Printable View
Hey, this was/is very surprising: AMDs new FX CPUs outclass even the current Intel CPUs. Only the SNB-E 6-core CPU is able to perform better than the FX-8350. Seems to be highly multi-threaded. Maybe we'll see more of this with games optimized for the upcoming console generation.
source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis...hmark-1056578/
http://i.imgur.com/qSNrpeA.png
What do you think?
What? The FX-8350 is a 4 module CPU and it has 8 threads, whereas the SNB-E has 12 threads. But you know that and the thing here is FX-3850 > i7 3770k.
Oh, I just assumed that was an octo core sorry, I'm not up to date on AMD CPUs. My bad
That is really good and i mean its a marvelous performance lets hope future games do the same. Maybe this is why AMD must have tried head and limb to get the two console deal for a AMD optimized game universe.
Well, you can't compare the FX CPUs in that way. The now have "modules" and not cores. But again, this isn't the topic ;)
I'd love to see some results like that in the future.
is the second test, where is Vishera the best in Crysis...not bad.
yepQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb.jpg
This is really good news especially for AMD. On the other hand, maybe this will finally shut up all those kiddies whining that using an i7 in a gaming rig is 'a complete waste' and 'overkill'.
Same with Intel hex cores :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 3lfk1ng
A good surprise ! It shows that working nearly with dev studios is a key factor. AMD has made big enhancements in this domain recently.
Dominate? lol.
http://rjw57.github.com/notes/_images/montoya.jpg
The game must be mostly integer baised and not fpu baised.
I think this is pretty much a joke we all know amd isn't so good at this stuff, ok for multi tasking solitaire or something.
And apparently crises 3...
It's an ok cpu, but none the less it was still a step back...
But to each there own.
Edit:
500mhz higher clock and you guys think that makes the the amd better then the intel 3770k, both 4 cores...
Crazy...
Well i said when bulldozer came out, in the midst of all the bashing that sooner or later Intel would make their bulldozer. And looking how well vishera does in multi-thread apps, it can be a surprise they also do well in multi-thread games.
AMD right now is incredibly dependent of the software guys, not only the multi-thread thing, but also and most importantly, GPU acceleration support:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5835/46687.png
>50% increase in performance with current apu's.
Well it has 8 threads like wombat said since its FP unit is shared between 2 cores in each module. That's why it looses to SB-E which in turn has 6 FP units which are dual threaded(as opposed to 4 dual threaded FP units in FX8350 and 3770K).Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
As for the Crysis 3, 2nd test practically confirms the 1st one and that shows it was no mistake.As newer (AMD optimized for next gen console) games hit the streets this and in next few years, charts like that will become more common ;).
True. Top CPU on the chart is an Intel, plus none of them are overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
AMD are surely capable of competing well in Crysis 3, but the are far from 'dominating' it.
Funny :)
3770K and FX8350 are basically tied, +/- 2fps who cares. But good for AMD.
Same goes for FX6300 and 3570K ;). Check the prices for all of those CPUs as of now and you will see how the compare from value POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
I know the CPU prices. Just saying, I don't see any dominating from a performance POV.
They are not tied, they are 500mhz apart but in 3 months Haswell will change that...Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Not to mention the difference in power consumption, ouch...
And yes it's a misleading little...
:rofl: amd gets a win
and those fanboi's couldn't let it be
let it be
Where do you see a win, I must be blind..lol
I don't see the AMD win...?
The list appears to go
Intel i7
AMD FX
Intel i7
Intel i5
AMD FX
amd's $200 vs intels $300?
guess it also shows, pci-e 3.0 didn't mean anything
basically what i see is happening now. is crytek is showing. yes it was all about how code is being optimized, with amd getting both gpu and cpu in next gen consoles. they gotta start optimizing for the amd side of things now.
and i thought the whole 4 module thing was explained above?
oh and "couldn't see" rofl come on guys. you are truly that daft? that is what we call fan boi's
This is more to do with Kids vs Adults...(100 bucks, what a fortune)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg83
products worth vs brand loyalty?
Ok guys,relax. Both AMD and intel CPUs perform nicely in Crysis 3,no need for bickering.
Nice one for AMD!
Not swapping out my 4.8ghz 3770k or 2600k though...:)
All i see is an intel fanboy that can't just ignore it when amd comes out on top. Not everyone can afford a 3970K let alone a 3770k. but when you have a $200 chip beating a $300 chip I will take it any day of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
Also if you say you aren't a fanboy look at your sig and your profile pic before you type it, rethink, and then you are allowed to type it out.
I'm sorry we all aren't rich like you. NOW GTF OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE
No amd at all... also the reason i bolded the Raid cards is because not many people can afford them either.Quote:
Asus Sabertooth Z77 | i7 3770K | NH-C12P SE14 | Vengeance 16GB LP | eVGA GTX 680 SLI | X-Fi Surround 5.1 Pro USB | Intel 510 250GB, Crucial M4 256GB, Kingston V100 128GB, 64GB, WD VelociRaptor 150GB (2.5") x2 RAID 0 | Antec HCP-1200W | Corsair 550D | Win 8 Pro 64
Asus Sabertooth P67 | i7 2600K | NH-U12P SE2 | Ripjaws X 16GB | eVGA GTX 460 SC SLI | Sound via HDMI | Intel 330 60GB, WD VelociRaptor 300GB | Antec HCG-750W | Lian Li PC-60FNWB | Win 8 Pro 64
Asus Sabertooth X58 | i7 970 | Ultra 120 eX | Vengeance 24GB | eVGA GTX 580 SC | X-Fi Titanium Fatality | AuzenTech X-Plosion | LSI SAS 9211-4i | Asus U3S6 | Intel 330 120GB, Seagate 500GB x2, Samsung 200GB, WD 320GB x4 RAID 10, 500GB, Raptor 74GB | Antec TPQ-850W | Corsair 650D | Win 8 Pro 64
Asus Sabertooth X58 | E5620 | Ultima 90 | Mushkin 12GB 1600MHz | eVGA GT 430 | LSI MegaRAID 9260-4i | Adaptec 1220SA | Seagate 1.5TB x2 RAID 1, 300GB x2 RAID 1, 300GB, WD 750GB x4 RAID 6, 1TB, 500GB, 300GB, 80GB | Antec TPQ-1200W | Antec 1200 | WHS 2011 64 / Win 7 Pro 64
Asus P6X58D-E | i7 965 Ex | CNPS10X | Mushkin 12GB 1600MHz | eVGA GTX 580 SC | X-Fi Xtreme Music | Intel X25-M 160GB, 80GB, WD 120GB | Antec TP-750 | Lian Li PC-60FNB | Win 8 Pro 64
Asus P8H77-M/CSM | i3 3220 | Shuriken | Vengeance 8GB | eVGA GT 610 | Sound Blaster Play | Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600 & HD PVR | Asus PCE-AC66 | Kingston V100 128GB, WD 500GB x2, Seagate 2TB | Enermax Liberty 500W | Fractal Design Core 1000 | Win 8 Pro 64
Asus P8H77-M/CSM | i3 3220T | Hyper 212 Evo | Vengeance 8GB | eVGA 210 | Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-250 | Intel 330 60GB, WD 750GB, 250GB | Enermax Liberty 500W | Antec 300 | Win 7 Premium 32
I can't I need my horse...(and please don't attack me cause I will step on you little man)
And that's too bad cause I'm a Mustang fan, had a 5 liter for over 20 years. Just 60,000 original miles. Mint condition and a 10K sound system to go along with it...(installed by me)
Ahhh shutup....
This is good for AMD; but I don't know that it's good for computer gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
AMD currently has a 16% market share in CPUs and their CPUs have some serious shortcomings at things not so multi threaded and at multi GPU.
But, still good for AMD, and they need all the good they can get lately so I think this is great.
A €160 CPU beats a €280 CPU. I think you don't know what domination means.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Graph in OP = 1280x720.
Do people even still game in that res? :confused:
-PB
Feel free to come up with a reference to a meaning that includes price / performance ratio. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Yeah, that reference is "domination" ;)
It's a CPU test. No use testing it with a GPU limit. How do you think CPU tests work?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
I really want to know the technical drtails behind this
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
Stock vs Stock the AMD wins guys, there's no need to bicker it. Crysis 3 is heavily multi-threaded (bout time someone got it right!)
Overclock vs overclock I'm pretty sure we'll see things flip in the other direction, but never the less it's refreshing to see the upper hand on the other foot.
buhu somone talks about absolute performance.. b-b-b-but only price/performance matter...Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
When you have a lead over a large margin, thats what domination is. 4% is close to the margin of error..
Anyway its good to see devs finally go and optimize there engines, when you look at crysis 2 (which is the basically the same engine) ci7 wiped the floor with anything from amd, hell they even struggled to catch any of the faster dualcores.
Hope this is not only a fluke and we see more games where they make better usage of more cores.
I still don't see where amd wins, someone show me...
Actually Stock vs Stock, Intel still wins.
Top CPU on the list = Intel
Out of the top 5, 3 of them are Intel
I still dont understand how you conclude that AMD are 'dominating', and Intel are 'left behind'. This terminology would indicate a clear cut victory for AMD CPUs in this test with a significant FPS advantage over the Intel CPUs. But the graph does not show anything like that. The Difference between 4 Ghz FX-8350 and 3.5 Ghz I7 3770K is only 2 FPS, neither is 'dominating', and neither is 'left behind'.
The i7-3960X is a $1000 CPU. If you'd put a Opteron againt that, there would be a AMD CPU on top. But that's not the point. The point is, and you know exactly why, that the FX-3850 is beating the i7-3770k. Don't try to troll here and behave like a 5yo. "Nooo, I don't know what all the grown ups are talking about!!!! Mummy, they say there is a game where AMD is better. NOOOOO!!!"
Please stop the trolling.
Please stop trolly title.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
By a mere 2 FPS and with a 500 Mhz higher clock. I see a disappointing lack of dominance, and left behind.Quote:
The point is, and you know exactly why, that the FX-3850 is beating the i7-3770k
You don't need a 3960X to beat amd, for half the price 3930K will do the trick. I'm not so sure who's trolling and misleading here..
Or a 3 year old I7 970 / 980, or a slight overclock on a quad core I7.
The thread title alone is a troll beacon which is a bit tabloid sensationalized.
It's a totally flagrant use of the term dominate, especially when Intel in the same chart is actually at the top.
You can't compare clock speeds like that...A core 2 duo at 1.8ghz beats a 4ghz p4 prescott 478 chip for example, similarly as an athlon fx57 beats it with less clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
You could compare either stock or an average overclock on air to be fair.
970/980 would be nice...I always wanted one :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
At 500MHz more? Now you start to compare clocks on two completely different architectures? LOL! How about we compare the numbers in the name? Or the color?Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Still more than 3x as expensive as a FX-8350.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
Reference to a meaning that includes price / performance ratio. Do you even read the posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I don't see cost efficiency mentioned everywhere.Quote:
Definition of DOMINATION
1: supremacy or preeminence over another
2: exercise of mastery or ruling power
3: exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence
I also don't consider the difference [with 3770K] which is within measurement error to be "domination". Especially in a GPU bound game. An "AMD: Gaming Evolved" game.
I am happy for AMD that their CPUs manage to perform decently at least somewhere. However, the title is complete bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:, especially since an Intel CPU is leading the chart. Looks like a desperate attempt to grab some traffic using a sensationalist title.
And you only make yourself look ridiculous by trying to defend it.
This post says it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
I actually wonder if crytek again but some stupid crap in the game to artificially utilize more cpu cores, remember when they rendered the water with full tessellation in the background of the maps (without culling), or unnecessarily increased the tessellation on the brick walls to ridiculous levels, so they could claim "a game that makes your top performance pc scream".
When it comes to crytek since the crysis2 fiasko I take everything what they do with a huge grain of salt.
edit: and the reason why I am saying this is, because back in crysis 2 even AMD FX scored way beyond 100fps in low resolution benchmarks.
"a bit" is the understatement of the year. It seems if you have 300$ or less to spend and crysis 3 is what you care about AMD wins. No doubt as someone mentioned working more closely with game devs has helped AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
That said the title isn't remotely accurate.
I'll never understand how people have these crazy loyalties, neither of these companies gives less than a banana about any of us, and are actually required by law (fiduciary responsibility) to simply make as much money off you as they can.
Exactly. funny how that test shows none of the older i7 970/980/980x/990x in it. I am sure all 4 of those versions would be above the FX and AMD does not want that to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
And yes, I'm sorry that the titel is a bit misleading. That's because I just took the German titel of the news page "Crysis 3 im CPU-Test: AMDs FX-Prozessoren dominieren unsere Benchmarks" and translated it.
A better titel would be: "AMD FX CPUs performing much better than expected, FX-8350 outperforming i7-3770K". Can I change the titel?
Yes - comparing clock for clock shows which architecture is weaker / stronger, which was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanlabrie
No, it does not. If I build a small, slim core that does 4-5GHz and performs as good as a big, broad core with 3-4GHz, you cannot compare them.
It's not a fair comparison when you factor in oc...so, compare stock and average oc on air for better reference. ;)
We need cheaper intel prices so I don't get why some folks complain :p
Frequency is part of the design... As wombat said, if you could buy a 8T CPU with relative IPC of only 0.6 but clocking at stock 5Ghz would you pick that one or the 8T product from other company that has relative "IPC" of say 1 (so much higher) but clocking at 3Ghz? In both cases you get comparable performance but what if the 1st product has higher OC headroom than the 2nd? As can be seen from this crude example both clock and IPC are performance parameters that are part of design and should not be looked at separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Also what will happen if AMD maintain high clocking part of the design but drastically improve the lightly threaded performance(by 20+%)? SR is exactly built with this in mind and I seriously have no idea how some of you guys would react to SR if it delivers on that promise?
Damn that's good. :rofl: I hope someone sigs it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
how so, things clocked the same would compare how the architecture handles things; i guess you could also go by watt, but then things are not even close. crysis3 uses something like 16 theads in its process, and will split int and float work to only even or only odd and on separate threads, but is not using HT with intel (it seams to only be loading 1 active thread per core but it is heavy into simple int work where HT would shine.) it is very optimized for amd (something that is awesome,) but they first/only one. the 4module chip and MB are still more than the 3570k and a MB. the good that is may do is 1) intel might up the clock speed for the 1150 chips (like they should have for the IB,) and 2) this looks really good for amd when the next gen consoles come out and they are both supposed to be using the next gen amd modules.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
exactly, i like the competition, but people are reading to much into it. this is the 1st win for amd since the BD came out so it is not an unexpected reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanlabrie
HAHAHA that's pretty funny, WhoTF wrote that...?Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
That's my new way of spelling title...lol
It does appear to be using HT, look at the I5 vs I7 results.
is it really un-noticed the GK110...? or what?(21 feb release date, NDA off;)) GTX Titan at 1280x720 a mere of 56fps...??? (that's the real "message"...:S)
it looks like clock speed difference to me, but i dont have the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Hard to know if that speaks to titan being weak or crysis 3 being insanely demanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by papatsonis
Ah even better to just look at the third and fourth CPU on the list, only 100 MHz difference and ones a HT chip and the other isn't.
The CPU names past SB confuse me too much, I can't remember what is what.
Now it would be nice to compare a clock for clock I5 vs I7 to confirm if the HT makes any difference.
hopefully this will lead to intel bringing down hexas to the mainstream platform and opening up octas for the performance sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Its only one game, I doubt that will affect Intel's pricing.
You Intel fan boys are so pathetic...you actually feel a pinch to your pride when AMD gets a win. Its been pretty obvious that multi-core optimized code has been on its way and AMD prepped for it but lacked the muscle to push it. AMD's design works. Intel's design works. I mean really, do you think what CPU you use has any significance to your intelligence? Intel's CPUs are overpriced to me...I'm not willingly handing over more money than i should to the mafia...they will just use it to pay off another settlement and never learn their lesson.
Erm, but Intel won .... Never mind, don't let blatant figures cloud your love / jealousy towards AMD / Intel.
And regarding the price argument, say you only have $300 to spend on a GPU, that doesn't mean that a 7870 beats a Titan.
wow this thread was posted today!? lol is this some kind of record?
athlon x4 beating q9550?
athlon x2 beating i3 530?
what gets me is how far intel cpu's seem to have fallen in performance in these reviews
intels performance has more than halved while amd has taken a relativity small hit
now if it was just the new fx processors that were doing better i could understand but across the hole line? sorry but i have some doubts and think something might be wrong with crysis 3 that is gimping intel cpu's in these tests
happy to be proven wrong though
test linked earlier> http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb.jpg
my net is caped and im having trouble loading web pages so i am having trouble finding the difference between these tests
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83...ps315c6fb6.png
The first link you posted there tells a completely different story.
Cool, its embedded now. I suppose that's going to make the people thinking that AMD had won cry.
Pretty funny stuff...
Anyone that has ever did any research on it or anything would know that intel are faster, have been for some time.
At least by 300-500 mhz worth, to close that gap (clocking up the amd).
I say 300 because that's what mine needed to get close to an older intel I think 3 years ago, maybe longer.
In pcsx2...
Crises 3 comes out tomarrow.
You can play it now if you're south korean supposedly... ^^
I never played 1, or 2 or that other one., heard 2 sucked and 1 was good.
No offense to amd.
But they have piss poor mem and cache performance.
And they're faking an 8 core, intel doesn't even mislable there chips like that.
If they actually sold a real 8 core at $300 I would buy it...
And btw ipc means instructions per clock...
Not every single instruction can exe within a clock, some reg's are faster then others...
I'm sorry, I can't help it.
I some of you guys wanna pretend that amd is faster then go ahead...
Have fun with that, I know that's what overclocking is for but still...
Though, the 3770k is a quad core as well.
In that sense it is possible for amd to get the upper hand.
But it would be rare.
It's some sort of scheduling or something I'm guessing.
The thing is, integer's them self's are not that taxing on the cpu, stable at lower voltages then what the fpu instructions usually need.
If you wanted to, if your os was not using any fpu instructions at all, you could clock your cpu way higher.
But I don't think they have independant clocks...
Anyways amd only has 4 fpu's..
They only way I can think of, is that they simulated there fpu instructions with the normal registers.
It's possible in asm to do that..., I do it because I don't even know how to use the fpu never got into it...
Or they just took advantage of more normal registers, twice as much.
I don't know.
I haven't seen any benches on that...
I think it may be all down to when it's a good idea to access an fpu and when it's a bad idea on the amd's.
No offense to anyone or anything, I'm just rambling on...
No Crysis isn't "heavily optimized" for AMD, it's just multi-threaded, AMD was already competitive with Intel in multi-threaded apps.
IPC = instructions per clock, 100 instructions x 10 clock = 10 instructions x 100 clock. So how does comparing clock for clock proves anything?
Who can say Bulldozer with Intel fabrication process would have not ended better than sandy bridge?
intel fanboys better pray gpu accelerated software takes it time going mainstream otherwise looking at this thread they gonna need a lot of antacids.
That was an early Alpha build. You can see how poorly it was optimized. Final build runs good on AMD cpus as both PCGH and Russian GameGPU has demonstrated (linked on first page).
So what's up with the new 3Dmark, is it doing multi-threaded physics? I mean, if Crytek can do it then why can't our so called end all be all benchmark tool do it? Or maybe, they don't want it to?
but doesnt something seem a bit off when i3 530 drops from being twice as fast to slower than the athlon x2?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yes,it means that Athlon performs to its full potential :). You can see how well Piledriver performs on Linux,in some workloads even 3-4x better when properly optimized code is run on it. Hardware is just a lesser "half" of the equation. Actually bothering to optimize for specific uarchitecture can bring great performance improvements . Not many game studios bother to do that,they just code for biggest hw provider and are done with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dasa
Lots of things wrong with this but starting from the top: Crysis 3 was out yesterday. Not tomorrow. Not sure what South Korea had to do with anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOAethyr
it could also mean that intel is not performing to its full potentialQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
all just speculation at this point anyway hopefully we will learn more soon
You are apparently new to teh intarwebz.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Any time AMD does something reasonably well, a handful of guys will post "Yes! AMD triumphs again! They are the lords of engineering".
Just the way of it, it's harmless.
What new gaming consoles are going to use AMD CPUs (anyone with a definitive answer)? If Microsoft and Sony are going with AMD CPUs then all new games will be optimized for for them (i.e. multi-threaded). Sure, Intel will bust out 8 cores and beat out AMD's 8 cores proving once again Intel just hindered progress...but here we go AMD once again pushes forward technology against all odds...way to go AMD.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9...ewegoagain.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by DefStar
This is interesting. Multithreaded improvements kinda make me want to go AMD now. I bought a 3570K for the office but hm, those FX-8350 results look lovely. I'm still waiting for Star Citizen to come out, so meanwhile, I'm waiting for Steamroller. It's great, because Star Citizen is using CryEngine 3, and most of my work are multithreaded.
For a moment there I actually thought AMD had a truly competitive product, not only from a price/performance stand point. But as soon as I looked through the Anandtech review, few battles where won.
Some competition could truly be good for all us, Intel has had their crown untarnished for far too long.
I find the die size a bit funny, 8350 = 315mm^2 , i3770k + iGPU = 160mm^2
Intel's production is ridiculous far ahead.
Why would Intel need an 8 core when the 6 core is already better than the AMD 8 core?Quote:
Originally Posted by DefStar
well in this game the 3960k wins but not by 800 dollars worthQuote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo Hoodoo
If you take the single graph in the OP as final.
I'll wait until I've seen higher resolution, AA and AF results. At that resolution there probably was no where near enough bottlenecking from either the CPU or GPU. And while the game may have been worse for optimization in the alpha, I don't understand how alpha > final release = vastly reduced Intel performance.
the intel extreme edition is just a broken 8 core, they should be selling the whole chip and not a cut down chip for $1200. seriously though, intel has not put out a real upgrade for about 6 years for anything other than power consumption if you do a mild overclock on the old parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo Hoodoo
And for about 6 years, AMD still don't have a better CPU than an X58 hex core. That's why Intel's prices don't come down.
What I think is that the way it looks I'll have to replace my i3 2120 with an i5 in the near future.
#1 = i7 3960x (12 threads) : 900€
#2 = fx-8350 (8 threads) : 170€
Intel fanboys better let go in my opinion . You really can't win this one .
I know it's a broken 8 core and I agree they should be selling one but thumbs up for the straw man argument..Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
:up:
Anyhow, back on topic - let's see the results at 1080 maxxed out with the same hardware stock?
Good news indeed, I expect the gaming performance gap to close further with next generation ports since both the consoles should be powered by multiple AMD x86 cores.
SR cant come soon enough
And lets see SLI / Xfire results too, multi GPU is very CPU dependant.
4 core IB has so much die size/price to produce advantage over Vishera it is not even funny. Underperforming from AMD is what keeps prices of Intel CPUs jacked up, and 6 core models only in s2011.
If new games start being 8+ thread optimized, it might force Intel's hand and that would be good for everyone - Intel 6 cores for 300$, AMD 8 cores for <150$..
Intel aren't going to reduce their prices simply because AMD become competitive in upcoming multithreaded games.
They will reduce their prices if this leads to more sales for AMD and fewer sales for Intel. Just like Nvidia never lowered the prices on GTX 680 / 690 after the much cheaper 7970 began performing better in almost every game, because they are still selling well at their current prices.
I did not say it will happen tomorrow, but if the trend continues Intel has so much space to go down with the prices I do not see why they would not react.
On the other hand, 4 core Haswell + good TIM + couple of hundred MHz will surely beat Vishera and still leave us with 4c8t for next year at least..
Well guys, you can call off the hounds... The mystery has been solved.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Tes...proz%20amd.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Tes...oz%20intel.jpg
Crysis 3 isn't using the extra threads on the intel chips, but IS on the AMD.
:( Just when everyone hoped for Intel being pushed a bit :)..
So it needs a patch, it seems.