Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-2012, 07:31 AM   #26
guskline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
Even FX8150 is faster in MT apps than 2500K.
Good Lord! Perhaps in a few but all? This is an example of strident rhetoric.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 -Asus SbTh X79 - Custom WC - MO-RA3 Pro-420 + RX 360+XSPC-Sapphire R9-290 Tri-X-EK blocks/bridge -16G (4x4 quad)DDR3-2133 - Intel 530 SSD - 2560x1440 Achieva Shimian - Win 8.1 - PC P&C 1200W Silencer Mk III
guskline is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:35 AM   #27
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,846
Default

I think the 8350 is a lot better than some posters here would admit. For many people it is actually worth considering if building a new computer, before that really wasn't the case. With Bulldozer there was really very little reason to buy one unless you just wanted one to have it. But with that being said, it still has some glaring issues (single threaded performance and power consumption) when compared to Intel's chips. So I just don't see an 'ok' line of processors saving the company. I'd hate to see them go under as I've always been happy with their hardware, but things seem pretty bleak right now.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:44 AM   #28
mikeymikec
Diamond Member
 
mikeymikec's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I think the 8350 is a lot better than some posters here would admit. For many people it is actually worth considering if building a new computer, before that really wasn't the case. With Bulldozer there was really very little reason to buy one unless you just wanted one to have it. But with that being said, it still has some glaring issues (single threaded performance and power consumption) when compared to Intel's chips. So I just don't see an 'ok' line of processors saving the company. I'd hate to see them go under as I've always been happy with their hardware, but things seem pretty bleak right now.
This is a "me too" sort of post, but I thought I would point out that I agree with what you're saying in the light of me mocking the OP's choice of words.

Last edited by mikeymikec; 11-14-2012 at 07:47 AM.
mikeymikec is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:44 AM   #29
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
 
bunnyfubbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 11,970
Default

The problem with the 8350 is that it needed to be available a year and a half ago, and while it still would have been underwhelming it would have made AMD a lot more viable.
__________________
i7 3930K @ 4.7GHz + XSPC Raystorm/EX280/D5 | ASUS Sabertooth X79 | EVGA GeForce GTX780 | 4x4GB Samsung Green DDR3 @ 1866 CAS9 1.5v | 2x256GB Samsung 830 RAID-0 | 3 x 1.5TB Hitachi 7K3000 RAID-0 | 2 x 3TB Seagate 7200.14 RAID-0 | Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1 x64 | Creative X-Fi Titanium HD | Seasonic Platinum-1000 | Silverstone FT02B-WRI | BenQ XL2420T | Dell U2711 | Filco Majestouch-2 Tenkeyless Cherry MX Red | Razer Abyssus + Goliathus Speed | Beyerdynamic MMX300 / Astro A40 2013
bunnyfubbles is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 08:23 AM   #30
Chiropteran
Diamond Member
 
Chiropteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 7,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozentundra123456 View Post
Just cant resist those cherry picked benchmarks can you? As I replied to your similar post in another thread, according to anand bench, 2600K wins in 17 of 25 non-gaming benchmarks and of course destroys the 8350 in gaming.
Sounds like you have no idea what "MT loads" means.
__________________
http://writeangry.blogspot.com/
Chiropteran is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 08:26 AM   #31
tulx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnyfubbles View Post
The problem with the 8350 is that it needed to be available a year and a half ago, and while it still would have been underwhelming it would have made AMD a lot more viable.
While it would have definitely been good to have it a year ago, I don't see how it's "too late", since the FX 8350 is a very viable option compared to similarly priced Intel CPUs (of both past and current generations).
tulx is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:54 AM   #32
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I think the 8350 is a lot better than some posters here would admit. For many people it is actually worth considering if building a new computer, before that really wasn't the case. With Bulldozer there was really very little reason to buy one unless you just wanted one to have it. But with that being said, it still has some glaring issues (single threaded performance and power consumption) when compared to Intel's chips. So I just don't see an 'ok' line of processors saving the company. I'd hate to see them go under as I've always been happy with their hardware, but things seem pretty bleak right now.

This is a good way to put it. +1


Quote:
Just cant resist those cherry picked benchmarks can you? As I replied to your similar post in another thread, according to anand bench, 2600K wins in 17 of 25 non-gaming benchmarks and of course destroys the 8350 in gaming.

No it doesn't. It beats it in games. Doesn't destroy it. I for one don't run my games at 200fps. Hey Guskline, another example of strident rhetoric.

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-14-2012 at 09:57 AM.
Rvenger is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:12 AM   #33
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,296
Default

When you have IDC posting pictures of that guy in regards to the "all is well" claims, how do you reconcile that in your minds with your claims that all is in fact well?

I don't really think we have a less biased, more informed poster here.
Ferzerp is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:27 AM   #34
nemesismk2
Diamond Member
 
nemesismk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalseChristian View Post
The FX-8350 is the best chip AMD has put out since the original FX series. It's faster than my i5 2500K and costs alot less. People are going to buy these chips in droves making AMD's CPU division solvent once again.
I hope you are right because i think the FX 8350 is a great CPU
nemesismk2 is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:34 AM   #35
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,181
Default

AMD didn't file for bankrupcy so what is the big deal here? Yes they are struggling and weighing all options, many companies go through times like these at one point in time. Many companies that file for bankrupcy restructure and come roaring back. AMD will be here tomorrow and in 6 months, lets see what happens instead of drawing obscure conclusions.


Remember when GM went bankrupt and how Ford supported them while in court? Lets just hope Intel will offer the same type of support.

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-14-2012 at 10:36 AM.
Rvenger is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:37 AM   #36
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

One thing I find pretty funny here.At VCG Amd fans always tout the overclocking prowess of their 7xxx series cards and rightfully so but they are mum about Intel's overclocking capabilities.Once overclocked Fx 8350 looks much worse compared to the competition.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:46 AM   #37
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
One thing I find pretty funny here.At VCG Amd fans always tout the overclocking prowess of their 7xxx series cards and rightfully so but they are mum about Intel's overclocking capabilities.Once overclocked Fx 8350 looks much worse compared to the competition.

I don't think that's the case at all...
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 10:54 AM   #38
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I don't think that's the case at all...
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 11:05 AM   #39
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I don't think that's the case at all...
It basically is. 8350 looks marginally competitive at much higher clockspeeds to 2500K/2600K @ stock. 8350 doesn't have much room to OC, and when you do, the heat/power get extreme once you pass 4.5 and are aiming at the 4.8-5ghz range.

8350 overclocked vs. 2500K/2600K overclocked (2600K is under $200 at MC), the 2500K beats it in gaming and most apps that aren't extremely well threaded, and the 2600K will beat it in literally everthing (except heat/power draw). Fail.

8350 makes sense to me if you are comparing it to 3550 or other locked Intel CPUs imho though, and you're not the overclocking type. It's not all gloom and doom.

But the guy you quoted is right, if I'm understanding him correctly.

To an overclocker, comparing stock 8350 vs. stock 2500k (3.3ghz) and seeing some wins for the 8350 isn't exactly exciting, when you know that the turbo for 2500k is only 3.7ghz on limited cores. Those people know that you can easily take the 2500K to 4.5Ghz, at which speed the IPC just runs away with the ballgame. All with less intense cooling and power needs.
__________________
Death is the answer.

Last edited by Arkaign; 11-14-2012 at 11:10 AM.
Arkaign is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 11:40 AM   #40
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
8350 makes sense to me if you are comparing it to 3550 or other locked Intel CPUs imho though, and you're not the overclocking type. It's not all gloom and doom
I think there are at least three dimensions that need to be looked upon to make an analysis of Bulldozer:

First is thermals/power consumption, and here the chip sucks big time. In notebooks this means very low clocks, in desktops it doesn't really matter if you live in the US. In Europe, LATAM and Asia, where energy is a lot more expensive then it does matter. If you mind the noise Bulldozer is out too.

Second is performance. Bulldozer isn't a star here but performance isn't too bad on most scenarios. In MT tasks you will have an edge over Intel, in single threaded apps and games you'll suffer.

Third is economic/commercial, and here Bulldozer is a disaster of biblical proportions. The chip is too big and has relatively low selling price for the manufacturing costs AMD has to incur. AMD is bankrupting itself by selling those big chips for peanuts.

So when users come here talking that Bulldozer is fine, in the right scenario, it can be. But when other users come here talking that Bulldozer is a disaster, it is too. It depends on how you look at the situation.

For AMD, the economic dimension is the only that matters, and here by no means someone can say that Bulldozer was fine for the company. Bulldozer was a disaster probably worse than the ATI acquisition. Bulldozer killed whatever chances AMD had on servers and tied mainstream chips to very big dies. And worse, they are tied to this dog for at least 5 years.
mrmt is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 11:54 AM   #41
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,846
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.

I think the majority of benches that an 8350 beats a 2500K at factory clocks, it'll also beat it when both are overclocked. The 2500K may catch in in a few, but overall I doubt the picture changes much, both will win and lose in most of the same places. I'll agree that the 2500K probably catches up as it can overclock to a higher percentage vs. its factory clock.

The only place I've seen people really push an overclocked AMD chip vs. a factory clocked Intel chip is when comparing the AMD chip to an i3, which doens't overclock.


Arkaign, if you can get a 2600K or an 8350 at the same price, I think it'd be foolish for just about anyone to go with an 8350. But I think that is the case whether overclocked or not.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
GO PACKERS!
SlowSpyder is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:03 PM   #42
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowSpyder View Post
I think the majority of benches that an 8350 beats a 2500K at factory clocks, it'll also beat it when both are overclocked. The 2500K may catch in in a few, but overall I doubt the picture changes much, both will win and lose in most of the same places. I'll agree that the 2500K probably catches up as it can overclock to a higher percentage vs. its factory clock.

The only place I've seen people really push an overclocked AMD chip vs. a factory clocked Intel chip is when comparing the AMD chip to an i3, which doens't overclock.


Arkaign, if you can get a 2600K or an 8350 at the same price, I think it'd be foolish for just about anyone to go with an 8350. But I think that is the case whether overclocked or not.
Lets say if both are oced to 4.5 GHz 2500K will surpass it in many benches.8350 is overclocked 12.5% here while 2500K is clocked ~36% higher.You do the math.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:08 PM   #43
Mallibu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 242
Default

The whole "FX is faster than i5 (in MT loads)" sounds like
"Do you know how famous I'm in the world? (of Warcraft)"
Using the 1% of programs that are capable of using 8 threads in an argument, shows a lot of desperation to find a positive light to this failure.
Time to put lipstick on this pig again.
Mallibu is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:08 PM   #44
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.
FX8150@ 4.7GHz vs Core i5 3570K@4.5GHz
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...712&highlight=

Last edited by AtenRa; 11-14-2012 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Link to Don Karnage benchmarks was deleted
AtenRa is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:11 PM   #45
Vesku
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,167
Default

Wonder if these forums will implode when it's discovered that this whole ARM is the real Intel competitor relies on the (imo, valid) premise that MT performance is going to matter more and more as time moves on.
Vesku is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:13 PM   #46
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
Don karnage seriously man
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:29 PM   #47
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
Don karnage seriously man
He may not know about Don's sordid history.

But don't you think his point has merit though? The 8350 does do strikingly well against the 2600k in many things, and in the things it doesn't do so well it isn't like we are talking huge real-world performance gaps either.

The one strike that is hard to overlook is the power consumption, but that is factored into the $100 price differential.
Idontcare is offline  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:52 PM   #48
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,476
Default

I was just informed about Don Karnage, i had no idea about it.

I will withdraw the link
AtenRa is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 12:52 PM   #49
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
He may not know about Don's sordid history.

But don't you think his point has merit though? The 8350 does do strikingly well against the 2600k in many things, and in the things it doesn't do so well it isn't like we are talking huge real-world performance gaps either.

The one strike that is hard to overlook is the power consumption, but that is factored into the $100 price differential.
In highly threaded apps yes it may have some advantage but it will fall flat in the rest of them.Why buy a processor which will be slower in most of the scenarios?(for general purpose anyway). Look what Apple did with A6 which is ruining the fun for all quad core chips out there.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is online now  
Old 11-14-2012, 01:05 PM   #50
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
It basically is. 8350 looks marginally competitive at much higher clockspeeds to 2500K/2600K @ stock. 8350 doesn't have much room to OC, and when you do, the heat/power get extreme once you pass 4.5 and are aiming at the 4.8-5ghz range.

That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.


Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/o...ra-owners-club

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-14-2012 at 01:17 PM.
Rvenger is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.