at the end of the day, the fact you can compare a duel core to an 8 core processor, that's pretty poor performance no matter what angle you look at it from AMD.
Where single core performance still matter, e.g. some games and application that are only aware of 2-4 threads, then the i3 is on par with an overclocked FX 8000. When games are aware of more cores or just are more heavily CPU optimized, same goes for apps, an 8 core FX will always jump ahead of an i3.
The best examples I can throw at you are Crysis 3, Battlefield 4 in both DirectX and Mantle and Thief in both DirectX and Mantle. Latest patch, latest drivers, of course.
In all these games, which are properly multithreaded, the 8 core FX takes its rightful place way ahead the fastest i3 and faster than an i5.
That’s a great bit of fan fiction there but here is the real story…
Obviously all games were patched to the latest version and the latest GPU drivers were used. All testing conducted using DirectX.
The overclocked FX-8320 makes up some nice distance here but it is not enough to beat the Core i3-4360.
The results are pretty close in Battlefield 4, you certainly aren't going to notice the difference between the FX-8320E and Core i3-4360 or the Core i5-4430 for that matter. Nonetheless the plucky little Core i3 did beat the FX processor.
No self respecting AMD fan boy should even acknowledge DX11 performance in Thief, Mantle all the way. For whatever reason the FX series gets hosed in Thief regardless of the version, it has been that way since day 1. Sadly Mantle support is only available in a few select games and won't help FX users who went with the green team.
You should edit that into the article would add to the gaming benchmarks which I was hoping for more games benchmarked.
at the end of the day, the fact you can compare a duel core to an 8 core processor, that's pretty poor performance no matter what angle you look at it from AMD.
Where single core performance still matter, e.g. some games and application that are only aware of 2-4 threads, then the i3 is on par with an overclocked FX 8000. When games are aware of more cores or just are more heavily CPU optimized, same goes for apps, an 8 core FX will always jump ahead of an i3.
The best examples I can throw at you are Crysis 3, Battlefield 4 in both DirectX and Mantle and Thief in both DirectX and Mantle. Latest patch, latest drivers, of course.
In all these games, which are properly multithreaded, the 8 core FX takes its rightful place way ahead the fastest i3 and faster than an i5.
yeahyou dumb*** power consumption is a crucial thing for budget builders huge power consumption= a pricier CPU cooler + an expensive PSU + a really good case for noise management
Yes, but yet FX cpus have lower cpu temps, then Intel does.
And when I set my FX 8320 procesor to 4ghz and disable turbo, I need only 1.272V, and normal consumption when playing games doesnt go above 100W.... at 3.5 ghz and 1.164V wattage usage wasnt going above 95W even when I ran Prime95 FFT test. Thats why E version is rated at 95W.
The reason for high wattage usage is Turbo, when Turbo is enabled, cpu voltage goes automatically to 1.45V, but as I said normally you need only 1.272V for 4ghz.
So people who put their minds into FX cpu voltage/clock ratio wont get high power consumption.
BTW: My max gaming temp is 55C on cpu socket and 45C on cores.
yeah, same here. The cpu temperatures might be lower, but that is because on haswell heat dissipation from die is the real problem. Amount of heat put from cpu into your computer case is larger on FX cpus.That give me a good chuckle.Yes, but yet FX cpus have lower cpu temps, then Intel does.
yeah
yeah, same here. The cpu temperatures might be lower, but that is because on haswell heat dissipation from die is the real problem. Amount of heat put from cpu into your computer case is larger on FX cpus.
And there is one more thing: max. allowed temperatures for intel are much higher
How can it be larger, when temperatures are lower???
72C is max TJ for fx
Are you seriously now trying to suggest that FX processors run cooler than a Core i3-4360 or Core i5-4430. Even with a closed loop liquid cooler an FX-8320E runs no cooler than either the Core i3 or Core i5 processors using the little Intel box cooler.
Please refer to the orange charts in the review, they are displaying power consumption in watts.
Think of it like buying a heater for your bedroom, you want the one with the most watts. The FX-8320E is a way better heater than the Intel processors. Those Intel processors struggle to generate 100 watts of heat in most applications so a heavy Photoshop session just isn't going to keep you warm at night.
The AMD FX-8320E on the other hand pumps out almost 200 watts and if you need more heat just overclock it for a balmy 260 watts. If that's not enough heat thrown in a Radeon R9 290X or two, make sure you get the reference cooler though.
It's not, but it is proportional. Since you made that statement, I'm guessing you don't understand how a heating element produces heat.Since when is heat meausured in watts?
AMD's processors have a small advantage regarding heat production based on the manufacturing process (SOI vs FinFET), and FinFET doesn't scale particularly well (input power vs heat generation) because of higher current leakage.More watts doesnt mean more heat.
Intel processors struggle to generate 100 watts of heat ...???
Since when is heat meausured in watts? I thought its meausured in celsius or fahrenheit.
More watts doesnt mean more heat. If power plant produces more watts it doesnt mean its hotter, its just means it produces more electricity.
It's not, but it is proportional. Since you made that statement, I'm guessing you don't understand how a heating element produces heat.
Just wanted to chime in since I have been watching this thread. Jugoslav you aren't nearly as sharp as you think you are. You seem to lack basic comprehension.
The author never said heat was measure in watts. Your analogy is also f*!@#ing stupid, I am not going to point out why because its that stupid.
In fact your entire purpose for being here is stupid. What have you been trying to prove? The results you have been complaining about mean nothing. As an example who cares if the overclocked FX 8320E can score 1000pts or 1100pts in a given test, it still uses way too much power to get that result and isn't much faster than a Core i3 if it is faster at all.
Yes they are priced the same but out of the box the 8320E gets smoked by the Core i3 in most applications/games. You can't overclock the 8320E without extra cooling and at this point you are better off with a Core i5. There is no scenario where it makes sense to buy an 8320E over a Core i3 or Core i5, its that simple so just deal with it.
This has all been pointed out already though so are you just that thick?
It's not, but it is proportional. Since you made that statement, I'm guessing you don't understand how a heating element produces heat.
Having said that, within the terms of this review, Intel's i3 (and i5 for that matter) run cooler due in part to consuming less power.
As an example who cares if the overclocked FX 8320E can score 1000pts or 1100pts in a given test
That is what I thought, you don't see how they are related. Which is why you are making non-sense postings.We are talking about processors, and not about heaters!? I mean WTF!!
Put the same radiator in both cars and then comment again. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that an engine with more horse power doesn't require a larger radiator to dispense of the additional heat.does that mean Audi 2.0, will be hotter then Fiat 1.2... I dont think so.
Well, here is a Haswell i3 peaking at 61C under full load with a stock HSF.How can u say its running cooler when max core temp in gaming is 45C, and as far as I know Intel idle temp is around 40C, and load temp is 68
Rubbish. The Intel processors used in this review are only overclockable via bus frequency. The OC record for the i5 tested here is 4.95% increase over stock on air based solely on upping the bus.and if you overclock it it goes above 90C.
And yet, the review of the CPU with an AIO water cooler attached and using an open air test bench gives 64C using the same test at a frequency little removed from the one tested here.My cpu will never see 68C, not even in Prime95 test, so I dont know who is wrong here.
I hope you don't think that FX is the only CPU's capable of that. I've over-clocked and under-volted both C2Q9400 and i7-2600K. I'm currently no longer doing so though.yes you can overclock and undervolt FX processors.
And yet, the review of the CPU with an AIO water cooler attached and using an open air test bench gives 64C using the same test at a frequency little removed from the one tested here.
I did see it, but whether it is the stock cooler or not wasn't mentioned. Just that the air cooling was achieved with a "simple heatpipe cooler" since the retail package wasn't shown in the product showcase. Whatever is received for review is what is photographed. Without knowing what cooler was used, I chose an example where the cooling is known.And here is the same processor overclocked on stock cooler. Its from the same site, how come you didnt see that.
Well, that was all pretty pointless, since 1. This review doesn't include any of those processors, and 2. There wasn't a comparison including an FX.Here are Other overclocked processors
I did see it, but whether it is the stock cooler or not wasn't mentioned. Just that the air cooling was achieved with a "simple heatpipe cooler" since the retail package wasn't shown in the product showcase. Whatever is received for review is what is photographed. Without knowing what cooler was used, I chose an example where the cooling is known.
In any event, the 61C recorded (on an open test bench) for the FX at 4.6 is still the same temp recorded by the i3 at stock offering better performance, and not having to worry about the runaway train power consumption.
Well, that was all pretty pointless, since 1. This review doesn't include any of those processors, and 2. There wasn't a comparison including an FX.
No one is doubting that SOI based processors run at lower temps than FinFET (for the exact reasons I outlined earlier), but it pretty pointless comparing an overclocked FX against an overclocked "K" Haswell when the article doesn't concern itself with the "K" SKUs, so you're basically talking a straw man argument....and of course, if you're holding up those CPUs as an example, shouldn't you also be holding up their relative performance achieved for that heat output?
Also bear in mind that the "K" processors are more likely to fall into different user scenarios not based solely upon budget - namely Crossfire/SLI, where AMD's FX's tend to fall flat on their collective faces compared to Intel's offerings.
In the end, you are trying to argue the superiority of an architecture laid down almost eight years ago, on an inferior process node, with inferior IPC, on a SOI process that is rapidly heading into history ...unless ET-SOI ever actually turns into a processor product
I still don't get why people are still buying AMD CPUs at all...