FX-8370 - non E version few tests

[FlanK3r]

So. there are few results with allinone cooler. The difference between this FX-8370 and 8370E from another thread is around extra 50 MHz for my FX-8370E in hard benchmarks. For validation is FX-8370E better more than 150 MHz! For light benchamrks it could be +50-70 MHz. But with FX-8370E I was not focused so much for maximum of SUperpi as in this case... What about CPUNB? Again, 8370E seems a bit better, for the same frequency I need more voltage at FX-8370. For 2700+ MHz with 8370E it was around 1.25V, here 1.3 V.

Now some banchmarks.

low voltage max Cinebench



HWBOT PRIME


Cinebench R10


Cinebench R11.5


Cinebench R11.5+high CPUNB


Cinebench R15


Superpi1M under 14s


Superpi 32M at 5400 MHz


max validation process:

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nice numbers. Looks like it clocks quite well!

 

[FlanK3r]

yes, its as better FX-8350 in OC. Average 8350s are worse.

 

[SlowSpyder]

yes, its as better FX-8350 in OC. Average 8350s are worse.

Did you disable a module on some of the higher clock speed pics? Some CPU-z shots are showing 4x module numbers, some 3x.

*edit - for the 225MHz bus speeds, what voltage do you put to the NB?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Great OC, fantastic job with the tests
This really makes FX 9370 or FX 9590 look bad
Thanks Flank3r

 

[SlowSpyder]

Great OC, fantastic job with the tests
This really makes FX 9370 or FX 9590 look bad
Thanks Flank3r

I think the FX9370 isn't a terrible value at $220 compared to the FX8370 at $200. But, you also get a cooler with the FX8370 at that price. I've been able to run my FX9370 @ 4.4GHz 1.225v (and was still going strong, might be able to drop it further). But yea, if the FX8370 can hit 5GHz with relative ease, why spend more than you have to?

 

[DrMrLordX]

. . . and if the 8370E clocks better on air/water than the 8370, why get the 8370, either?

 

[Gikaseixas]

yep but so far i haven't seen a 8370E @ 5.6ghz

This revision is shaping up to be a good one

 

[Yuriman]

Regardless of what chips would have had better chances of being good overclockers, looks like he got one.

 

[FlanK3r]

Did you disable a module on some of the higher clock speed pics? Some CPU-z shots are showing 4x module numbers, some 3x.

*edit - for the 225MHz bus speeds, what voltage do you put to the NB?

yes, for validation process and for Superpi I disabled worsest CU. Maybe you mean aexactly hign CPUNB, for 27xx FX-8370 need 1.3V. Its not bad, but my FX-837E needed only 1.25V .

yep but so far i haven't seen a 8370E @ 5.6ghz

This revision is shaping up to be a good one

There is my FX-8370E http://hwbot.org/submission/2626538_flanker_cpu_frequency_fx_8370e_5807.13_mhz

But remember, this is only validation, stability for 2-3s and after crash .
These CPUs can be real stable around 4.9-5.1 GHz, depneds at cooling and luck. For hard benchamrks are OK around 5150-5350 MHz.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I can finish most benches at 5.35Ghz, but that's with a lot of voltage and water. Sounds like these new CPU's might make 5Ghz+ much more common.

 

[Abwx]

The most impressive is the 1.392V at 5.0, overclocking the things is one thing, to get acceptable voltage is a different matter, so far looks like thoses chips are significantly better than past production, according to hardware.fr it s at high frequencies that thoses chips show significant voltage improvements over the previous models.

 

[Madpacket]

At 5Ghz how would one of these chips compare to an Intel CPU for gaming? Around 2500K levels?

 

[Abwx]

At 5Ghz how would one of these chips compare to an Intel CPU for gaming? Around 2500K levels?

FX8350 is already at 2500K level in games and it will beat it soundly as times goes by, even the 4670K will ultimately be below said FX in gaming.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

 

[escrow4]

FX8350 is already at 2500K level in games and it will beat it soundly as times goes by, even the 4670K will ultimately be below said FX in gaming.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

At which point Intel will be up to and past Cannonlake which will slaughter FX whilst using way way less power, and you will still be stuck on a primitive obsolete socket. Great idea!

 

[Abwx]

At which point Intel will be up to and past Cannonlake which will slaughter FX whilst using way way less power, and you will still be stuck on a primitive obsolete socket. Great idea!

Cannonlake will be compatible with 1150 MBs.?

 

[SPBHM]

FX8350 is already at 2500K level in games and it will beat it soundly as times goes by, even the 4670K will ultimately be below said FX in gaming.

http://www.hardware.fr/getgraphimg.php?id=25&n=22

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

AMD fans have been repeating the same thing since the 8150 in 2011 (which is newer than the 2500K you are so keen to mention), and we still get 2014 big budget, next gen titles doing stuff like this with AMD VGAs (with Nvidia GPUs it's less bad):

http://pclab.pl/art57916-13.html
4.7GHz worth of 8 core FX to match the 3.4GHz 2500K

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...U-Action-Dead_Rising_3-test-dr_3_proz_amd.jpg

5Ghz FX still slower than the 2500K

ouch, overclock the 2500K and the Q1 2011 i5 will achieve a lot more than the "fresh" 8370 for gaming, easily.

8350 at 2500K level is totally inaccurate for the vast majority of games,

 

[davie jambo]

I have a FX8350 and an i5 2500k - intel slightly better I have to say for gaming but it's hardly anything in it

FX is well faster at other things. You know when you install a game on steam and it says "preparing files " and the wee bar flies across ? FX is much , much faster at that

 

[Abwx]

AMD fans have been repeating the same thing since the 8150 in 2011 (which is newer than the 2500K you are so keen to mention), and we still get 2014 big budget, next gen titles doing stuff like this with AMD VGAs (with Nvidia GPUs it's less bad):

http://pclab.pl/art57916-13.html
4.7GHz worth of 8 core FX to match the 3.4GHz 2500K

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...U-Action-Dead_Rising_3-test-dr_3_proz_amd.jpg

5Ghz FX still slower than the 2500K

ouch, overclock the 2500K and the Q1 2011 i5 will achieve a lot more than the "fresh" 8370 for gaming, easily.

8350 at 2500K level is totally inaccurate for the vast majority of games,

Nice to post a single game at PClab.

Btw, next time try to not use deffamation/ad hominem as a mean to denigrate my saying by branding me an "AMD fan".

Hardware.fr updated their game suite, the FX8350 scores increased by 12.5% putting it at barely 10% of the 2500K in games, in applications we wont even discuss this point since this is now a massive win for the FX.

They still have not updated their old charts, that s why i posted their recent reviews using updated games, here the old scores, increase the FX score by 12.5% and do the conclusions you want knowing that this is the average of all their games and not a single game at x resolutions like your "exemple".

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/905-5/performances-jeux-3d.html

Now you can always pretend that games are going the lowly threaded route on the mid term or that the FX is already fully used in said games, in appllications the 8350 was already 25% better, and that s with unupdated softs, you think that it wont show in future games iterations.?..

 

[SlowSpyder]

At 5Ghz how would one of these chips compare to an Intel CPU for gaming? Around 2500K levels?

I will likely vary from game to game. But at real world settings I imagine a 5GHz FX will usually be faster than a 2500K. Overclock the 2500K and things will be closer, but I imagine the FX would still get the nod overall.

A $200 FX that can overclock to 5GHz routinely would make for a decent part to go up against i5's. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. But, as with all overclocking, nothing is guaranteed. I'll wait to see more overclocking reports, might grab one of these just to mess around with (I have a second 990FX chipset motherboard, 900 watt power supply, PC1600 memory, and a case sitting around waiting for a CPU and video card).

 

[frozentundra123456]

Even in ABWX's benchmark, an i5 is approximately 15% faster at stock in games than 9590, which is close to 5ghz with turbo. So even if you add 5% more to the 9590 to simulate 5ghz, the stock i5 will be faster. Add in overclocking, and it will be still further ahead.

 

[AtenRa]

Even in ABWX's benchmark, an i5 is approximately 15% faster at stock in games than 9590, which is close to 5ghz with turbo. So even if you add 5% more to the 9590 to simulate 5ghz, the stock i5 will be faster. Add in overclocking, and it will be still further ahead.

They are talking about Core i5 2500K, not Core i5 Haswell.


Also, thats something you dont see every day

http://gamegpu.ru/retro-test-gpu/crysis-2007-retro-test-gpu.html

 

[Cerb]

At 5Ghz how would one of these chips compare to an Intel CPU for gaming? Around 2500K levels?

It's going to vary by game. In some, not as good; in some, far better. In general, the newer the game, the better they will fare, compared to older Intel CPUs. But, generally, MMO, RTS, and sim favoring faster processors over more slower threads.

Trouble is, today we mostly care about how well it compares to Haswell.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Even in ABWX's benchmark, an i5 is approximately 15% faster at stock in games than 9590, which is close to 5ghz with turbo. So even if you add 5% more to the 9590 to simulate 5ghz, the stock i5 will be faster. Add in overclocking, and it will be still further ahead.

At real world gaming settings, vs. a 5GHz octocore FX vs. and i5 2500K, I'll take the FX. Overclock the 2500K and things can get closer. But overall, at real world settings, I'd take the FX. BFG made the jump from a 2500K to a 4790K, many here would say that's a sizable jump. It didn't gain much. The FX, especially at 5GHz, is going to be fast enough and I feel it will age better.

Both are still capable CPU's, especially when overclocked. For me, my preference would be the FX, though I can see how someone would be plenty happy with a 2500K too. Both are enough for real world settings in games.

 

[crashtech]

They are talking about Core i5 2500K, not Core i5 Haswell.


Also, thats something you dont see every day

http://gamegpu.ru/retro-test-gpu/crysis-2007-retro-test-gpu.html

All the systems in the graph would be unplayable from a look at the minimums. What an I missing here, why does the above not agree with the below, and why not use a resolution that results in a minimally playable framerate? Did OCing the 3970 really raise its minimums by 52fps?