I've evaluated all of the info about FX 8 core CPUs, then validated it myself. What he is saying is just a urban myth with no foundation. Kinda like the "Oh well yes but the AMDs are not true 8 core CPUs". You know? crap, basically. Unfounded curry pumps.
The AMD chips are made up of modules, each containing 2 full cores, but with some shared resources as far as I'm aware. Either way it's nitpicking I feel, doesn't really matter.
It doesn't matter no, but you're pretty much dead right. In each corner of the die is a module, similar in ways to a dual core CPU. There's four of them, with a controller in the middle. As you say though it doesn't matter. What matters is what they cost and how they perform really.
"Do you understand where I'm coming from now? I do hope so." We always have understood, a bias pro AMD position. We have all agreed with you that AMD can hold their own UNDER VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. Circumstances that you like to cherry pick tofit your arguement. "But I won't. And I won't because reviews are fundamentally flawed." No, please do. Please do an all round CPU review. And by fundamentally flawed do you mean not run in a way that favours AMD. Bit-tech run a range of programs to test a CPU not just BF4 and Firestrike. Also if we look at the 2 firestrike scores above and look specifically at the physics score, well there is a bit of a difference to say the least considering that the GPUs used are the same. (also someone help me with this multi quote thing)
Thanks, I knew that could be done but there is a multi quote button at the bottom, can this be used for a quicker result?
The most expensive (in die area) resource is shared, the floating point unit, which happen to be the most important resource for most demanding programs. (image and video encoding are ones that uses floating point the most) It's an interesting compromise, but I still won't call a module 2 cores. I'd call it 1.6 cores compared to Intel's 1.3 cores for i7. Either way, calling it 8 cores is just plain lying. I could make a processor with 1 FPU, 100 ALU and decode-fetch pipelines, then call it 100 core processor? Interesting thread . Reminds me of 8 years ago with the vocal 2900XT group. Before that was the Pentium 4 group, oh god, Netburst the pipeline nightmare.
Right. First and foremost the 3770k is a better CPU than the 8320. It will beat it in every test, even the ones that support the AMD. The reason is simple - it has Intel's IPC and four extra threads that perform around 30% of an actual physical core. Due to that the AMD can't keep up. 3770k was £240, 8320 is £116. I'm not bias and never was. I've made it very clear that any X770k will beat the FX CPus every time. However is that biased? If anything you are the one showing bias by not reading what I am typing properly. You're nit picking and missing out the important parts ! I'm also not pro AMD. When Crossfire was broken I knew it was broken so I deliberately avoided their GPUs like a dose of the clap. Because of that I used Nvidia. That didn't make me pro Nvidia or anti AMD, it just made me "want GPUs that actually worked". As such I berated AMD as well I should, given they were selling people more than one GPU with promises of gold and happiness only to give them stuttering out the ass. I was really hard on AMD then because they'd actually taken two lots of £135 out of me for a second 5770 at launch and it was ****. Crossfire was marred with issues that supposedly didn't exist. So I'm not pro any one. I'm pro cheap. CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Whoever makes the right stuff at the right price. END OF. Nothing more to say. If something that is cheaper beats something that is more expensive I'm all for it. Pro, fanboy, whatever you want to call me. As for my review? actually it would be far more comprehensive than any review Bit Tech have written. They used two games, both went out with the dinosaurs, a few benchies before declaring that the 8350 was crap. Crap because it was slower than the Intel in all of the benchmarks it ran in. So you're completely missing the irony of my proposed review. My review could take 4-5 games (not two like BT used) and they would all be modern current games and not cherry picked ones that specifically want two cores and tons of IPC (ignoring all of the 8 cores the AMD has !) and then beat the 4670k genuinely and honestly in every single test. Be it Cinebench, 3dmark 13 (as loads of sites use 11 so why would my 13 results not be worth reading?) and so on. As for the 3dmark physics score? of course there's a difference, Sherlock. The 3770k is the better, faster in absolutely everything, CPU. It would score higher, given it's better and faster. And it should be better and faster, because crucially it costs double that of the AMD
Not really, that's for quoting multiple posts. If you want to split a single post up you'll need to do it manually.
The cost is only relivent to people on budgets, on a forum like this I'd be inclined to say for 90% of us we would buy the fastest chip we could afford. For me that would be a 4770k and mobo. If you already own the gpus or you already own a powerful CPU your budget changes a lot. AMD make some good CPUs we have all agreed on that. What they don't do and what you have tried to prove overwise is provide ultimate performance, if you were to do a balanced review you would see that. 3d mark and gaming great. What about the other 99% Andy that's what people want AMD to improve on. If you can show none gaming tasks like video encoding, decryption you would be in a better position with your arguments. The whole bf4 and gaming argument is mute at any real gamers resolution.
Absolutely. My point has always been - go cheap on the CPU as it's not important, spend spend spend on GPU/s. That's how I've always built my rigs. They're usually always GPU powered.
The 8350 can perform better than a 3770K in some multithreaded tasks. The whole thing is more complicated than one is better than the other generally, since it depends entirely on the software. http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-9590/FX-9590-55.jpg
I think it tends to do very well when it's raw CPU only. Once you start involving GPUs it changes. I'm not sure why tbh.
Tasks like rendering and encoding are highly optimised and take the CPU architecture into account. They also do multithreading 'properly' while most games are bottlenecked by the performance of one single core. That is why Piledriver FX processors gain substantially in games once they're clocked to around 4.5GHz, as it effectively frees up the other cores to work. As games are more optimised for 8 threads and the use of modern CPU instructions, the FX processors will benefit the most relatively speaking. The i3 processors will suffer the most.
Very interesting thanks. I might have to try that benchmark myself Once I get somewhere to actually live looks like I'm headed for a bloody shelter come Sunday
Indeed. Sorry for the late reply, head is all over the place ATM. ITX is for tiny PCs that use hardly any power. Take the NUC as an example. No PCIE slots, nothing. Yet loads of people play with them The Prodigy is absolutely massive as a ITX case IMO. I mean hell, people have put in a full ATX board. Sure, it's a fun way to pass the time but I wouldn't bother. I love multiple GPUs and MATX and ITX always screws that up. Gotta say though I would absolutely love to do an ITX build in the Caselabs Mercury !
You can fit a 7990 into an ITX case There aren't any ITX AM3+ motherboards of course, so your only choice for performance is Intel.
Yeah I know. Would be amazing to put my 7990 in a Mercury haha. Now that's what I call small with 'tude
