i7 4790 vs fx-8350

[crashtech]

Microsoft released a patch for that.

Tell MiddleOfTheRoad. It is he that made the assertion that Windows unfairly cripples FX chips.

 

[AtenRa]

Microsoft released a patch for that.

Even with the hot fix for Win 7, FX(more precisely CMT) is working much better in Win 8 and 8.1.

 

[Deders]

Unlike certain fanboys on this forum I don't sit around bench marking my computer to see a graph. My friend has a 4790 and we've both used each others computers in common everyday tasks and in gaming and we both can't see any difference at all between my stock 8350 and his stock 4790 period.

He's just being polite

Although I would be interested to see fair, recent benchmarks that accurately compare the two.

 

[Gs dewd]

I have 3 fx rigs and all 3 are under win7. All perform great. My main rig has a 8350 clocked at 4.4. It runs 100% load 24/7/365 (crunches) with no issues and I do all my daily task without and slowdowns. I also game and the thing takes whatever I throw at it with ease. So op chose whatever fits your budget. With my budget I was able to build 3x FX8xxx rigs to go with my i7 920 and 1090t. but you may have a bigger budget.

 

[TStep]

I am coming from the dark ages of C2D 6300 on an Abit mobo so its been a a while. I set my budget at $200 for the mobo plus cpu. Intend on overclocking, so new was essentially FX series or Haswell G3258 w/ mobo $100 combo as Intel i5k or i7k was too expensive. I opted for a used Sandy Bridge combo.instead. Took a week of searching, but found an i7 2600k w/ P67 mobo for $200. Figured it was 90-95% clock for clock with Haswell, not too much worse on power consumption, and with a mild overclock of 4.0-4.2 it'll be as fast as nearly anything out there regardless of application. Just my take on economy vs speed.

 

[eton975]

You know, I'd actually be interested in someone doing a comparison between Intel and AMD CPUs, on programs known to use the ICC compiler. Then, use the Intel Compiler Patcher on the programs, and test again.

Just to finally put an end to the fanboyism.

Also, I'd like to see a comparison between a Phenom II X6 and a FX-6300.

 

[Fayd]

I thought the FX line up did pretty well in VM benchmarks I've seen. I'm not someone who has 15 virtual machines going at once under load, so I didn't pay a ton of attention. But from what I remember, I thought AMD's FX CPU's were pretty solid performers there... maybe not?

they are. best thing about AMD is they have hardware accelerated virtualization on every chip, right down to the C series. but you're comparing a midrange amd CPU to a flagship intel CPU, which is significantly stronger in almost all benchmarks.

I love AMD's (my current rig is an 8350.. free upgrade from AMD when my 8320 went borked). but it's not a comparison.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Microsoft released a patch for that.

The Bulldozer patch for Windows 7 isn't worth spit.
As Tom Reported (and I have also observed):

"Minimal Gains"

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119.html

An FX-8350 can run with an i7 3770K (and outpace it in several tasks) under an operating system that can efficiently feed the FX cores (Linux):

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1

An FX is well suited for Virtual Machines -- although the i7 4790 would be preferred if you could afford it (due to lower power consumption and
higher performance).

I noticed the FX performance jump when I moved my FX-8320 from Windows 7 to Ubuntu for the World Community Grid:
Under Windows 7 = The FX-8320 Benchmarked at 1621 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU / 5947 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
Under Ubuntu 14.04 = The FX-8320 Benchmarked at 2510 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU / 11344 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

That's a pretty massive jump in performance -- and the only thing that changed was the OS (Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit to Ubuntu 14.04 64 Bit).
I've always left my FX-8320 at stock clock at 3.5 Ghz since I'm running the basic air cooler.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Even with the hot fix for Win 7, FX(more precisely CMT) is working much better in Win 8 and 8.1.

I've heard that too -- I'd love to see someone benchmark that to see how much better an AMD CPU runs (Windows 7 Vs Windows 8).

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Tell MiddleOfTheRoad. It is he that made the assertion that Windows unfairly cripples FX chips.

Windows 7 specifically. I know I observed a huge performance jump when I migrated my FX cpu's from Win 7 to Ubuntu. I hear the FX CPU's perform considerably better under Windows 8.... But I haven't personally tested that OS yet.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Let's see some benchmarks on win 7 vs win 8 then, not hearsay. The only data I could find on quick examination was an old article from Tom's hardware using an 8150 which showed minimal gains moving from win 7 to win 8.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Let's see some benchmarks on win 7 vs win 8 then, not hearsay. The only data I could find on quick examination was an old article from Tom's hardware using an 8150 which showed minimal gains moving from win 7 to win 8.

True.

I'm personally curious about Steam under Linux. Does anybody have an FX with an Nvidia card (Radeon OpenGL drivers kinda suck, so I'd figure that would be a waste of time to benchmark) that could compare Steam performance in Windows 7 to Ubuntu? I'd bet that Gamers would get a nice gain on a FX CPU if my experience on the World Community Grid is any indication. I'd test it -- but my FX is running a lame Radeon R7 240. Games do feel a little more responsive to me, but the Radeon drivers are buggy so I'm not really sure.