4690k vs 8350

CPU?

Intel. Always.

>2016
>still even considering AMD

>>52462492
>>52462502
/thread

>>52462478
8350 is literally $100+ less than the 4690k.

Go for AMD and sleep comfortably.

>>52462820
You'd pay more than that for power and liquid nitrogen.

>>52462881

hyper 212 is only $29.99

you're boss isn't here, rajesh. You can cut the crap.

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?

>>52462961
>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.

>>52462820
Get the 4690k. I have an FX6300 which isn't far off from the 8350 and I regret buying it everyday.
Don't buy AMD, folks.

File: 1280544659053.jpg (35KB, 407x742px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 407x742px

>>52462900
>you're boss isn't here, rajesh. You can cut the crap.

>>52462993
>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.

>>52463053
Yeah, I'm at 4.6ghz. I was just assuming there wasn't much difference since I've read that upgrading from the 6300 to the 8350 won't do much.

>>52462984
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.

>>52462993

>I don't know what kind of cpu I should have bought and bought one I don't like

>take my advice on cpu selectuon guyz

>>52463117
>e I've read that upgrading from the 6300 to the 8350 won't do much.

Neither will upgrading from a 6300 to a 4690k.

Most gaming is gpu-limited, except a few rare cases like Arma.

>>52463159
I was shilled into buying AMD. I got sucked into the performance per dollar bs.
This processor doesn't deliver much and it runs hotter than hell.

>>52463177

He thinks his slow boot times are because his cpu and still calls SSds memeware.

>>52463177
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.

>>52463223

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

>>52463289
>My 8350 reads 13 celsius on idle with a hyper 212.


Nope. Not possible.

>>52463244
My computer isn't slow. It boots up in about 30 seconds.
I just hate that I have it overclocked relatively high and I know a slower clocked 4690k would probably outperform it

>>52463289
But it is NOT physically possible.

>>52463302

Don't believe it then what are you're readings on idle if you're the 6300fag?

>>52463289
>8350 reads 13
Anything below 40c isn't reading right, and dose not matter anyways.

File: 1452741760710.jpg (19KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x497px

>>52463053
>>52462478
>>52462820
>>52462993


>not buying a 8320E and turning it to a 8350 or 9590

>>52463302

not him, but i kept my [email protected] all day downloading, touched the cooler, wich is a CM hyper t4 and yep, its cold, a little bit warm.

>>52463324

So gaming is your only dissapointment?

>>52463289
It's at 23C just sitting here on this page. I also have a hyper 212 evo. But, theres also not any heating in this room.

>>52463289
So do you live outdoors in Antarctica? Because 13 isn't possible.

>>52463375
I guess, which I know a few frames is kind of silly to be upset about. I haven't really tried anything else on this pc, though. So, I'm not aware of any other short comings.

>>52463324
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.

>>52463302
>>52463332
>>52463342
>>52463403

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.

AMD is the only responsible purchase option, without purchasers AMD can not continue to make an effort to compete with Intel, please purchase AMD products. Regards 4570,gtx960 owner

>>52463464
It wouldn't eat me up as much. With the FX6300 it feels like I'm messing around at the bottom of the cpu list.
I'd be perfectly happy knowing that I have a jump over most cpus.

>>52463540
What games do you play? This is how you should decide how much to spend

File: speccy2.png (80KB, 803x582px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 803x582px

>>52463302
>>52463332
>>52463342
>>52463403

16 Celsius now but still...

>>52463540
The 6300 is nowhere near the bottom of the CPU list, especially overclocked to 4.6GHz. You've fallen for the memes, anon.

>>52463601
Fallout 4/NV with textures, BF4, GTA V, and Assetto Corsa. I have more, but that's mostly whats in my normal rotation.

>>52463624
8350s are known to give false readings anon.

File: http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg (109KB, 601x592px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 601x592px

>>52463704
GTA V is the only one of those games that doesn't like AMD CPUs. You're really not missing much otherwise.

>>52463756
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).

>>52462478
Depends if you need the extra cores, but the i5 4460 is the Intel CPU to get right now, or the Xeon 1231v3

>>52463624
Normal room temperature is 22-25°C

>>52463814
Did results change for Fo4 with a patch or something?
I know the game runs horribly, but most comparisons showed the intel side beating amd.

File: 1450653637483.jpg (180KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 517x768px

>>52462900
Kek

File: cpu.png (1MB, 1048x886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1048x886px

>>52463814
>GTA V is the only one of those games that doesn't like AMD CPUs. You're really not missing much otherwise
wew lad

File: bang_head.jpg (181KB, 565x848px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 565x848px

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.

>>52463899
Theres a 2500k outperforming the 6300. That says a lot.

>>52463756
>>52463867

See here >>52463479

Git 4690k as long as you have a z97 motherboard

intels are literally always better for the price

>>52464074

Epic

>>52463920

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

>>52463853
why is the 4460 the cpu to get?

>>52464255
Best performance per dollar, paying all the extra money to get an unlock chip to a decent OC isn't worth the money, it's only maybe worth it for a 144hz display

>>52464157
>too expensive for the price

>>52463265

>bought a 970

What a retard, stop posting.

>>52464415
I bought it when it came out. I didn't know

>>52462478
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™

amd is like the cheap Chinese knock off of intel.
more likely to break but cheaper to replace aswell

>>52464157
>$170
>too expensive
..................................................................................................... i mean, how?

>>52464271
thanks

File: 1451926712159.png (19KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x463px

VIDEO GAMES

File: 1451658505993.png (27KB, 580x276px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 580x276px

AMD BTFO

>>52463367

>all day downloading
What a strenuous task! your poor cpu!

> its cold, a little bit warm
you literally contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

>all this post-purchase rationalization from AMDcucks
stay MAD

>>52464820
Hey, I bought AMD and said it was terrible.

>>52464563
AMD ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>52464864
That makes at least one sane person ITT.

File: 1362839287914.png (19KB, 411x555px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 411x555px

>AMD

>>52465135
>>52464563
>>52464549
stop this shit stupid nigger

>>52462492
That's right buy Intel...because we hate white people.

>>52462478

>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.

>>52464157
The x4 860k is also pretty good for its price

File: CPU-Z.png (15KB, 403x398px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 403x398px

FX-8350 at 4.5GHz vs an i7 skylake.

>>52467080
>150€ vs. 380€
nice comparison you got there buddy.

>>52468386
>europoor
>not understanding the difference in performance

>>52468407
you get what you pay for faggot, comparing things with such huge price differences is retarded.

>>52468407
>less than half the price
>9-7% lower performance
That seems like more than a fair tradeoff to me.

File: self intoxicated, twisted detonator.png (314KB, 1131x1006px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1131x1006px

>>52463367


>not buying a 8320E and turning it to a 8350 or 9590

I did.

File: cpu-z bench.png (46KB, 807x403px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 807x403px

>>52468862

File: 1358202481896.jpg (138KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 720x720px

>proprietary program just says "bench"
>people blindly assume that it reports an objective result
Wow.

>>52468436
No it's not... You can compare anything regardless of the price. Shitty hardware is still shitty hardware.

>>52469305

>whaddya mean my corolla isn't as fast as a ferrari! They're both cars so they should be just as fast as each other right!?

>>52469361
You are literally a faggot.
Please kill yourself.

File: 1446930114072.jpg (92KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 523x440px

>>52469380

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.

>>52469453
The fuck are you on about.
That guy is a retard.

I like the fact that the 8350 and co can out match the current skylakes and are 4 years older than the skylakes.

>>52469453
>proprietary benchmarks

File: fx-8370-vs-5960x_gaming-gtav_gtx970-sli.jpg (117KB, 624x400px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 624x400px

>>52469507

>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.

>>52469516

>memes

For lols, have this picture.

>>52469529
>more proprietary benchmars

>>52469529
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.

>>52469547
>being this anally blasted about what benches people use.

>>52469568
Proprietary benchmarks are inherently unverifiable.

Only 100% open source benchmarks offer at least some substance for discussion.

>>52469582
>gee whiz this ruler isn't the same as the other!

>>52469587
How do you know that your proprietary benchmark wasn't compiled with a biased compiler?
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49

>>52469598
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.

>>52469598

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?

>>52469627
>>52469623
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.

>>52469646
>freetard

>>52462478
AMD because intel is too balls deep with being SJWs and are charging consumers for things like R&D to end cyber bullying.

>>52469681
Can confirm this.

"Diversity Champion

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"

https://lanfest.intel.com/volunteer

has anyone experience with other cpu-manufacturers?

i mean there is only:
"intel or amd"-discussions
why should we only choose between 2, whch is the defintion of a monopol

>>52469711
There's VIA and IBM, neither are suitable for desktop use

File: ibm-power-s812lc-xeon-spec-compare.jpg (57KB, 478x346px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 478x346px

>>52469711
>>52469729
IBM Power CPUs are pretty good
Just very expensive

>>52462478
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.

>>52469681
How does that affect the processing power though?

>>52469711
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

>>52469810
>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.
LOL

>>52469598
>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?

>>52469810
thanks

so i guess we have a monopol situation in here
this bad

should support amd just for the lulz

>>52467080
> oc'd vs stock

File: 9590 vs 4790k with titan x 4k.png (157KB, 1323x399px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1323x399px

>>52470323

Yes and?

Pic unrelated.