Have you ran 15 bots using the FX 8150 ? I'm not some AMD fanboy I use intel on my gaming PC, but on a bot PC AMD is the way to go you're just to ignorant to see that building a bot PC is about balancing cost with what it makes for you if you can do the same job at a cheaper price its more efficient this isn't a penis wagging contest if you want something you plan to game on plus run bots go intel if you plan on putting 10-15 bots on it and using it for nothing else go AMD.
AMD FX-8150 vs Intel i7-3820: Which can run more VM Bots/ Non-VM bots?
- Thread starter mephuser1000
- Start date
Have you ran 15 bots using the FX 8150 ? I'm not some AMD fanboy I use intel on my gaming PC, but on a bot PC AMD is the way to go you're just to ignorant to see that building a bot PC is about balancing cost with what it makes for you if you can do the same job at a cheaper price its more efficient this isn't a penis wagging contest if you want something you plan to game on plus run bots go intel if you plan on putting 10-15 bots on it and using it for nothing else go AMD.
jinny1
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 1
Lol so all you have known is AMD?? no wonder you think AMD is great. maybe if you tried intel,it would work with 20 bots
I myself build PCs for others, servers and personal use. what do you do?? use 15 bots.. just stop talking if you don't know anything
It is hilarious that the only reason that you think AMD is great is because you can run 15 bots and not everybody else is wrong. Being able to run 15 bots is more about GPU not CPU idiot unless you are running tons of VMs. Even so GPU is equally as important
Used both systems and intel is far and out the clear winner.
AMD has stuck with their chipsets for so many years now that it is so obsolete compared to intel. Even when Piledriver is released they won't be updating their chipsets, and the 900 series is basically a renamed 800 series which basically is a renamed 700 series. Which means AMD will be using the same crap shit chipset, south bridge, north bridge for 5+ years.
That is why AMD has no native USB 3.0 support, no PCIE 3.0 support, their marvell storage controller is so shit that even when using SSD in SATA 3 mode in AHCI it'll cripple your reads/writes to half of what you will be getting on intel. AMD needs to get with the future and get a new LGA socket. They are using outdated technology and AMD fanboys are happy they are getting sold crap bullshit every year.
Those who bought sandy bridge when it came out didn't need to change sockets! Ivy bridge is compatible with LGA1155 so your point is invalid.
Get an IB with LGA1155 mobo now and your rig will still be competitive against AMD offerings for at least 2 years no need to upgrade.
While fanboys like you who think AMD offer more "value" will need to upgrade every year just to catch up.
Last edited:
Reading comprehension 101. My gaming PC is intel. You're just too stupid to read what people write. YOU"RE BUILDING A PC to make money and you wanna spend 2-3 times as much on intel when AMD will do the same job for half the price. The concept is simple and used everyday in business. Make something in the US for 10$ or something in china for 5$. The point isn't that AMD is a better CPU its that AMD is just as good of a choice.
jinny1
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 1
ahhh red herring. Why are you avoiding everything else i wrote?? LOL idiot who says intel is 2-3 times more expensive?? buy i5's not i7's.
Ohh i'm too stupid to somehow know clairvoyantly that your gaming rig is somehow intel????? LOLLLL
Just stop talking now mate you've embarassed yourself enough.
Much rather spend maybe $50 extra to go for intel and let it last much longer in the long run, maybe you are too blind to see that just because it is cheaper it doesn't mean it is better value./
Except a few post up I said my gaming rig is intel. You're just some intel fanboi who doesn't even read the entire post of shit he is replying to. Go look at charts value wise nothing beats the FX8150 saying otherwise shows your bias. Take your own advice and stop posting because you're obviously an ignorant intel fanboi who can't see that intel MBs, CPUs are vastly overpriced when compared to AMD. You build an intel rig to bot 15-20 bots ill build an AMD one that does the same for cheaper and you cannot argue against that because everyone here, but you knows AMD is cheaper.
How about we just agree at the end of the day you believe intel is better and I believe there is no reason to spend more money when AMD can do the same thing.
Last edited:
jinny1
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 1
Yea i stopped reading straight away from the first sentence where you wrote
"Its a toss up i go AMD because easier to overclock for the avg user. You can get the AMD one to 5ghz with H100. Also the intel one is 4 cores with HT but the AMD one is 8 cores but its misleading."
and then i realised this poster has no idea what he is on about.
It is not vastly overpriced -.- you remember BD was priced the same as intel when it was released?? they had to reduce it because it was so shit?? i7's are overpriced yes but the average consumer buys the i5's
hmmm idk which charts you are on about, but just about every reputable review site has SB/IB beating BD in just about eveyy benchmark, games and real-life measurements.
sorry I let him get to me should of just ignored him.
jinny1
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 1
That post is not needed , you can just warn a mod no need to post back saying that you did.
Just causes further tensions, you haven't helped at all on the situation. I hope you feel tough playing vigilante
Amount of the lack of information about "modern CPUs" are overwhelming.
I'm assuming few engineers here, and they stopped reading after the "Computer Organization, 3rd ed by Henessey and Patterson."
In order to understand what's going on with the modern CPUs, you need to actually read up papers from ISSCC or ACM Computer.
I'll clear up few misinformed information here.
* Instructions per Cycle (IPC) as a performance matrix is flawed nowadays:
- Instructions per cycle, IPC, measures the instruction level parallelism (ILP). There are Thread-level parallelism and more!
- IPC gives you an idea of depth of a pipeline and ILP.
- ILP versus performance saturates because of many reasons, mainly sharing of the resources in Cache Fetches and Execution (limited BUS, cache coherency, and decode complexity)
- e.g. Low IPC (Core processors - ~12 stage pipeline) is better than High IPC (Pentium 4 - 20+ stage pipeline)
* Why is a change in Socket design necessary?
- Most people love to keep their CPUs using same Socket design, but here's the reason why they have to change.
- Improved Voltages (Lower voltage / thresholds) and Termination gives a better performance / watt, faster switching, etc.
- Change in BUS (DDR3 -> Wide IO or more channels require more data BUS and more control signals)
- Change in CPU Design => Change in Thermal Dissipation (HotSpots) => Change in module placement & routing => Change in pin assignment
People, please feel free to ask about a CPU and let's not assume anything.
I'm assuming few engineers here, and they stopped reading after the "Computer Organization, 3rd ed by Henessey and Patterson."
In order to understand what's going on with the modern CPUs, you need to actually read up papers from ISSCC or ACM Computer.
I'll clear up few misinformed information here.
* Instructions per Cycle (IPC) as a performance matrix is flawed nowadays:
- Instructions per cycle, IPC, measures the instruction level parallelism (ILP). There are Thread-level parallelism and more!
- IPC gives you an idea of depth of a pipeline and ILP.
- ILP versus performance saturates because of many reasons, mainly sharing of the resources in Cache Fetches and Execution (limited BUS, cache coherency, and decode complexity)
- e.g. Low IPC (Core processors - ~12 stage pipeline) is better than High IPC (Pentium 4 - 20+ stage pipeline)
* Why is a change in Socket design necessary?
- Most people love to keep their CPUs using same Socket design, but here's the reason why they have to change.
- Improved Voltages (Lower voltage / thresholds) and Termination gives a better performance / watt, faster switching, etc.
- Change in BUS (DDR3 -> Wide IO or more channels require more data BUS and more control signals)
- Change in CPU Design => Change in Thermal Dissipation (HotSpots) => Change in module placement & routing => Change in pin assignment
People, please feel free to ask about a CPU and let's not assume anything.
Weak, where can I dislike that post. Emotions are overflowing here, deal with it vigilante.
While going at it, useful information flowed out of their fingers, so all is nice.
mephuser1000
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 1
If you factor in that PCs can't just run with only a Motherboard + CPU, you need other parts, wouldn't Intel be more cost effective, since you can max out more bots per unit PC than AMD before building a new PC?
You would have to look up what you want for CPU first everything comes together after that. My advice look up what people have done and used and the opinions of people who have DONE it not some benchmark that says this or that is better.
Zeewolf
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 9
Hahahahaha, people telling me that 8 logical cores on 4 physical cores is better than 8 physical cores
How stupid can you get
Each core has a clock on it, that ticks at a rate of whatever the speed of the processor... if you have HT virtualising that core into 2 logical cores, it doesnt mean you get 2x the power you fools, it just means that to the OS it appears like 2 cores when you ACTUALLY still only get 1 core, it doesnt make the underlying clock tick 2x as fast, there is still just the same amount of total processing power as if HT was turned off and it was only 1 logical core, in fact there is very slightly less because HT has a performance impact (albeit a tiny one)
The intel option therefore has 60% less in its total processing power, now if the Intel chips are normally 20% better in like-for-like then its stilll not going to be quicker than the AMD option because there is simply more raw CPU cycles
Cute, but it doesn't quite work that way. AMD chips are not equal to Intel chips. That's like comparing apples to bowling balls.
Zeewolf
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 9
Did you perhaps check the linked article and see the fact that the intel chip does indeed win where its comparing single threaded apps (1core vs 1core) because the intel chip has 3.8ghz per core compared to 3.1ghz per core. Then also look at the fact that in all the multithreaded tests the AMD wins. That 'review' focuses more on single threaded loads which when your comparing multi core chips is frankly deceptive and stupid
If the OP is wanting to run multiple bots and multiple instances of wow then its a multithreaded load, each bot or wow instance will have its own thread and telling him to go for the CPU that performs best on single threaded loads is idiotic
I didnt say they were like for like, there is a performance difference between AMD and Intel.. there will always be a difference, but it is not more than 60%
I should point out that I do this is my day job, im certified VMware VCP4 and VCP5 and I manage some 150+ ESX hosts in various clusters at the few clients I manage. Some of them on AMD some of them on Intel.
This is my whole point to some in this thread people look at benchmarks like the holy grail instead of actually reading how each performs for what you're trying to do. Also why does my Video Driver fail when using VMware say I run 8 with 2 bots each it fails at least once a day yet if i run them all without vmware it never fails.
Zeewolf
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 9
Thats down to driver stablility, you often see nvidia and amd release updates that have specific fixes for certain games. If your running the game inside a VM then it likely wont recognise the game and the fixes wont be used. Running games inside of VMs is a bit of a niche that I suspect the video card manufacturers wont have spent much time testing their drivers with
Well when I only run 1 per VM it never happens.