A Wild 40-Way Linux System Benchmark Comparison

[Passso]

@Michael

Pentium G3258 stay in stock clock?????

And if is could be add test OC at 4.0Ghz

Just imagine the performance / $ when put @ 4.2Ghz.... Insane!

[VikingGe]

If all you're looking at is single-core performance, you'll find your i3 to be faster than the i7-5960X. Indeed, CPUBoss rates the i3 much higher than the i7. Is Intel mad to charge $1000 for a slower CPU or are you just completely missing the point of an 8-core CPU?

Anyway, not going to defend almost four-year old AMD chips. There is absolutely no reason to get one when Zen is somewhat close to being released.

[totex71]

Yeah, I knew all that. Are you telling me to disregard everything on the Internet and take your word AMD is better?

Edit: You're also ignoring that testing on OpenBenchmarking is actually open: the source code is available and it's not being compiled using Intel's compiler.

I just don't want to see people point fingers at Amd when it's not even their fault. You could atleast give Amd hardware a try before baffling about how big the numbers on the scoreboard are.

[bug77]

I just don't want to see people point fingers at Amd when it's not even their fault. You could atleast give Amd hardware a try before baffling about how big the numbers on the scoreboard are.

Oh, between my AthlonXP 1600+ and Athlon64 4200+ I gave AMD plenty of tries (didn't imagine myself using anything but AMD back in those days). But I'm not going to build an entire system just to try and disprove Anandtech or Techpowerup. When I need an upgrade, I have a certain budget. And I buy the fastest CPU I can get for the money. And by that, I really mean CPU, I don't care about the IGP.

As for the finger pointing, let's recapitulate a bit:
- 2006: intel launches the core architecture
- 2007: AMD launches K10 which fails to beat core
- 2011: AMD launches Bulldozer which also fails to beat core

AMD is in dire straits. Not only are they an order of magnitude smaller than intel, they're also bleeding cash. AMD beating intel again would be a miracle, but that was also what happened back in AthlonXP and Athlon64 days. And I also blame AMD for allowing intel to sit on the core architecture for more than a decade

Fwiw, I'm not denying intel's practices have hit AMD (very) hard and kept them from acquiring market share. But at the end of the day, I'm buying hardware, not politics/economics.

[juno]

That's why I said "feel free to link articles proving otherwise" - I'm at work, no time to dig through review sites right now.
At least I made an attempt to support my claim. You, on the other hand, just made a claim and now ask me to provide credible (according to your criteria) data to disprove it. That's not how a constructive debate happens.

TBH, that site is actually bs. The single-threaded performance gap should be much higher than suggested there and the not available IGP on the AMD CPU hits hard in the overall rating. The score for i3 and i5 are the same. WTF is this? Sure, it's Skylake vs. Haswell, still impossible. And an 8 thread/4 module FX is still faster in heavy multithreaded applications than a 4 thread/2 core i3. Obviously with much more power draw and heat. I don't get what is to argue here.

[bug77]

TBH, that site is actually bs. The single-threaded performance gap should be much higher than suggested there and the not available IGP on the AMD CPU hits hard in the overall rating. The score for i3 and i5 are the same. WTF is this? Sure, it's Skylake vs. Haswell, still impossible. And an 8 thread/4 module FX is still faster in heavy multithreaded applications than a 4 thread/2 core i3. Obviously with much more power draw and heat. I don't get what is to argue here.

I'm going to dig up something more reputable when I get home later today.

[devius]

No Skylake CPU in the comparison?

The Pentium G4400 is Skylake.

[totex71]

Fwiw, I'm not denying intel's practices have hit AMD (very) hard and kept them from acquiring market share. But at the end of the day, I'm buying hardware, not politics/economics.

But don't you wanna get the most out of your money?
Just one example of a benchmark with Gta 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCq8Qk9wjY
The point is Amd is not as bad as people say they are.

[bug77]

But don't you wanna get the most out of your money?
Just one example of a benchmark with Gta 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCq8Qk9wjY
The point is Amd is not as bad as people say they are.

I also do programming, photo editing on my PC.
Also, there are title where the CPU is still the bottleneck, even at high settings: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9307/t...ds-a10-7870k/7

As far as mainstream processors go, intel is faster at any given price point for my needs (I'm talking strictly about CPU pricing, I haven't looked at the cost of the whole platform for quite some time). AMD can win if you factor in the IGP, but I never use that.

[cjcox]

I think AMD still has value in the hobbiest arena if building new. Because it delivers ok performance at a great price. With that said, if you're a "used" shopper, you can snag better performing Intel's used. My main server is dual Opterons... still alive and kicking. It is really really fast? No. Does is consume power? Yes. But still it's dual 6128's. It has 32G of memory. It's in one of those large HAF cases and I think overall I paid a little over $800 (used) for it all many many many years ago. My last several budget purchaes have been Intel based. And in many cases those low end SFF machines run circles around the dual Opteron and are very low power (sigh). Used markets tend to favor Intel due to supply. You won't find a great AMD build for cheap because there aren't any available. Will my next machine be an AMD? No. Not until AMD makes something "good" and not until there's actually supply out there. And btw, that could take years.

So... harken back to AMD's brief glory days. They worked really really hard (AMD needs to remember that especially). They delivered great dual core server processors to the world at a time when Intel was pushing their P4 high clock designs (which were really really bad). AMD in the early 2000's ended up with 17% of the server market (that's huge btw). Of course, as they passed the magic 10% mark, Intel awoke. And as AMD touted their quad core's, Intel delivered dual cores (going back to the P3 designs, "Core") and before AMD could get a quad out, Intel got theirs to market. And that spelled the end of AMD's brief competitive reign. It gets worse. At that time the only worthwhile chipset for the AMD as made by Nvidia. So that did AMD do? They bought Nvidia's competitor (???). Thus bringing to end a working relationship. Sun took great interest in the AMD designs and wanted to "own" it a bit more by contributing to future work to make the processors even better. AMD said no and Sun was forced to look elsewhere.

Not sure what AMD's goals are, but my guess is that their main goal is to be Intel's puppy... strictly to give Intel an anti-trust way out.... but no more. AMD could not have hurt themselves more and I can't personally imagine them being able to... or even (apparently) wanting to get back "in the game" so to speak.