Got my I7 920 D0 close to release for about £190 years and years ago! Was such a good buy! Its only a tiny bit behind the 930 on that grath at stock. Well happy! Andy, you are coming across very strongly that you are classic AMD fanboy... i would maybe suggest chilling off this subject before losing credibility. Its getting real old real fast.
True, although I don't agree with the "ridiculously long" part of your comment Parge. I type ridiculously long replies all the time... One million times this - I debated for months before leaving the AMD camp 3 years ago and putting together an i7 rig, but at the time it was the best bang for buck out there. I still have it today along with two others, and they've all served me more than well. No regrets.
andy please explain to me how the 4770k isn't a quad core cpu it does appear to have 4 cores also the graph does appear to show that the 4770k beats the similarly priced fx-9370 handily (consuming 150w less at load and doesn't require water cooling), and the fx-8350 barely edges past the 4670k (whilst consuming 100W more at load) just confused a little bit here btw are you aware that intel CPUs overclock as well? brb searching for a 990fx board that isn't ATX edit: can't find one edit2: can't get PCI-E 3.0 on a 990fx board? dang
This chart is somewhat biased, I take it that these AMD chips are overclocked right? I want to see the chart with OC'd Intels.
@Alienware Andy Any credibility in your arguments are massively overshadowed by what appears to be fanboy driven, post purchase rationalising evangelism. So an 8 core CPU is up there with the 4 and 6 core CPUs... wow. It has to run at 5GHz to do it though. Want me to break out some video encoding results? That really separates the CPU men from the CPU boys. Yeah... you have a AMD chip... we get it.. it's like being short... you need to shout a lot and act bigger. The problem is... it's irritating.
sooo true my friend, its like paying apple £800 for a Mac or higher, when you can build a macintosh machine (sorry for my mistakes) for less with double the performance. All just a brand really,
Pity it doesn't have the APU chips as I'm not sure exactly where they sit, would be interesting to see. This seems to be relatively cpu limited compared to some other games. Let's try not to start going at each other too much shall we? Also as far as I know none of those chips are overclocked.
It says the frequency they are running next to them. And they all look stock. Thing is, if AMD had a little bit more singlethreaded grunt, even +35%, this would be a whole different argument. Performance would be more predictable. It would be on par, if not a little higher than the the performance of the k10 families greatest hits. Instead, to love AMD you have to talk about value for money, very specific performance and have some sort of prescience usually associated with characters from Frank Herbert's Dune. Else I'm sat here wondering what it would have been like if they had kept up on the "die shrink race" and stuck with k10.5, piling in as more cores and improving IPC...
This has nothing to do with the CPU I bought. It has to do with a company that make excellent CPUs that until recently (say, 6 months or so) were totally not worth having because nothing worked on them. If you want to know why then read this. This is a post from somewhere else that explains it all perfectly. This is what happens when stuff is compiled and optimised for AMD's instruction set, people absolutely and completely ignore that Intel has such a stranglehold on the industry and are so favoured by MS/other software makers that most is compiled with Intel compilers that does as little as possible to optimise for AMD. Intel and AMD have dozens, hundreds of ways to short cut results, combine calculations and optimise throughput and effectively huge amounts of software just don't make full use of an AMD core and the performance available. It shouldn't be any surprise at all, in the slightest that an AMD core in a game that worked hard with AMD to optimise performance performs significantly better than in other software which basically optimises for Intel and not AMD. For those who think Phenom 2 was a better core, it categorically wasn't, it was just older and better supported, Bulldozer and even more so piledriver is without question a move forward, AMD will always struggle with 1-2 year lag in improved CPU vs being optimised for AMD can't really win, we've had 15 years of Intel paying computer manufacturers not to use their stuff and paying software manufacturers not to optimise for them, considering that, their lack of money and process node disadvantage AMD are way way way ahead of where most companies would be. Considering Intel's advantages and well, illegal activity their "lead" on AMD, also considering R&D spending, is pretty pathetic. Then you obviously didn't read my 'long posts' that I'm supposedly known for. It isn't just BF4. It's anything made recently that supports the FX CPUs. Which is beginning to become pretty much everything. I'm not going to reply to accusations and insinuation. I just love my technology and I'm thrilled AMD are finally getting the support they need to stop the world being at the mercy of one CPU maker. If people want to call me angry or what not? whatever. Maybe I am a fanboy. Maybe I am sticking up for the small guy? tbh if that's the case then I'm happy to be a fanboy, given that I can't stand bullies.
They're not overclocked mate no. The AMDs are also not going to run at the speeds shown as they are the turbo speeds for one core. So for example, the 5ghz AMD will only run at 4.7ghz in BF4. My 8320 does 4.7ghz with stock temps lol. It cost £110 and it's right up there mixing it with the £240 Intels
Please do this we all need a laugh. Your chart shows the reason people on old I7 920 rigs have not upgraded the performance benefits are tiny. That stock i7930 is still fully playable FPS. Since most vsync lock to 60fps any result above 60 is not all that relevant. I prefer a stock speed chart as that's what most will run it at. Paying for an h100i CPU cooler seems a bit unrealistic in most cases. For 2 reasons price and space, not every case can support that CPU cooler. Even less if your adding the max fans it can use. Cheapest 8350 is £148 cheapest h100i is £88 total cost £236. To get a CPU that is slower than a stock cooled 4770k £269, would you really save £33 for a slower CPU that requires a specific case to use that CPU cooler with. Even the value argument is pretty much voided if your paying for an h100i CPU cooler as you recommend Andy.
Only right now the H100 is £39.99 with tons of stock. It's kinda like when Bit tech changed their GPU recommendation to a GTX 660 (from the 7850) because it was available for £130 or so from one retailer. You don't have to have a H100, they're just a really solid choice right now due to much cheaps. The Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo is really good on FX CPUs, cost £24 inc. Same goes for the Artic I30. As I said yesterday I can buy a 6300, 4+2 board (good for 4.ghz on a 6 core) and the ram for the same price as a 4670k. In gaming? there's hardly any difference. Also - 8350 is a bad purchase. The 8320 is where it's at. Same CPU for much less money.
PCIE 3.0 = PCIE 2.0 with more available bandwidth. Given nothing (even four Titans) has ever used all of that bandwidth then PCIE3 = waste of time. Which is why AMD simply haven't bothered, given that an absolute best of 5% more performance (and that's with the wind behind it on a sunny day where the whole world is smiling) isn't worth pumping loads of money into. No ITX? the FX do not have onboard GPUs. That makes it difficult, and you'd have to put a PCIE slot on. Given that most use ITX for HTPC and don't want to use a discrete GPU then it's pointless. MATX? there are several that are more than good enough for a 6300.
Lots of mitx boards have a pcie slot, it's a real shame that AMD don't offer AM3+ boards in that form factor as it meant I had to settle for a 760k (which is probably going to be fine, but I would have gone for something with a little more oomph). The chart shows everything at stock rollo, and it shows that even in new titles the gpu is probably where you want to invest. (along with the anandtech article on the matter)
Correct. I just priced up a lovely little kit. Costs £22 more than the 4670k. I didn't skimp on the board, either. 4+2 VRMs (not 4+1) with good cooling for the VRMs to prevent heat throttling. I also picked quite expensive ram as I didn't want to be accused of skimping. Board has Crossfire and all sorts for your money.
