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

Is AMD going to kill off their "big" CPUs?

#21DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/11/2014 7:48:14 PM
Conker posted...
What do you consider a huge compromise? I'd like to see what you're talking about. I know general comparisons, and they're far from what I'd consider much compromise.

Also, nobody said anything about cheaping out on the motherboard. There's a difference between being lower cost and cheaping out. For nearly the equivalent quality, the FM3+ mobos just generally run lower cost than for an LGA 1150.


You mean AM3+?
FM is their APU socket, isn't it?
Anyway, no, really, they don't. You generally get what you pay for. On top of that, you need a higher end board to get a decent overclock on an AMD processor because they eat a lot more power.
As for compromise, people like to ignore the wealth of games not in the generic big-budget mainstream, many of which aren't very efficiently built, and are far more CPU taxing, without the budget to license a well threaded engine or experience to code one themselves. These will run worlds better on an intel i5 than any AMD CPU at all.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
#22ConkerPosted 2/11/2014 8:11:12 PM
Yes, I originally started typing FX mobo and didn't delete the F when putting AM3+.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#23ConkerPosted 2/11/2014 8:40:38 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Anyway, no, really, they don't. You generally get what you pay for. On top of that, you need a higher end board to get a decent overclock on an AMD processor because they eat a lot more power.
As for compromise, people like to ignore the wealth of games not in the generic big-budget mainstream, many of which aren't very efficiently built, and are far more CPU taxing, without the budget to license a well threaded engine or experience to code one themselves. These will run worlds better on an intel i5 than any AMD CPU at all.


You're not presenting any support for yourself except saying it does. You challenged me, so show something that says it is much of a compromise.

The FPS increase average isn't worth $40 for a lot of people when they could step the graphics card up to the next tier for that and make up the difference...especially looking at a lower budget build anyways like the TC had said.

There are a few games that you might see a big difference, but average it's likely to come out to around 5-10FPS at most, and in some newer games it's equal or favorable to the 8350 at stock speeds.

This isn't the end-all-be-all but just the first comparison I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kLvNbZLBGYw#t=166

Other than one or two games (Arkham City and Far Cry 3, the increase is negligible).

EDIT: i5 3570k (and other Intel i7's) vs 8350

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#24Bazooka_Penguin(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2014 7:04:26 PM
I think AMD needs more east Asians and/or Indians
---
Deth Pen
http://i.imgur.com/eMXgU.gif
#25snkboiPosted 2/12/2014 7:07:41 PM
intel does apu's as well, like the 4770k with intel hd 4600
---
i think it's nice
#26DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/13/2014 2:39:01 AM
Conker posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Anyway, no, really, they don't. You generally get what you pay for. On top of that, you need a higher end board to get a decent overclock on an AMD processor because they eat a lot more power.
As for compromise, people like to ignore the wealth of games not in the generic big-budget mainstream, many of which aren't very efficiently built, and are far more CPU taxing, without the budget to license a well threaded engine or experience to code one themselves. These will run worlds better on an intel i5 than any AMD CPU at all.


You're not presenting any support for yourself except saying it does. You challenged me, so show something that says it is much of a compromise.

The FPS increase average isn't worth $40 for a lot of people when they could step the graphics card up to the next tier for that and make up the difference...especially looking at a lower budget build anyways like the TC had said.

There are a few games that you might see a big difference, but average it's likely to come out to around 5-10FPS at most, and in some newer games it's equal or favorable to the 8350 at stock speeds.

This isn't the end-all-be-all but just the first comparison I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kLvNbZLBGYw#t=166

Other than one or two games (Arkham City and Far Cry 3, the increase is negligible).

EDIT: i5 3570k (and other Intel i7's) vs 8350

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE


And yet the much smaller FPS increase is worth the larger increase from a cheaper part with the FX6300?
No matter how you slice it, FX8 series isn't a good value, and comparing completely GPU bound games is pointless since they don't show the performance difference between the processors.
And, again, those are all very mainstream games, which can afford to be "favorable" to a weaker processor to reach a larger audience.

Feel free to find me an example of comparable AM3+ and LGA1150 boards from the same brand where the price is significantly different. Something that can deliver over 140w on the AMD side, preferably.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
#27ConkerPosted 2/13/2014 3:20:21 PM(edited)
That wasn't the argument, so don't try to dodge it because I proved you wrong in regards to the difference not being much of a compromise.

I never said anything about the 8350 being worth it over the FX 6300, it would depend on the budget and build...just like nearly every time someone is considering different options.

I like how you now turn the argument to the motherboard, which I dropped completely after the initial suggestion that it could possibly be more savings.

Regardless, what level of mobos are we considering here? I don't think a budget build has to be able to OC to 5Ghz or some s***. A 970 with all of the features someone would want is perfectly fine, and a 990FX of course would probably be what you'd argue has to compete with a Z87, right? I wouldn't include the cheap 760's or H81's, although a good H87 would be in consideration.

The problem is, based on the rest of your conversation skills, I forsee you shooting down anything that's lower cost than an LGA 1150 board and making some excuse for why it isn't going to work for what a budget build requires...
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#28ConkerPosted 2/13/2014 3:34:03 PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131872

$75 after promo code, $65 after MIR. This has all of the features someone would likely want for a decent budget build.

You might find a few select Z87/H87 mobos for ~$90-100 that would have all of the same features/qualities.

Just one example, of course.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!
#29DarkZV2BetaPosted 2/13/2014 7:01:23 PM
Conker posted...
That wasn't the argument, so don't try to dodge it because I proved you wrong in regards to the difference not being much of a compromise.

I never said anything about the 8350 being worth it over the FX 6300, it would depend on the budget and build...just like nearly every time someone is considering different options.

I like how you now turn the argument to the motherboard, which I dropped completely after the initial suggestion that it could possibly be more savings.

Regardless, what level of mobos are we considering here? I don't think a budget build has to be able to OC to 5Ghz or some s***. A 970 with all of the features someone would want is perfectly fine, and a 990FX of course would probably be what you'd argue has to compete with a Z87, right? I wouldn't include the cheap 760's or H81's, although a good H87 would be in consideration.

The problem is, based on the rest of your conversation skills, I forsee you shooting down anything that's lower cost than an LGA 1150 board and making some excuse for why it isn't going to work for what a budget build requires...


Going with something that's a poor value over something that isn't a poor value isn't a matter of "budget and build". FX8350 is just a poor value as a gaming CPU. It's no different than buying 1100T back when they were the same price as a 2500k.

Pretty much any level of mobo. The only significant difference between Intel and AMD is that AMD doesn't remove OC features from low end boards that shouldn't be expected to OC anyway. That only matters if you have some hefty thermal overhead, such as when using a 95w CPU. Again, rules out 8350 as a value.

What's got your panties in a knot, anyway? I'm presenting facts because I see them being misrepresented. What's your agenda for AMD/against Intel?
Also, it would probably be more appropriate to compare to LGA1155, actually, seeing as AM3+ may as well be a dead socket.

Conker posted...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131872

$75 after promo code, $65 after MIR. This has all of the features someone would likely want for a decent budget build.

You might find a few select Z87/H87 mobos for ~$90-100 that would have all of the same features/qualities.

Just one example, of course.


It's a $90 motherboard. What a shock it would compare to a $90 motherboard.
Or is it that Intel boards never get any discount?
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
#30ConkerPosted 2/13/2014 8:07:14 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Going with something that's a poor value over something that isn't a poor value isn't a matter of "budget and build". FX8350 is just a poor value as a gaming CPU. It's no different than buying 1100T back when they were the same price as a 2500k.


You haven't stated how it's poor value. You SAY it's poor value and that it doesn't compare but you never actually provide evidence or support of this, even when shown reasons why it's not poor value and you don't really have to compromise at that level of gaming you just ignore it to continue on with your pathetic argument.

Pretty much any level of mobo. The only significant difference between Intel and AMD is that AMD doesn't remove OC features from low end boards that shouldn't be expected to OC anyway. That only matters if you have some hefty thermal overhead, such as when using a 95w CPU. Again, rules out 8350 as a value.


Not at all, considering all else being equal, you're still saving and performing close to, if not on par, with a cheaper CPU. And since that CPU isn't going to bottleneck your performance unless you get an enthusiast level GPU, you're just splitting hairs to make an argument.

What's got your panties in a knot, anyway? I'm presenting facts because I see them being misrepresented. What's your agenda for AMD/against Intel?
Also, it would probably be more appropriate to compare to LGA1155, actually, seeing as AM3+ may as well be a dead socket.


I have no agenda, I made a general suggestion in response to someone making a really low budget post in comparison to an i5 and you seem to take serious offense to it without any support for why. I currently have an i7 Haswell build anyways because of Microcenter deals back in Nov/Dec, plus I have a mATX case I really like that wouldn't work for an AM3+ build. Otherwise I'd have gladly gone with a recent 8320/50 option.

If anything you appear to have the big problem with an 8350. Nobody is misrepresenting it here, simply stating facts. You on the other hand continue saying it's a big compromise, terrible value, etc. when it simply isn't. Given a reasonable low-mid level budget, the only thing that would beat it would be an i5, and as presented...not by much but at a higher cost. An FX 6300 is on the level of an i3, so you're comparing the 8350 to those and now saying that I'm misrepresenting!? Haha.

It's a $90 motherboard. What a shock it would compare to a $90 motherboard.


Do you have any debating skills? "Oh hey, that compares to this, but I won't say anything that it actually is comparing to, I'll just say that it compares to another thing that is the same price which doesn't exist." Basically what you've done the whole time, so I'm not surprised.

You make no case for why it's bad value vs anything else or for gaming in general, and you make no case for motherboards being the same price for LGA 1150 with the same features or qualities. Not to mention that's not even the cheapest AM3+ mobo in that range.

Or is it that Intel boards never get any discount?


No, it's just that the same quality level of mobos as the one I posted are $90-100 after discounts or MIR. They usually run $20+ higher than an AM3+ board with the same exact features. I mean, I just posted one example, there are numerous 970 mobos that are $70-80 without any discount.

You on the other hand, continue to not actually offer any support for yourself. The funny thing is, I'm not even saying Intel is worse or anything like that, simply that the person who posted an AMD option was looking at the wrong level if they were going to compare to an i5 at all.
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!