Picked up an 8350 for $140 on BF. Great timing for me since my old rig had just bitten it in a power surge.
Always been an AMD fan for the value. No $140 Intel chip is gonna beat that for overall performance.
Hold on there, unless the i5 4440 is now 229$ as you claimed in your compare to a 110$ 8320$. Also I dont know where you got 110$ from since its 120$ at newegg. Not to mention the i5 4690K is 210$. Yet more made up nonsense from your part.
It depends on how a person defines "overall." With 3 fully loaded threads or less, the i3-4150 will likely have more total throughput because of its much faster cores. The 8350 is only a clear winner with more than 4 fully loaded threads, a situation that may be becoming more common in current AAA titles, but isn't quite yet the rule....No $140 Intel chip is gonna beat that for overall performance.
Picked up an 8350 for $140 on BF. Great timing for me since my old rig had just bitten it in a power surge.
Always been an AMD fan for the value. No $140 Intel chip is gonna beat that for overall performance.
Except for the fact that almost any i3-4xxx cpu will beat it in almost all AAA games released within the past few years.
Except for the fact that almost any i3-4xxx cpu will beat it in almost all AAA games released within the past few years.
LOL. "Nope" and yet your own chart shows a $130 i3-4360 neck & neck with a $240 FX-9590. You sure you meant to post that one?... :biggrin:Nope:
Yeah, but it doesn't necessarily beat it, which is the point I guess. Now stop and consider that a lowly 8320E can probably OC to 4.7-4.8 ghz with the same cooling as a 9590 would require for stock speeds for about the same performance, and *gasp* now you've got a much cheaper processor beating the ~$130 i3 in the one area where an i3 is supposed to be victorious - games.
Downside to the FX is that it costs more to cool and power it, and you'll spend more on the board. The i3 will do okay with lame DDR3-1600 and a cheap non-OC board. For the FX, you want 8+2 power and DDR3-2133 if you can swing it, which can be more expensive unless you shop very carefully.
It's like I said earlier in the thread: the i3 just works, no muss no fuss. FX requires an investment of time to tweak and tune it to the point where it's a competitive market solution.
Wow, look how close the i3-4360 comes to the flagship AMD part...
Yeah, but it doesn't necessarily beat it, which is the point I guess. Now stop and consider that a lowly 8320E can probably OC to 4.7-4.8 ghz with the same cooling as a 9590 would require for stock speeds for about the same performance, and *gasp* now you've got a much cheaper processor beating the ~$130 i3 in the one area where an i3 is supposed to be victorious - games.
Downside to the FX is that it costs more to cool and power it, and you'll spend more on the board. The i3 will do okay with lame DDR3-1600 and a cheap non-OC board. For the FX, you want 8+2 power and DDR3-2133 if you can swing it, which can be more expensive unless you shop very carefully.
It's like I said earlier in the thread: the i3 just works, no muss no fuss. FX requires an investment of time to tweak and tune it to the point where it's a competitive market solution.
So it will overall come out more expensive than the i3, yet we compare it to the i3?
That makes sense...
LOL. "Nope" and yet your own chart shows a $130 i3-4360 neck & neck with a $240 FX-9590. You sure you meant to post that one?... :biggrin:
Except for the fact that almost any i3-4xxx cpu will beat it in almost all AAA games released within the past few years.
Always been an AMD fan for the value. No $140 Intel chip is gonna beat that for overall performance.
Considering the title of thread (gaming), I thought my 23 gaming benchmarks on page 1 were more useful than some obscure "Rodinia" solver.Would you kindly calculate overall performance difference between fx8350 and i3-4130 based on those benchmarks:i3?
Considering the title of thread (gaming), I thought my 23 gaming benchmarks on page 1 were more useful than some obscure "Rodinia" solver.
Why do you compare SLI with non SLI?
I took Watchdog as exemple in your link :
What you choose to ignore is that every intel cpu manages a rock steady 100 fps minimum + avarage while even the 9370 at 4,7ghz drops to 98(now that's some BBB cpu's ) .720p with a 780Ti, and he pointed in his post that these are AAA games, lol, at BBB- definitions...
And ignored most of the other 22. About par for the course...
I took Watchdog as exemple in your link :
And now at Hardware.fr cores scaling tests.
The simulated i5 (a 4770K with HT disabled), at 3.5GHz and 66.8 FPS, is 10% faster than the 8350, how is it that the difference is 30% in your graph with a 3.4 4670K.???.
Notice the i3 is at 56.4 Fps while in your graph it ties the 8350...
Is the rest of the benches you picked of the same barrel..?.
So almost any is now the same as "top SKU" and not beat it, but barely match it in games.
Would you kindly calculate overall performance difference between fx8350 and i3-4130 based on those benchmarks:
.... and so on...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_corei3_4130&num=1
Cause I wonder if 8350 is 1.5 or maybe closer to 2.0 faster than any i3?
So it will overall come out more expensive than the i3, yet we compare it to the i3?
That makes sense...
Wasn't my idea. People keep trying to push the idea that an i3 is better for games than an FX in terms of raw performance. Maybe if you put an i3 on a z97 board and tried overclocking it with bclk straps you could whip the FX with it (do the bclk straps even work for locked CPUs?), but otherwise . . . nah. FX @ 4.8 ghz with DDR3-2000+ is probably going to beat an i3 @ stock with DDR3-1333/1600. In non-gaming apps, the FX will run away.
Cost doesn't come up until people notice that the FX would actually be faster (or at least just as fast) with some elbow grease. And as has already been mentioned, if you're smart, you can cheap out on some components and get away with it. Those 970-ud3p boards are starting to sell for real cheap, there was an 8320E for $119 or so somewhere (I forget where), and DDR3 prices are creeping downward at all speeds DDR3-2400 and below. That just leaves cooling, so you're going to pay some extra there (at least for a 212 Evo), whereas the i3 gets by just fine with the stock cooler.
With the FX you'll need to spend more on a power supply and case fans too. You can probably get away with ~350 watts for a GTX980 + i3, but I wouldn't try that with an overclocked FX. An extra cooler + power supply and you're not in the same price bracket anymore.
Depends on what you mean by non-gaming apps. Compression, encoding sure. Day to day end user tasks however are still largely reliant on single threaded performance where the i3 would run away from FX