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.
I'd give up some performance not to have a little girls CPU.
My thread usually is longer but this question is pretty simple. I been doing massive and I mean massive amount of research on both these companies and still have more to learn.
In general, can you guys give me a overview of the pro and con of the top CPU of each company. I want a CPU that will give me the maximum performance efficiency at the best possible price for my build. Even though I don't have a budget, I still want to save as much money as possible and avoid "overkill" or extra features that I don't need or ever use.
Thanks
i3 picks flowers and wants a pony.
All kidding aside, it's Intel all the way for performance in any apples to apples competition for gaming. There may be some programs that do better on AMD's high end but they don't seem to be as relevant to most people.
. . . if only they came in pink.
Seriously, who here isn't getting tired of reading about how much better an i3 is than an FX 83xx chip when very few "computer enthusiasts" actually seem to buy the darn things? At least we have some folks around here who have owned or do own FX chips. Who in here actually recommends an i3 for anything? Practically nobody. The quad-core brigade will show up and recommend an i5 for "a few dollars more".
I don't care what kind of benchmarks an i3 wins in a review. You know something is wrong with i3s when you can't get overclocking forum users to buy them for a daily driver/cheap box. Perhaps it is due to the high cost of i3s, and the fact that most people don't want to be saddled with a pair of HT cores in those scenarios when they falter?
Once you bring LGA2011 v3 into the picture, it's Intel all the way on everything. An overclocked 5820k can and will win every benchmark vs whatever 9590 you can throw at it, barring LN2/LHe runs (and even then . . .)
I dunno, still would not buy an i3 over an 8320E.
I3 base model low end. Either are plenty fast. My 4790k is functionally identical to my 8350, I'd buy the FX just because it sounds cooler lol... It's FXing serious remember. i3 picks flowers and wants a pony.
And an i3 has the possibility of beating the shit out of anything FX when you consider not all games are designed for 8 threads. I have a 4690K, and I must say, moving to it from a Phenom II x4 was shit-my-pants amazing.
That's the thing, you end up having to overclock the 8350 to equal or pass it and the 8350 at stock clock doesn't do what an i3 does at stock clock. An 8350 has to be at least 4.8GHz to match or beat a 3.6GHz i3. The Haswell i3 cores has some of the highest IPC on the CPU market, only a Pentium G3258 OC'd to 4.4GHz has a slightly faster IPC.
Of course the 8350 is a much better choice if you're video editing and encoding, 7zipping all day or streaming while gaming.
Maybe people in an "overclocking forum" dont recommend i3s because you can't *wait for it* overclock them???
DUH. Seriously, you can make a case for FX for gaming in newer, highly threaded games, and in highly multithreaded apps. But I dont think anyone but the most hardcore AMD fan is going to recommend an FX over an i3, a haswell pentuim, or even an AMD APU for a general use box (social apps, web surfing, light office tasks, etc), you know, what 90% of the people use their computers for. Not to mention you have to add a video card to the FX unless you want to use crappy motherboard graphics. But this is getting off topic, since the original question was about the high end user.
I would, I had an 8320 and 8320E, and now have an i3 4160 and I think the i3 is better overall in many ways.
I'm not going to tell another man what is important to him or what he might need to be happy but in my personal experience the last few years, one does not "have" to OC an 8350 to have acceptable performance, but it's nice that they can do so reliably and still have many cores worth of it. In my book, that is not only a better, but more importantly these days a much more interesting option. My takeaway from my own personal experience having multiple CPU's the last three years is that IPC is over-rated for what and how I use a PC. I had a not to dissimilar experience many years ago when I first opted for a pair of P2's instead of a single faster P3. Perhaps I'm just inclined to such for whatever reason, but it's been what makes me happy.
"Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?"
Well the answer to the OP question is YES, there are many high end users that use AMD instead of Intel. There are many High-End Gamers with High-End AMD/NVIDIA graphics cards using AMD CPUs.
High end users yes. High end PCs no.
Can you be a high end user without high end hardware?
. . . if only they came in pink.
Seriously, who here isn't getting tired of reading about how much better an i3 is than an FX 83xx chip when very few "computer enthusiasts" actually seem to buy the darn things? At least we have some folks around here who have owned or do own FX chips. Who in here actually recommends an i3 for anything? Practically nobody. The quad-core brigade will show up and recommend an i5 for "a few dollars more".
I don't care what kind of benchmarks an i3 wins in a review. You know something is wrong with i3s when you can't get overclocking forum users to buy them for a daily driver/cheap box. Perhaps it is due to the high cost of i3s, and the fact that most people don't want to be saddled with a pair of HT cores in those scenarios when they falter?
Once you bring LGA2011 v3 into the picture, it's Intel all the way on everything. An overclocked 5820k can and will win every benchmark vs whatever 9590 you can throw at it, barring LN2/LHe runs (and even then . . .)
Even AMD prefers Intel CPUs
Can you be a high end user without high end hardware?
The problem is that BD was a step down in real world per-core performance, enough to affect the performance of many games and programs. AMD had to cover that loss by ramping up the clock speeds, creating power draw and thermal issues, damning an already flawed product even more.
It makes me think of the complexities of something like an aircraft. Going from 2x wing mounted 30,000 lb thrust engines to 4x 20,000 lb thrust engines makes little sense when you figure in having to add more fuel lines, wiring, structure to support the new engine placement, increased likely total SFC, weight and drag of new engine placement, etc, etc, etc. I feel that this is essentially what AMD did, for very few real benefits (GFLOPS).
From a per-clock and technological perspective against Sandy Bridge, I do not see any advantages with BD architecture. If my view makes little sense, please prove me wrong. Traditionally I would say I'm an AMD fanboy, and I want to see them do well, but to hell with the four module FX line. I went i5 for my last build for a reason.