Worth going from a phenom II 960 to a fx 8350 ?

[ShreddedWheat]

I would keep current setup. Crossfire 6950s is powerful. The anandtech benchmarks of your current vs 8320 is minimal in gaming for the price per performance. I would hold out longer and eventually upgrade to intel in a few years. Just my thoughts

[Tsavo]

Originally Posted by eastyy123

would be for mostly games and sometimes using handbrake.Graphics cards are a crossfire 6950 and have 6gb of ram (considering upgrading that as its slow ram 1333mhz though dunno if that will make a huge difference )

the phenom II i currently have does unlock to the six cores (but any over clocking at all makes it very unstable )

Lick it and stick it. 8350 is an easy choice for a good upgrade.

[Gikaseixas]

It's a drop in upgrade, get a FX 8320, oc it to 4.6-4.7ghz and call it a day. I really cannot understand how can anyone recommend Intel to someone who has a AM3+ MB already.

[guskline]

Originally Posted by zCypher

What kind of power and cooling requirements to run it safe and stable at 4.6GHz in the long run? Honest question, coming from a Thuban/212 user that can't get a stable 4.0.

See rig #3 Below. FX8350 OC'd to 4.64GHz (23x202) ROCK solid. Run OCCT 1hr stable, no errors, AMD OD stability test all features stressed 1 hr no errors IBT 20x no errors. Runs prime 95 but shows slight error in cores 7,8 (this is documented error in most piledrivers likely related to coding in Prime95). I have Corsair h100 cooling and an Antec 750W Gamer. I previously had a Bulldozer 8150. The 8350 is faster with less power draw. HONEST max power for entire system running IBT 20x was 433 watts for the 8150 and 376watts for the 8350.

[guskline]

Also from what I see on the forums, most 8350s clock higher than the 8320s. The 8120s were closer to the 8150s. If you have a Sabertooth FX990 mb like me (Rev 1 with 1604 latest bios) you can't go wrong with the 8350.

[guskline]

Originally Posted by BD231

Dont go from one pieve of crap to another, youll just have to upgrade sooner anyway.

I have 2 2500k rigs below also and they are outstanding. I have both OC'd to 4.53 Ghz (44x103) could go higher but why? For you to make such a quote above tells me you have never owned or used either a 960T or a FX8350. Or have you.

[guskline]

Originally Posted by Greenlepricon

8350 keeps up with the 2500k pretty well. Of course if you had the mobo or lived close to a microcenter it might be worth switching over. If you're like me and have an AM3+ board (which you do) and live 700 miles from the nearest microcenter, you can't go wrong with piledriver.

My opinion is go for it. Get a 8320 for $170 rather than switching over to Intel for $300+.

Couldn't agree more. Been testing my 8350 at 4.64Ghz vs my 2500ks at 4.53Ghz. In Aida64 better mem scores for the 2500s but the 8350 is nearly equal in CPU Queen 41123 for the 8350, 42991 for the 2500k. In Cinebench 11.5 CPU the 8350 was 7.97 while the 2500k was 7.17. In Povray Version 3.7 RC6 the 8350 took 2 minutes 30 seconds to render while the 2500k took 3 minutes 23 seconds.

What I find distressing is the rhetoric on both sides calling the other chip crap. If you want to beat up the Bulldozer 8150 for being overpriced, too hot and not fast enough in single threads to compete with the SandyBridges OK. I HAVE a FX8350, (Rig3 below) and I have 2 2500k rigs below. All three are fine. Gaming is SLIGHTLY better on the Intel rigs but frankly that's only because synthetic benchmarks say so. However 2 of the synthectic benchmarks I quoted above show the 8350 besting the 2500k. Does that give me liberty to call the 2500k "crap"? NO!
I would say that IF you already owned a Asus Sabertooth FX990 AM3+ mb and want to get the most overall performance both gaming, video editing and multi threaded apps, it's hard to go wrong with a FX8350 or if you want to spend less a 8320.

[guskline]

Originally Posted by Gikaseixas

It's a drop in upgrade, get a FX 8320, oc it to 4.6-4.7ghz and call it a day. I really cannot understand how can anyone recommend Intel to someone who has a AM3+ MB already.

Another person who HAS both types of cpus. Great post. HOT cars. LORDY!!!!!!!

[tulx]

I just switched from a 960t to a 8350 and couldn't be happier

[guskline]

Originally Posted by tulx

I just switched from a 960t to a 8350 and couldn't be happier

Tell us the rest of your specs.

[tulx]

Originally Posted by guskline

Tell us the rest of your specs.

Sabertooth 990fx 2.0, FX 8350 under a Phanteks PH-TC14PE, two 5870ies in crossfire, 8 GB Crucial Ballistix Tactical DDR3-1600 DIMM CL8-8-8-24, Crucial M4 for OS and games, Windows 8

Haven't OC'ed yet - will do that in the weekend.

PS - the 5870ies are cooled by Accelero XTREME coolers - the stock XFX coolers couldn't sustain normal temperatures under load.

[guskline]

VERY nice rig! I read that the Rev 2 Sabertooths (I have a Rev 1) are the best overclockers. I think you will be very pleased with the upgrade. Good luck.

[BD231]

Originally Posted by guskline

I have 2 2500k rigs below also and they are outstanding. I have both OC'd to 4.53 Ghz (44x103) could go higher but why? For you to make such a quote above tells me you have never owned or used either a 960T or a FX8350. Or have you.

Family member still has my Phenom II x6, and yea why go higher just because you can who ever does that. Piledriver is a furnace overclocked I wouldn't recommend it, that's all.

[guskline]

BD231, I also owned an 1100Thuban and it was a solid chip but just not as advanced, overall, as an FX 8350. No doubt that Overclocked the 8150 could be a "furnace". From my experience, the 8350 has made signifcant improvements on the heat output. Kind of like the GTX670 has really improved over the GTX 480 in heat.

[BD231]

Improvements? Last I checked an overclocked Vishera uses more power than a GTX 480. Enjoy your chip

[inf64]

I'm sure he does

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by BD231

Improvements? Last I checked an overclocked Vishera uses more power than a GTX 480. Enjoy your chip

Your comment intriqued me, about an overclocked Vishera using as much power as a GTX480. I didn't think that was likely to be true, but who knows? So, I did some searching... I think your comment is a bit misleading.

According to Anandtech's review of the GTX480, their test system uses 190 watts at idle. Fire Furmark up and you get 479, meaning the GTX480 uses 289 of those watts, plus whatever it was using at idle. So probably pretty close to the 300 watt ATX limit or whatever it was that was talked about quite a bit.


Also according to Anandtech's review of Vishera, an overclocked 8350 system @ 4.8GHz users 294.3 watts... for the whole system. Anandtech shows that the system used 74.2 watts at idle, that was with the system not overclocked, though. So if we are generous, and say that at idle 50% of the power is Vishera (probably much less than that) we get only ~260 watts being used by a very highly overclocked and overvolted chip, and likely a good bit less than that as I doubt it uses 37 watts at idle.

Techpowerup measured 205 watts for a 5GHz 8350 and only 254 watts for the entire system with the CPU at load.


I guess I am not seeing Vishera, even when overclocked and given a few voltage bumps getting to bone stock GTX480 levels. Maybe not really far from it, but it wouldn't appear that it is actually using more, there is still a pretty big cushion there. It appears to me that a highly overclocked and overvolted Vishera is more in the lowish 200 watt range. Still a lot worse than Intel chips, but it would appear that it isn't at the levels you suggest either.

[guskline]

Slowspyder, in terms of power usage what BD231 beats me in cpu usage (2550k @4.7Ghz vs 8350 @4.64Ghz) is probably negated by my using a GTX 670 vs him using a GTX480 overclocked.

I'll run the power usages tonite of the rigs that have the same video card GTX670 FTW with one having the 2500k OC'd to 4.53Ghz and the other having a 8350 @4.64Ghz and tell you the difference.

I use a Kill-O-Meter attached to the power cord for the computer. The monitor is attached seperately. I run Intel Burn test 20x which stresses the CPU the most. I monitor the highest wattage used and will report it. From what I've read the GTX480 uses 80 watts more than the GTX670.

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by guskline

Slowspyder, in terms of power usage what BD231 beats me in cpu usage (2550k @4.7Ghz vs 8350 @4.64Ghz) is probably negated by my using a GTX 670 vs him using a GTX480 overclocked.

I'll run the power usages tonite of the rigs that have the same video card GTX670 FTW with one having the 2500k OC'd to 4.53Ghz and the other having a 8350 @4.64Ghz and tell you the difference.

I use a Kill-O-Meter attached to the power cord for the computer. The monitor is attached seperately. I run Intel Burn test 20x which stresses the CPU the most. I monitor the highest wattage used and will report it. From what I've read the GTX480 uses 80 watts more than the GTX670.

I have absolutely zero doubt whatsoever that a 2500K uses a LOT less power than an 8350. And I wouldn't be surprised that as you add voltage and clock speed to both, if the 8350 starts to consume more, the gap widens. But his comment was that an overclocked Vishera uses more power than a GTX480 (which we all know got right up near that 300 watt mark). That would have been surprising to me, so I did some looking around and feel like he was not correct with that statement.

Since Vishera launched I have stated that I think the performance is quite solid, not amazing, certainly not worth selling a Sandy or Ivy set up for, but an all around decent performer... even if still somewhat lacking in single threaded applications. I think its power use has certainly improved compared to Bulldozer, but still not good enough. I think the performance has overall been good enough, though. So please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying for a second that Vishera is better than Sandy or Ivy. But I do feel it is a real good improvement, and for some people it may even be a better choice that similarly priced Intel chips. I don't think Bulldozer was ever really a better choice.

Switching gears here, just wondering out loud for the sake of discussion, I wonder what Bulldozer and Piledriver could have been if AMD had the same fabrication process as Intel. I imagine with power use in check, and Intel's manufacturing tech allowing for higher clockspeeds AMD could have a really interesting part. It would seem they still aimed too high with the technology they have to build chips.

[tulx]

Originally Posted by guskline

VERY nice rig! I read that the Rev 2 Sabertooths (I have a Rev 1) are the best overclockers. I think you will be very pleased with the upgrade. Good luck.

Thanks. Just tested the build in BF3. The aim of constant 60fps is achieved. The game uses ALL cores to about 50-60%. This is at stock 4GHz. The 960t, unlocked to 6 cores and OC'ed to 3,9 GHz, was at 100% almost constantly.

Disclaimer - the Phanteks cooler is an Royal pain to install. I remember the Noctua NH-D14 (a very similar cooler) being a LOT easier.

The Sabertooth 2.0 looks almost identical to the original. I think Win8 did spot the change and needed a minute to adjust. There are some IO port adjustments. But seems very nice, just as the original. That'll land in my fiancés PC along with the 960t and Noctua cooler.

[guskline]

I changed back to stock 8350 and ran IBT. It showed a high of 247 watts vs 373 watts for my 4.64 setting. Frankly I'm going to stay at stock for a week before I decide if I OC. The turbo on stock gets me to 4.2Ghz and I run at a minimum of 4 ghz so not a whole lot lower than the OC but power usage is way down, BTW the OC 2500k at stock voltage uses 197 watts so yes it is lower. I'll keep you posted on the performance of the stock 8350. It runs cinebench 11.5 at 6.92.

[Fallengod]

Of course the 2500k is lower....thats pretty much true for all intel processors. One of the reasons I dont use AMD anymore.

[Gikaseixas]

Originally Posted by guskline

Another person who HAS both types of cpus. Great post. HOT cars. LORDY!!!!!!!

Love my i7 to death, it's still a very fast cpu and chews everything you throw at it (amazing 8 thread cpu lol). Got the FX 8350 just to see how it would run and man it's a huge improvement over anything AMD had before. It's faster than my rig #1 and owes nothing to a 2500K. My brother in law has a 2500k and benchmarks are virtually split between the two.

Thanks, just got the Mitsubishi since i'm into real 4x4's. The BMW is more for the road, great car.

[AtenRa]

Originally Posted by Gikaseixas

Love my i7 to death, it's still a very fast cpu and chews everything you throw at it (amazing 8 thread cpu lol). Got the FX 8350 just to see how it would run and man it's a huge improvement over anything AMD had before. It's faster than my rig #1 and owes nothing to a 2500K. My brother in law has a 2500k and benchmarks are virtually split between the two.

Yeap, i still use my Core i7 920@4GHz as my main system but i will change in a few days to 3770K. People that havent used both CPU camps have no idea that for everyday use (gaming included) there is no substantial difference between all those high end CPUs.

[Fallengod]

Originally Posted by AtenRa

Yeap, i still use my Core i7 920@4GHz as my main system but i will change in a few days to 3770K. People that havent used both CPU camps have no idea that for everyday use (gaming included) there is no substantial difference between all those high end CPUs.

Of course because "everyday use" youre utilizing very minimal amount of cpu power. And gaming, theres obviously going to be a difference there but that is using GPU for the most part.

For "everyday use" I dont even notice much difference between my old E6400 C2D vs my i5-2500k.