Why is Intel CPU so much faster then AMD even the low end i3

Amd puts more money into their GPU lines but they do not have nearly as much money as Intel or NVIDIA

>>55859535
Why is intel's perf/price so shit tho?

Thanks for your post, Intel employee. You may now leave while we laugh at your obviously wrong post.

>>55859535
AMD stopped trying. Now they just make cheap CPUs with cheap GPUs slapped together and call it an APU.

e.g, a10 7850k is just an athlon 860k and r7 250 together.

>>55859631

It's not Intel actually has a fair price performance considering their dual cores beat AMDs six cores in every benchmark

> The last High end "shit"dozer came out years ago

It's a bad architecture thats old, that's why your new Intel cpu is better than an old amd cpu

>>55859634
Proofs?
My i7 2600k still works really well and i feel no need to upgrade. >>55859631

>>55859631
What?
Find me something, anything, better value than the i3 6100.

>>55859646
They didnt stop trying they ran out of money. Which is why theyre putting all their eggs in the zen basket and why its taking so fucking long to release. With more resources theyd probably be on the second generation of zen by now, or at the very least the proposed zen+.

We can only hope by whatever time they release, they wont be so far behind they fail to capture any sort of relevance.

>>55859680
>dual core
>in year 2016
Youre better off buying an older generation 2500k or something like that

AMD is choking its great potential with its affordability fetish. Intel doesn't give a fuck.

Will zen be good lads?

File: Apu_Nahasapeemapetilon_(The_Simpsons)[1].png (42KB, 195x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 195x300px

>>55859646

now it all makes sense, just another poo

>>55859631
Sandy bridge is still functional while even the best amd clues get btfo by any i3

>>55859717
But the i3 6100 is as fast as the quad core 2500k in raw cpu performance (not including oc), and with ddr4 it's as fast as an overclocked 2500k in games while using much less power and putting out less heat.

If you can get the 2500k+board+ram for the same price as the 6100 on its own then its worth it.

>>55859732
AMD has the entire Console Community programming games for it's Architecture now...
Where a few years ago programmer didn't give a fuck about Multi-treading because everything was rehash 2001 Program with newer fancy interface for 2010 ( when FX came out )

Proper programs did show the FX line of AMD competing with I7 lines of intel for a 100$ less . You know Programs that aren't shit.

Intel completely shit on AMD with the i series for the last few years. AMD said fuck it, just put the bare minimum into our retail CPUs for the next bit , and gamble on RnD for a new architecture (Zen) that will hopefully compare to and surpass the i series.

Intel has been sitting on the success of the i series can hasn't done too much with it, allowing AMD to sneak in the new architecture, will it be good enough? Have to wait and see.

Also AMD has been putting a lot in GPUs lately, and it looks like it will pay off with their RX400s. 480 sold out everywhere in every AIP for weeks at a time. 479 and 460 hasent even launched yet.

I feel like AMD has a chance to catch up to their competition this year and the next, and reclaim some market share.

>>55859715

Kek even if Zen arrives I doubt AMD has the production capacity to have a decent markets are. Most likely it will be delayed to 2018+ until the new consoles have shipped and by then Intel will release the next gen 10nm architecture.

>>55859771
Hell, the i3 6100 even outperforms the i5 6400 in many titles.

There is no reason to buy anything more than the i3 6100 for video games and general use computing.

>>55859631
>Why is intel's perf/price so shit tho?
Intel is too expensive for you because they can. That's what happens when there's no competition.

>Reasons not to use Intel

>Don't use Intel processors newer than Core2, because they have the "management engine" back door and no one can shut off.

https://stallman.org/intel.html

>>55859782
http://wccftech.com/intel-starts-10nm-factory-cannonlake/
Maybeee
But it seem like the price per size of the die is climbing quickly (from the charts)

>>55859631

Why is AMD FX performance per watt so abysmal?

File: Screenshot_2016-08-01-14-51-59_com.android.chrome_1470027132694.jpg (93KB, 720x696px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 720x696px

AMD BTFO yet again, dual core i3 outperforming 8 core fx

File: Gaming_05.png (46KB, 1299x1396px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1299x1396px

Look at those min frames on the AMD in crysis, how can anyone consider a CPU with such abysmal performance to be good value?

>>55859841
Because they think they can keep up by just having a stock overclock on the chips that gets pushed higher and higher each gen. That 9XXX chip that was like 250w TDP was just an overclocked FX8350.

>>55859844
Because you expect 6 year old harware to compete with current gen Cool Story Bro.

AMD Needs Zen very badly and it seem your OKAY with Intel Charging whatever they want on their CPU Line also ?
Enjoying that price increase in the 2011 ?

>>55859799
I only play mine craft and go on Facebook

What do I have to hide?

>>55859877

But Intel also offers factory over clocked chips of 4ghz like the 6700k out of the box that work with a stock cooler! They don't even draw a lot more power!

File: Gaming_03.png (47KB, 1299x1396px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1299x1396px

>>55859878
>charging whatever they want
But CPU prices have gone down lately, if anything.
Idk about murica, but i3 6100 is almost 20aud cheaper than i3 4170 was.
Which is same price as fx6300, even though the fx can't compete.

I'm expecting it to compete because it's advertised as being an 8 core. Quad core i5 2500k competes with i3 6100, why can't a 6 core or 8 core AMD?

>>55859655
dubs knows

>>55859981
That's because intel isn't retarded and doesn't start with a chip that's already been overclocked 3 times. That and a much smaller and thus more efficient die.

MOAR CORES approach they went with Shitdozer.

>>55859952
>I only play mine craft and go on Facebook
Then why do you need an intell chip?
A low tier AMD does all that.

>>55860001

Kek I think the Cores meme is about as awful as the muh 5 megapixels meme for cameras was before nobody started to give a shit after about 12 megapixels.

AMD is such a fucking joke. They wouldn't exist if it wasn't for their garbage APUs powering console market - And they're still so god damn terrible that current gen didn't even last 3 years and they already have to jump ship with Xbone S and PS4 neo.

>>55860001
Hopefully they repeat that mistake, a 6 core zen with Ivy bridge ipc and ddr4 would destroy any i5 in dx12/vulkan

>>55859745
Probably not. Their first Zen based CPUs focus on servers/ultra high end enthusiastic rigs. Think of Haswell-E performance and price.

>>55860091
Only considering Zen if it's equal to Haswell in terms of IPC.

>>55859780
>480 sold out everywhere.

First - It didn't. Majority of their AiB is garbage tier and only decent companies like Sapphire actually sold out. Rest of them gathers dust in stock

Second - It's just another paper launch like everything else in 2016 so saying shit like "1070/480RX sold out" is just laughable as those cards were never available to begin win. Also aftermarket coolers never ever.

So what's better? A i7 2700k or a i3 6100?

>>55860123
I'm not even upgrading from my i7 870 until I start seeing a cpu bottleneck.

>>55860156
For what?
Rendering: i7
Gaming: i3

File: FX6350-hg08.gif (16KB, 544x338px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 544x338px

>>55859655
>their dual cores beat AMDs six cores in every benchmark
Nice meme.

Arent AMD still on 32nm?

I find it crazy that they are still able to be in touch of some of the intel chips. Intel should really be destroying them.

>>55859992
This. They're equal maybe went a little bit down if you consider the gain in performance. I had to pay $200 for my 3570k. Now I can get something like a 6500 for the very same price. Only thing that pisses me off about Intel is blocking overclocking feature behind premium price CPUs - Probably because the difference between 6500 and 6600 non-k is non existent if you manage to OC 6500.

>>55860172

>Cinebench

Maybe something that utilizes the cores to their peak capacity but gaming streaming ect an i3 wins hands down

File: Encoding_02.png (45KB, 1299x1242px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1299x1242px

>>55860185
This. After 1156 overclocking became a premium and people fell for it.

>>55860172
I can cherry pick benchmarks too

>>55860185

I think some motherboards like MSI allowed you to overclock stock Intel CPUs but they updated them again so you can't

>>55860215
Pretty sure it was asrock and biostar, but you can also still find the bios online if you want to try it

>>55860183
Not really. Intel went for small gain in performance and insane reduction in power drain/temperatures. High end Intel 8-cores are still monsters when compared to AMD.

>>55860200

Kek an 8 core being virtually the same as a dual core CPU. Intel really doesn't have any competition.

File: maxresdefault (7).jpg (358KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1920x1080px

>>55860247
Intel almost doubled the ipc since Sandy bridge.
The gains are there, people are just too mentally retarded to acknowledge them

File: GoatSad1.jpg (50KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x480px

>>55860200
>We live in times where companies deliberately gimp their own mid range products because they're simply too good and would go equal with high end products.
>mfw I know that cost of making a 970 gtx and 980 gtx is probably literally the same but 970 is just a cut to pieces 980 so they sell their end game cards at premium price
>mfw days of releasing hardware and pricing it accordingly to production cost are long gone.
>mfw Intel/Nvidia probably have something like a 1600% profit margin on their rip off high end products.

>>55860305
The difference in your pic comes from ram not CPU btw.

>>55860323
Ram helps, but cpu has improved too.

>>55860343
differences between pure performance are probably minimal but the architecture moving forward helped so me saying ram helps the most is kind of lying since big majority of old CPUs and MOBOs couldn't even handle 2000+ MHZ speeds on RAM.

File: CPU_01.png (94KB, 1299x2173px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1299x2173px

>>55860194
>gaming streaming ect an i3 wins hands down
NICE MEME.

>>55860250
>Kek an 8 core being virtually the same as a dual core CPU
That dual core CPU also costs as much as the eight core CPU, and is absolutely smashed to pieces by it in anything that uses multithreading effectively. See >>55860172

AMD CPUs remain a far better price/performance option than an i3. Only a retard would buy a dual core CPU in [current year].

>>55860305
>Intel almost doubled the ipc since Sandy bridge
Fucking bullshit. I notice you posted your cherrypicked screenshot to deceive, but unfortunately I know where it comes from and can post both the full video and article to go with it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

>doubled the ipc
Stock 2500K Cinebench single thread: 129
Stock 6100 Cinebench single thread: 156
>doubled
>doubled
>doubled
Nice meme.

>>55860311
Thats why theres always people doing the lookieloo with new graphics cards trying to see if you can flash them to act as a different card to unlock their potentiel.

>>55859535
>being so obvious

>>55860394
Only AMD is stupid enough to hide same specs behind a GPU bios. Nvidia simply grabs a 1080, cuts off few chips here and there, drops a tiny bit of performance in drivers and there you have it - 1070 gtx! Difference in production cost? $10. Difference in retail price? $300.

>>55860377
Those benchmarks are done by retards who fail to realize that games like Overwatch will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS be capped by GPUs before they start being bottlenecked by CPU. Honestly differences in this bench probably come from ram speeds, not actual CPUs. Find me something like a GTA5 bench with enabled custom radio and you'll see real fucking difference.

File: 59518-944-550.jpg (64KB, 944x550px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 944x550px

>>55859535
A great man once said: "There are little sacrifices you must take for your freedom."

That man was pic related

Now kiss my ass jewtel shill

>>55860460
>gets
No. Arma. Always Arma for CPU

>>55860377
AMDs top-toppest-top model at 4.7GHz with 8 cores losing to Intels stone-age quad core at 3.3GHz

>>55859780
GPUs this year were all paper launches so far.

Both Nvidia and AMD cucked everyone.

>>55859981
6700K doesn't have a stock cooler.

AMD saw that the future was going to be driven by multi-threading and as we can clearly see, they were right. Instead of going the route that Intel took with hyperthreading (SMT) they went down the route of CMT (Clustered Multi-Thread). CMT was first used by DEC in 1996 with the Alpha 21264.

With SMT design one core is able to process two threads at the same time. first thread has priority, second thread gets the left overs. With CMT each thread has its own physical core and as the name applies, you have a cluster of cores that are grouped together in a single "module." Either two cores sharing one module or four cores sharing one module. Each module has its own dedicated resources where each core share those resources.

The modular architecture consists of multithreaded shared L2 cache and flexfpu, which uses simultaneous multithreading. Each physical integer core, two per module, is single threaded, in contrast with Intel's Hyperthreading, where two virtual simultaneous threads share the resources of a single physical core. The module is equal to a dual-core processor in its integer power, and to a single-core processor in its floating-point power. For each two integer cores, there is one floating-point core. The floating-point cores are similar to a single core processor that has uses SMT, which can create a dual-thread processor but with the power of one (each thread shares the resources of the module with the other thread) in terms of floating point performance.

The benefit of using CMT over SMT is you have actual physical cores processing each thread with more resources available for each thread since none fills in the gaps and gets the "leftovers."

>>55860932
Using the CMT route allowed for the easy creation of creating multi-core cpu's with low power usage. People may call the FX line a house fire, but in comparison to intel on a core count bases, they're not.

The problem with CMT? It's not great at being a single threaded processor. CMT is deigned around creating many cores and utilizing multi-threading capabilities. It sacrifices single threaded performance for increased core scaling capabilities. AMD thought they could compensate for this by increasing frequency speeds. To do this they had to lengthened the CPU’s pipeline which increased latencies throughout the architecture. This is awfully similar to Intel's Netburst architecture which was used in the Pentium 4's.

The problem with going with a design like Netburst, where you focus on increased frequencies to squeeze out higher performance is increased latencies, power usage, and consequently because of it, increased heat. You simply hit a wall with how high you can increase frequencies before power consumption goes through the roof.

>>55860932
>They were right
>5 years later 4 cores of i5 is still more than enough.

for tech savvy guys /g/ sure is filled with "muh future proofing" retards. If anything AMD is the finest example that future proofing doesn't make sense in this industry. Can't wait for poo retards to learn the same lesson with their "next gen" 480RX when it turns out that by 2018 you'll have whole 50 DX12/Vulkan games to play.

>>55860969
Nvidia gimping progress does not mean that the idea behind it was bad.

>>55860987
Sorry dude, I support performance, not ideas and promises.

>>55860932
But isn't smt better because when you don't need as many threads, your ipc goes up?
Clusters of smaller cores can't compete in single thread performance against a small group of larger cores.

File: 59c6ef77_computerbase.jpg (73KB, 624x469px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 624x469px

>>55860987
Nvidia doesn't gimp though, that's just a meme.

>>55860944
What puzzled everyone was that AMD knew the problems with such a design like Netburst. AMD after all showed the world back in the late 90's to mid 2000's that Intel's Netburst design was highly inefficient. They proved clock speed didn't matter the most, that it was the overall architecture design. Such as shortening the pipeline and lowering latency.

AMD figured having a design that allowed for easy scaling of cores would make up for the lack of single threaded performance since programs would be able to take advantage of them. AMD at the time, the execs in charged, truly thought multi-threading was going to take off. Well, they were right, but underestimated at which the speed of the growth was moving at.

>>55860969
>>55861019
i'm slowly getting there.

>>55861057
SMT does impact single thread performance iirc, so when an i7 3770 and an fx 8350 use only 4 threads, the i7 threads will be much stronger since they're full sized cores, unlike the smaller cut down fx cores.

For 8 threads though the fx wins since smt hurts single thread performance but the fx scales much better across the 8 threads with its 8 physical cores.

I'm not wrong, am I?

>>55859782
They've delayed other products to make sure Zen is released on time, pretty sure they realise how important it is

Intel CPUs are more expensive and slower

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=2468

>>55859992
>I'm expecting it to compete because it's advertised as being an 8 core. Quad core i5 2500k competes with i3 6100, why can't a 6 core or 8 core AMD?

KEK

So should a quad core Q6600, from 2008 compete with a 2016 Intel quad core processor?

I'm not sure if you're retarded or trolling.

File: 1442551464732.jpg (64KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 599x449px

>>55861139
>1.6 ghz 85 w 6 core Intel is 25% slower than 4.1ghz 95w 6 core AMD

>>55861150
>Lower clock rate is now a good thing!

>>55861150
Let's all get ARM processors since the only thing that matters is IPC and not the total speed.

>>55861169
>comparing a server processor to a desktop processor
>thinking power consumption doesn't matter

>>55861191
>Thinking the CPU branding matters
>10 W difference

>>55860969
>damn amd from trying to push the industry forward

File: intel-core-i3-6100-vs-amd-fx-6300-vs-core-i3-4130-cpu-gaming-benchmarks_8921350-81670_1920x1080.jpg (271KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1920x1080px

>>55861139
Meanwhile a dual core consumer Intel processor manages to destroy a 6 core AMD while consuming half as much power

>>55861057
Single threaded performance on bulldozer, and even piledriver was absolutely abysmal. Bulldozer was weaker than AMD's very own previous architecture found in the likes of Thuban clock for clock. Piledriver, which was quickly released brought the FX line up to at least match Thuban in single threaded performance but still weaker to even Intel's first generation i series processors based on nehalem clock for clock. It took a 8350 at its boost speed of 4.4ghz to match a i7 920 in single threaded performance.

This also resulted in the FX line to be weaker than Intel's even in multi-threaded scenarios. Take AMD's 8350 (8 core), 6300 (6 core), and 4300 (4 core) for example. In usages that used four threads all three where slower than even the lowest clocked i5 quad from intel's second generation i series, sandy bridge. They even failed against many i5 (non-ht) first generation nehalem quads.

Single threaded still mattered the most, and AMD realized this quickly. They realized it before even the launch, but they had to release it anyways. Processor design takes YEARS to develop and even if it was a failure, launching it was better than nothing. At least they would recoup some of the cost back. This is the reason why AMD never bothered to update the FX line since piledriver and kept it on 32nm. The node is matured and insanely affordable to build on.

>>55861089
SMT can hurt single threaded performance if the program your running, that should be priority, isn't the priority one because scheduling issues. Doesn't really happen much anymore since scheduling has gotten much better since 2000 on both Windows and Linux.

>>55859535
ikr i bought a prebuilt the other day $400 on sale with i3 and performs better in crysis 3 than the amd fx my friend has they just suck

File: Screenshot_2016-08-01-17-19-50_com.android.chrome.png (177KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 720x1280px

>>55861252
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-6300/3511vs1555

Autism.

>>55861289
What are you trying to show with this?

>>55861289
>Slightly faster multi-core speed +6%
>Faster OC multi-core speed +22%
>FX-6300 is faster

Looks like AMD wins again.

>>55859535
isnt their new chipset supposed to outpreform intel?

at least, that's why their stock went up. no idea how true it is.

File: 1469750300761.jpg (22KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 384x384px

>>55861319
>22% better
>when it's a 200w housefire

>>55861289
>30% benchmark difference
>~30% difference in price
don't see anything wrong here

>>55861258
AMD's CMT design only shined against Intel's quads and quads with hyperthreading in heavy multi-threaded usages where all 6 to 8 cores could be utilized. So they had some niche usages.

Game wise they aged somewhat decently with the 8350 for games that took advantage of all 8 of its cores, such as Battlefield 4. They at least matched stock Intel i5's at the time, though the i5 "k" variants where able to easily out overclock the 8350 and made them an overall better value.

Now with 6 - 10 core's Intel's on the X99 line, and skylel its hard to recommend any FX processor for most usages. Even from a price+performance ratio its still hard to recommend them now. There might still be a few niches, but not as many as there were at release of bulldozer.

>>55859535
Because the architecture is shit, and hasn't been updated in years

File: Screenshot_2016-08-01-17-28-44_com.android.chrome.png (136KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x720px

>>55861353
Apparently it's better value tho

File: 1456591795524.png (289KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1200x600px

>>55859535
AMD has decided that it was not worth further polishing the turd that is bulldozer thus they have not released a new CPU in years.

However developing a new architecture and getting it ready to ship takes time and a FUCKLOAD of money.

AMD Zen Q4 2016

>>55859535
It would not be a bad thing if AMD sold their chips at a reasonable price, but that ain't happening.

If I could buy an 8-core FX chip instead of the i3-6300, then I would buy the 8-core. But I can't, because the i3 almost costs the same.

If it costs the same, the i3 consumes less power, runs cooler, can turbo more, etc. And is more modern.

I don't know who is in charge of prices at AMD.

>>55861362
>Battlefield 4
>They at least matched stock Intel i5's at the time
which i mean compared to haswell.

>>55861057
also there was other reasons as well that hurt performance. such as being lazy and using synthesis tools for automatic placing and route's instead of hand crafting them. but overall it was the reliance on high frequencies.

>>55861369
well they have, but only in their apu lines. sicne their apu's are used heavily in their oem lines it was more cost efficient for them to take the time and resources to update their apu line rather their enthusiast line.

until zen, they conceded the enthusiast line to Intel.

The worst part? Intel is a pretty fucking shitty semiconductor company. Pajeets are stacked in every position from middle management down to design groups, layoffs are happening with increasing regularity, they've been unable to break into the foundry service market, and their mobile/embedded/low-power ventures have all failed to break the dominance of ARM in those areas.

Intel is literally the epitome of a poo-in-loo semiconductor company, and they've only managed to survive off of the fact that AMD has somehow managed to top Intel in atrocious mismanagement and lack of vision, letting Intel survive off of their effective monopoly on x86.

>>55861380
>He thinks Zen is real

>>55860944
>easy creation of creating multi-core cpu's with low power usage
Evidence says that this statement is objectively wrong. Not only does AMD have difficulty matching performance, but their processors also consume a lot of energy while multi threaded performance only competes when it comes to cost/performance.

If you compare to the i5 2500K to the FX 8350, the FX 8350 only has a slight performance edge even if you count multi-threaded benchmarks despite having 8 cores and a massive TDP advantage.
Compare the number of transistors, the FX 8350 has 1.2B and the i5 2500K has 1.16B.
That Intel processor doesn't even have SMT.
If you compare it to the i7 2600K, the processors perform at the same level even when you do multi core workloads.
So what the fuck is wrong with this picture? To me it looks like CMT is just a shitty half-assed SMT. Intel achieves the same performance with less transistors even in multi core workloads.

CMT doesn't make ANY sense. Why the fuck would you share some parts of a core between threads when you could share ALL the resources? If either thread can use all the resources of a core, each thread can have the full performance of that core, while if only some resources are shared between threads and the rest are duplicated each thread is limited to their own dedicated resources even if there is free TDP and the other threads are sitting idle without using the dedicated resources.

I think the only reason AMD ever went with CMT is to pretend their processors have tons of cores and market based on that gimmick. Like Pentium 4 and gigahurtz.

Have an FX 6300. Does the job fine, especially since I don't game and I use DB programs.
For gaming intel is probably better UNLESS you already have an aftermarket heatsink. Then you can squeeze the extra value out of the FX to beat the intel with no extra cost.
The FX might even win without OC in some games that are well optimized to us multiple cores.

>>55860170
I want what you're smoking.

>>55861258
this

hyperthreading has very little impact on single threaded performance. negligible if anything.

all it does is fill the gaps from the main thread with another another thread. a core is like a conveyor belt. it can only process one thing at a time, and only has one conveyor belt (only able to handle one thread). two cores? allows to have "two conveyor belts" at the same time. able to process two threads in parallel.

but like a conveyor belt, you have gaps between each object. all hyperthreading does is fill those gaps with another process. allowing a single core processor to processor two threads at once instead of one. though whatever is on that hyperthreading thread will not run as fast as if it was on the main thread. reason for this is that it has secondary status. it only get the unused resources at the moment and doesn't receive the full focus of the processor, but runs faster if there wasn't hyperthreading since it doesn't have to wait until whatever is in front of it to finish first.

all of this is managed via scheduling. focused, higher demanding threads get first priority and such. early days there were some issues, but now there are near none. scheduling has realy matured with windows and linux and physical cores always have higher priority over logical ones. so windows and linux try to dump everything on the physical cores first before the logical ones.

File: tw3.jpg (933KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 1920x1200px

>>55861658
Multi coar gaymen!

>>55861699
What processor is that? Guessing some kind of xeon?

>>55861727
E5-2658 v3

File: 1458491580667.jpg (36KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x359px

>>55861699
>all that cpu power
>still not 60 frames per second
Get 24 GPUs too

>>55861657
>Using the CMT route allowed for the easy creation of creating multi-core cpu's with low power usage. People may call the FX line a house fire, but in comparison to intel on a core count bases, they're not.
>Evidence says that this statement is objectively wrong.
when bulldozer came out amd's 8 core 8150 used similar amount of power than intel's 980x with 6 cores. i already covered this in my posts.

everything you stated was a regurgitation of everything i stated. FX line was severely under-performing not only against intel, but their very own previous designs. and it was all thanks to its abysmal single threaded performance.

they relied heavily on jacking up the clock speed as much as they could to make up for it, which increased power consumption and consequently heat. they eventually hit a wall with how high they can clock due to power constraints. just like netburst.

if they didn't jack up the clock rates as high as they did, a 12 core bulldozer would of used similar power to their 8 core. but single threaded performance would of been near Athlon 64 / Pentium 4 level. CMT wasn't meant for single threaded performance, it was meant for many cores. weak cores.

everyone agrees, even AMD, CMT was a terrible design to go after. its why they abandoned it in favor for a more traditional design based off of SMT with zen. its also why CMT wasn't use much, at all.

>>55861800
Actually if they managed to fix the single thread issue, if they managed to get 75 or 80% Intel ipc, they would have won.

File: average hetfedora.jpg (50KB, 540x656px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 540x656px

>>55861246
>Normal /g/ poster: well, AMD might not be so bad at rendering and compiling stuff

>Intel shilltard: HEY but meanwhile look at this GAMING benchmark, processors are only made for GAMING, intel is so much better because of GAMING

>>55861800
Intel i7 2600K was released in January, 2011.
AMD FX 8150 in October, 2011.

2600K beats FX 8150 in literally every benchmark. Even multi core. i7 980X shits on it from orbit. It performs even better than i7 2600K.

>>55861812
which would be very hard to due with the way CMT is designed. such as only having half the floating point performance compared to intel.

>>55861829
ok? you just keep backing up everything i wrote? did you not read anything i wrote?

such as:
>>55861258
>Single threaded performance on bulldozer, and even piledriver was absolutely abysmal. Bulldozer was weaker than AMD's very own previous architecture found in the likes of Thuban clock for clock. Piledriver, which was quickly released brought the FX line up to at least match Thuban in single threaded performance but still weaker to even Intel's first generation i series processors based on nehalem clock for clock. It took a 8350 at its boost speed of 4.4ghz to match a i7 920 in single threaded performance.

>This also resulted in the FX line to be weaker than Intel's even in multi-threaded scenarios. Take AMD's 8350 (8 core), 6300 (6 core), and 4300 (4 core) for example. In usages that used four threads all three where slower than even the lowest clocked i5 quad from intel's second generation i series, sandy bridge. They even failed against many i5 (non-ht) first generation nehalem quads.

>Single threaded still mattered the most, and AMD realized this quickly. They realized it before even the launch, but they had to release it anyways. Processor design takes YEARS to develop and even if it was a failure, launching it was better than nothing. At least they would recoup some of the cost back. This is the reason why AMD never bothered to update the FX line since piledriver and kept it on 32nm. The node is matured and insanely affordable to build on.

>>55861822
> implying gaming render is more intense than video/3d software render

The FX Piledriver are from 2012 and they were a decent alternative for the i3 and cheaper i5 at the time. But during those 4 years intel has been releasing newer models, even if they have small gap gains the gap has widen enough

It makes no sense to keep buying them now, specially after their price has been the same as a couple of year ago, and Intel has better and newer hardware for the price

>>55861800
clock for clock, exactly, CMT designed 8 core would use less power than a similarly designed SMT 8 core.

but clock for clock would of resulted the FX line being even worse than it was in single threaded performance. so power savings where virtually null and worse since yeah, to increase single threaded performance they had to crank up the frequencies.

FX was very niche and CMT design is extremely niche.

>>55861822
>implying people on /g/ don't waste their time gaming
>implying anyone would benefit from rendering on an fx 6300 when the i3 6100 has as much raw cpu power for the same price and half the power consumption and heat output

Anyone serious about rendering would be on an i7

File: 1469663005329.png (174KB, 696x678px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x678px

>>55861329
post more amada please

>>55861901
its sad really.

during the late 2000's they should of ditched it, but they had a lot of miss management. even with their engineers. such as withholding performance data from managers.

>>55861901
CMT 8 core would not be comparable to a SMT 8 core in performance. The SMT 8 core has 16 threads, it'll crush the 8 core CMT processor if they are of similar design.

CMT duplicates more hardware, so it inherently uses more transistors and power than a similarly performing SMT processor. The way AMD gets around it is that it dedicates less resources per core than Intel does. That's why AMD single core performance is so shit.

Their entire architecture is built around the crippled CMT bullshit.

>>55859535
The reason is simple: AMD hasn't released any new processor architectures for like 4 years or so

I'm hoping Zen will finally shake things up. Personally I'm waiting for Zen's release for my next upgrade.

In the best world scenario, it will be competitive enough to be worth buying. In the medium scenario, it would at least drive down Kaby Lake's prices.

In the worst case scenario, it will actually cause Intel to raise Kaby Lake's prices. That's what I'm hoping won't happen.

>>55860133
>480 didn't sell out
I remember checking both Newegg and Amazon to get one just a week ago, and they were literally all sold out. Both AIBs and reference models.

>>55861961
Carrizo wasn't new?

>>55862058
still based on bulldozer. It's just polishing the turd

>>55860377
>need aftermarket cooler and soundproofed full tower case not to rape your ears
>need 150W greater PSU
>will cost you $150 more a year to run
>while cooking you
>"far better price/performance"

I would take an i3 6100 over an FX any day of the week.

>>55862134
I don't know what shitty prices burgers have to pay for electricity, but I pay around €40 a year just for my pc.

>>55862218
>he doesn't even know his electric rates

File: FX-9590-55.jpg (78KB, 537x568px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 537x568px

ITT once again /g/ shows it knows nothing of cpus. Pro tip: fork the sort of workloads FX chips are designed for they will absolutely crush most intel chips.

>>55862456
They were sold as consumer and gaming processors.

>>55862456
You mean barely keep up with processors that have half their tdp and cores.

File: tww_pr.jpg (100KB, 523x440px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 523x440px

>>55862467

There is no such thing as a gaming cpu. A cpu is a cpu is a cpu - it is good at some things, bad at others (see: intel's igpu is utter shit).

File: 2810315.jpg (106KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1600x900px

>>55862485

I guess its a bad thing an 8350 - with its 125w tdp - is ewqually a 4770k, a cpu thats many years newer and has a TDP in the 90w range.

> cores.

The inherent differences between CMT and SMT mean that is a goddamn terrible argument.

File: 66158.png (35KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 650x350px

>>55862456
...in power consumption.

>just fork
So, twice the RAM, twice the inconvenience, while paying twice as much and dealing with twice the heat

File: 1467868116164.jpg (58KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x364px

>>55862134
>$150 more a year

More like, $20 more a year. Stop spreading FUD, consolewar newfag.

(I have an Intel CPU)

File: power-ivbsm.png (92KB, 600x532px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x532px

>>55862608
A FX is $100 over an i5. It's $150 over an i3.

>>55862456
>POV-Ray
Nice cherry-picking. Go show some other CPU-heavy benchmarks like x264 encoding, timed kernel compilation, CineBench or HEVC decoding

File: 1456941036579.jpg (54KB, 614x572px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 614x572px

>>55861574
Engineering samples already shipped.

>>55862489
It's marketing.

File: FX-9590-57.jpg (74KB, 537x568px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 537x568px

>>55862711

>>55862801
Yeah but honestly how does that compete against sky lake?
I'm curious because I'm going to get into video production and shit as a hobby and if I can get i5 6500 performance from a used 8350 then I'm going to get it

>>55862817

That I do not have an answer for as few sites actually bother to benchmark AMD chips (probably because its not as easy to get samples).

With a little bit of guesstimation I would surmise a 6500 would be generally equal to the 8350 but the 8350 has the advantage of being overclockable, which may or may not be a serious factor into what to purchase.

>>55862817
Don't. Used 8350 rigs are no cheaper than i7's, and an E5-2670 will blow it out of the water.

>>55862899
Just checked, in can buy an fx 6300 + mobo for the same price as an i3 6100 on its own.
From aliexpress though.

How reliable is it going to be?

>>55862852
I just checked and the 8350 seems to be on par with the 6400.

I just need cheap performance though and power isn't an issue since I'll probably use it once a week, so it looks like a used fx 6 or 8 core are my best options?

File: your idol commands it.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>>55862661
I was unaware that you (or anyone, really) had your CPU at full load 24/7, 365.

Go back to /v/

>>55863007
There are people who bought the fx 6300 because it was 5 dollars cheaper than an i3.

>>55862970
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Precision-T3600-Xeon-E5-1603-2-8GHz-6GB-1TB-SATA-NVS300-Win-10-PRO-WiFi-/122021923130

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SR0KX-INTEL-XEON-E5-2670-8-CORE-2-60GHz-20M-8GT-s-115W-PROCESSOR-CPU-/131712879364

File: Untitled.png (182KB, 1301x1045px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1301x1045px

>>55863007
Why don't you go back to /pol/.

>>55859535
>higher end FXseries
lmao there is no FX high end, it's all budget trash

>>55863037
Ausfag. That stuff is kinda expensive here.

>>55859646
>mfw as an inter cuckeroni i got giddy excited about APU's
>comparing cpu's shot me down because the performance on those are crap
>mfw every time i look at an APU, i compare it to a G3258 + fe. GTX670

Why can't we have a nice cheap chip with proper igpu

Iris where are you

>>55863140
Hopefully with zen we can have a nice 2c4t APU with r7 260x performance igpu.

>>55861169
>jiggahertz argument

really? haven't heard about architecture efficiency?

>>55859535
nice b8 negro child. I have a 70 dollar AMD cpu that outperforms by far my friend's 300 dollar Intel i5 bullshit
go shitpost somewhere else

>>55863151
But Intel is better, in value, performance, and power consumption.

AMD is better at barely being cheaper

>>55863160
I hope AMD makes a comeback on those
Affordable and performing chips with a good igpu

>>55863210
Me too.

>wanted a cheap steam machine for casual games on the tv
>a8 7600 is incredible value
Buy now or wait for zen?

>>55863225
Well, not bad for value
Buy now, sell if the zen is any better

I'd myself shoot for a G4400 or a G3258 and some gpu if it comes to gaming needs, the 7600 is a tad slow for me but i like the idea behind it

>>55859827
10nm isn't coming soon, if at all. It was hard enough getting down to 16nm. And even if it's a success, all we'll get is another round of power efficicencies. It might even perform worse overall. Lithography size is the new megahertz.

File: BbP8CozCEAAOlVZ.jpg large.jpg (252KB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1024x1365px

>>55863225
It's so cheap that you really won't feel left out if Zen destroys it, which it probably will.

>>55863185
AMD is nice for legacy PCs. You can't find a new i5-2500 for cheap, while you can easily upgrade AM3 PC with a latest FX.

>>55863182
>he thinks his FX-4350 beats an i7 6700 because it has more gigahurtz.

>>55863225
buy now. get a board that can oc igpu in bios.300mhz or more is possible.

File: Capture.png (212KB, 986x675px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 986x675px

>>55863434

>>55863429
Fuck off shill.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-01-21-21-35_com.ebay.mobile.png (276KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 720x1280px

>>55863434
As long as it's not a k it doesn't need to be new

>>55863459
>>55863465
>Buying used trash off shanklist/fleabay
Do you dumpster dive in your spare time, too?

>>55861822
if I didn't play games why would I give a shit what cpu I had?

>>55863522
What do you have?

>>55863559
G3258

File: i5 4670k.png (620KB, 1376x710px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1376x710px

>>55863569
He threw in the case, too.

>>55863522
> $100 pcs available in burgerville that aren't shitty, minus shitty mechanical hard drive that can be replaced with a new SSD loaded with a Linux distro.
> burgers still find a reason to complain.

>>55863613
Yeah if you're on a tight budget the US is great for used computers.

I bought a Q6600 with 8GB of RAM and a GTX 9800 512MB about 2-3 years ago for like $170. Had a 2TB hard drive for the boot drive, replaced it with an SSD and it actually ran pretty good for 2014. Played counter strike just fine at 1080p.


Finally upgraded a few months ago to something brand new though and can't be happier.

What's the go to intel processor to go to if you have a small budget and you need to get rid of old AMD parts?

i3 6100
i5 3330
i7 2770

>>55863670
Exactly, the price you paid for it is probably the same now in 2016 with Irish prices. €100 will get you a Core 2 Quad + 4GB.

File: 1428615235808.jpg (28KB, 480x615px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x615px

>>55860408
>cuts off few chips here and there

>>55863495
YOUCANTPLAYSHOOTANGAEMSONTHAT

>>55863590
>>55863754
I3 6100

>>55863754
Newest i3 is your best bet. You can always buy a used skylake CPU in 3-5 years if you need an upgrade to more cores.

>>55863459
Pretty sure Dell has a locked BIOS that prevents installing newer GPUs.

Decided against buy a used XPS due to that.

>>55860133
>First - It didn't. Majority of their AiB is garbage tier and only decent companies like Sapphire actually sold out. Rest of them gathers dust in stock

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709&IsNodeId=1&Description=RX+480&name=Desktop+Graphics+Cards&Order=BESTMATCH&isdeptsrh=1&Page=1
Almost all the models are sold out, and the few that aren't are selling at WAY above MSRP.

>>55863834
Nah, my friend upgraded his i5 2500 dell with a gtx 960.
Works great

>>55863834
They dont stop you from installing a new GPU, what they do stop you is from overclocking anything, RAM, CPU, etc.

Also the stock power supplies are usually not powerful enough for a top of the line GPU.
But even that's not as much of an issue these days with how power efficient the GTX 1080 and 1070 are.

>>55863869

> days with how power efficient the GTX 1080 and 1070 are.

I don't think you understand how shit tier those psus are.

>>55863876
Well I used to own one, so i'm pretty sure I do, and since they lock overclocking you're probably overestimating how much power things actually draw.

The XPS 8900 comes standard with a 460w PSU, that's more than powerful enough for any single GPU basically, including the GTX 1080.

i7 + GTX 1080 is ~270w, add another ~50w for your other components and you're still under 350w.

>>55863876
460W in the XPS is pretty good. It only has one 6 pin so you're not going to 1070 it, though.

>>55863930
They come with molex to PCI adapters so it actually works fine.

There are plenty of forum posts to back me up.

>>55860377
>meme meme meme
kys

>>55863944
They don't have molex.
But I was wrong, they do have two six pins.

File: 1468518093276.jpg (115KB, 796x805px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 796x805px

>>55861246
DELETE THIS

>>55863944

>using molex adapters

That how you spot the idiot.

>>55864007
This is getting annoying now

>>55864011
They work fine

>>55864011
Are you retarded? The main reason you don't want to use a molex adapter is because a PSU will generally have all the PCIe connectors it can handle for it's wattage. HOWEVER we already know this dell PSU can deliver 460w and the majority of that isn't being used. It should be perfectly safe to use a Molex adapter in this case, it wont be drawing more amperage than the unit can handle and the molex adapters are rated for full PCIe spec power delivery, so that's not an issue either.


How to spot the idiot is right, we found you.

>>55864022

>They work fine

You really aren't going to get the amperage you need.

>>55864051
Are they going to lose the amperage between the PSU and the GPU?

How the fuck do you think electricity works?

>>55864050

You do realise that while the adapter may be rated to handle the draw, the psu rails more than likely aren't. Whatever though, if one wishes to run the risk of exploding their psu its not my problem.

>>55861246
The FX 6300 is from fucking 2012, what did you expect? Of course a modern CPU with DDR4 is going to bottleneck less with a fucking Titan X OC. And the 4130 barely gains 2 FPS, it bottlenecks the shit out of it too. Also, >60 FPS is a meme anyway, retard.

>>55864075
>the psu rails more than likely aren't
It's a 460w power supply that is running at most 100w on the CPU and another 50w on everything else.
It has an 18A 12v rail, a 16A 12v rail and an 8A 12v rail.
That's 385w combined on 12v rails.

So you're still looking at an easy 200-240w of headroom for a GPU, the GTX 1080 draws 180w, the GTX 1070 draws 150w. Both cards should be fine.

And has already been said, the PSU doesn't even need a molex connector as it has 2x6pin PCIe power ANYWAY.


TLDR shut the fuck up

>>55861942
>should of

>>55859771
i7 non-k sandy = $140 used
There are still low tier new motherboards available at $50
ddr3 1600 8gb ram are at $35

The difference is only about $20, but you get better performance out of an i7. Ivy non-k i5 are at $100. There is no point in getting i3 skylake unless you were planning on upgrading in a year or so.

This thread makes me, my A8-5600K and R7 270X feel bad.
I need to stop being poor and get with the times.

Do you think that this build could work out well?
http://it.pcpartpicker.com/list/Gzh8M8

I'm going to use this new pc for both working and playing fps games being more than 2 years old (the most recent is Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare) at 1920x1080 res. I don't care for graphics, I just want great performance (my screen has 144 Hz refresh rate), then I'll probably play games at low/med settings.

>>55864561
Thing is, if you get the skylake you benefit from ddr4, get similar performance, and in 3 years you could upgrade to a 6600 or 6700. That i7 is a bad idea for the same reason the fx 8350 is a bad idea. No upgrade path and dead platform.

>>55864696
>weak AMD cpu with AMD gpu
You'd see better performance with the slower 750 ti with that cpu...

>>55864738
>750ti for 144hz 1080p

anon you're a retard.

tfw upgrdaded to a 7850k from an e6750 and didnt really notice a difference

>>55864781
Why would you? they have very similar single core performance.

This is why you research before "upgrading"

>>55864753
Like I said, I don't mean to play last generation's games. I saw many videos of people running games I'm interested in at very good framerates at high/ultra settings on 1920x1080 with the 750 Ti.
What other option in the same price range would you recommend to me?

>>55859535
>comparing new cpu to a 5 year old cpu

>>55864749
I don't really know what my bottleneck is.
I just got the best hardware that I could afford at the time.
Unfortunately I'm stuck with said hardware until I can afford to upgrade again.
It tends to drop frames heavily in certain games like Fallout 4 (no real surprise because Bethsoft) and Forza (maybe it's a optimization issue there as well, I dunno)

>>55864801
>>55864753
One more thing: the i5 6500 is considered as a very good processor for gaming and doing basic stuff, but is its integrated cooler good enough? I put an aftermark cooler in my build just to be sure....

>>55864821
Get this instead.

http://it.pcpartpicker.com/list/rM8q3F

>>55864821
They wouldnt sell it with the stock cooler if it didnt work.

You aren't going to be overclocking it so no real point in buying an aftermarket cooler.

Hell I'd step it down to an i3 and move the GPU up to a GTX 1060 or RX-480.

CPU is generally not the bottleneck to getting 144fps, it's the GPU.

>>55864794
i should've just dropped a q6600 into the old rig and got a slightly better gpu


at least i didn't really spend much on this one

maybe ill save and do an i5 build then use this for something else

>>55864816
Your gpu is still fine, you're suffering from a massive cpu bottleneck thanks to your cpu being so weak and AMD drivers taking up so many cpu cycles.

>>55864841
>>55864840
This.

>>55864853
Well that sucks. Replacing a the mainboard and CPU would definitely set me back a ways.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-01-23-40-29_com.ebay.mobile.png (299KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 720x1280px

>>55864875
You should just buy a used workstation.
I5 1155 will be a massive upgrade. In aus they're like 200 dollars, you get the cpu, mobo, some ram, a hdd, a psu, and a case.
Pretty much a new pc.

>>55864841
Ok thank you.

>>55864840
That GPU is obviously better and your build would cost only little more money than mine. But I need some clarifications:
1) the fps games I play are quite CPU intense, so is a i3 6100 worthy over a i5 6500? I mean, I don't mind the extra money for the i5 6500 and I'm afraid that the i3 6100 might have worse performance.
2) doesn't Rx 480 have heat issues?
3) 1TB HDD is useless to me, since I already own an external 1TB storage. I chose a SSD storage because I opted for a faster boot of games and OS and other apps I usually play. Is SSD better performance negligible to you?

>>55860377
>fx8370 $299
>i3 6100 $164

6 fps difference

What the fuck is this shit? Some brand new kind of autism?

>>55865177
25fps difference for minimum FPS.

>>55864982
You're that autist who shills his youtube channel here aren't you?

Nobody should ever buy a second hand dell, especially for gaming. You should feel bad.

Phenom II X4 955 is the best CPU AMD has ever made

>>55865198
>Both are above 60
>Neither is above 120/144

The same price bracket for intel gets you higher than 120 minimum. Notice how there is no amd cpu that gets above 144 minmum, but there are 5 intel cpus that do?

>>55865058
I3 6100 is between i5 6400 and 6500, it's a very good value cpu. I5 6500 is better though because it's a quad core, but that i3 is still the current value king in my opinion.

I tried to keep price as close to what you set as I could, but if you don't mind spending a little extra, get the i5 and ssd instead.

>>55865251
I have a 5820k you're not telling me anything I dont know. Im just saying there is an obvious performance drop for minimum FPS when going with the i3 which may present itself in other games and get below 60fps where the FX 8350 might be able to maintain over 60fps.

>>55865236
Nah fx6300 is better

>>55865272
In games that don't do as well with multiple cores the i3 6100 is on par with the fx 8320, and in some games has better minimum framerates, and the ones where it is worse are sparse, and only marginally worse. The 8320 is $50 more expensive than it.

The 8370 doesn't compare to the i5 6500.

There's no reason to get amd for gaming.

>>55865364
I never said there was, but there is little point in buying a current gen i3 if you're still on AMD either. Wait for Zen or Kabylake.

>>55865283

Last good processor AMD made was the Athlon64.

>>55859535
why are people still buying anything other than an i5?

>>55865375
If someone is still on AMD for gaming and is waiting for the next generation of AMD for gaming then there's no point in trying to help them.

Some people just won't listen.

>Why is Intel CPU so much faster then AMD even the low end i3 outperform the higher end FXseries.

Research and development money.
Intel spends more on it than AMD has in revenue.


>>55859631
I would argue that is the doing of AMD.
AMD's profit margins are pretty much non-existant (they haven't pulled a profit in ~5 years outside of cherry picked quarters)
So AMD purposely lowers the price of its products to stay competitive at the expense of profits.
If AMD has the same margins as intel on their products intel's perf/price wouldn't see nearly as bad.

File: win98benches_image006.gif (15KB, 549x715px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 549x715px

>>55865467
No. It was the Thunderbird.
They've not competed with Intel on level ground since then.

>>55865266
You did a great job with my build, I appreciate it. Honestly I'm not on budget, then I could raise up the total amount of money if it was absolutely worthy the upgrade. What I don't want to do though is to save money and buy something that could be a downgrade from what I originally had in mind. Some questions again:
1) I previously chose a Gold PSU because I thought that it would be better than a Bronze one at any rate. I may keep the PSU you suggested though, if you tell me that it can power everything fine.
2) speaking of other GPU, would a GTX 970 or even a 960 be good for what I want? I mean playing quite old fps games at 1920x1080 on a 144 Hz screen. I could get those GPU for like 50-60€ more than the GTX 750 Ti.
3) do SSD draw a lot of power compared to HHD? I wasn't able to find good info about this point.

>>55865555
>They've not competed with Intel on level ground since then.

The original Athlon 64 could outperform the P4 running at twice the clockrate.

>>55859631
It's really not though. In synthetic and encoding intel rapes AMD still, the only thing they're better at is compression at some price brackets.

>>55865587
1) Not by much, especially at low wattages.
2) Gtx 1060 is out now, check it out, if it's too expensive you might consider second hand.
3) No.

File: 6792.png (22KB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x337px

>>55865591
Only for six months. Stop sugarcoating history.

>>55860305
>Intel almost doubled the ipc since Sandy bridge.

No they didn't. They did 5% increase at best per generation, and most of that come from increased clocks not just better IPC.

What gives them a real boost are the new AVX instructions the cook into every new generation. They are literally the only reason why games show more dramatic increases.

>>55865625
Ok thank you

>>55865687
That's a cpu that costs $200 more and runs 40% higher clockrate, to show 15% gain in a cherry picked benchmark.

If we do cherry picking then you also need to overclock it to 5.2GHZ so it can beat the fx-55 in *every* benchmark.

File: 5066.png (40KB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x337px

>>55865687
>1.8ghz athlon64 outperforms 3.6ghz P4

This isn't sugar coating. Calling the P4 a competitor against the Athlon64 in any way is revisionist history.

On the otherhand intel iGPU absolutely sucks ass.

Their Iris Pro Graphics 580 is a lot better on paper than it is in reality compared to the older Iris Pro 5200.
Only a 50% or so performance increase.
Which should have been more considering it has almost twice as many execution units and a bunch more flops.

>>55859717
>You should really buy some ancient housefire CPU that costs twice as much.
It's not worth, older generation CPUs never turn into great deals, those times are long over. AMD, Intel and nVidia knows exactly the performance hierarchy and sets the prices accordingly. They have no interest in competing against their own products.

>>55859717
Not really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwB1KRMpFdw

i3-6100 beats the 2500

>>55866045
intel drivers a shit

>>55859655
>in every benchmark
Too easy to spot shills these days or do people actually believe this?

>>55866102
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbyGapxiGLQ

OC 6100

>>55864841
>CPU is generally not the bottleneck to getting 144fps, it's the GPU.

If you want consistent 100+ FPS in new(-ish) games, you need a pretty beefy CPU as well.

>>55866255
yeah but that's single core performance on 2-4 cores which the i3 should be fine with for the majority of games besides maybe KSP, cities skyline, and some other CPU heavy games.

>>55866107

Intel is woefully unprepared to actrually provide a good gaming experience no matter how impressive theur hardware is as they simply don't have the experience at dealing with all the hacks and shit required for vidya.

AMD and Nvidia are leagues ahead of Intel on that front.

>>55859535
>muh games
kys

File: 1468665656534.jpg (6KB, 158x144px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 158x144px

>>55859780
Amd fans still thinking the upcoming gen is the one where they catch up... 15 years straight

>>55866341
Yeah I've got a friend who actually worked on Intel's Larrabee project and he basicaly said intel will likely never have good gaming experience and that after the failure Larrabee was they will likely stay away from higherclass graphics all together for the foreseeable future.

>>55860083
Is that really their fault though? I blame console companies falling for the 4K craze and shitty developers thinking powerful hardware is going to sudden toy make their games amazing

>>55859780
Intel has been pretty much completely shitting on AMD CPUs since the good ol' Core2Duo/Core2Quad CPUs. That's a very long time now and it's really too bad that AMD hasn't been really competing for such a long time. Hopefully Zen is actually good.

>>55859992
Why are you comparing the i3 6100 with fx 6300 instead of fx 8300? The i3 is like 5 dollars more expensive than the fx 8300.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113399&cm_re=fx_8300-_-19-113-399-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1UH3Z96233&cm_re=i3_6100-_-2MN-0004-00002-_-Product

>>55860170
s/Gaming/Arma 3/
s/Arma 3/Poorly optimized games that run performance critical shit on a single thread/

>>55860172
>2 Intel cores almost as fast as 6 AMD cores
That's still depressing if anything.

>>55866647
Hyperthreading is more like 2 real cores and 2 fake cores.
Not true dual core.

And the Fx63xx isn't a *true* 6 core.
3 bulldozer modules.

>>55861822
>rendering
Yeah I'm sure /g/ is all video editors and 3D modeling pros who compile huge projects 24/7.

>>55860194
Cinibench does use cores, and there was a scandal in the past, which could still be the case, where it favors intel cpus over amd.

Streaming would be better suited for more cores over IPC, the streaming will be offloaded to the additional cores.

>>55866470

I can't knock their engineering talent but software - especially software that tends not to conform to standards - is not an area where Intel has much experience.

Especially given (unlike a cpu) a gpu can't just tell a game to "do it my way or gtfo".

>>55866689

>And the Fx63xx isn't a *true* 6 core.
3 bulldozer modules.

Don't start this shit. There is no definitin of what a core is and there are in fact 6 fpu units on a 6300 which is good enough to define how many "cores" the chip has.

>>55860540
all hail our lord and savior Richard Stallman, we must fight for freedom

>>55866689
Hyperthreading is exactly 2 cores with SMT, those are 2 cores with 2 threads per core to allow better utilization of the core's otherwise idle resources. They are dual core CPUs and there's no way around that.

AMD has 6 cores with 3 FPUs, each shared by 2 cores.

>>55859789
what's your take on t-series of 6100? I don't know which to chose. The most sophisticated thing I do would be face detection and prolly some minor video editing in ffmpeg for dank webums.

>>55859631
Got an i5-2500k used for $95. I'd say it holds up pretty strong price/perf

>>55866781
T-series(usually) costs more and is clocked lower. Not much point in getting it unless you really need to save that 30 watts for some reason.

Is i5 4460 better than i5 6500?

>>55866851
If you need to save that 30W, you can just lower core voltage. It's like overclocking, except you optimize voltage at stock clocks instead of your overclock.

Although sometimes I wonder if Intel doesn't have some special sauce for those low power processors, I have a low power Xeon and it's surreal how little power it takes. The actual rated TDP is way higher than what the processor actually consumes in power. Takes less power without undervolting than my i5 750 with a massive 0.15V undervolt while having a TDP of almost 10W higher.

>>55867242

Its why phones have lots of cores in them despite being potato - its more energy effecient.

>>55867242
Mostly it comes from binning(remember that consumer desktop CPUs are almost certainly leftovers that didn't make it into laptop or server/workstation SKUs).

>>55867140

It's older 4th Gen vs a newer 6th gen. The new 6th gen I series sip just around 40 watts.

>>55867316
Not even sure about binning since mine is only available to servers and it's a pre-production CPU.

Muh games
Muh threads

>>55859717
I bought my i5 2500k for £55
Motherboard for £38
RAM for £13.98

An i3 6100 is £110


My main build is still an i7 2600k

Are people really so autistic here? AMD didn't "stop caring", what you, a retard? Intel just has the capital to invest on the latest transistor technology.

Autists don't get how expensive it is to be on the latest node. We are talking billions.

>>55859878
>OKAY with Intel Charging whatever they want on their CPU Line also ?
>Enjoying that price increase in the 2011 ?
>?

Are you asking a fucking question?

ITT: AMDrones trying to hide their buyers remorse with dumb ass justifications

my llano cpu (released in june 2011) overclocks 40% and runs without any issues. it's more than enough for me. go fuck yourself, intel shill

>>55859535
Higher IPC

>>55867682

/g/ still believes that under the scenario AMD implodes someone else would step up and get the x86 license and built chips to fight Intel (hint: whoever buys AMD won't bother).

>>55867355
Not really. I5 6500 consumes around 60W.

>>55865687
see
>>55865917
>>55865977

and also, you comapred a DUAL CORE P4 to a single core athlon 64 and a DUAL CORE extreme edition that costed $1,000 to a single core athlon64.

>>55861959
i was half asleep when i wrote that. what i meant was a 8 core, non ht design.

>>55869901
lol this

at least compare intel's dual core p4's to athlong 64 x2 dual cores like the 3800+, 4000+, 4800+, and such.

>>55860083
AMD aren't at fault for that. Microsoft/Sony are.
They KNEW what they were doing. They KNEW they were underpowering their consoles and they was HAPPY to do that.
Why? Because fuck the consumer, why give them something that'll remain relevant for 10 years like the 360 came close to doing, when they can make it 4-5 years at most?

Charge more, sell as many or more than the last gen, rinse it for what you can and make room for yet another generation of console on newer, more powerful gear.
AMD were simply saying "we can do this, or that, you can have x y or z, but the limitation of x is 1, y is 2, z is 3."
Sony/Microsoft chose exactly what they wanted.

>>55869901
Why do you idiots always use the price/performance crutch? Competitive = product can out perform other vendors products at release. Price is irrelevant.

The product doesn't have to be worth buying, but if it can take the performance crown it's competitive - and as someone who followed processors in the P4 era, Intel Pentiums were definitely competitive with AMDs offerings. Sometimes it was the P4 ahead, sometimes it was the Athlon that was ahead.
That's called competition. Nobody cares if you thought the Pentium 4 was a bad deal or whatever, that's your subjective preference.

Non competitive situation is what is happening now. AMD has literally nothing that out performs Intels offerings. You could give AMD 10000 dollars and they'd still shrug.

If AMD had a 32 core processor with 64 threads for the consumer market that shit on Intels i7-6950X from orbit, I don't care if it cost 10 dollars or 100k dollars. AMD would be the winner and more than just competitive with Intel.

>>55870204
>Competitive = product can out perform other vendors products at release. Price is irrelevant.

That's the exact opposite of what competitive means. Competitive = worth buying.

>>55870237

[Insert obligatory "stop being a poorfag" deflection here]

>>55870237
You don't dictate what is worth buying and what isn't worth buying. Maybe I think that an i7-6700K is not worth buying, what now faggot? Does that mean the i7-6700k isn't competitive?

>>55870280
You're right, I don't, and neither do you. The free market does that.

>>55870304
Exactly, and free market universally proves that price does not matter. If you have the best performance on the market, people will buy it unless you overcharge for it to a comical degree. Even then, some people will buy it. Ergo if you are capable of creating a product that out performs the competition, you're competitive.

AMD isn't. Intel during Pentium 4 era was.

>>55870280

>Does that mean the i7-6700k isn't competitive?

Given competitive is entirely down to what measurements one is using there are many scenarios where yes, a 6700k is entirely uncompetitive for a given deployment.