it might be not for the servers behind the storage side of the business,but it does indicate companies are more worried about running costs than absolute performance.
Even,online games which are touted as the bastion of the importance of single threaded performance,can be massively limited by server side performance.
Games like Diablo 3 and Planetside 2 all run better on Intel chips,but during the massive firefights in both games,performance will just plummet even with a 70Mbps UP/ 20Mbps DOWN connection and that's everyone from people with a Core i7 4790K to an FX6300 I know,and in many cases is more the server side.
You only have to look at EVE:Online and time dilation during huge battles.
But not to the extent it makes such a massive difference going between CPUs being released within two generations of each other. Its one thing going from an Atom to a Core i7 6700K,but another thing going from maybe a Core i5 2500K to the same CPU.
Even then after doing more budget builds or upgrading laptops with a faster drive like an SSD,for most general purpose stuff people do,I found them much of sameness.
If anything some of the biggest gains we have seen moving to newer CPUs is more modern extensive support,which can actually help massively in certain niche task.
I have worked with very CPU intensive stuff at uni,and we are talking MASSIVE data sets,and things that can take hours,days or weeks to process. Some of the image deconvolution stuff was the destroyer of PCs.
Add the use of things like Photoshop,PS software and even custom stuff we needed to use(and friends too),often running on SLOWER PCs than what a lot of enthusiasts have,it makes me wonder how we managed to get to publication deadlines on time!! :thumbsup:
Remember,how popular tablets became with the iPad?? Yet,many of these tablets had worse single threaded and multi-threaded performance than an Atom and plenty of laptops still destroy them for pure CPU processing speed.
Yet,people like Apple worked on reducing other bottlenecks in the chain,and using IGPs to offload certain tasks more effectively which meant for the average Joe or Jane it felt more responsive than a netbook or bog standard laptop.
I think we might have to agree to disagree otherwise we will go round in circles,but IMHO there are more factors which need to be taken into consideration and people focus way too much on CPUs only.
Which part of the transfer limit and disk I/O makes my fans run high then? Or maybe it *is* the CPU burning hot instead?
Then this Gdrive process maxing out a single CPU core for over half an hour now surely is not doing anything anyway. To be fair, this is a prime example of badly written software causing unnecessary load, unfortunately not too uncommon with cloud service utilities.
While I was at it I included what happens when Firefox is started (out of RAM cache) in the background, maxing out another single CPU core.
I may be naive, but to me it very much looks like a CPU that offers faster 1 to 2 core processing would be quite beneficial in such situations. Throwing more cores at it will unfortunately do nothing to ease the pain (as would GDrive using more concurrent connections to transfer data like Dropbox does).
Before I posted my little list of programs that max out 1-2 cores I tested them all. Of course there always is a bigger picture, but single-threaded CPU performance is one of the bottlenecks you encounter once SSD performance (small transfers are still very problematic) and RAM are sufficiently available.
Of course they are, but gaming server performance is not the topic here, it's daily desktop experience. And with Warcraft the only thing that keeps me waiting - beside data transfer - is when addons are compiled and refreshed (especially during game start, but also with some load screens). A single CPU core is maxed out for well over 15 seconds (running lots of addons) while the rest of the computer (and internet line) is running idle.
But the topic was if modern AMD CPUs with their high number of cores give a smoother desktop experience than Intel's higher IPC, but lower core CPUs. My own experience with still far too many programs out there is that higher core count doesn't help as much in daily life as does higher 1-2 core performance. Regretfully...
For the sake of completeness. Here the GDrive sync is finished (I deleted the folder), no transfers happening anymore, just the database being rebuild, no transfers, no I/O bottleneck. The CPU stays that high even when no disk transfers is happening. The screenshot shows the time when the database files are written to, though, 1 mb/s is not even close to being an I/O bottleneck.
I have read your posts brudda. :sneaky: :thumbsup:That's more or less what I've said before, if you're ok with tweaking your CPU's settings, the FX can be a good alternative. These days the available AM3+ boards are starting to look a bit aged, though. But still, I think the FX have aged pretty well. I always buy an aftermarket cooler anyway, just picked up a 240mm AIO I would have gotten whether I got an Intel or AMD system, so that's a non-issue for me.
Oh no you di'ent! I just bought another FX, gonna hand-me-down my 7970 and stick one of the FX's (I'm keeping the one that clocks higher ) in a system for my nine year old. Should run Scrap Mechanic and Minecraft well!
Oh give the bias a break for once. "Desktop experience" would likely include running Linux -- which is where an FX-8350 manages to outrun an i7 3770k for a lot of tasks.
Ah the dog pack begins to nip. :wub: And I know exactly what he meant and the context, which my post addressed. The part you left out so you could take a potshot at me. I also will not be addressing you further, as reasoning with vendor enthusiasts is a study in futility. Therefore enjoy uncontested retorts now. But I caution you, be careful, this is a technical forum and there is a line not to be crossed.Talk about an epic reading comprehension fail. That isn't what he said or implied, at all. Read it more carefully, IN context. The overclocking comment he made is not a mutually exclusive argument.
Talk about an epic reading comprehension fail. That isn't what he said or implied, at all. Read it more carefully, IN context. The overclocking comment he made is not a mutually exclusive argument.
And no one should. That is not what the culture was/is about. We shared/stealth bragged about how much we could get over stock, and the performance improvement that went with it. We shared which chips from which fabs from which batch were the best. What could you do on a tight budget with it. What could you do if you were willing to throw money at it. From ultra budget board to the highest end, and which settings to use. Physical mods etc. etc.I'm not sure I would brag about AMD's current CPU being as fast as a three generation old Intel CPU.
seriously?... they were released the same year geniusI'm not sure I would brag about AMD's current CPU being as fast as a three generation old Intel CPU.
And no one should. That is not what the culture was/is about. We shared/stealth bragged about how much we could get over stock, and the performance improvement that went with it. We shared which chips from which fabs from which batch were the best. What could you do on a tight budget with it. What could you do if you were willing to throw money at it. From ultra budget board to the highest end, and which settings to use. Physical mods etc. etc.
I still see some of it, but all this versus nonsense has taken over. It is like high school kids of the past, sitting across from each other shouting which group has more spirit.
Hyperbole, obfuscation, talking points, an overclocker craves not these things. :awe:
Preach it brudda.I miss those days and the fact you could even overclock or even unlock a CPU or GPU to match more expensive alternatives at a much lower cost. Half the reason why I learnt to mod was down to this and the fun of building PCs.
Sadly,since the PC market is drying up and PC gamers are increasingly being looked at cashcows, since other aspects of the PC market are fading outside gamers,so the marketing is increasingly targeting E-PENIS and so on so people get more emotionally attached to brands,or putting down those who are not buying the latest and greatest,etc. Now we are getting more and more arbitary lock outs,planned obsolescence,etc and empty promises which all of the major vendors are guilty of IMHO!
wow, this forum has too many "wccftech commets" level of posters.
seriously?... they were released the same year genius
I'm not sure I would brag about AMD's current CPU being as fast as a three generation old Intel CPU.
lol thanks for the laugh.Oh give the bias a break for once. "Desktop experience" would likely include running Linux -- which is where an FX-8350 manages to outrun an i7 3770k for a lot of tasks.
Source:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1
Oh give the bias a break for once. "Desktop experience" would likely include running Linux -- which is where an FX-8350 manages to outrun an i7 3770k for a lot of tasks.
Source:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1
In not all of the Linux CPU benchmarks did the Piledriver-based FX-8350 do well. For some Linux programs, AMD CPUs simply don't perform well and the 2012 FX CPU was even beaten out by older Core i5 and i7 CPUs.
wow, this forum has too many "wccftech commets" level of posters.
seriously?... they were released the same year genius