AMD back in gear, Centurion FX

[galego]

Agreed. bgt's numbers not only point out the 100 w gap between the 8350 and the 3770k but show that the 3770k running 100watts cooler performs significantly better.

LOAD delta in Watts between FX-8350 and i7-3770k.

Anandtech: 75.4
Tech Report (*): 96
CPU Boss: 54
Toms: 88
Legit: 56
Xbits: 87
PcPer: 75
Bit Tech: 47

Average: 70 W
Variation: 50 W.


(*) I did an analysis of this review in another thread explaining why they got that abnormally large value and how a more realistic value was much less.

EDIT: Overclock3D reports 40 W between the FX-8350 and i7-3770k at load.

 

[guskline]

LOAD delta in Watts between FX-8350 and i7-3770k.

Anandtech: 75.4
Tech Report (*): 96
CPU Boss: 54
Toms: 88
Legit: 56
Xbits: 87
PcPer: 75
Bit Tech: 47

Average: 70 W
Variation: 50 W.


(*) I did an analysis of this review in another thread explaining why they got that abnormally large value and how a more realistic value was much less.

Funny thing. I OWN both a 3770k AND a FX8350 and my actual measurements with my Kill A Watt model P4400.01 device running a variety of benchmarks support the 100 watt variation at my OC speeds.. Perhaps you would care to read IDC's analysis also. It is very detailed and I believe also supports the variation. Also ask the MSI engineers their take on the 8350 power draw

BTW, What CPUs do you own galego?

 

[Phynaz]

When did the Federal Trade Commision count as AMD fanboys? The FTC settlement included a disclosure provision where Intel must:

You still ignore the fact that Intel's compiler produces better code for AMD than other compilers.

Why?

 

[guskline]

LOAD delta in Watts between FX-8350 and i7-3770k.

Anandtech: 75.4
Tech Report (*): 96
CPU Boss: 54
Toms: 88
Legit: 56
Xbits: 87
PcPer: 75
Bit Tech: 47

Average: 70 W
Variation: 50 W.


(*) I did an analysis of this review in another thread explaining why they got that abnormally large value and how a more realistic value was much less.

Sir: Quite simply have you, or have you not run your own power usage tests on the 3770k vs FX8350 or are you relying on what you've read online? My tests were run on the rigs I post in my sig.

 

[Idontcare]

I find it hard to justify going from an fx-8320 down to anything lower, though maybe it's just a side effect of living close to a microcenter.

8350 $179
8320 $139
6300 $119
4130 $99

I can see some reason to go down to an 8320 if you don't need the performance of an 8350, but given the total cost for the PC once you include motherboard, power supply, video card, etc the $20 difference to give up 2 cores in a downgrade doesn't seem worth while, at least in my eyes. It's just that the 8320 is already so cheap you don't save much by going any lower.

I agree. I went through a similar cost/benefits analysis when deciding whether I'd get myself the 8320 or the 8350.

In the end I opted for the 8350 for two reasons. (1) it has been validated to 4.2GHz operation with vastly better stress testers at AMD compared to anything I can throw at it in my den (I wanted that head-start before I began extrapolating the clockspeeds with overclocking), and (2) the 8320's are more likely to be populated with the crap silicon that didn't/couldn't make the power consumption requirements for binning as 8350's.

 

[galego]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-bulldozer-performance,3289-7.html

Amazing gains for 8350 there on windows. All of 2%.

That is for Bulldozer. 8350 is Piledriver. The 2% is for average of the applications that they tested not for all. They did not test any application with greater gains

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html

Some examples with games

 

[galego]

What I want is the chip that works best and most efficiently in the current environment, however that came to be. That chip is not the 8350 unless you are running the subset of apps at which the 8350 excels.

I will try to explain this once again:

I find no problem with people saying this chip run faster this benchmark or this app than this other chip. But other people here find a BIG problem when it is explained that part of that difference in performance is not due to one chip being infinitely better than the other, but also due to other factors such as biased benchmarks, outdated schedulers,...

Your argument against the 8350 can be easily inverted:

That chip is not the 3770K unless you are running the subset of apps at which the 3770K excels.

It is like saying a car will run great on liquid hydrogen. It is the fault of the automotive industry that almost all cars now run on gasoline. Well, give me a car that runs well on gasoline, because like it or not, that is what is available now.

It is more like a cheating gas station with sensors that detect the model car and brand and silently gives the lowest possible octane gasoline to cars of one brand, but higher octane gasoline to cars of another brand in despite both engines supporting the higher octane gasoline.

 

[galego]

You were arguing that saving a few dollars a month was not significant because other expenses cost a lot more.

That was not my point.

 

[Enigmoid]

That is for Bulldozer. 8350 is Piledriver. The 2% is for average of the applications that they tested not for all. They did not test any application with greater gains

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html

Some examples with games

Please don't post amd slides (it looks like a slide but cant confirm). They are about as correct as intel slides. (They both exaggerate things). Independant Reviews please.

On average improvements are 2%. NOT 10%. Thats pretty much imperceptible.

I'm assuming that bulldozer and piledriver (both with a very similar architecture--module design and same/similar scheduler) will get very similar results. Its not an unreasonable assumption to make.

 

[galego]

You still ignore the fact that Intel's compiler produces better code for AMD than other compilers.

Why?

Basically two reasons: Your "than other compilers" was useless because is vague. It does not address the point about the Intel compiler forcing slowest possible code for non-intel chips even when the non-intel chip can run the fastest code.

 

[Phynaz]

Translation - it doesn't fit your agenda.
Got it.

 

[Phynaz]

Sir: Quite simply have you, or have you not run your own power usage tests on the 3770k vs FX8350 or are you relying on what you've read online? My tests were run on the rigs I post in my sig.

He's not going to answer you Gus.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I will try to explain this once again:

I find no problem with people saying this chip run faster this benchmark or this app than this other chip. But other people here find a BIG problem when it is explained that part of that difference in performance is not due to one chip being infinitely better than the other, but also due to other factors such as biased benchmarks, outdated schedulers,...

Your argument against the 8350 can be easily inverted:





It is more like a cheating gas station with sensors that detect the model car and brand and silently gives the lowest possible octane gasoline to cars of one brand, but higher octane gasoline to cars of another brand in despite both engines supporting the higher octane gasoline.

You can say whatever you want. The facts, however, show in anand's bench that 3770k wins 25 out of 30 tests vs the 8350. Many of the Intel wins are also by a large margin while the few wins by the 8350 are mostly by a small margin.

 

[Abwx]

Please don't post amd slides (it looks like a slide but can confirm). They are about as correct as intel slides. (They both exaggerate things). Independant Reviews please.

Dare to find a counter exemple rather than empty words?

If he did just a claim you would have asked him a source ,
here it is , from AMD , but all you are doing is discarding
it under the bad reason that it s as credible as intel...

 

[galego]

Translation - it doesn't fit your agenda.
Got it.

You don't got it. You did the vague claim and I suspect why. I am asking you to repeat the claim but being more precise.

 

[Abwx]

You can say whatever you want. The facts, however, show in anand's bench that 3770k wins 25 out of 30 tests vs the 8350. Many of the Intel wins are also by a large margin while the few wins by the 8350 are mostly by a small margin.

Thanks to outdated test as winrar 3.8 ?..

Or sysmark.?..

 

[galego]

You can say whatever you want. The facts, however, show in anand's bench that 3770k wins 25 out of 30 tests vs the 8350. Many of the Intel wins are also by a large margin while the few wins by the 8350 are mostly by a small margin.

I can give you benchmarks where both tie. I can give you benchmarks where the FX is 30--70% faster than the i7.

And I can explain to you which of your benchmarsk are fair, which are biased/cheating...

 

[Sleepingforest]

Dare to find a counter exemple rather than empty words?

If he did just a claim you would have asked him a source ,
here it is , from AMD , but all you are doing is discarding
it under the bad reason that it s as credible as intel...

Wait, that's not a bad reason at all. Here's just one example of AMD exaggerating things: they have Intel's RAM cost more (when it is really identical) and compare their latest CPU to the top-end year old Intel processor when there is a $800 less modern competitor.

Both AMD and Intel are going to spin things as much as possible within their own slides.

 

[Headfoot]

I can give you benchmarks where both tie. I can give you benchmarks where the FX is 30--70% faster than the i7.

And I can explain to you which of your benchmarsk are fair, which are biased/cheating...

In the Anandtech forums, Anandtech reviews are the ones that count. Otherwise why post here?

 

[Abwx]

In the Anandtech forums, Anandtech reviews are the ones that count. Otherwise why post here?

More bad faith...

So TR or HFR are forcibly BS .?..

 

[frozentundra123456]

I can give you benchmarks where both tie. I can give you benchmarks where the FX is 30--70% faster than the i7.

And I can explain to you which of your benchmarsk are fair, which are biased/cheating...

What benchmarks are "fair"? Apparently only the ones that fit your bias.

In my opinion AT is the best review site on the net. Perhaps he should hire you to "explain" how his benchmarks are unfair an to overhaul his testing methodology.

 

[Abwx]

In my opinion AT is the best review site on the net.

Yes , the very best one that did use a 45/55W IB
to show how good and competitive HD4000 was
compared to a 35W Trinity.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes , the very best one that did use a 45/55W IB
to show how good and competitive HD4000 was
compared to a 35W Trinity.

If you think Anands reviews are so unfair, why do you post here?

 

[Abwx]

If you think Anands reviews are so unfair, why do you post here?

To balance the systematic bias from posters like you.

 

[jhu]

You still ignore the fact that Intel's compiler produces better code for AMD than other compilers.

Why?

That may have been the case in the past, but the latest gcc has reached parity on Intel and AMD x86-64 processors (at least it has on the programs I've tested on).