Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[24601]

Did you logic that out all the way? If AMD GPUs are *more* CPU bottlenecked than NVidia GPUs, aren't you saying the AMD GPU is more powerful/higher performance than the NVidia? I don't know if you meant that, but usually when you criticize other people so harshly for poor logic, you should watch out for making similar errors in logic etc.

Rhetorical question x 2

Also. I don't even know why you aren't on my ignore list from the last time you posted in response to me in the form of rhetorical questions.

One more post consisting of purely or mostly rhetorical questions and you will definitely earn your way to my ignore list.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Rhetorical question x 2

Also. I don't even know why you aren't on my ignore list from the last time you posted in response to me in the form of rhetorical questions.

One more post consisting of purely or mostly rhetorical questions and you will definitely earn your way to my ignore list.

Those are actual questions, not rhetoric. If AMD GPUs create a CPU bottleneck more often than Nvidia ones, they must be more powerful; by definition, a CPU bottleneck happens when the CPU is the limiting factor.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Those are actual questions, not rhetoric. If AMD GPUs create a CPU bottleneck more often than Nvidia ones, they must be more powerful; by definition, a CPU bottleneck happens when the CPU is the limiting factor.

I dont understand that logic. Could it not just mean that the AMD card less efficiently uses CPU resources.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I dont understand that logic. Could it not just mean that the AMD card less efficiently uses CPU resources.

I suppose it is possible, but it's not like either AMD or Nvidia cards even really challenge CPUs unless you're in CFX/SLI. And I don't think there's really a difference in how much the CPU is utilized between an Nvidia and a similarly pwoerful AMD card with identical settings on.]

I suppose there is a possibility either way (AMD cards are more powerful OR they don't use the CPU as well).

 

[Rvenger]

Yeah, that $8 per year premium for running AMD is a serious killer.

I was being sarcastic. I could careless about power consumption.

 

[Chiropteran]

That post on a random wild website is by the creator of CoreTemp.

And you missed the rest of the post completely. But I assume thats because you dont care at all and never will.

And you ability to write i7-7770 is amazing.

Even with your low prices and my high prices on electricity, your utility bill is still way beyond mine I bet. Simply because you dont understand the basic concept of the economics behind.

Am I supposed to be impressed that the guy wrote CoreTemp? I've never used the program. I have no idea what credentials the author has, why should I trust his guess over a magic either ball?

Holy. You are seriously going to call me out on a typo? Please note the bold added to your quote, as I have illustrated your repeated grammatical errors.

"thats" is not a word. I think you mean "that is".
"dont" needs an apostrophe.
"you ability" doesn't make much sense. Did you mean your ability?
"beyond mine I bet" implies that you are refering to your 'I bet', whatever that is. You need a comma after mine to indicate the pause.
"dont" still needs an apostrophe.
"of the economics behind"... behind WHAT? You mean, the economics behind you paying 4X as much as me for electricity?

I'm sorry, I lost your point. Your collection of typos and grammatical errors caused me to completely lose track of your argument. I'm sorry I miss typed the name of my CPU and caused you so much grief. Could you please use a spell check extension and learn basic grammar before you nitpick other's posts in the future?

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, that must explain why Intel is losing so much money while AMD has recordbreaking profits.

Walmart and McDonalds make a ton of money too, profit really has little direct relation to the quality of the products. AMD is mismanaged and probably going to fail in a few years, but what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

You are creating a straw man. Nobody said AMD is making more money than Intel.

I need to get actual work done?

I repeat, since you are avoiding the question, what is your real life scenario? AMD CPU are fine for doing "actual work", so what is your made-up scenario that somehow makes them nonviable?

You need to be specific enough to indicate why AMD won't work, and ARM won't work.

 

[Markfw]

Yes, that must explain why Intel is losing so much money while AMD has recordbreaking profits.



I need to get actual work done?

This borders on trolling...I have several AMD CPU's and they work just fine.

 

[UNhooked]

Guys let's get one thing clear. The point of the thread wasn't to say Intel is better than AMD. We KNOW it is. The point was FX-8350 isn't a bad chip as people make it out to be.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This borders on trolling...I have several AMD CPU's and they work just fine.

I wasn't talking about AMD CPUs. He asked me why I wasn't switching to ARM.

Walmart and McDonalds make a ton of money too, profit really has little direct relation to the quality of the products. AMD is mismanaged and probably going to fail in a few years, but what does that have to do with the argument at hand?

It has to do with the comment to which I directly responded: "Intel is in an interesting place, but it's actually losing in both measures." You may think that Intel is "losing", but that's because of the bogus scenario you portrayed, which doesn't accurately assess what people want from CPUs.

I repeat, since you are avoiding the question, what is your real life scenario? AMD CPU are fine for doing "actual work", so what is your made-up scenario that somehow makes them nonviable?

You need to be specific enough to indicate why AMD won't work, and ARM won't work.

I never said AMD wouldn't work. You attempted to set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that if I care about performance per dollar I should go with AMD and if I care about performance per watt, I should go with ARM. Conveniently missing is the case where I care about performance and performance per watt but actually need to get work done, ruling out ARM. Which you likely knew before you posted it.

Anything else?

ETA: I probably built my first AMD system before most of the people in this forum. It's still here in my office, as a matter of fact.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Guys let's get one thing clear. The point of the thread wasn't to say Intel is better than AMD. We KNOW it is. The point was FX-8350 isn't a bad chip as people make it out to be.

This is pretty much my take on it. We know AMD can't touch the i7's. But I do think AMD's parts can now compete in the low and even mid range.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I wasn't talking about AMD CPUs. He asked me why I wasn't switching to ARM.



It has to do with the comment to which I directly responded: "Intel is in an interesting place, but it's actually losing in both measures." You may think that Intel is "losing", but that's because of the bogus scenario you portrayed, which doesn't accurately assess what people want from CPUs.



I never said AMD wouldn't work. You attempted to set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that if I care about performance per dollar I should go with AMD and if I care about performance per watt, I should go with ARM. Conveniently missing is the case where I care about performance and performance per watt but actually need to get work done, ruling out ARM. Which you likely knew before you posted it.

Anything else?

ETA: I probably built my first AMD system before most of the people in this forum. It's still here in my office, as a matter of fact.

I misunderstood the part about getting work done too. Seemed like an uncharacteristic comment from you, but now I understand.

 

[Dark Shroud]

This is pretty much my take on it. We know AMD can't touch the i7's.

Except when the AMD chips do touch the i7s in higher threaded applications like video encoding, CAD work, & even some recent game engines.

Which comes back to the point that AMD chips are not as bad as a lot of people exclaim.

 

[galego]

This is pretty much my take on it. We know AMD can't touch the i7's. But I do think AMD's parts can now compete in the low and even mid range.

The FX-8350 can touch and can outperform the i7-3770K. For instance this is a recent crysis 3 review using W7 (+ FX hotfixes installed) where the FX outperforms the i7 (with HT enabled)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/02/Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png

And those are linux benchmarks where the FX outperforms the i7 (with HT enabled) even by large margins such as 30% in some of them

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=6dc05fb&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=5a87e9e&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=c4fb368&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=0c966a4&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=96eefe6&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=f236ffc&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=293f200&p=2

The linux benchmarks were discussed in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278243

 

[SlowSpyder]

Except when the AMD chips do touch the i7s in higher threaded applications like video encoding, CAD work, & even some recent game engines.

Which comes back to the point that AMD chips are not as bad as a lot of people exclaim.

But in general the i7's are in a leauge of their own. But things are a lot more back and fourth in the low to mid range. And that is why I am in agreement that the FX chips are probably a lot better than their reputation.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Guys, you're nitpicking here. I guess I need to watch my wording better, or something.

When you look at the overall picture, thecurrent i7's are simply faster than anything AMD has. That being said, I think things get a lot murkier in the low and mid range, and FX is worth looking at in those types of builds.

galego, did you ever answer with what your computer's specs are?

 

[toyota]

The FX-8350 can touch and can outperform the i7-3770K. For instance this is a recent crysis 3 review using W7 (+ FX hotfixes installed) where the FX outperforms the i7 (with HT enabled)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/02/Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/02/Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png

And those are linux benchmarks where the FX outperforms the i7 (with HT enabled) even by large margins such as 30% in some of them

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=6dc05fb&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=5a87e9e&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=c4fb368&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=0c966a4&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=96eefe6&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=f236ffc&p=2

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=293f200&p=2

The linux benchmarks were discussed in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278243

your link showing the 8350 beating 3770k in Crysis 3 does not work. here at techspot the 3770k is faster than the 8350 though. plus the 3770k has more overclocking headroom.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

EDIT: your pic is working now

 

[Sleepingforest]

The FX-8350 can touch and can outperform the i7-3770K. For instance this is a recent crysis 3 review using W7 (+ FX hotfixes installed) where the FX outperforms the i7 (with HT enabled)

Links removed for brevity

The linux benchmarks were discussed in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278243

The Linux benchmarks were also generally concluded to show a victory for the i7. Read the conclusion (emphasis added):

For many of the Linux computational benchmarks carried out in this article, the AMD FX-8350 proved to be competitive with the Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" processor.

In other words, the AMD FX-8350 is offered at a rather competitive value for fairly high-end desktops and workstations against Intel's latest Ivy Bridge offerings -- if you're commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well.

In not all of the Linux CPU benchmarks did the Piledriver-based FX-8350 do well. For some Linux programs, AMD CPUs simply don't perform well and the 2012 FX CPU was even beaten out by older Core i5 and i7 CPUs.

Exophase did a neat summary of the benchmark results in chart form:

You're referring to Phoronix right? http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rabdver2&num=1

This is a summary of every result:

On average, FX-8350 is over 10% behind. There are no outliers where FX-8350 wins by 70% - the highest is C-Ray at 41.6% and this is way off from the next highest win of 18.9%. Its biggest loss is by 58.6%.

Overall it loses 15 benchmarks and wins 7. And of course you can't claim that there's an artificial disadvantage due to compiler games.

 

[frozentundra123456]

your link showing the 8350 beating 3770k in Crysis 3 does not work. here at techspot the 3770k is faster than the 8350 though. plus the 3770k has more overclocking headroom.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

Crysis 3 benchmarks are all over the place. Another review at Tom's Hardware showed a low end i5 giving the same framerate as the 8350, with lower minimums. I am not denying the results that showed 8350 faster, I am just saying the results are very inconsistent, and close in any case.

 

[toyota]

Crysis 3 benchmarks are all over the place. Another review at Tom's Hardware showed a low end i5 giving the same framerate as the 8350, with lower minimums. I am not denying the results that showed 8350 faster, I am just saying the results are very inconsistent, and close in any case.

depends on where they test the game I guess. there are some very cpu limited areas. my 2500k at 4.4 cannot even keep the framerate above 50-55 fps in some areas with lots of grass.

 

[Gikaseixas]

9 Pages of worthless AMD arguments.

The most hilarious arguements are from people using AMD CPUs with AMD GPUs.

I see, so why did you bother to make another worthless post?

What's hilarious is you ignorant comment about AMD GPUs being more CPU bottlenecked than Nvidia's. Prove it please.

 

[grimpr]

The Linux benchmarks were also generally concluded to show a victory for the i7. Read the conclusion (emphasis added):
Exophase did a neat summary of the benchmark results in chart form:

Thats great results, it shows that the FX 8350 is on the same performance envelope as an Intel Core i7 2600 Sandy Bridge and 10% slower than an i7 3770 Ivy Bridge, all for 100$ less than the Intel cpus, this alone makes it a great cpu for Linux.

 

[Chiropteran]

You may think that Intel is "losing", but that's because of the bogus scenario you portrayed, which doesn't accurately assess what people want from CPUs.

I think the success or failure of Intel or AMD is only partially related to the quality and capabilities of their products. Largely, consumers buy computers and care more about the size of the monitor and the brand than anything else. The existence of Atom CPU based desktops should be enough to show that many consumers just don't care at all about what CPU they get. Intel does a much better job at selling it's product to the OEMs, which results in lots of computer buyers ending up with Intel systems.

I never said AMD wouldn't work. You attempted to set up a false dichotomy by suggesting that if I care about performance per dollar I should go with AMD and if I care about performance per watt, I should go with ARM. Conveniently missing is the case where I care about performance and performance per watt but actually need to get work done, ruling out ARM. Which you likely knew before you posted it.

Anything else?

I assumed you were talking about AMD with your real work comment, because this has been gone over repeatedly already and you didn't address any of the points.

Total cost of ownership, think about that. Depending on your source of computers, you may save $100 or more buying AMD. You admit that an AMD computer would work, you just don't like the increased power usage.

If you rationally look at the big picture, you might find that the extra $8 per year you pay for your power-hungry AMD CPU still allows you to save money overall, because you paid $100 less upfront and you aren't going to use the computer for more than 10 years. This is the whole point that has been made through the thread. It's only when silly corner-case examples like $.40/kwh costs that start to make Intel look like the better value.

Again, I ask for an actual real-world example, I don't know why you refuse to answer me.

Does "work" means excel, word, web browsing, and powerpoint? If so, your power usage difference is going to be insignificant and/or possibly even favor AMD, as those leave the CPU largely idle. Does your work mean 24/7 video encoding? Then you have one of the corner cases where the Intel power usage makes a huge difference. I'd argue that such cases are rare though, and certainly not a standard consideration for the average CPU buyer.

 

[galego]

your link showing the 8350 beating 3770k in Crysis 3 does not work. here at techspot the 3770k is faster than the 8350 though. plus the 3770k has more overclocking headroom.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

EDIT: your pic is working now

There are hardware and software differences between both reviews. For instance, the techspot review used only W7 SP1. The German review also installed the FX hotfixes provided by Microsoft. Those hotfixes correct a bad scheduler behaviour on Windows that affects the performance of the FX chips.

Techspot overclocked both chips to the same speed giving to the i7 an extra 0.5 GHz advantage, but in general the FX chips achieve more overclocking than the i7. Note that the FX owns the worldwide record of overclocking. Moreover, the Intel chips run at stock memory but the FX run with memory under the stock, which again affected performance and overclocking results.

 

[guskline]

For sheer gaming, the GPU selection make a greater impact than if it is a FX 8350 or a 3770k. However, if both of these chips are using identical ssd, memory, gpu and OS the 3770k gets my nod.