Worth going from a phenom II 960 to a fx 8350 ?

[BD231]

125watt stock rating + 125 additional oc watts as evidenced by this thread = capable of 250 watts at 4.6ghz. A 4.8ghz OC would go over the 250watt rated gtx 480.

If you want to assume nobody runs these chips through full load situations in their " every day use " I'd say that's a little presumptuous and it's a lot of additional heat you'll have to deal with if you actually decide to do something other than underutilize your hardware. If you're using just the stock cooler it's going to cost you money to OC so I think it warrants some consideration. I buy my hardware to use it, not kill it.

Vishera at stock over an OC'd pehnom, not worth it.

 

[tulx]

Vishera at stock over an OC'd pehnom, not worth it.

As mentioned above, I replaced an unlocked six core 960t OC'd to 3,9 GHz with an 8350 at stock 4,0 GHz and it's a night/day difference. BF3 was taxing all six cores of the Phenom to 100% (causing stutters when turning around sharply) and the 8350 uses all 8 cores to about 50~60%, no stutters at all.
It IS worth it. Even more so if you don't need a new MoBo.

 

[guskline]

As mentioned above, I replaced an unlocked six core 960t OC'd to 3,9 GHz with an 8350 at stock 4,0 GHz and it's a night/day difference. BF3 was taxing all six cores of the Phenom to 100% (causing stutters when turning around sharply) and the 8350 uses all 8 cores to about 50~60%, no stutters at all.
It IS worth it. Even more so if you don't need a new MoBo.

Tulx, your post is an example of someone who has both and renders an opinion. I'm going to keep the 8350 stock for awhile and play with it. Solid chip.

 

[guskline]

125watt stock rating + 125 additional oc watts as evidenced by this thread = capable of 250 watts at 4.6ghz. A 4.8ghz OC would go over the 250watt rated gtx 480.

If you want to assume nobody runs these chips through full load situations in their " every day use " I'd say that's a little presumptuous and it's a lot of additional heat you'll have to deal with if you actually decide to do something other than underutilize your hardware. If you're using just the stock cooler it's going to cost you money to OC so I think it warrants some consideration. I buy my hardware to use it, not kill it.

Vishera at stock over an OC'd pehnom, not worth it.

BTW BD231 if I read your sig correctly you have your GPU OC'd 100 over spec? Have you measured with a Kill-O-Meter what that comsumes in power in a benchmark such as furmark? What cooling do you use for your cpu and have you benched it with IBT?

 

[tulx]

Tulx, your post is an example of someone who has both and renders an opinion. I'm going to keep the 8350 stock for awhile and play with it. Solid chip.

I was actually planning on OC'ing the hell out of my 8350, but since it turns out I don't really have use for the additional power (BF3 and ArmA are the most demanding games I play and don't use it to 100%), I'm leaving it on stock as well.

 

[AtenRa]

Improvements? Last I checked an overclocked Vishera uses more power than a GTX 480. Enjoy your chip :thumbsup:

Worst combination, FX8150@4.6 + GTX480

FX8150 @ 4.6GHz (240MHz buss and 1.428V)
ASUS Corsair V Formula
2x 4GB 2133MHz @ 1926MHz with 9-11-9-27 timings and 1.65V
MSI GTX480 TwinFroz II at 701MHz core and 924MHz Memory
1TB HDD Sata
DVD-RW
730W PSU ThermalTake 80+

Idle 128Watts

Sleeping Dongs Benchmark (preset High Quality Settings)
Between 430Watt and 490Watt, one spike at 497Watt



FX8150@4.6GHz + ASUS HD7950 CU II(DC2T-3GD5-V2) at 900MHz core and 1250MHz Memory

Idle 105Watts

Sleeping Dongs Benchmark (preset High Quality Settings)
Between 397Watt up to 424Watt, one spike at 426Watt

HD7950 at 900MHz should be using 160-180Watt, there is no way that FX8150 @ 4.6GHz consumes more power than GTX480.

 

[HydroSqueegee]

this thread has restored my faith in getting an 8350. comon christmas! its gonna be a huge upgrade over my Phenom 2 x2

 

[inf64]

@HydroSqueegee
It would be good upgrade even over X6 if you had one .

 

[Mallibu]

@HydroSqueegee
It would be good upgrade even over X6 if you had one .

Because that 7th & 8th thread he would gain would really make a difference
i don't think some people understand that ~1% of programs are making use of 8 cores. But hey, moarcoars_graph.jpg

 

[SlowSpyder]

Because that 7th & 8th thread he would gain would really make a difference
i don't think some people understand that ~1% of programs are making use of 8 cores. But hey, moarcoars_graph.jpg

Someone posted a link that shows IPC is down about 7% from Phenom II in Piledriver the other day. But clockspeeds are quite a bit higher, so in many cases even single and lightly threaded applications can get a boost. Of course, depending on what speed your x6 runs at, Vishera may barely be any better at all. But, none the less, the improvements aren't necessarily about the 7th and 8th cores/threads.

 

[tulx]

Because that 7th & 8th thread he would gain would really make a difference
i don't think some people understand that ~1% of programs are making use of 8 cores. But hey, moarcoars_graph.jpg

As said - My six core Phenom 960t was stressed to 100% by BF3, on all cores, and the 8350 is stressed to 50-60%, on all cores. The 960t ran at 3,9 GHz, the 8350 runs at 4,0 GHz. The improvement in the game is huge. It DOES make a difference.

 

[inf64]

As said - My six core Phenom 960t was stressed to 100% by BF3, on all cores, and the 8350 is stressed to 50-60%, on all cores. The 960t ran at 3,9 GHz, the 8350 runs at 4,0 GHz. The improvement in the game is huge. It DOES make a difference.

That's because PD core is better than Deneb in many workloads,including games . Oh and moar cores do help .

 

[Arkaign]

As said - My six core Phenom 960t was stressed to 100% by BF3, on all cores, and the 8350 is stressed to 50-60%, on all cores. The 960t ran at 3,9 GHz, the 8350 runs at 4,0 GHz. The improvement in the game is huge. It DOES make a difference.

Maybe there was a slight glitch in one or both of the unlocked cores?

My friend 'Lewha' on Battlefield3 has a PC we've upgraded for him, PhII 955BE @ 3.6, Tuniq 120, 8GB DDR3-1600, 1GB 7770, M4 128GB, and 1080p Acer 23" LCD. We turn his AA and shadows down, but leave HBAO on, high details everywhere else, and his game couldn't possibly be smoother. I have a GTX670, and although I run max details at a higher resolution, there's no difference between our systems in responsiveness.

Perhaps it might have been background interference by some nagging .exe in the background? I'm just saying that a lowly PhII X4BE with a lowly 7770 is smooth as can be with a couple GPU details turned down a notch, even in 64P Caspian. Not sure why an X6 would tank.

 

[Towermax]

That's because PD core is better than Deneb in many workloads,including games . Oh and moar cores do help .

960T has a Thuban core, not Deneb . . .

 

[phenomkid7]

Well FX8350 is fastest chip AMD ever produced.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

I knew you were a blind fanboy.

AMD FX-4170 > FX-8150.

With AMD the more cores you have, the worse it is....

Octa core was the stupidest thing AMD ever did.

Knock it off
-ViRGE

 

[sequoia464]

this thread has restored my faith in getting an 8350. comon christmas! its gonna be a huge upgrade over my Phenom 2 x2

Don't know if you would be comfortable with an 8320 but this looks like a decent deal right now.

http://us.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=76933&promoid=1209

I'm looking to get one, probably won't be much of an upgrade from my X6 but something new to play with.

$165 for an 8320 seems cheap - I'm embarrassed to even admit how much I paid for a 6100.

 

[Arkaign]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

I knew you were a blind fanboy.

AMD FX-4170 > FX-8150.

With AMD the more cores you have, the worse it is....

Octa core was the stupidest thing AMD ever did.

Ehhh. As many know, I'm far from the biggest fan of AMD's CPU choices of late since BD dropped, but this is just not true.

FX-4170 has two 'modules', comprising 4 INT Cores and 2 FPU Cores. The 8150 and 8350 have four 'modules', comprising 8 INT Cores and 4 FPU Cores.

Now it can be said honestly that some titles/apps could possibly run better if one could simply force the thing to run like a quad and not try to treat a module as anything more than a single core. But it cannot be said honestly that a 4170 is better than an 8350 (which is basically what you alluded to, though you quoted an 8150, even though the poster you replied to clearly stated 8350).

Besides, the results you linked to don't show what you seem to think it does, for several reasons :

(1)- Skyrim is notoriously poorly threaded, being based on a modded engine older than dirt. So basically quads/etc don't give a big benefit there. It doesn't stop it from being a fun game, but that's the honest truth.

(2)- The 4170 is a higher clocked part at 4.2Ghz/4.3Turbo than the 8150 which is 3.6Ghz stock. Even so, the 4170 in the worst-case poorly threaded Skyrim scenario was barely faster than the 8150. The 8350 has both higher IPC and higher clockspeed by 800Mhz over the 8150. Run Skyrim on the 8350, and it will walk away from the 4170 easily.

All that said, it's not exactly the best choice for gamers who overclock. A 2500K or better from Intel will easily win the majority of gaming benches vs. even 8350. The 8350 doesn't deserve to be totally crapped on though, it does well with MT, isn't very expensive, and is even good enough in games to sufficiently not bottleneck most single GPU setups.

 

[BD231]

Worst combination, FX8150@4.6 + GTX480

FX8150 @ 4.6GHz (240MHz buss and 1.428V)
ASUS Corsair V Formula
2x 4GB 2133MHz @ 1926MHz with 9-11-9-27 timings and 1.65V
MSI GTX480 TwinFroz II at 701MHz core and 924MHz Memory
1TB HDD Sata
DVD-RW
730W PSU ThermalTake 80+

Idle 128Watts

Sleeping Dongs Benchmark (preset High Quality Settings)
Between 430Watt and 490Watt, one spike at 497Watt



FX8150@4.6GHz + ASUS HD7950 CU II(DC2T-3GD5-V2) at 900MHz core and 1250MHz Memory

Idle 105Watts

Sleeping Dongs Benchmark (preset High Quality Settings)
Between 397Watt up to 424Watt, one spike at 426Watt

HD7950 at 900MHz should be using 160-180Watt, there is no way that FX8150 @ 4.6GHz consumes more power than GTX480.

Why are you using gpu benchmarks to show cpu power consumption?

 

[BD231]

I changed back to stock 8350 and ran IBT. It showed a high of 247 watts vs 373 watts for my 4.64 setting. Frankly I'm going to stay at stock for a week before I decide if I OC. The turbo on stock gets me to 4.2Ghz and I run at a minimum of 4 ghz so not a whole lot lower than the OC but power usage is way down, BTW the OC 2500k at stock voltage uses 197 watts so yes it is lower. I'll keep you posted on the performance of the stock 8350. It runs cinebench 11.5 at 6.92.

373 -247 = 126 extra watts for full load. Stock is 125 watts, add the 126 watts needed for oc full load and ur over the 250watt rating. Ive got links to but why bother when two people have confirmed my figures in this thread.

Imo its not worth, deal with my viewpoint or dont its only the truth.

 

[BD231]

BTW BD231 if I read your sig correctly you have your GPU OC'd 100 over spec? Have you measured with a Kill-O-Meter what that comsumes in power in a benchmark such as furmark? What cooling do you use for your cpu and have you benched it with IBT?

My 480 runs almost a full half mv under stock voltage without a performance penalty so no, I dont bother. I dont need 100 fps in mmos so I downclock it only using the added power for more taxing titles which lately Im just not into. Id prefer the awesome power figures of ur 670 but being that new gpus like yours still offer crap performance using msaa theres no point, I can already max out titles without msaa.

 

[inf64]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3

I knew you were a blind fanboy.

AMD FX-4170 > FX-8150.

With AMD the more cores you have, the worse it is....

Octa core was the stupidest thing AMD ever did.

Ok I hate writing words such as "fail",but you just failed hard. FX8350 is PIledriver,it runs at 4/4.2Ghz in full core/half core Turbo and it's way better than lowly 2 module 4.2Ghz FX4170(which is Bulldozer version 1 btw). "Better" as 13.5% faster in games at the same clock and core count as Bulldozer version 1.
So better luck next time,thank you for trying

960T has a Thuban core, not Deneb . . .

Thuban has the same core as Deneb. The only difference is core count(50% more cores in Thuban), they are exactly the same in every other respect.

 

[SlowSpyder]

373 -247 = 126 extra watts for full load. Stock is 125 watts, add the 126 watts needed for oc full load and ur over the 250watt rating. Ive got links to but why bother when two people have confirmed my figures in this thread.

Imo its not worth, deal with my viewpoint or dont its only the truth.

And the ATOT link I posted shows the GTX480 using 289 more watts at load than at idle. So add whatever the idle watts are to 289, I bet you're pretty close to 300 watts in that case.

But, regardless of the GTX480, the overclocked power use is certainly too high for the added performance, in my opinion. I've said since Vishera launched that its one glaring problem is power use, I think the performance isn't bad for the price. But going from 4.0/4.2GHz to ~4.6GHz just doesn't offer enough benefit for about twice the power use. I think if I owned one I would see if I could get any more out of it at stock volts, or with a very small bump and call it a day. Getting every last MHz out of it just wouldn't be worth it for people who have their CPU stressed for hours a day.

 

[AtenRa]

Why are you using gpu benchmarks to show cpu power consumption?

If you want to assume nobody runs these chips through full load situations in their " every day use " I'd say that's a little presumptuous and it's a lot of additional heat you'll have to deal with if you actually decide to do something other than underutilize your hardware.

I believe Gaming is an everyday use of your system, dont you agree ??

 

[Mallibu]

I believe Gaming is an everyday use of your system, dont you agree ??

When you want to show FX's performance, you're claiming 7zipping and video encoding all day long is "everyday use"

When you want to show FX's power consumption, then "gaming is everyday use"

How about an interesting twist and judge FX by it's gaming performance, and it's power consumpion when it's actually 100% used (video encoding ). All this situation cherry picking is nice and all but gets old quickly.

 

[guskline]

My 480 runs almost a full half mv under stock voltage without a performance penalty so no, I dont bother. I dont need 100 fps in mmos so I downclock it only using the added power for more taxing titles which lately Im just not into. Id prefer the awesome power figures of ur 670 but being that new gpus like yours still offer crap performance using msaa theres no point, I can already max out titles without msaa.

There you go with that "crap" comment. UGH! How about poorer performance?

I agree that PD still uses a fair amount of power OC'd but much more improved over BD. At least 55 watts for that same 4.6Ghz OC. After having played with this Vishera at stock 4.0/4.2 and noticing how cool it is and how much better the power usage is, I agree with SlowSpyder's assessment that OCing it to 4.6 from stock probably is not worth the power usage despite added bragging rights for 4.6 vs 4.0/4.2.

Though some dislike EVER giving AMD any credit, I must say the combination of small improvements from BD to PD has resulted in a decent 8 core chip. Pretty good for gaming and solid for multi threaded apps.

For me it addresses the two worst BD 8150 problems, low stock clock and higher than normal power usage. There are other tweaks that I have read that frankly are over my head.