Why are you comparing X79 platform to AMD? AMD doesn't have an equivalent for that. Z77 Sabertooth is just 30$ more than 990FX Sabertooth. And the Z77 is more expensive for a reason. It has that Thermal Armor thingy, more USB3.0 ports, DVI and DP ports (FX doesn't have an IGP, btw, in case you forgot that), etc. Going back to High-end, I'm not an economist, but I know some basics. No competition means that monopolist can due whatever he wants. Intel wants to sell their CPUs for 999$? They can do that. Why? Because AMD's best can't beat a 200$ Intel's CPU. I'm no Intel fanboy, I have an A8-3850 myself, I waited for FX's return. But now I admit that AMD fails at CPU market. GPUs and APUs are good, but CPUs are disappointing. After C2D release, AMD became very uncompetetive. Phenom failed, Phenom II was doing ok against Quads, but failed after first Core CPUs. And FX, well, You know the drill.
what? Dude the Sabertooth is basically the same motherboard whether it's for Intel or AMD, that's why I compared them, and yes the 990FX does have Thermal Armour. The Intel version is $200 more in NZ... edit, OK no it doesn't have Thermal Armour you're right...maybe it's the Formula...I'll have a look. Hmmm looks like none of the AMD boards have it. Guess I'll have to find another comparison...:3eyes:
intel has been faster since the core 2 duo. I would love to upgrade to them if their systems didnt A: cost too much and B: have inherent stability issues when overclocking high 24/7 and C: lock the multiplier. I've been overclocking since athlon or 386 if you count the turbo button. I've cut through hundreds of rigs and built thousands of computers in production environments. You can never say all, because there are always variables but im my conclusion, AMD has built and supported more stable platforms and allowed for better price to performance ratios over intel since I can remember. I only wish that AMD drivers didnt suck ****ing balls on linux and made make life difficult when hacking kernels to support mac OS X (yeah **** you, I am writing this on a mac and I manage a mac store)
I was wondering the same.... I've only been overclocking since the mid-90's and I've never seen an issue...
sounds like user error most likely. the price isnt much of an issue either. you can get a 2500k, mb, ram for less than $400 likely much less if you have a MC. and the 2500k has a $169.99 walkin in price.
I am a record holding overclocker and you both know I've been around since 2005 making my mark. Don't bother putting me down like a noob who doesn't know his ****. My gripe isn't with the cpu's. The processors are great, but the chipsets and ssd's suck balls. Proper research will help you find a 3rd party vendor who has lower failure rates per price and per needs, but I've experienced more problems building stock overclocked computers for enthusiast gaming companies using intel than what makes sense during the core 2 duo/quad era. I myself went through 4 motherboards personally with the c2d line. Currently today I battle severe issues with intel chipsets in mac computers. Endless battles with heat and poor motherboard design. I5's, I7's, macpro's, etc. We can argue that it's foxconn, but they make everything anyway. Like my previous statement, not everyone gets the same problems. You folks are probably in the majority of people who don't get to experience the **** I get to on a daily basis. I unfortunately get to deal with the irritating RMA's and repairs for countless machines of all kinds. Personally, I am NOT a fanboy. I go where performance and reliability is. AMD just happens suit me better at this time.
I'd say its a heat that is the issue in all cases. Its why I never agree with the terms 'gaming/performance' laptop. There simply isn't the room for enough airflow to keep them cool when worked. Heat is a killer for laptop drives, both mechanical and solid states (as well as low memory systems).
Indeed, more fans = less battery. Better cooling = larger chassis or more permeable frames that increase the likelyhood of failure unrelated to heat. The manufacturer of the part needs to get their **** in order to meet the demands of the vendor and user base.
With this new piledriver on market what is better option with in mind of future upgrades : AM3+ or s1155 ? Will next type AMD CPU's be compatible with AM3+? Will AM3+ have the enthusiastic degree CPU which will be head to head with Intel in gaming ? Now, there isn't enthusiastic level AMD cpu for gaming.
So Steamroller will be on the AM3+ socket?? Awesome! In this case I will totally stay where I'm at and depending on how Steamroller looks, i may go that route when they're released :banana: Lets look at this. The new Vishera FX-8320 chip is $179 and outperforms i5 chips in most cases, especially when overclocked. Admit it and get out of the sea of Intel denial, the new Vishera chips are good performers, and especially for the price. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780 In my opinion, Intel processors perform well but are a rip off. You're paying partially for the name, almost like an Apple product. Sorry, thats just my opinion.
First of all, please don't post links to CrapMark website. Thanks. Now, I do agree that Visheras do have advantage in some fields, but overall they're still flawed CPUs. Intel, on the other hand, has monopolistic restrictions, like no overclock ability for lower-end models. Let's look at TH's comprehensive review $220 FX-8350 is barely faster than $200 i5 3470. And that's without making use of Intel's IGP in media encoding tests. At $220 there's i5 3570/3570K. Then there's AMD's abnormally high power consumption. FX-8350 consumed 54% more power than equivalent CPU. That's simply impossible with a non-flawed modern CPU. Getting to overclocking, it actually gets even worse for AMD. First, FX-8350 already works 4.0 GHz. Under normal conditions it can be overclocked to 4.8-5.0 GHz. That is a mere 20-25% clock increase, far away from i5 3570K's 38-47% (4.6-5.0 GHz) OC. A "partially unlocked" i5 3470 can be overclocked by the same or higher percentage. That, unfortunately, requires a circumvent to Intel's restriction. It's called ASRock No-K OC. But, yeah, this Intel restriction really sucks. Moving along, when overclocking, you have to take per-clock performance into account. CPUs with higher PPC gain more performance from the same overclock. You can do the math if you don't believe. On AMD's side tho there's HT tweaking and overclocking, which could in some cases gain some performance. And finally, we move to the most important part for me and for all gamers. AMD CPUs are good for rendering, archiving, etc. BUT. AMD CPUs fu*king suck at gaming.
^ perhaps in benchmarks, but how is it everyone I know, and pretty much all on this site with an FX chip (Bulldozer or Vishera) games just fine on them? I play all sorts of games on mine with great frames.
I can never get any kind of satisfaction except from my own AMD build, for a long time already I stick with AMD. Never had any problem since my build of the first Phenom generation. I always gone through benchmarks on AMD and Intel and the result always show Intel is better than AMD CPU but in real gaming I can never get any differences from AMD or Intel CPU. As a student, AMD build is more reasonable in price and performance. I can gaming and done my works with an ease. Can't wait to get the new FX-processor and I'm waiting into their new FX line-up. Hope this will be my new dream build. AMD always a smarter choice.
The real question is whether AMD will re-use the current socket for the next iteration of Bulldozer due next year, or whether they will move to a new socket. In most likelihood they will retain the current socket and move to a new socket in 2014, when they will most likely start to use DDR4 memory. It is at this socket change where AMD has to get things right. A new socket means you can't use older CPU's on it, which means they can do away with all the backward compatibility stuff they currently have. It also means they can have unification on the core like Intel have done (moving a lot of the chipset functions and voltage regulator onto the CPU). Considering that AMD are making CPU and GPU operation more heterogeneous with each new architecture from now on (particularly from the HD9000 series in late 2013-early 2014), it will be interesting to see what they will do. No doubt in 2014 there will be GPU cores on all AMD CPU's. A couple of years after this, the discrete GPU will merely be a higher performance extension to the CPU, with processing shared depending on low latency requirements (a discrete GPU inherently has a higher latency than the CPU).
Those new amd chips are deeply flawed. In the USA the prices are comparative to 2500k and 3570k. No brainier on which to choose here in the USA. All reviews I have seen on the new chips say their weakness is gaming. Were they good enough for gaming? Yes, but I wouldn't spend my $ on just good enough
How do you figure? The FX-8320 which beats the i5 2500K (pretty handily in most cases other than gaming) retails for $179.99 while the overpriced i5 2500K is $219.99. You're right, the choice is a no brainer!
