Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[CriticalOne]

I don't get how people can be so hard headed about i3s.

There are many benchmarks proving that HT is far more than just "marketing". How come people greatly value the i7's hyperthreading but passes off the i3's as just fake cores and are useless? It works on the hardware level so all of this talk about how games don't "utilise" it is a non starter.

i3s have proven their worth countless times in gaming benchmarks. It's okay to want something faster (don't we all?), but to go out to say that they are only good for office work? Come on now.

 

[2is]

While the i3 wins on paper, I would never buy the i3 over the FX8, not with a Micro Center an hour away.

I dropped the link to showcase how we all fixate on absolutes, the obsession with the i3 being "better" is strange.

Better because it is Intel?

The i3 is good for light duty office work, I hate using an i3 / dual core system; i5 or better, and the FX8 is AMD's long in the tooth i5 competitor.

Win 7 and up is vastly better to use on a true 4+ core system. HT is just a marketing bullet point anymore.

All this talk of changing spending to buy a "high end" setup is laughable. When you have kids, a family, a whole life outside of these forums, the signature becomes less and less important, especially with age.

10 years ago I cared a lot more about having an awesome computer; now I just want to use what I have for as long as possible, and avoid techno-lust (this is hard, lol).

How about better because it wins 43 out of those 62 tests? Apparently you missed the three other times I mentioned this just like you missed it before posting the link. Every time I've said it's better I've referenced its performance, so where you conclude that it's better merely because it's intel is beyond me. At this point, it seems like you've run out of anything meaningful to say and are just making this up.

Case in point, no HT isn't just marketing. And if you want your system to last as long as possible, then you buy the better system to begin with. How about we just take everything you say and flip it, because you seem to be 100% backwards on everything.

If you really thought HT was nothing more than marketing, you wouldn't have an i7 listed in your sig. Sounds like you don't even believe yourself.

 

[potzocalli]

2is I guess I am a higher end user than you. By comparing signatures my laptop is an i7-4800MQ, 32GB RAM, 3 x 128GB SSDs in RAID2 + 1TB Evo 640 SSD and a GTX 880M with 8GB DDR5.

And yes, I still use AMD. Ever since Thunderbird and its 1.8GHz days I am hooked. As you can see, that while I am an AMD fan, do not despise Intel processors as evil hehe.

I don't even know what the argument is about. We have conceded that the i7 and even higher end i5s are better than AMD current processors at most tasks. To say otherwise would border on fanatism when so many years have proven it right.

About buying a better system initially rememberI did mention it was an 8350 with 7970 graphics, 16GB ram and a AMD990 motherboard (I checked on the weekend and it was not a 970). I bought it 3 or 4 years ago and it is still going strong. Very high end when I bought it but I did not want to spend on the next vidcard (7990 ??) because prices were incredibly high. Can still run most games (at least all I play) at 1080p with high-very high detail leves.

 

[2is]

Guess again
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4800MQ-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770K/m3437vs1317

GPU:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7924/msi-gt70-review-gtx-880m-edition/3
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/6 (take a look at Bishock Infinite score for 680 and compare to yours. This doesn't even take into account SLI either)

Mobile GPU/CPU is not the same as desktop variants. That's before we get into overclocking which is far more limiting on a laptop. You're being fooled by higher model numbers.

And if you don't know what the argument is about, why bother replying? Especially considering I quoted B-Riz in regards to the i3 vs FX8 and you decided to chime in comparing your laptop to my desktop. Fallaciously so I may add.

8350 was never "very high end" either.

And before you decided to reply with another completely off the wall and unrelated post, try and remember this isn't about me vs you, nor have I ever put my system on a pedestal claiming it's "very high end" that's something you conjured up on your own. My sig isn't there for bragging rights. It's there so when I post any issues I may have, people know what I'm working with or when I post benchmark results or my experiences playing a game, people know what I'm running it on vs having to repeatedly type it out.

 

[potzocalli]

But the 4800 uses only 47W while the 3770K uses 77W so it is clearly a most inefficient processor.

Also, in video benchmarks one page before your link the 7970 smokes the 680 in Company of Heroes 2.

 

[2is]

But the 4800 uses only 47W while the 3770K uses 77W so it is clearly a most inefficient processor.

Also, in video benchmarks one page before your link the 7970 smokes the 680 in Company of Heroes 2.

Yes, laptop processor are more efficient then desktop processors, especially one that's a generation newer. Why are you comparing a desktop processor to a laptop processor in the first place then in the same breath switch to comparing a 680 to a 7970? Those aren't even CPU's. Are you even attempting to stay on topic now or are you just flustered that I called you out the uselessness of the arguments you're bringing up and are now just switching goal posts in an attempt to??? Not really sure what. What's your end game here?

If your argument is that your haswell laptop is more efficient than my IB desktop, yes it absolutely is
If your argument is that a 7970 is more powerful than a 680, again, yes it is.

Not only are those arguments not relevant to your last post, not only are they not relevant to one another, but they are not even relevant to this thread. If you're trying to win an award for the most useless posts in the thread however, they are quite relevant.

 

[potzocalli]

So says the person with 3,222 posts.

But correct, OP asks if high end users still use AMD. Solid answer is YES, most likely a minority but YES.

 

[B-Riz]

How about better because it wins 43 out of those 62 tests? Apparently you missed the three other times I mentioned this just like you missed it before posting the link. Every time I've said it's better I've referenced its performance, so where you conclude that it's better merely because it's intel is beyond me. At this point, it seems like you've run out of anything meaningful to say and are just making this up.

Case in point, no HT isn't just marketing. And if you want your system to last as long as possible, then you buy the better system to begin with. How about we just take everything you say and flip it, because you seem to be 100% backwards on everything.

If you really thought HT was nothing more than marketing, you wouldn't have an i7 listed in your sig. Sounds like you don't even believe yourself.

Bro, do you even computer?

The i7 is better than i5 not for HT but because of L3 cache; and it is a better binned chip for OC.

Do some research on Intel extra L3 cache.

And, for the record, I ran the i7 with HT off for a year, if not longer, until I started playing less games and more internet browsing...

I still sometimes turn HT off for older games...

 

[Enigmoid]

So says the person with 3,222 posts.

But correct, OP asks if high end users still use AMD. Solid answer is YES, most likely a minority but YES.

The 8350 is considered high end?

IMO x99 is high end z97 is mid range.

8350 and 9590 (and any variants) are decidedly not comparable to x99 chips.

 

[2is]

So says the person with 3,222 posts.

Yet more irrelevancy. Now it just sounds like you're getting mad.

But correct, OP asks if high end users still use AMD. Solid answer is YES, most likely a minority but YES.

Your opinion, which you're entitled to. Mine is that AMD doesn't have any high end CPU's so there is no "solid answer" just opinions. The one caveat being my opinion is backed up by actual performance figures.

 

[potzocalli]

Questions then should be, Do people still use AMD on a high end computer? Answer would be NO. buy an i5 or i7.

Do high end users use AMD instead of Intel......YES.

Would I use it to build a new high end computer. Not in the foreseable future, Intel holds dominance but only the future will tell (altough it does look grimy and dark for now).

 

[Essence_of_War]

The i7 is better than i5 not for HT but because of L3 cache; and it is a better binned chip for OC.

The latter is true, the former is sometimes true and sometimes not, and extremely sensitive to workload.

 

[2is]

Bro, do you even computer?

The i7 is better than i5 not for HT but because of L3 cache; and it is a better binned chip for OC.

Do some research on Intel extra L3 cache.

And, for the record, I ran the i7 with HT off for a year, if not longer, until I started playing less games and more internet browsing...

I still sometimes turn HT off for older games...

The extra 2MB of L3 cache (6 vs 8) is marginal in almost everything. HT, when used, isn't. Also, more cache = greater chance of cache being a limiting factor in OCing. More heat, more power consumption.

The fact that you haven't turned off HT permanently since day one is proof that you know it's more than just marketing. Other wise you'd leave it off and never turn it on. Why would you want additional power draw for the sake of marketing?

i7's aren't simply binned processors. They are a different die than i5. This aren't Phenom X3's where part of the processor are simply disabled. The logic for HT is simply not there for an i5, neither is the additional 2MB cache.

How many more contradictory posts will we see from you? Below is the sum of your posts in this thread

Praises FX8, owns i7
Says HT is marketing, uses HT
Says FX8 > Haswell i3, posts benchmarks showing Haswell i3 > FX8

Keep digging, this is entertaining.

 

[potzocalli]

Yet more irrelevancy. Now it just sounds like you're getting mad.



Your opinion, which you're entitled to. Mine is that AMD doesn't have any high end CPU's so there is no "solid answer" just opinions. The one caveat being my opinion is backed up by actual performance figures.

Not mad just messing with you . Love the way you grab our last comments and turn them against us using anything you might find. Just switched the tables a bit to see what you said.

A lot of things being irrelevant and not related to the topic's main idea but debatable so we will focus on that.

The first thing as I mentioned is to define "high end". A nice i5 or i7 is "high end" enough or does it have to be coupled with a nice videocard? ('cause an i7 with the integrated 4600 is not high en din my book), Does it need to have more than 4GB ram? Does it need to have Windows X64 or will X86 be considered high end?

If you buy an alienware top of the line PC but don't know your way around a keyboard are you a high end user or do you need to be able to make your own builds?

-If you don't overclock are you a high end user?

The list goes on.......

 

[2is]

AMD is so far behind the performance curve there's no reason to define "high end" if someone asks "is an i7 high end" then maybe you can ask that.

No one would call an i3 a high end CPU, so there's no need to qualify "high end" when talking about a company who does not even make a processor that cannot beat an i3 in the majority of work loads.

 

[Enigmoid]

Questions then should be, Do people still use AMD on a high end computer? Answer would be NO. buy an i5 or i7.

Do high end users use AMD instead of Intel......YES.

Sums everything up.

i7's aren't simply binned processors. They are a different die than i5. This aren't Phenom X3's where part of the processor are simply disabled. The logic for HT is simply not there for an i5, neither is the additional 2MB cache.

LOL talking about getting everything wrong. i7 and i5 are based on the same die. HT logic takes minimal die space. All i5 chips contain 2 MB deactivated L3 cache.

 

[potzocalli]

Oh my god! You made me recheck my post to see if I mentioned an i3 as high end. Fortunately I did not do so.

I dont believe Apple or Samsung chipsets can beat an i3. Guess those companies don't make high end products either .

 

[2is]

Oh my god! You made me recheck my post to see if I mentioned an i3 as high end. Fortunately I did not do so.

I dont believe Apple or Samsung chipsets can beat an i3. Guess those companies don't make high end products either .

I didn't say you said i3 is high end. I said since no one would claim an i3 is high end, you can't really label AMD as high end since they don't make anything that can beat an i3 in the majority of work loads. Apple doesn't make processors, they design them and Samsung manufactures them. They are ARM based processors for mobile devices. For their laptops and desktops, they use Intel processors. In other words, irrelevant, which seems to be pretty common today.

You seem to be mixing and matching prodcuts. We are talking about CPU's (this is a CPU forum). Not "apple and Samsung chipsets" not GPU's, not Rolex watches, but processors and it's pretty evident we are discussing a specific subset of processors, that being x86

Sums everything up.



LOL talking about getting everything wrong. i7 and i5 are based on the same die. HT logic takes minimal die space. All i5 chips contain 2 MB deactivated L3 cache.

So I was wrong about the cache and right about HT

 

[ShintaiDK]

Oh my god! You made me recheck my post to see if I mentioned an i3 as high end. Fortunately I did not do so.

I dont believe Apple or Samsung chipsets can beat an i3. Guess those companies don't make high end products either .

Highend depends on the segment competition. And AMD is not highend in any way. At best you can call it mainstream.

 

[TeknoBug]

The extra 2MB of L3 cache (6 vs 8) is marginal in almost everything. HT, when used, isn't. Also, more cache = greater chance of cache being a limiting factor in OCing. More heat, more power consumption.

Maybe it has something to do with my silicon lottery i7 3770K I had, but I didn't even see a difference in voltage or power draw with HT on and off, I was able to OC it to 4.2GHz on stock voltage and upped voltage +0.025v to 4.5GHz, was even able to set -0.115v offset at 4.2GHz fur summer months all with HT on.

 

[2is]

Maybe it has something to do with my silicon lottery i7 3770K I had, but I didn't even see a difference in voltage or power draw with HT on and off, I was able to OC it to 4.2GHz on stock voltage and upped voltage +0.025v to 4.5GHz, was even able to set -0.115v offset at 4.2GHz fur summer months all with HT on.

Maybe that or maybe HT has gotten more efficient over the years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hyper-threading-core-i7-980x,2584-9.html

I have a 2600k and a 3770k may do some test myself with a kill-a-watt

 

[B-Riz]

The extra 2MB of L3 cache (6 vs 8) is marginal in almost everything. HT, when used, isn't. Also, more cache = greater chance of cache being a limiting factor in OCing. More heat, more power consumption.

The fact that you haven't turned off HT permanently since day one is proof that you know it's more than just marketing. Other wise you'd leave it off and never turn it on. Why would you want additional power draw for the sake of marketing?

i7's aren't simply binned processors. They are a different die than i5. This aren't Phenom X3's where part of the processor are simply disabled. The logic for HT is simply not there for an i5, neither is the additional 2MB cache.

How many more contradictory posts will we see from you? Below is the sum of your posts in this thread

Praises FX8, owns i7
Says HT is marketing, uses HT
Says FX8 > Haswell i3, posts benchmarks showing Haswell i3 > FX8

Keep digging, this is entertaining.

Many consumer Intel chips are the ones that could not validate for server duty, test them until they slot in somewhere, gotta make something off the finished chip.

FX8 is great for the money, whether you can admit it or not.

Yeah, I'm really going to buy that i3 for running / testing VM's, heavy dev work...

If I did not have the budget or access for a Micro Center i7 or i5 combo, I would be running an FX8 in the sig. (I got the 2700k on deep discount after the 3770k came out.)

Buying an i7 1155 / 1150 because it has HT is meh, it is nice, but not a good enough reason for me; and I do turn it off when wanting to hit higher OC's.

Besides if one truly needs threads, get a used server chip or an old dual socket 1366 Xeon system.

 

[Enigmoid]

So I was wrong about the cache and right about HT

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. I meant that the HT logic takes up very little space (couple % of core space) and all i5 dies contain the tiny amount of deactivated HT logic.

i5 without HT is just feature binning.

 

[2is]

Many consumer Intel chips are the ones that could not validate for server duty, test them until they slot in somewhere, gotta make something off the finished chip.

FX8 is great for the money, whether you can admit it or not.

Yeah, I'm really going to buy that i3 for running / testing VM's, heavy dev work...

You provided a link that had 62 different tests, you're now cherry picking a very specific task. If you're looking to run VM's yes an FX8 would be better than an i3 but hardly a "high end" setup. It's in fact just the opposite. It's the minimum you want for such a task. Then we get to mainstream tasks where the i3 is better at the vast majority of the time. Add to that MUCH lower power consumption and a very capable IGP and you've saved yourself some additional coin on the build as well as money every month after that, all while getting better performance.

So yeah if you're asking for the absolute cheapest way to build a capable VM box, by all means get an FX 8, that's hardly what was being asked though, not to mention it would hardly be a "high end" setup.

Let's also not pretend you know which processors passed what type of validation. Intel needs consumer processors. Even if they have 100% yields that all passed every validation test Intel put them through, they'd still have market segments with lower priced processors. Sounds to me like a feeble attempt to make people who don't know any better think they are somehow getting a defective chip. But I'm sure that wasn't your intent right?

 

[B-Riz]

You provided a link that had 62 different tests, you're now cherry picking a very specific task. If you're looking to run VM's yes an FX8 would be better than an i3 but hardly a "high end" setup. It's in fact just the opposite. It's the minimum you want for such a task. Then we get to mainstream tasks where the i3 is better at the vast majority of the time. Add to that MUCH lower power consumption and a very capable IGP and you've saved yourself some additional coin on the build as well as money every month after that, all while getting better performance.

So yeah if you're asking for the absolute cheapest way to build a capable VM box, by all means get an FX 8, that's hardly what was being asked though, not to mention it would hardly be a "high end" setup.

Let's also not pretend you know which processors passed what type of validation. Intel needs consumer processors. Even if they have 100% yields that all passed every validation test Intel put them through, they'd still have market segments with lower priced processors. Sounds to me like a feeble attempt to make people who don't know any better think they are somehow getting a defective chip. But I'm sure that wasn't your intent right?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=1197

I dunno, still would not buy an i3 over an 8320E.

Keep counting and splitting hairs.

i3 is janky and you cannot admit it.

Our corporate standard moved to i5-S's a while back, and I thank the maker they did.

Seriously, it's like you live in la la land.

Most of us here love all hardware, even the sad misfit toy's. (except P4, ugh)

And OP's question was answered long ago, but at a fail to themselves, they should have gotten the 2011 platform w/ 32 GB o RAM to be a multi-tasking god.

I am just egging you on because you love crapping on the FX8.