In a world where the clockspeed could scale high enough to make up for it while still being competitive in regards to power. AMD and Intel both took a swing at it, and missed. I doubt we'll see that approach again.
So not just happy cherrypicking benchmarks -- you've got to cherrypick BIOS versions as well?
Trying to move the goalpost again, since you got your first statement utterly wrong. Now the next step, show me the official Intel BLCK OC on non K CPUs. And not mobo makers hacking it via a 3rd party clock generator and firmware changes that disabled parts of the CPU.
What I said wasn't wrong. You're arguing over pointless semantics. You're also making (the wrong) assumption that all motherboard manufacturers will roll out this update in bios revisions in a timely fashion. Some motherboards are still plagued with the bug at the current time.
IPC and clock speed have nothing to do with each other.
But performance does which is what you just quoted me talking about. Clock speed goes up on one processor and down on the other and that 33% advantage shrinks obviously.
And we can just completely ignore the multithreaded results apparently...
The problem is not with the CPU but with the games,it's the lazy ports that do not support multithreading well, they are made to run one thread on one (1,5Ghz) core, often without any restrictions or synchronization on any thread,no wonder they run like crap on a cpu that is made to handle multiple threads with each core.It's a huge disadvantage if you've only got 2 threads for heavy multithreaded apps/games (versus a slower IPC quad). All the IPC in the world couldn't make up for my G3258 which was a dual core living in the now-quad core world -- way too many games stuttered because a mere 2 cores just can't run multithreaded games well.
I just got to ask....I game with a AMD 8350, and been using AMD 99% of the time for the last 15+ years I been building computers, but if it games at like say maxed out, at what ever game, and gets 67 fps, and Intel gets 100 fps, who the hell cares whats in there really as long as it doesnt play as a slide show with all the eye candy turned up?
As long as its not bogging down does it really matter if it is AMD or Intel as far as who is running what, as long as that person is happy, and its not slow when they play their favorite game? I mean I run a 290x, my rez is 2560x1080P, my CPU is overclocked at 2.5ghz, and Ive yet to find a game in my library that runs as a slideshow. Sure some of them dip into the 30's, but does that mean I got to go, OH HOLY SMOKES, I BETTER GO GET ME A INTEL!!! I buy with my wallet, and frankly AMD is the better choice for me because Im not chasing after the all mighty fps god, just as long as I get what looks like smooth game play "to me".
I chuckle at all these, gotta have AMD, NO AMD SUCKS, its 2008 tech, Gotta run the $800 i7 Blah blah. Hell I like my $170 8350, and when the games get too slow, Ill just plop in another 290x
Im sorry, I just had to say this, for I just find it too funny how everyone in here is AMD hate for this, and gotta have Intel instead, I mean, really, people, are just like me, getting what they can with their wallet, and if its not a slide show they are happy, yeah yeah, so what Intel is faster, its like telling a fat person, HEY FATTY, YOURE FAT, do you not think he/she knows that? We know for fuck sake that Intel is faster, ALWAYS HAS BEEN!!!!! Its just AMD is more bang for the buck, I dont need my game to run at the speed of light, Id rather buy a cpu, memory, and motherboard, for the the price it would cost you for just the Intel cpu, but hey, thats me, you like the Intel, so go buy it, Im not going to stop you, you got more duckets in your wallet then me
With 14k posts, you should know better than to use the 'F' word in a technical forum.
Markfw900
Yea, and people spend thousands more to get a better car, or house, or go on vacation, or get a fancier smartphone, or buy games, or spend money in a myriad of other ways. In the overall cost of living these days, I dont really consider a couple hundred extra dollars for a computer that will last several years to be a big expense. But you are right, everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but that is just my take.
In the DX12 thread,people with newish PCs were all E-PENIS bickering as normal,without realising it probably will help open up gaming a bit more,and help stave off more people moving to consoles.
Yea, and people spend thousands more to get a better car, or house, or go on vacation, or get a fancier smartphone, or buy games, or spend money in a myriad of other ways. In the overall cost of living these days, I dont really consider a couple hundred extra dollars for a computer that will last several years to be a big expense. But you are right, everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but that is just my take.
But performance does which is what you just quoted me talking about.
Clock speed goes up on one processor and down on the other
And we can just completely ignore the multithreaded results apparently...
Can you relate clock speed to performance? The i3 isnt running at 4.2ghz in this world
Yea, and people spend thousands more to get a better car, or house, or go on vacation, or get a fancier smartphone, or buy games, or spend money in a myriad of other ways. In the overall cost of living these days, I dont really consider a couple hundred extra dollars for a computer that will last several years to be a big expense. But you are right, everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but that is just my take.
Yea, and people spend thousands more to get a better car, or house, or go on vacation, or get a fancier smartphone, or buy games, or spend money in a myriad of other ways. In the overall cost of living these days, I dont really consider a couple hundred extra dollars for a computer that will last several years to be a big expense. But you are right, everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but that is just my take.
Yea, and people spend thousands more to get a better car, or house, or go on vacation, or get a fancier smartphone, or buy games, or spend money in a myriad of other ways. In the overall cost of living these days, I dont really consider a couple hundred extra dollars for a computer that will last several years to be a big expense. But you are right, everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but that is just my take.
Ive had a 8320, which my son is rocking, and is happy with, and I been rocking my 8350 for a bit now, the only thing Ive upgraded with these cpu's over the years to keep playing current games at respectful frame rates has only been my gpu, which I buy 2nd year ones because I can usually get the $550 ones for around $250~ at that time, and a year after that, then get a 2nd one, then at tax time, Ill get the newest what ever out. But I been rocking the 8320 and the 8350 since the 8320 came out, and still going just fine, so I really havent had a need to buy a Intel as of yet for the reason of the "upgrade", everyone keeps saying is why they spend so much on a Intel. I find to spend my money on a GPU VS a CPU....but again to each their own, Im not going to tell you not to but a Intel and you have to buy a AMD, thats your choice to do what you want with your money and how you feel.
I just hate how everyone with a Intel has to keep saying a AMD sucks because AMD cant do 5 billion frames per second vs their Intel, when if you can game on a AMD without and slowdown, arnt you then gaming just fine on a AMD cpu anyway? I mean I read it time and time again that you cant game on a AMD cpu, and thats bs. Why cant you, because I cant get xxx fames as many as the Intel does? Am I going to see something different at 120fps then at 80fps? Because I didnt spend $800 on my cpu, its not going to render all the frames right? I just dont get it or the hate all these years over and over time after time again and again. The very moment someone asks in a forum should they get amd or intel, its over, the Intel guys come out and say you got to drop sooooo much more on the build because you CANT GAME ON AMD, and thats sooooo incorrect. I been gaming just fine, and continue to do so. But Intel, AMD, it doesnt matter, what you get just as long as its what in your wallet that helps you choose what you can afford, they are both good at what they do.
Anyway. I better stop before my fingers type out another cuss word and get me another infraction
iAn 3 is a 4 threaded CPU. I'm seeing a lot hate about i3's, Haswell and Skylake i3's has been amazing. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i3's were subpar.It's a huge disadvantage if you've only got 2 threads for heavy multithreaded apps/games (versus a slower IPC quad). All the IPC in the world couldn't make up for my G3258 which was a dual core living in the now-quad core world -- way too many games stuttered because a mere 2 cores just can't run multithreaded games well.
It's been my experience that almost everyone that I've met that worshiped the benchmarks -- "My new i7 get 100 fps in Crysis and you only get 80 fps with your FX.... etc." Nearly always were playing on a monitor that maxed out at 60Hz. Way too many people buy into the hype train.
iAn 3 is a 4 threaded CPU. I'm seeing a lot hate about i3's, Haswell and Skylake i3's has been amazing. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i3's were subpar.
A Corvette is limited to the same speed as a Cruze on the road - it won't get me to work any faster. Does that mean the Cruze is just as good as the Corvette and nobody should buy a 'Vette?