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

[AtenRa]

Originally Posted by Mallibu

When you want to show FX's performance, you're claiming 7zipping and video encoding all day long is "everyday use"

When you want to show FX's power consumption, then "gaming is everyday use"

How about an interesting twist and judge FX by it's gaming performance, and it's power consumpion when it's actually 100% used (video encoding ). All this situation cherry picking is nice and all but gets old quickly.

First of all, i havent said that only gaming is everyday use.
Secondly, i cannot isolate the CPU and measure the power consumption. Video encoding stresses the entire system, the CPU, Motherboard(Chipset), memory etc.

So yes, the system above(FX8150@4.6GHz) has 128watt idle and uses ~380W in Cinebench. Does that mean that the CPU uses 380-128 = 252Watt ??

[Haserath]

Originally Posted by AtenRa

First of all, i havent said that only gaming is everyday use.
Secondly, i cannot isolate the CPU and measure the power consumption. Video encoding stresses the entire system, the CPU, Motherboard(Chipset), memory etc.

So yes, the system above(FX8150@4.6GHz) has 128watt idle and uses ~380W in Cinebench. Does that mean that the CPU uses 380-128 = 252Watt ??

Overclocked Bulldozer V1? Most likely, yes.

I'd say it's well over 200W even if it's not quite 252W.

[AtenRa]

hmmm, ~380 was with the HD7950,

FX8150 @ 3.6GHz (1.428v) (240MHz bus) Turbo Off
Mem at 963MHz
HD7950

Idle = 101Watt.
Cinebench 11.5 64bit = 312W MAX on the wall

FX8150 @ 4.6GHz (1.428v) (240MHz bus) Turbo Off
Mem at 963MHz
HD7950

Idle = 105Watt.
Cinebench 11.5 64bit = 378W MAX on the wall

That is ~66W more, lets just say that we add that 66W to the original TDP of 125W, then we have 191W. Let's just say a round 200Watts for the CPU, that is way bellow of what the GTX480 consumes.

[infoiltrator]

It works.
Some love it, some hate it.

For most people in general use either choice works.

For a CPU that can draw over 200 watts I want a better motherboard and cooling, add run costs, it does not appeal to me. At least for what I do.

For most people on a budget i5 3570K just does better. Without Overclocking it is a 77 watt CPU vs 125.
And it includes HD4000, which, despite AMD Fusion, FX has none.
FX also passes on PCIe3.0x16.

Not serious concerns? Worth consideration?

[infoiltrator]

Second thought the same argument, HD4000 and PCIe3.0x16 (i3 3225), makes the the 4170/4300 less desirable too.

Wish the i5 3330 was HD4000 instead of HD2500.

[AtenRa]

Originally Posted by infoiltrator

Second thought the same argument, HD4000 and PCIe3.0x16 (i3 3225), makes the the 4170/4300 less desirable too.

Wish the i5 3330 was HD4000 instead of HD2500.

Third thought,

For $15.00 more over the Intel Core i3 3225($144,99) you get the AMD A8-5600K + ASRock FM2A75M-DGS.

Unlocked Quad core + Mobo, makes the Core i3 3225 less desirable

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=AD560KBOX