18 replies to this topic

[Justhavocman]

I've seen it on countless forums , there's this guy with his first review and benchamrking  and now his second  which has really made a fuss over at overclock.net and other forums! 

[freddie]

8350 FTW!

[DanTheGamer11]

AMD FTW!

[Justhavocman]

I'm really skeptical regarding the validity of his results and benchmarks , i mean other reputable sites such as guru3d , overclock.net , overclockers.uk get completely different results!

[EuroFight]

Okay, looks like I'm gonna start the discussion then

 

I have an AMD FX-6100 in my gaming computer, and it provides all the performance I need (and extra headroom too), I appreciate it is no i5 3570K, but it provides what I need. The fact is, for someone on a budget, Intel processors are very expensive. Something like an i5 3570K will cost you around £170, whereas FX-6100s can be picked up for about £80, saving you £90, plus the difference in the cost of motherboards which, in my experience, can be very great. Additionally, I have a HD7770, which would bottleneck an i5 anyway, so there is no real benefit in going with the i5 in my case.

 

To sum up, the FX-6100 I have can max out the settings most games I have including Battlefield 3/Bad Company 2, Planetside 2, Metro 2033 etc. For gaming, the FX-6100 is more than ideal in the current generation, so the FX-8350 should suit the next generation in a similar manner.

 

I know some people need more power than the FX-series can provide, and that I believe is where the Intel line come in. These chips provide more performance than the FX line almost unquestionably. For folding, video editing or other work, an Intel processor would definitely be preferable. Also, in low-power non-APU products, Intel processors do appear to have the edge. On a side note, if I wasn't on a budget I would go for an Intel processor aswell.

 

So I'm not saying it is AMD vs Intel, because they are good for different things. Although people may say that AMD can compete with Intel for performance, I personally feel that the current technology is incapable of that. What AMD is capable of competing on, however, is performance for cost, and that, I feel, is where AMD has the edge at the moment.

Edited by EuroFight, 27 January 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[Justhavocman]

Okay, looks like I'm gonna start the discussion then

 

I have an AMD FX-6100 in my gaming computer, and it provides all the performance I need (and extra headroom too), I appreciate it is no i5 3570K, but it provides what I need. The fact is, for someone on a budget, Intel processors are very expensive. Something like an i5 3570K will cost you around £170, whereas FX-6100s can be picked up for about £80, saving you £90, plus the difference in the cost of motherboards which, in my experience, can be very great. Additionally, I have a HD7770, which would bottleneck an i5 anyway, so there is no real benefit in going with the i5 in my case.

 

To sum up, the FX-6100 I have can max out the settings most games I have including Battlefield 3/Bad Company 2, Planetside 2, Metro 2033 etc. For gaming, the FX-6100 is more than ideal in the current generation, so the FX-8350 should suit the next generation in a similar manner.

 

I know some people need more power than the FX-series can provide, and that I believe is where the Intel line come in. These chips provide more performance than the FX line almost unquestionably. For folding, video editing or other work, an Intel processor would definitely be preferable. Also, in low-power non-APU products, Intel processors do appear to have the edge. On a side note, if I wasn't on a budget I would go for an Intel processor aswell.

 

So I'm not saying it is AMD vs Intel, because they are good for different things. Although people may say that AMD can compete with Intel for performance, I personally feel that the current technology is incapable of that. What AMD is capable of competing on, however, is performance for cost, and that, I feel, is where AMD has the edge at the moment.

Very well spoken , i also believe that AMD is the company that provides the best bang for buck out there , if you're on a tight budget , go with amd ( cpu and gpu) but if you have the spending power then i'd say go with intel , it's worth the difference in price in my books ! i'm really interested in hearing other people's opinions on the matter and on the video i posted!

[paradoxdream]

As an AMD owner  I am most interested in that hotfix they were talking about any one have info on this?

[EuroFight]

As an AMD owner  I am most interested in that hotfix they were talking about any one have info on this?

 

I am an AMD owner too. The hotfixes are available (see this article), but the performance boost is modest at best, with some reports suggesting little or even no performance gains in single or heavily threaded workloads.

 

I personally can't be bothered with the hassle, but it's up to you

[JBags]

I see the misinformed "Intel is better for gaming" argument all the time. Even here the other week someone tried to argue this with red1776, the guy who reviewed the FX-8350 right here at OCC. (OCC Review, referenced thread)

 

The GPU is most important is such scenarios, and as the review shows, there is little to no difference between the FX-8350 and i7 3960x/3770k.

 

 

This is why I'm an AMDer. I use my PC primarily for gaming, so I'll get similiar performance for less $$ compared to Intel.

[ComputerEd]

I like some of what this guy said, especially this crap of testing the systems at settings that do not in ANY WAY reflect real life. The fact he grabbed a nice mix of games and ran them as a gamer would is the way testing should be done. I have been standing at this pulpit for YEARS, nice to hear a few amens from the congregation.

[Justhavocman]

I see the misinformed "Intel is better for gaming" argument all the time. Even here the other week someone tried to argue this with red1776, the guy who reviewed the FX-8350 right here at OCC. (OCC Review, referenced thread)

 

The GPU is most important is such scenarios, and as the review shows, there is little to no difference between the FX-8350 and i7 3960x/3770k.

 

 

This is why I'm an AMDer. I use my PC primarily for gaming, so I'll get similiar performance for less $$ compared to Intel.

The argument is not "intel is better for gaming" , it's the fact that most current games do not utilise say all 8 cores from an 8 core processor , they utilise 2 cores ! And intel is well known for having better performance when comparing core-core with AMD! Now , the evolution of gaming is going in such a way that newer games will be utilising more than say just 2 or 4 cores  , and these newer games will perform "better"  with an AMD processor! But for now in my honest opinion Intel takes the lead when it comes down to pure gaming performance.

[d6bmg]

I own neither, but 2 of my friends have each of them. From the benchmark results it is obvious that 8350 > 3570K