AMD Reaffirms Commitment to Socketed CPUs

[Pulsar_t]

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/a ... least_2014



Are the days of enthusiast PC building numbered? Intel certainly sees it that way.

I don't get the bitching about AMD not performing as well as Intel in synthetic benchmarks. Their products are still relevant and priced according to their performance.. It's not like you get fifty different choices.

[Hobie-wan]

Posted less than 3 hours later. but still over 2 days ago and linked right below the one you linked.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/i ... ockets2012

[Pulsar_t]

Haha can't delete it now before you delete your post

[ATARI800XLfan]

Thanks goodness for AMD, performance and good prices.

[isiolia]

Thanks goodness for AMD, performance and good prices.

It'd be nice to see them do more than occasionally be competitive for low end price/performance again.

[ATARI800XLfan]

Thanks goodness for AMD, performance and good prices.

It'd be nice to see them do more than occasionally be competitive for low end price/performance again.

I would say low to mid range, the FX-8350 does quit well against the I5-3570K, and it costs a bit less then the I5 too.

[isiolia]

I would say low to mid range, the FX-8350 does quit well against the I5-3570K, and it costs a bit less then the I5 too.

Price advantage depends on where you buy it. While their pricing isn't exactly standard, Microcenter usually sells the i5 for $170, putting it $20 under their price for the 8350. On Newegg, the price difference is like $5 in the AMD's favor. So, could really go either way.
For a lot of things, even a 3470 outperforms it, and that's even cheaper.

There are cheap and functional motherboards for either platform.

Performance does go back and forth a little, but Intel still comes out in front most of the time. For purposes of gaming, Intel is clearly the better choice (or here for more). AMD still really only pulls ahead on heavily threaded applications.

Also consider that the 8350 is a relatively recent occurrence. Ivy Bridge launched what, last March? Vishera was in October. While we can't expect a synchronized release schedule, point is, Haswell is likely going to hit before a new round of FX chips. Without a dramatic move, AMD is going to keep playing catch-up. There isn't that back-and-forth like the GPU side of things can have.

AMD is also miles behind Intel with regard to power efficiency. Granted, that was an area that Ivy Bridge really improved on, but the current disparity is dramatic (around 100W for the system as a whole).

Were this the AMD of yesteryear, the 8350 would be $50-60 less, the motherboards would be cheaper, and Intel would probably be worse with regard to power/heat
Things simply aren't like they were back in the Athlon/P4 days.

Outside of very specific builds (like, an encoding box), I don't see how they'd be the better option outside of brand loyalty. Even if the overall performance matched up, they'd cost more in the long run due to power usage.

[ATARI800XLfan]

I would say low to mid range, the FX-8350 does quit well against the I5-3570K, and it costs a bit less then the I5 too.

Price advantage depends on where you buy it. While their pricing isn't exactly standard, Microcenter usually sells the i5 for $170, putting it $20 under their price for the 8350. On Newegg, the price difference is like $5 in the AMD's favor. So, could really go either way.
For a lot of things, even a 3470 outperforms it, and that's even cheaper.

There are cheap and functional motherboards for either platform.

Performance does go back and forth a little, but Intel still comes out in front most of the time. For purposes of gaming, Intel is clearly the better choice (or here for more). AMD still really only pulls ahead on heavily threaded applications.

Also consider that the 8350 is a relatively recent occurrence. Ivy Bridge launched what, last March? Vishera was in October. While we can't expect a synchronized release schedule, point is, Haswell is likely going to hit before a new round of FX chips. Without a dramatic move, AMD is going to keep playing catch-up. There isn't that back-and-forth like the GPU side of things can have.

AMD is also miles behind Intel with regard to power efficiency. Granted, that was an area that Ivy Bridge really improved on, but the current disparity is dramatic (around 100W for the system as a whole).

Were this the AMD of yesteryear, the 8350 would be $50-60 less, the motherboards would be cheaper, and Intel would probably be worse with regard to power/heat
Things simply aren't like they were back in the Athlon/P4 days.

Outside of very specific builds (like, an encoding box), I don't see how they'd be the better option outside of brand loyalty. Even if the overall performance matched up, they'd cost more in the long run due to power usage.

cheaper is a good reason for under $150 intel does not match AMD, and power usage does not matter to everyone.

[isiolia]

cheaper is a good reason for under $150 intel does not match AMD, and power usage does not matter to everyone.

Like what? An i3 3220 compares well against an FX-4300 or A10-5800k at the $130 range. Both have their strong areas compared to the Intel, but neither are a clear winner against it.

The FX series only goes down to about the $100 price point, under which Intel Pentium chips offer much stronger per-core performance than the A series. Again, heavily threaded apps favor AMD, but for a budget gaming CPU Intel easily takes it.

But, that's back where I said they were in the first place AMD offers more cores for cheaper. If that happens to line up with usage in a budget machine, then they can be a better buy. Their per-core performance has lagged behind.


Power use should matter if the argument is cost. Costs more to run a power hungry CPU. Even besides that, it also tends to mean it runs hotter, thus requiring more aggressive cooling (and probably, in turn, noise).

[ATARI800XLfan]

cheaper is a good reason for under $150 intel does not match AMD, and power usage does not matter to everyone.

Like what? An i3 3220 compares well against an FX-4300 or A10-5800k at the $130 range. Both have their strong areas compared to the Intel, but neither are a clear winner against it.

The FX series only goes down to about the $100 price point, under which Intel Pentium chips offer much stronger per-core performance than the A series. Again, heavily threaded apps favor AMD, but for a budget gaming CPU Intel easily takes it.

But, that's back where I said they were in the first place AMD offers more cores for cheaper. If that happens to line up with usage in a budget machine, then they can be a better buy. Their per-core performance has lagged behind.


Power use should matter if the argument is cost. Costs more to run a power hungry CPU. Even besides that, it also tends to mean it runs hotter, thus requiring more aggressive cooling (and probably, in turn, noise).

most web sites do feel the FX-4300 is a little overpriced, for 10 dollars more though the FX-6300 is the sweet spot, six cores and you still have the memory size of the higher end 8-core.