• 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.

Should AMD have focused on a Steamroller high TDP product line instead of Vishera?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What do you think of AMD's 220W TDP FX 9000 series?

  • It was a good idea.

  • Should have introduced it with Steamroller based versions.

  • It was a terrible idea.

  • Doesn't matter to me.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exophase said:
You said before that Cinebench is SYNTHETIC, not just biased. That should mean it's a bad benchmark and you shouldn't bother with it.
Click to expand...

I prefer real-life benchmarks, if those aren't available then synthetic benchmarks, if those aren't available then theoretical stuff such as GFLOPs.

Hitman928 said:
Like I said, you have to follow the trail,

http://amdfx.blogspot.com.es/2013/05/amd-steamroller-fx-9650-45-ghz-48-ghz.html

Is where it starts. For your link, the blogger makes the assumptions I listed above, finds one of the fastest hwbot/cinebench/whatever benchmarked 8350 submissions he can find, and then uses the assumptions to calculate the theoretical streamroller part. This is not worth posting.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks by the link.
 
dac7nco said:
I can't wait for reviews... This is "FX" 8150 part-II, which was also released at a ridiculous price. Tell me these things aren't actually going for nearly a grand. When Bulldozer was reviewed, this forum was semi-adult again... for a few months. Of course, Intel paid all of the big review sites, and has Jimmy Hoffa in a freezer.

Daimon
Click to expand...

Waste of a good freezer IMO.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
How do you "benchmark" a processor that is not even available yet? You think this thread will go on for 1500+ posts of speculation like the PS4 thread in VC and G?
Click to expand...

I'm not about to defend this particular pair of CPUs, but the estimates of SB-E on 2011 were pretty accurate by extrapolating from SB's thread performance on 1155. I was pleasantly surprised that (in my case) SB-E's single-thread performance was higher than the 2600 at the same clock. Blame the cache or memory, but SB-E is crazy fast, and for that matter so is Haswell.

That being said, the "estimates" of this chip's don't add-up to an overclocked 8320/50, and the suggested price is laughable.

I suspect a lot of AMD's defenders cut their teeth as teenagers gaming on FX chips just before Conroe killed their underdog dreams. I also suspect they've never actually sat at a 1155/1150/2011 system and used it. I "sidegraded" from 1366/i7-920 and AM3/1090T to 1155 and was astonished.
 
dac7nco said:
I suspect a lot of AMD's defenders cut their teeth as teenagers gaming on FX chips just before Conroe killed their underdog dreams. I also suspect they've never actually sat at a 1155/1150/2011 system and used it. I "sidegraded" from 1366/i7-920 and AM3/1090T to 1155 and was astonished.
Click to expand...

More like K 6, 7, and 8. :thumbsup:

As an AMD fan that's all I really want, they don't have to return to FX, just return to competitive!

This isn't it, this is PR. 🙄
 
Well im using two systems one is AMD the other is Intel. I do some gaming but mostly internet and Office. And i haven't seen any big difference between them.

AMD system is based on PhII 945
Intel system is based on i5-2400
 
BallaTheFeared said:
More like K 6, 7, and 8. :thumbsup:

As an AMD fan that's all I really want, they don't have to return to FX, just return to competitive!

This isn't it, this is PR. 🙄
Click to expand...
I agree. As for galego's constant posts, if you really look at them, the 8350 or 9590 or whatever AMD will call it always is clocked at 4.8 or 5.0 while a Haswell 4770k is stock. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you slightly OC the 4770k what are the results? The reason I say that is, that owning BOTH a 8350 AND a 3770k (slower than a 4770k) I've done some testing. In almost every test the 3770k is faster than the 8350 stock. If you overclock the 8350 to 4.7Ghz like I did it surpasses the 3770k stock. Crank the 3770k to 4.4Ghgz and it leaps ahead.

Now we have some posts that the 9570 will outperform a 3930k? Oh please! What koolaide are they drinking?
 
Last edited:
I was able to OC my 8350 to 5Ghz on all 8 cores (25x200) with 1.515 vcore and all cpu voltages/nb voltages set to extreme for the Aida64/cinebench 11.5/ Passmark 8 cpu run and edited my sheet accordingly. You will notice an anomaly with my 8350 @ 4.6Ghz in the memory read/copy/latency. I have the settings at 21 x 219 so my 1600 mem is actually running at 1752. I have 1866 mem so no problem. My 8350 machine runs most stable and coolest at 21 x 219 for a 4.6 Ghz setting.

Please not that these figures for the 8350 @ 5 ghz is with all 8 cores active. The proposed FX 9570 specs as we know them have a base of 4.7 and a turbo of 5. I think it's a fair assumption that the scores for the FX 9570 will be LESS than my 5 Ghz run but higher than my 4.7 Ghz run.

Here is the stat sheet:
j7ddms.jpg
 
Last edited:
guskline said:
I agree. As for galego's constant posts, if you really look at them, the 8350 or 9590 or whatever AMD will call it always is clocked at 4.8 or 5.0 while a Haswell 4770k is stock. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you slightly OC the 4770k what are the results? The reason I say that is, that owning BOTH a 8350 AND a 3770k (slower than a 4770k) I've done some testing. In almost every test the 3770k is faster than the 8350 stock. If you overclock the 8350 to 4.7Ghz like I did it surpasses the 3770k stock. Crank the 3770k to 4.4Ghgz and it leaps ahead.

Now we have some posts that the 9570 will outperform a 3930k? Oh please! What koolaide are they drinking?
Click to expand...

I already gave tests where the 8350 at stock is faster than the 4770k at stock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35151223&postcount=85

and, in response to a post from you, additional tests where the 8350 at stock is faster than the i7 3960X at stock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35151730&postcount=92

Thus, it depends of the benchmark/score. In some cases an overclocked 4770k will be faster than the Centurion at stock but in other cases will be not.
 
Last edited:
galego said:
I already gave tests where the 8350 at stock is faster than the 4770k at stock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35151223&postcount=85

and, in response to a post from you, additional tests where the 8350 at stock is faster than the i7 3960X at stock

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35151730&postcount=92

Thus, it depends of the benchmark/score. In some cases an overclocked 4770k will be faster than the Centurion at stock but in other cases will be not.
Click to expand...


I'm sure all the AIO\SystemBuilder will be happy to know in a fewopen linux benchmarking suites they're expensive 800 USD heatspacer - is much better than a 500 usd 3930k.


"It may cost more, and be slower in games - but who cares guys, it's faster in PostgreSQL transactions pr. second!"

"That's why your buying it! right guys?"


Great job Galego, AMD is awesome.
It's a Enthuast Class Gaming Product - that's slower in games but faster....in very specific databaseworkloads.
 
MisterMac said:
I'm sure all the AIO\SystemBuilder will be happy to know in a fewopen linux benchmarking suites they're expensive 800 USD heatspacer - is much better than a 500 usd 3930k.


"It may cost more, and be slower in games - but who cares guys, it's faster in PostgreSQL transactions pr. second!"

"That's why your buying it! right guys?"


Great job Galego, AMD is awesome.
It's a Enthuast Class Gaming Product - that's slower in games but faster....in very specific databaseworkloads.
Click to expand...


no prices have been confirmed yet, nor has heat output or temps.

dont get that remark...

secondly, why are you limiting a cpu to gaming workloads?
 
Last edited:
BTW galego what are the specs of your PC? Do you actually own one? Have you actually used a PC with either a FX 8350 or an I7 3770k?
 
MisterMac said:
I'm sure all the AIO\SystemBuilder will be happy to know in a fewopen linux benchmarking suites they're expensive 800 USD heatspacer - is much better than a 500 usd 3930k.


"It may cost more, and be slower in games - but who cares guys, it's faster in PostgreSQL transactions pr. second!"

"That's why your buying it! right guys?"


Great job Galego, AMD is awesome.
It's a Enthuast Class Gaming Product - that's slower in games but faster....in very specific databaseworkloads.
Click to expand...

Hum. First, the benchmarks were used to break the myth of the intel being always faster. Sorry it is not. Second, they show the potential performance of the chips in highly threaded tasks.

Third, the "Enthuast Class Gaming Product" will be slower if you insist on using old poorly-threaded games (using only a 25% of an 8-core FX chip), but it competes with medium-threaded games and will be faster in heavily multi-threaded games using all the potential of the FX chips.

All triple-A game developers participating in Eurogammer poll selected the FX-8350 as the best gaming CPU for future games. If the poll was repeated today they would choose the FX-9590 😀 and its 15-20% gain.

Finally, I am sure that people buying the "Enthuast" chips will be using them for more than gaming: e.g. encoding. And again them will be fast.
 
Last edited:
My system is getting a bit old so I'm looking at Newegg doing a little window shopping and I see that there is already an AM3+ board being advertised as "220W FX5 CPU Ready". I hope these will be here soon and the price is sane.
 
galego said:
Hum. First, the benchmarks were used to break the myth of the intel being always faster. Sorry it is not. Second, they show the potential performance of the chips in highly threaded tasks.

Third, the "Enthuast Class Gaming Product" will be slower if you insist on using old poorly-threaded games (using only a 25% of an 8-core FX chip), but it competes with medium-threaded games and will be faster in heavily multi-threaded games using all the potential of the FX chips.

All triple-A game developers participating in Eurogammer poll selected the FX-8350 as the best gaming CPU for future games. If the poll was repeated today they would choose the FX-9590 😀 and its 15-20% gain.

Finally, I am sure that people buying the "Enthuast" chips will be using them for more than gaming: e.g. encoding. And again them will be fast.
Click to expand...

Linux OpenBenchmark: check
Eurogamer poll: check

This is like the 30th time you mention them? Like a salesman, going door to door, repeating the same old story, and ignoring the rest 99% of the results that disagree with their point.

I like how you bury your head in the sand though when you're beeing asked for your computer specs.
 
This is only a marketing product for AMD to say they got a CPU which hits 5GHZ under certain conditions,and as a result is not really a value for money product.

In fact the FX8320 is priced enough under the FX8350,to make it a better value product too,and together with the FX6300 are the CPUs which make the most sense in the AM3+ lineup.
 
galego said:
Hum. First, the benchmarks were used to break the myth of the intel being always faster. Sorry it is not. Second, they show the potential performance of the chips in highly threaded tasks.

Third, the "Enthuast Class Gaming Product" will be slower if you insist on using old poorly-threaded games (using only a 25% of an 8-core FX chip), but it competes with medium-threaded games and will be faster in heavily multi-threaded games using all the potential of the FX chips.

All triple-A game developers participating in Eurogammer poll selected the FX-8350 as the best gaming CPU for future games. If the poll was repeated today they would choose the FX-9590 😀 and its 15-20% gain.

Finally, I am sure that people buying the "Enthuast" chips will be using them for more than gaming: e.g. encoding. And again them will be fast.
Click to expand...

Galego, the only reason Anand, Kyle and the rest don't come out and say "FX is a waste of our time, and we're really disappointed" is because AMD wouldn't send them anything else to review. I don't know why FX has any kind of functional turbo at all these days. AMD keeps clocking the chips higher, and pushing upward into their boost territory, which is now miniscule on Piledriver.
 
dac7nco said:
Galego, the only reason Anand, Kyle and the rest don't come out and say "FX is a waste of our time, and we're really disappointed" is because AMD wouldn't send them anything else to review. I don't know why FX has any kind of functional turbo at all these days. AMD keeps clocking the chips higher, and pushing upward into their boost territory, which is now miniscule on Piledriver.
Click to expand...

Its not a waste of time though,since the FX6300 is still a decent budget CPU.

Everyone seems to obsess about the FX8350.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top