Which one, /g/? I read that they perform nearly equally. What about power draw and heat dissipation? Is the 4690k worth it?
off topic here
did I cuck myself by going from a zosma 960t to a 6600k? I got me some of that 2400 DDR4 to go with it.
Also is it worth keeping the 2400 or return it and get some 3000 rated ram?
>Also is it worth keeping the 2400 or return it and get some 3000 rated ram?
it doesn't matter. 99% of games cap off at 1866. They literally don't know what to do with anything higher so they simply ignore it.
>you're boss isn't here, rajesh. You can cut the crap.
>I have an FX6300 which isn't far off from the 8350
That's like saying "i5 isn't far from an i3".
Obviously they're the same chipset, but there are crucial core and speed differences.
Yeah that's what I figured lol
Oh also my ram automatically defaults to 2400 speed without adjusting anything.
Does this mean I don't need to enable XMP since it's already at 2400? I've enabled it before and didn't see any indicator to the fact that it did anything like reduce timings or whatever.
Thats kind of why I wish I had that instead of the 6300. I want to be prepared for those few games that are the exception.
I also feel like I'm missing out on what my 970 has to offer.
And what makes you so certain you aren't being shilled into getting Intel?
And pretty sure performance per dollar is true. Seems like you expected Intel performance for AMD prices. Yeah, you fucked up.
How hot does it run? My 8350 reads 13 celsius on idle with a hyper 212.
>inb4 wrong temps
Just post yours
>not buying a 8320E and turning it to a 8350 or 9590
not him, but i kept my email@example.com all day downloading, touched the cooler, wich is a CM hyper t4 and yep, its cold, a little bit warm.
That's a dumb way to look at it and you'll end up never being happy with what you own. Say you buy the 4690K you so want. Would it not eat you up inside to know that 4790K owners were better off? Or 6600K/6700K owners? Even if you go out and buy a 5960X, you're going to be seething when the 6950X and its ten cores arrives.
I hear that. I'm not attempting so say thats the real temp since I heard enough about amd temps being wrong in speccy but just saying for some objective comparison that's what speccy reads. And my pc has worked fine so I dont care at max cpu usage it maxes out at 70 celsius.
16 Celsius now but still...
GTA V is the only one of those games that doesn't like AMD CPUs. You're really not missing much otherwise.
It's not so much that they're false, it's the lazy developers don't utilize their temp sensors properly, despite them being fully documented. They work completely differently to Intel's, which is why they display useless numbers in a lot of programs that are designed to read them as if they were an Intel sensor (Speccy included).
>GTA V is the only one of those games that doesn't like AMD CPUs. You're really not missing much otherwise
2 biggest pitfalls:
- Gamers buy intel when all they do is game. Waste of money
- Renderers and Video-editors buy AMD (and AMD video cards). Waste of money because nvidia/intel are a lot better for a moderate premium.
u missed one
>three: The only AMD cpu worth is the FX 8320E since the skylake i3 rapes the 6300 and the 8350 its too expensive for the price, and you can oc the 8320E and make it to a 8350 or 9370
I will always buy Intel™ because I only play games with Intel Inside™. Intel also pioneers innovative new technologies like Hyper Threading Technology™, Intel Rapid Start Technology™ and the highest quality chipsets to ever grace motherboards.
When I boot up with a brand new Intel™ i7™ with the latest Z chipset, I can enjoy the games the way they where meant to be with Intel Inside™. Intel™ also delivers a far more silkysmooth experience with its Hyper Threading Technology™.
Intel i5™ is also very power efficient. A processor is the most power hungry device in your house. Air conditioners, water heaters, lights, etc all use less power than a processor. Which is why Intel™ puts gamers first by ensuring that their gaming experience is of the highest quality while looking out for gamers by giving them the most value in their electrical bill.
At this point in time, there's really no reasons to consider an AMD processor at all. I tried once, it caused so much heat that it exploded and nearly burnt down my house. It also consumed so much power that it produced an EMP and destroyed not only the rest of my computer but my entire neighborhood.
Intel™ also pioneered how useless MORE CORES is with the i™ series processors. Years ago, everyone thought MORE CORES were the future. Now, Intel™ has debunked that myth entirely and increased efficiency. Now you can save thousands a year in electricity thanks to Intel™ with its powerful IPC. MORE CORES will never be part of Intel's™ line up.
It's quite clear that OPs an AMD shill trying to convince you to settle on something less than the optimal experience with Intel Inside™. Intel™ is the only real way to play games. We have seen recently that they offer incredible libraries for software developers like Intel C++ Compiler. He is probably too poor to afford the Intel Inside™ experience and can not afford to play any games.
Don't be a poor gamer with bad chipsets and a huge power bills. Play games with Intel Inside™
>buying a CPU that gets shat on by modern i3s and fucking 6 year old Westmere chips
AMD's GPUs are great, but their CPUs are straight garbage. So much so that AMD doesn't even use them in their promotional materials anymore.
I'm really hoping Zen turns out good. Til then there's no point in getting an AMD CPU.
If you need the extra cores you might as well just get a cheap hexacore westmere Xeon and an X58 board, which would cost less than an FX8000 chip by itself in most cases and outperform it.
>not buying a 8320E and turning it to a 8350 or 9590
>proprietary program just says "bench"
>people blindly assume that it reports an objective result
So what, you are upset that something that costs half the price of something else isn't as good as the more expensive product?
In this scenario the fx 8320 being i3 money makes it a very viable chip for most usage cases when it tends to give i5 (and somtimes i7) tier performance.
>The fuck are you on about.
/g/ gets awfully twitchy when there is evidence suggesting AMD has chips that are competitive with intel's offerings at times.
For lols, have this picture.
The fact that AMD's 4 year old chips slightly OC'ed (the 8350 is actually validated to run at 4.2GHz on the same vcore as 4GHz) so even if you lose the silicon lottery (I did with 1.3500 vcore at 4.5GHz) its still really close to the skylake, which is twice the price due to the DDR4 requirement.
Because why would CPU-Z favor one side?
Why would a tool that inspects a CPU risk its standing for the money of one company.
Also why wouldn't Intel rig it? They've done this shit before, see pentium 4 and >>52464479 plus intel has the money where as AMD doesn't.
So of the charts provided you are saying its unfair that AMD's 4 year old chips are competitive against Intel's current i5 range because the games in question might have been compiled with intel's compiler?
History has shown that proprietary benchmarks are rigged or biased more often than not.
The only reasonable conclusion is open source benchmarks compiled with open source compilers.
Can confirm this.
Role: Recruiting for diversity within LANFest.
Requirements: Interest in people, good networking (social) skills and friendly/dedicated demeanor.
Time Commitment: 3-15 hours per month"
IBM Power CPUs are pretty good
Just very expensive
Depends what do you do.
While AMD will slog in comparison to intel in games(no matter of game), in some professional software, CPU's like 8350 will perform on par or only little bit worse than 4690k for much less money.
Then again if you want all-rounded CPU pick intel.
There was a third but they went bankrupt (Cyrix ). They competed in the consumer end market that you're talking about (Not super-specialized like IBM and others)
1) High cost barrier to enter the market
2) Highly specialized industry with limited resources
Intel can prevent any competitors and does engage in dirty business practices to ensure market control (which crippled AMD into what we have today)
They got slaps on the wrist
Intel allows AMD to exist because otherwise finally there might be some anti-monopoly intervention
They want only slaps on the wrists
>Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, consuming Cyrix financial resources, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents, when in reality the design was proven independent.
> Intel feared having to face the antitrust claims made by Cyrix, so Intel paid Cyrix $12 million to settle the antitrust claims right before a federal jury in Sherman, Texas was to hear and rule on the antitrust claims.
>How do you know that your proprietary benchmark wasn't compiled with a biased compiler?
Games certainly are compiled with intel compiler so why the hell are you assuming this is>>52469529 in any way biased towards AMD?