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

[USER8000]

Or perhaps you could just, you know, state your position without insulting and belittling others?

Or maybe instead of trying to read what I am saying just make a lame excuse to ignore it,make it into another religious war and start bickering about something else?? People like you are the ones belittling everybody else in your stupid E-PENIS wars.

If none of you had E-PENIS you would not be arguing so much about every blasted thing here.

That's why you can just keep on comparing one meaningless graph to another and keep on,since you go la! la! la! la! la! when anybody shows how futile it is.

I didn't realise browsing the web using Chrome needed video encoding benchmarks of Core i5s and FX8000 CPUs. I didn't realise Cinebench was integral to user experiences everyday.

But hey I will let you "experts" argue that one out - what do I know?

Go back to the bickering - you will be going in circles still at page 100.

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:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Or maybe instead of trying to read what I am saying just make a lame excuse to ignore it,make it into another religious war and start bickering about something else?? People like you are the ones belittling everybody else in your stupid E-PENIS wars.

If none of you had E-PENIS you would not be arguing so much about every blasted thing here.

That's why you can just keep on comparing one meaningless graph to another and keep on,since you go la! la! la! la! la! when anybody shows how futile it is.

I didn't realise browsing the web using Chrome needed video encoding benchmarks of Core i5s and FX8000 CPUs. I didn't realise Cinebench was integral to user experiences everyday.

But hey I will let you "experts" argue that one out - what do I know?

Go back to the bickering - you will be going in circles still at page 100.

Are you projecting your issues onto others? That is the only way I can understand your continual obsession with E-Peen.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Uhm, they did, it's just not based on AM3+. And shouldn't it be compared to Haswell? After all, Haswell "is still the model being sold" too...

Because comparing a quad intel to anything from FM2, AMD would lose every benchmark, including the multi-threaded ones they like to cherry pick so much for FX. Or maybe we should compare AMD's latest to netburst pentium, after all, it is still being sold at microcenter.

 

[2is]

I believe you are wrong.

Yeah, well, you also believed AMD was more efficient, we know how that worked out for you.

The goal post shifting is unprecedented. Going from FX8 and fringe cases that no one ever uses to illustrate the rare occasions it can beat an older generation i5, to talking about an APU that you claim is more efficient but isn't, in a poor attempt to make AMD seem like it's faster and more efficient. Except you're having to talk about two completely different AMD platforms and compare it to a single Intel one. What's worse, the conclusions you're trying to draw from it in terms of performance and efficiency are still wrong.

 

[AtenRa]

Yeah, well, you also believed AMD was more efficient, we know how that worked out for you.

If you are talking about Kaveri vs IvyBridge Core i3, it sure has higher efficiency in x264.

The goal post shifting is unprecedented. Going from FX8 and fringe cases that no one ever uses to illustrate the rare occasions it can beat an older generation i5, to talking about an APU that you claim is more efficient but isn't, in a poor attempt to make AMD seem like it's faster and more efficient. Except you're having to talk about two completely different AMD platforms and compare it to a single Intel one. What's worse, the conclusions you're trying to draw from it in terms of performance and efficiency are still wrong.

I have specifically posted benchmarks from Anandtech comparing Core i5 SB to BD and Core i5 Ivy to Vishera. You were wrong saying FX 8core was not faster than Core i5s 2500K but you are not man enough to admit it.

Personal attacks are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[SlowSpyder]

The more you shout about an 8T+700mhz cpu being faster than a 4T cpu in such benches, the more I wonder about you...

I don't get this line of thinking. Too me this is like if I said Intel needs a wider core to beat AMD's more narrow core, or Intel needs a node advantage to beat AMD's CPU's, or Intel needs >10x the R&D budget to beat AMD in most, but not all benches. It is what it is, whether it's a four core, four module / eight thread, 22nm, 28nm, 14nm, etc. CPU.... the benchmark scores what it scores on a given CPU.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Yes the lies and misleading about how it actually performs is the bad karma part. And it cant get any more clear when AMD employees and AMD as a company itself uses Intel CPUs to show of dGPU products and what they use at home.

Yet we get to see round after round of cherry picked benchmarks and situations where an FX CPU may edge itself forward.

That's a pointless observation. The tech demo machines nearly always have components from different manufacturers. The Intel demo I watched recently was running Nvidia 970's instead of Iris Pro. Via's tech demo ran GeForces instead of their onboard stuff as well. AMD's performance CPU isn't available in the form factor they were doing a tech demo for -- so you're making a moot (and clearly biased) point.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Have you ever driven a Ferrari, or a Prius? Guess you cant tell which is faster, huh, since you most likely haven't driven either.

I have driven both.
Girlfriend owns a Prius -- my uncle owns a restored '84 Ferarri 308 GTS.

Cars are a bad place to go for me (to try to demonstrate inexperience), I have competed in SCCA and am licensed to drive Class A vehicles (up to 80,000 lbs). I've driven a lot of diverse vehicles in the 24 years I've been driving... So I do have the experience to give informed opinions on those topics.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

That just isn't what I've seen. In ST, i5>FX. In applications that are multithreaded, but somewhat lightly so, it gets a lot more muddy. When something can use lots of cores, the FX>i5 (at least up to Skylake), from what I've seen. If you have benches, post them please!

Not just that, but I'd even go farther. Intel CPU's (thanks to the superior single threaded performance) are better at low resolution gaming. However, start moving north of 1440p resolution with Ultra details and the roles appear to reverse. AMD FX seems to push 4K remarkably well if occassionally even better than Intel chips. This is simply what I've seen running an FX-8320 next to my i7-4790K.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't get this line of thinking. Too me this is like if I said Intel needs a wider core to beat AMD's more narrow core, or Intel needs a node advantage to beat AMD's CPU's, or Intel needs >10x the R&D budget to beat AMD in most, but not all benches. It is what it is, whether it's a four core, four module / eight thread, 22nm, 28nm, 14nm, etc. CPU.... the benchmark scores what it scores on a given CPU.

I think it's hilarious to brag about an 8 core cpu keeping up with a 2 or 4 core cpu.

Sort of like saying that your V8 keeps up with the other guy's I4.

Especially when the 4 and 6 core brothers of the 8 core chips get scant mention.

Okay...so you are back to the "budget" argument then.

I hope this line of thinking does not continue with Zen.

I hope Zen is able to stand on it's own legs.

 

[2is]

If you are talking about Kaveri vs IvyBridge Core i3, it sure has higher efficiency in x264.

Nice cherry picked caveat there buddy

I have specifically posted benchmarks from Anandtech comparing Core i5 SB to BD and Core i5 Ivy to Vishera. You were wrong saying FX 8core was not faster than Core i5s 2500K but you are not man enough to admit it.

Yes indeed, you post quite specific things that don't give an accurate picture of the system. That's called cherry picking. But you aren't man enough to admit it. That's why when someone recommends Intel, they'll link an entire review that will include MT, ST, power, efficiency, gaming, etc etc. Not images of charts they want people to see while leaving out what they don't. Sound familiar? Heck you don't even link entire MT test suits, just the charts you want people to see.

Personal attacks are not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[2is]

I think it's hilarious to brag about an 8 core cpu keeping up with a 2 or 4 core cpu.

Sort of like saying that your V8 keeps up with the other guy's I4.

Especially when the 4 and 6 core brothers of the 8 core chips get scant mention.

Okay...so you are back to the "budget" argument then.

I hope this line of thinking does not continue with Zen.

I hope Zen is able to stand on it's own legs.

The argument has changed multiple times and repeated itself already. That's what happens when people feel the need to defend a product that is inferior and has been for many many years. A product that the company they're fighting for, have themselves abandoned long ago.

AMD have already acknowledged their processors aren't good enough by not using them. If that doesn't convince the ADF, nothing will. Perhaps they should email AMD and let them know how awesome their processors really are.

These guys remind me of a Star Trek episode where a group of Klingons woke up from stasis after many years and still thought they were at war despite their own superiors telling them otherwise. This is a little worse, since AMD was never the better option. Merely less worse then it is now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think it's hilarious to brag about an 8 core cpu keeping up with a 2 or 4 core cpu.

Sort of like saying that your V8 keeps up with the other guy's I4.

Especially when the 4 and 6 core brothers of the 8 core chips get scant mention.

Okay...so you are back to the "budget" argument then.

I hope this line of thinking does not continue with Zen.

I hope Zen is able to stand on it's own legs.

No, I'm of the 'run what you brung' mindset. Saying AMD needs eight cores to beat Intel's four core CPU's is no different than saying Intel needs wider execution units to beat AMD's narrower execution units. I'm glad this type of thinking doesn't make it to the GPU world, "OMG AMD needs x+ stream processors to beat Nvidia's x amount of stream processor (or Cuda core if you wish) GPU!" We don't see those arguments because they aren't meaningful.

Under the hood, we all have a squarish piece of silicon that scores what it scores in benches. Design decisions have lead to what it scores, picking out one of those design decisions arbitrarily to prop up a slower CPU or belittle a faster CPU doesn't make sense to me.

*edit - And I'd like to point out that this is coming from someone that raced his 122 cubic inch 4cyl against V8's plenty and never whined about their extra displacement.

 

[Sweepr]

No, I'm of the 'run what you brung' mindset. Saying AMD needs eight cores to beat Intel's four core CPU's is no different than saying Intel needs wider execution units to beat AMD's narrower execution units. I'm glad this type of thinking doesn't make it to the GPU world, "OMG AMD needs x+ stream processors to beat Nvidia's x amount of stream processor (or Cuda core if you wish) GPU!" We don't see those arguments because they aren't meaningful.

Any modern Intel quad-core demolish your CPU in those situations where the application can't take advantage of all cores. Not comparable to GPUs at all, and throwing rendering / encoding results won't change this fact. There's a reason why AMD is bragging about Zen's IPC improvement and not throughpout, they're basically recognizing Intel's less but faster/wider and more efficient cores is the superior solution for a high-performance x86 CPU.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, I'm of the 'run what you brung' mindset. Saying AMD needs eight cores to beat Intel's four core CPU's is no different than saying Intel needs wider execution units to beat AMD's narrower execution units. I'm glad this type of thinking doesn't make it to the GPU world, "OMG AMD needs x+ stream processors to beat Nvidia's x amount of stream processor (or Cuda core if you wish) GPU!" We don't see those arguments because they aren't meaningful.

Under the hood, we all have a squarish piece of silicon that scores what it scores in benches. Design decisions have lead to what it scores, picking out one of those design decisions arbitrarily to prop up a slower CPU or belittle a faster CPU doesn't make sense to me.

*edit - And I'd like to point out that this is coming from someone that raced his 122 cubic inch 4cyl against V8's plenty and never whined about their extra displacement.

I'm not the one making the argument...

I'm not the one saying "Look! A 700mhz faster FX-8350 beats an IB i5 in this bench!"...

I'm criticizing that argument.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Any modern Intel quad-core demolish your CPU in those situations where the application can't take advantage of all cores. Not comparable to GPUs at all, and throwing rendering / encoding results won't change this fact. There's a reason why AMD is bragging about Zen's IPC improvement and not throughpout, they're basically recognizing Intel's less but faster/wider and more efficient cores is the superior solution for a high-performance x86 CPU.

AMD tried with the BD/PD/SR/EX line and the market has spoken, they are not the right part for AMD to have a future with. This is well known. That said, as someone who uses both camp's CPU's regularly, in real world practical use the difference is minimal the vast majority of the time. That has been my real world experience, hence my perspective when I post. I don't deny that Intel makes the more balanced CPU that is better for most users. That doesn't automatically make the FX 'garbage' to those who own and use one. This is coming from someone who could buy an Intel HEDT system right now today if I wanted it.

I'm not the one making the argument...

I'm not the one saying "Look! A 700mhz faster FX-8350 beats an IB i5 in this bench!"...

I'm criticizing that argument.

It sounds to me like you keep calling out AMD over it's core count needed to beat an i5. It's true, AMD's FX needs more cores to beat the four core i5. But it does indeed bench higher in multithreaded loads from what I've seen, at least up to Skylake where things even out. Congrats to Intel with 10x the R&D budget beating AMD in a majority, but not all, benches. <-- Pretty lame argument, no? I see the "it takes AMD's x amount of cores to beat Intel's y amount of cores" as no different. Your and my CPU score what they score in benches, no matter what design decisions were used to get those scores. If I'm taking what you're saying the wrong way, I apologize.

 

[LTC8K6]

It sounds to me like you keep calling out AMD over it's core count needed to beat an i5. It's true, AMD's FX needs more cores to beat the four core i5. But it does indeed bench higher in multithreaded loads from what I've seen, at least up to Skylake where things even out. Congrats to Intel with 10x the R&D budget beating AMD in a majority, but not all, benches. <-- Pretty lame argument, no? I see the "it takes AMD's x amount of cores to beat Intel's y amount of cores" as no different. Your and my CPU score what they score in benches, no matter what design decisions were used to get those scores. If I'm taking what you're saying the wrong way, I apologize.

It sounds to me like you aren't quite keeping up with all the posts, which is difficult, I admit.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Regarding the "core count", the core count in and of itself seems irrelevant to me. The problem is the power usage. If AMD could equal or tie intel at the same power consumption, I would not care which cpu had the most cores. The problem is that FX uses more power for lower performance in everything except heavily multithreaded benchmarks (and IGP performance for FM2, although that is much closer than it used to be).

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Regarding the "core count", the core count in and of itself seems irrelevant to me. The problem is the power usage. If AMD could equal or tie intel at the same power consumption, I would not care which cpu had the most cores. The problem is that FX uses more power for lower performance in everything except heavily multithreaded benchmarks (and IGP performance for FM2, although that is much closer than it used to be).

Again, it seems like grasping at straws. If Intel was still stuck using 28nm or 32 SOI, they would have the same power consumption as AMD. So it's really not AMD's CPU design, but a lousy fab partner that deserves the blame.

Carrizo and the Radeon Nano's respective performance / power consumption @ their respective die size is a borderline miracle. The FX may be mediocre at certain tasks, but it was never a bad product.

 

[svenge]

Again, it seems like grasping at straws. If Intel was still stuck using 28nm or 32 SOI, they would have the same power consumption as AMD. So it's really not AMD's CPU design, but a lousy fab partner that deserves the blame.

And whose fault was it that AMD had to rely on GlobalFailures to begin with? As with the vast majority of their problems, this one was self-inflicted.

 

[frozentundra123456]

And whose fault was it that AMD had to rely on GlobalFailures to begin with? As with the vast majority of their problems, this one was self-inflicted.

Exactly. I am so sick of all the excuses for AMD: the design is old, the process is no good, blah, blah, blah. It is the job of a company to put out a competitive product, not have people make excuses for an inferior product.

 

[DrMrLordX]

So AMD is bad, that's great. Can we all happily conclude that AMD does not offer a smoother desktop experience than Intel processors (and vice versa) and go throw bombs at one another in a different thread? This one is beginning to get a bit ripe.

 

[Yuriman]

Not just that, but I'd even go farther. Intel CPU's (thanks to the superior single threaded performance) are better at low resolution gaming. However, start moving north of 1440p resolution with Ultra details and the roles appear to reverse. AMD FX seems to push 4K remarkably well if occassionally even better than Intel chips. This is simply what I've seen running an FX-8320 next to my i7-4790K.

What does this even mean? Are you implying that FX CPUs are better at low-FPS gaming?

EDIT: Yeah, I'm ready to let this one die too.

 

[superstition]

So AMD is bad, that's great. Can we all happily conclude that AMD does not offer a smoother desktop experience than Intel processors (and vice versa) and go throw bombs at one another in a different thread? This one is beginning to get a bit ripe.

AMD kicked my dog.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Nice cherry picked caveat there buddy

Cherrypicking? Seriously? Seems pretty relevant to me considering that H.264 is the most commonly used codec in the world.