Intel hiding true performance comparison alongside AMD

[Erick Aguilar]

Yesterday while browsing a popular imageboard's technology forums I came across an interesting link to a youtube video related to AMD FX-8350 Vishera chip, the main topic of the video was a bit surprising, among the lines of a single FX-8350 chip beating the crap out of 3 intel workhorses including the infamous i5-3570k which is highly recommendable as a gaming platform.

Well according to the information provided in a series of benchmarks, it seems that AMD has beaten most intel chips, but why have all reviews and benchmarks from popular tech site shown much more different reviews in which intel completely destroy the 8350?

The same can be said about AMD's a10-5800k. It has been trashed over, and over, but from my personal tests, it stands pretty high almost to the level of the 3570k. Nothing like the benchmarks shown in popular sites.

So what is happening really? I'm not in favor of any of the companies, I will purchase what I require for my needs, and do not tilt the balance in favor of either Intel or AMD, however this situation seems a little fishy to me. Could it be an extreme intel marketing ''tactic''? Is intel buying off most benchmarking sites in favor of them?

What is your opinion?
Please refrain from fanboy-ish comments. The point of this topic is to discuss performance advertised by both companies and real performance perceived by you. It would be highly appreciated if people who have experienced the 8350k and 3570k would comment and people who have NOT used these chips to refrain from fanatic comments to avoid a heated discussion.

 

[logicearth]

The 8 cores of the FX-8350 can beat lesser core CPUs when the application that is used takes advantage of the extra cores. Games do not. The higher brute force the intel processors provide over core count is much better for games.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Benchmarks are always subjective, and can be spun to show anything you want...much like statistics in a political debate.

I stick with Intel for one reason...the chipsets. I firmly believe Intel's chipsets are far better than anything an AMD processor has available to run with.

 

[Erick Aguilar]

The 8 cores of the FX-8350 can beat lesser core CPUs when the application that is used takes advantage of the extra cores. Games do not. The higher brute force the intel processors provide over core count is much better for games.

The benchmarks were done with as many games as possible.

Every single game tested was blown away by the 8350k. Intel fell short in every single game that it was previous benchmarked by other sites.

There is no reason to get a 3570k over a 8350k anymore consider price to performance ratio.

 

[logicearth]

I think I know what the benchmark was about now. Those benchmarks were for the integrated graphics built into the CPUs. Which is fine if you are building a small form factor PC and will not be able to use a discreet graphics card. In terms of the integrated graphics processors, yes the AMD "APUs" are better in that regard then Intel.

But I can only guess since you didn't share the benchmark video in question.

 

[Erick Aguilar]

I think I know what the benchmark was about now. Those benchmarks were for the integrated graphics built into the CPUs. Which is fine if you are building a small form factor PC and will not be able to use a discreet graphics card. In terms of the integrated graphics processors, yes the AMD "APUs" are better in that regard then Intel.

But I can only guess since you didn't share the benchmark video in question.

Im talking about the FX 8350K Vishera. Not the APU at the moment, there is not even an Apu called 8350K. Make your research~
The Vishera beat the intels in gaming benchmarks.

Once I get home I'll try posting the video here.

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you are wanting to make such a profound statement, then debate it with others, why not share the link?

 

[Erick Aguilar]

If you are wanting to make such a profound statement, then debate it with others, why not share the link?

I don't have access to youtube at work.
Microsoft can be picky about letting us access Youtube during labor time.

 

[DeaconFrost]

That makes me skeptical already, if it is a video. A true, respected benchmark would be given as a data to read, in the form of charts, details, and comparisons.

 

[Erick Aguilar]

That makes me skeptical already, if it is a video. A true, respected benchmark would be given as a data to read, in the form of charts, details, and comparisons.

Try looking up among the lines of fx-8350k VS i5 3570k
You got the right video if the man speaking is a bearded man speaking in a studio.

The man used to be a marketing employee for tigerdirect a couple of years ago.
I cannot remember his name directly.

Other than that, I invite you to do your own research and try to look for benchmark from not so popular benchmarking sites. It is quite interesting that all popular sites incline towards intel, and not so popular show the FX 8350 plow Intel.

Even if you see this with your own eyes, I really do not see why it would be a reason to be upset, or defensive about it, it should be good news that AMD is finally stepping back into the game, and it makes me really glad, as I could consider having an AMD rig exclusively for gaming and save a lot of money instead of going for Intel again.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Other than that, I invite you to do your own research and try to look for benchmark from not so popular benchmarking sites. It is quite interesting that all popular sites incline towards intel, and not so popular show the FX 8350 plow Intel.

You have one fatal flaw in your logic. The larger, more popular sites are the ones willing to stand up to any hardware manufacturer and present accurate findings. The smaller ones don't have that clout, and won't risk losing their hardware supply chains by issuing negative reviews. Many of them can, and have been swayed in the past to skew results. My go to review site is [H]ardOCP.

No one is getting upset about the potential results. The "upset" part is that you created a thread for no reason other than to make a bold claim...and offered no real proof. A YouTube video isn't going to be taken as proof, even if you had given a link, because that isn't how trustworthy reviews are presented to the community.

 

[Britton30]

Aside from finding a link, feel free to name names for the site(s) in question. :huh:

 

[Erick Aguilar]

Other than that, I invite you to do your own research and try to look for benchmark from not so popular benchmarking sites. It is quite interesting that all popular sites incline towards intel, and not so popular show the FX 8350 plow Intel.

You have one fatal flaw in your logic. The larger, more popular sites are the ones willing to stand up to any hardware manufacturer and present accurate findings. The smaller ones don't have that clout, and won't risk losing their hardware supply chains by issuing negative reviews. Many of them can, and have been swayed in the past to skew results. My go to review site is [H]ardOCP.

No one is getting upset about the potential results. The "upset" part is that you created a thread for no reason other than to make a bold claim...and offered no real proof. A YouTube video isn't going to be taken as proof, even if you had given a link, because that isn't how trustworthy reviews are presented to the community.

I don't see why a benchmark would be a better proof than actual in game fps performance though?
I mean, if the game is running much better in one CPU, doesn't it mean it is superior than the other in that one instance?

As far as I've known Toms hardware is quite popular for trashing amd all day long. That's for starters.
Then again, I am -not- taking sides, and again, I've had both processors, and time to work with them. Which is why I mentioned it would be better if people who have both processors would be the only ones to chime in.

Me personally, I do not believe in benchmarks as much as people around the gaming community do. I believe in how I see the performance directly in front of my eyes. I see a difference, I see no reason no recommend one CPU more than the other when it comes to that sort of performance. Both are powerfull, however my logic to recommend the 8350 is that you get more for your money, and you can save a lot of money instead of purchasing the now depreciated i5.

I mean, you are more than welcome to share your opinion, but it can be difficult to get as granted if you yourself haven't used both CPU's in question. Right?

 

[Erick Aguilar]

Aside from finding a link, feel free to name names for the site(s) in question. :huh:

Lets begin with toms hardware?

 

[Erick Aguilar]

Found the name of the youtube video

AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gaming and XSplit Streaming Benchmarks
And if videos are not your cup of tea.
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...s-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks

 

[DeaconFrost]

As far as I've known Toms hardware is quite popular for trashing amd all day long. That's for starters.

I've always avoided Tom's, because I believe they were one of the sites exposed by [H]ardOCP for taking cash in exchange for favorable reviews.

I mean, you are more than welcome to share your opinion, but it can be difficult to get as granted if you yourself haven't used both CPU's in question. Right?

You seem to be completely missing my point. I'm not debating your opinion or which processor is better. I'm discussing the video "review" and your comments on how to judge a benchmark site. If the AMD is a better bang for the buck, so be it. Good for them. My only opinion I gave on the processor debate is with regard to chipsets, that's all.

 

[Erick Aguilar]

As far as I've known Toms hardware is quite popular for trashing amd all day long. That's for starters.

I've always avoided Tom's, because I believe they were one of the sites exposed by [H]ardOCP for taking cash in exchange for favorable reviews.

I mean, you are more than welcome to share your opinion, but it can be difficult to get as granted if you yourself haven't used both CPU's in question. Right?

You seem to be completely missing my point. I'm not debating your opinion or which processor is better. I'm discussing the video "review" and your comments on how to judge a benchmark site. If the AMD is a better bang for the buck, so be it. Good for them. My only opinion I gave on the processor debate is with regard to chipsets, that's all.

And all I told you was that I didn't have the option to get into youtube at work really.. I do respect your opinion on chipsets, as I said, I am not defying any opinion whatsoever in this conversation.

 

[Britton30]

Thanks! Let me say first I am not a gamer. As some commenters pointed out at stock CPU speeds there is not a level playing field since the AMD is 4GHz and the Intels are 3.3 and 3.4, I think.
I suspect since AMD now owns the former ATI company they may be targeting in-game performance instead of overall PC performance.

In day-to-day use my Intel i5-2550K buries the FX6100 I had before. Just some rambling thought.

 

[Erick Aguilar]

Thanks! Let me say first I am not a gamer. As some commenters pointed out at stock CPU speeds there is not a level playing field since the AMD is 4GHz and the Intels are 3.3 and 3.4, I think.
I suspect since AMD now owns the former ATI company they may be targeting in-game performance instead of overall PC performance.

In day-to-day use my Intel i5-2550K buries the FX6100 I had before. Just some rambling thought.

Oh!
Well, isn't the 6100 bulldozer? I have to say that architecture was terrible

 

[Britton30]

LOL, yes it is, and my Intel is a Sandy Bridge and not Ivy Bridge.

In my experience I can't disagree with your assessment of Bulldozer.