performance difference in i7 3770k and AMD Fx8350 (3dsmax)

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by nks, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi,

    i am new to this forum. so please forgive me if i am asking a question which have been asked earlier.
    i have recently started learning 3dsmax design and so i need to upgrade my computer.
    my recent hardware is :
    phenom 965 BE oced to 3.8ghz for 24/7 use
    mobo - MSI 790fx gd70
    16gb gskill ripjaws
    noctua nh d-14
    corsair 128gb ssd
    gtx 480 GPU


    i am planing to upgrade the above setup to piledriver fx8350 or i7 3770k.
    i have read a lot of reviews and performance of fx8350 in 3dsmax is comparable to corei7 3770k. i know i7 is faster but i would like to know exact how much performance hit i will get if i go for i7.


    for example if i render in mental ray and i get my frame in 30minutes on i7 3770k
    i think it will take max 35minutes for fx8350 to render the same frame.

    if this is the case then i think i should go with 8350 and save some money and can buy a quadro card in near future.

    and i will oc FX8350 to 4.8ghz for 24/7 use.
    so please enlighten me on this issue.


    Thanks
     
  2. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Here you go:
    http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-7/rendu-3d-mental-ray-v-ray.html

    Stock vs stock.
    Mental Ray:
    8350- 703s
    3770K-700s
    Practically the same performance,difference is well within the margin of error(0.05%).

    V-ray:
    8350- 231s
    3770K-248s
    231/248=0.93 => FX8350 is around 7% faster than 3770K.

    So in these 2 workloads 8350 is actually on par or faster than 3770K,both at stock clocks.
     
  3. Geforce man

    Geforce man Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you be overclocking the i7 as well? Important question. The 8350 @ stock is 4.0Ghz, and barely beats the i7 @ 3.5Ghz. If they were both @ 4.6-4.8Ghz, the i7 would destroy the 8350.

    Also is power consumption important to you? At stock the 8350 uses nearly 2x the power of the i7. @ your goal of 4.8Ghz, it would be nearly triple. A heavily OC'd i7 wont even touch a stock 8350 for power usage.
     
  4. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the forums nks :thumbsup:

    I have both, the FX-8350 and the i7-3770K, and would gladly run 3dsmax benches for you (at stock and OC'ed) and report back the performance (including power consumption numbers) if there is a way for me to run such benches.

    Looking at this page, it looks like I can download a free 30-day trial version. Do you know if I can run the benches you are looking for with those trial versions?

    Walk me through what you need me to do and I'll do it.
     
  5. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Are you sure 3770K runs at 3.5Ghz the whole time in mental ray and v-ray? I was under impression that with its advanced turbo and shared TDP budget(with iGPU) it is using up the headroom even with all 4 cores loaded up. I'm not sue how high it can go but I'm pretty sure it's not 3.9Ghz and it's not stock 3.5Ghz :). It's probably hovering around 3.6-3.7Ghz which is just ~10% lower than 8350.
     
  6. LOL_Wut_Axel

    LOL_Wut_Axel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    When all four cores are loaded on the 3770K it runs at 3.6GHz, and when eight cores are loaded on the 8350 it runs at 4.1GHz IIRC.

    So really it doesn't change anything.
     
  7. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    4.1Ghz is achieved rarely IIRC. It's a half core turbo state while 4.2Ghz is single core turbo state. It can hit this with 8 integer cores but workloads we are talking about are SSE heavy so FPU will be taxed to the maximum. Even if it is 4.1Ghz vs 3.6Ghz it's just 13% difference,just about enough for 3770K to eek out in front of FX in V-ray(by ~6%) and have ~13% lead in mental ray. But that is FX @ stock Vs OCed 3770K.
     
  8. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    bro
    i am really glad that i met you on this forum.
    can you please download a 30 days trial of 3dsmax.
    i will give you a link to a file.
    just open it and hit render button on both the machines.
    oce'd and non oce'd.
    and keep a stop clock handy in the mean time.
    and please let me know how much time each machine takes.
    and i will buy accordingly.
    i was going to purchase 8350 tommorow.
    but i think i should wait for your result.
    thanks a tons for this.
     
  9. LOL_Wut_Axel

    LOL_Wut_Axel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 8350 uses ~2x more power, though. It is significantly less expensive, though, both have their ups and downs.
     
  10. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    power usage is not a problem as of now.
    and if performance difference between the two is not big then i will go for 8350.
    a cpu mobo combo like
    8350 and asrock extreme 4 mobo will cost 22k
    whereas a similar board with core i7 3770k will cost 35k
    so if i am spending that much i want corei7 to eat up fx 8350.
     
  11. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shoot me that link and I'll run the benches today/this evening. You may make your purchase decision by tomorrow after all ;)

    (send the link by pm if you don't want the link publicized across the internet)
     
  12. sm625

    sm625 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,767
    Likes Received:
    22
    It is unfortunate that your motherboard wont support piledriver, that would make the decision a little easier.
     
  13. tweakboy

    tweakboy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    9,518
    Likes Received:
    1
    AMD is losing but doing a great job hanging in there with the 3770k ,,,,, pretty close but 3770k takes the cake my friend........ gl
     
  14. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.freefilehosting.net/benchmark_1
    this is a link to a file
    just open it in 3dsmax and hit render button.
    anybody with 3dsmax installed.
    just run it and let us no the time taken to render it.
    thanks.
     
  15. Abwx

    Abwx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,857
    Likes Received:
    45
    Cinebench is not FP intensive at all otherwise the FX8350 would
    be much better in its single threaded test and wouldnt scale 6x
    as showed in the MThreaded part of the test.

    This soft has been recompiled with ICC anyway , so dont expect it
    to be a good indicator of the CPUs respective perfs.

    About overclocking the FX scale better so overclocking the 3770K
    wont destroy it at all , contrary to bold statements i read here and there,
    as much as Multithread thread perfs is the concern.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/13
     
  16. Geforce man

    Geforce man Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am curious about the rest of the setup in these tests with the pretty graphs :). My PC, using an ancient p67 board with my 2700k, at 4600mhz, aka slower than ivy at 4.4 ish, I get 9.04 in cinebench. Mem at 1866 9-9-9-24-1t . I don't know what some other good benches to run would be that could measure it well.
     
  17. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    jst run the file to which i have given the link.
    benchmarks are done in controlled conditions and real life usage results may be different.
     
  18. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Downloading now but I have to run some errands so no results until this evening :( Will post as soon as I have them.
     
  19. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    You surely jest good sir! You have one FAST machine :)
     
  20. Idontcare

    Idontcare Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    21,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Results are in. I tested both the FX8350 and the i7-3770K at multiple frequencies so you have the clockspeed scaling data with which you can compute the expected performance at any given OC for either processor.

    [​IMG]

    Both rigs used the same components (configured identically) for all tests excepting for the mobo and cpu.

    [​IMG]

    Basically the i7-3770K takes 0.76x the time to complete the benchmark at the same clockspeed, and the 3770k uses ~100W less than the FX8350 when both are clocked at 4GHz.

    For people who are not familiar with this application, it pegs all cores/threads at 100%. I manually disabled turbo-core/boost but it didn't matter because both processors throttle back to base clockspeeds when running this benchmark.

    Now lets talk price/performance...the 3770k costs ~$120 more than the FX8350 but it gets the job done (in this app) in only 0.76x the time at the same clockspeed.

    If the 3770k computer (entire platform) costs $500 and the FX8350 costs $380 then you are still better off buying the 3770k rig because the price/performance is identical but the $500 rig will burn far less power (and cost less money per year).

    If your electricity net costs you $0.115/kWHr then 1W costs you $1 over the course year. A 100W delta is a big delta, compounded by the fact that you get less performance despite all those watts, just not good.

    For this application, the guy that can sell you an FX-8350 over an i7-3770K (or i7-3570K) is the guy that can sell ice to Eskimos ;)
     
  21. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,678
    Likes Received:
    21
    nks, having trouble opening link
     
  22. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can I post a link of another forum???
    It has the link for the benchmark file
    And I am not able to private message as I am new on this forum. I can only private message admin.
     
  23. nks

    nks Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0

    Thanks a lot bro
    My current setup clocked at 3.7ghz is doing it in 7.3 minutes.
    Current setup
    Phenom 965 oc'ed to 3.7 and cooled by noctua nh d14
    Msi790fx gd70
    4gb gskill 1666mhz cl9 ram

    So it is not good to buy fx8350 for this application.
    Enlighten me on corei5 3570k
    If I overclock it to 4.3 for 24/7 then can its performance come between corei7 and fx 8350

    A core i5 setup will cost me approx 70$ more compared to fx8350
     
  24. frozentundra123456

    frozentundra123456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    9,080
    Likes Received:
    44
    Your calculations for extra cost for power must be assuming full load 24 hours a day for the entire year, which is probably not realistic. However even if the computer is used six hour a day that would still be 25.00 per year.
     
  25. SPBHM

    SPBHM Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,036
    Likes Received:
    8
Loading...