Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by Nian, Jan 4, 2015.
I didn't start using PC's yesterday.
I'm not going to pretend I have real facts. But I've got a couple of Intel rigs and some AMD. Intel always feels zippier and quicker. Smooth and less issues. That's just my opinion. The general consensus I would say is that if you can afford it, go Intel. Don't need to listen to me anyway. AMD works but doesn't feel quite the same.
AMD used to be ahead. Say... 10 years ago, but things have changed and I do think there is a bit of a lead being held by Intel.
I don't think benchmarks really portray the feel an Intel based computer has over an AMD. But it's all relatively subjective...
The thing that I, at the current market, don't get is the value argument. With socket 1150 at least, PC hardware is cheap as chips!
I do remember the days of $1000 processors and going with a cheap Sempron and over-clocking it to something much better but these days are gone.
For Around $400 I can get the top Intel processor and be done with it. The time spent comparing and arguing will end up costing you more than the processor is worth
The top Intel (desktop) processor is about $1250, so those days are still with us, but if you have a professional need for it, it would pay for itself in time saved.
See these chips don't even register on my radar. To me the S1150 i7 is the top processor.
You never used to have a professional need for a CPU to reek the benefits.
There was a time when a top of the line processor actually = faster performance right in your face.. Be gaming, or just milling around in the latest windows version of the time
Those times are DEFINITELY gone!
It's like mentioning Quadro graphics cards when we're just talking about 980's/970's. They don't really get taken into account in a normal consumer computer so it really doesn't prove a point.
FTFY Unless you want a stinky PC Not sure what you're saying about performance though, if you are rendering or doing anything multi-threaded then the faster performance will be pretty obvious.
I see what you're getting at, not sure the analogy quite works though, since professional GPU's come with different drivers and are more like server parts with their focus on reliability and adhering to standards (hence why some even come with ECC RAM).
X99 chips are just the most balls-out chips that Intel can crank out, so while it's mostly professionals that buy them, there are plenty of enthusiasts who get it just to have the best, which is fair enough.
Also "normal consumer computer" doesn't generally apply to OCAU
+1 I have an FX8350 @ 4.4ghz @ 1.5v. It's a heap of shit compared to my 3770k @ 4Ghz 1.15v (both run these speeds daily, and my 3770k does 5ghz at 1.35v if I want).
I'm the biggest AMD fanboy there is, but at the moment, the AMD CPUs are shit, and so are their graphics cards.
Go buy an i5 4690k, 16(32?)gb of any brand 2400mhz ddr3, a $180 Z97 board, GTX970 and get it over and done with.
I really dislike nVidia, but at 150w/$450 for a GTX970, unless you're doing 4k res gaming, there's no point buying more than one. Want another? Spend another $450 and drop it in next to it. Not only are you $100 and 50w of power better off than an R9 295X, they'll be quieter and have a ton more overclocking headroom. If you really want to spend money, put that $100 you saved towards getting a 4790k (which will absolutely destroy anything AMD has, run cooler/quieter AND take less power). Leave it at stock, save the money that you would have spent buying the AMD CPU a water kit.
The Asrock Extreme 4 is a really nice board for this SLI action. I built a PC just 4 days ago with the above specs, worked out quite nicely, and was super stable with a 500w ACBel PSU that cost $46. (overnight Furmark/linX)
as for what I'm saying about performance, well, as I said:
The point was that you didn't have to be doing rendering or multi threaded tasks to see the difference.. EVERYTHING happened noticably faster.. 2D rendering of windows, boot times, program load times, list goes on.
you simply don't see that now.
I've been on the amd team since about 99/2000, so yea, right with you on the fanboy thing, but yesterday I picked up a full platform upgrade that is intel because there is nothing interesting on the amd side to upgrade my am2+ system with the 955be I bought back in 2009. I got:
Asrock fatality professional 1150
xeon 1231v3 80w chip. Holy shit.
16gb 1866 Kingston red ram
I bought the video to upgrade from my 5850 because I still see value in the ati cards price wise.
I went the 1150 system because a new ddr4 platform would have been ~500 more all up for the lowest 6 core cpu, 16gb ddr4, and the motherboard I was looking at, the gigabyte gaming 5 was another $150 on top of the asrock. The thing that set me to the cheaper 2011 is that I got pretty much the same thing with the asrock, it's got the intel nic, killer nic, core 3d sound, m.2, fucking loaded to the balls. I saw no value in the ddr4 platform for now.
Anyway, will be upgrading very shortly, still on the amd right now.
The farer comparison is 2x 290x if you're considering SLI cards, since thats 2 cards as well, rather than a more expensive single card dual GPU solution. In that situation, given you can also grab a 290x for the same money, you're approximately $0 better off with the 970, and are you going to get more performance from it? Fewer watts, sure. Personally I'd wait until the new AMD gpus if possible, unless you really want something that sips power, the new Nvidia stuff doesn't really blow my skirt up performance wise.
The performance is within a few % either way, depending on the benchmark.
I'd rather have:
- Literally -half- gfx power consumption
- -Half- the amount of heat coming from the case
- Being able to buy a -much- cheaper PSU (and stay safe)
- HEAPS more overclocking headroom.
- MUCH less noise.
From a completely impartial point of view, there's absolutely no reason to consider the AMD cards. Have you ever heard a 290X at full load on stock cooler? Oh lawdy, the noise, nevermind two of them...
Have a look at the post about 970 memory in the video card section in these forums.
yes, yes, AMD are behind at the moment in high end GPU's, just like Nvidia were before, and AMD before that, etc etc etc.. Ultimately though AMD and Nvidia are competing healthily overall, and have been since the 58xx series release.
Still doesn't change every fact that I stated Yes, there will be the occasional person crying about how the card accesses the last 512mb of memory, but in 99% of real world situations, it'll make absolutely 0 difference.
I'll back Euphoreia on his statements
+ I run a 3570K he sold me ages ago
Biggest Amd fan for like 10years.
Right up until 1100T & sold it.
That Amd combo with fermi graphics was
mental on power consumption.
Want to convert a vid file sure, 600watt on the meter.
But the Intel converts x3 times as fast with 4000igpu
Do the math, 600% increased positive direction.
Absolutely no point handing extra monies over in electricity.
Anything Haswell i5 i7 is a killer. 4790K refresh are mental.
Have power efficient on idle OR whoop ass if you wind it up
And yet if were talking the GTX 970, the whole memory scandal... Screw Nvidia.
Hate all you want, numbers are numbers, and the GTX970 is every bit as good as the R9-290X performance-wise.