|
Finally decided that I would build a new desktop since I'll be in China for at least another year, enough playing games on my integrated graphics Lenovo Thinkpad is enough.
For the GPU I got a good deal on a HIS Radeon 7950 so I'll be going with that card, but the last rig I built had been an i5-750 / Radeon 5870 that I sold when I moved to China, so I'm a little bit behind on the newer CPUs.
To my knowledge, the FX-8350 is hexacore while the i5-3570K is quadcore (with hyperthreading), and both cost about the same (~ 1500 yen). I would have gone with the i5 without hesitation if gaming was my only concern, but I will also be doing considerable video encoding and data encryption work which I think should benefit more from a true 6 physical cores CPU?
Since I play SC2 on most low graphics settings anyway, I think the 8350 would do fine here. But what about other games released this year? Are they CPU-bound enough that the 8350 would severely bottleneck me? Also, just how much of a performance gain am I expecting from the 8350 over the i5 in terms of video encoding/other tasks that heavily benefit from multiple cores?
Thanks in advance.
|
I'm not really able to link any sources, but i've seen benchmarks that show that the 3570 pretty much beats the 'hexacore' on any aspect.
|
the FX-8350 is a quad modul chip, so its like 8 cores, where every 2 cores share the same L2 cache.
quick summary:
it will do about 10-20% better than the i5-3570k in terms of multitasking when all cores are used.
single core performance is about 10-20% lower.
|
The only things in which an AMD FX-8350 beats an i5-3570k are highly multithreaded things (has to be coded that way).
Anything else is Intel-Land. Also the true Hyperthreading Intel is the i7-3770k.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
|
On December 10 2012 22:42 EngrishTeacher wrote:
Finally decided that I would build a new desktop since I'll be in China for at least another year, enough playing games on my integrated graphics Lenovo Thinkpad is enough.
For the GPU I got a good deal on a HIS Radeon 7950 so I'll be going with that card, but the last rig I built had been an i5-750 / Radeon 5870 that I sold when I moved to China, so I'm a little bit behind on the newer CPUs.
To my knowledge, the FX-8350 is hexacore while the i5-3570K is quadcore (with hyperthreading), and both cost about the same (~ 1500 yen). I would have gone with the i5 without hesitation if gaming was my only concern, but I will also be doing considerable video encoding and data encryption work which I think should benefit more from a true 6 physical cores CPU?
Since I play SC2 on most low graphics settings anyway, I think the 8350 would do fine here. But what about other games released this year? Are they CPU-bound enough that the 8350 would severely bottleneck me? Also, just how much of a performance gain am I expecting from the 8350 over the i5 in terms of video encoding/other tasks that heavily benefit from multiple cores?
Thanks in advance.
The 8350 is a 4 module cpu, which is 8 cores that share certain resources with the other core in the module, like the fpu(?), I can't exactly remember. Think of it like a 4 core cpu with hyperthreading.
The i5-3570k is a 4 core cpu without hyperthreading. For games, the i5 will obviously be much better. For heavily, heavily threaded encoding, the 8350 will be better, but for the occasional x264 encoding on my 4.4gHz 2500k, I tend to get less than 75% cpu usage anyway, for whatever reason (encoding off an ssd, so that's not the bottleneck). Remember that not all algorithms are massively threaded, which means the i5 will perform better (for those), period.
The thing is, the bulldozer is not a "true 8 core cpu", it's a slower quad with glorified hyperthreading, in a sense. If the potentially small differences in encoding between the two cpus actually matters to you, the 3930k should be a no-brainer, as it will be a huge increase over either of them.
|
The i5 is just plain better.
FX-8350 is a quadcore too but with intels equivalent of hyperthreading
i5 is just a plain quadcore, no HT, but it is still MUCH better for every single threaded application, and equivalent in some multithreaded applications, sometimes better, sometimes worse (overall better)
The i5 also consumes a LOT less power then the FX-8350, overclocks better, etc...
|
On December 10 2012 22:55 Eisregen wrote:The only things in which an AMD FX-8350 beats an i5-3570k are highly multithreaded things (has to be coded that way). Anything else is Intel-Land. Also the true Hyperthreading Intel is the i7-3770k. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
1. the 3770k is 100€ more than the FX-8350
2. nobody wanted to know about the i7, the op clearly asked for a comparison of the 8350 and the 3570k
3. read this, since you are german: http://www.tomshardware.de/fx-8350-vishera-review-Benchmarks-Test,testberichte-241128-10.html
comclusion: the 8350 outperforms the 3570k in every multithreaded benchmark.
and an application doesnt have to be "coded for multithreading", your common desktop work uses multithreading, too.
if you have 50 tasks running they get distributed to different cores, and thats where the 8350 beats the 3570.
on everydays work.
the 3570 though is better with single or dual threaded things like games.
if you are ok with playing with some % less fps in todays newest games, because you need the multithreaded power, then the 8350 is the better CPU for you.
|
On December 10 2012 23:13 cari-kira wrote:1. the 3770k is 100€ more than the FX-8350 2. nobody wanted to know about the i7, the op clearly asked for a comparison of the 8350 and the 3570k 3. read this, since you are german: http://www.tomshardware.de/fx-8350-vishera-review-Benchmarks-Test,testberichte-241128-10.htmlcomclusion: the 8350 outperforms the 3570k in every multithreaded benchmark. and an application doesnt have to be "coded for multithreading", your common desktop work uses multithreading, too. if you have 50 tasks running they get distributed to different cores, and thats where the 8350 beats the 3570. on everydays work. the 3570 though is better with single or dual threaded things like games. if you are ok with playing with some % less fps in todays newest games, because you need the multithreaded power, then the 8350 is the better CPU for you.
WTF, did you at least look at the benchmark? Clearly it would seem that no, since the i5 does outperform the fx-8350 in some multithreaded apps (and it can overclock way better, so even more performance gap)
|
On December 10 2012 23:13 cari-kira wrote:1. the 3770k is 100€ more than the FX-8350 2. nobody wanted to know about the i7, the op clearly asked for a comparison of the 8350 and the 3570k 3. read this, since you are german: http://www.tomshardware.de/fx-8350-vishera-review-Benchmarks-Test,testberichte-241128-10.htmlcomclusion: the 8350 outperforms the 3570k in every multithreaded benchmark. and an application doesnt have to be "coded for multithreading", your common desktop work uses multithreading, too. if you have 50 tasks running they get distributed to different cores, and thats where the 8350 beats the 3570. on everydays work. the 3570 though is better with single or dual threaded things like games. if you are ok with playing with some % less fps in todays newest games, because you need the multithreaded power, then the 8350 is the better CPU for you.
I suggest you read the OP, which I replied to. I suggest also you re-read my post.
But to answer your points:
1.No shit sir?
2. The OP stated the i5 3570k has HT, HE HAS NOT. The i7 3770k has HT, that's what I stated.
3. No need to reread tw on this
i5 3570k >> fx 8350 in anything (heavy multithreaded stuff excluded). And even my old Phenom II 955 manages a shitload of tasks okish -.-
|
On December 10 2012 23:17 Rachnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 23:13 cari-kira wrote:On December 10 2012 22:55 Eisregen wrote:The only things in which an AMD FX-8350 beats an i5-3570k are highly multithreaded things (has to be coded that way). Anything else is Intel-Land. Also the true Hyperthreading Intel is the i7-3770k. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701 1. the 3770k is 100€ more than the FX-8350 2. nobody wanted to know about the i7, the op clearly asked for a comparison of the 8350 and the 3570k 3. read this, since you are german: http://www.tomshardware.de/fx-8350-vishera-review-Benchmarks-Test,testberichte-241128-10.htmlcomclusion: the 8350 outperforms the 3570k in every multithreaded benchmark. and an application doesnt have to be "coded for multithreading", your common desktop work uses multithreading, too. if you have 50 tasks running they get distributed to different cores, and thats where the 8350 beats the 3570. on everydays work. the 3570 though is better with single or dual threaded things like games. if you are ok with playing with some % less fps in todays newest games, because you need the multithreaded power, then the 8350 is the better CPU for you. WTF, did you at least look at the benchmark? Clearly it would seem that no, since the i5 does outperform the fx-8350 in some multithreaded apps (and it can overclock way better, so even more performance gap)
What are you talking about?
I listed the multithreaded benchmarks here for you:
-
benchmarks that use all cores:
Adobe Photoshop multithread benchmark: fx wins (even faster than the i7-3770k)
Adobe Premiere encoding: fx wins
finereader: fx wins
visual studio: fx wins
fritz: fx wins
winzip 17: fx wins
7zip: fx wins
mainconcept: fx wins
handbrake: fx wins
the FX-8350 wins in EVERY multithreaded benchmark.
so, please stop telling bs.
and for the overclocking:
LOL
you clearly dont know that an 8350 holds the world record for overclocking at 8.67GHz.
|
oh yeah and LOL YOU DONT KNOW THAT ONLY 1 CORE WAS ACTIVE AND IT WAS ON LIQUID HELIUM
seriously inform yourself before saying bullshit, thanks
|
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen?
|
On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen?
It is not my fault you can't read properly and quote-reply nearly the same things I stated and answered according to the OP.
So just stop replying crap due to your misreading
|
hm, statements like "i5 3570k >> fx 8350 in anything (heavy multithreaded stuff excluded)" or "The only things in which an AMD FX-8350 beats an i5-3570k are highly multithreaded things (has to be coded that way)" are suggesting that there are only some programs making use of all cores of the FX.
that is not true.
if you have multiple programs running they will also make use of all cores.
and in the future most programs will make use of all cores, because there will be no single processor PCs.
so please pardon me for interpreting your statement as heavily biased at least, while including more substance than Rachnars sad flames.
|
On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen?
It's bullshit because you *should* know how incredibly irrelevant a CPU with an 8GHz+ overclock with 87.5% of its cores deactivated on LIQUID NITROGEN/HELIUM COOLING is to the average consumer.
If you are going to use heavily multi-threaded programs, get the FX-8350. If you're only going to play/stream games, get the i5-3570k.
|
On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen?
How does 8.6ghz on liquid helium single core have ANY relevance to mainstream computer applications? What they're saying is that with a mainstream air CPU cooler, you'll have better performance gains with Ivy Bridge (or Sandy Bridge). It just runs cooler. And consumes like.. literally half as much power.
Power consumption 195 watts for FX-8350 vs 101 watts for i5-3570K. Ivy bridge uses literally 52% as much power as the FX-8350 system (this being with a lot of shared components as well, meaning the gap between processors is possibly more significant.
The other problem is that the FX-8350 barely beats the 3570K in multithreaded stuff. Usually 10-15% at most I believe, and sometimes a range of -5 to 15% (It does have one ~35% win). Whereas for single threaded performance, Intel's advantage is anywhere from 0% to 50% (Cinebench, gaming, whatever you want to pick). Gaming here, and you can go back a page for photoshop and other things.
Again, all while consuming like twice as much power as the i5 >.>
So: How does 8.6ghz liquid helium cooled have any relevance to mainstream computing applications, and how do you justify a 15% at most (normally) gain in multithreaded applications, while taking a 50% hit in single-threaded stuff AND consuming twice as much power? Sure, the OP is multi-threaded, but not everything he does will be multi-threaded as efficiently as all benchmarks, and not everything he does would be multithreaded, period. I mean yes, it's better for multithreaded, but not really by much, and if even half of what OP does is single threaded or not efficiently multithreaded, wouldn't Intel be better? (Granted, if the OP is really almost all really multithreaded, 8350 is gonna be better, but there's still power to consider).
|
5930 Posts
Piledriver is only really worth it if you're constantly doing tasks that only care about multithreaded performance. If there's mixed workloads, the Intel processors are able to match Piledriver in the grand scheme of things. Anything that has decent periods of time where only a few cores are active, Piledriver doesn't really look any better than Ivy Bridge yet will consume significantly more power. Not to mention Ivy Bridge overclocking, if required, is dead simple and its power management (i.e. changing of power states) is still better than AMD's.
I don't know the nature of your data encryption and video work so I can't say for sure but if that's all you're doing, the FX processors might be decent. Again, I have no idea about the nature of your work so I can't say for sure.
For instance: your software might accept Quicksync. If it does, Intel will smash the living shit out of anything AMD. It also has a nice side benefit of decreasing CPU utilization so you can do some other shit while your encoding/decoding/converting stuff.
One thing that no one seems to note is that Intel's chipsets are better than AMD's. I haven't been following AMD that closely but if FX processors are meant to go into 990FX motherboards (AMD hasn't released new chipsets?), the SB950 is worse than Panther Point in anything I/O related in every single way.
So to sum up:
- Only care about multithreaded performance, all cores active for long periods of time: FX platform is valid.
- Have mixed workloads: Ivy Bridge is probably better if only because of better I/O performance and power draw.
- If your video encoding software accepts Quicksync: Ivy Bridge. FX need not apply, it will not win.
|
On December 11 2012 00:42 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen? How does 8.6ghz on liquid helium single core have ANY relevance to mainstream computer applications? What they're saying is that with a mainstream air CPU cooler, you'll have better performance gains with Ivy Bridge (or Sandy Bridge). It just runs cooler. And consumes like.. literally half as much power. Power consumption 195 watts for FX-8350 vs 101 watts for i5-3570K. Ivy bridge uses literally 52% as much power as the FX-8350 system (this being with a lot of shared components as well, meaning the gap between processors is possibly more significant. The other problem is that the FX-8350 barely beats the 3570K in multithreaded stuff. Usually 10-15% at most I believe, and sometimes a range of -5 to 15% (It does have one ~35% win). Whereas for single threaded performance, Intel's advantage is anywhere from 0% to 50% (Cinebench, gaming, whatever you want to pick). Gaming here, and you can go back a page for photoshop and other things. Again, all while consuming like twice as much power as the i5 >.> So: How does 8.6ghz liquid helium cooled have any relevance to mainstream computing applications, and how do you justify a 15% at most (normally) gain in multithreaded applications, while taking a 50% hit in single-threaded stuff AND consuming twice as much power? Sure, the OP is multi-threaded, but not everything he does will be multi-threaded as efficiently as all benchmarks, and not everything he does would be multithreaded, period. I mean yes, it's better for multithreaded, but not really by much, and if even half of what OP does is single threaded or not efficiently multithreaded, wouldn't Intel be better? (Granted, if the OP is really almost all really multithreaded, 8350 is gonna be better, but there's still power to consider).
please read the whole thread and dont reply to a single post.
- i was replying to a statement saying "the i-3570k is better overclockable than the fx-8350"
- nobody talked about power consumption before.
and while im green, i dont know if its a financial problem for the OP, because he is in china.
and i justify it with fighting a monopole.
you know what a monopole is?
and why its bad?
so how do YOU justify buying intel?
|
On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:42 Alryk wrote:On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen? How does 8.6ghz on liquid helium single core have ANY relevance to mainstream computer applications? What they're saying is that with a mainstream air CPU cooler, you'll have better performance gains with Ivy Bridge (or Sandy Bridge). It just runs cooler. And consumes like.. literally half as much power. Power consumption 195 watts for FX-8350 vs 101 watts for i5-3570K. Ivy bridge uses literally 52% as much power as the FX-8350 system (this being with a lot of shared components as well, meaning the gap between processors is possibly more significant. The other problem is that the FX-8350 barely beats the 3570K in multithreaded stuff. Usually 10-15% at most I believe, and sometimes a range of -5 to 15% (It does have one ~35% win). Whereas for single threaded performance, Intel's advantage is anywhere from 0% to 50% (Cinebench, gaming, whatever you want to pick). Gaming here, and you can go back a page for photoshop and other things. Again, all while consuming like twice as much power as the i5 >.> So: How does 8.6ghz liquid helium cooled have any relevance to mainstream computing applications, and how do you justify a 15% at most (normally) gain in multithreaded applications, while taking a 50% hit in single-threaded stuff AND consuming twice as much power? Sure, the OP is multi-threaded, but not everything he does will be multi-threaded as efficiently as all benchmarks, and not everything he does would be multithreaded, period. I mean yes, it's better for multithreaded, but not really by much, and if even half of what OP does is single threaded or not efficiently multithreaded, wouldn't Intel be better? (Granted, if the OP is really almost all really multithreaded, 8350 is gonna be better, but there's still power to consider). please read the whole thread and dont reply to a single post. - i was replying to a statement saying "the i-3570k is better overclockable than the fx-8350" - nobody talked about power consumption before. and while im green, i dont know if its a financial problem for the OP, because he is in china. and i justify it with fighting a monopole. you know what a monopole is? and why its bad? so how do YOU justify buying intel?
Well two things.
1) When you discuss overclocking, you address power consumption. Power consumption is a necessary side effect of overclocking. And how does the 8350 overclock better (In mainstream CONSUMER applications) than the i5-3570K when it consumes more power for less performance overall, at more heat?
2) No, I don't know what a monople is. Maybe you mean a monopoly? Monopolies happen when the competition can't compete anymore. I assure you that if AMD could have prevented a monopoly, they would have. So why do you think AMD let a monopoly form, because it wasn't because they like Intel.
I buy Intel because even with a monopoly, their solutions are still better than what AMD is pricing at. And fwiw, I have an i3-3220, a price range that AMD is still reasonably competitive, and so I prefer single threaded performance.
|
On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:42 Alryk wrote:On December 10 2012 23:45 cari-kira wrote:
how is that bullshit if its true?
btw:
Rachnar, are you somehow astroturfing this forum with Eisregen? How does 8.6ghz on liquid helium single core have ANY relevance to mainstream computer applications? What they're saying is that with a mainstream air CPU cooler, you'll have better performance gains with Ivy Bridge (or Sandy Bridge). It just runs cooler. And consumes like.. literally half as much power. Power consumption 195 watts for FX-8350 vs 101 watts for i5-3570K. Ivy bridge uses literally 52% as much power as the FX-8350 system (this being with a lot of shared components as well, meaning the gap between processors is possibly more significant. The other problem is that the FX-8350 barely beats the 3570K in multithreaded stuff. Usually 10-15% at most I believe, and sometimes a range of -5 to 15% (It does have one ~35% win). Whereas for single threaded performance, Intel's advantage is anywhere from 0% to 50% (Cinebench, gaming, whatever you want to pick). Gaming here, and you can go back a page for photoshop and other things. Again, all while consuming like twice as much power as the i5 >.> So: How does 8.6ghz liquid helium cooled have any relevance to mainstream computing applications, and how do you justify a 15% at most (normally) gain in multithreaded applications, while taking a 50% hit in single-threaded stuff AND consuming twice as much power? Sure, the OP is multi-threaded, but not everything he does will be multi-threaded as efficiently as all benchmarks, and not everything he does would be multithreaded, period. I mean yes, it's better for multithreaded, but not really by much, and if even half of what OP does is single threaded or not efficiently multithreaded, wouldn't Intel be better? (Granted, if the OP is really almost all really multithreaded, 8350 is gonna be better, but there's still power to consider). please read the whole thread and dont reply to a single post. - i was replying to a statement saying "the i-3570k is better overclockable than the fx-8350" - nobody talked about power consumption before. and while im green, i dont know if its a financial problem for the OP, because he is in china. and i justify it with fighting a monopole. you know what a monopole is? and why its bad? so how do YOU justify buying intel?
The i5-3570k is easier and overclocks better then the FX-8350 to the public
you really think i was talking about liquid helium? how about trying to OC in absolute zero conditions?
and yeah i was talking about power consumptions, but nvm, you don't know how to read apparently, which would explain a lot of things
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
