Regardless of if you went i7 or AMD FX, you will need a new motherboard. Yours is LGA775, they stopped making parts for that CPU socket years ago and of course intel and AMD motherboards arent compatible either. It isn't optimised for either platform over the other.
Not true, take a 4c/8t 4770k@3.9ghz vs an "8c" 8350@4.0ghz and the intel will beat the amd every time. Even with the 9350 I doubt the amd would beat the intel. I doubt a i5 4670k would have much of an issue beating the FX. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD's graphics and APUs, but the fx line sucks.
that is a totally insane processor tie it with twin R9 290X's and 64GB Ram you will be screaming along
AMD's 9590 cpu is a beast for AMD. It hangs door to door with my 3770k and beats it in some tests. - - - Updated - - - Holy crap man.
You are making a comparison on clock speed which is an amateur mistake. a processor does not go through 1 "cycle" from 1 clock speed and 1 instruction does not take 1 cycle (pentium 4 I think completed 17 cycles per clock signal with instruction cycles ranging from 5 through to over 100 dependent on instruction). 2 processors of differing model at the same clock speed are not identical in performance due to different pipeline depths, instruction decoders, different ALU's, number of registers, cache sizes and the list goes on. Intels ivy bridge core (and by extension haswell, as far as the CPU design itself is concerned haswell is ivy bridge, GPU and a few hardware controllers have changed and its more energy efficient, but otherwise its ivy bridge) has a higher instruction throughput from a single clock signal than AMD FX, its been this was for a few years. However AMD FX does scale to higher clock speeds far better than ivy bridge/haswell. At 5ghz it does actually overtake the 3.9ghz intel. At 4ghz it will fall behind. Its not a case of optimisation. It is a case of you comparing a genuinely slower system against a faster one.
I know that amd has the less efficient architecture, thus me comparing the 9590 to the 4770. I was proven wrong there. But take a similarly priced 8350 vs an i5 4570 and the i5 will win. I don't have the resources to test, but I bet the game will run slower on amd hardware that is sold as intel equivalent, particularly the phenom line. It is also less optimized for older intel archs. My 870, which should be about a 4670 in pure power, lags behind a bit.
Much of the game includes .net assemblies and lua scripts too, neither of which offer Intel vs AMD optimisation or even x86 vs ARM, neither is native code (one a bytecode virtual machine, the other a scripting language). You can even download the source code for torque3d, no optimisations for a specific brand there. And again. You are comparing different implementations of x86 still. At this stage in development the game isn't optimised at all, let alone for Intel over AMD or vice versa.
Well identical archs are going at act the same? And I not saying that the devs choose intel over amd, I am saying intel CPUs fun this game better for cheaper.
Grid map, and all the cars. I took a few snapshots, as i dont plan to do this again All this at 8FPS, and still managed to crash the Civetta into the pickup (tough job to steer) In case you are wondering why the Boldie is white on the last 2 pictures, its becouse the textures vanished when it hit the pickup. All else was fine. Slow, but fine This turned out to be more of a gpu test than a cpu, becouse cpu peaked at 70%, and the gpu was allready maxed out at 3 cars, so i obviously found a bottleneck.. Specs below
lol, i would rather no his specs, 25 fps with 10 cars, he clearly has an EXTREMLEY powerful pc (or he read the in-game CTRL+F fps thingy, which tends to always say 25 fps, even when your actually getting more or less)
5 trucks 40fps 6 trucks 25fps 16gb drr3 overclocked nvida 660 ti 2gb ssd haswell i7 3.4ghz this was with all graphics on high