|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
The 8350 is stronger than i5 in heavily multithreaded tasks by a decent margin (~20%?) but the 3570k has far greater leads in single threaded performance, which is far far more important for a gaming system (due to performance implications from streaming, the 3570k is the greater CPU by a large margin even for those purposes, preventing the 8350 from stretching its multithreaded performance advantage)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701&i=38.344.53.54.60.61.62.129
If you want the extra power for video encoding etc as you said, the 8350 is best for those purposes at its cost by a pretty decent margin (if you dont mind the massive power consumption and far weaker game performance), but if you want the best of both words the 3770k is pretty much identical to 3570k in terms of gaming/single threaded while essentially matching the 8350 in most multithreaded enviroments http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551&i=27.28.38.39.344.345.53.54.55.60.61.62.129 but is more expensive, pretty much the premium good-at-everything CPU to get that is king unless you are shelling out a ton of money for a sandy bridge-e system
Id reccomend 3770k if affordable, 3570k if not, honestly, the slight advantage in multi-threaded performance to cost value doesnt redeem the massive weaknesses of fx-cpu's (very weak, weaker than Phenom II single threaded performance, cant overclock without using insane amounts of power, etc)
Perhaps slightly biased, but thats how i see things. You could maybe shave 20% of the time taken off some work with 8350 but its just doesnt match up in anything else, particularly in gaming performance.
|
the 8350 can hit 8.6 with one core activated so it obviously overclocks better right?
|
On December 11 2012 00:57 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote: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.
you clearly dont know what a monopoly is.
a worldwide monopoly is mostly maintained by laws, that favour one competitor (done by lobbies), bribing of authorities and people in charge (google that), defeating of rising opponents through buying and dismantle them ("the microsoft-method") or price-dumping (not happening here sadly).
the result is rising prices and stagnation of development.
well i think everything is said, the benchmarks are linked, people are able to make their own opinion now.
|
On December 11 2012 01:28 cari-kira wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:57 Alryk wrote:On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote: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. you clearly dont know what a monopoly is. a worldwide monopoly is mostly maintained by laws, that favour one competitor (done by lobbies), bribing of authorities and people in charge (google that), defeating of rising opponents through buying and dismantle them and ("the microsoft-method"). the result is rising prices and stagnation of development. well i think everything is said, the benchmarks are linked, people are able to make their own opinion now.
nice change of subject for avoiding sayign you were wrong
|
On December 11 2012 01:31 Rachnar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:28 cari-kira wrote:On December 11 2012 00:57 Alryk wrote:On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote: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. you clearly dont know what a monopoly is. a worldwide monopoly is mostly maintained by laws, that favour one competitor (done by lobbies), bribing of authorities and people in charge (google that), defeating of rising opponents through buying and dismantle them and ("the microsoft-method"). the result is rising prices and stagnation of development. well i think everything is said, the benchmarks are linked, people are able to make their own opinion now. nice change of subject for avoiding sayign you were wrong
no, your "arguments" were just not worthy to discuss.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
Cmon guys, stop it, you'll get the thread locked.
|
The only way I would recommend an 8350 is if A) if you already have an AM3+ board and don't feel like upgrading and B) said computer can handle the power draw. I've been considering going from a 1090T to an 8350 just because I already have the board and you can get 8350s on the cheap.
For a new computer? Go Intel. You could just buy a 2500k and be totally fine, although I don't know if there is an appreciable price difference between the 2500k and the 3570k that would warrant buying a last generation chip.
edit: Buy a 3570k.
|
Ya.. cari-kira doesn't know what he's talking about.
|
I would get the 8350 if I were doing a ton of shit at 1 time (which I'm never doing), otherwise, I would get the 3570k. Personally, if I had the option to get an 8350, I would rather just spend the extra moneyzzzzz and get the 3770k.
PS: skyR is the fucking man.
|
The FX-8350 is not far ahead enough in multithreaded tasks to justify how far it is behind Intel in gaming.
I believe that is a complete answer to the OP.
|
skyR has spoken. /endthread
|
I guess there was some drama in the thread.
and for the overclocking:
LOL
you clearly dont know that an 8350 holds the world record for overclocking at 8.67GHz.
I love this quote its too funny. FX chips are overclocking nightmares, you can easily dump in 400 Watts into them before you get into enthusiast land while Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge are way better in terms of power scaling. This is bad because in order to reach parity with Intel you basically need to overclock a lot just to bring you to equal terms.
The world record thing was hilarious. Clock speeds dont really mean anything anyway, not by themselves. Somewhere along the line people seemed to get convinced that the only quality a processor has is clock speed. Thats honestly not even close to reality. Afterall we had a big period of time after Pentium 4 where clock speeds went way down but benchmarks still went forward (more cores, better architecture). I think like 10 years ago we had 3.0ghz processors.
|
Haha I love skyR.
This isn't the 1890s anymore, the vast majority of monopolies are protected through antitrust laws now. Yes, corporate lobbying exists (See the cable Industry), but that isn't how one established market player gains a monopoly over another. Let's have a trip to the internet to figure out what a monopoly is so that I can learn.
MONOPOLY
1. The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. (google "define monopoly" for google's dictionary).
2. A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry). From Monopoly
Sources of a Monopoly:
1) Technological superiority: A monopoly may be better able to acquire, integrate and use the best possible technology in producing its goods while entrants do not have the size or finances to use the best available technology.[8] One large company can sometimes produce goods cheaper than several small companies.
2) No substitute goods: A monopoly sells a good for which there is no close substitute. The absence of substitutes makes the demand for the good relatively inelastic enabling monopolies to extract positive profits.
And the one you're promoting but that isn't happening here:
3) Legal barriers: Legal rights can provide opportunity to monopolise the market of a good. Intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights, give a monopolist exclusive control of the production and selling of certain goods. Property rights may give a company exclusive control of the materials necessary to produce a good.
4) Deliberate actions: A company wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force (see anti-competitive practices). In addition to barriers to entry and competition, barriers to exit may be a source of market power. Barriers to exit are market conditions that make it difficult or expensive for a company to end its involvement with a market. Great liquidation costs are a primary barrier for exiting. Market exit and shutdown are separate events. The decision whether to shut down or operate is not affected by exit barriers. A company will shut down if price falls below minimum average variable costs.
Now one could certainly argue that number four is true iirc. But considering Intel got hit with a 1.25 billion dollar bill for anti-competitive practices a few years ago, benefiting AMD (a case AMD won, by the way) here, I would definitely not argue against Intel having had shady business practices in the past. (And technically they weren't charged with anti trust, but it was a settlement for a lawsuit so seems obvious).
But seeing as AMD hasn't sued Intel lately (a practice that would like quadruple their profit since they're practically, if not outright, losing money), and that we haven't really heard any rumors about anti-competitive actions, we can probably assume they're mostly dead. Which brings us to numbers one and two.
Intel 100% has technological superiority over AMD. 22nm vs 32nm (and later to be 28nm, not even 22nm). 3d transistors, you name it. Intel is better on paper. This facilitates making their stuff easier to overclock as well. It ALSO reduces power consumption, a point you still refuse to talk about, let alone the applications of an 8.6 ghz single core FX cpu.
No substitute goods: To a degree, this is true. AMD largely can't compete. They have several wins (Titan supercomputer) in those hugely multithreaded heavy applications, but for the mainstream user, the single threaded performance is "good enough" but not when the competition is better overall for the same price.
Now after all of this, I think I finally know what a monopoly is (what happened to the monople you were talking about though?). And it leads me back to my main question:
Do you really believe that AMD has just let Intel regain a monopoly AFTER they sued them for it three years ago? And if so, why not just sue Intel again? And lastly, why won't you answer our questions about the relevance of that overclocking record? It must be important to a generic consumer somehow, right? (We all have some liquid helium in our closets anyways, any good nerd would right?)
+ Show Spoiler +
I mean, I know he's a troll, but you have to spend your breaks from studying somehow. And yes this is a huge overreaction on purpose, and 90% will probably be ignored by him. Just for fun :D
|
As many have already said, go for the i5 except if you expect to use your desktop mainly for heavy video encoding or other highly multithreaded tasks.
On December 11 2012 01:28 cari-kira wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:57 Alryk wrote:On December 11 2012 00:49 cari-kira wrote: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. you clearly dont know what a monopoly is. a worldwide monopoly is mostly maintained by laws, that favour one competitor (done by lobbies), bribing of authorities and people in charge (google that), defeating of rising opponents through buying and dismantle them ("the microsoft-method") or price-dumping (not happening here sadly). the result is rising prices and stagnation of development. well i think everything is said, the benchmarks are linked, people are able to make their own opinion now.
I don't think you know what you're talking about (else you'd be helping AMD sueing Intel right now). There is a reason Intel is dominating the CPU market, and it isn't anything illegal like you're trying to make it seem, it's rather that they have the better products (since the Pentium 4 days at least, at that time AMD had an edge).
|
I would stick with Intel.
|
There are still some edgy antitrust suits from AMD against Intel that havent been talked about a lot. For instance Intel compilers intentionally gimping AMD hardware by forcing inefficient code paths. The performance hit is pretty big, about 15 percent, and only programers savvy enough to know this is happening and how to stop it can really get around it.
In this way Intel has been carving out a performance gap they havent always deserved, but the performance gap is still real nonetheless.
Also keep in mind AMD has always manufactured Intel parts in partnership with Intel and even before that. Long time ago all they made was Intel spinoff technology that was cheaper. Then they became a second source manufacturer.
Then Intel broke the arrangement. But AMD filed and won, which let AMD produce Intel chips even though they were competitors. The saga continued over the microcode incident.
So AMD has been riding Intel's coattails for the longest time so its no wonder that after Intel completely broke away that AMD would fall behind. This is what helped AMD develop the Athlon 64 which most people say is the best thing to come out of AMD ever.
After that, people leaving the firm have been constantly saying the company has little direction, and is just stapling more cores onto a shrunk die over and over.
Also so it doesnt get lost.
On December 11 2012 03:38 Medrea wrote:
The FX-8350 is not far ahead enough in multithreaded tasks to justify how far it is behind Intel in gaming.
I believe that is a complete answer to the OP.
|
On December 11 2012 03:38 Medrea wrote:
The FX-8350 is not far ahead enough in multithreaded tasks to justify how far it is behind Intel in gaming.
I believe that is a complete answer to the OP.
100% listen to Medrea please OP.
|
just because I recently read it in an austrian newspaper and there was talk about world records: Best PCMark05 benchmark on an i7 3770K (~6.2 GHz)
german source
|
Hyperthreading was disabled.
Teehee.
|
For the OP, Both are decent chips.
You'll see better 1 and 2 thread dependant performance out of the Intel, you'll see better mutli threading out of the 8 core (compiling software, work tasks). So, fun its Intel, for work its AMD. Kinda... sorta... I'd just get whatever is cheaper unless you plan on seriously high gaming, which you might be with an AMD 7950 (its a pretty decent card for the price).
And this pains me to type that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
