Ok, what's the catch?

Ok, what's the catch?

Attached: 3mb vs 16mb btw.png (982x561, 152K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ubk20kZlaVo
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nothing lol intel is just garbage

one came out a year before the other, and had better IPC
no one gave a shit about multicore in 2013, they barely do now

Those prices are seriously out-dated but I own AMD version of pic related. Can pick one up for $70.
Both are shit tier though.

what about the clock?
and the cache?

one consumes significantly less power and runs significantly cooler. The other costs less, and is faster overall with most of its strength lying in multi-core integer workloads.

that's the catch

Attached: benchmark.png (1265x278, 18K)

clock speed is higher but IPC is much lower rendering it garbage unless you OC the fuck out of it

This

>R$
SOPA

I don't know about how those specific processors stack up against each other. But as someone who heavily uses CPU multithreading on a daily basis, I'll tell you that if you are going AMD you should go for Ryzen, don't get their old architecture. Also If you don't know what you are using your threads for, you probably don't need them. Most games don't scale with threads very well, once you get past 4-8 threads. I use threading for compiling and virtualization.
Generally Intel is iirc know as being more efficient than amd, new amd processors basically require liquid cooling, and generally use more wattage. For me, this doesn't matter in a desktop but on a laptop I prefer Intel.

>new amd processors basically require liquid cooling
Huh? I'm running a 2600X with a $30 air cooler and it never breaks 60 degrees even under load.

Okay , I didn't know that. I just bought a new threadripper and all the AMD processors in the price range I was looking at needed liquid cooling. The 2600x was below the ones I looked at. I made the assumption based on what I saw in the i9/threadripper tier, and the fact that Ryzen processors are known to report higher temps to force better cooling. My threadripper reports 50C with no load which I think is actually 30C

Threadrippers are 180-250W parts, AM4 Ryzen is 105W at most

>i3-2100
>FX
Welcome to 2013. The rest of us are in 2019. Maybe you'll catch up eventually.

dont bully, brazilians still use c2d and pentium 4

Reminder that Intel does nothing except make overpriced inferior copies of AMD64 arch chips.

maybe they should lower their import taxes on shit they'll never be able to make

>Reminder that Intel does nothing except make overpriced inferior copies of AMD64 arch chips.

Attached: 1427192443116.png (388x587, 198K)

Positivo keeps selling i3, 2GB RAM garbage memebooks for a thousand bucks :^)
Poor plastic quality and hinges make their products unrepairable... It's just a sad meme.

Get raped and kill yourself, you fucking subhuman shit smear.

>this 250w needs liquid cooling
>that's why i won't buy the 65w or 95w chip that's 1/3rd the size on a smaller socket, or the 15w or 25w laptop chips that use less power than intel equivalents

1: 8c/8t is much better for every productivity workload in the average benchmark suite.
2: 8c/8t is better in almost all "modern" games especially on DX12/Vulkan. Recent benchmarks show FX 8350 for example performing significantly better than even haswell i5s let alone sandy/ivy bridge. Granted most modern games are shit and this probably doesn't matter to you.
3: this is a shitty comparison anyway because the 8320 came out in 2012. the 8320e is 300mhz less, for 30w less, and came out in 2014. only real benefit is if you only had a 970 board, you could upgrade to it. real chads already had a 990FX board though for their 8350 :^).
so what i'm saying is if you compare that chip to intel's 2014 offerings, there was a better i3 out by then. regardless it's still shit.
4: security is way better on FX; dont need to disable hyperthreading down to 2c/2t in order to not be vulnerable lel. also no intel management engine
5: the 8320e retailed for 146.99 on launch day. for $150 it was a good deal, but now it's still like 80-100 bucks. meanwhile the i3-2100 is only like $30 on ebay now, but was launched at $120. Also it released in 2011 so idk what your stupid website saying 2013 is.
7: cache. yes I saw in your filename "3mb vs 16mb" - indeed, FX had 2mb for each core and I think unganged.
8: overclocking. even though sandy bridge had better IPC, you'll get better single threaded performance from an FX running faster than the i3-2100
however if you overclock, why are you bothering with the "E" chip anyway what's the point of a low power chip if you're gonna probably overclock it and use a bunch more wattage?

anyway unless you are 1: upgrading from a board you already have (i.e. have an athlon IIx4 on some 970 board), or 2: are getting it super cheap...you might as well just go ryzen.
that said, the 8320e is actually much better than an r3 1200, at the same price in anything other than old DX9 games like counterstrike.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ubk20kZlaVo

comercials

So it's worse and more popular
K

sua mãe

No, they don't. Even cheap laptops are coming with the latest i3/i5, and cheap prebuilds have at least something from 2016. You are just a favela nigger.

>R$
UMA DELÍCIA
M
A

D
E
L
Í
C
I
A

caralho macaco fx em 2013 ja era merda qq vc ta pensando

Attached: 1546999074053.png (548x666, 361K)

SOPA DE MACACO UMA DELÍCIA

OP blown the fuck out.

preto é assim mesmo

Pegue um 2200G, burro. Esses dois estão em plataformas mortas e são bem ruins hoje em dia.