Title says it all. I'd really like people to expand their CPU knowledge by reading these:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/442/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8150_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K.html

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-8150

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/16.html

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=434

 

i5 3570k (quad-core) > AMD-FX-8150 (8-core/octa-core)

 

 

Thank you for reading those and I hope that you now know that just because there's more cores does not mean that the processor is better :-)

Lol. Just get a better 8 core then. Jesus. It's simple to realize that only SOME quad cores are better then 8 cores and not all. If you're building a computer you would be way better off buying a good 8 core so you won't need to upgrade it for quite some time. Quad cores are slowly dying out because games are simply becoming too much CPU hogs as they advance, Especially the ones coming out this year and early next year.

i have an AMD and it sucks asshole

Lol. Just get a better 8 core then. Jesus. It's simple to realize that only SOME quad cores are better then 8 cores and not all. If you're building a computer you would be way better off buying a good 8 core so you won't need to upgrade it for quite some time. Quad cores are slowly dying out because games are simply becoming too much CPU hogs as they advance, Especially the ones coming out this year and early next year.

 

 

Excuse me, but if quad-cores are slowly dieing out, then why are they still at the top above 8-core CPU's in FPS on the most highest-needed games? I don't see where you're getting this information from, I'd like to see it myself.

Lol dude. Look at this. Soon quad cores won't be able to handle the amount of CPU a game will take. AND not all quad cores are better then an 8 core processor. There are plenty of 8 cores that are much better in every way then a quad core.

Lol dude. Look at this. Soon quad cores won't be able to handle the amount of CPU a game will take. AND not all quad cores are better then an 8 core processor. There are plenty of 8 cores that are much better in every way then a quad core.

 

Please refer to my last post. 

Lol dude. Look at this. Soon quad cores won't be able to handle the amount of CPU a game will take. AND not all quad cores are better then an 8 core processor. There are plenty of 8 cores that are much better in every way then a quad core.

 

 

There are plenty of 8 core AMD Cpus that outperform 4 core AMD cpu's. You will also find that there are OLD GEN 4 cores from AMD that OUTPERFORM 8 core bulldozers.

 

I'm not sure why AMD even released bulldozer tbh, it was awful.

 

You will not find any modern desktop 8 core processor that will perform better than ANY modern Intel quad core processor. Cores have literally nothing to do with performance at that point, considering Intel's lowest end quad cores outperform all 8 on any 8 cored chip desktop cpu available, and not only that, but Intel chips have hyperthreading for 8 core virtualization if needed, while still greatly outperforming.

 

Buying an eight core now is an absolute waste. When the time comes for games to use 8 cores, these AMD bulldozers and APUs will be shit nothing and won't even begin to keep up with the modern processors of the day. (Which will probably use under 8 cores)

 

(I'd like to note that I use AMD and have always built with AMD. They went in the wrong direction though and have nothing to offer me this generation unless I feel like building budget with an apu)

 

Another thing this really reminds me of is how people think that higher clock speed is the end all be all for processor performance. When nowadays, it's basically meaningless except in relativity.

Edited July 1, 201312 yr by thelobby

^ I loled really hard at that post. Thanks for that.

There are plenty of 8 core AMD Cpus that outperform 4 core AMD cpu's. You will also find that there are OLD GEN 4 cores from AMD that OUTPERFORM 8 core bulldozers.

I'm not sure why AMD even released bulldozer tbh, it was awful.

You will not find any modern desktop 8 core processor that will perform better than ANY modern Intel quad core processor. Cores have literally nothing to do with performance at that point, considering Intel's lowest end quad cores outperform all 8 on any 8 cored chip desktop cpu available, and not only that, but Intel chips have hyperthreading for 8 core virtualization if needed, while still greatly outperforming.

Buying an eight core now is an absolute waste. When the time comes for games to use 8 cores, these AMD bulldozers and APUs will be shit nothing and won't even begin to keep up with the modern processors of the day. (Which will probably use under 8 cores)

(I'd like to note that I use AMD and have always built with AMD. They went in the wrong direction though and have nothing to offer me this generation unless I feel like building budget with an apu)

Another thing this really reminds me of is how people think that higher clock speed is the end all be all for processor performance. When nowadays, it's basically meaningless except in relativity.

Finally someone who is making sense right now.

So you are basically saying an octo-core at 3.50ghz each > a quad core at 3.50ghz each?

the fx 8150 was garbage it was as fast as a i3-3220.   the fx -8350 dominates all old generation amd, and its on par with 3570k and faster than some becnhmarks with 3770k. it outperforms intel while streaming with xsplit and gaming. so if you want fast multithreaded performance get the fx-8350

the fx 8150 was garbage it was as fast as a i3-3220.   the fx -8350 dominates all old generation amd, and its on par with 3570k and faster than some becnhmarks with 3770k. it outperforms intel while streaming with xsplit and gaming. so if you want fast multithreaded performance get the fx-8350

 

Do you have a comparison to prove this?

 

So you are basically saying an octo-core at 3.50ghz each > a quad core at 3.50ghz each?

No.

FX-8150 Vs Core i3 3220

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=677

 

 

i5 3570K vs FX-8350

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

 

Also, razetheworld did benchmarks with xsplit gaming and without.

 

 

theres my proof Spear. intel is overly hyped. once steamroller comes out haswell will be struggling.

 

As for the more cores more performance. amd fx series 8 cores. is actually a quad core using a modular architecture

 

theres 4 modules, each module has 2 cores per module thus making the computer think it has 8 cores and 8 threads, but really its a 4 core with 8 threads. but the way the cpu is made is that the large pools of l2 and l3 cache feed the cores faster when using heavy multithreaded applications.

 

intel has a much simpler architecture, that has strong single threaded optimizations thats why it succeeds in gaming by only a few frames, and loses against amd while using heavy multithreaded applications. but the i7 series still holds its end, but like i said wait for Steamroller.

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by rsbossrod

I have a i5 core on my laptop and i use wifi connection yet it still runs like a beast.

All cores are not the same.  AMD cores are weaker -> takes more time to get the same result

intel cores are stronger -> takes less time to get the same result

 

for the same architecture, more cores = better if they're running at the same frequency.

 

The trouble is, you can't just double the cores and call it a day.  you'd essentially raise the TDP of the chip by 2x+ which is why higher core chips run slower.

 

Take a look at intels 8-12 core server chips.

 

Intel to AMD is like Apples to oranges..

Edited July 3, 201312 yr by dreamliner