Do high end user use AMD instead of Intel?

[TeknoBug]

Running this chip at load 24/7 at 18p per kWh for a year would cost about £525 although you might be able to turn your heating down a bit. Should be consigned to history.

^ that was a comment I read on a FX 9590 + 990FX, holy christ. A 77W CPU won't generate that much even OC'd.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Can you be a high end user without high end hardware?

No. People can try, or pretend, or act like they are, but really . . . no.

So now the justification for FX8 is "I don't care if i3 performs better" gonna let you in on a secret. People do care about performance. I get that you don't though.

Whenever did I say that? If anything, I'm saying quite the opposite. Despite all the people flogging the i3's apparent benchmark supremacy over comparably-priced Vishera chips (which usually ignores Vishera overclocking, but that's another matter), very few forum posters here will actually dirty their hands by buying an i3. What that ought to tell you is that virtually nobody here who promotes the i3 actually believes what they are saying, at least not enough to follow through on their own recommendations and . . . you know, use one. For anything. Ever.

Except TeknoBug, and kudos to him. Apparently he actually *likes* the thing.

If ever a user wanders in here asking if an i3 is a good idea (without mentioning an AMD CPU), the quad-core police shows up and steers them towards an i5.

Here's reality: I think most of the users here know that they can (and will) load up the cores on an i3 often enough that it will be a drag on their overall user-experience. That's why the quad-core police exists in the first place. That doesn't mean that people who dodged an i3 and went for an i5 are/were candidates for FX. What it does mean is that anyone who knows what they are doing is rightly concerned about those scenarios where an i3 loses out to an i5 or (horrors) FX thanks to its shortage of physical cores. Add in the fact that a lot of i3s just cost too damn much for what they do (except maybe the 4160/4170), and it's a recipe for people not wanting to buy them for their own DIY enthusiast rigs . . . even budget ones.

 

[2is]

No. People can try, or pretend, or act like they are, but really . . . no.



Whenever did I say that? If anything, I'm saying quite the opposite. Despite all the people flogging the i3's apparent benchmark supremacy over comparably-priced Vishera chips (which usually ignores Vishera overclocking, but that's another matter), very few forum posters here will actually dirty their hands by buying an i3. What that ought to tell you is that virtually nobody here who promotes the i3 actually believes what they are saying, at least not enough to follow through on their own recommendations and . . . you know, use one. For anything. Ever.

Except TeknoBug, and kudos to him. Apparently he actually *likes* the thing.

If ever a user wanders in here asking if an i3 is a good idea (without mentioning an AMD CPU), the quad-core police shows up and steers them towards an i5.

Here's reality: I think most of the users here know that they can (and will) load up the cores on an i3 often enough that it will be a drag on their overall user-experience. That's why the quad-core police exists in the first place. That doesn't mean that people who dodged an i3 and went for an i5 are/were candidates for FX. What it does mean is that anyone who knows what they are doing is rightly concerned about those scenarios where an i3 loses out to an i5 or (horrors) FX thanks to its shortage of physical cores. Add in the fact that a lot of i3s just cost too damn much for what they do (except maybe the 4160/4170), and it's a recipe for people not wanting to buy them for their own DIY enthusiast rigs . . . even budget ones.

So you do care about performance but don't care about benchmarks... You do realize benchmarks are a measure of performance right, and the "girly" i3 beats up your "manly" FX8

Since you're interested in reality, here's some more. Users who load up their cores are also going to be running tasks that greatly benefit from single threaded performance.

And for some more painful reality, here's this... The reason you see more people here with FX8 than an i3 is quite simple. Enthusiasts who prefer Intel have much better options than the i3, so that's what they go with. Enthusiasts that prefer AMD, well... The slower FX8 is the best you got.

 

[amenx]

If you don't have a budget Intel is unmatched in the $2K plus range.

Also unmatched in the $500 to $200 range when you do have a budget.

edit: worse than I thought. This is AMDs top chip (fx-9590). They had to price it at around $229 to compete with Intels mid-range. And still it doesnt sell well. Even worse it will end up costing you way more than an Intel chip due its horrendous power draw:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/...the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/6

 

[Ramses]

I can't imagine less than four cores with even my apparently plebian workloads..

 

[Blitzvogel]

My electric bill didn't go down a bit when I went from 9590 xfire 280x to a 4790k with a single 290x. My user experience didn't change either other than some barely tangible ways that I liked my sabertooth 990fx more than the z97WS I have now. All I can go by is what my experience has been, I encourage others to do the same if they can afford to experiment a bit. Talk as they say, is cheap.

I wish I had the money to blow on random computer builds just to test the waters, but luckily the internet reviews stuff for us :whiste: This machine is my first computer build since 2010, and my first one ever with an Intel processor (I've had plenty of Intel laptops though).

Sure, not every user has the same experience. There are so many performance metrics out there. After doing some more research into the FX chips, I didn't realize they held there own so well versus Devil's Canyon i5s in GFLOPS centric tests, even winning some tests.. One particular instance of this that mattered specifically to me was Cyberlink Powerdirector, where the FX-8s do beat the i5-4690K when not using any GPU acceleration. However, in so many tests, FX gets stomped due to mediocre single thread and non-GFLOPS centric performance tests. FX either wins by an inch or gets curb-stomped. A simple OC-on-air to a K-model i5 is generally enough to beat the FX in those few cases where it's necessary. And, I don't feel the FX would be as reliable since it has to run so fast and hot to stay in the game, which could mean paying extra for aftermarket cooling. I'm not sure when I'll build another computer, so I don't need a dead CPU in three years. The cooler that came in the 4690K box has done the job and my case has ample airflow.

In the end it came down to wanting both excellent single thread/core performance, as well as multithread and multitask performance that I knew wouldn't let me down. Game recording and streaming was going to be a big deal so having the ability to run newer games and having the extra grunt to run either MSI Afterburner or Open Broadcast System in the background at varying rates of encoding was beyond crucial too. Another major part of my decision was the great deal I got from Microcenter. I paid about $280 (yes, that's after tax) for my 4690K + Asrock H97M Mobo. My experience with Cyberdirector has been nothing but great since I use GPU acceleration and separate drives.

TL;DR version: I wasn't confident in FX being up to snuff for my needs and expectations. I wish it was because I don't want to see AMD go out of business.

 

[AtenRa]

Can you be a high end user without high end hardware?

High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 1400/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

 

[escrow4]

I used to recommend i3s but now I only recommend i5s for desktop. You don't want compromises for a day to day box. Myself, I bought a 4770 for this porn box. Sure I didn't need a 4770 non K for xvideos or for office but neither will I ever have to upgrade until something dies/gives out. A year and a half later and its still up to snuff.

 

[2is]

I think we're all aware of the combinations. But is it really high end when paired up with a CPU that is usually underperforming an i3?

Take brand out of the equation. If someone said I built a high end machine and all you knew about the CPU was that it's typically slower than an i3, "high end" isn't what comes to mind.

 

[Ramses]

I don't have any problem with someone buying intel, especially if they got a good deal since I'm a cheap-ass.
Hell I run an Intel box now, and will till something better comes along which at the rate things are going will be in like, five years... lol.


I also don't think ill of anyone that can't build three computers to see how they run, but I really wish everyone could. I like benchmarks as much as the next guy, but once everything started happening pretty much instantly and all the games I play (which I'll be the first to admit are not a lot or bleeding edge) ran perfectly with all the settings maxed, benches lost some of their luster. It isn't that they are devalued as how else are you going to compare things, but when testing the top speed of five cars that all exceed 140mph, it matters less than if three of them could barely break 75mph for example. We are by and large long past the "not fast enough" stage for the most of us, even on a forum like this. For now anyway.

One does not buy a car solely on looks, or acceleration, or MPG, or any one trait(usually). I don't see why a CPU is any different, and in fact it's not any different to me. I'd not buy a Camry even though it's a perfectly fine car and no doubt excels in a number of ways, it's just.. Not interesting. An i3 or i5 even is a Camry or Accord. Perfectly good, excellent even, sensible, reasonable, proven things that are mighty, mighty boring.

The intangible is much more interesting and elusive, the FX is interesting, as was the i7 because they are both the best their respective manufacturers could manage(more or less), and the FX more so because it was the underdog, it was supposed to run crazy hot, use lots of power, etc, etc, etc, and it was cheaper which was icing. I really enjoyed the things and would buy another if my i7 box exploded or something silly. It bugs me to hear folks saying they are useless garbage when they have served me so well, and that's why I keep clicking on these threads. And I assume why these threads are still happening years after the FX was old and out of date. If folks really wanted to see the thing go away they'd quit talking about them. I've talked about my observations and experience with a few people that were on the fence about FX boxes inside the last year because of these threads, and they have been happy when they went the FX way, and I made sure they were eyes wide about the ups and downs.

I get a lot more out of stuff like this than I do lists of benchmark scores http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user even though I'm only a casual non-MP gamer.

If I do anything anytime soon it's going to be build a SFF AMD box or go to an older gen Intel SMP rig. Because it's interesting.
Most things in life, fast or best is only a matter of money.
Intel stuff is faster, you'll not see me saying otherwise, only that AMD is "fast enough", which it is, and frequently cheaper. So may be an i3 or whatever, and I'm glad of it. While I miss having to build a new computer to run the latest version of windows every time it rolled out in a way, I'm appreciative of the fact that my PC gets faster with every version now instead of slower.

Interesting and/or satisfying however is much less easy to manage for me.
I really, really want to still be running quad Pentium Pro's and I'm just about convinced it's some conspiracy that makes it such that they are magically too slow to use now.

 

[escrow4]

High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 4K Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 3/5x Eyefinity Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 1440/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 1400/1600p Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + Titan
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x CrossFire R9 290/X
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + 2x SLI GTX980/70
High-End 1080p 120/144Hz Gamer with FX 8-core + Fury

BWAHAHAHAHAH. Can you say "bottle-neck"?

 

[Ramses]

BWAHAHAHAHAH. Can you say "bottle-neck"?

eh.. eventually. http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

[AtenRa]

I think we're all aware of the combinations. But is it really high end when paired up with a CPU that is usually underperforming an i3?

Take brand out of the equation. If someone said I built a high end machine and all you knew about the CPU was that it's typically slower than an i3, "high end" isn't what comes to mind.

So lets say you are a 4K Gamer with a Core i7 5960X + GTX980 and that makes you a High-End user because of the CPU.

But you are not a High-End user if you have an FX8320E Overclocked with Custom Water Cooling + 2x CF/SLI R9 290X/ GTX 980/Titan-X/Fury for a 4K Gaming ???

CPU alone doesnt make you a High-End user.

 

[escrow4]

So lets say you are a 4K Gamer with a Core i7 5960X + GTX980 and that makes you a High-End user because of the CPU.

But you are not a High-End user if you have an FX8320E Overclocked with Custom Water Cooling + 2x CF/SLI R9 290X/ GTX 980/Titan-X/Fury for a 4K Gaming ???

CPU alone doesnt make you a High-End user.

I wouldn't say a 5960X + 980 is high end. The 980 drags it down. And if you bought a 5960X for a $1K logically you'd get a Titan X for a matching $1K.

 

[AtenRa]

BWAHAHAHAHAH. Can you say "bottle-neck"?

yeap, you are GPU Bottleneck at 4K today :whiste:

 

[Ramses]

Much like the proverbial old man in the Viper or Corvette that never exceeds the speed limit or see's a track day, the hardware does not define the user. Folks often try to define themselves by way of their goods, but it's' really not the way it works. Unless one is selling said goods, then it totally does.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Because it's interesting.

You're goddamn right it is!

The Xbox had the best graphics set up between it, the PS2 and Gamecube, but the PS2's Emotion Engine was easily the most interesting and capable piece of silicon. It was the Cell BE of it's day, just stuck with performing T&L when it could've been doing more of THIS. I like to wonder what it would've been like with an extra Vector Unit or two, or even paired with a real GPU.

I'd love to grab me a dual-Pentium III system and run Crysis on it, just to say I did.

I also wish I had started PC gaming back in the late 90s, so I could've experienced the meteoric rise of clock speeds, and advancements in CPUs and GPUs. Luckily there are huge forum archives and documents at multiple sites to better understand things. Hell I wish I had been born much earlier than 1987 so I could've experienced the rise of home computers from the beginning.

I have a "fat" PS2 case waiting for me to fill it with PC goodness because I love the size, dimensions, and form factor of it. I even want to pair it with a 4:3 monitor to sort of recreate the feel I get seeing this kind of setup:

I also plan on getting my previous Phenom II x4 and Radeon 5850 system set back up just to see what it can do with GTA5 and some of the upcoming titles.

 

[2is]

So lets say you are a 4K Gamer with a Core i7 5960X + GTX980 and that makes you a High-End user because of the CPU.

But you are not a High-End user if you have an FX8320E Overclocked with Custom Water Cooling + 2x CF/SLI R9 290X/ GTX 980/Titan-X/Fury for a 4K Gaming ???

CPU alone doesnt make you a High-End user.

I focused on the CPU for a very simple reason. You already had high end GPU's listed. The weak link was the FX8 so that's what I called you out on. It's not high end just like an i3 isn't.

 

[AtenRa]

I focused on the CPU for a very simple reason. You already had high end GPU's listed. The weak link was the FX8 so that's what I called you out on. It's not high end just like an i3 isn't.

The question the OP asked is about High-End USERs using AMD CPUs or not, it was not if AMD CPUs are High-End.

Also, the weak link in 4K today is the GPU not the CPU. An FX 8-core is more than enough to drive CF/SLI high-end GPUs for 4K gaming. Even at 1080p 120/144Hz in modern 2013 games onwards, you are GPU limited and not CPU most of the time.

 

[Ramses]

You're goddamn right it is!

The Xbox had the best graphics set up between it, the PS2 and Gamecube, but the PS2's Emotion Engine was easily the most interesting and capable piece of silicon. It was the Cell BE of it's day, just stuck with performing T&L when it could've been doing more of THIS. I like to wonder what it would've been like with an extra Vector Unit or two, or even paired with a real GPU.

I'd love to grab me a dual-Pentium III system and run Crysis on it, just to say I did.

I also wish I had started PC gaming back in the late 90s, so I could've experienced the meteoric rise of clock speeds, and advancements in CPUs and GPUs. Luckily there are huge forum archives and documents at multiple sites to better understand things. Hell I wish I had been born much earlier than 1987 so I could've experienced the rise of home computers from the beginning.

I have a "fat" PS2 case waiting for me to fill it with PC goodness because I love the size, dimensions, and form factor of it. I even want to pair it with a 4:3 monitor to sort of recreate the feel I get seeing this kind of setup:

I also plan on getting my previous Phenom II x4 and Radeon 5850 system set back up just to see what it can do with GTA5 and some of the upcoming titles.

If I'd not grown up in the era where a couple hundred mhz would very well make the difference between a pleasant experience and being genuinely annoyed and tapping finger on trackball waiting for things to load, I might feel or prefer differently than I do. It was a fun time, new build with real, large, tangible gains in every respect yearly. It just isn't the way anymore. Benchmarks used to be something you ran for testing, on new hardware, etc. People go out of their way and seem to have made an actual thing out of just benchmarking now, which I think is a testament to how "fast enough" most things are currently. It's not that it's bad having so much speed and power so easily, but it's not nearly the hobby it was imo, computers. I often think that motherboard boxes tell the tale with what they advertise now, and even so much support for overclocking now that it's mainstream. It still makes me chuckle even though it was inevitable in retrospect.

I also think the push for 4K and such is a marketing tool as much as anything else, to give consumers a reason to buy new stuff when their existing stuff is likely still pretty decent.

I'd love to have some retro boxes setup still but I just literally have nowhere to put them right now. Maybe one day.

 

[2is]

The weak link is anywhere you want to shift the goal post to.

If you're wanting to build a high end machine you aren't going to pick an i3 much less one that an i3 outperforms.

 

[Ramses]

Oh that's just silly and petty. One slightly lower end part as long as it meets a certain minimum does not ruin an otherwise outstanding build.

 

[2is]

Oh that's just silly and petty. One slightly lower end part as long as it meets a certain minimum does not ruin an otherwise outstanding build.

No, what's silly is you were bashing the i3 and the "slightly" lower end part in question here is even slower most of the time. But now because it's AMD it's an "outstanding" build?

 

[Ramses]

What I said was otherwise outstanding, the otherwise was intended to indicate everything not the CPU.

The i3 is low end, Intel will tell you so. It may well be that it's performance, even as a low end part, is high enough that it's capable of handling high end tasks when coupled with good supporting systems. I'm assuming it is, since the FX is.

We live in a golden age of sorts, be of good cheer.

If Intel had not presented it as such I'd have not suggested the i3 favors ponys and picking daisies.

 

[AtenRa]

The weak link is anywhere you want to shift the goal post to.

That is exactly what you are doing. 4K Gamers are Hign-End users, 1440/1600p gamers are High-End users, Eyefinity and 120/144Hz gamers are High-End users. The CPU choice doesnt make them High-End users but the USE of expensive Ultra-high resolution gaming does.

Also, for all of those resolutions the Core i3 is not faster than a FX 8-core. Not to mention the FX 8-core will have better frametime performance.

If you're wanting to build a high end machine you aren't going to pick an i3 much less one that an i3 outperforms.

Again, we are talking about High-End USERs, not High-End systems.