• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Phoronix : FX 8350 competitive with Core i7 3770K under Linux.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
hokies83 said:
ah NM.. still 4.2ghz vs 3.9ghz still looks 25% slower.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to decide how this even matters. Are you suggesting if I buy a CPU I should clock it up or down to match the closest competing model from the competitor to make it "equal"?
 
sefsefsefsef said:
The overclocked Vishera numbers are meant to be compared to the stock Vishera numbers. It's not a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy, but it's laziness.

For things that the 8350 is well suited for, it would be useful to see it directly compared OC vs. OC against 3570K and 3770K.
 
blckgrffn said:
To be fair, it was the conclusion that the author of the article put forth. Quibbling with it seems reasonable based on the data, but it had its source in the article.

I mean, Anandtech.com never has a conclusion we disagree with, right? 🙂
Click to expand...

I did acknowledge that he linked the whole article. However, he could also have quoted the less decisive conclusion where the article said it is "a rather competitive value" IF
"you are commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well". Kind of like saying your football team would be undefeated if you only counted the games that you won.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I did acknowledge that he linked the whole article. However, he could also have quoted the less decisive conclusion where the article said it is "a rather competitive value" IF
"you are commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well". Kind of like saying your football team would be undefeated if you only counted the games that you won.
Click to expand...

Well, I could see the idea that possibly if 8350 hits around $200ish soon, and can deliver 90% of the 3770K OC performance for heavily-threaded tasks, that it might be a decent option.

However, with this stupid Phoronix review, they have OC 8350 vs. Stock 3770K testing. Idiotic.

Look at the title of this thread : 8350 competitive with 3770K. How do we even know given their testing? Because people buy tons of Intel K-series chips and run them stock, but these same people would overclock an 8350? Ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Vic Vega said:
I'm trying to decide how this even matters. Are you suggesting if I buy a CPU I should clock it up or down to match the closest competing model from the competitor to make it "equal"?
Click to expand...

At Stock clocks it is 15% Slower..

Now think of all the windows based programs.. gonna be a even bigger Gap..

Looks like another Amd Fail to me. Or more holes in the sinking Amd Ship.
 
I can't count the number of places you can find a Core i7 3770k OC benchmark. Yeah more work for you. I see stock 8350 vs. stock 3770k, along with an idea of how the 8350 looks overclocked. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Greenlepricon said:
I can't count the number of places you can find a Core i7 3770k OC benchmark. Yeah more work for you. I see stock 8350 vs. stock 3770k, along with an idea of how the 8350 looks overclocked. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Don't you be brining any rational thought into this thread. This thread is about bashing the AMD CPU and the article creator for having the gall to suggest it's not a complete turd.
 
Greenlepricon said:
I can't count the number of places you can find a Core i7 3770k OC benchmark. Yeah more work for you. I see stock 8350 vs. stock 3770k, along with an idea of how the 8350 looks overclocked. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

There are indeed a ton of 3770K OC benches out there. However, the test suite that Phoronix has laid out for this particular review is unique compared to most given the software used, the revisions, and so on. To not include the 3770K OC results within this context is laziness at best, because a true apples to apples 8350OC vs 3770KOC with identical software/revisions/settings is not accessible. One can only approximate by looking at 3770K testing in different circumstances.

I'm not sure why someone would try to say that's not ideal. After all, the 8350 pricing is very attractive for heavily multithreaded situations. A 3770K is about $100 more, so if the 8350OC is still competitive in many situations compared to a 3770OC, WHY NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE TESTING.

LAZY

LAZY

LAZY
 
Arkaign said:
LAZY

LAZY

LAZY
Click to expand...

Lazy who didnt pay attention to all the post in this thread....

Olikan said:
not sure if true...but good
http://www.cowcotland.com/articles/1199/test-processeur-amd-fx-8350.html

jeux.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Vic Vega said:
Don't you be brining any rational thought into this thread. This thread is about bashing the AMD CPU and the article creator for having the gall to suggest it's not a complete turd.
Click to expand...

Sorry forgot I'm supposed to start raging in here against all AMD!

Anyway still waiting for the benchmarks on windows. Hopefully it's a big enough improvement to kick my bulldozer out of my rig. Too bad it doesn't look like it will have a chance against Intel since they're still behind by too much for now. The only competitive point I'm seeing right now are for those special workloads and its price tag, which will hopefully be looking nice for this holiday.
 
Just glancing at the numbers, it looks like efficiency went down by 3.5%?

Edit: Ok further looking at the numbers the extreme turbo 600mhz of the fx-8150 vs 200mhx of the fx-8350 seems to be skewing my results.

Taking the x264 benchmark, since it uses all cores, OC efficiency seems to be 80% and adjusted IPC efficiency improvement seems to be 6.5%.

Edit2: Other encoding looks.

VP8 Seems to have OC efficiency of 93.5% and IPC efficiency improvement of 1.45%
Fmpeg 55% -0.18%
Opus 68% -2.06%
 
Last edited:
Mallibu said:
1 year of waiting and 8 cores to match intel's dual core who has 1/4 the power consumption and costs half. Still fail at the games section, improved than before though ()🙂
Click to expand...

if bulldozer thought us something...
Probably the 2M\4core won't see much performance hit, but power comsumption will drop nicely...
 
Arkaign said:
Well, I could see the idea that possibly if 8350 hits around $200ish soon, and can deliver 90% of the 3770K OC performance for heavily-threaded tasks, that it might be a decent option.
Click to expand...

Jury is still out on performance - i bet that will be debated heavily for quite a while - but this slide seems so confirm the 8350 starting price of $195.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2278251

Lots of posts here today, in case you missed it.
I chose poorly a year ago, hoping this is a viable route for me.
 
Arkaign said:
There are indeed a ton of 3770K OC benches out there. However, the test suite that Phoronix has laid out for this particular review is unique compared to most given the software used, the revisions, and so on. To not include the 3770K OC results within this context is laziness at best, because a true apples to apples 8350OC vs 3770KOC with identical software/revisions/settings is not accessible. One can only approximate by looking at 3770K testing in different circumstances.

I'm not sure why someone would try to say that's not ideal. After all, the 8350 pricing is very attractive for heavily multithreaded situations. A 3770K is about $100 more, so if the 8350OC is still competitive in many situations compared to a 3770OC, WHY NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE TESTING.

LAZY

LAZY

LAZY
Click to expand...

They may not have access to the 3770K at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top