The Best CPU for the Money: AMD FX vs. Intel Budget Shootout

[Guest]

I remember when AMD used to compete for top honors, then mid range, and now this. oh how they've fallen. Basically they are in the same category as suzuki and kia. Yeah it will get you there, no, nobody will care.

 

[Guest]

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when an Intel i3 kills an AMD FX.

 

[Kibaruk]

Though it would be nice to also see the newer FM2+ with for instance the 860K since its pretty darn cheap if you get a chance on another budget showdown. Still an excellent perspective and test!

I doubt it would be any good, those are APUs and lack raw power, the i3 will beat it to it's grave.

 

[SirGCal]

I have to agree with myself here, most of the people replying didn't even read the article.

Yes I did, but I don't see the budget in this shootout, at all. But I'd wager to guess you didn't even read my post and it's intent for a different comparison...

 

[gamerk2]

And it's quite amusing how they pick biased benchmarks, because in real world testing no i3 will match a amd 8 core, even it would give an i5 a run for it's money. It's pretty commonly known overall that intel is 25% ahead in single core performance. That still doesn't make intel dual and quad core competitive against an amd octacore.

Sure it does. Remember: From a CPU perspective, once the CPU is able to get all it's work done, any extra performance benefit is bound by IPC/Clock improvements. Point being, if the Core i3 is not CPU bottlenecked, it would be EXPECTED to be faster by virtue of higher per-core performance.

Point being, yes, the i3 is trying to do multiple threads on a single core. But it's fast enough to get that work done without impacting performance. As a result, it scores higher then AMD 8xxx.

You also have the opposite case hurting AMD: If any single AMD core gets overloaded, the performance of the entire CPU suffers. And as AMDs cores are weaker, this happens more often.

 

[gamerk2]

The big failure in thinking I see all the time, is the assumption the presence and use of multiple cores leads to improved performance. This is FALSE.

Now, the FX-8xxx series loads threads more evenly to CPU cores. So people see more core usage and lower core utilization, and wonder why the i3 is faster. The reason is because the core i3, while doing more work per core, is still fast enough to get all it's necessary work done. As a result, performance is limited not by number of cores, but by per-core performance. And that favors Intel.

Point being, I could have a hundred threads running on a hundred core CPU. But if I can get that work done in the same period on a single core, guess what? They're going to bench the same.

 

[Steve]

This article makes no sense. It's called "Budget Shootout", yet it uses a high-end GPU to emphasize AMDs weaknesses.

A "budget" oriented buy would also use this budget CPU with a bugdet GPU. So none of this 980 nonsense. The gaming benches should've used an R9 270X or the GTX 760/960.

Budget gaming setups usually max out GPU performance way before CPUs even matter.

Please don’t demand change for something you don’t understand.

There is a very good reason why the GTX 980 was used, we didn’t end up with this GPU by accident.

It doesn’t matter if you are putting together a $100 CPU or a $1000 CPU review the need to remove CPU bottlenecks is very real. Not only did we use the fastest GPU available but we also included low-quality gaming results.

How you find it anything but ludicrous suggesting we gimp the results by using a slower GPU is beyond me.

As an example if we wrote a similar article back in 2011 comparing the FX-6100 and Core i3-2100 we would have likely used the GeForce GTX 580. Many gamers are still running these processors and others that are also 4 years old. If you look at a game such as Watch Dogs you will see that a GTX 580 is about as fast as a GeForce GTX 660 Ti or Radeon R9 270…

https://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page3.html

So today that flagship graphics card is being matched by a $120 budget GPU. So what happens in 2-3 or even 4 years when those who bought a Core i3-4360 or FX-8320E want to game with a GPU that is nearly as powerful or perhaps even more powerful than the GTX 980?

What happens is those that bought the Core i3-4360 will likely be able to extract the maximum amount of power out of their new GPU. Those that bought the FX-8320E will be overclocking for the moon trying to extract every last MHz just to try and get near the limits of their new GPU.

 

[abysal]

Yeah I am not quite sure what this crap is, but I have an 8120 and overclocked to 4.5 it matchs a i7 3770. Can you tell who techspot is supporting, cause every time amd out did intel they then point out the power usage. When literally no one cares about power usage.

While I like AMD, having to pay for my electricity, I can tell you I care about power usage. Even if going with Intel means saving just $12 a month.

 

[Nobina]

Long time reader here but hardly ever post. Just have to say that when an i3 can beat a highly over-clocked 8 core AMD cpu in any games or tests it is quite disturbing. This is coming from an AMD fan. They really need to catch up, especially in the power usage front where its just as shocking.

Add more performance by using less power. That's gonna be quite hard.

 

[Steve]

While I like AMD, having to pay for my electricity, I can tell you I care about power usage. Even if going with Intel means saving just $12 a month.

Realistically its only going to be a few dollars but then again that depends on how much you are getting charged per kWh. For myself the bigger issue is heat and the noise generated dealing with that heat, there are of course other factors to consider as well.

Add more performance by using less power. That's gonna be quite hard.

Not really it just calls for an architectural change, something AMD has been in desperate need of now for many years.

 

[dividebyzero]

Sure it does. Remember: From a CPU perspective, once the CPU is able to get all it's work done, any extra performance benefit is bound by IPC/Clock improvements. Point being, if the Core i3 is not CPU bottlenecked, it would be EXPECTED to be faster by virtue of higher per-core performance.

Exactly on point. Any game that exposes a particular architectures dependencies will quickly make itself evident. Quite noticeable, is that the more CPU intensive the game (AI routines, CPU physics) the more the processors caching becomes an integral factor in performance, something AMD's present architecture is rather lacking in.

It can be masked to a degree by having the game use more cores than its competitor can muster, but it doesn't eliminate the CPU stalls as the underlying architecture is exposed, which tend to show up dips in performance:

[Source]

 

[Darth Shiv]

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.​

Makes zero sense. A high end CPU also should have throttling capabilities for low power in low usage scenarios. It has the grunt when it needs it. A low end CPU obviously does not ever have the grunt a high end one does.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Good read, been very happy with my 8320 especially for the price I paid for it. For what I want it beat out anything in my price range. The power consumption wasn't a huge problem for me I pay around $0.09 a kilowatt but the people paying double to quadruple that I could understand the issue, granted my system seems to idle just as low as a few of my friends i5's. Steve do you have the 3dmark06 cpus scores on hand still?

 

[Dragoncracker]

Good read, been very happy with my 8320 especially for the price I paid for it. For what I want it beat out anything in my price range. The power consumption wasn't a huge problem for me I pay around $0.09 a kilowatt but the people paying double to quadruple that I could understand the issue, granted my system seems to idle just as low as a few of my friends i5's. Steve do you have the 3dmark06 cpus scores on hand still?

Cool stories, this review proves everything you say to be invalid.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Good read, been very happy with my 8320 especially for the price I paid for it. For what I want it beat out anything in my price range. The power consumption wasn't a huge problem for me I pay around $0.09 a kilowatt but the people paying double to quadruple that I could understand the issue, granted my system seems to idle just as low as a few of my friends i5's. Steve do you have the 3dmark06 cpus scores on hand still?

Cool stories, this review proves everything you say to be invalid.

How so? He didn't mention idle consumption just load consumption and you have no Idea how much I paid for my 8320.

 

[OneB1t]

Your review is wrong as performance of FX-8320E@4.6ghz in cinebench R15 is 729 points for me not 606 as you benchmarked..

 

[Steve]

Your review is wrong as performance of FX-8320E@4.6ghz in cinebench R15 is 729 points for me not 606 as you benchmarked..

Damn it you got me! I was a typo sorry

 

[Darion]

And it's quite amusing how they pick biased benchmarks, because in real world testing no i3 will match a amd 8 core, even it would give an i5 a run for it's money. It's pretty commonly known overall that intel is 25% ahead in single core performance. That still doesn't make intel dual and quad core competitive against an amd octacore.

Please request some tests to be added. I am sorry for picking what you call 'biased benchmarks'. Many of these programs we have been using for a long time. What is a little less Intel biased that we can use?

Yeah I am not quite sure what this crap is, but I have an 8120 and overclocked to 4.5 it matchs a i7 3770. Can you tell who techspot is supporting, cause every time amd out did intel they then point out the power usage. When literally no one cares about power usage.

So are you saying the results are faked or is it just your second rant about the biased benchmarks?

"literally no one cares about power usage" - Okay I have heard enough.

If you could do just one thing for me, please tell me which cooler you have used for your 4.5GHz overclock.

Most high end pcs are water cooled these days and in cinebech with a 95 watt 8120 at 4.5 ghz I get 666 points. Which puts it just above a 3770. I used to cool it with a scythe mugen but 110 cfm slipstreams are a bit loud.

 

[Darion]

Plus there is only one way to get accurate power usage from the cpu and I would bet my entire build that you guys didn't do it. Put probes RIGHT on the the vrms. measuring system usage from different motherboards and such is never precise enough to even guess what power the cpu is actually using.

 

[Darion]

Maybe you guys should read this and then say something about it, price/performance is what people look for. Spend little money on high end amd chip, get a beast video card and that will out do a intel build 100% of the time. Intel price does not equal the increased performance over amd. OCN

intel-vs-amd-same-budget-shootout-8350-4-5ghz-r290-vs-4670k-4-4-ghz-280x

 

[Burty117]

Most high end pcs are water cooled these days

What do you consider water cooling? Custom loop or a AIO like a Corsair H100i?

Plus there is only one way to get accurate power usage from the cpu and I would bet my entire build that you guys didn't do it. Put probes RIGHT on the the vrms. measuring system usage from different motherboards and such is never precise enough to even guess what power the cpu is actually using.

So you reckon somehow, monitoring the power usage this way will sway the 100 watt difference between the AMD chip and the Core i3?!

Maybe you guys should read this and then say something about it, price/performance is what people look for. Spend little money on high end amd chip, get a beast video card and that will out do a intel build 100% of the time. Intel price does not equal the increased performance over amd. OCN

intel-vs-amd-same-budget-shootout-8350-4-5ghz-r290-vs-4670k-4-4-ghz-280x

Again, this is useless...

 

[Kibaruk]

@Darion stop, what are you doing, please, stahp.

Stop fighting it dude, YOUR computer does not represent the average of systems.

Ok your low cost amd proc is awesome, it compares to an i7 wow so amazing much power very fast. It's also cheaper to run than a led bulb, awesome again!

 

[ct1615]

Steve

You should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you bring facts into what is clearly a fanboy discussion. You even had the audacity to test and prove the differences between these CPUs! Next time please cherry pick those few tests that clearly favor AMD CPUs (or at least equal to Intel). Make no mention of power requirements, heat generation, or noise from the stock cooler. The AMD CPU must be OC to its limit with a minimum $100 cooler, the intel CPU can have no OC and must use the stock cooler. If you have any questions there are countless examples of these fair and balanced reviews on youtube to better educate yourself.

 

[amstech]

How people can complain about this review is beyond me, Steve covered every angle and AMD butthurts are still throwing darts. C'mon now.
You guys should be offering to buy Techspot a round for articles like this.

 

[GeforcerFX]

I don't get all the hostility, like I said earlier I have a 8320 (not the E) and I find it to be a wonderful chip. But the reality is it's pretty even and can even beat intel's Sandy bridge and sometimes Ivy bridge in multi-threaded tests, but with the enhancements in IPC and power efficiency in haswell and intel has even begun to drop prices down a bit on haswell chips, its really starting look like AMD needs to figure something out. I would say any 4-8 core chip from any of the the two companies from 2012 on up (especially if unlocked) is more then enough for just about any common computer tasks we run today so in he end who really cares.