Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[boxleitnerb]

This review is worthless imo. There are titles out there that can be quite CPU bottlenecked. To review games in a GPU bottleneck is a waste of time imo. If out of 10 games you get 1 or 2 that are GPU bound, fine. But this seems as if titles were explicitly picked where the CPU doesn't really matter (or where performance is good on any GPU - Dirt 3).

 

[Rvenger]

I just love how power consumption is such an issue. Hey look, Haswell CPUs are now 84w instead of 77w. Why don't we complain about that? When I buy my FX 8 core I have to run Prime 95 while I game so I can prove to everyone my CPU is capable of being a power hog. WOW


My i7 3770k @ 4.2ghz pulls an average of 340w while gaming. My FX-8150 at 4.2ghz pulled 390w from the wall while gaming. 60 watts for 2 hours. If I run certain work loads of Prime or IBT I can see the total power consumption spike over 400w for a split second, but never in gaming. My idle power is actually lower on my FX system compared to my Intel.


Honestly people who haven't owned an FX cpu need to get their facts straight because looking at bench numbers on review sites paints a different picture.

 

[Chiropteran]

This review is worthless imo.

There are titles out there that can be quite CPU bottlenecked.[/QUOTE]

The review is fine.  The majority of games today are limited by the GPU far more than the CPU, and a balanced review should show as such.

A review that goes out of it's way to find CPU limited games instead of testing a fair sample of popular games gives a very deceptive message.

 

[R0H1T]

By all else I meant GPU, memory, power supply, SSD/HDD et al. I guess I wasn't clear enough but let's say your budget is 1000$, excluding display, now for an Intel CPU+mobo you'll have to shell out upwards of 300$ to something like 500$ tops, but for an AMD build you can save 20~40% or even more depending on the processor & mobo models you choose from. This money saved can then be used for a better GPU, memory, SSD etc.

Since it has been established that the 8350 or 8320 isn't a bottleneck for light/medium gaming I don't see how recommending AMD parts is such a bad idea in the 1000~1500$ range ? For anything higher than that you're getting into the enthusiast territory that'll probably buy an IVB-E anyways so if power isn't that much of a concern then AMD is a "good enough" alternative IMHO.

 

[bononos]

Yeah perhaps a poor analogy but regardless of that I'd say for normal users & others that don't care much about power consumption an AMD powered system is a smart choice for a 100~200$ less all else being equal.

But what about the suggestion that the 3770 could pay for itself with the difference in power consumption?

Edit- Its not about whats good enough, or whether someone can afford to pay for the total power consumption of a high end gaming rig, those are red herrings instead of discussing whether the 3770 could pay for itself.

 

[R0H1T]

But what about the suggestion that the 3770 could pay for itself with the difference in power consumption?

Conversely the 200$ or more you saved upfront would be worth alot over that period of time, adjusting for inflation.

Edit- Its not about whats good enough, or whether someone can afford to pay for the total power consumption of a high end gaming rig, those are red herrings instead of discussing whether the 3770 could pay for itself.

Yes but will you say that an FX 8350 is a bottleneck, power aside, in 90% of cases for desktop usage ?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yeah perhaps a poor analogy but regardless of that I'd say for normal users & others that don't care much about power consumption an AMD powered system is a smart choice for a 100~200$ less all else being equal.

The point, as well pointed out by IDC earlier, is you cant count the cost savings in favor of AMD and ignore the power savings in favor of intel. You have to consider the total cost.

The AMD system might well still be cheaper overall considering 8350 vs 3770, but probably not 8350 vs 3570. But you cant say buy AMD becaue it is cheaper without considering the total cost over the time of ownership.

I also fail to see how an AMD system is 200.00 cheaper, maybe 100 dollars vs 3770 and 20 to 50 dollars vs 3570, but that is quibbling about details. The point is you cannot legitimately point out all the advantages of the item you favor and ignore the disadvantages.

 

[Idontcare]

By all else I meant GPU, memory, power supply, SSD/HDD et al. I guess I wasn't clear enough but let's say your budget is 1000$, excluding display, now for an Intel CPU+mobo you'll have to shell out upwards of 300$ to something like 500$ tops, but for an AMD build you can save 20~40% or even more depending on the processor & mobo models you choose from. This money saved can then be used for a better GPU, memory, SSD etc.

Since it has been established that the 8350 or 8320 isn't a bottleneck for light/medium gaming I don't see how recommending AMD parts is such a bad idea in the 1000~1500$ range ? For anything higher than that you're getting into the enthusiast territory that'll probably buy an IVB-E anyways so if power isn't that much of a concern then AMD is a "good enough" alternative IMHO.

The "good enough" argument is a slippery slope.

If an 8350 or 8320 is "good enough" then one could just as well argue so too is a 3570k, or an even lesser processor.

What I have come to observe is that people who want to have some justification to recommend AMD over Intel will find their justification by way of arguing power consumption is irrelevant, good enough is good enough, and cost is a driving consideration (sans TCO, because again that gets back to arguing that power consumption is irrelevant).

So why not just say you want to support AMD, sans a contrived performance-based or financial-based argument, and be done with it? No one is going to fault anyone for wanting to outright support a business for any number of philosophical reasons...the angst comes into play when people don't want to be honest with themselves and their motivations and they begin to employ all manner of fallacies to contrive a performance or economic based argument.

It just doesn't fly unless you are talking APU products and pricing tiers IMO.

I am not going to buy into a SLI or xfire setup and rob myself of the opportunity of having more fps and better non-gaming performance, along with lower power consumption, all just to buy an AMD CPU and claim I am doing so "to save a hundred bucks up-front". It just doesn't compute from my perspective.

And what I find as the ultimate irony in these forum debates is that I am plenty old enough to remember well all the argumentation that went into justifying AMD over Intel when AMD was superior to Intel in terms of both performance and power-consumption (the X2 days)...and the AMD fans were outraged at the Intel fans for making the same lame-ass arguments that power consumption didn't matter to them and the upfront cost savings were better than the long-term TCO picture. Etc etc.

Now it has come full-stop and reverse and the same exact arguments are brought out only this time from the other side.

 

[R0H1T]

The point, as well pointed out by IDC earlier, is you cant count the cost savings in favor of AMD and ignore the power savings in favor of intel. You have to consider the total cost.

And my point was that for similar levels of performance most people will choose the cheaper alternative, over something that'll cost less in the long run, when talking about outright purchase, hence the upfront cost argument!

The AMD system might well still be cheaper overall considering 8350 vs 3770, but probably not 8350 vs 3570. But you cant say buy AMD becaue it is cheaper without considering the total cost over the time of ownership.

See the point above.

I also fail to see how an AMD system is 200.00 cheaper, maybe 100 dollars vs 3770 and 20 to 50 dollars vs 3570, but that is quibbling about details. The point is you cannot legitimately point out all the advantages of the item you favor and ignore the disadvantages.

Did you not figure in the cost of motherboard into this equation ?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The point, as well pointed out by IDC earlier, is you cant count the cost savings in favor of AMD and ignore the power savings in favor of intel. You have to consider the total cost.

The AMD system might well still be cheaper overall considering 8350 vs 3770, but probably not 8350 vs 3570. But you cant say buy AMD becaue it is cheaper without considering the total cost over the time of ownership.

I also fail to see how an AMD system is 200.00 cheaper, maybe 100 dollars vs 3770 and 20 to 50 dollars vs 3570, but that is quibbling about details. The point is you cannot legitimately point out all the advantages of the item you favor and ignore the disadvantages.

Ok, I think that's absolutely fair and the right way to look at it. So what does that leave you with? An 8350 that doesn't bottleneck you in games while using a single GPU (and not too badly even when using dual GPU). An i5 also doesn't bottleneck you and provides plenty of performance for single GPU's (and often dual GPU's).

But then we have to look to the future, we have one that is four threads and great IPC vs. the other that is eight threads and lesser IPC. Who's to say which will age better, especially with AMD in the consoles. Obviously the i7 is the best choice for all out performance, but I think things get a lot more murky when looking at the FX vs. the i3 and i5's.

 

[guskline]

But what about the suggestion that the 3770 could pay for itself with the difference in power consumption?

Edit- Its not about whats good enough, or whether someone can afford to pay for the total power consumption of a high end gaming rig, those are red herrings instead of discussing whether the 3770 could pay for itself.

I own a 3770k, FX8350 and FX8320. The thought of the 3770k "paying for itself" by saving on electricity NEVER entered into my decision.

Frankly, I had 2 2500k rigs, sold one off entirely and kept the one with the more advanced mb (Z68 chipset) with the idea of moving either to a 2700k or 3770k. When the price at MC dropped to $229 and after reading the glowing reviews and extensive testing info by posters such as IDC, I sold the 2500k and jumped to the 3770k (switch cost me less than $100). Performance, not power savings was the major factor. Bluntly, the 3770k is the TOP cpu my mb will support.

As to my two Piledrivers, a different story. The 8320 was a last minute recent build where I had obtained an open box Asus Sabertooth 990FX mb for an incredibly low price so I snagged an 8320 when the price was at it's lowest point. I knew I would OC it AND I already had the FX8350 so I saved a little $$ using the 8320.

As to my original FX8350, it is the successor to the 8150 I originally "had" to have. Short version of a long story is I bought a Rev1 Asus Sabertooth 990FX mb prior to the release of the 8150. I had an 1100T cpu AND after the 8150 was released, I held off while all the fury and rage about the 8150 being a underperformer spewed out. I snagged a 8150 for @$170 and jumped. I held onto it until the 8350 was released. After the intial "price markup" ebbed, I replaced the 8150 with the 8350. Was power a factor in my choice? NEVER.

Does the 8350 use power? Sure and it really climbs as you OC it. The 8150 (which Revenger has, I think) used more power but was not bad till you OC'd it to @4.4-4.5 Ghz. The 8350 doesn't use as much power as the 8150 and has a higher stock clock. However, if the 8350 goes over 4.6Ghz it spikes in power also. BTW, the silicon lottery truly applies to the AMD chips from my experience. Bottom line? Power didn't play a factor in the decision. The desire to own the top AMD desktop cpu trumped all.

I also agree with Revenger as to the power argument if we consider GPUs. To me the savings or lack thereof becomes more pronounced with GPUs.

We all have our "passions" in life. I always joke that I missed the "course of golf" in college and grad school. Rather, I became a computer "geek" as my hobby. I'm proud to be one.
Do I spend too much money on my computer hobby? My wife will say SURE. I'll say "but it's my hobby!

Power savings IS important. In my case as to choice of cpu it had almost nothing to do with it.

BTW, back to the OPs original thread, notice he is running an Intel 3930K. Top tier cpu yet he supports the AMD FX8350 as a decent gaming cpu. Hard to argue with him!

 

[Chiropteran]

The point is you cannot legitimately point out all the advantages of the item you favor and ignore the disadvantages.

I think the point is that the $100 saved upfront requires 20 years or more of average use before the power cost negates the benefit. Such that the disadvantage of power usage is insignificant while the increased initial cost of $100 is very significant.

 

[Vesku]

Less about good enough and more about getting the best GPU possible within budget when building a gaming PC. If that happens to put your CPU in the ~$100 range the unlocked AMD chips can be an attractive option. But that's an unlikely scenario to run into at 1440P and multi-GPU.

 

[thilanliyan]

My FX6100 has been a decent CPU for me, but the power consumption is the one thing I don't like because it is harder to keep things cool and quiet, even watercooled.

 

[Chiropteran]

My FX6100 has been a decent CPU for me, but the power consumption is the one thing I don't like because it is harder to keep things cool and quiet, even watercooled.

You do realize your "3x7950 3gb (mining)" produces about twenty times as much heat as the difference between a 6100 and similar Intel CPU?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the point is that the $100 saved upfront requires 20 years or more of average use before the power cost negates the benefit. Such that the disadvantage of power usage is insignificant while the increased initial cost of $100 is very significant.

Not for 3570k vs 8350. If you assume 50 watts different, 4 hours per day, 0.12 per watt, including surcharges, taxes, etc on the power usage, that is 2.4 cents per day or 8.75 per year. In around 3 years you have made up the price difference between 3570k and 8350.

I didnt want to bring up overclocking, because that will start another flame war, but the difference overclocked would be much greater.

And I dont think 4 hours per day is unreasonable for a heavy gamer. I work a full time job and probably game 3 to 4 hours a night and more on weekends, despite that.

Anyway, I am done with all these arguments. It is clear no one is going to change their opinion, no matter what is used to refute them. I am done posting in this thread.

 

[galego]

http://anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p


Really impressed with how the FX-8350 performed in this article. From a cost and performance standpoint I think it would be really hard to not recommend AMD for a decent gaming rig.

For current games, the FX-8350 offers essentially the same gaming performance than i7-3770k but at one fraction of the cost!

The true advantages of the FX-8350 are:

• It is better prepared for next gen games. Did you know that all triple-A game developers polled by Eurogamer chose the FX as the best CPU for future gaming?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen​

• The FX offers a clear update path, because Steamroller will be AM3+ backward compatible, whereas Haswell requires new mobo and maybe a new PSU.

This is the benchmark mentioned in the Eurogamer article

 

[Chiropteran]

Not for 3570k vs 8350. If you assume 50 watts different, 4 hours per day, 0.12 per watt, including surcharges, taxes, etc on the power usage, that is 2.4 cents per day or 8.75 per year. In around 3 years you have made up the price difference between 3570k and 8350.

And I dont think 4 hours per day is unreasonable for a heavy gamer. I work a full time job and probably game 3 to 4 hours a night and more on weekends, despite that.

3570k isn't even decisively faster than an 8350, it wins some and loses some.

Anyway, if you read back in the thread a bit, you will see the comparison has always been the 3770. Sure, if you move the goalposts you can negate the point I was making, but now the intel CPU you are using is actually SLOWER than the FX-8350 in several tasks.

I generally agree with your numbers, but it just goes to show that between the two CPU the power savings of the Intel is only about $8 a year, even assuming 4 hours a day of gaming. While I agree that a heavy gamer may be sitting at the computer that long, some of the time is spent on forums, reading strategy, getting friends together, etc, all of which leaves the CPU essential idle. Even many games today fail to make adequate use of more than one core, which greatly reduces the power consumption of the 8350 compared to the peak figures shown in benchmarks. The power difference could easily be half of the difference you claim.

 

[galego]

I just love how power consumption is such an issue. Hey look, Haswell CPUs are now 84w instead of 77w. Why don't we complain about that? When I buy my FX 8 core I have to run Prime 95 while I game so I can prove to everyone my CPU is capable of being a power hog. WOW


My i7 3770k @ 4.2ghz pulls an average of 340w while gaming. My FX-8150 at 4.2ghz pulled 390w from the wall while gaming. 60 watts for 2 hours. If I run certain work loads of Prime or IBT I can see the total power consumption spike over 400w for a split second, but never in gaming. My idle power is actually lower on my FX system compared to my Intel.


Honestly people who haven't owned an FX cpu need to get their facts straight because looking at bench numbers on review sites paints a different picture.

+1

 

[crashtech]

Bricka bracka firecracka sis boom bah! AMD! AMD! RAH RAH RAH!

 

[ShintaiDK]

The FX offers a clear update path, because Steamroller will be AM3+ backward compatible, whereas Haswell requires new mobo and maybe a new PSU.

Now the challenge. Prove it. Because currently there are no AM3+ chips on any AMD roadmaps after Pilediver.

I am quite sure AMD only want the FM socket for 1 socket from now on. Hence their APUs in the server segment as well.

 

[inf64]

I would love to see SR on AM3+ but this is not confirmed by AMD. That's why I bought me a nice FM2 board .

 

[thilanliyan]

I really hope SR is compatible with AM3+...that would make my next upgrade MUCH simpler. If I have to change mobo as well, I'll likely go Intel.

 

[UNhooked]

For current games, the FX-8350 offers essentially the same gaming performance than i7-3770k but at one fraction of the cost!

The true advantages of the FX-8350 are:

• It is better prepared for next gen games. Did you know that all triple-A game developers polled by Eurogamer chose the FX as the best CPU for future gaming?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen​

• The FX offers a clear update path, because Steamroller will be AM3+ backward compatible, whereas Haswell requires new mobo and maybe a new PSU.

This is the benchmark mentioned in the Eurogamer article

Nice read!

 

[SPBHM]

For current games, the FX-8350 offers essentially the same gaming performance than i7-3770k but at one fraction of the cost!

The true advantages of the FX-8350 are:

• It is better prepared for next gen games. Did you know that all triple-A game developers polled by Eurogamer chose the FX as the best CPU for future gaming?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen​

• The FX offers a clear update path, because Steamroller will be AM3+ backward compatible, whereas Haswell requires new mobo and maybe a new PSU.

This is the benchmark mentioned in the Eurogamer article

how about mentioning the i5 also offers, the same performance?
and there are plenty of current games where the i5/i7 clearly surpasses the FX...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/neverwinter-performance-benchmark,3495-9.html

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon/test/fc3 proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/RPG/The Elder Scrolls V Dragonborn/test/tes 5 proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Dead Island Riptide/di proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/Company of Heroes 2/test/coh 2 proz.jpg

and about crysis 3, let's not forget this one:

http://pclab.pl/art52489-9.html

or this one:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

the eurogamer article is pure speculation with nothing to support it, I've seen many console game devs that looked totally disconnected from PC hardware world.

for gaming, at the best cases for the 8350 the i5 is always near, but when it comes to the best cases for the i5, the 8350 can be far behind, when you consider the platform cost, and the other characteristics, there is not way to conclude the 8350 is a better gaming CPU (and I'm not saying the 8350 is not good or good enough) imho...