Lynnfield i5 or AMD 8320E?

[Deders]

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

Never really found passmark to be that reliable for comparing processors myself. My Quad 3.8GHz i5 beats the 6 core 4.5GHz FX6300 in Sandra. 84.62GIPS to 80.2GIPS.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Never really found passmark to be that reliable for comparing processors myself. My Quad 3.8GHz i5 beats the 6 core 4.5GHz FX6300 in Sandra. 84.62GIPS to 80.2GIPS.

Yet I found Sandra to be highly biased towards Intel architecture. Passmark is spot on for evaluating machines for scientific computing on the World Community Grid -- which is how I've used it.

 

[Makaveli]

A Nahalem would get waxed in virtually any scenario by an FX-8320E -- and by an incredibly large margin in Multi-threaded applications.

You have any numbers to show an overclocked Nehalem chip getting "waxed" by an overclocked FX that is not a synthetic benchmark?

Older review but look at the numbers in this.

It has a FX overclocked to 4.8 and a 920 at 4 ghz.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/3

 

[AtenRa]

You have any numbers to show an overclocked Nehalem chip getting "waxed" by an overclocked FX that is not a synthetic benchmark?

Older review but look at the numbers in this.

It has a FX overclocked to 4.8 and a 920 at 4 ghz.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/3

I dont want to imply bias or anything like that but the overall score for the Multithreaded and Multi-Tasking applications in page 4 is broken or the applications are not using all cores.

For example, Dual Core Pentium G3258 at 4.8GHz cannot possible be faster than Core i7 920 @ 4GHz in Multithreaded and multitasking. No way in hell.

Also A10-6800 cannot be faster than a 6-Core Phenom II in those tasks, its impossible.

edit: Hell, in Gimp Pentium G3258 is faster than a 6-core Core i7 3930K. Gimp only using a single thread ??

 

[Makaveli]

I dont want to imply bias or anything like that but the overall score for the Multithreaded and Multi-Tasking applications in page 4 is broken or the applications are not using all cores.

For example, Dual Core Pentium G3258 at 4.8GHz cannot possible be faster than Core i7 920 @ 4GHz in Multithreaded and multitasking. No way in hell.

Also A10-6800 cannot be faster than a 6-Core Phenom II in those tasks, its impossible.

edit: Hell, in Gimp Pentium G3258 is faster than a 6-core Core i7 3930K. Gimp only using a single thread ??

ok lets say you are right and we skip those multi apps where the FX chip should be faster anyways what about the rest?

I will see if I can find another site that has overclocked number for Gen 1 i7 vs FX.

 

[AtenRa]

ok lets say you are right and we skip those multi apps where the FX chip should be faster anyways what about the rest?

I will see if I can find another site that has overclocked number for Gen 1 i7 vs FX.

Well i dont know what apps you are looking for guys, but a 4GHz Core i7 920 is very fast even for todays standards. But an FX83xx at 4.8GHz should be faster in the vast majority of apps that can use 8 threads.

In games things change, older games favor the 920 while newer games will favor the FX

 

[Makaveli]

vast majority of apps that can use 8 threads.

There isn't a vast majority of consumer level apps that use 8 threads!

In games things change, older games favor the 920 while newer games will favor the FX

Most games are gpu bound aslong as you have a quad and I will have to look to see if I can find cpu numbers from newer games.

 

[Abwx]

You have any numbers to show an overclocked Nehalem chip getting "waxed" by an overclocked FX that is not a synthetic benchmark?

Older review but look at the numbers in this.

It has a FX overclocked to 4.8 and a 920 at 4 ghz.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/3

This is a typicaly biaised site..

Can you find me another review where the 2600K does 7.49 at stock on Cinebench 11.5..??..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/6

Indeed their video encoding test is ridiculously biaised at will, there s no way a 2500k can be faster than an FX8350 in such a task unless it s highly Intel optimised, and AMD unoptimised at the same time like Techreport s "updated" encoding bench that is at odd with their own Handbrake test...

The i7 9xx are missing in the graphs below but there s an i7 875K that is comparable in perf/Mhz :

http://techreport.com/review/27018/intel-xeon-e5-2687w-v3-processor-reviewed/8

And as said only in a soft that is highly Intel optimised, Euler3D, you will see such fishy figures as in Bit-Tech...

 

[Makaveli]

This is a typicaly biaised site..

Can you find me another review where the 2600K does 7.49 at stock on Cinebench 11.5..??..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/6

Indeed their video encoding test is ridiculously biaised at will, there s no way a 2500k can be faster than an FX8350 in such a task unless it s highly Intel optimised, and AMD unoptimised at the same time like Techreport s "updated" encoding bench that is at odd with their own Handbrake test...

The i7 9xx are missing in the graphs below but there s an i7 875K that is comparable in perf/Mhz :

http://techreport.com/review/27018/intel-xeon-e5-2687w-v3-processor-reviewed/8

And as said only in a soft that is highly Intel optimised, Euler3D, you will see such fishy figures as in Bit-Tech...

I think we will have to get some numbers from members on this forum to end this debate.

 

[Deders]

I dont want to imply bias or anything like that but the overall score for the Multithreaded and Multi-Tasking applications in page 4 is broken or the applications are not using all cores.

For example, Dual Core Pentium G3258 at 4.8GHz cannot possible be faster than Core i7 920 @ 4GHz in Multithreaded and multitasking. No way in hell.

It isn't. If you look at the graph, the dark blue bars are for stock speeds (2.66 and 3.2GHz) and the light blue bars are for overclocked where @4GHz the i7 is quite a bit faster than the pentium at 4.8GHz.

 

[AtenRa]

There isn't a vast majority of consumer level apps that use 8 threads!

No i mean the vast majority of those apps that can use 8 threads, not that the vast majority of apps use 8 threads.

 

[AtenRa]

It isn't. If you look at the graph, the dark blue bars are for stock speeds (2.66 and 3.2GHz) and the light blue bars are for overclocked where @4GHz the i7 is quite a bit faster than the pentium at 4.8GHz.

If you look in page 4 the Overall Score graph, Pentium G3258 is faster both at stock and OC vs the Core i7 920.

 

[AtenRa]

I think we will have to get some numbers from members on this forum to end this debate.

Your own graphs

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241712

 

[ElFenix]

This thread is well out into left field

 

[B-Riz]

Guys, just use the AT bench numbers, I already posted them on page 2...

 

[AtenRa]

AT bench doesnt have Overclocked results.

 

[SPBHM]

the 52 CPUs test from PClab had overclock and a few Nehalem and Vishera
http://pclab.pl/art50000-80.html

 

[Makaveli]

the 52 CPUs test from PClab had overclock and a few Nehalem and Vishera
http://pclab.pl/art50000-80.html

Those are just rendering benchmarks.

I already said before the FX chip will be faster at heavy threaded loads lol yet everyone keeps posting cinebench numbers.

i'm looking for numbers for average workloads.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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

Those gaming benchmarks are pretty much useless because they are using onlu a gtx 770. seems like the 990x is clearly faster in most apps.

 

[SPBHM]

Those are just rendering benchmarks.

I already said before the FX chip will be faster at heavy threaded loads lol yet everyone keeps posting cinebench numbers.

i'm looking for numbers for average workloads.

check the link, they tested a lot of games and other programs.

 

[perdomot]

Glad I found this thread as I am in the same situation except my cpu is the i5-760. I was thinking of getting an Intel 4590 but the techreport article makes me think the 8320E would be a better choice. Not a gamer and the most intense thing I do is encode video for my phone. Is there a good mobo to go with this cpu that has the aforementioned newer tech at a good price? Thanks.

 

[AtenRa]

Glad I found this thread as I am in the same situation except my cpu is the i5-760. I was thinking of getting an Intel 4590 but the techreport article makes me think the 8320E would be a better choice. Not a gamer and the most intense thing I do is encode video for my phone. Is there a good mobo to go with this cpu that has the aforementioned newer tech at a good price? Thanks.

http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Fatal1ty-970-Performance-Motherboard/dp/B00QTP221K

or if you want a Micro-ATX (yea almost 3 years after the Bulldozer release)

http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-970M-P...UTF8&qid=1430248276&sr=8-1&keywords=970M+Pro3

 

[perdomot]

http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Fatal1ty-970-Performance-Motherboard/dp/B00QTP221K

or if you want a Micro-ATX (yea almost 3 years after the Bulldozer release)

http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-970M-P...UTF8&qid=1430248276&sr=8-1&keywords=970M+Pro3

Thanks. I was checking the 990FX Fatal1ty board on Newegg as well. Had good look with Asrock so far. Is there a big difference in the chipsets?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Glad I found this thread as I am in the same situation except my cpu is the i5-760. I was thinking of getting an Intel 4590 but the techreport article makes me think the 8320E would be a better choice. Not a gamer and the most intense thing I do is encode video for my phone. Is there a good mobo to go with this cpu that has the aforementioned newer tech at a good price? Thanks.

If you don't game and you don't do much compute intense stuff, why even get a new computer?

 

[Makaveli]

If you don't game and you don't do much compute intense stuff, why even get a new computer?

^^^^this

what you are looking at will be a sidegrade.

And if your budget supports it you are better off going straight to a Haswell Quad.