# Does  AMD FX-9370 overperform Intel Core i5-4670K



## Gordon.C (Feb 1, 2014)

Hi, 

I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming. 

I was wondering whether AMD FX-9370 (being the second most powerful CPU of AMD) outperforms Intel Core i5-4670K (being the most powerful Core i5)

They are the same price, however AMD FX-9370 has 8 cores while Core i5 only has 4.

Which one performs better in terms of high end maxed out gaming?


----------



## mr.doom (Feb 11, 2014)

Gordon.C said:


> Hi,
> 
> I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming.
> 
> ...



The answer is "No" for several reasons. Without going in to too many details I will only list you few:
1. 8 cores are never used in any game. Maximum of 4 is used.
2. Intel as it stands, outperforms AMD  both for per-core and multithreaded performance.
3. High end, maxed out gaming requires  high end, maxed out graphics card, not CPU.

So if you need an AMD processor, get less cores with higher per-core speed and something like Radeon 290X gpu.

For Intel, get an i5 (any will do, but take K series if you can afford it, for overclocking) and go with Nvidia 770, 780 or 780ti (again it depends on your budget).

Those are your choices if you are looking at the high end gaming market.


----------



## FuryRosewood (Feb 11, 2014)

Though in a technicality - if you are multitasking like streaming a game as you play, the amd 8 cores apparently do better.


----------



## Jiniix (Feb 11, 2014)

If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's _*only*_ in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.


----------



## mr.doom (Feb 11, 2014)

Jiniix said:


> If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's _*only*_ in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.



True, but you need to remember that in order to use Mantle, you will have to have the whole line of Mantle enabled equipment, not just processor.


----------



## Jiniix (Feb 11, 2014)

I actually edited that away, because I wasn't 100% sure you needed the GPU part as well.
I had originally written that you needed a GCN GPU from AMD, which is 7000- and R7/R9-series


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 11, 2014)

Well a 8350 is already very similar in performance to a 4670K, the 8350 is only about 7 percent worse. So the 9370 should out perform the 4670K as it has a higher clock then the 8350.


----------



## Calin (Feb 11, 2014)

Even the 8350 > any i5
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 11, 2014)

That's a synthetic, it makes use of all cores and doesn't show real world performance.


----------



## Tumultus (Feb 11, 2014)

In short the 9370 is the superior processor in terms of raw power, but a lot of that power is unused, as the majority (nearly all) games aren't optimized for more than 4 cores - many are not even optimized to use 4.  Depending on what you're doing, there are different routes to go. If you're gaming I'd suggest a cheaper processor and a higher level graphics card. Knock seventy bucks off your processor and move up a tier in your graphics. If you're not gaming and are using anything that'll be more synthetically driven, or is optimized for multiple cores, then stick with the AMD chip.


----------



## Virssagòn (Feb 13, 2014)

Jiniix said:


> If you play Battlefield 4 I'm sure the 8350 would outperform the i5. Mantle can handle up to 8 threads at a time. But for now it's _*only*_ in Battlefield 4 with a beta driver. EA say they have several titles in the works that'll support Mantle though, and it'll undoubtedly be big in the future.



There are 20 pretty known games in development which will support Mantle. 4-5 big game engines start to support it. So you can be sure that Mantle will have some impact.


----------



## Tumultus (Feb 13, 2014)

SmileMan said:


> There are 20 pretty known games in development which will support Mantle. 4-5 big game engines start to support it. So you can be sure that Mantle will have some impact.



I agree. Mantle shouldn't be ignored already. The improvements it has in situations which the processor would normally bottleneck the graphics is astounding - sometimes 30% or higher. DirectX and OpenGL are far from perfect, and, I think, waste valuable speed on both the cpu and gpu.  
Mantle will benefit both high and mid range rigs, but in different ways. The mid range, and old cpus will (again this is all if Mantle will do as it has done in beta, and hopefully moreso on completion and adoptionI) have a significantly longer life in gaming rigs.  The beta was putting gains of 20-30% on the previous generation of AMD processors (Phenom II).  High end cpus are shown to have between a 7-12% gain over using DX 11.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 14, 2014)

Still seeing AMD fans stating for ~2 years now that eventually the FX ''8 cores'' will be better once things are optimized for more than 4 cores is quite comical.

Intel I5 dominates for gaming, period.  It also completely dominates at anything single threaded, which is most apps.  Very very few things can an 8350 out perform a 4670k, and when it does it's a very marginal win.  

Case in point, take a look at this link for rendering performance-

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

Look at the 9590 at 5ghz VS the 3570k.  An educated guess of a 4670k at 4.5ghz would perform nearly identical.  And don't forget, most 8350's will fall short of 5ghz...most will only hit 4.8 daily.  So the 4670k at 4.5 will actually outperform an 8350 at 4.8ghz even in rendering.

And how about a word on power consumption....an 8350 overclocked to 5ghz will consume 250w fully loaded, while a 4670k at 4.5ghz will definitely outperform it in 98+% of tasks and consume around 120w max load.

In short, the 4670k is the better all around choice hands down.


----------



## StrangleHold (Feb 14, 2014)

Kinda weird you would use that review. You know in the gaming benchmarks there is not really any difference between the FX 9590 and the 1000 buck I7 3960X. Proves one point but kills another one, LOL. Power consumption, its a 8 core running at 5.0. But still uses less power then the 3960X 6 core intel at 4.6.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 14, 2014)

StrangleHold said:


> Kinda weird you would use that review. You know in the gaming benchmarks there is not really any difference between the FX 9590 and the 1000 buck I7 3960X. Proves one point but kills another one, LOL.



His gaming test didn't use any CPU bound games.  I bet an I5 2400 would perform within 2-3 FPS too, your point?  It did not kill it at all.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/513...et-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-high





StrangleHold said:


> Power consumption, its a 8 core running at 5.0. But still uses less power then the 3960X 6 core intel at 4.6.



Really?  If you want to play that card, just go back to the multithreaded benches.  Hey and single threaded for that matter.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/13/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/14/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/10/


----------



## G80FTW (Feb 14, 2014)

Gordon.C said:


> Hi,
> 
> I havent had an AMD gpu for a while because I was the impression that Intel performs better in gaming.
> 
> ...



Well firstly, as I am also learning, AMDs 8 core processors are not "true" 8 cores. I say this, because they have 2 cores paired up with 1 FPU. So in some applications (particularly gaming) that 8 core processor would act like a 4 core processor because each set of 2 cores has to share 1 FPU.  Where as the Intel 4 core has 1 FPU per core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMD_Bulldozer_block_diagram_(8_core_CPU).PNG

So comparing them on cores alone to try and compare their potential multi-tasking abilities doesnt exactly work anymore since both processors multi-core designs are different. 

Its hard telling if this kind of design will catch on. My guess is it could, as I think it would allow them to fit more physical cores on the die itself however there are obvious sacrifices in doing so.

EDIT: This might be a better representation and explanation:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX8150-8Core-Processor-Review-Bulldozer-Has-Landed/?page=2


----------



## mr.doom (Feb 14, 2014)

Well, it seems that this is turning out to be a fan-war 

I would not go for AMD products for now, because (1) their processors are behind Intel's in therms of real world performance, and (2) Their GPUs run extremely hot, loud and power hungry.

There was a time that both Intel and Nvidia were playing catch up with AMD and ATI, but this is simply not the case now.

Simply put - use AMD for budget limited builds, and Intel/Nvidia combo for power. It is really as simple as that.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm not a fanboy and I'll prove it right now.  I like AMD gpu's, before the mining craze they were way better price for performance....the pitcairn GPU's are great IE the 7870 and R9 270's.  I'm currently running an R9 270, strongest GPU on a single 6 pin, and I have to say I'm extremely impressed by it.  It does not run hot, nor consume lots of power (as evident by the single 6 pin), and its quiet.

I also have a 7950 and a 280x.  In stock form, they may run a little hot.  But, you can overclock and undervolt them.  Stock voltage on my 280x is actually 1.18v, but I'm running 1.037v on it which dropped temps about 12c and also power consumption went from 280w full load to 220w.

But when it comes to CPU's, AMD is absolute rubbish compared to intel.


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 14, 2014)

The answer is no.

Mantle only works effectively on low end stuff (i.e.. 40% improvement on shit, is still shit).

GPU bound games will favour the intel gear.

8320 is pretty crap unless you want to multi task.



Calin said:


> Even the 8350 > any i5
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html



dumbest thing ive ever seen. Passmark is gaming???  

the 8350 gets raped by even an old i5 (2500K) http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 14, 2014)

No it doesn't, that bench is utter BS. A 8350 will perform slightly better then a 2500K in every single game except maybe a game that highly favors Intel.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 14, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> No it doesn't, that bench is utter BS. A 8350 will perform slightly better then a 2500K in every single game except maybe a game that highly favors Intel.



No, it's not.  Those ''benchmarks'' are games, not synthetic benches.  It is literal gaming performance.

I guess every game favors intel then


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 14, 2014)

I wasn't referencing synthetics, I don't know where you got that from. 

Its pretty obvious your a Intel fanboy. I am neither a fanboy of Intel or AMD, I have owened several if each. My current CPU is a FX 8350, but I would be running Intel if I hadn't got my board for a good deal.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YiUxtD7MYkxZqGBMQ&sig2=m_8H40aBRnwU21KLTc-Gmw

I trust these people more then pretty much any other tech site or channel.

Also I don't trust AnandTech at all, their benchmarks are never similar to other sites. I never reference them and I disregard it when not her people dom


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 14, 2014)

You said ''that bench''.

lol you trust a YouTube reviewer over the actual respected and well known reviewers?  umm, ok.

How about Toms Hardware?-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

How about Guru3d?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html

How about techradar?
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-8350-1110369/review


I'm not a ''fanboy''.  I've owned and tested all these CPU's, I go by my own experiences....and those experiences have shown me that AMD cpu's are crap compared to current intel offerings.  

I would rather run an I5 2400 than an FX8350.  Not because I'm a fanboy, but rather I had better FPS with that CPU at 3.6 than the 8320 I tested at 4.6ghz.  Also, the I5 was just snappier at simple tasks, even down to internet browsing.  Furthermore, the 8320 ran ridiculously hot, and consumed massive amounts of power.

So if preferring and defending a faster, cooler running, less power consuming product makes me a fanboy, than I say whatever to you and keep running your AMD crap and somehow thinking it's better.


----------



## ivtec (Feb 14, 2014)

87dtna said:


> You said ''that bench''.
> 
> lol you trust a YouTube reviewer over the actual respected and well known reviewers?  umm, ok.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with you 87dtna;I use to work for Ameican forces and they used the AMD stuff  for office tasks and i must say they were realy peace of crap compared to Intel machines,why they carried AMD?because they cheap.


----------



## StrangleHold (Feb 15, 2014)

87dtna said:


> His gaming test didn't use any CPU bound games. I bet an I5 2400 would perform within 2-3 FPS too, your point? It did not kill it at all.
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html
> 
> http://us.hardware.info/reviews/513...et-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-high



So what are we going to do? You pick CPU bound games running at lower settings and I pick GPU bound games running at higher settings. Who proved anything?







87dtna said:


> Really? If you want to play that card, just go back to the multithreaded benches. Hey and single threaded for that matter.
> 
> http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/13/
> 
> ...



Don't get it. I'm talking about a 6 core 3960X running at 4.8 using more power then a 8 core 9590 running at 5.0. What does multithreaded benches have to do with anything?

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/


----------



## G80FTW (Feb 15, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> No it doesn't, that bench is utter BS. A 8350 will perform slightly better then a 2500K in every single game except maybe a game that highly favors Intel.



We have already had this battle in another thread. In the end, the Intel comes out ontop in real world performance.  

I am not an Intel fanboy, as I have stated before, I didnt even want to get this i7 build I have now but when I researched into what AMD had at the time their Phenoms were hardly any better than the Brisbane I currently had so I felt there was no need to go the AMD route.  I love AMD, and wish they would get back into the high performance CPU market, but they appear to be going a whole different route with their R&D and if thats working for them then great.  Their purchase of ATi might have actually been the smartest move they ever made as Im pretty sure the graphics card sales are the only thing keeping the company afloat. And in that market, they seem to be doing rather well.


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 15, 2014)

Intel does beat AMD in overall gaming over performance. But not by a landslide like verybidy seems to think. In fact, usually Intel isn't anymore then 10 percent better.

87, yes, I trust Tek Syndicate more then any other benchmark place. What's wrong with YouTube anyways? You said I'd trust a Youtuber over a blog, yeah, so? And besides they run their own blog as well as a YouTube channel.

But you want a trusted blog that's actually running a modern game on high settings that isn't real CPU bound like all your benchmarks you're posting?


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 15, 2014)

StrangleHold said:


> So what are we going to do? You pick CPU bound games running at lower settings and I pick GPU bound games running at higher settings. Who proved anything?





PCunicorn said:


> But you want a trusted blog that's actually running a modern game on high settings that isn't real CPU bound like all your benchmarks you're posting?



I don't get your guys logic at all.  What does picking games that aren't CPU bound prove?  The point of topic is to measure CPU performance, so your arguments make absolutely no sense.

In non CPU bound games an Athlon II 640 performs just fine.  So why did you guys waste the extra money buying an FX-8350 then?  We could have all saved a lot of money and just got Athlon II's since they perform within 10% of a 4770k right?

See how stupid that is yet?



StrangleHold said:


> Don't get it. I'm talking about a 6 core 3960X running at 4.8 using more power then a 8 core 9590 running at 5.0. What does multithreaded benches have to do with anything?
> 
> http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/25/



Because you were the one that brought up comparing them.  No one in this thread was comparing the 3960x until you did.  Stating that the FX-9590 was better in one aspect, when the 3960x blows the 9590 out of the water in every single other aspect.

And we all know it's not 8 true cores, so stop babbling that crap.


----------



## G80FTW (Feb 15, 2014)

I dont understand how this is argument is still going on. Makes no sense. We just had a whole thread about AMD versus Intel a month or so ago.  Obviously some people didnt pay attention in that thread.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 15, 2014)

It gets dragged on because the AMD fanboys on this forum make ridiculous arguments like that I'm choosing CPU bound games for comparison lol.  How dare I choose CPU bound games to compare....cpu's.


Found another review that's great because it shows results for average overclocks as I stated....4.6ghz for a 4670k and 4.8ghz for an 8350.  

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

Also, check out Cinebench multithreaded performance here-
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6

At stock VS stock, the 8350 is faster simply because of it's clockspeed.  But when you go 4.6 VS 4.8ghz like the average overclocks are, the 4670k quad core overtakes the 8350 ''8 core'' in this multithreaded bench.  
And of course, the power consumption is simply laughable.  It's more than double the power consumption overclocked and almost 60 watts idling.  60 watts more at idle......that's obscene.

Overclocked VS overclocked the 4670k outperforms the 8350 at literally everything, most things by large margins.  Heck, a stock 4670k beats an overclocked 8350 at 95% of things anyway.


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 15, 2014)

PCUnicorn, 1920 x 1080 doesn't test CPU, its tests GPU.  Fail.  Otherwise based on those results you posted, there is only a 3% difference between a 4960X and a 1100T.  Sounds likely.  And please, stop saying the AMD 8 cores are cores, they're not....


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 15, 2014)

The link I gave in my previous post to bit-tech shows 1080p performance differences.  It's not all about the resolution, some games are just more CPU bound.  But to the AMD fanboys, I'm just being an intel fanboy when I post those up.  As I stated in my last post, how dare I choose CPU bound games to compare....cpu's.


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 15, 2014)

AMD fanyboys dragging this on?! Lol your the one who is primarily dragging this on, Intel fanboy. 

Pay no attention to the BF4 chart  BF4 is quite CPU bound. Alnost any C2D or Athlon (like you mentioned) will get murdered in it.

Okedokey, 1080p is all most people run. If you can afford a 1440p or better, you can afford a 4770K or better. And first of all I never said the 8350 had 8 cores, but, now that you bring it up, show me a couple references on how the FX architecture works and how they aren't "real" cores. They are modules which work a lot different then cores so its not fair to say that at all.

You know what, I say we just pause this thread. Then when I get my CPU running I can compare it to 87s 4670K in a CPU bound benchmark as games won't work because of the GPU difference.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 15, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> Pay no attention to the BF4 chart  BF4 is quite CPU bound. Alnost any C2D or Athlon (like you mentioned) will get murdered in it.
> 
> .



We're not paying attention to it because it's bogus.  Look at the Athlon II 640, it's hanging in there only 10% under all other top dog CPU's.  It makes no sense.



PCunicorn said:


> And first of all I never said the 8350 had 8 cores



We were responding to stranglehold, try and keep up and actually read the thread posts.



PCunicorn said:


> You know what, I say we just pause this thread. Then when I get my CPU running I can compare it to 87s 4670K in a CPU bound benchmark as games won't work because of the GPU difference.



lol bring it.  I can hear the excuses already....every single bench will be Intel Biased....and then, it's just a bench this isn't real world performance........can't wait.


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 15, 2014)

Lol sorry, I'm not like you. If Intel wins, I'm not gonna complain. As I said, I'm neutral, unlike you.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 15, 2014)

lol we'll see.  If you were neutral (like me) you'd see that intel easily beats AMD in everything.  I'm only intel biased because it's better, proven over and over again.

So when is this going to happen?  If not for like another year than I may have upgraded by then...


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 15, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> Okedokey, 1080p is all most people run.



Not true.  Steam Hardware Survey Jan 2014 shows that only 32% of people use 1080p, with only a further ~2% above that.  That means that around 75% of people use BELOW 1080p.

The reason i complained about the resolution, is that the *lower* the resolution, the *higher* the CPU dependency.  That means, the results you posted were testing the GPU and therefore pointless.  The results i posted were at much lower resolutions, thereby ACTUALLY testing the cpu.



PCunicorn said:


> If you can afford a 1440p or better, you can afford a 4770K or better. And first of all I never said the 8350 had 8 cores, but, now that you bring it up, show me a couple references on how the FX architecture works and how they aren't "real" cores. They are modules which work a lot different then cores so its not fair to say that at all.



The reason I have rightfully claimed that it is not a true 8 core processor is that when processing floating point operations (e.g. physics calculations in games) it is left with the equivalent of half the Floating Point Scheduling Units found in a traditional processor.

The AMD 8 cores are only 8 cores in certain situations, for floating point math, no. For integer based calculations, yes.  This is not the case with cores on intel which do both.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 16, 2014)

Well, most people running the CPU's in question are going to be gaming on 1080p.

But, like I said, even on 1080p there are many CPU bound games that perform much better on intel.


----------



## mr.doom (Feb 16, 2014)

Wow, this really turned into a mahoosive argument. 

How about we start respecting each other's points of view?

The thing is, that because of the massive architecture differences, it is hard to do proper comparisons. AMD and Intel processors work in different ways. 

I think the question to be asked is not which is a better cpu, but which is better for what I need? Both brands will do nicely in gaming, some better than others, some will be more efficient.

Few years back, AMD was the way to go. Now, Intel seems to have the crown, and from what I seen and all the reviews I read (both online and in magazines) , AMD plays catch up. In very general way: high-end AMD will match a mid-range Intel - both with price and performance.

So look this way: will you be upgrading processor soon? Get Intel, as the high-end Intel cpus have no alternatives in the AMD range.

Are you planning to stay with your processor? Choose AMD as they tend not to change their chipsets all that often, and in few years they should catch up nicely, or maybe even get ahead of Intel, who knows?

As far as all they years of my experience goes:
1. Low-end: choose AMD;
2. Mid-range: it doesn't matter, but prioritize higher clock speeds than amount of cores;
3. High-end: choose Intel, as AMD does not have a cpu to fit this spot, yet.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 16, 2014)

mr.doom said:


> I think the question to be asked is not which is a better cpu, but which is better for what I need? .



That question was asked by the OP, and is the entire point of the thread.  GAMING performance, which intel wins at...period.

There's no need for discussion on low end VS high end VS mid range, a specific question was asked.  The thread title kind of explains that


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 16, 2014)

87dtna said:


> That question was asked by the OP, and is the entire point of the thread.  GAMING performance, which intel wins at...period.
> 
> There's no need for discussion on low end VS high end VS mid range, a specific question was asked.  The thread title kind of explains that



A 9370 WILL outperform a stock 4670K, period.


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 16, 2014)

4670K WILL rape a 9370 by adding a 2 digit number in the bios, and WILL consume less power, produce less heat...and provide a better overall experience... period.


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 16, 2014)

Have either of you used a FX CPU?


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 16, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> Have either of you used a FX CPU?



Have you ever used a powerful pc with an intel cpu?


----------



## PCunicorn (Feb 16, 2014)

Nope, but we aren't talking about powerful PCs here. We're talking about higher mid range stuff like the 4670K which I have used (3570K) and it was good, a normal CPU just like a 8350. Now I can't bench it as I don't own it though.


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 16, 2014)

The point being is, its like running a game at 40FPS on a 60Hz panel and wondering why someone would possibly want to run a 122Hz panel at 200FPS.  The difference is night and day.  Same between AMD and Intel for this purpose.


----------



## G80FTW (Feb 16, 2014)

mr.doom said:


> Wow, this really turned into a mahoosive argument.
> 
> How about we start respecting each other's points of view?
> 
> ...



From what I saw in 2010 before building what I have now, AMD didnt even have a price/performance market established for their CPUs.  

But, after further researching what they have now, I might look into building an AMD rig just to have one.  I am interested to find out why they chose the route they did in CPU design. Seems rather counter-productive to me but perhaps their design serves a specific purpose somewhere that Intel does not.

Honestly I think what it all boils down to is people like me, who were huge AMD fans even when the Conroe came about and destroyed them, were very upset upon the release of Phenom. AMD pretty much shot themselves in the foot with that processor and I think that caused them to lose what was left of their enthusiast fan base they decided to go a different route.

I think you could easily say that as long as you have the current flagship GPU of your choice it probably does not significantly matter what CPU you have as long as its quad core and fairly recent architecture.


----------



## mr.doom (Feb 16, 2014)

G80FTW said:


> From what I saw in 2010 before building what I have now, AMD didnt even have a price/performance market established for their CPUs.
> 
> But, after further researching what they have now, I might look into building an AMD rig just to have one.  I am interested to find out why they chose the route they did in CPU design. Seems rather counter-productive to me but perhaps their design serves a specific purpose somewhere that Intel does not.
> 
> ...



That!


----------



## Okedokey (Feb 16, 2014)

Unless of course you play Skyrim, FSX, Metro, and countless other games that rely on CPU performance to feed the GPU, OR, you have SLI, CF or require video encoding..... yeah except for the many things, sure, get AMD.


----------



## 87dtna (Feb 16, 2014)

PCunicorn said:


> A 9370 WILL outperform a stock 4670K, period.



Not at 90% of things.  Plus, so what?  A 9370 can overclock like 400mhz until it hits a wall, meanwhile the 4670 over 1ghz easily and it will beat the 9370 at even every single multithreaded app.  A 4.6ghz 4670k will beat a 4.8ghz 8350/9370 at literally everything....and demolish it in most tasks.

You AMD fanboys are all the same.  You want to only compare stock VS stock, no wonder AMD saw fit to overclock their 8350's, give them a different name, and sell them for $100-200 more.  Stroke of genius on their part, too bad they still can't overclock any further than a good 8350.  Intel is FAR more underclocked from the factory yet still outperforms AMD in most things in stock form.  Again not to mention the heat and power consumption factors being through the roof on AMD.



PCunicorn said:


> Have either of you used a FX CPU?



Yes, an 8350 and an 8320.  

I've owned and benched more PC hardware than you've dreamt about.  I do find it funny that you defend AMD so hardcore, yet have never owned an intel I5/I7, and then still have the balls to attempt to call us out asking if we've ever tried an FX.  That's hilarious.


----------



## G80FTW (Feb 16, 2014)

Okedokey said:


> Unless of course you play Skyrim, FSX, Metro, and countless other games that rely on CPU performance to feed the GPU, OR, you have SLI, CF or require video encoding..... yeah except for the many things, sure, get AMD.



If you like AMD, you wouldnt care that your getting 60FPS instead of 90. Because there is hardly a visible difference between the 2.  Video encoding I could understand.


----------



## StrangleHold (Feb 16, 2014)

I think everything that needs to be said has been.


----------

