eyeofcore said:
AMD's Jaguar is good and very competitive... I wonder how Steamroller in Kaveri will turn out...
|
Jaguar is competitive with Intel's Atom, that belongs in netbooks. If you think that's competitive... Who am I to argue.
Hynad said:
The FX-9370 and 9590 are far from "pretty horrible in most respects". -__-
|
You edited your post and added this tidbit. So I'll iterate upon it.
The FX 9590 sells for $399 AUD.
You can pick up a Core i7 3930K for that much second hand, which is still faster in every single way, whilst using less power and throwing out less heat, even with 2 cores less.
The Core i7 4770K is a "only" a Quad-Core, it's roughly $20 AUD cheaper than the FX 9590.
Despite it's 1.5ghz clockspeed advantage, it's still slower in any tasks that uses 1-4 threads, which is 99% of software.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
If you were to overclock, the FX series typically tops out at around 5ghz, the 9590 comes with a 4.7ghz clockspeed, so you won't be able to push it very far.
The 4770K typically tops out at around 4.5ghz, so it's still got an extra 1ghz+ in it to obliterate the 9590 in everything.
Then over the long term, the 9590 will actually cost you more, thanks to it's much higher power consumption.
I honestly have no idea what you see in AMD as they are currently, they aren't competitive in the high-end or mid range.
Don't get me wrong, I have an FX 8120 @ 4.8ghz in my second system and a Phenom 2 x6 in my HTPC, so I'm well aware of the shortfalls AMD's provided over it's last few generations and even their respective strengths.
For single/dual threaded games such as Sins of a Solar Empire, StarCraft etc', the FX is crap, for heavily threaded games, the FX is awesome.
But in the end, my 3930K/4930K+ is awesome in lightly threaded games and heavily threaded games, you don't make any sacrifices in one area for another.