Quick comparison
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/836?vs=697

 

Quick comparison
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/836?vs=697

And that settles it. Thank you Viper.

 

You do realize that AMD is absolutely horrible for emulators ....right?

They might do ok in games but emulators require actual power.

 

Intel. AMD is sooo bad for emulators. Hell even some newer games on steam have issues with AMD. I have owned both an AMD and an Intel and love the intel by far.

 

Intel. AMD is sooo bad for emulators. Hell even some newer games on steam have issues with AMD. I have owned both an AMD and an Intel and love the intel by far.

PCSX2 is one of the worst offenders on AMD CPUs

 

naw not the 8350 fx with all those instructions so i do say amd rulz

pcsx2 absolutely loves the newer amds

 

Kenshin this thread would have to disagree greatly with your statement

http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2

As you can see the AMDs have to overclock to 4.0+ to achieve 60fps

Even that 8350 had to overcloak to 4.7 to acheve that same fps give or take a digit as a stock 3570k

Here is a small list that includes that 8350

74.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (3.7 GHz w/TB) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
73.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.2 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
72.80 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.0 GHz OC - gamerX1990 - CPU-Z
72.07 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8350 - 4.7 GHz OC - Sovereign
71.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 661 - 4.2 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF) - fariz_ - CPU-Z
71.11 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2400 - 3.7 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
70.95 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z

 

Kenshin this thread would have to disagree greatly with your statement

http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2

As you can see the AMDs have to overclock to 4.0+ to achieve 60fps

Even that 8350 had to overcloak to 4.7 to acheve that same fps give or take a digit as a stock 3570k

Here is a small list that includes that 8350

intels are good running applications faster than amd i admit but when comes to gaming you can forget it amd owns in that department.

intel will never beat amd when it comes to gaming

 

They don't. Your post is questionable in terms of reasonable deduction.

 

Intel has better stability, overall lower temperatures under load and better performance for the price. Anyone who's involved with computer engineering and programming can tell people that Intel > AMD

 

current AMD processors are TDP monsters and they still do not compete with Intel in performance per watt and performance per dollar

 

Even i m not english speaker i knows amd sucks very badly

 

I am an amd fan still (well cause i still have hope that they might recover) and i advise against getting a 8350, higher tier amd cpu's just like squall said are TDP monsters, and they don't offer per core as much performance as an intel. Although some games do take advantage of the extra cores, gaming in general (i mean this as an average between newer and older games) your way more in an advantage with Intel (Skyrim for example), emulation wise as well.

There are only two places in the market where getting an AMD CPU is worth it, the ones requiring a decent APU over processing power (i.e htpc setup) and low-mid range where if you know how to OC a 4300 or 6300 can be a sweeter deal overall then a i3 and with a better mobo.

 

and according to the details, is a better CPU?

I lol'd.

 

I lol'd.

I didn't know. The details on the page were all higher, that's why I made a post to verify that intel was still better.

 

Remember when Intel was selling 3.x clocked Pentium 4's and AMD slaughtered them at a lower clock rate.

Thats basically whats happening in reverse now. AMD cannot design a cpu with decent IPC if it could save their lives (and they don't have any staff left who could thanks to layoffs)

 

intels are good running applications faster than amd i admit but when comes to gaming you can forget it amd owns in that department.

intel will never beat amd when it comes to gaming

You seem to be stuck in the year 2002.
Maybe you should look at a Calendar cuz it's 2013 now and AMD dropped the ball horrendously a couple of years ago and can't seem to manage picking it up again. Intel has ruled supreme for the last 6-7 years.

And games are applications just by the way....so yes, Intels are indeed good at running games faster than AMD.

The only place where you have a point is when it comes to onboard GPU performance...but anybody that's serious has a discrete GPU anyways and isn't even using their APU so that point is kind of retarded for a desktop system.

 

Well AMD are apparently hoping to have a 30% ipc increase over piledriver on their next architecture, if they can pull it off then they'd at least be reasonably fast, likely still slower than intel though.

Considering intel has let the last 3 stages of release (sandy/ivy/haswell) completely sacrifice proper performance gains on the processor to bump up the on-board gpu performance instead, I'm sure they can come out and nuke even the best AMD progress for the foreseeable future.

I hate the APU approach, minmaxing yields better overall gains. Imagine where ivy bridge/haswell would be if half the die wasn't a crappy gpu

 

I consider any CPU branded as an APU to be a jack of all master of none processor.

 

year 2002

Ah AthlonXP to Athlon64 days

 

If AMD could catch up on the IPC department and they played their APU game right then they could end up with immerse performance gains over what Intel can offer.

Releasing most of the staff able to pull something like that off was a bad move though.

We could have SoCs with unified memory for the whole die, unbelievably low latencies and who knows what else. Essentially what happens with the PS4, just in a more extreme way.

A pity really...

 

Ah AthlonXP to Athlon64 days

My parents used to have a PC with the Athlon 64 X2, wasn't the fastest CPU back then but oh well. I've always gone with Intel, never had a single issue or CPU get fried.

 

@the_randomizer:
managed to test a packaged type AMD Athlon long ago (the first line of athlons), and ive owned a barton AthlonXP 2500+ cooled by a Coolermaster Aero 7 Lite (sadly not the unlocked/Mobile one) which was okay in its time (well, a time where AMD is still a little competitive).

semi OT:
now that i realize it, our specs the same, except my 3570 is unlocked (K) and disregarding the brands >_>

 

@the_randomizer:
managed to test a packaged type AMD Athlon long ago (the first line of athlons), and ive owned a barton AthlonXP 2500+ cooled by a Coolermaster Aero 7 Lite (sadly not the unlocked/Mobile one) which was okay in its time (well, a time where AMD is still a little competitive).

semi OT:
now that i realize it, our specs the same, except my 3570 is unlocked (K) and disregarding the brands >_>

I think that 2500+ was the model they had for a while. Then my brother gave them a used computer with a better CPU (still not up to date as all they do is surf the net)

The CPU I have now is plenty powerful for my needs, despite not being the K model.

 

**** yes, I loved the **** out of my Athlon 64 3200+
At the time I had no idea how AMD managed to get the same performance as Intel with much lower clocks, and I still don't (not really).