LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksElectricity-powered CPUs are so last year.Originally Posted by iamlorro
Electricity-powered CPUs are so last year.
Google is your friendYeah we need a source for a claim like that, ether that or you need some new glasseshttp://www.tomshardware.com/news/Vis...ion,22015.html
Last edited by AndyM95; 12-04-2013 at 10:27 PM.
Eh?
The 5 most recent game benchmarks, you pretty much can't split the 3470 and 8350.
Plus the 3470 will win on anything older.
I just don't see why a gamer would choose an 8350 which will match the i5 performance AT BEST.
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-b...nce/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/648-s...nce/page4.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-t...nce/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-c...nce/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-f...nce/page6.html
You're not taking into consideration the cost of the chipset and the feature set at that price, plus you can over clock any of the FX series chips even on the lower end cheaper boards... Then add in the fact that AMD seem more keen to stick with the socket for the future so you have an easier upgrade path.
Not saying the 3470 is a bad option, I just struggle to see it as the best all rounder
They're talking about the 8350 at 4.2 GHz and saying how it improves over the 8150.Google is your friend
Aside from choosing a single source, I see:
Negligible difference,
Negligible difference,
Non-CPU bottleneck/fps cap,
8350>i5, but still negligible difference TBF,
Negligible difference.
You can't look at 1-2fps framerate differences on one website and testing resolution and call one, significantly more expensive, CPU conclusively better in every way. They also exclude the 6300 from most tests, but it's a decently competitive CPU, especially considering its price tag.
The 3470 is no more expensive at all, in fact cheaper as far as I can see.
I'm not saying it is better in every way, but it is no more expensive, just as good at modern games and will perform far better in established games.
The 8350 has no advantages at all, oh and about double the power consumption at load.
What about the ~£100 6300? And when you factor in motherboard cost and features?
And as for derping over something like 20W load power consumption again...
CAT-THE-FIFTH (13-04-2013)
Indeed; their comment on the 5GHz clock speed is:They're talking about the 8350 at 4.2 GHz and saying how it improves over the 8150.Google is your friend
whether that number is a base frequency or a Turbo clock is unknown at this point.
I mentioned it before!!CAT-THE-FIFTH.... Why is this the first im hearing of this?
Yep.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 13-04-2013 at 02:15 AM.
Sure, if you are on a really tight budget then the 6300 is OK, but it is slower than the 8350 and thus slower than the 3470.
It's 7fps below the 3470 on the only direct comparison above, bringing it below 60fps.
If you don't take a Z77 board, the motherboard is no more expensive than a 970 motherboard.
While I'd love to believe that the 3470 is 20w at load and the 8350 40w at load, they just aren't.
The 3470 is 96.6 and the 8350 is 195.2w.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/6
Price is no more than a 970 but you get less features and no overclocking.
Also anand openly admit:
These are platform readings, it's worth taking that into account. The readings different review sites have got have been quite different depending on which site you like at.(the Crosshair Formula V is hardly the lowest power AM3+ board available)
Last edited by Biscuit; 13-04-2013 at 10:38 AM.
I'm not saying there aren't perfectly good reasons to get an 8350, but for a typical gamer on a budget you just don't need fancy motherboard features, you aren't going to have RAID SSD or SLI/CF.
If you have an i5 there's not really any need to overclock for games, they downclocked their 3770k by 1Ghz and it still beat the 8350 at stock. I'm mean I know overclocking is "cool" but it not actually that useful in a practical sense. Plus there is still a cost associated with it. Too many people act as if overclocking is "free" but often these people have spent huge amounts to achieve their overclocks.
OK so let's assume a really efficient motherboard and take 20W off, it's still 80W extra for the 8350 platform.
But wouldn't anyone willing that spend that much cash just go for Intel instead?
Don't get me wrong here, I'm a fan of AMD and want to see them get back to their glory days, going toe-to-toe with Intel, but Intel has a significant advantage in terms of efficiency, power usage and general speed. AMD has price. If you take away AMD's price advantage, then what does it have as an incentive to buy it?
If this is 5GHz within a 95W envelope, then that'd be amazing. Heck, even within 125W it'd be okay, but I can't see that happening and at that price, you'll have to have to a very specific use for it (or a lot of spare money) to get a real advantage from that chip over a similarly priced or even cheaper Intel setup.
Stick to what you do best AMD and keep the price advantage and the low-middle range APU market.
You're comparing power consumption under heavy video encoding load, where the 8350 happens to be substantially faster than any i5. Power consumption under gaming load is NOT the same. As has been mentioned already, platform power consumption tends to be far more significant than CPU power for modern CPUs, which is usually in the low single-digits when gated.
And you're basing your gaming benchmarks on a single table from a single website.
anandtech has 3 paid up intel employee`s as MODs (1 is a super mod) , they also have a paid up employee on the staff.
ergo - take EVERYTHING they say with an intel bias.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
