What is better AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i7-3820?

Question

Iron

Here are two links to these processors with their characteristics on Nix :
www.nix.ru/autocatalog/amd/CPU_AMD_FX8350_FD8350F_4.0_8core_125_5200_Socket_AM3_146975.html AMD has a higher processor frequency, higher bus frequency, more cores (although I understand that this is not a very good argument, because 8 cores is already quite a lot, and there should be specific tasks for it), cache at levels 1 and 2 more, then how does it lose to Intel in terms of performance? Of course, I want to buy an AMD-shny percent, despite the fact that it costs 3k cheaper.

Answer 1

Because frequencies and all sorts of quantities mean absolutely nothing apart from architecture.
FX's have weak cores, a fairly large part of the blocks are divided in pairs (in particular, FPU). But what Intel called 4-core processors with 8 executable threads, fx's have 8-core processors.
Then tasks come
into play: games need few, but productive cores. fx can only compete with i5
If you need a lot of integer mathematics, fx's are quite appropriate.

Answer 2

LGA2011 setup will be decently more expensive than AM3+. Prospects - theoretically still Ivy Bridge-E and to the dump, but there is and will be a cloud of very expensive processors that can then be perfectly upgraded (for example, even from SB-E something like E5-2650, 2670, etc. - tr eight-core monster). The performance is higher than that of Vishera (corresponding to the price - everything is fair :)).
LGA1155 is quite a bit more expensive than AM3+. Prospects - no (Haswell / Broadwell on LGA1150).
AM3+ is the most economical platform in this segment. The prospects are either gone, or one more generation, or two more generations. Now the FX-8350 is about the level of i5-3330 to i7-3770, but costs as much as i5-3470. FX-8320 is even better in terms of price / quality ratio. In 70% of games at the level of i5 or a little worse. In software, even modern, it's about the same. In some applications, the i7-3770 is doing well (say, in 1% of applications or even less often). In a pure single-stream - trash.
FX-8350 versus i5-3570K consumes 2 times more power and 1.5 times higher heat dissipation. For home, both are ok.

Answer 3

Look at tasks. If your tasks are mostly integer and are well parallelized, then AMD is good here. If they are poorly paralleled, then Intel has better performance per core.
I have an FX8120 - enough for everything I need.

Answer 4

Well, in addition to the frequency, etc. there is the concept of architecture, there is forecasting, for example.
If it’s completely on the fingers, then for example, if a processor with a frequency of 800 MHz per cycle executes 2 commands, and only one at 1500 MHz, then the first one will be faster.
In fact, everything is noticeably more complicated and you just need to look at the tests and nothing else.

Answer 5

According to Passmark's test results, AMD is still a little more productive than AMD FX-8350 Intel Core i7-3820
And if you also compare the price, then Intel is "in flight".

Answer 6

You checkers or go?
You don’t need to look at the numbers on the box (how many cores, etc.), but the test results ...
And then proceed from your tasks / finances ...

Answer 7

Now it's more profitable to take the AMD FX-8350 at half the price of the i7-4790