This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

AMD FX-8350, is their unnecessary bias against AMD?

#61GreenMage7Posted 8/15/2013 5:38:13 PM
me1122 posted...
GreenMage7 posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
All of them.
AMD's CPUs are fine for some things, but absolute garbage for others. It's those others that make the difference.


But that's the problem. It's probably not garbage for other things, Intel has just used their money and market dominance to stack the deck. Actually read the last link and look at the absolute bull-crap Intel pulls to maintain their near-monopoly. It's disgusting.


No, do some research. Intel wins in per core performance, period. In multi-threaded it gets complicated. Intels hyperthreading puts it on par with amds modals. Ie the i7 performs similar to the 8350, because each have 8 threads but only 4 full cores. Intels are software threads amd's are partial core threads. Same as i3 and 4300, but with full cores intel does win. See the i5 vs the 4300.

TL;DR, amd = cheap threads that are good when multi-threaded but weak per core
intel = a bit more expensive(depending on what you want) but stronger cores overall.


See, this garbage again. Go make a new thread where no one will care.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

http://www.yeppp.info/home/yeppp-performance-numbers

^Single-threaded performance.^

There is a difference between being garbage and being weaker. This is what the thread is actually about. And are you a parrot? This crap has already been said in this thread and it has as little merit now as did then. It's not what this thread about. I don't even know why I came back, probably because people lack reading comprehension.
#62JockoPosted 8/15/2013 6:24:53 PM
Can't everyone just accept the fact that the Intel Pentium III stomps the AMD 8350 in every scenario so we can stop wasting our time with research and facts?
---
The oxygen's leaving my brain!!! --Clucky the Chicken
()===={SWORDSWORDSWORDSWORD> It's my SWORD sword.
#63GipFacePosted 8/15/2013 8:47:02 PM
I thought this discussion was over when I pointed out that Teksyndicate used the EVGA Z77 Stinger for the Intel, which is known to be a garbage board.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/lga1155-mini-itx-intel-z77-roundup_10.html

The AMD was on an Asus M5A99X Pro R2.0, which is about as good as you can get unless you step up to Asus' ROG Crosshair motherboards.

That's why no other site can duplicate Teksyndicate's results, and why they're phoney.
#64GreenMage7Posted 8/15/2013 9:28:35 PM(edited)
GipFace posted...
I thought this discussion was over when I pointed out that Teksyndicate used the EVGA Z77 Stinger for the Intel, which is known to be a garbage board.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/lga1155-mini-itx-intel-z77-roundup_10.html

The AMD was on an Asus M5A99X Pro R2.0, which is about as good as you can get unless you step up to Asus' ROG Crosshair motherboards.

That's why no other site can duplicate Teksyndicate's results, and why they're phoney.


No, that was an offshoot side discussion that you started. They only used that board in the second video, unless you are trying to say in the first one (the one that is actually linked) they tested the 3570, 3770, and 3820 (not possible by the way).

And in your own link, that board shows no difference from the other boards with overclock other than it not being stable with higher a RAM frequencies so they used 1600 MHz RAM with it instead of what they used in the others, making a variable in the test and giving it lower performance. In the review they use same RAM frequency and overclock both processors, and the EVGA Stinger has the same performance as the other boards when overclocked, it just naturally underclocks the processor *at stock* and is unstable. It is a bad board, I'm assuming EVGA sent it to them when they sent the 670 for the test, but it didn't change the test that much and certainly didn't effect the processors in the first video (which was linked).

The topic is about mostly unfair bias against AMD (which exists) because it would be fine for the vast majority of consumers and save them money. Intel has used illegal and unfair business practices to stay ahead of the competition, and would rather settle out of courts and pay fines than actually stop using their bad business tactics. Somehow, people keep bringing up the same parroted crap that is off-topic. If you want to make a performance discussion, go ahead and make another thread.
#65KamenRiderBlade(Topic Creator)Posted 8/16/2013 12:06:40 AM
GreenMage7 posted...
GipFace posted...
I thought this discussion was over when I pointed out that Teksyndicate used the EVGA Z77 Stinger for the Intel, which is known to be a garbage board.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/lga1155-mini-itx-intel-z77-roundup_10.html

The AMD was on an Asus M5A99X Pro R2.0, which is about as good as you can get unless you step up to Asus' ROG Crosshair motherboards.

That's why no other site can duplicate Teksyndicate's results, and why they're phoney.


No, that was an offshoot side discussion that you started. They only used that board in the second video, unless you are trying to say in the first one (the one that is actually linked) they tested the 3570, 3770, and 3820 (not possible by the way).

And in your own link, that board shows no difference from the other boards with overclock other than it not being stable with higher a RAM frequencies so they used 1600 MHz RAM with it instead of what they used in the others, making a variable in the test and giving it lower performance. In the review they use same RAM frequency and overclock both processors, and the EVGA Stinger has the same performance as the other boards when overclocked, it just naturally underclocks the processor *at stock* and is unstable. It is a bad board, I'm assuming EVGA sent it to them when they sent the 670 for the test, but it didn't change the test that much and certainly didn't effect the processors in the first video (which was linked).

The topic is about mostly unfair bias against AMD (which exists) because it would be fine for the vast majority of consumers and save them money. Intel has used illegal and unfair business practices to stay ahead of the competition, and would rather settle out of courts and pay fines than actually stop using their bad business tactics. Somehow, people keep bringing up the same parroted crap that is off-topic. If you want to make a performance discussion, go ahead and make another thread.


If our US DoJ would grow a pair, they would've enforced a change on Intel on the software level where they cannot do checks for "Intel Genuine", instead they have to check for instruction set features and code only against those, and then get real programmers to verify that the checks are released, and stay that way.

But we all know how spineless our US DoJ can get.
---
Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T - Johnny Depp 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico'
#66maybecallsPosted 8/16/2013 12:25:00 AM
No, I don't think so. Besides, there are numerous hardware sites that review new CPUs. It doesn't take much effort to browse several of them and take note of any major benchmark discrepancies.

As for user reviews........ There seem to be a lot of people who buy something and then feel the need to vehemently defend it against all criticism, no matter how justified that criticism may be. Such people fly in the face of reality, and would possibly benefit from psychiatric treatment.
#67PathlessBulletPosted 8/16/2013 3:12:23 PM
TheFeshPince posted...
Ok, 7990 installed. 75 fps avg in Crysis 3.



That's just sexy.
---
ADD, no. Where is the thread for Fallout OCD players?
"We have to keep it on page 3 or it freaks out."