I guess that all depends what resolution the OP is gaming at. If 1080p then not worth the expense IMO, as with his/her 7970 already maxing the refresh rate of the monitor (unless 120hz of course)
True, though this article does also look at the overall smoothness of the frame rendering and intel does seem to have a clear advantage here as well. It is of course an expensive upgrade, but the OP did ask for opinions, then he can decide if he's got money to burn.
Well, if you already have a 1090T honestly, it wouldn't that big of a difference. Not until Broadwell anyways. That's the thing, you're in the proverbial limbo of processing power. Changing the motherboard and the CPU right now would net about a 20% IPC difference. For $500? Not really worth it considering you'd have to change the processor. If you had been using, say an Athlon X2 or an Athlon II Dual Core, I would heartily recommend it. At this rate, you really wouldn't be seeing much of a large difference from your 1090T if you were to get an FX-8350.
@ Elton I completely agree. All I was saying is that if the OP really wants a upgrade, more so for tinkering than performance and wallet allowances, I personally would be tempted at the 8350. Even if the only real reason was just wanting to play around with something new. Performance wise alone its not worth it, but half the fun is messing around IMO. I guess I've always wanted to give AMD a go, as my first planned AMD build was thwarted by Intels Penryn release...
That was an interesting article and has certainly given me a fresh perspective on the role of the cpu.
Damn, I hald expected my CPU to get destroyed with those results. Although intel did handle the games better, programs seemed to do better with my CPU and that's not even a 8350
It's kinda an itch but it seems this thread helped straighten it out. I already have an SSD. Intel Maple-crest 330 240G Which I think I might just snag another and RAID 0 it. Better speeds and my games seem to be eating up a majority of my storage space
The 3570K is better than your CPU in every test except the 7-Zip benchmark (which scales unrealistically well with the number of cores). Note that some scores are measured in seconds, i.e. lower is better.
Op You're kind of at that point where There's no impetus for you to upgrade. Not necessarily a bad thing, just that right now it's extremely cost ineffective to upgrade.
Piledriver doesn't offer a giant improvement on your 1090T to be honest with you, so I'm not sure spending $200 on a new chip makes sense. If you really want to see a different in the apps that actually use the CPU to its maximum potential (basically, games) then get a 3570K and OC it. Other than that your 1090T can do pretty much everything a 8350 can do.
Not really sure there is anything to convince. AMD have been out of the game for so long they aren't even in the same league for competition. The last really noteworthy CPU they did was the Tri core 440 line as they were great budget for performance. But really since Intel went i5 onwards, AMD have not even been worth looking at
I went from a 1090T @ 4.2Ghz on a slow DDR2 board to a 3770k @4.5 Ghz on CPU side with whizz bang DDR3 and it was probably a waste of money just for gaming to be honest. it didn't wow me. Putting a 680 in was another matter. Your CPU is good enough for most things, a 1090T at stock is hardly a slouch just not as fast as an Intel CPU but gaming is nearly always about GPU I don't see much changing that. There were some benefits to the Intel platform for me, I got faster SATA and stuff like Intel Rapid Storage tech which is superb, add in a small SSD and benefit from caching, works a treat. Its is fair to say that my power consumption dropped a lot overclocked v overclocks, that 1090t could suck down some watts clocked up but we are only talking 70-100w.
