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

More cores in a processor are better right? So why is Intel best?

#21AsellusPosted 8/1/2014 2:42:37 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
PhilOnDez posted...
Pengu1n posted...
And in situations where Intel is better the difference isn't even noticeable. A game might run a 2 or 3 fps faster on a core i7 then an 8350 or a video might render a couple of seconds faster on intel than AMD.


http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Torchlight.png

Dat '2 or 3' fps. That's AMD's fastest single core vs one of intel's lower (not lowest, but it's still $50 cheaper than the AMD CPU) end CPUs. And before you call the bias card, this is from the same site that recommended the 5800/6800k for low end gaming rigs when they were released.


You Intel fanboys come up with the dumbest comparisons. Apu vs a cpu... Like what is the point of that comparison? Does that graph make you feel better about buying Intel? Because to informed/knowledgeable people it just makes you look like tool.


? The only comparison using the apu there was the bottom one.
#22PhilOnDezPosted 8/1/2014 2:45:20 PM
He's trying to imply that the CPU cores in the APU are somehow being held back by the fact that there are GCN cores lying idle on the die because he doesn't know what an APU actually is.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#23Pengu1nPosted 8/2/2014 2:39:09 AM
Asellus posted...
KURRUPTOR posted...
PhilOnDez posted...
Pengu1n posted...
And in situations where Intel is better the difference isn't even noticeable. A game might run a 2 or 3 fps faster on a core i7 then an 8350 or a video might render a couple of seconds faster on intel than AMD.


http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Torchlight.png

Dat '2 or 3' fps. That's AMD's fastest single core vs one of intel's lower (not lowest, but it's still $50 cheaper than the AMD CPU) end CPUs. And before you call the bias card, this is from the same site that recommended the 5800/6800k for low end gaming rigs when they were released.


You Intel fanboys come up with the dumbest comparisons. Apu vs a cpu... Like what is the point of that comparison? Does that graph make you feel better about buying Intel? Because to informed/knowledgeable people it just makes you look like tool.


? The only comparison using the apu there was the bottom one.


Those A10's are also APU's.

Also..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
---
FX 6300, HYPER 212 EVO, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ 2GB, 2TB HDD, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
#24PhilOnDezPosted 8/2/2014 6:38:43 AM(edited)
The point of that test was to find out what offered the best best performance for the dollar on the low end. The i3 won every test aside from BF4 (Mantle) and bioshock infinite both of which tied due to GPU bottlenecks. There's also no 'those A10's', it was the same CPU paired with different or no GPU. You're also trying to make the same implication as kurruptor that AMD's APUs are somehow gimped or otherwise held back somehow because you don't know what they actually are. The A10 7850k contains AMD's fastest architecture. AMD's APUs used the same technology that their FX line did back when Piledriver was the best architecture they had. Piledriver is old news now, with FX all but abandoned do you want them to just sit with their thumbs up their asses and not make progress at all? APUs are where they make money so APUs are where they release the new faster tech.

http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221094-dual-graphics-dud-intel-clobbers-amds-a10-7850k-in-budget-gaming

Also, just a fun fact for you AMD fanboys who bite into the hype of AMD's marketing team and accept and even defend stuff like 'APU' and the 7850k being a 12 core processor when intel would only call it a dual core, pretty much every single mainstream intel CPU since 2010 with a scant handful of exceptions (i5 3350p is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) has been an APU. By AMD's standards nearly every i5 and i7 would be considered a pentacore with some being considered a hexcore (anything with iris, HD4000, and probably HD3000 have 2 GPU clusters but I don't care to check), and I'm not even counting their true hex core CPUs since they're not in their mainstream line.

Nobody is saying AMD isn't usable. I definitely didn't say that. It's just that intel has them beat at every price point when it comes to gaming and have hands down the best bang for the buck CPU in the market with the release of the pentium g3258 (it beats the FX6300 you guys love to recommend in multithreaded performance for $50 less despite being a dual core and isn't even hyperthreaded which means insane single threaded performance) and allowing vendors to unlock OC options on every current (8X/9X) chipset.

I watched a few seconds of that video but I can't take him seriously. Last time someone linked one of his videos it was his comparison on power use of the 8350 vs an i7(probably the 4770 but I don't know how old the video was). His conclusion for his own personal use was fine, he made sure to explain that is was for his own personal situation and all that and I don't have a problem with it. His overall conclusion though was 'if you really want to save power get an APU.' That completely ignores the fact that the i7 is able to operate without a gpu with less heat output/power use than a high end APU, not that you'd use an APU for editing which is what his video was about while an intel CPU is able to use its gpu for hardware acceleration in any software that utilizes intel quicksync, though obviously a dedicated gpu is going to do better.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#25Loserman15Posted 8/2/2014 7:08:49 AM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113348&cm_re=athlon_x4-_-19-113-348-_-Product

behold, the A10 without an APU.

Nobody knows about it. It's awesome for budget builds. It matches and trades blows with haswell i3's. And it's cheaper. I've used it in two friends and my brother's PC build. They have no complaints. My brother overclocked his to 4.3ghz on the stock cooler.
---
Network Administrator with a desire to be creative. A+ and Network+ certified and an avid gamer.
GTX 760 | i7 3770K @ 4.5ghz.
#26PhilOnDezPosted 8/2/2014 7:19:25 AM(edited)
It's actually a gen or two behind the 7850k as far as CPU architecture goes but the G3258 is still the better buy. Definitely a better buy than any APU if you plan on dedicated graphics though. It's going to perform worse (or about the same really) than the numbers in that article I linked which isn't trading blows at all, it's solidly in the 'almost keeping up except in single threaded performance' range. trading blows implies winning some and losing some. After an OC sure, but if you want apples to apples compare it to the 3258 which is both closer in price and unlocked and OCable on the stock cooler to the point of outperforming i3's on the stock cooler as well.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#27DarkZV2BetaPosted 8/2/2014 9:24:22 AM
Clouddx posted...
PhoenixRush posted...
To be honest I don't want the absolute most expensive everything. I want something that outperforms PS4/XB1 running most everything in high settings at 60 FPS or so. I am not sure what the best build for this would be as I'm new to all of this still.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MOAN005Fvw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f6INgYBmGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSYTMhDoMS8

The first two will run games better than a PS4/XB1. The last one is just a super cheap PC that will play games, but on lower settings. Instead of the 650 ti Boost you can get an MSI 750ti for $119.99.

Here's a $600 build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGE4i_A6E4 this will absolutely DESTROY a PS4/XB1 in terms of performance.

P.S. Neither the PS4 or X1 play games @ 60fps(other than a select few).


None of the cited builds are suitable for outperforming PS4, and only one is suitable to be compared to XB1, and likely will fall behind down the line.
In fact, the $600 build listed may fail to keep up down the line when console APIs further mature.

With those budgets, 6300 or i3 are a much better target than those quadcore cut-down APU parts.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#28TheMove2Posted 8/2/2014 10:23:45 AM
for price point I'll take a fx-8320 for $135 and a 760 gtx over a i5-4440 and a 660 gtx.

If money is not a issue then i5 or i7 is the better choice. The extra $60 u save going AMD can be thrown into a better video card.
#29KURRUPTORPosted 8/2/2014 10:56:17 AM
PhilOnDez posted...
He's trying to imply that the CPU cores in the APU are somehow being held back by the fact that there are GCN cores lying idle on the die because he doesn't know what an APU actually is.


A10s are made to.be the cpu and gpu in one unit. If you want to compare it to something compare it to Intel with their integrated graphics. That would make sense.

I don't really understand why your are claiming that A10s are amds fastest CPUs and therefore an Apu + dedicated graphics is amds fastest available option for comparison. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#30PhilOnDezPosted 8/2/2014 11:15:31 AM
Did you even look at the link? They're running the A10 with a 260x (the highest GPU dual graphics works with is a 250 to dispel any counterpoint you might try to come up with on that), the integrated stuff is sitting idle so it's not even causing thermal throttling. The integrated graphics don't have anything to do with it, it's 2 Kaveri CPU modules (4 IPUs, aka an amd 'quad' core) vs 2 Haswell CPU cores (with hyperthreading enabled) with the same GPU getting 65% higher FPS on a single threaded game. If you compared it to an 8350 it'd be closer to 70% faster. More CPU cores doesn't magically improve performance in games/apps that can't take advantage of them, adding GPU cores doesn't magically cripple CPU core performance.

If you don't understand what I'm saying I really don't know how to put it any more simply. If you think the numbers are invalid because AMD APU vs Intel CPU (that AMD would market as an APU if they sold it) for whatever reason that I can't possibly fathom outside of not knowing what an APU actually is and how they work then the burden of proof is on you to explain why it's invalid and "LOL APU vs CPU" isn't a reason.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez