If you are questioning the GPU, there are GPU reviews available. Which use highend CPU's to remove any possible bottleneck. This way anyone looking for a specific frame rate in games can balance CPU and GPU performance. If there was any bottlenecks in the reviews, no one would know which end was up.
How else would you know how the CPU fairs at those settings?
That is a fair request, but this is not a review for a budget build.
The best way to compare CPUs is to show them when they aren't the limiting factor in the system as much as possible.
The best way to compare CPUs is to show them when they aren't the limiting factor in the system as much as possible.
There is also the case to be made, that if you aim at a price conscious graphics card to be paired with a price conscious CPU, you further need to differentiate the graphics vendor, since AMD graphics performance tends to fall off a cliff compared to Nvidia cards when paired with a lower specced processor (hence AMD's investment in Mantle).
[Source]
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
You are comparing 4.6ghz overclocked FX 8320 to i3 dual cpu?. Of course I3 will probably have better temperature. And yes we all know that intel is better in gaming performance, but that will change, when games will use more cores.
And I think anyone would rather have 8 core processor over dual core. I personally dont care if i3 have 80 fps, I can play it just fine with 60 .
And nobody sems to care about my comments, when I say that this site has different scores, then this one
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pagesprinter/msi_z87_xpower,1.html
Much better scores on 4.2GHz - 4.40ghz Fx 8350.
186 vs 135.6 lower score on higher clocked cpu
again much higher score on lower clocked cpu
same
same here, and if I add those three tests from before, we get very different bechmark here on techspot.
Damn right! Been a fan of his reviews for ages.
also 2400mhz memory vs 2133mhz memory make no difference
A two cores of a module also share a floating point unit. The shared resources were actually fairly well covered when the architecture launched in 2011.
The i3 is clocked quite a bit higher than the i5 (3.7GHz v. 3.0/3.2GHz), and HT can in some cases be slightly detrimental to performance - it depends upon the application.
Pretty much. Steve's findings are echoed around the net. The Core i3 are very capable chips. For productivity, content creation, benchmarking, and multitasking, more cores (and a larger cache) are a better fit, but seldom net worthwhile gains in a gaming scenario.
Let's see:
Except you know, anyone with a small form factor case and Heat will be an issue.
Shouldn't buy a high-end CPU.
Anyone who is going to leave their computer on 24/7.
Shouldn't buy a high-end CPU.
Anyone who would like a quiet setup and don't want their fans to spin up every time they open excel.
Shouldn't buy a high-end CPU.
Anyone who's on a tight budget probably don't want to spend money on a heatsink that'll make it overclock-able to match the Intel equivalent.
Definitely shouldn't buy a high-end CPU.
Anyone who cares about the environment or live in a hot environment.
Shouldn't buy a high-end anything electronics then.
I don't mean to come off condescending here but if you have any constrains on budget or performance requirements, then there are plenty Intel and AMD offerings to match them. If you want the high-end segment, power usage should only be relevant in how much cooling you need, now how many dollars a year you can save. Besides the whole point of dollars per year means that the cost is spread out and easier to afford (see: credits, loans and the entire banking industry).
AMD is definitely not in a good light here, but spending £300+ on a motherboard and CPU alone and then complaining about power use is silly. There's children with no lights OR cpus in africa
