Lynnfield i5 or AMD 8320E?

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Lynnfield is an antique. The FX chips are merely classics. The FX8320e is definitely going to be the better performer out of those two options.

 

[B-Riz]

Eureka! Found a comparo with newer games.

A properly setup game should be CPU agnostic, see BF4.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=444

 

[B-Riz]

Even against Sandy Bridge, for the money, it works fine.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=552

 

[Makaveli]

Lynnfield is an antique. The FX chips are merely classics. The FX8320e is definitely going to be the better performer out of those two options.

I would take the lynnfield chip overclocked at 4Ghz over any of the FX chips.

The AMD chip will have a slight advantage on multithreaded apps but the intel chip should be faster at everything especially when overclocked.

Gen 1 i5/i7 still has higher ipc than the fx chips.

 

[Gikaseixas]

My older i7 860 @ 4.0 wasn't faster than my FX 8350 @ 4.6 overall
Some single threaded apps it could be faster but some it would trail and MT just forget about it, so overall the FX is a better chip compared to the i5 750.

If you can get it for $120 for both cpu and mobo, go for it

 

[SPBHM]

I would take the lynnfield chip overclocked at 4Ghz over any of the FX chips.

The AMD chip will have a slight advantage on multithreaded apps but the intel chip should be faster at everything especially when overclocked.

Gen 1 i5/i7 still has higher ipc than the fx chips.

I think a lot of 750s have a hard time going over 3.5GHz,
and I really dislike the idea of buying a new 1156 board at this point, even AM3+ is far less outdated, supporting sata III and with new motherboards easy to find.

also with the i5 you are comparing 4 vs 8 threads, and the single thread performance advantage is not as good as it is for sandy bridge and newer, I don't see this as an easy choice, I'm more inclined to think the 8320E is a better choice

 

[Abwx]

Techreport legacy comparisons display the i5 760 as about 50% of a FX8350 in MT tasks, on thoses tasks the FX has only 85% of its single thread perf/core, so even in ST the i5 is not that good.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Some other comparisons
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/191?vs=697

In games they perform pretty similar at stock. The i5 has a lot more overclocking headroom though. my i5-750 did 4.2 GHz, 50% overclock.

 

[AtenRa]

Some other comparisons
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/191?vs=697

In games they perform pretty similar at stock. The i5 has a lot more overclocking headroom though. my i5-750 did 4.2 GHz, 50% overclock.

FX8320E can go from its base 3.3GHz up to 5.0GHz+ if you are going to use the same cooling as the i5-750 to reach 4.0GHz+.

Also AM3+ newer boards like the MSI 970 Gaming and Asrock 990FX Fatal1ty offer way more features with USB-3, M2.0, 6-8 SATA-6 , 2x 16 PCIe ports, better audio etc etc.
Even the older AM3+ boards have more features than Socket 1156.

 

[jihe]

I had to look at post date to make sure this is not a necro thread.

 

[B-Riz]

I had to look at post date to make sure this is not a necro thread.

So some people may not want / need to spend the money on the Intel combo's at MC; the 8320E is actually pretty darn good for the money.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I would take the lynnfield chip overclocked at 4Ghz over any of the FX chips.

The AMD chip will have a slight advantage on multithreaded apps but the intel chip should be faster at everything especially when overclocked.

Gen 1 i5/i7 still has higher ipc than the fx chips.

Good luck getting a Lynnfield clocked that high. They were pretty modest overclockers and most people could only get them to run between 3.4 Ghz to 3.6 Ghz. The FX usually performs between a Sandy and Ivy, more like an Ivy when overclocked. Lynnfield is an antique.... 1156 boards are crapping out all the time nowadays and you can't buy them new anymore. It's just a poor platform to invest in for 2015. At least brand new AM3+ motherboards will be available for quite some time.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/109?vs=1402

The 8320E ties it in single thread, and kills it in multi-thread.

 

[Makaveli]

The FX usually performs between a Sandy and Ivy, more like an Ivy when overclocked.

You sure about that the FX chips will lose to an overclocked nelahem chip and so how can it be = to Ivy when overclocked?

I think a lot of 750s have a hard time going over 3.5GHz,

I've seen this also in the past but people I know with this problem were overclocking on cheap boards with crap PSUs. I knew quite a few people that hit 4Ghz on lynnfield easily with quality components and cooling.


I've not looked at the numbers recently but based on what everyone has posted the single threaded gap isn't as large as I thought. FX has the advantage in multi.

If you can find a used 1156 board for cheap I would still stick with it.

if not the AMD combo isn't a bad deal.

 

[Deders]

They were pretty modest overclockers and most people could only get them to run between 3.4 Ghz to 3.6 Ghz.

From my experience my 3.8GHz (35%) overclock is quite mild for Lynnfield, most people I saw had it running at 4GHz or above. I expect I could run my chip faster but i have yet to see the need considering the huge amount of extra power draw it would need.

At 3.8GHz the i5 would have 159% single thread performance (compared to stock 8350) but I expect then FX would have faster extension throughput, beating even the overclock.

That being said the AMD setup will mean better upgrade potential.

 

[Yuriman]

That being said the AMD setup will mean better upgrade potential.

Sortof. AMD's platform is definitely more modern, but there are some very nice quad core Xeon's that would be drop-in replacements for the i5, and (overclocked) would almost certainly outperform any AM3 chip, FX-9xxx included.

That said, given the choice between the two platforms I'd probably still have picked the FX for power consumption and modern connectivity reasons.

 

[Abwx]

At 3.8GHz the i5 would have 159% single thread performance (compared to stock 8350)

To summarize this old i5 has better clock/clock perf than an Haswell...

 

[Makaveli]

Sortof. AMD's platform is definitely more modern, but there are some very nice quad core Xeon's that would be drop-in replacements for the i5, and (overclocked) would almost certainly outperform any AM3 chip, FX-9xxx included.

That said, given the choice between the two platforms I'd probably still have picked the FX for power consumption and modern connectivity reasons.

That AMD FX chip uses less power than the Gen 1 i5?

 

[Deders]

To summarize this old i5 has better clock/clock perf than an Haswell...

Not saying clock for clock, if the FX@4GHz Single thread performance is 85% of the i5@2.8GHz, then the i5 at stock has 117% of the FX (ST)

If you add 35% to that clockspeed then the equivalent difference would be close to 160%, or 60% over the FX.

Even if you overclock the FX to 5GHz, the 3.8GHz i5 will be 28% faster in single core apps.

Sortof. AMD's platform is definitely more modern, but there are some very nice quad core Xeon's that would be drop-in replacements for the i5, and (overclocked) would almost certainly outperform any AM3 chip, FX-9xxx included.

That said, given the choice between the two platforms I'd probably still have picked the FX for power consumption and modern connectivity reasons.

Can you get 1156 Xeon's? I'd also think Lynnfield consumes less power generally than these FX chips, even when overclocked. Granted the chip in question is a 95W model.

 

[Yuriman]

Yeah, there are both i7's and 4c8t Xeons available on 1156, AFAIK.

 

[Deders]

I think this is the highest Xeon you can get for 1156 and it looks like it's 2010 gen :/

http://ark.intel.com/products/48501

 

[Abwx]

Not saying clock for clock, if the FX@4GHz Single thread performance is 85% of the i5@2.8GHz, then the i5 at stock has 117% of the FX (ST)

If you add 35% to that clockspeed then the equivalent difference would be close to 160%, or 60% over the FX.

Even if you overclock the FX to 5GHz, the 3.8GHz i5 will be 28% faster in single core apps.
.

Well, there s a 3.2/3.46 turbo on the 750/760, that s not little values in %age, not counting that CB R10 or even 11.5 are quite favourable cases, in Integer tasks the difference is much smaller, just look at the 7 ZIP score since the FXE work at 3.2, it has almost double the score despite 15% penalty on its base ST perf...

 

[Deders]

Well, there s a 3.2/3.46 turbo on the 750/760, that s not little values in %age, not counting that CB R10 or even 11.5 are quite favourable cases, in Integer tasks the difference is much smaller, just look at the 7 ZIP score since the FXE work at 3.2, it has almost double the score despite 15% penalty on its base ST perf...

The only single threaded benchmark in that list is the first one (Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded Benchmark) All the others can use multiple threads. Also like I said before the FX does have the advantage with SIMD's, SSE and the like which will help things like 7zip massively. It will also give an advantage in some games with certain features. Arkham City with Hardware PhysX for instance.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You sure about that the FX chips will lose to an overclocked nelahem chip and so how can it be = to Ivy when overclocked?

Highly Unlikely.... But at stock clocks a Nehalem is slower than an FX-8320E in the majority of measurable tasks. The fastest 1156 Core i7 would be the i7 880 which is good for a single-threaded score of 1334 and overall passmark score of 5730. The OP mentioned the FX-8320E which is slightly faster with a single-threaded score of 1346 and a much higher overall passmark score of 7421. A Nahalem would get waxed in virtually any scenario by an FX-8320E -- and by an incredibly large margin in Multi-threaded applications. To reiterate, FX chips are closest to Sandys and occasionally get close to Ivy when overclocked. On top of that, Nelahems are 45 nm chips -- once you start overclocking that generation, the power consumption gets absolutely ridiculous. It's flat out not worth it -- you still would get more performance out of something like Devil's Canyon while using about 30% of the electricity. Even the FX chips look power thrifty compared to Intel's 45 nm stuff.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+880+@+3.07GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8320E+Eight-Core

 

[Madpacket]

FX is a better choice at this point. Finding 1156 motherboard's is a pain and they don't have the connectivity of the new FX boards as already stated. Plus the extra threads and virtualizaton capabilities will likely be of greater use down the road.