Jump to content



Photo

AMD's Vishera 8350 outclasses Intel's Core i7


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#16 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:11

I got my i5 3570K for 169 and I'm very happy with it!


#17 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 7
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:18

I've bought my Phenom x6 1090t a couple of years ago and it kicks ass to this day; most of the stuff i do don't stress it and even games behave very good in it (mostly because games this days are more GPU hungry than CPU). Also the price tag; much cheaper than a i7 or i5 (back then) and...



...real men use real cores!

#18 count0nz

count0nz

    A Geek4Hire

  • Joined: 09-October 01
  • Location: Auckland, NZ
  • OS: Windows 7 64Bit

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:37

This is my System running my FX-8350


#19 psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:45

i used to love AMD (still do in a way) but generally the intels are better. if you cant afford the intels AMD's offering is still quite good and at least you dont have to change ya motherboard everytime a new cpu comes out

#20 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:58

Yes an i7 probably is faster. I have no reason to doubt that.

BUT why do you need an i7. if you're a gamer, you're only throwing money out the window. the i7 isn't ging to give you increased game performance over an i5 or the Vishera, not today or for the next 5 years, CPU requirements in games have plateaued at a far lower level than the i7, and will stay there. there is no cpu intensive gaming technologies on the horizon. all the new taxing technologies coming to games, are all GPU or GPGPU stuff.

Meaning you can buy a high end AMD for cheaper or an i5 if yo must have intel, and save more money for things that will actually affect gameplay like an even better GPU or monitor or mouse or whatever.

the only people who have any need for the i7, is people doing heavy video editing and 3D rendering. i.e. long intensive CPU tasks like rendering that goes on for hours. then you can render in 20 instead of 21 hours.

#21 AnotherITguy

AnotherITguy

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: 'Merica
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional
  • Phone: Iphone 5C 16GB

Posted 16 January 2013 - 15:15

I hate to break this to the Intel lovers but, you do realize that AMD with far less resources is about keeping up with intel's billion dollar budget? Heck AMD doesn't have fabs for crying out loud, and oh and btw its funny how intel's tick tock stratergy has failed to leave AMD in the dust... think about it, AMD keeps up with intel for a better price.

#22 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:50

Meaning you can buy a high end AMD for cheaper or an i5 if yo must have intel, and save more money for things that will actually affect gameplay like an even better GPU or monitor or mouse or whatever.


Well, you could buy an i3 and still go toe to toe with AMD.

Plus, you'll probably make up the difference in price between an i5 and a comparable AMD processor in your electric bill.

I'm an AMD fan, I the last time I bought a processor I tried to come up with every excuse to get one, but with places like Microcenter selling i5s for $169 + $40 off any motherboard, it's hard to justify the current AMD lineup.

#23 AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:00

I hate to break this to the Intel lovers but, you do realize that AMD with far less resources is about keeping up with intel's billion dollar budget? Heck AMD doesn't have fabs for crying out loud, and oh and btw its funny how intel's tick tock stratergy has failed to leave AMD in the dust... think about it, AMD keeps up with intel for a better price.


Finally a person with some common sense.

#24 Anibal P

Anibal P

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-June 02
  • Location: Waterbury CT
  • OS: Win 8.1
  • Phone: Android

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:01

I hate to break this to the Intel lovers but, you do realize that AMD with far less resources is about keeping up with intel's billion dollar budget? Heck AMD doesn't have fabs for crying out loud, and oh and btw its funny how intel's tick tock stratergy has failed to leave AMD in the dust... think about it, AMD keeps up with intel for a better price.


Not hard to "keep up" when you are not shooting for the top but somewhere in the middle, it's sad that AMD's best could be and is bested by an i3 powered PC, and the only reason they are still around is because they don't have to maintain any fabs, those things cost a lot of money to keep running

Seems to me that AMDs only purpose in life is to be "competition" to Intel to keep them form any bogus monopoly or anti trust claims

#25 AnotherITguy

AnotherITguy

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: 'Merica
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Professional
  • Phone: Iphone 5C 16GB

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:00

You missed my point by about a country mile....

Look at INTEL's r&d budget. and then look at AMD's... if intel can push out the holy grail on cpus and then right behind them comes AMD and misses their performance benchmark by a few clicks then its game over. now if AMD had the same budget that INTEL had like it did when the AMD ATHLON 64 Socket 939 intel would have to swallow its pride.

Remember AMD doesn't have the cash that intel does, and with the AMD FX they can either keep up or surpass intel, if I were an INTEL fan, id be ashamed. and oh by the way... how much more do you have to spend to get an CORE I7 vs an AMD FX 8 Core 8350.....exactly!

I rest my case.

#26 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:43

Well, you could buy an i3 and still go toe to toe with AMD.

Plus, you'll probably make up the difference in price between an i5 and a comparable AMD processor in your electric bill.

I'm an AMD fan, I the last time I bought a processor I tried to come up with every excuse to get one, but with places like Microcenter selling i5s for $169 + $40 off any motherboard, it's hard to justify the current AMD lineup.



Not really. unless you choose a low end or laptop AMD cpu. but a 6+core AMD will be far better for most games

#27 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:10

Not really. unless you choose a low end or laptop AMD cpu. but a 6+core AMD will be far better for most games


Than what? An i5? Are we talking stock speeds, or overclocked? Price wise the 3570 competes with the FX-8150... and I can't find any convincing reasons to take the 8150 in that comparison.

#28 ahhell

ahhell

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 30-June 03
  • Location: Winnipeg - coldest place on Earth - yeah

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:19

You missed my point by about a country mile....

Look at INTEL's r&d budget. and then look at AMD's... if intel can push out the holy grail on cpus and then right behind them comes AMD and misses their performance benchmark by a few clicks then its game over. now if AMD had the same budget that INTEL had like it did when the AMD ATHLON 64 Socket 939 intel would have to swallow its pride.

Remember AMD doesn't have the cash that intel does, and with the AMD FX they can either keep up or surpass intel, if I were an INTEL fan, id be ashamed. and oh by the way... how much more do you have to spend to get an CORE I7 vs an AMD FX 8 Core 8350.....exactly!

I rest my case.

Arrogant much?

Intel spends their R&D budget on more things than just bloody processors. :rolleyes:
You can keep using the "but but they're cheaper" nonsense all you want but it still doesn't change the fact that Intel's processors are better.

#29 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:30

Than what? An i5? Are we talking stock speeds, or overclocked? Price wise the 3570 competes with the FX-8150... and I can't find any convincing reasons to take the 8150 in that comparison.


I can tell you NONE of the i3 computers I have set up for clients are even close to competing with my Phenom II(or III or whatever it is) X6.

#30 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:46

I can tell you NONE of the i3 computers I have set up for clients are even close to competing with my Phenom II(or III or whatever it is) X6.


At what.

I really have a hard time believe there's a noticeable difference for most uses, especially when repeated testing shows that there isn't. The (obvious) advantage the the X6 is a) more cores, and b) can overclock. If those are actually being put to use, then sure, the X6 has an advantage.

But, I can't say the same for the Octo-cores versus a k series i5 or i7.