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

[Zap]

My comment was definitely not srs.

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

The module. It burns.

I've always wondered about that, since Bulldozer. Guess others wonder too. It is quad module, but can run 8 threads. But wait, a Core i7 socket 1155 is quad core with 8 threads.

 

[Ferzerp]

There is no question that it works better than Hyperthreading when comparing the penalty for using that second thread. However, on the Intel side, the core itself is so much more capable that it's usually a wash.

You can get 1 slow thread and 2 semi slow threads on AMD vs. 1 fast thread, or 2 not-quite-as-semi-slow threads on Intel. Which would you pick?

Usually, except in very, very few scenarios, the HT Intel core is far outperforming the AMD module.

 

[inf64]

For throughput computing module is a good performer. For "speed" tasks obviously Core design is better since one core in Core i7 takes up the space of one module(both on 32nm of course;SB core + 2MB L3 vs BD module with 2MB L2).

 

[ShintaiDK]

For throughput computing module is a good performer. For "speed" tasks obviously Core design is better since one core in Core i7 takes up the space of one module(both on 32nm of course;SB core + 2MB L3 vs BD module with 2MB L2).

Really?

 

[Ferzerp]

The 2660 is a decent chip, but I prefer the 2670.

 

[Makaveli]

From Tweakboy? Srsly?

This end thread!

lol

 

[Vesku]

Really?

Cross comparison doesn't really work to differentiate HT from CMT. Intel would have to build a CMT version or AMD an HT version to really compare. Using AMDs cores they seemed to have hit their 80%ish of 2 fully separate cores target. It just so happened that the cores they designed were disappointing with Bulldozer and "where was this a year ago" with Piledriver.

You seem to be trying to refute claims no one is making with your linked image.

 

[guskline]

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

I own a Bulldozer 8150 which I'm selling because I bought a 8350. You can see by my rigs below that I have 2 Intel 2500ks OC and now this AMD 8350. I notice the AMD vs Intel vs AMD vs Intel camps keep shooting at each other with snippets of favorable reviews.

Owning what I do, I think the 8350 has caught the 2500k and is nipping at the heels of the 3570k.

Overall the AMD AM3+ mb/chipset doesn't quite match the Intel Z77 for speed but might have a little more versatility. AMD adjusted the price of the 8350 to match its closest Intel competition.

What impresses me about the FX8350 is good gaming ability coupled with strong multi threaded ability and reasonable power usage.

Hard to go wrong buying an Intel Z77 plus 3570k. Also I feel an AMD Fx8350 plus an AMD AM3+ 990FX is not a bad buy.

Perhaps the hideous reviews of the 8150 are clouding judgments?

These are my early impressions owning the Intel and Amd rigs below.

 

[piesquared]

The shills seem to be having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that AMD's chips are indeed competitive. And the fact that many outright refuse to support a predatory monopoly(good on them!).

Dude, you just got back from a vacation and are calling people shills? You must really not want to be here.
-ViRGE

 

[SlowSpyder]

I own a Bulldozer 8150 which I'm selling because I bought a 8350. You can see by my rigs below that I have 2 Intel 2500ks OC and now this AMD 8350. I notice the AMD vs Intel vs AMD vs Intel camps keep shooting at each other with snippets of favorable reviews.

Owning what I do, I think the 8350 has caught the 2500k and is nipping at the heels of the 3570k.

Overall the AMD AM3+ mb/chipset doesn't quite match the Intel Z77 for speed but might have a little more versatility. AMD adjusted the price of the 8350 to match its closest Intel competition.

What impresses me about the FX8350 is good gaming ability coupled with strong multi threaded ability and reasonable power usage.

Hard to go wrong buying an Intel Z77 plus 3570k. Also I feel an AMD Fx8350 plus an AMD AM3+ 990FX is not a bad buy.

Perhaps the hideous reviews of the 8150 are clouding judgments?

These are my early impressions owning the Intel and Amd rigs below.

I kind of get that impression. Piledriver equates to Bulldozer in many poster's minds, as soon as people see that AMD's top chip is still slower than Intel's, it is an automatic loser. People fail to see where these chips compete, an FX6300 costs the same as an i3. Intel still makes a faster overall line up. I think you see a great example here of how mindshare is bought by the highend skus.

I think the 8350 looks to be a pretty solid chip if it could just get its power use down... that's really the only downfall I see. Sure, single threaded performance lacks too, but I don't believe that to be as big of a deal as some make it out to be.

 

[Phynaz]

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).

Now include the cost of somebody's time. How much does a Premier professional cost? If I can increase his productivity by just 10% the cost difference between the AMD and Intel CPU goes away.

In the case above, after two weeks of ownership, the FX CPU actually starts becoming more expensive than the Intel CPU.

Funny what happens when you look at both sides of the equation.

 

[Vesku]

The time argument is only relevant up to a point. Unless you work in an office where you are chained to your cubicle and whipped if you stop being "productive".

The 8350 is at a good spot price/perf wise, shame it didn't show up a year ago instead of the 8150.

 

[Chiropteran]

Now include the cost of somebody's time. How much does a Premier professional cost? If I can increase his productivity by just 10% the cost difference between the AMD and Intel CPU goes away.

In the case above, after two weeks of ownership, the FX CPU actually starts becoming more expensive than the Intel CPU.

Funny what happens when you look at both sides of the equation.

Because professionals enter hibernation while a CPU is computing work, right?

In my office, if someone is running a long compute job, they don't just sit there and stare idly at the screen. More than likely they go for a cup of coffee, or meet with an associate, or go to a meeting, or alt-tab and work on something else.

Or they run the compute job on VMs, in which case the performance of one VM isn't as important as the number of VM CPU's which can be purchased for a given budget.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Inb4lock

No lock, but you can have an infraction for thread crapping. You know we don't do these kinds of shenanigans in the technical forums
-ViRGE

 

[BD231]

Tell your friend I get the same frame rates as his GTX 680 using a GTX 480. No bottleneck right!? lol

 

[Greenlepricon]

Tell your friend I get the same frame rates as his GTX 680 using a GTX 480. No bottleneck right!? lol

Although I'm relatively new to the forums, I've never seen a useful or even remotely helpful post come from you. Not attacking you necessarily, but this brings nothing to the thread.

Anyway if this build is for work, then yes, a nice Intel chip would have worked better, but there is nothing wrong with the 8350. The fact that it can outperform i7's in some workloads (although generally less useful ones) is impressive, and it does lose quite a bit in single threaded workloads, but isn't terrible.

The power needs and heat from piledriver aren't good compared to Intel, but the guy doesn't care about money, and it's really not as bad as a lot of people like to think. Gaming performance isn't bad either. His monitor better be nice if he dropped this much on his computer. At those higher resolutions it would be easy to lock in at 60 fps if his gpu can handle it usually. Maybe he does go for as many frames as possible like some people do, but the cpu definitely won't be the bottleneck for most games as it is.

I'm actually impressed with the 8350 in terms of what AMD was able to accomplish in upgrading Bulldozer. I wish that it was a little more competitive with Intel but they did the best they could and released a pretty nice product. Back to the main point though, if the extra 50-100 dollars doesn't matter, Intel is definitely a better choice. Just don't make AMD out to be as bad as too many people think it is.

 

[AtenRa]

Tell your friend I get the same frame rates as his GTX 680 using a GTX 480. No bottleneck right!? lol

Dont make a bet, you'll loose badly

 

[Phynaz]

Because professionals enter hibernation while a CPU is computing work, right?

In my office, if someone is running a long compute job, they don't just sit there and stare idly at the screen. More than likely they go for a cup of coffee, or meet with an associate, or go to a meeting, or alt-tab and work on something else.

Or they run the compute job on VMs, in which case the performance of one VM isn't as important as the number of VM CPU's which can be purchased for a given budget.

Which is why I only said 10%.

Let's say 5% then. Breakeven is in a month. After that the AMD system actually costs more money. :whiste:

 

[mikeymikec]

The shills seem to be having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that AMD's chips are indeed competitive. And the fact that many outright refuse to support a predatory monopoly(good on them!).

By 'shill' do you mean "people who aren't praising AMD as if they have achieved something truly wonderful"?

Wikipedia's definition of shill:
"A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization."

Phenom I was underwhelming. Phenom II did a reasonably decent job at providing a cheaper alternative to Intel CPUs, though very few people would argue that they were 'as good as' the first generation Core iX CPUs', then they were blown out the water by the second generation. The lead that Intel gained through the misstep that was Phenom I widened even further after the crown had been taken by Intel's Core/Quad line from AMD.

Bulldozer was Phenom I all over again. Piledriver/Vishera is a much more credible alternative than Bulldozer was. In terms of power consumption when under load they're still embarrassing as BD, and a lot of developed countries are seeing massively increased electricity bills.

I have a Phenom II CPU and an AMD GPU. Unless AMD drastically improves its driver support/QA while keeping an approximate pace with Intel performance wise (and hopefully improves power consumption), I won't be buying AMD's wares again because the systems I've built with AMD chipsets have a list of quirks and odd/bad behaviour that outnumbers all the previous boards I've ever used put together (I've built about 90-100 systems in my life). Same goes for the 5770 I've got. A lot of the time, in order to get smooth video playback I have to disable and re-enable desktop composition, that's the current one that gets on my nerves.

I would have questioned the sanity of anyone buying a Bulldozer CPU unless their needs perfectly matched Bulldozer's advantages and they didn't care about power consumption. I wouldn't say the same for Piledriver/Vishera CPU buyers generally.

 

[mrmt]

The shills seem to be having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that AMD's chips are indeed competitive. And the fact that many outright refuse to support a predatory monopoly(good on them!).

This militant argument of "not supporting a predatory monopoly" is a moot point, as AMD is too far on behind on the technology curve to sell competitive products with reasonable die size. They are bankrupting itself selling products like that so you buying or not doesn't really matter in the end. But along being pointless, your moral argument is flawed.

Whenever you buy AMD chips because they suit you better or is a better economic deal for you that's fine, that's what you should always do. But When you buy AMD chips just to "support the competition", you are actually supporting yesterday tech, half-baked engineering and pie in the sky management. You are essentially rewarding failure.

Bulldozer and Trinity are not sound engineering, they are brute force approach from every point you look at it. Both are huge chips, with atrocious power consumption and that must be sold at very low margins in order to be interesting for most consumers and OEMs.

Still want to reward failure? That's your call, but don't come here trying to argue for a moral high ground to buy AMD.

 

[guskline]

Although I'm relatively new to the forums, I've never seen a useful or even remotely helpful post come from you. Not attacking you necessarily, but this brings nothing to the thread.

Anyway if this build is for work, then yes, a nice Intel chip would have worked better, but there is nothing wrong with the 8350. The fact that it can outperform i7's in some workloads (although generally less useful ones) is impressive, and it does lose quite a bit in single threaded workloads, but isn't terrible.

The power needs and heat from piledriver aren't good compared to Intel, but the guy doesn't care about money, and it's really not as bad as a lot of people like to think. Gaming performance isn't bad either. His monitor better be nice if he dropped this much on his computer. At those higher resolutions it would be easy to lock in at 60 fps if his gpu can handle it usually. Maybe he does go for as many frames as possible like some people do, but the cpu definitely won't be the bottleneck for most games as it is.

I'm actually impressed with the 8350 in terms of what AMD was able to accomplish in upgrading Bulldozer. I wish that it was a little more competitive with Intel but they did the best they could and released a pretty nice product. Back to the main point though, if the extra 50-100 dollars doesn't matter, Intel is definitely a better choice. Just don't make AMD out to be as bad as too many people think it is.

Greenlepricon, so you got the 8350? How do you like it? Have you OC'd it? Settings are very picky, but with trial and error and reading about other mbs, I was able to get a solid 4.7 Ghz. Keep us posted on your results!

 

[guskline]

Funny how we have morphed, again (sigh), from the OP thread to moral vs immoral.

 

[Greenlepricon]

Greenlepricon, so you got the 8350? How do you like it? Have you OC'd it? Settings are very picky, but with trial and error and reading about other mbs, I was able to get a solid 4.7 Ghz. Keep us posted on your results!

Haven't got it just yet but expecting one soon! Here's to hoping that I get a nice one that overclocks well. My 8120 is alright and will easily match a decent 8150 overclock, but I know not everyone is so lucky with them. I've gotten it up to 4.3Ghz easy with a small voltage bump if I remember correctly? I don't keep it all the way up cause I don't really need it and hate drawing the resources 24/7, but I like to see how far my hardware will go if necessary

 

[Hatisherrif]

Yes, and when Venus is in the position to directly influence the spherical shape of C-59 and doing so allow the hydrogen to be freed from the dusty crust of IO-44, the evident adverse effect is the collision between X-590-A and C-58 which leads to the creation of photon particles which bounce off of the Earth and create the image Aliens on Gama-5 see today as a pre-historic zoo which bears the consequences of indirect sunlight affecting the Moon@#@#

That's why AMD sucks@#@#

 

[Sheep221]

I think what AMD did really wrong is bad ad campaign since Bulldozer era, the cpus are marketed to have 8 cores, they are however beaten by quad cores. They should be sold as quad cores as well. The 4 modules inside FX-8150 and FX-8350 are basically a cores, the fact that each module contains less powerful 2 ALUs is not really making the CPU to have 8 physical cores. They should continue in the pre-2011 tradition of offering cheaper and slightly less powerful additions to Intel's offerings.