guskline
Diamond Member
- Apr 17, 2006
- 5,338
- 476
- 126
Good Lord!Even FX8150 is faster in MT apps than 2500K.
Good Lord!Even FX8150 is faster in MT apps than 2500K.
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.
Just cant resist those cherry picked benchmarks can you? As I replied to your similar post in another thread, according to anand bench, 2600K wins in 17 of 25 non-gaming benchmarks and of course destroys the 8350 in gaming.
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.
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.
Just cant resist those cherry picked benchmarks can you? As I replied to your similar post in another thread, according to anand bench, 2600K wins in 17 of 25 non-gaming benchmarks and of course destroys the 8350 in gaming.
The FX-8350 is the best chip AMD has put out since the original FX series. It's faster than my i5 2500K and costs alot less. People are going to buy these chips in droves making AMD's CPU division solvent once again.
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.
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.I don't think that's the case at all...
I don't think that's the case at all...
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
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.
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.
So once oced AMD is competitive with Intel?sorry man that ain't true.
Don karnage seriously manFX8150@ 4.7GHz
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2241712&highlight=
vs Core i5 3570K@4.5GHz
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33343838&postcount=21
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.
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.
