My impressions owning both the FX8350 and now the 3770k.

[AtenRa]

I have both(see links bellow), the Ivy i7 is faster but cost >50% more. For multitasking both are performing great.

just to add,
Disabling HT in BF3(MultiPlayer) on the Core i7 makes the game feel like its lagging, completely destroying the game experience. fps count is the same but the feeling is way different, I dont know if guskline or anyone else with the Core i7 play the game to confirm this.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Hey now ! don't bash my linux

openbenchmarking.com is actually pretty handy with pts
I believe it's not just limited to linux also

 

[Torn Mind]

It is not true "no one" uses Linux, but yes, the amount of people using a Linux distro as a complete desktop solution is quite small. That said, I am one of those few, but I barely tax it since I just do mostly web browsing.

Linux is not a beneficial operating system to the total "tech bumbler" most computer users are because its troubleshooting workflow is an extreme pain in the ass and its workflow in getting programs to work is a bit more convoluted. In addition, the obvious thing is that support for some Windows apps is poor.

 

[grimpr]

I have both(see links bellow), the Ivy i7 is faster but cost >50% more. For multitasking both are performing great.

just to add,
Disabling HT in BF3(MultiPlayer) on the Core i7 makes the game feel like its lagging, completely destroying the game experience. fps count is the same but the feeling is way different, I dont know if guskline or anyone else with the Core i7 play the game to confirm this.

Thats the point i'm trying to make for the Core i7's, imho this is happening due to disk/io, the extra threads help loading data from the disk and smooth out the experience, i'm sure there is a tool from microsoft that will help profile the game and what it does in its execution.

 

[grimpr]

Thats the point i'm trying to make for the Core i7's, imho this is happening due to disk/io, the extra threads help loading data from the disk and smooth out the experience, i'm sure there is a tool from microsoft that will help profile the game and what it does in its execution.

Yes, wpr/xperf will help.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/yongrhee...onpaged-pool-and-or-application-slowness.aspx

 

[AtenRa]

nice thx, i will test it.

 

[ViRGE]

I don't know how you guys get into fights in under 30 posts. But if you're going to act like children I'll gladly treat you like children. Knock off the holy war crap.

-ViRGE

 

[guskline]

wow... I know idontcare is an administrator, but i used to be the primary cpu moderator. I guess i have been impeached.

Sorry Markfw900. I didn't mean to offend a SuperModerator. I just remember that IdontCare had done a nice thread examinig the FX 8350 and comparing it to the 3770k .

 

[guskline]

I have both(see links bellow), the Ivy i7 is faster but cost >50% more. For multitasking both are performing great.

just to add,
Disabling HT in BF3(MultiPlayer) on the Core i7 makes the game feel like its lagging, completely destroying the game experience. fps count is the same but the feeling is way different, I dont know if guskline or anyone else with the Core i7 play the game to confirm this.

Atenra. I will try that. Yes you do have both so you really can compare. No argument if you pay the Newegg price for the 3770k. However if you live near a MicroCenter the difference is $60 - not a game changer on price.

 

[guskline]

Not a troll thread. I did buy his 8150.

Hey Guskline, I felt the heat on my FX6100 so I guess I can probably turn my furnace off after I get this chip eh?

Actually, if you keep the OC at 4.2 Ghz or under it isn't bad. It really spikes at @4.4Ghz. Do you have an aftermarket cooler?

 

[guskline]

Guskline, i would had seeked out an 2600/2700k instead of the IB i7, the thermals are much better on SB and are worth more in perceived value of the chip, at least to me, than the extra performance of the IB core.

I hear what you are saying but the price of $229.99 was "right".

 

[bgt]

I hear what you are saying but the price of $229.99 was "right".

I paid € 292, - for my i7 and € 182,- for my FX. Big difference. But it is nice to have both. So you can get the experience=feel for these chips. For me the FX is the most stable 1. No lags!

 

[FlanK3r]

I have 4x FX-8350, 2x FX-8320, 2x FX-6300 and many,many others AMD CPUs, 2x i7-3770K, 1x i7-2600K, 1x i7-980x, 1x i7-3930k. But most fun I have with FX-8350 -5300 MHz Cinebench, 5200MHz wprime 1024M, 5700+ MHz validation! Is the best CPU for benchmarking with classic cooling. i7-3770K is "bored" (but quickly). i7-2600K is better for air/watter (5 GHz Cinebench, 5400 MHz validation, 5300 superpi). Gulftown is not bad too for fun.

 

[guskline]

I have 4x FX-8350, 2x FX-8320, 2x FX-6300 and many,many others AMD CPUs, 2x i7-3770K, 1x i7-2600K, 1x i7-980x, 1x i7-3930k. But most fun I have with FX-8350 -5300 MHz Cinebench, 5200MHz wprime 1024M, 5700+ MHz validation! Is the best CPU for benchmarking with classic cooling. i7-3770K is "bored" (but quickly). i7-2600K is better for air/watter (5 GHz Cinebench, 5400 MHz validation, 5300 superpi). Gulftown is not bad too for fun.

FlanK3r: Holy smokes. You have to be the KING of CPUs!:biggrin: Do you actually have all of those cpus running in rigs?

 

[FlanK3r]

I have only 2-3 workstation, main PC is FX-8350+C5F-z, second PC is x6 1090T BE+C4F, third PC is benchtable, actually is here APU Trinity and ready for Richland review . Few days before there was i7-3770k+some Z77 boards. Others CPU/boards I have now in the closet (in safe )

 

[redtruthseeker]

For Linux, more and more people are using Linux for gaming thanks to Valve and Gabe Newell. Open GL is better than DirectX in performance since its more dynamic and versatile, Linux OS's consume less than Windows or notorious Mac OS also the problem why Linux is not a OS for gaming is because not many companies ever focus on Linux since most people are on Windows that is going to hell in each iteration because Microsofts greed...

Anyway AMD has great GPU drivers for Linux and I wouldt be suprised if AMD CPU's is far more Linux friendly than Intel's CPUs and it has been proved several times.

I plan to switch to Linux sooner or later, Ubuntu is main Linux OS and I fear that it may lose some advantage because devs keep adding so much stuff. I really hope they will later optimize and do it better,faster,stronger... Daft Punk guys

 

[Markfw]

Another vote for Linux. I have it on my dual 6234's (24 cores total), and was told that it is the ONLY OS approved for bigadv crunching, since windows has so many memory holes and bugs. Also, its the recommended server for the Apache server for the application that I support. They say its better for the purpose for an internet server for that, LDAP and jboss.

They might just have something there.

 

[Rvenger]

Actually, if you keep the OC at 4.2 Ghz or under it isn't bad. It really spikes at @4.4Ghz. Do you have an aftermarket cooler?

I have a Hyper 212+ with the EVO fan. Should be good to 4.2ghz

 

[Idontcare]

I hear you friend. I see alot of posters on either side of the fence but most opinions are based on what they read or hear from others, not their owning both cpus.
Our Moderator, Idontcare, owns both the AMD FX8350 AND the Intel I7-3770k. Ask him if my impressions are incorrect.

Calling me "your" moderator is kind, I'm honored and flattered, but it is a generous over-estimate of my stature in this sub-forum

Mark is your CPU mod (he is THE primary mod in CPU), and ViRGE is your on-the-beat active moderator in a day-to-day capacity.

They both put the word "super" into "super-moderator" and this place would fall apart from spambots and flamewars without their volunteer time and effort to keep it running as smoothly as it does.

Someone should take up a paypal collection for Mark and ViRGE, send your donations to me and I'll be sure to see they get sent on to the mods. (less a paltry miniscule administrative fee reserved for my processing efforts of course , say 60-80% LOL)

Back on topic, someone asked me the other day in a pm to summarize my feelings about the FX-8350 versus the i7-3770K and here is what I had to say (pasted from the pm):

...what are your thoughts on your 8350 vs your experience with the i7?

I enjoy my 8350 as a hobby toy, but I do not really enjoy it as a compute machine.

I cringe everytime I see that kill-a-watt showing me it is using 100W+ more power than my i7's all while being slower in accomplishing the exact same compute task

The platform itself makes baby jesus cry as well. It just feels wrong to take my lovely 240GB OCZ V3 ssd and plug it into the AMD rig only to watch its performance be totally limited by the craptastic sata efficiency of AMD's chipsets.

Same with my nice DDR3-2133 ram, it runs CR1 on the Intel rig and delivers awesome bandwidth...move it over to the AMD rig and it can only run CR2 in addition to the fact that for the same ram speed it delivers far less overall bandwidth because once again AMD's platforms are just not as optimized as Intels

If I didn't have the i7 then I absolutely would not know any better and in that case, psychologically speaking, I would not care about these negative aspects of the 8350 platform.

And lets not discount the fact that the AMD chip itself is some $150 cheaper than the i7, the mobo is another $100 cheaper, and the stock HSF for the AMD 8350 enables much better OC'ing than the Intel ever could.

If I was back in college, poor and eating top-ramen noodles, then those kinds of dollar amounts would matter to me and I'd appreciate the performance/dollar aspects of the 8350 all the more. But I'm not back in college which is probably why I like my i7's all the more. I got what I paid for, yeah for me!

So to sum it up, I like my 8350 provided I can forget about my i7's while using the 8350. So if I didn't have my i7's then I'd be totally satisfied with my 8350.

Let's see, how else to put it?...:hmm:...its like having a girlfriend who is hot but has small tits, nothing to not like about that until along comes girlfriend number two who is just as hot but has a couple cup sizes larger in the boob dept, hellz yeah I'm gonna enjoy that and it will be on my mind when I'm with the less endowed girlfriend...but my problem is a first-world problem (be it two computers or two girlfriends), had I just the one then I'd still be totally satisfied with either option

 

[2is]

For Linux, more and more people are using Linux for gaming thanks to Valve and Gabe Newell. Open GL is better than DirectX in performance since its more dynamic and versatile, Linux OS's consume less than Windows or notorious Mac OS also the problem why Linux is not a OS for gaming is because not many companies ever focus on Linux since most people are on Windows that is going to hell in each iteration because Microsofts greed...

Maybe 10+ years ago your OpenGL argument would have been relavent, today however development has been stagnant and number of games that support it small. wishful thinking to suggest an OS with much poorer driver AND API support is going to game better. Not to mention OGL works in windows too, but doesn't get used because DX is superior.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

someone asked me the other day in a pm to summarize my feelings about the FX-8350 versus the i7-3770K

:ninja:

 

[Sleepingforest]

@RedTruthSeeker: I hate to say this, but many people use Nvidia GPUs over AMD GPUs for Linux because the drivers are much better.

Just one example:
Steam

 

[AnandThenMan]

Another vote for Linux.

+1.

Linux can be infuriating to deal with, but damn is it one sweet, fast and stable OS. And I mean fast, I get network throughputs on Linux that make Windows look like trash. If Linux becomes a viable gaming platform, I will leave Windows for good it's the only reason I use it.

 

[Chiropteran]

@RedTruthSeeker: I hate to say this, but many people use Nvidia GPUs over AMD GPUs for Linux because the drivers are much better.

You must be joking.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/torvalds-nvidia-linux/

Late last week, at a hacker meetup in Finland, Torvalds laid into Nvidia, calling it “the single worst company” the Linux developer community has ever dealt with, complaining that the chipmaker doesn’t do as much as it could to ensure that its hardware plays nicely with his open source operating system. He even turned to the camera filming the event, flipped the company the proverbial bird, and dropped the proverbial F bomb.

“Nvidia, **** you,” he said, as the room erupted with applause and laughter.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I was basing my statement on a brief Google search. At least half the forum comments I found advocated Nvidia, and the other half was saying that the drivers are roughly equal. Very few posts claimed AMD is better than Nvidia.

Also, Redtruthseeker is a consistent AMD advocate, even when other processors are better for the user. Pretty much all his posts have been "ah but APU/FX series!" so I tend to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

Now, I normally agree with the superiority of AMD for GPUs this generation, but from the last I knew, Nvidia worked better, with fewer problems, or at the very least equally well, with Linux.

But who am I to question the developer of Linux? He knows much more than I do about his own operating system, so I'll take his word for it.