Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by FalseChristian, Nov 13, 2012.
Good Lord! Perhaps in a few but all? This is an example of strident rhetoric.
I think the 8350 is a lot better than some posters here would admit. For many people it is actually worth considering if building a new computer, before that really wasn't the case. With Bulldozer there was really very little reason to buy one unless you just wanted one to have it. But with that being said, it still has some glaring issues (single threaded performance and power consumption) when compared to Intel's chips. So I just don't see an 'ok' line of processors saving the company. I'd hate to see them go under as I've always been happy with their hardware, but things seem pretty bleak right now.
This is a "me too" sort of post, but I thought I would point out that I agree with what you're saying in the light of me mocking the OP's choice of words.
The problem with the 8350 is that it needed to be available a year and a half ago, and while it still would have been underwhelming it would have made AMD a lot more viable.
Sounds like you have no idea what "MT loads" means.
While it would have definitely been good to have it a year ago, I don't see how it's "too late", since the FX 8350 is a very viable option compared to similarly priced Intel CPUs (of both past and current generations).
This is a good way to put it. +1
No it doesn't. It beats it in games. Doesn't destroy it. I for one don't run my games at 200fps. Hey Guskline, another example of strident rhetoric.
When you have IDC posting pictures of that guy in regards to the "all is well" claims, how do you reconcile that in your minds with your claims that all is in fact well?
I don't really think we have a less biased, more informed poster here.
I hope you are right because i think the FX 8350 is a great CPU
AMD didn't file for bankrupcy so what is the big deal here? Yes they are struggling and weighing all options, many companies go through times like these at one point in time. Many companies that file for bankrupcy restructure and come roaring back. AMD will be here tomorrow and in 6 months, lets see what happens instead of drawing obscure conclusions.
Remember when GM went bankrupt and how Ford supported them while in court? Lets just hope Intel will offer the same type of support.
One thing I find pretty funny here.At VCG Amd fans always tout the overclocking prowess of their 7xxx series cards and rightfully so but they are mum about Intel's overclocking capabilities.Once overclocked Fx 8350 looks much worse compared to the competition.
I don't think that's the case at all...
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.
It basically is. 8350 looks marginally competitive at much higher clockspeeds to 2500K/2600K @ stock. 8350 doesn't have much room to OC, and when you do, the heat/power get extreme once you pass 4.5 and are aiming at the 4.8-5ghz range.
8350 overclocked vs. 2500K/2600K overclocked (2600K is under $200 at MC), the 2500K beats it in gaming and most apps that aren't extremely well threaded, and the 2600K will beat it in literally everthing (except heat/power draw). Fail.
8350 makes sense to me if you are comparing it to 3550 or other locked Intel CPUs imho though, and you're not the overclocking type. It's not all gloom and doom.
But the guy you quoted is right, if I'm understanding him correctly.
To an overclocker, comparing stock 8350 vs. stock 2500k (3.3ghz) and seeing some wins for the 8350 isn't exactly exciting, when you know that the turbo for 2500k is only 3.7ghz on limited cores. Those people know that you can easily take the 2500K to 4.5Ghz, at which speed the IPC just runs away with the ballgame. All with less intense cooling and power needs.
I think there are at least three dimensions that need to be looked upon to make an analysis of Bulldozer:
First is thermals/power consumption, and here the chip sucks big time. In notebooks this means very low clocks, in desktops it doesn't really matter if you live in the US. In Europe, LATAM and Asia, where energy is a lot more expensive then it does matter. If you mind the noise Bulldozer is out too.
Second is performance. Bulldozer isn't a star here but performance isn't too bad on most scenarios. In MT tasks you will have an edge over Intel, in single threaded apps and games you'll suffer.
Third is economic/commercial, and here Bulldozer is a disaster of biblical proportions. The chip is too big and has relatively low selling price for the manufacturing costs AMD has to incur. AMD is bankrupting itself by selling those big chips for peanuts.
So when users come here talking that Bulldozer is fine, in the right scenario, it can be. But when other users come here talking that Bulldozer is a disaster, it is too. It depends on how you look at the situation.
For AMD, the economic dimension is the only that matters, and here by no means someone can say that Bulldozer was fine for the company. Bulldozer was a disaster probably worse than the ATI acquisition. Bulldozer killed whatever chances AMD had on servers and tied mainstream chips to very big dies. And worse, they are tied to this dog for at least 5 years.
I think the majority of benches that an 8350 beats a 2500K at factory clocks, it'll also beat it when both are overclocked. The 2500K may catch in in a few, but overall I doubt the picture changes much, both will win and lose in most of the same places. I'll agree that the 2500K probably catches up as it can overclock to a higher percentage vs. its factory clock.
The only place I've seen people really push an overclocked AMD chip vs. a factory clocked Intel chip is when comparing the AMD chip to an i3, which doens't overclock.
Arkaign, if you can get a 2600K or an 8350 at the same price, I think it'd be foolish for just about anyone to go with an 8350. But I think that is the case whether overclocked or not.
Lets say if both are oced to 4.5 GHz 2500K will surpass it in many benches.8350 is overclocked 12.5% here while 2500K is clocked ~36% higher.You do the math.
The whole "FX is faster than i5 (in MT loads)" sounds like
"Do you know how famous I'm in the world? (of Warcraft)"
Using the 1% of programs that are capable of using 8 threads in an argument, shows a lot of desperation to find a positive light to this failure.
Time to put lipstick on this pig again.
FX8150@ 4.7GHz vs Core i5 3570K@4.5GHz
Wonder if these forums will implode when it's discovered that this whole ARM is the real Intel competitor relies on the (imo, valid) premise that MT performance is going to matter more and more as time moves on.
Don karnage seriously man
He may not know about Don's sordid history.
But don't you think his point has merit though? The 8350 does do strikingly well against the 2600k in many things, and in the things it doesn't do so well it isn't like we are talking huge real-world performance gaps either.
The one strike that is hard to overlook is the power consumption, but that is factored into the $100 price differential.
I was just informed about Don Karnage, i had no idea about it.
I will withdraw the link
In highly threaded apps yes it may have some advantage but it will fall flat in the rest of them.Why buy a processor which will be slower in most of the scenarios?(for general purpose anyway). Look what Apple did with A6 which is ruining the fun for all quad core chips out there.
That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.
Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz