FX-8320 vs. FX-8350 vs. FX-8320e Real-World Power Consumption

[smitbret]

Abbreviated Explanation

Just wondering if anyone had any insight into the real-world power consumption differences in these three CPUs. I have been wanting to replace my FX 6100 for the better part of a year now but haven't been compelled, yet. However, with FX CPUs starting to get more scarce, I figure I had better jump on soon. I am looking at the following:

The 8320 is $135 on NewEgg
The 8350 is $164
The 8320e sits right in the middle at about $145 from Amazon

Most concerned about real world performance for x264 encoding. Secondarily, heat generation and a little concern for annual energy costs in a 24/7 server.

Longer Explanation
I use Mezzmo (similar to Plex) for on-the-fly transcoding of video stored on my server. The FX-6100 is barely able to keep up with any kind of quality settings when I transcode HQ BD Rips.

I thought I had settled on an 8320e but the Passmark scores and a few other reviews showing how much more performance I could get out of an 8320/8350 has me rethinking it. Since it is a a home server, the CPU probably doesn't get taxed more than a handful of hours a week when someone is watching a movie on a tablet or a smaller bedroom TV. I also use it for re encoding BD Rips via Handbrake once or twice a week.

I did the math on TDP of 95W vs. 125W and it really isn't much of an issue at $.07Kw/hr where I live but my formula probably isn't real-world applicable. I just assumed an increase of 30W for 24/7 service and the $ amount wasn't a concern. I guess I don't understand completely how much power the CPUs draw at any given time, though as my whole server doesn't draw more than 60W at idle but ramps up to about 155W when I re-encode with Handbrake.

My other concern is heat. I seem to have good airflow. I am using a Hyper 212+ CPU Cooler in a FD Define R4 case with 2x140mm in the front and 1x140mm fan as the exhaust. The intake fans are right in front of the storage drives and HD Tune says they are idling between 28-32 degrees but never get higher than 41 degrees under any kind of use. I am using FlexRAID, so the individual drives only spin up as necessary instead of the whole array when called upon. I like that my system runs cool but I think I have plenty of headroom for a warmer CPU.

In looking at the Passmark scores:
FX-6100 5407
FX-8320e 7394
FX-8320 8050
FX-8350 8980

This is what makes me think the 8320e is the worst choice. I know it is TDP 95W but performance that is only 30% better than I am getting with my FX-6100 just doesn't seem like it is worth the investment. The math on the 8320 is now getting me 50% better and the 66% better performance out of the 8350 is great.

I was just about sold on the 8350 until I stumbled upon these links:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,4.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,5.html

Both show the 8320 and 8350 with nearly double the performance in video encoding benchmarks with a negligible difference between the two. Additionally, CPUBoss and other websites seem to think that even thought the 8320 and 8350 are both TDP 125W, the 8320 generally uses about 40% less electricity, probably also generating less heat.

Just to clarify, I won't be switching platforms since my current FX system enables ECC Memory use.

***UPDATE 09/03/2015***
Just an update if anyone cares or someone with a similar question stumbles across the thread.

My server has been running for a couple of weeks with the FX 8350. In the process of upgrading my CPU I changed a few other hings:

1 - Switched motherboards from a mATX (Asus M5A78L-M LX Plus) to ATX (Asus M5A97 R2.0) so I could get some more expansion slots.

2 - This change also allowed me to dump my USB3 add-on card

3 - The motherboard swap necessitated the addition of a video card since the ATX board didn't have onboard graphics. I chose a refurbished Zotac GT 730 since it is passively cooled, has a TDP of 23W and my PlayOn server can offload video decoding with a Kepler core GPU.

4 - Added a PCI->SATA expansion card to connect my parity drives.

Everything else in the system is exactly the same. I also checked the BIOS settings, making sure that ECC was enabled and that Cool n' Quiet was also enabled.

Well, the system typically has a very slightly lower idle power draw than my previous system. According to the desktop monitoring gadget, the entire system is drawing 52-56W at idle. It seems a little more eager to jump over 100W with some small tasks but the added CPU power also means the draw is of shorter duration before the system ticks back down. It is fun to watch it jump to +200W when video encoding is taking place, something that never happened with the FX-6100. It think the highest I had ever witnessed with that CPU was about 189W. I haven't encoded anything in the last week or so so I don't remember exactly what it peaked at near 100% usage but it was not a small number. The CPU is probably only taxed for 4-6 hours a week with normal usage so the power consumption seems to be a draw vs. the FX-6100.

The encoding performance is so much better than with the FX-6100. I haven't had a stutter in real-time transcoding, yet. I run Kodi at my big TVs so transcoding doesn't happen when I play back there and I haven't had to transcode any files for the Dish Network boxes, yet. I just need to power up a video on one of my cell phones or Kindle Fires and see what that does to CPU Usage. When the PlayOn server is transcoding, CPU usage doesn't even get over 20% since the GPU takes care of the decoding. In general, the FX 8350 just crushes the FX-6100 in most any tax, almost doubling the performance in some tasks and exceeding 200% in many others. My last test is to rip a BD and see how long it takes to re encode with my typical Handbrake settings. My FX-6100 usually ran about 8-10fps with my settings.

Overall, the hardware setup I have now is exactly how I would draw it up and actual performance has exceeded my expectations. I have considered bumping the RAM to 8GB instead of 4GB but I haven't noticed anything close to 100% usage so no need to drop $80 on more ECC memory. My next investment will just have to be more drives and storage space.

The FX-6100 has settled in nicely as my daily driver on my workstation. Now I just need to find a purpose for the Phenom II x4 955BE and AM3 motherboard that it replaced. The longer it sits, the more I am obsessed with finding a problem that it could fix for me. I should probably just get rid of it.

 

[myocardia]

Is your motherboard an AM3+? Because if it's only an AM3, you can't use either of the 8320s, just so you know.

 

[smitbret]

Is your motherboard an AM3+? Because if it's only an AM3, you can't use either of the 8320s, just so you know.

Yes, it's AM3+

 

[myocardia]

Then the 8320 non-e is for you. It will give you higher performance, while putting out about the same amount of heat as your current FX 6100. The FX-8320e isn't really a 95w chip. It's a 110-115w chip that is throttled to lower frequencies than it's non-throttled brother that has the same name (minus the 'e').

This is why the 8320e always scores considerably lower/slower, even though it supposedly has the same turbo frequency. The FX-8320 non-e will turbo to 4.00 Ghz all day long, as long as you have decent case airflow, and have the CPU cooler mounted properly. The FX-8320e will only turbo to 4.00 Ghz for a few seconds, no matter how well you cool it, as long as you are using only air to cool it.*


*The FX-8320e does overclock better, once you have turned off the throttling that the motherboard imposes, assuming your motherboard is one of the ones that can turn it off. It is binned slightly higher than the 8320 non-e.

 

[Abwx]

The 8320 is $135 on NewEgg
The 8350 is $164
The 8320e sits right in the middle at about $145 from Amazon

.

Chip quality wise the 8320E is quite better than the 8320, and since it has an unlocked multiplier it can be set to 8320 or 8350 base frequencies.

At stock settings the 8320E tops at 65W under heavy multithreaded loading, and should be more efficient when clocked at 3.5GHz than the 8320.

From here you can deduct the power at higher frequencies by multiplying by the squared ratio, for instance 1.21x more power for 1.1x higher frequency, that s 78W at 3.57GHz.

FTR it s 25W less than a 2012 8320 running at 3.5GHz (dont know how they perform currently as they also benefited from the improved process since mid 2013).

 

[Abwx]

The FX-8320e isn't really a 95w chip. It's a 110-115w chip that is throttled to lower frequencies than it's non-throttled brother that has the same name (minus the 'e').

Sorry, that s totaly wrong, read my post above.

 

[myocardia]

Sorry, that s totaly wrong, read my post above.

Sorry, that is totally wrong. Read my post above.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I assume you're not overclocking / touching voltage on a home server using ECC memory? If not, I'd go with the FX 8350. It does use more power than the E CPU, but it'll also complete the jobs faster. It's Passmark score there is over 21% faster than the 8320E. You have plenty of air flow and a good enough cooler to deal with the extra heat output. I'd say go with an upgrade you'll notice more than spending money for a more marginal gain.

 

[Abwx]

Sorry, that is totally wrong. Read my post above.

Difference with you is that i didnt throw random numbers, these are measurements made by reviewers including AT.

And to say that the 8320E is a 115W chip throttled to lower power is just total non sense, in this case any i7 is a throttled 4790K, actualy all CPUs would be throttled, excepting the top frequency models if we are to follow this logic, or rather lack of.

What set the power of a CPU is frequency and voltage, to say otherwise is to aknowledge that you dont understand thoses issues.

 

[myocardia]

Difference with you is that i didnt throw random numbers, these are measurements made by reviewers including AT.

And to say that the 8320E is a 115W chip throttled to lower power is just total non sense, in this case any i7 is a throttled 4790K, actualy all CPUs would be throttled, excepting the top frequency models if we are to follow this logic, or rather lack of.

What set the power of a CPU is frequency and voltage, to say otherwise is to aknowledge that you dont understand thoses issues.

No, you threw out an even more bizarre number, the wattage of a severely underclocked FX-8320e. Your post had zero links, btw. Happen to have a link to a site that isn't a .de site (i.e, a reputable site ) claiming that an FX-8320e uses no more than 65 watts at 3.5Ghz, which is actually above the speed at which AMD says it will use 95 watts, when it is being motherboard-throttled...

 

[Abwx]

No, you threw out an even more bizarre number, the wattage of a severely underclocked FX-8320e.

Who is talking of underclocked 8320E..?.

Your post had zero links, btw. Happen to have a link to a site that isn't a .de site (i.e, a reputable site ) claiming that an FX-8320e uses no more than 65 watts at 3.5Ghz, which is actually above the speed at which AMD says it will use 95 watts, when it is being motherboard-throttled...

And besides, learn to read..

At stock settings the 8320E tops at 65W under heavy multithreaded loading, and should be more efficient when clocked at 3.5GHz than the 8320.

From here you can deduct the power at higher frequencies by multiplying by the squared ratio, for instance 1.21x more power for 1.1x higher frequency, that s 78W at 3.57GHz.
.

So, what is your point..?.

To deliberatly misquote people.?

ah, and a link, of course :

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/99/amd-fx-8370e-fx-8-coeurs-95-watts-test.html

8370E at stock setting, power on the 12V CPU rail is 72W, that s 65W at the CPU level.

 

[myocardia]

Who is talking of underclocked 8320E..?.

At stock settings the 8320E tops at 65W under heavy multithreaded loading

The idiot above.^^^^

 

[smitbret]

I assume you're not overclocking / touching voltage on a home server using ECC memory? If not, I'd go with the FX 8350. It does use more power than the E CPU, but it'll also complete the jobs faster. It's Passmark score there is over 21% faster than the 8320E. You have plenty of air flow and a good enough cooler to deal with the extra heat output. I'd say go with an upgrade you'll notice more than spending money for a more marginal gain.

You would be correct. There won't be any overclocking.

I posted this with the idea that the 8320e was a distant 3rd unless someone could give me a reason to go that route.

I guess my question is how much more performance I will get out of the 8350 than the 8320 and how much more energy consumption and heat will I have to deal with for that performance. The stuff I am seeing online suggests that for video encoding I would get a couple of frames per second but that would come with a pretty large increase in electrical usage and heat.

So, with the 8320e eliminated. Is the 8350 worth the little bump over the 8320?

Will an 8350 really consume 50% more electricty than an 8320, especially given my usage?
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-FX-8320

If that's really the case, then the 8320 seems to be the smart choice based on the guru3d links I posted in the OP.

This link seems more what I would have expected:
http://versus.com/en/amd-fx-8320-vs-amd-fx-8350-black-edition
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_8.html#sect0

If the idles consumption is nearly identical then the 8350 is probably better for a 24/7 server.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You would be correct. There won't be any overclocking.

I posted this with the idea that the 8320e was a distant 3rd unless someone could give me a reason to go that route.

I guess my question is how much more performance I will get out of the 8350 than the 8320 and how much more energy consumption and heat will I have to deal with for that performance. The stuff I am seeing online suggests that for video encoding I would get a couple of frames per second but that would come with a pretty large increase in electrical usage and heat.

So, with the 8320e eliminated. Is the 8350 worth the little bump over the 8320?

I would think so, especially given how little electric costs for you. I bet the power use between the two is pretty minor, probably within your 30 watt scenario you looked into. Idle power use should be quite close to one another. I don't think there is a good scientific answer to your question, it's more a personal preference, a little more power use for a little more performance, or a little less power use for a little less performance, both being a fairly significant jump over your 6100. For me, I'd rather get a worthwhile upgrade and go with the faster part, but that's just me.

 

[smitbret]

I would think so, especially given how little electric costs for you. I bet the power use between the two is pretty minor, probably within your 30 watt scenario you looked into. Idle power use should be quite close to one another. I don't think there is a good scientific answer to your question, it's more a personal preference, a little more power use for a little more performance, or a little less power use for a little less performance, both being a fairly significant jump over your 6100. For me, I'd rather get a worthwhile upgrade and go with the faster part, but that's just me.

I didn't realize they would both idle at nearly the same power consumption. I would think you're right. For $30 and based on the new links I stuck in my last post, the 8350 seems like the choice if I want to maximize the lifespan that I get out of this system.

 

[DrMrLordX]

If you really want the best deal, get the 8320e and set it to 4.3 GHz which is its maximum turbo. You should be able to do so at a fairly low voltage, and it should chug along pretty nicely even on a 4+1 power phase board.

Technically you will not be overclocking since you will be staying within the chip's turbo range.

If you want to get fancy, you can edit pstates with a tool like amdmsrtweaker to enable you to reach 4.3 GHz on a regular basis, except when the CPU is idle and goes into a low-power state.

But, overall, the 8320e will be the consistently best chip of the three in terms of the amount of operating voltage it needs to maintain a given clockspeed. It will also exhibit better leakage characteristics than the 8320 or 8350.

 

[smitbret]

If you really want the best deal, get the 8320e and set it to 4.3 GHz which is its maximum turbo. You should be able to do so at a fairly low voltage, and it should chug along pretty nicely even on a 4+1 power phase board.

Technically you will not be overclocking since you will be staying within the chip's turbo range.

If you want to get fancy, you can edit pstates with a tool like amdmsrtweaker to enable you to reach 4.3 GHz on a regular basis, except when the CPU is idle and goes into a low-power state.

But, overall, the 8320e will be the consistently best chip of the three in terms of the amount of operating voltage it needs to maintain a given clockspeed. It will also exhibit better leakage characteristics than the 8320 or 8350.

Hmmmm, explain a bit more if you can.

Are you saying the theory is that I could get 4.3GHz at the same or equal TDP as the 8350? Would I also get the benefit of lower idle consumption than the 8320/8350?

 

[Abwx]

Will an 8350 really consume 50% electricty than an 8320, especially given my usage?
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-FX-8320

This site is publishing wrong numbers for powers, the voltages are accurates though.

In the link i provided power is measured accurately, at full load the 8350 use 105W while the 8320 is at 100W, the surprisingly small difference is due to said voltages binning.

 

[smitbret]

If you really want the best deal, get the 8320e and set it to 4.3 GHz which is its maximum turbo. You should be able to do so at a fairly low voltage, and it should chug along pretty nicely even on a 4+1 power phase board.

Technically you will not be overclocking since you will be staying within the chip's turbo range.

If you want to get fancy, you can edit pstates with a tool like amdmsrtweaker to enable you to reach 4.3 GHz on a regular basis, except when the CPU is idle and goes into a low-power state.

But, overall, the 8320e will be the consistently best chip of the three in terms of the amount of operating voltage it needs to maintain a given clockspeed. It will also exhibit better leakage characteristics than the 8320 or 8350.

Hmmmm, explain a bit more if you can.

Are you saying the theory is that I could get 4.3GHz at the same or equal TDP as the 8350? Would I also get the benefit of lower idle consumption than the 8320/8350?

I'm not familiar with editing pstates. If it's too technical then I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it. I can follow a guide for most things and I have overclocked in the past so I know what changing multipliers and FSB along with voltages entails. I worry that will mess with the ECC process, too, though.

 

[smitbret]

This site is publishing wrong numbers for powers, the voltages are accurates though.

In the link i provided power is measured accurately, at full load the 8350 use 105W while the 8320 is at 100W, the surprisingly small difference is due to said voltages binning.

Sorry, you seemed to be in a pissing match with myocardia so I kind of glazed over your post. Great info, though and it bears out what I expected.

 

[AtenRa]

@ smitbret

Take the FX-8350,

Turn off turbo in BIOS, raise the Frequency to 4.2GHz and you are done.

 

[smitbret]

@ smitbret

Take the FX-8350,

Turn off turbo in BIOS, raise the Frequency to 4.2GHz and you are done.

I just did. There was a targeted ad on Yahoo!'s home page where the price was lower than at NewEgg's site. Just got off the chat with a NewEgg rep and he's giving me the lower price + the $10 for the Promo Code they e-mailed me today.

Thanks guys (especially Abwx and SlowSpyder), everything got answered.

Going with the bigger chip eliminates the "Geez, I wish I would have gotten the 8350 instead" that would have been sure to occur in a month or two.

 

[smitbret]

@ smitbret

Take the FX-8350,

Turn off turbo in BIOS, raise the Frequency to 4.2GHz and you are done.

Would this really be a benefit for server usage?

20 hours a day the CPU sits and idles.
For 2 hours a day it will be sharing files and serving up media, but I could do that with a 35W Sempron.
The remaining 2 hours it will be transcoding an HD video and hitting the CPU as hard as possible.

I would like it to idle and file serve as low as possible for those 22 hours and be able to ramp up for the 2 when it is transcoding.

From what I understand, Turbo Core just bumps the frequency on up to 4 cores at any given time but at no point would all 8 cores reach the maximum 4.2Ghz. Comparing the 8320 to an 8320e, the 8320 can run all 8 cores at 3.5Ghz while the 8320e is stuck at 3.2Ghz, but either one could bump 4 of the cores to 4Mhz as load would necessitate. The add'l 300MHz means the 8320 has a TDP of 125W and the 8320e is 95W. Am I correct and do they both idle at the same level? If so, then I can certainly see why Turbo would have no benefit where my workload goes to the extremes without much activity in the middle.

 

[AtenRa]

Would this really be a benefit for server usage?

20 hours a day the CPU sits and idles.
For 2 hours a day it will be sharing files and serving up media, but I could do that with a 35W Sempron.
The remaining 2 hours it will be transcoding an HD video and hitting the CPU as hard as possible.

I would like it to idle and file server as low as possible for those 22 hours and be able to ramp up for the 2 when it is transcoding.

This has nothing to do with the Turbo, you just turn on the Cool & Quite in BIOS.
Also to note that by turning the Turbo off, the motherboard will lower the vcore and thus you will have lower consumption when your CPU works at full load.

 

[smitbret]

This has nothing to do with the Turbo, you just turn on the Cool & Quite in BIOS.
Also to note that by turning the Turbo off, the motherboard will lower the vcore and thus you will have lower consumption when your CPU works at full load.

Yeah, since I stopped overclocking years ago I always leave Cool n' Quiet on.

It lowers the vCore because it won't need the voltage to get to the Turbo'd extremes?

So Turbo is basically taking a binned CPU, raising the vCore and then it just overclocks it when it feels there is demand? This makes me feel better and better about not going the "e" route.

This link would have me believe that given my current usage I will probably not see much, if any, increase in power consumption going from my 95W FX6100 to the 8350:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/4

That chart shows the 95W Phenom II x4 850 maxes at about 140W under load which is consistent with what I have seen from my 6100 when my whole system runs about 160W under load. I also notice that the 8350 actually idles lower than the x4 850. I will take the 35% increase in power consumption to have the encoding time cut almost in half.

Feels like a win-win.