AMD FX 8350 Winning against i5/i7?

[podspi]

Yes, and there are legitimate reasons for buying the 6300/8300 series CPUs. One must be prepared for the power usage, weakness in single-threaded (this can be somewhat disastrous with horribly coded stuff like SC2), etc, but that's really no problem for an educated consumer. If one doesn't have a MC local, then pricing out an AMD FX build can make sense for the right workload. The MC discounts are nuts though, and make the FX kind of senseless. Example I picked up a 2700K for $159, no rebate, just $159. It runs ice cold (relatively speaking) at 4.8Ghz without crushing it with voltage. But I think most people don't live near a MC, and it gets murkier for someone who might do a lot of video work (Premiere/etc) when the 8300 is in the ballpark of 3570 pricing.

Wow! How did I miss that?! They are selling the 3770K for $229.99 now though...

 

[Maximilian]

if you're running at 1080p resolution or higher it seems like it's pretty much a wash:

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3714/radeon-hd-7970-and-geforce-gtx-680-tested-with-10-cpus

For future potential AMD chips fail, they wont remain capable for as long as the intel chips do, thats only shown in low res CPU straining benches.

Same story as phenom II vs 1st gen i7, the old i7's still whoop ass today, phenom II's are pretty meh.

 

[felang]

For future potential AMD chips fail, they wont remain capable for as long as the intel chips do, thats only shown in low res CPU straining benches.

Same story as phenom II vs 1st gen i7, the old i7's still whoop ass today, phenom II's are pretty meh.

Exactly, would love to see a phenom II vs. old i7´s in a cpu limited game, like for example BF3 multiplayer

 

[piesquared]

Round 2: Overclocking.


I like this dudes dispelling of the power draw meme. Basically the 30 bucks saved with the FX8350 would more than offset any minimal power bill increase over 3 years...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...ues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[StrangerGuy]

Round 2: Overclocking.


I like this dudes dispelling of the power draw meme. Basically the 30 bucks saved with the FX8350 would more than offset any minimal power bill increase over 3 years...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...ues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Let's quietly ignore the cooling costs too! Not to mention the the stock Intel cooler is a decent performer while the AMD one is noisy POS even without OC.

 

[boxleitnerb]

And those results too make no sense whatsoever. What a fraud

 

[bunnyfubbles]

It really sucks they pretty much seem to be avoiding games where BD/PD struggles (at least according to other reviews) and yet feel comfortable making a rather blanket conclusion that the 8350 is just as good if not better than the 3570K with remarks like "it wins 9 times out of 10"

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and they don't even provide results for 10 games to even backup that claim (I suppose they ran more than 10 tests if we consider both 1080p and 1440p results for all the games, but even then the 9 out of 10 doesn't hold up)

I will say that while I'm skeptical, I'm not exactly completely writing off their results, if anything these guys have got me thinking that there don't appear to be that many (if any) really in-depth reviews for these chips as far as gaming goes, most seem to stop after just 3 or 4 games, or that they gear the review more towards testing the CPU than testing it for real-world gaming scenarios

 

[frozentundra123456]

Round 2: Overclocking.


I like this dudes dispelling of the power draw meme. Basically the 30 bucks saved with the FX8350 would more than offset any minimal power bill increase over 3 years...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...ues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

If you look at the recent Toms Hardware article, it shows FX8350 vs 3770K using approximately 100 watts more when the CPU is loaded, with or without GPU load.
If you use the cpu at near max 6 hours per day that is 100x6=0.6kwh per day. If you assume 15c per kwh, including taxes, fees, etc on the basic charge that is 90 cents per day or 32.00 per year.

You can change the assumptions to make the figure more or less but it is obvious if you use the system heavily for 3 or 4 years, you will have paid much more than the initial savings in extra electricity costs.

Edit-- sorry, meant 9 cents per day, but the final figure of 32.00 per year is correct.

 

[AtenRa]

Let's quietly ignore the cooling costs too! Not to mention the the stock Intel cooler is a decent performer while the AMD one is noisy POS even without OC.

Really ??? have you owned an FX CPU lately to know how noisy the HSF is ???

 

[StrangerGuy]

Really ??? have you owned an FX CPU lately to know how noisy the HSF is ???

It's the exact same thing as the 955 BE stock cooler. Still want to use that lame excuse again?

Oh, and keep using more "???" and "!!!" in your sentences if you want to be treated like a 12-year old.

 

[AtenRa]

It's the exact same thing as the 955 BE stock cooler. Still want to use that lame excuse again?

Oh, and keep using more "???" and "!!!" in your sentences if you want to be treated like a 12-year old.

You still haven't answered if you have used an FX CPU with the default HSF.

 

[bgt]

Round 2: Overclocking.I like this dudes dispelling of the power draw meme. Basically the 30 bucks saved with the FX8350 would more than offset any minimal power bill increase over 3 years...http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-...ues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Awesome video really. Funny how people protect the Intel CPU. I have them both next to each other and believe it or not.................there is no difference(on stock the FX feels snappier). The Intel stock cooler is not enough anyway when doing prime95(the 3770K is a hot CPU and needs proper cooling). The AMD cooler is a bummer. Its ok for a 4300.

 

[2is]

If you don't see the AMD bias with that guy you'd have to be blind. Ill go with every single professional review over what this clown says.

 

[jvroig]

It's the exact same thing as the 955 BE stock cooler

To be fair, it is not as simple and clear-cut as you lay it out to be. The 125W stock AMD cooler (AVC-made, with copper base and heatpipes) can be very noisy (shrieking, high-pitched noise) at max RPM, but at 60% and below, it is much quieter and hardly a bother. In normal day-to-day use, with smart fan control properly enabled, you'd barely get to hear the fan unless you are somehow loading all cores heavily very regularly. That would depend on the specific use case of the PC/user.

It is also a very nice cooler. Unlike the thin aluminum coolers of Intel, the AVC HSF used by AMD for 125W TDP CPUs are actually good performers (this has been reviewed by Frosty Tech years ago, and here it is in the results table for the CM Hyper212+, look for AVC Z7U7414001 - for 125W loads, the difference is 2.6C). Of course, the noise at full RPM is egregious, but it doesn't have to be in full RPM all the time.

Given how much less power and heat the Intel CPU's need to dissipate compared to some AMD CPU's, it is understandable that the Intel setups may find more OC headroom despite a smaller, lower-performing HSF bundled with them. This is completely the fault of the respective CPU's, and not the cooler.

The stock AMD coolers are fine and have great cooling potential, they are in no way a "POS" especially if by the same measure you say the Intel stock HSF is "a decent performer". The chips since Bulldozer, on the other hand, are much more debatable.

 

[Ibra]

You were saying? :awe:

 

[Abwx]

That your graphs are irrelevants.

Where is the FX83XX on thoses..?

 

[2is]

That your graphs are irrelevants.

Where is the FX83XX on thoses..?

It's not there, but if you know your processors you'd know it would sit slightly above the 8150. In other words, no comparison to a SB i5 or i7

 

[bgt]

Real life is not about benchmarks only. Daily use shows a completely different picture. @stock they are very equal and energywise(full load only) Intel is very good at that. But in total costs of energy.........again daily use=minor differences=not important. If you can buy an Intel i7 system you are not a really poor guy.

 

[Abwx]

We can see in theses chart that going from 2 cores to 4 cores scale
very well with the intel cpus but curiously , doing the same with
a phenom X2 to a phenom X4 give almost the same framerates.

Very well choosen game , indeed , it show even more than what it was
supposed to do....

 

[Haserath]

If you don't see the AMD bias with that guy you'd have to be blind. Ill go with every single professional review over what this clown says.

At stock AMD would actually have a slight advantage, I believe.

He reviewed them at stock.

But who leaves these processors at stock?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

That your graphs are irrelevants.

Where is the FX83XX on thoses..?

I know AMD made some respectable improvements when going to Piledriver from Bulldozer, but some of these results look like too much for those improvements to even begin to cover that gap, even if we add 11% to the scores to make up the 3.6GHz -> 4GHz clock rate and then another 5-10% on top of that for architecture improvements I just don't see how some of these deltas are impacted at all (of which we'd also have to adjust for the fact that the latest intel CPUs in these tests are Sandy, not Ivy):

=========
Here we begin to see where I think the work Teksyndicate has done might be seriously flawed, as these following results tend to agree with their findings in that AMD actually does surprisingly well in some games such as BF3 and FC3

The problem is what about all those other games where the AMD architecture appears to be painfully far behind? This is a major reason why I wish they would have benched a ton more games before coming to such a blanketing conclusion

Someone might buy an 8350 and be happy when playing Crysis 1 and 2, FarCry 3, and Battlefield 3, but as soon as they try out Planetside 2 or Crysis 3, their decision to go with AMD suddenly isn't looking so good.

 

[amenx]

If you don't see the AMD bias with that guy you'd have to be blind. Ill go with every single professional review over what this clown says.

Yep, not sure if its in this vid, but in another one he mentions Intel compiled benchmarks and how they have flags to detect AMD CPUs and not run optimally. I knew right then that he had something more than these gaming demos that he wanted to get across.

 

[guskline]

bgt, nice array of machines. I have 4 rigs. 2 2500ks a 8150 and a 8350. How does the 2500k stack up against the 3770k?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Real life is not about benchmarks only. Daily use shows a completely different picture. @stock they are very equal and energywise(full load only) Intel is very good at that. But in total costs of energy.........again daily use=minor differences=not important. If you can buy an Intel i7 system you are not a really poor guy.

Benchmarks are the only objective way to compare 2 pieces of hardware. Anyone can say anything they want about how something "feels". I work in medical research, so maybe we can start submitting papers now without bothering with getting any data. We can just say it "feels" like the drug we are studying is helping the subjects.

 

[bgt]

Benchmarks are the only objective way to compare 2 pieces of hardware. Anyone can say anything they want about how something "feels". I work in medical research, so maybe we can start submitting papers now without bothering with getting any data. We can just say it "feels" like the drug we are studying is helping the subjects.

Benchmarks can be manipulated in software. Medicine also in hardware