4 ms·

The results on that page seem to indicate that the i5 is faster (sometimes up to twice as fast) than the FX on single-threaded workloads, while the FX is faster

• onli 10y ago
  It's anandtech, it will be accurate. I'll now go one by one through each of them and count where the FX is faster: 17 (out of 86). Okay, that is even more than I thought. However, the differences where the FX is faster are most often very small, apart from the benchmark Linux-Bench 7-Zip, while the other way around the differences are often very big. The FX has the potential to be a fast processor in specific workloads. Yes, that fits to what you said. Certainly not when single-threaded, but in multi-threaded workloads it can still be fast. But faster than the i5 it is only very rarely (which, yes, is less harsh on the FX than I was in the comment above). It is a pity that its potential (4 years ago it compared to a weaker i5) could not be used in meaningful ways in common software. By now it is clearly not a good choice anymore: It uses more energy, depending on what you compare it with it is more expensive or costing the same, and it is on an old platform (AM3+) that won't see further updates. > They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan No. We don't seem to have the same benchmarks. I'm looking at http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1709?vs=1646, where the i5 is clearly faster in the Agisoft and Handbrake benchmarks. It is mainly in the artificial multi-threaded benchmarks as well as Linux 7zip and Linux OpenSSL that the FX can win. For games the FX is almost always behind, but often close, however, those are partly limited by the gpu and thus not too meaningful. > If those results are accurate, they do seem to support that AMD FX CPUs are still competitive with new Intel CPUs in the same price range. No. They mean get an i5: Way better in single threaded workloads which is what counts for 90% of software, faster in realistic multi-threaded workloads. Get an FX if all you do is run OpenSSL and 7zip under Linux, or if already having a good AM3+ board (for that scenario it still is good enough).
  • powercf 10y ago
    > It's anandtech, it will be accurate. There are 87 benchmarks there. I do not believe they re-do all 87 each time someone releases a processor. It's more likely that they are reusing old 8370 results and comparing with new 6600 results. I question whether all variables (OS, drivers, minor version numbers of software, etc.) are the same. (I'm not saying that re-doing the 8370 tests would favor AMD, just that it would give more accurate results). They don't mention what settings they used for the software, and what exactly each program is stressing. Splitting the PhotoScan results into five seems very arbitrary. Two decimal places in each result with no error bars, no indication of how they performed the measurement, no indication of the number of times they performed the test leads me to think that it's not a very well conducted set of tests. > > They're evenly matched on other tests (e.g. Handbrake & "Agisoft PhotoScan > No. We don't seem to have the same benchmarks. We clearly have the same benchmarks. "evenly matched" was a poor choice of words, but I don't see a ~23% advantage for the 6600 to be very significant, when other results have the 8370/6600 100% faster than the 6600/8370. > They mean get an i5: Way better in single threaded workloads which is what counts for 90% of software, faster in realistic multi-threaded workloads. For browsing, office and most games the 8370 and 6600 are close enough that the average user won't notice a difference. Most users don't spend any time waiting for software that eats 100% of <= 4 cores, which is where the i5's advantage lies. What you find "realistic", I may not, and vice-versa. It depends on the user, and what he's using his computer for. The i5 may well be the better choice for most users. It certainly has a number of advantages: less power-hungry, newer chipset/features, more upgrade options. My point is simply that the FX cpus are still price and performance competitive with new i5s. Which is better depends on the needs of the user.
    • onli 10y ago
      > Most users don't spend any time waiting for software that eats 100% of <= 4 cores, which is where the i5's advantage lies. Well, every gamer does, and this exactly describes what web-browsing does. However, the FX is of course not too slow for that. Just slower. > It depends on the user, and what he's using his computer for. Sure. I was joking above with "get The FX if all you do is 7-Zip on Linux", but yours is of course a correct statement. If you identified correctly that the FX will perform better for your workload, then it is a better choice (if okay with higher energy usage and not having further upgrades, which just might be the case, and it is not like intel is known for long socket support anyway). I for example use Funtoo, which is a Gentoo variant, meaning I compile stuff all the time. I'm on an older processor, but I assume the FX would be a good choice for me. > It's more likely that they are reusing old 8370 results and comparing with new 6600 results. I think exactly for the FX-8370 that might be not true, as it is the processor you'd have wanted to compare the new skylake-i5 against. But for the others and older models exactly that will happen. I see no big issue there. > I don't see a ~23% advantage for the 6600 to be very significant, when other results have the 8370/6600 100% faster than the 6600/8370. ~23% advantage is very significant to me. That is way off of measurement errors. 100% difference just matters even more ;) Also, that it is most often pro-i5. Ah, I just hope Zen will turn out as great as I hope and is announced and I can start recommending and defending those processors :)