AMD's Vishera 8350 outclasses Intel's Core i7

[HawkMan]

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

[threetonesun]

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.

[ahhell]

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.

[HawkMan]

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.

[threetonesun]

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.

[HawkMan]

Well you claimed an i3 was as fast as an AMD.

as I said, the i3 doesn't come close to the x6. not in general computing, not in gaming and certainly not in heavy computing.

[threetonesun]

Well you claimed an i3 was as fast as an AMD.

as I said, the i3 doesn't come close to the x6. not in general computing, not in gaming and certainly not in heavy computing.

No?

This wasn't a cherry picked sample, either, feel free to actually look at tests and see how the two compare.

[HawkMan]

well, my actual real world experience tells me otherwise.

my i5 sure, that's better than my X6, unless it's heavy multithreaded, but I have yet to see an i3, any generation, that doesn't feel sluggish compared to my X6.

[ahhell]

well, my actual real world experience tells me otherwise.

my i5 sure, that's better than my X6, unless it's heavy multithreaded, but I have yet to see an i3, any generation, that doesn't feel sluggish compared to my X6.

It would be sad if the X6 WASN'T faster than an i3.

[HawkMan]

Well Anandtech shows a clear advantage to the X6, on anything multithreaded. in single threaded it's pretty much equal or slight advantage to the i3, with some items advantage to the X6. which is as expected, the X6 was never intended for single threaded either. Games are pretty much equal on the non multithreaded ones. but then, as I've stated in my first post on this thread. ANY CPU from the last generations (Core iX onward) is pretty much going to give excellent game performance, games today barely use the CPU, it's all GPU and GPGPU.

Either way, I could real world performance over benchmarks anyway. Next upgrade I will probably go i5 though, unless AMD offers a CPU offering similar performance for cheaper and with more cores(since I dabble in 3D and rendering, Cores are king, and fake bull****tery like hyperthreading don't replace a real core, for rendering you're better of disabling the extra cores and use an i5 with half the "cores")

[threetonesun]

It would be sad if the X6 WASN'T faster than an i3.

Right, that's AMDs problem. The X4 and X6s are still better than the FX-4XXX and FX-6XXX, and in either case, they're not competing with Intel at the same level. At the same price point, yes, you can get an FX-8XXX for i5 prices, but once upon a time AMD was winning on price and performance.

[Crisp]

Next upgrade I will probably go i5 though, unless AMD offers a CPU offering similar performance for cheaper and with more cores

See what the Steamroller / Excavator brings to the table. If it has been pushed back to 2014 that's going to blow.

[HawkMan]

Didn't the new FX CPU's require windows 8 and special new low level OS functions to operate optimally ? did they ever get around to testing the difference in performance between 7 and 8 on these ?

[Motoko.]

See what the Steamroller / Excavator brings to the table. If it has been pushed back to 2014 that's going to blow.

Those 2 are scrapped from the scheduled FM timeline. Steamroller cores are being tuned to fit into the next set of APUs after Trinity.

[torrentthief]

Single thread performance for AMD it it's downfall, same with most applications that are multithreaded too. AMD does indeed do well in games but most pc users don't game, neither do i. I'd rather have a core i5 than an AMD unfortunately. I would love to support AMD as prices would be awful if they died for apu's and gpu's but currently they just aren't good enough. They look to have some decent improvements coming over the next couple of years though.

They good thing for AMD is that all new processors (except so low power cpu's) from AMD and Intel are good enough for 95% of users. Windows XP/7/8 loads fast, that wasn't the case 7yrs ago with new processors and XP, shutdown times are fast too. Everything for that matter is fast on modern computers except for some games and encoding videos. A ?35 AMD Apu has good enough cpu performance for the average user which is pretty awesome, its a shame motherboards still cost a lot. The sooner APU's add nearly all mobo computers to become a SoC the better off we will all be. They can have Mini ITX mobos and cases, those would be cheap to make.

I would like to see AMD integrate 802.11ac and Bluetooth 4.0 into their APU. Mobo makers would just need to add an antenna connector for wifi and bluetooth keyboards could be used without a usb bluetooth dongle.

[mrp04]

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.

i7 3770k http://www.microcenter.com/product/388575/Core_i7_3770K_35GHz_LGA_1155_Processor

FX-8350 http://www.microcenter.com/product/401795/FX_8350_4GHz_AM3_Black_Edition_Boxed_Processor

$40 difference. Not a lot.

Or i5 3570k http://www.microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor

Same price and beats the AMD. Also gets $40 off compatible motherboard.

Why would I buy the AMD?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

The problem with AMD is their forward thinking. Most of us remember AMD's former glory days when the AMD Athlon series dominated Intel's Pentium 4 chips. That's when AMD had CPUs with good single-threaded performance. The jump to dual- and quad-core CPUs is when things started to go bad for them. They seemed to have lost their focus with single-threaded performance. Even now, most software on the market isn't truly multi-threaded.

Considering their current situation, the most logical plan for AMD is to focus on improving what they're already good at (which is low-power accelerated processing units). Also, they still plan on supporting the AM3+ socket with at least one new processor revision. Unlike Intel, AMD doesn't change sockets relatively frequently.

[chrisj1968]

It's a conspiracy

actually, this is great for business for us end users. I've had only 1 Intel laptop in my life, well no... back in the 306 days too so 2. Been an AMD fan ever since the AMD 120mhz processor. then the AMD K2, then the slot A processor from AMD and now this AMD A8/AMD 6620G GPU