Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[Idontcare]

Although there is no love lost between Galego and myself, the silencing of a dissenting voice is not something to be taken lightly.

Banning someone for being deliberately ignorant is not a good enough reason. Although I'll never understand the desire to ignore logic and reality in order to support a preconceived set of ideas and ideals, millions of people are die-hard Democrats or Republicans, so there's definitely a precedent

If this forum were tasked with the goal or expectation of actually accomplishing something materially significant to life then we might find the motivation and justification to take such action.

As no one's life or livelihood depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of this particular forum, it is a hard sell to argue that the threshold for unacceptable noise be drawn in the sand this side of some of the amusing and entertaining members of the community.

And speaking of amusing and entertaining, better to dance with the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and a public forum abhors a dearth of nonsensical fanbois. Remove them as fast as you like, nature will just make more to fill the void.

 

[Arkaign]

Exactly, and it's definitely not impossible to find the legit info here, thanks to the best of the best such as yourself. Thanks for that, by the way.

 

[Makaveli]

Remove them as fast as you like, nature will just make more to fill the void.

Haha ain't that the truth brother

They are like weeds back every spring!!

 

[guskline]

Back to the Ops thread about recommending the 8350 for a decent gaming rig, I won't quibble if you already own a mb that supports the FX 8350.

However, starting from scratch (i.e. new mb AND cpu) makes it hard for me to recommend the 8350 over a 3570k. The water will become murkier soon for AMD with the release of haswell. Though most ink here is on the 4770k, the price equivalent to the FX8350 will most likely be the 4570k? (not sure thus the question mark).

Unfortunately for AMD no new faster FX chips appear to be imminent (next 6 months). News on the Steamroller appears non-existant.

With all of that said, for me the 8350 IS an improvement over the 8150, although many would rightly say that improving on the 8150 wasn't real tough. My experience with Intel 2500ks and now a 3770k and my experience with AMD 1100T, 8150, 8350 and 8320 makes it very hard for me to recommend an AMD over Intel where the cpus are near equivalent in price and new mbs will be needed.

 

[Rvenger]

AMD needs to offer official PCI-E 3.0 support and get the ST IPC up at least 25% and they will do much, much better.

 

[guskline]

AMD needs to offer official PCI-E 3.0 support and get the ST IPC up at least 25% and they will do much, much better.

Good points. However won't they need a new chipset/ mb at a very minimum?

 

[cbrunny]

Back to the Ops thread about recommending the 8350 for a decent gaming rig, I won't quibble if you already own a mb that supports the FX 8350.

However, starting from scratch (i.e. new mb AND cpu) makes it hard for me to recommend the 8350 over a 3570k. The water will become murkier soon for AMD with the release of haswell. Though most ink here is on the 4770k, the price equivalent to the FX8350 will most likely be the 4570k? (not sure thus the question mark).

Unfortunately for AMD no new faster FX chips appear to be imminent (next 6 months). News on the Steamroller appears non-existant.

With all of that said, for me the 8350 IS an improvement over the 8150, although many would rightly say that improving on the 8150 wasn't real tough. My experience with Intel 2500ks and now a 3770k and my experience with AMD 1100T, 8150, 8350 and 8320 makes it very hard for me to recommend an AMD over Intel where the cpus are near equivalent in price and new mbs will be needed.

I just started from scratch recently. Blew my mobo. Wanted to get the 3770k, but ended up with a good mobo and an 8350. This was for a variety of reasons that are probably scattered about various threads of this forum.

The other day I was playing Bioshock Infinite on highest settings getting a solid frame rate and transcoding & serving HD video across a LAN simultaneously. No OC. I'm very happy with my purchase - no regrets.

 

[guskline]

I just started from scratch recently. Blew my mobo. Wanted to get the 3770k, but ended up with a good mobo and an 8350. This was for a variety of reasons that are probably scattered about various threads of this forum.

The other day I was playing Bioshock Infinite on highest settings getting a solid frame rate and transcoding & serving HD video across a LAN simultaneously. No OC. I'm very happy with my purchase - no regrets.

Good for you! I'm also happy with my 8350 for these reasons. 1. Much better than the 8150 and less expensive at release. 2. great cpu to "tinker with" when overclocking. 3 highest end amd desktop chip.

 

[Elixer]

With all of that said, for me the 8350 IS an improvement over the 8150, although many would rightly say that improving on the 8150 wasn't real tough. My experience with Intel 2500ks and now a 3770k and my experience with AMD 1100T, 8150, 8350 and 8320 makes it very hard for me to recommend an AMD over Intel where the cpus are near equivalent in price and new mbs will be needed.

And that is the major problem with AMD. All the people who chose to wait out the current AMD CPUs are going to intel, since, when you factor in mobo + new CPU the bang for the buck just isn't as pronounced as it was before.
AMD has to lower the CPU price another $30-50 (if not more) to make people go back to them. You would still have slower CPUs on the AMD side though.

 

[Rvenger]

I have to say the FX6300 and 6350 are a very compelling choice over the i3 or even a low end i5.

 

[bgt]

In Pricewatch of NL: in Euro's

3770K 292,-
3570K 200,-
8350 174,-
6300 101,-
Thats why AMD is a bit more popular here than in the US. The difference is too much.

Since I have both CPU's........Intel is overpriced here. And comparing the 8350 to my 2500K............really no point. The 8350 is much more fluid/smooth in any task.

 

[SPBHM]

In Pricewatch of NL: in Euro's

3770K 292,-
3570K 200,-
8350 174,-
6300 101,-
Thats why AMD is a bit more popular here than in the US. The difference is too much.

Since I have both CPU's........Intel is overpriced here. And comparing the 8350 to my 2500K............really no point. The 8350 is much more fluid/smooth in any task.

what about the 3350p, 3330, 3470?
also, motheboards? Intel CPUs have 77w TDP and lower, Intel entry level chipset used in $60 MBs offers sata III and USB 3.0 (B75), if you are trying to save as much money as possible, I think it makes sense to look for more than just the CPU price.

about your "8350 is more fluid in any task", how exactly?!
the 2500K have significantly higher performance per core/clock and it's certainly better for some tasks, including gaming as most graphics posted on this topic shows,

Also if you can OC, the 2500K is a beast, the default clock is 3.3-3.4GHz and it can run at the same max clock as the 8350 probably, so the 600-700MHz advantage goes away easily, still keeping a lower power usage.

 

[bgt]

what about the 3350p, 3330, 3470?
also, motheboards? Intel CPUs have 77w TDP and lower, Intel entry level chipset used in $60 MBs offers sata III and USB 3.0 (B75), if you are trying to save as much money as possible, I think it makes sense to look for more than just the CPU price

This about top range CPU's. MB's are roughly the same price.

 

[Galatian]

In Pricewatch of NL: in Euro's

3770K 292,-
3570K 200,-
8350 174,-
6300 101,-
Thats why AMD is a bit more popular here than in the US. The difference is too much.

Since I have both CPU's........Intel is overpriced here. And comparing the 8350 to my 2500K............really no point. The 8350 is much more fluid/smooth in any task.

I know it is a moot point to some, but don't forget the energy prices here in Europe! I pay like 0,25

 

[SPBHM]

This about top range CPU's. MB's are roughly the same price.

MB's are not the same, sorry, if you are talking about small CPU price differences you should also consider the MBs, Intel lower cost MBs are looking better (small price advantage for what you get), and since we are talking about,
6300 is not "top range CPU".

 

[AtenRa]

There is only $5.0 difference between AMD 970 chipset motherboard and Intel B75 in Newegg. With the AMD 970 you get 5 more SATA-3 ports.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138372

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157362

 

[richierich1212]

There is only $5.0 difference between AMD 970 chipset motherboard and Intel B75 in Newegg. With the AMD 970 you get 5 more SATA-3 ports.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138372

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157362

With shipping they are the same price :whiste: :biggrin:

 

[Geforce man]

If you are taking overclocking into effect, which if you are doing a high end PC you would be, the AMD builds are hard to justify if you are trying to do a cost/cost comparison.

To get a SB / IVB CPU to 4.6Ghz, you can get away with a sub 100$ motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157330

For example.

That board could be paired with the 224$ i5 3570k.

This is not the case with the fx 8350's. They require a hugely more complex power delivery. At stock settings, 4.0Ghz, you can get away with cheaper motherboards, but if you intend to overclock you are looking at a minimum of 120$, if not more for a motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157281

For example.

That board could be paired with the 199$ 8350.

Also, in those reviews, the i5-3570k is @ 3.3Ghz. The 8350 is @ 4.0Ghz.

The i5's will max out (easily on air cooling) at 4.4-4.6Ghz, roughly the same as the 8350's (easily) max out at.

So, to EQUAL the i5 @ 3.3Ghz, the 8350 needs a 700Mhz advantage.

If BOTH CPU's are at 4.4-4.6Ghz.... Which do you think will be doing better?

Which will be running cooler?

Which will be drawing less power?

I'm not saying AMD chips are terrible, but people who are looking at the small picture here are looking at things completely incorrectly.

So in this EXTREMELY BASIC example, the i5 3570k and 8350 have the same relative cost, when factoring in motherboards / overclocking. I did not take coolers into account, as anybody planning to overclock would invest in a comparable cooler either way.

If you are NOT planning on overclocking, the decision becomes much murkier. That is when things like power consumption, motherboard reliability, etc. come into play.

I bought AMD CPU's only for nearly a decade, a grand decade it was, but it has long since passed us. If you are making a logical choice right now for a new PC, and you are buying AMD, you are buying because of brand loyalty, not because you value price/performance, or performance / watt.

And if you choose to do so, that's fine by me, but do not justify it with benchmarks that favor AMD in the 1 in 250 scenarios out there where it will actually win. And if you are talking overclocking vs. overclocking, be realistic.

Also sorry for wall of text, Jameson was on sale today at the store.

 

[AtenRa]

I know it is a moot point to some, but don't forget the energy prices here in Europe! I pay like 0,25

Yes, how many hours do you play per day ?? Even if we count 1.5 hours Average per day per year(547,5h), consuming 50W more, you will use 27,3Kwh more. Price difference per year with 0,25 cents per Kwh will be 6,8 euros per year.

 

[Abwx]

If BOTH CPU's are at 4.4-4.6Ghz.... Which do you think will be doing better?

You are living on impressions created by some viral marketing.
The 3570 scaling with frequency is not as good as the FX.

Do you think that an ocked 3570 would do better than an ocked
3770..?

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/13

 

[SPBHM]

There is only $5.0 difference between AMD 970 chipset motherboard and Intel B75 in Newegg. With the AMD 970 you get 5 more SATA-3 ports.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138372

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157362

that's a good deal! and $15 cheaper than any other 970 MB... but you know, the average price difference between b75 and 970 is bigger, normally you only have 760G (95w)MBs for the same money as the cheaper b75s...

You are living on impressions created by some viral marketing.
The 3570 scaling with frequency is not as good as the FX.

Do you think that an ocked 3570 would do better than an ocked
3770..?

on average the 3570 at the same clock is clearly the winner (compared to the 8350)
it can be a little slower in some things, but MUCH faster in others, not to mention the power usage...

 

[blastingcap]

You are living on impressions created by some viral marketing.
The 3570 scaling with frequency is not as good as the FX.

Do you think that an ocked 3570 would do better than an ocked
3770..?[/url]

Yeah everybody plays that best-selling game 7-zip but I prefer lesser-known games like Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, Starcraft II, Metro 2033, etc., many of which aren't that well multi-threaded, so IPC becomes much more important.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

[notty22]

The cpu performance page from the Metro LL performance review:
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html

CPU Performance

As a first person shooter we were not expecting to see much in the way of CPU utilization on Metro: Last Light, but we were wrong. We were pleased to see AMD FX-8350 and FX-6350 processors performing really well at ~ 65fps. Expecting the FX-4320 to deliver somewhat similar performance, we were shocked that frame rates dropped ~15% when going from 6 threads to 4 threads.
After that result it was hardly surprising that the AMD dual-core processors were slaughtered and even the Phenom II X2 570 managed just 28fps when coupled with a GTX Titan. The Core i3-3220 got off lightly thanks to its HyperThreading support which enables 4 threads.
As usual, Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors reside at the top of our chart allowing between 68 and 72fps to be rendered.

Underclocking the AMD FX-8350 to just 2.5GHz didn’t have a huge impact on performance, it seems as long as you have enough threads available Metro will play very well. We saw a small 13% reduction in performance when dropping the clock speed by 44%.

Running a similar test with the Core i7-3770K processor it was much the same, dropping just 16% performance from a 44% reduction in clock speed. It's worth pointing out that the 3770K clocked at just 2.5GHz produced the same performance as the FX-8350 at 4.5GHz.

 

[galego]

The cpu performance page from the Metro LL performance review:
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html

Settings? Memory speed used for the FX chips? Used the FX hotfixes or not?

 

[grimpr]

what about the 3350p, 3330, 3470?
also, motheboards? Intel CPUs have 77w TDP and lower, Intel entry level chipset used in $60 MBs offers sata III and USB 3.0 (B75), if you are trying to save as much money as possible, I think it makes sense to look for more than just the CPU price.

about your "8350 is more fluid in any task", how exactly?!
the 2500K have significantly higher performance per core/clock and it's certainly better for some tasks, including gaming as most graphics posted on this topic shows,

The Intel Quadcore doesnt have the threads that the FX and the Core i7 have, simple as that. The extra threads in Core i7 and the FX help in disk i/o situations, from faster loading to desktop, games, multitasking etc, the chip just behaves a lot better when heavily pushed with multiple workloads running in parallel, in costrast the quadcores despite their ipc cant take it and slugginess, lag and slow responsivenes comes, you cant rely on simple cpu benchmarks to measure desktop responsiveness, its a different beast.