Just installed a AMD FX 8350. My thoughts!!!

[Centauri]

Jeebus. Stop telling people what not to buy. Whether you're buying on conviction or on TDP, you're making a horrible decision - all of the crap is gonna be worth pennies in a few years.

 

[Arkaign]

If AMD does go out of business.......you poor bastards will have nothing to do. I mean who you gonna bash then?

If a guy wants to build an AMD rig then more power to him.

Eh? I don't bash anything based on company, rather quality of product. It's why I recommend AMD GPUs at present but don't generally recommend AMD CPUs at present.

 

[Ferzerp]

Buying cheap slow CPUs is never a service to yourself. Everyone else buys slightly more expensive, much better CPUs, and you still have a slightly cheaper crap CPU. You aren't very good at game theory are you? If we accept your assertion that without amd, intel CPUs would be extremely expensive, the proper action to maximize your benefit is to buy Intel, but convince others to buy amd. Buying amd yourself is a losing proposition in both scenarios (one where and has little effect on pricing and one where and has high effect). Perhaps the wacky amd pushers buy Intel, but want to convince others to waste money because they believe amd has a large effect on pricing and want others to pay (the correct game theory action).

 

[Zap]

There you have it, folks. Concrete data.

From Tweakboy? Srsly?

it gives an average users perspective about desktop experience and overall smoothness

For the "average user" the best desktop experience is any modern dual core (Intel or AMD, but faster than Atom/Bobcat) with any modern SSD and any modern integrated graphics.

Oh, did you really mean "average gamer who fancies himself a power user" and not "average user?"

That's bogus. Intel needs to keep prices reasonable in order to keep people upgrading especially in a weak demand environment.

Exactly. AMD is not needed to keep Intel pricing in check. Intel's biggest competitor is its own previous generation products.

 

[guskline]

Just went with a FX 8350 in rig 3 below. Previously had a FX8150. Solid chip. Well pleased with the improvements in the PileDriver core.

 

[Vic Vega]

FX-8350 is Piledriver.

 

[Centauri]

Let the record state that Vic Vega was most likely responding to geokilla.

 

[Dave3000]

He was better off buying an i7 3930k and going with a Samusng 830 256GB SSD instead of the FX-8350 and a 512GB Samsung 840 SSD. Also he was better off buying 32GB of DDR3-1600 and not the much more expensive DDR3-2400, assuming that I think he should have gone with an i7-3930k / X79 system. I see nothing wrong with a GTX 680 although it's not a good value for the money card, but if he can afford a GTX 680 then why not? Actually a GTX 660ti seems to be the best value for performance card right now, not the GTX 670. However, everything I said here is just my honest opinion.

 

[Centauri]

He was better off buying an i7 3930k and going with a Samusng 830 256GB SSD instead of the FX-8350 and a 512GB Samsung 840 SSD.

Unless, of course, he needs/wants more than 256GBs of SSD space...

 

[WiseUp216]

From Tweakboy? Srsly?

My comment was definitely not srs.

 

[guskline]

FX-8350 is Piledriver.

Sorry correct. I should have said Vishera!

 

[tweakboy]

well, if he is buying 32GB of expensive ram, a gtx 680 and $600 SSD, why not go with a 3930k?

Well, because his job is video rendering. He wanted 8 physical cores. He was hell bent on that. I explained to him single thread Intel is faster, then he told me well Premiere is 64 bit app that loves cores. I said well Intel has 4 cores and 4 more threads for 8 threads. He was confused.. I explained how its not a real 8 phsycial cores... Then he goes I want 8 physical cores, and since its multi threaded app, I said are you willing to go to AMD he said yes, whatever the cost. It was only 230 dollars which made him happier for the other gear the SSD and video card he bought.

 

[tweakboy]

Sorry correct. I should have said Vishera!

Oops, thanks for the correction guskline.

 

[Ferzerp]

He wanted 8 physical cores

Then he should have bought a Xeon, because he doesn't have 8 physical cores now.

 

[SithSolo1]

I'm not saying the 8350 is a bad chip, however for a "cost is no option" build I would have gone for a 6-core Intel chip. Especially for video work and gaming. Anyway, glad he's happy with it.

 

[Ferzerp]

For cost is no option, it should have been a dual socket 8 core SB Xeon workstation (16 core/32 threads).

 

[inf64]

Total time to completion of THG benchmark suite in recent 3970x review was 91m for intels flagship. This includes both ST and MT workloads(those several ST tests skew the difference a lot towards intel chips). FX8350 has a total time to completion of 116m. Therefore 91/116=0.78 or top of the line intel CPU 3970x @ 3.5/4Ghz was ~22% faster overall than AMD's top FX8350 chip. 22% faster while costing 4.7x more and consuming similar amount of energy. And then someone says AMD's chips are "slow"... 6C/12T SB-E behemoth is 22% faster than "weak" 8 integer/4FP cores high clocking design while costing ~5x more(4.7x CPU alone and the rest is platform cost).

 

[Mallibu]

Total time to completion of THG benchmark suite in recent 3970x review was 91m for intels flagship. This includes both ST and MT workloads(those several ST tests skew the difference a lot towards intel chips). FX8350 has a total time to completion of 116m. Therefore 91/116=0.78 or top of the line intel CPU 3970x @ 3.5/4Ghz was ~22% faster overall than AMD's top FX8350 chip. 22% faster while costing 4.7x more and consuming similar amount of energy. And then someone says AMD's chips are "slow"... 6C/12T SB-E behemoth is 22% faster than "weak" 8 integer/4FP cores high clocking design while costing ~5x more(4.7x CPU alone and the rest is platform cost).

FX is also equal to an i3 in gaming while beeing 200% more expensive and using 300% more power.

The whole "I use percentages and cherry picked things to prove my non-existant point" has never worked for you before, no point to continue it.

And about snapiness, and the rest fairy tales, people can read this: http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

Yes, AMD cpus are the last in the "snapiness" factor, according to the data.

And to make that worse, SSD's still perform worse on AMD chipsets than Intel ones.

 

[SithSolo1]

For cost is no option, it should have been a dual socket 8 core SB Xeon workstation (16 core/32 threads).

Well obviously cost was an option or he would have bought a 6000 cpu server farm. Leaping from an 8350 to an i7-3930k would have been about a $500 difference. Most of that could have been made up by going with a 256gb ssd and zero drop in overall performance. Again that's just what I would have done given that kind of money.

 

[Ferzerp]

Well obviously cost was an option or he would have bought a 6000 cpu server farm. Leaping from an 8350 to an i7-3930k would have been about a $500 difference. Most of that could have been made up by going with a 256gb ssd and zero drop in overall performance. Again that's just what I would have done given that kind of money.

There is a large difference between personal and professional equipment. With one, it is cost vs. enjoyment. With the other, it is all about ROI. There are times with the upper tier of hardware is the most logical choice because it allows you to complete more work and thus make more money.

 

[Rvenger]

Yes, AMD cpus are the last in the "snapiness" factor, according to the data.

And to make that worse, SSD's still perform worse on AMD chipsets than Intel ones.

Do you own one to make this assertion? SSDs may perform slower on AMD but not by a magnitude like you are painting. The most recent driver actually closed in on the gap. Quit spewing garbage around.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you own one to make this assertion? SSDs may perform slower on AMD but not by a magnitude like you are painting. The most recent driver actually closed in on the gap. Quit spewing garbage around.

Got any links for that?

 

[SithSolo1]

There is a large difference between personal and professional equipment. With one, it is cost vs. enjoyment. With the other, it is all about ROI. There are times with the upper tier of hardware is the most logical choice because it allows you to complete more work and thus make more money.

Point taken. I was deffintely looking at from the personal side.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Other than power user compared to Intel's chips, the 8350 does't look to be too bad of a processor.

 

[Mallibu]

Do you own one to make this assertion? SSDs may perform slower on AMD but not by a magnitude like you are painting. The most recent driver actually closed in on the gap. Quit spewing garbage around.

Taken from Guru3D review:

"We absolutely prefer the performance of the Intel Series 6 and 7 (H67/P67/Z68/Z77/H77/X79) integrated SATA 6G controller over anything else available in the market. If you run the SSD from a 3rd party controller with say a Marvell 6G controller, you will see lower performance. The new AMD 85X xhipsets also offer fantastic performance. The more recent Asmedia controllers we spotted lately on motherboards are also offering good performance,albeit still 20%~25% slower then Intel's controllers. Also make sure you run your drive in AHCI mode, it does make such a difference in performance -- really guys, a big difference."

And also, the Samsung 830 I got performed a lot worse in my previous AMD system.

Now let's combine that with the techreport review for frame latencies, and we can say that AMD cpu's and platform is dead last in "snapiness" according to data.