Jump to content

Question

Posted

I was looking for a new CPU, and basing my decision on the performance scores from [url="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html"]here[/url] and the price.

My current CPU (i5-750) scores 4,373.

These are the currently available CPUs, their scores, and their prices:

[code]i5 2400S 4,857

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

76 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted

Insanely high power usage. Around 100-150 watts idle, and 300+ at load (and that's without overclocking). And those benchmarks are only based on a single test. I'd recommend looking at an all round review for deciding. From what I can remember they're still way below the Intel CPU's in gaming but about equal for number crunching.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360443972' post='595512148']
Insanely high power usage. Around 100-150 watts idle, and 300+ at load (and that's without overclocking). And those benchmarks are only based on a single test. I'd recommend looking at an all round review for deciding. From what I can remember they're still way below the Intel CPU's in gaming but about equal for number crunching.
[/quote]
Ah, yeh, I'd be using it for gaming.

I would need some kind of chart, though. Or it's impossible to compare this many CPUs! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

I would suggest going to [url="http://www.tomshardware.com/"]http://www.tomshardware.com/[/url] for hardware reviews and benchmarks. And as Javik said, the AMD CPUs are super power hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

The 8350 has LOT of good things said about it
[url="http://www.ebuyer.com/409184-amd-fx-8350-4ghz-socket-am3-16mb-cache-retail-boxed-processor-fd8350frhkbox"]http://www.ebuyer.co...r-fd8350frhkbox[/url]

I have the normal Phenom II 965, and once I have the funds, the 8350 is 1st on my list

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE[/media]
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[url="http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6"]http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6[/url]

The best I could find, unfortunately I can't remember where I read the original review.

Basically AMD's philosophy is because they simply cannot match the efficiency of Intel's CPU's they are trying to make up the deficit by cramming more cores onto the die and running them at a higher clock speed. It seems to be working when number crunching but not so much for gaming.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

I have an FX-6300 and I'm very happy. I'm playing Metro 2033 now without any issues. Hardware is in my sig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Found some gaming benchmarks. I have edited the image to add current prices and the Passmark scores:

[attachment=327398:eb_sr-cpu2.png]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='King Mustard' timestamp='1360444753' post='595512178']
Found some gaming benchmarks. I have edited the image to add current prices and the Passmark scores:

[attachment=327398:eb_sr-cpu2.png]
[/quote]

if you already have a 3570k compatible Intel board, then yep go Intel, but if you already have an FX compatible board, 8350 all the way imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Detection' timestamp='1360444915' post='595512182']
if you already have a 3570k compatible Intel board, then yep go Intel, but if you have an FX compatible board, 8350 all the way imo
[/quote]
I would need a new motherboard if I got a newer Intel CPU, so it's not really a deciding factor.

According to the benchmarks above, the new AMD CPUs hold their weight against the Intel ones, even in gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='King Mustard' timestamp='1360444989' post='595512186']
I would need a new motherboard if I got a newer Intel CPU, so it's not really a deciding factor.

According to the benchmarks above, the new AMD CPUs hold their weight against the Intel ones, even in gaming.
[/quote]

Yep that's what I've seen too, I'm in no hurry to drop AMD any more, I was disappointed with bulldozer, but piledriver seem to hold their own very well, I'm sticking AMD for the foreseeable future
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Then again, the FX-8350 and 2500K have similar prices, the 8350 has a much higher Passmark but the 2500K beats it by quite a bit in gaming.

HMM! Decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

AMD's fx cpu's only really hold up decently when in heavily multi-threaded loads. Things that aren't heavily threaded can fall behind intel quite a bit. And any game that's cpu bound to any degree with fall noticeably behind an intel chip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='King Mustard' timestamp='1360445274' post='595512198']
Then again, the FX-8350 and 2500K have similar prices, the 8350 has a much higher Passmark but the 2500K beats it by quite a bit in gaming.

HMM! Decisions.
[/quote]

It definitely has come down to choice recently, vs price vs performance as it used to be, personally I like how AMD don't force socket upgrades with each new CPU release, so you can invest in a good AMD board and know you can continue to upgrade CPUs for quite some time before needing a new board

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

The i5-3570k only costs about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360443972' post='595512148']
Insanely high power usage. Around 100-150 watts idle, and 300+ at load (and that's without overclocking). And those benchmarks are only based on a single test. I'd recommend looking at an all round review for deciding. From what I can remember they're still way below the Intel CPU's in gaming but about equal for number crunching.
[/quote]

I think those stats are for the whole system not just the CPU. Not fair to dump it all on it without a disclaimer.

@OP: Scratch the x1xx and x2xx because they're Bulldozer which is a bit slower and less efficient, unless you find an awesome deal or something. FXs are slower when it comes to performance per core, but as the game is more optimised for multi-threading the gap decreases. The # or cores should make them better for general usage too. Boards are also cheaper and the current socket should support next gen Steamroller, while Intel's 1155 will be replaced with 1150 for their next gen Haswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360445631' post='595512208']
The i5-3570k only costs about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='King Mustard' timestamp='1360445706' post='595512216']
I can't really afford a
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='King Mustard' timestamp='1360445706' post='595512216']
I can't really afford a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Detection' timestamp='1360445877' post='595512226']
As I said before, and as you are looking at CPUs for gaming, I have the ancient Phenom II 965 OCd to 4GHz and I don't have any CPU bottlenecks in any games that I can think of (Running a 7870 GPU)

Everyone would love a high end Intel machine, I don't want for anything really, apart from PhysX on benchmarks
[/quote]

Except when comparing 2 CPU's at the same price point (8350 and 2500k) to choose a CPU that has less gaming power and consumes 3x as much power isn't being a smart consumer, it's simply insane. Pretty much the only reason to choose the 8350 over the 2500k would be if he were using his machine for programming, transcoding, or rendering. For gaming Intel CPU's beat AMD CPU's. Hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360445828' post='595512222']
The tests are performed in the same way for both platforms, they are still valid
[/quote]

You didn't give a source in that post, explained the methodology or compared it to Intel's offering so it was a statement without context. I know what you meant, but not everybody does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Try actually reading the link I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Detection' timestamp='1360445877' post='595512226']
As I said before, and as you are looking at CPUs for gaming, I have the ancient Phenom II 965 OCd to 4GHz and I don't have any CPU bottlenecks in any games that I can think of (Running a 7870 GPU)

Everyone would love a high end Intel machine, I don't want for anything really, apart from PhysX on benchmarks
[/quote]

Your phenom 2 is likely holding things back more than you think, especially with a gpu like that.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360446062' post='595512236']
Except when comparing 2 CPU's at the same price point (8350 and 2500k) to choose a CPU that has less gaming power and consumes 3x as much power isn't being a smart consumer, it's simply insane. Pretty much the only reason to choose the 8350 over the 2500k would be if he were using his machine for programming, transcoding, or rendering. For gaming Intel CPU's beat AMD CPU's. Hands down.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to convince AMD over Intel, the guy says he is on a budget, I'm offering my experience for AMD,

Anyone with Intel experience is more than welcome to jump in,

I posted a review of the 8350 vs a few different Intel CPUs and the AMD faired very well

I would happily swap out my entire AMD setup for an Intel high end, but a lot of us don't have that luxury ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

But as I just said the 2500k and the 8350 are the SAME PRICE. It's not high end when the 2 products are the same price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

[quote name='Javik' timestamp='1360446140' post='595512242']
Try actually reading the link I posted.
[/quote]

The link came after. Also you could try reading your own link as well. How does 213=3*161 (stock) or 364=3*267 (oc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.