AMD FX 8350 Winning against i5/i7?

[notty22]

Random links to graphs.jpg from forums without the links to the reviews, probably in some fav folder. AMDwins.amdisstaying /
Where is that .pdf where AMD wants a Intel rig as the test bench for their gpu's ?
OMG , that's damming!

edit: I noticed the 8320 is selling as low as 155 @TD and 160.00 @Amazon, AMD will move some chips at those prices, I'd think.

 

[Torn Mind]

Most reviewers got paybacks for reviewing the FX series in negative light.

Then, I'll be surprised when the next FX series has 20 cores and everyone praises them.

20 cores would shoot the TDP of that processor up so much the clockspeed would be severely decreased. And those 20 cores aren't going to do jack shit if the program itself is not coded to do so, and not even BF3 multiplayer scales up to 20 cores.

 

[NostaSeronx]

20 cores would shoot the TDP of that processor up so much the clockspeed would be severely decreased. And those 20 cores aren't going to do jack shit if the program itself is not coded to do so, and not even BF3 multiplayer scales up to 20 cores.

Well, Intel is adding the 180W TDP moniker to the LGA 2011 socket. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD would follow suit with a 20 core CPU on the GC36 socket which is stated to compete with LGA 2011.

- GC36 is the new AM(x) for CPU-only enthusiasts.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

This guy has really opened a can of worms. So the first link is very very important because he was surprised with the test results. To be sure, he repeated the tests again.

Of course the first link is important, its why this entire thread exists in the first place, but apparently you decided not to read anything beyond the title of the thread before "contributing" your input.

I'm not surprised that the Words like "Cherry picking", "selection bias" and "the exception, not the norm" are used to downplay AMD winnings over and over...

and I'm not surprised you apparently don't know and/or don't care about the meanings of any of those terms

Here is another interesting benchmark of the 95W AMD FX-8300:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14652801/Xt...0, 1,45V, Cinebench 11, 8 core, BIOS 1201.jpg

about as interesting as all the other benchmarks that show intel with the advantage

Nicolaus Copernicus showed the world that the Earth goes around the Sun. First, the people didn't believe him.

Copernicus wasn't the first human to understand or promote a heliocentric model, his main contribution was a mathematical model rather than Aristotelian physics. Of which his mathematical model was wrong as he tried to force circular orbits and introduced epicycles to explain the variations in orbits that we know know are caused by the fact that orbits are elliptical

The same is true here. The sentiment against AMD is very strong.

no, not even close, its a sentiment against bad science

Soon, the AMD A10-6800K will have a base clock of 4.1 GHz, breaking the 4 GHz barrier.

Who is going to break the 5 GHz barrier on the base clock??? AMD or Intel

what does this have to do with anything? Intel almost broke the 4GHz barrier with the Pentium 4 on 90nm back in 2004.

Because of Intel's massive process lead, they could be the first break all those barriers/records if they wanted to, the difference is there's no practical benefit for them to do so.

 

[amdisstaying]

No, they are not fake, the the two slides from review sites are obviously GPU bound and not a true measure of cpu performance. Ironically, BF3 is one of a very few games in which Vishera is quite competitive, so you didnt even need to link GPU limited scenarios. But according to the slides that you showed, a phenom II is also as fast as the 8350 or 3770K. Do you really think it is a valid test that shows this result?

Of course, it is a valid test.

How many people play PC games at 800x600 resolutions? Not many

So no reviewer should even think about testing these processors at 800x600 resolutions.

There are enough variables that a tester can use to make one processor look much worse than the other.

He was surprised that the most review sites were not giving the correct information. To be sure, he repeated the tests .

I can show a lots of multi-threaded tests in which the AMD FX-8350 destroys the Intel core i5-2500K completely.

There is lot of FUD going on against AMD. They attack the testers and the results when AMD wins. Actually, you can see this even in this thread.

I'm sure the truth is going to prevail. What would happen when the Steamroller gets released? The AMD FX 8350 is only a minor improvement over the AMD FX-8150.

 

[amdisstaying]

off-topic:

Copernicus wasn't the first human to understand or promote a heliocentric model, his main contribution was a mathematical model rather than Aristotelian physics. Of which his mathematical model was wrong as he tried to force circular orbits and introduced epicycles to explain the variations in orbits that we know know are caused by the fact that orbits are elliptical

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/ss-orbs-2.jpg

According to the above link, the inner planets have almost circular orbits. The outer planets have elliptical orbits.

 

[Torn Mind]

Well, Intel is adding the 180W TDP moniker to the LGA 2011 socket. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD would follow suit with a 20 core CPU on the GC36 socket which is stated to compete with LGA 2011.

- GC36 is the new AM(x) for CPU-only enthusiasts.

The 180 W TDP is probably to cater to an octocore Ivy Bridge at the same clockspeed as the 3970X. If they want to keep that TDP and add further cores to that CPU, a decrease in clockspeed would be needed and hence single core performance will decrease. This is already the case with the 150W TDP octocore Xeons(3.1 GHz) and the 3970X(3.5 GHz). Less well-threaded apps will not benefit as much, if at all. with the new processor due to this.

Steamroller will compete well in video encoding and similar apps that scale very well with more cores, which is already the case now. It will not for less well-threaded apps or games, and practically no game scales up to 8 cores yet.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

off-topic:



http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/ss-orbs-2.jpg

According to the above link, the inner planets have almost circular orbits. The outer planets have elliptical orbits.

1. Almost =! Exactly
2. All circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
3. All astronomical orbits are elliptical, Copernicus tried to force circular orbits for all orbiting bodies

maybe once you've locked down some of this basic science and math you'll be better prepared to understand whats going on in these threads

 

[tweakboy]

Yes AMD 8350 is faster then i5, much faster,, but it does touch i7 Sandy or Ivy .... and soon Ivy E

 

[Abwx]

Of course, it is a valid test.

How many people play PC games at 800x600 resolutions? Not many

So no reviewer should even think about testing these processors at 800x600 resolutions.
.

There is lot of FUD going on against AMD. They attack the testers and the results when AMD wins. Actually, you can see this even in this thread.

It s more than FUD , it s blatant double and stretched standards....

The poster who you are responding to insisted unabated
that the A serie is not fit for games since the bench were
made at 720p and he holds that games must be playable
at 1080p to fit his definition of good enough for games.

Yet , once benchs are made at 1080p with the FX he will
insist that it s not representative of the CPU perfs , hey ,
the benchs at 720p miraculously become the norm...

That s what these people call objectivity....

 

[Abwx]

no, when one game is double the frame rates that's 100% difference

by your logic a PC providing 50fps is 100% to a PC that is off, while a 3rd PC @ 100fps is also just 100% to the PC that is off...

whereas by my logic the PC that is providing 100fps is providing 100% more FPS than the PC providing 50fps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage#Percentage_increase_and_decrease

That s your logic , or rather your understanding of the word "deficit"
that is flawed.

Saying that the FX has 50-100% deficit is saying that it yield
50-100% less framerate , because deficit means less , isnt it ,
while excess means more...

When one game give double the framerate it means it has
100% framerate in excess of the other tested gear that
has a 50% LESS , or deficit , framerate....

With a deficit of 100% this will mean 0 fps.

So much for your maths skills...

 

[Abwx]

A few more "irrelevant" benchs that add to the "exceptions" crowd..

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

 

[amdisstaying]

It s more than FUD , it s blatant double and stretched standards....

Of course, it is.

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-52.jpg

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-53.jpg

Suppose a non-gamer uses the FX-8350 for 30 days and measures the energy used during 30 days.

The same user uses the core i7-3770K for 30 days and measures the energy used during 30 days.

The difference between the above two cases will not be significant.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113284

Customer Reviews of FX-8350

Last 2 Weeks (43)
Last 6 Months (316)
All Reviews (316)
86% (272)
7% (23)
2% (6)
2% (6)
3% (9)

"The Computer Guru

Buy This Chip!
Pros: Such a sweet chip. Very fast (7.7 on the Windows Experience Index, Not Shabby!). I was going to give up on AMD, figuring there was no point, but this chip has won me over. I'd bought one or two of the 3.8Ghz 8-Core versions, and the stock cooler was garbage, sounded like a vacuum cleaner, and I said, who needs this, I'll just buy an i5. But when I saw the 4.0Ghz version I said I'll give this one more try. The stock cooler was perfect, very quiet, and the chip is the fastest yet, rock solid, powerful, cool packaging. AMD needs two more really interesting and compelling chips, they are an endangered species hanging everything on this one chip. Go AMD, stay alive! I use Gigabyte Motherboards (update the BIOS ASAP) and Good RAM and SSD, and you've got a hot box.

Cons: Absolutely None.

Other Thoughts: I've said it all. Buy these Chips!"

"Like many great scientific advances, classical conditioning was discovered accidentally.

Pavlov and his studies of classical conditioning have become famous since his early work between 1890-1930."

 

[bunnyfubbles]

That s your logic , or rather your understanding of the word "deficit"
that is flawed.

Saying that the FX has 50-100% deficit is saying that it yield
50-100% less framerate , because deficit means less , isnt it ,
while excess means more...

When one game give double the framerate it means it has
100% framerate in excess of the other tested gear that
has a 50% LESS , or deficit , framerate....

With a deficit of 100% this will mean 0 fps.

So much for your maths skills...

no, you're wrong, your spin is futile

even if you happened to be correct and I misused a term (of which I don't think I did, or at least you haven't convinced me, as I used deficit as "a lack or shortage; deficiency." and if something is 50fps vs. 100fps then its fps is "short" or "deficient" relative to the faster machine by 50fps which is 100% of itself...) that wouldn't make my original point incorrect

stay on topic pls

 

[SiliconWars]

Well at least it's good that there can even be some debate now after the Bulldozer fiasco.

The 8350 and 8320 are good chips at a good price. While I don't believe that the 8350 is a better gaming chip than any i5 or i7 overall, I do believe that it's better in some cases and probably better for gaming while capturing video in a lot of cases.

There has been a few (3-4) different places saying the same thing in the past couple of months, so it's not a fluke. I do agree that any benchmarks below 1080p should be immediately discounted on these chips. It's pathetic and ridiculous that some techsites benchmark them at 800x600.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of course, it is a valid test.

How many people play PC games at 800x600 resolutions? Not many

So no reviewer should even think about testing these processors at 800x600 resolutions.

There are enough variables that a tester can use to make one processor look much worse than the other.

He was surprised that the most review sites were not giving the correct information. To be sure, he repeated the tests .

I can show a lots of multi-threaded tests in which the AMD FX-8350 destroys the Intel core i5-2500K completely.

There is lot of FUD going on against AMD. They attack the testers and the results when AMD wins. Actually, you can see this even in this thread.

I'm sure the truth is going to prevail. What would happen when the Steamroller gets released? The AMD FX 8350 is only a minor improvement over the AMD FX-8150.

Do you not understand the principle that you cannot compare CPUs in a gpu limited scenario, or are you just ignoring it? Noting you say is relevant to the fact that the test is gpu limited and is not a valid test of CPUs. All you are doing is restating the paranoid viewpoint that the review sites are somehow persecuting AMD.

 

[amdisstaying]

Do you not understand the principle that you cannot compare CPUs in a gpu limited scenario, or are you just ignoring it? Noting you say is relevant to the fact that the test is gpu limited and is not a valid test of CPUs. All you are doing is restating the paranoid viewpoint that the review sites are somehow persecuting AMD.

Then this is the video for you. An Intel fan's video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbMYV8Djt7k

User comments after the above video:

"rockgod2131 1 hour ago
I love Intel as much as anyone, but the douchebaggery in this video is almost unbearable."

"Notbrucevilanch 1 hour ago
who in the hell plays anything at 1024x768?LOL"

"WeAreMovieMakers 2 hours ago
This is a fanboy video. Nobody cares about you."

"BioMoneculaR 4 hours ago
i watched the first 3 minutes till i left my pc alone to get some food.... this stupid fanboy-blabla just made me hungry -.-"

"jimgr94 3 hours ago
Whats the point on testing games at medium settings while all serius gamers play on ultra.Pls stop being fans and admit that both sides have awesome cpu's for the price.I completely disagre with these benchmarks i have an fx 6100 and tested an intel 3470 on a friends pc and i admit that with the same card, amd 7850, i got the same fps on both cpus in bf3 ultra settings.None of the cpus are oce'd and the ram is 8 gb 1600 mhz on both systems."

Intel Fans, enjoy this video! LOL!

Intel fans, please admit that the AMD FX-8350 is a great processor.

If you don't, then I will show many many benchmarks where the AMD FX-8350 wins against the Intel core i5-3570K.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Of course, it is a valid test.

How many people play PC games at 800x600 resolutions? Not many

So no reviewer should even think about testing these processors at 800x600 resolutions.

There are enough variables that a tester can use to make one processor look much worse than the other.

He was surprised that the most review sites were not giving the correct information. To be sure, he repeated the tests .

I can show a lots of multi-threaded tests in which the AMD FX-8350 destroys the Intel core i5-2500K completely.

There is lot of FUD going on against AMD. They attack the testers and the results when AMD wins. Actually, you can see this even in this thread.

I'm sure the truth is going to prevail. What would happen when the Steamroller gets released? The AMD FX 8350 is only a minor improvement over the AMD FX-8150.

We attack testers if the results are full of errors, not because AMD wins in this test. That much you should understand.

And of course benchmarking at 800x600 is nonsense. 1280x720 without AA/AF is much better because due to the wider field of view (FOV) the CPU load can be higher. If you use a very powerful GPU, you can also bench at 1080p.

The main problem with most reviews is, that they do either of the following things:
a) They don't use typical CPU demanding scenes
b) They use integrated benchmarks that rarely accurately represent reality due to lower CPU load

That means that they show smaller difference between CPUs than would actually happen in the game. If they are not able or willing to do proper benchmarks, they should at least mitigate this problem by lowering the GPU bottleneck by taking AA/AF out of the picture.

Also one should take into account, that the fps achieved in CPU reviews might not be enough for everyone. If in a review CPU A and CPU B both do 40fps, but CPU A could do 60, why not show it? There is, after all, the possibility to adjust graphics settings like resolutions, details, AA/AF to suit your own needs. It's not like you HAVE to play like the reviewer did. That is what most people don't (want to) understand.

 

[SiliconWars]

It's fine to show a cpu at a certain low resolution, so long as it's also shown at a valid resolution. You can point out that the intels win at 800x600 if you want, so long as you also benchmark and point out that the AMD cpu's are often identical at the kinds of resolutions you are likely to play at.

Too many don't do this.

 

[guskline]

Unfortunately, this thread has again turned into a "Hatfield vs McCoy" spat.

 

[GillyBillyDilly]

AMD is a unique company. Look at all the trouble they have been through and they are still alive and kicking. :whiste: Any other company would have thrown the towel by now.
Intel guys are going to be red with shame if AMD catches up or even overtakes them, given all their resources and the fact that it is their architecture. :twisted:

 

[amdisstaying]

Do you not understand the principle that you cannot compare CPUs in a gpu limited scenario, or are you just ignoring it? Noting you say is relevant to the fact that the test is gpu limited and is not a valid test of CPUs. All you are doing is restating the paranoid viewpoint that the review sites are somehow persecuting AMD.

Intel Fan boxleitnerb Says:

"And of course benchmarking at 800x600 is nonsense." Two Intel fans have different opinions. Having different opinions is okay with me.
===========================
Please watch the video "The Tek 0001": Uploaded on Feb 14, 2012

Mr. Logan is praising Intel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsjsDNjDaMw
===================================

Please also watch the video "AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gaming and XSplit Streaming Benchmarks"

Published on Jan 10, 2013:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

watch at 21 seconds, the AMD FX-8350 wins 9 out of 10...

Intel Fans: Did AMD gave Mr. Logan money to say that? I don't think so.

So please stop attacking & keep your mind open.
=================================
http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/...microsoft-msft-amzn-google/9/10/2012/id/43876

"Remember those classic Pepsi (PEP) challenge ads, where shoppers at malls were offered blind taste tests of Pepsi and Coca-Cola (KO) soda? In those ads, those who tried both always ended up preferring Pepsi over market leader Coca-Cola.

Well, it appears Microsoft (MSFT) has taken a page out of Pepsi’s book with its latest advertising campaign for Bing, its search engine rival to Google."
==============================
http://legitreviews.com/article/1838/1/

"The AMD Reality Check Results:

System C (Intel Core i7-2700K): 40 Votes
System D (AMD FX-8150): 73 Votes
No Difference: 28 Votes
It appeared that AMD was looking for a no difference win here with the setup, but the gamers voted for system with the AMD FX-8150 'Bulldozer' processor in it. Pretty interesting test and we are glad to see companies doing challenges like this and willing to risk coming out the loser."

 

[boxleitnerb]

@amdisstaying:

Stop calling me "Intel Fan". I'm a performance fan, that is a difference. Don't get personal, try to make your case objectively.

And please stop ignoring the arguments that were put forth against those TEK Syndicate videos. This has nothing to do with fanboyism. It has to do with the fact that their results are questionable at best because if you take a long hard detailed look at them, you find countless things that are impossible - not only between AMD and Intel, but between the FX and the FX@OC. Look up CPU and GPU bottleneck, think about it and watch the review again very carefully.

And finally for the AMD reality check:
One (1) 7970 for 3x1080p screens...GPU bottleneck. Add to that that this was an AMD event. I'm not saying AMD themselves influenced the results, I'm saying the location and nature of the event make a neutral judgement not really likely in my opinion.
The malls in your example are neither owned by Cocal-Cola nor Pepsi, but are neutral territory. Psychology plays a big part in these blind tests. If you want to do one, then at least do it right.

 

[amdisstaying]

@amdisstaying:

Stop calling me "Intel Fan".

okay.

Don't get personal, try to make your case objectively.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...scrollFullInfo

Are all those verified users of the AMD FX-8350 posting fake reviews?

AMD isn't standing still. We could see a different AMD next year.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Thanks
Most users have no idea about benchmarking. I trust experienced sites that know what they are doing