AMD will be OK thanks to the new FX-8xxx line-up.

[Vesku]

4.6-4.8 is about all that can be expected outside of H100 cooling or better. Still, it's a decent chip, it's offset most of the complaints regarding the FX x1xx series considering they use the same node.

[hokies83]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

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

That guy is full of crap.. I asked him to do a bench off with me and he told me to quit PMing him.. cause all dude has is a Cpu-z validation ...

Soon as he posted in that club thread that a 8350 was faster then a 3770k clock for clock i laughed so hard i spit all over my monitor...

And when i asked him to put up or shut up... " Please do not PM me Again"

Not hard to do bro... http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2549815

[happysmiles]

and where is AMDs marketing?

why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.

[hokies83]

Originally Posted by happysmiles

and where is AMDs marketing?

why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.

Amd Marketing for 8xxx "give high factory clock" So they look faster then they really are in benchmarks so we can take advantage of stupid people.

Maybe people will not figure out that if you overclock the intel chips clock for clock it destroys us.

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by Jaydip

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.

[Rvenger]

nvm

[Skurge]

The FX8320/50 Generally clock higher than the Intel chips especially IB. When both are OC'd, they still win and lose at the same things.

[wenboy]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.

I always thought 4300 is priced similiar to I3, but I was wrong. I found that 6300 is priced in the similar I3 range ...

[mrmt]

http://premium.investorvillage.com/m...0782&showall=1

Just have a look at their ASP numbers for Q2: $48 per CPU.

[Puppies04]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

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.

Anything that the 8350 is better at with stock clocks is blatantly highly multi-threaded as we all know what AMDs single threaded performance is like. At the same time anything highly multi-threaded forces the 2500K (or any other intel chip with turbo enabled) to run at its slowest possible turbo frequency, 3.4ghz?. The fact you can spend 5 minutes in the bios and add 30% to this speed with a $20 aftermarket cooler is the reason the intel chip will come top in more benchmarks once both chips are overclocked.

P.S I have owned 3 2500Ks and built 5 more rigs with them and the 30% overclock I mention above is the minimum I have attained, every chip has easily hit 40%+ but when considering heat, power draw and longevity some have been left at a 30% overclock

[Yuriman]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.

But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.

Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.

I can pretty much get behind this. 9 cases out of 10 I'd recommend an i5 over an FX-83xx but there are scenarios where an FX isn't a bad choice. Since an i3 is multiplier locked, I'd say it's disadvantaged to an FX-63xx more often than not, assuming you're going to overclock it. I'd still probably go with an i3 if I built my father a PC but for enthusiasts perhaps not.

[soccerballtux]

Originally Posted by eternalone

before my time, context please?

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by soccerballtux

before my time, context please?

When the US Invaded Iraq in 2003, and was steamrolling the crap out of the Iraqi military (US is good at that, terrible at actual occupation duty), we were in Baghdad pressing into the city, and the Iraqi Information Minister kept saying 'everything is ok, no US people here, we are driving them out'. Lol. I think they kept broadcasting those messages even after Baghdad was lost.

It's the epitome of denial.

[Ferzerp]

Baghdad Bob...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

Originally Posted by wikipedia

On April 7, 2003, two days before Baghdad fell to US forces, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. He made this statement while standing on the east bank of the Dijli (Tigris) River in the center of Baghdad. His back was to the river and reporters could see two American Army M1 Abrams tanks behind him on a road on the far side of the river. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

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

There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.

Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.

[Smartazz]

Originally Posted by Arkaign

There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.

Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.

Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by Smartazz

Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.

It really has to do with what the competition is like. An Nvidia card capable of performing like your 7950 uses not much of a different power profile. That's a giant contrast to say 2500k @ 4.8 vs. 8350 @ 4.8. When you're talking well over 100W difference or more, that begins to demand not only a more expensive cooler to maintain, but a more expensive power supply as well. And if you're cutting it close, then you have to be more careful with GPU options.

[Arkaign]

At 4.8Ghz, an 8350 used 364W (!!!), contrast that to 3770K @ 4.8ghz using only 244W. That eats a lot of potential wattage you could use for GPUs. (per Bit-Tech).

I will admit handily that the 8350 is a huge improvement over 8150 in that regard though!

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by Smartazz

Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.

It is not just the power, it is the performance you get for that power. If it were faster in the wide majority of apps, I dont think so many people would criticize AMDs power usage. The problem is that in most apps it is slower and uses more power as well.

To phrase it in terms of a graphics card, more power used gets more performance. Not necessarily so with Bulldozer.

[Rifter]

They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by Rifter

They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.

Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts.

For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.

[Rifter]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts.

For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.

I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.

[Idontcare]

Originally Posted by Rifter

They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.

AMD resigned themselves to having virtually no control over their fate in terms of power-consumption characteristics of the future nodes with which they aim to leverage in competing against Intel when they elected to spin out their fabs.

Once they did that they basically limited themselves to competing only with other fabless companies (like Nvidia and Qualcomm, but not Intel).

That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by Rifter

I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.

My Thuban agrees with you.

[mrmt]

Originally Posted by Idontcare

That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.

Do you really think that AMD the smallest idea they were making that trade off? The ATI decision predates Conroe, and the GLF deal three years after was simply rushed. I think AMD management weren't ready for Conroe, which wiped them out of the high end market, but more important, they weren't ready for tick-tock, which placed a competitive pressure that AMD could not bear.