• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD FX-8350 - "Piledriver" for AMD Socket AM3+

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.63/day)
Fine, jack up the 3570K to 4.9Ghz or 5Ghz like I occasionally run mine at (H100).

My 3570K does no more than 4.5 GHz.:mad:

It's very interesting how there is such a differnce between my 3770K and my 3570K, too. I can run 1.4 V through the 3570K no problem, and not break 85C.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
LOL, it was just a random number cdawall, no Intel conspiracy! Fine, jack up the 3570K to 4.9Ghz or 5Ghz like I occasionally run mine at (H100). The point was it has a 600Mhz headstart so I would expect things to be a lot closer than if both with clocked the same... regardless of that clock speed.

Though I would doubt retail is going to hit 5.5Ghz 24/7 stable with 'normal' cooling (ambient water or less). I could be wrong, and actually hope I am... until then, its all speculation.

Your chip is a good one as with Dave most do not go over 4.5ghz. So what is to say a good 8350 isn't going to do 5.5? We already saw that with Thuban and Deneb chips. "Good" chips could run 4.5ghz stable on air "normal" chips did no more than 4ghz. That is the same 500mhz difference. With you complete and utter lack of knowledge on the facts why are you speculating? If you really want to get silly about it most people do not overclock so the performance gains in multithreading at stock speeds make a massive difference.

My 3570K does no more than 4.5 GHz.:mad:

It's very interesting how there is such a differnce between my 3770K and my 3570K, too. I can run 1.4 V through the 3570K no problem, and not break 85C.

See that is a lot more normal.
 
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
973 (0.18/day)
System Name YautjaLord
Processor Ryzen 9 5900x @ 3700MHz
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme rev. 1.1
Cooling EK-XE360mm front/SE360mm top/3xVardar 120mm top/3xbe quiet! Light Wings 120mm High Speed PWM/etc....
Memory HyperX Predator 4x8GB 4000MHz @ 4000MHz
Video Card(s) 1xGigabyte RTX 3080 Master 10GB rev. 3.0 (watercooled)
Storage Samsung 980 Pro 1TB (system)/Samsung 960 Pro M.2 NVMe (system) |Samsung T7 Shield 1TB USB Type-C
Display(s) LG 27GN950-B 4k IPS 1ms 144Hz HDR
Case be quiet! Dark Base Pro 900 rev. 2 Black/Orange
Audio Device(s) Integrated
Power Supply Corsair HX1200
Mouse Dragonwar ELE-G4.1 laser gaming mouse 9500dpi
Keyboard Corsair K60 Pro Low Profile
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 21H2
Now that the PD reviews flood the interwebz (& TPU - thanx alot cadaveca) the question is: where's the "AMD FX (Piledriver) OCers Club" thread? Even more important: anyone tested it with same cooling as me, i.e. TR's VenomousX & AS5? Or does the LCS that comes with FX-8350 fairs better than what i have? :toast:

P.S. I might change my mobo to Crosshair V Formula & OS to Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit for this CPU quite soon.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,059 (0.45/day)
Location
Baltimore MD
Processor Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard ASUS Prime X470 Pro
Cooling Arctic liquid freezer II 240
Memory 2 x 16 Gb Gskill Trident Z 3600 Mhz
Video Card(s) MSI Ventus 3060 Ti OC
Storage Samsung 960 EVO 500 Gb / 860 EVO 1 Tb
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF
Case Lian Li Lancool II Mesh
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Corsair RM850x
Mouse Logitech G703
Keyboard Logitech G513
Software Win 11
Yay so this will be a good upgrade to my fx-4100.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Your chip is a good one as with Dave most do not go over 4.5ghz. So what is to say a good 8350 isn't going to do 5.5? We already saw that with Thuban and Deneb chips. "Good" chips could run 4.5ghz stable on air "normal" chips did no more than 4ghz. That is the same 500mhz difference. With you complete and utter lack of knowledge on the facts why are you speculating? If you really want to get silly about it most people do not overclock so the performance gains in multithreading at stock speeds make a massive difference.



See that is a lot more normal.
I bin chips and must be lucky. I havent had one (out of 10) do less than 4.5Ghz...(ambient water) voltage walls and therefore temperatures on these stupid TIM below the IHS chips tend to go up after that, yep.

My 3570K does no more than 4.5 GHz.

It's very interesting how there is such a differnce between my 3770K and my 3570K, too. I can run 1.4 V through the 3570K no problem, and not break 85C.
As Im sure you know, its all about the leakage. ;)

With you complete and utter lack of knowledge on the facts why are you speculating?
Im sorry, my what? Any need for this disparaging comment? I suppose I deserve it for calling out that other guy... but let's stop ehh? Im not an AMD guy, but I read the same forums you do and am not a muppet...

Anyway, they could, I said I hope Im wrong, what gets you off my dick? Agreeing with you that it could it 5.5Ghz? Ok... It could commonly hit 5.5Ghz... only time will tell. WAIT! I already said that....hmmmmmm.
 
Last edited:

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
I bin chips and must be lucky. I havent had one (out of 10) do less than 4.5Ghz...(ambient water) voltage walls and therefore temperatures on these stupid TIM below the IHS chips tend to go up after that, yep.

I used to heavily bin chips. Hence why my first batch 1090T was kicking in the 4.5ghz area. Heck I have gotten my B97 ebay chip up to 4.6ghz on an H70...I really do see these chips clocking much higher than listed in benchmarks. I am more onboard for the better IMC in them than anything else.

My personal issue with them is there is no good Mini-ITX board for AM3 out there. Zotac has an 890GX board, but it only has an X1 PCI-E. I need a full slot and 125w support. I wish I could snag one for my deployment box, but it looks like I will be dealing with my little X3440@4.2 :shadedshu.

Im sorry, my what? Any need for this disparaging comment? I suppose I deserve it for calling out that other guy... but let's stop ehh? Im not an AMD guy, but I read the same forums you do and am not a muppet...

You can take it as you want I meant it as you are an Intel guy with very little AMD experience sitting and preaching that AMD is not as good.

Anyway, they could, I said I hope Im wrong, what gets you off my dick? Agreeing with you that it could it 5.5Ghz? Ok... It could commonly hit 5.5Ghz... only time will tell.

They could do a lot of things. You don't know and your blatant disregard for reading the reviews posted is obvious.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Im not an intel guy...outside of the fact that I use their CPU's (but not a fanboy which is how I thought you meant that). if AMD performance matched Intel, specifically for benchmarking, I would be ALL OVER THEM. Performance does drive me since I do benchmark, so its clear why I own Intel as they do better at Hwbot in 3D/2D.

I dont recall saying they werent as good either. Put it back in your pants man, there is no battle here, just a (futile?) attempt to figure more things out about its performance. Ive read our review, Ive read this one. I see in single threaded performance its lacking but doing well in multithreaded performance that isnt FPU heavy. Its pricing is incredible making it a valid choice for anything these days.

Where am I wrong in that opinion?
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.63/day)
As Im sure you know, its all about the leakage.

Yeah, but the change between the two is so large...so greater than anything I am really used too.. Ididn't see that with SNB at all.


I am going to ask AMD for a few more chips. Perhaps we can get some clocking going over the winter. You guys game for some challenges?
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
Im not an intel guy...outside of the fact that I use their CPU's (but not a fanboy which is how I thought you meant that). if AMD performance matched Intel, specifically for benchmarking, I would be ALL OVER THEM. Performance does drive me since I do benchmark, so its clear why I own Intel as they do better at Hwbot in 3D/2D.

I dont recall saying they werent as good either. Put it back in your pants man, there is no battle here, just a (futile?) attempt to figure more things out about its performance. Ive read our review, Ive read this one. I see in single threaded performance its lacking but doing well in multithreaded performance that isnt FPU heavy. Its pricing is incredible making it a valid choice for anything these days.

Where am I wrong in that opinion?

Look closer at the FPU benchmarks AMD does poorly in you will notice all AMD chips do poorly in them. It has nothing to do with AMD being weak at FPU it has to do with specific benchmarks not using the technology available to them.

I would be willing to wager a quite large bet that any multithreaded benchmark that allows AMD to utilize the technology at hand instead of backdooring anything that isn't "genuineIntel" AMD will perform better than its competition. What needs to happen is there needs to be some open X64 stuff that comes out for encoding as well as video games none of this Intel branded only works well on Intel we see now.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
424 (0.10/day)
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI Gaming M7 AC
Cooling AlphaCool Eisbaer 360
Memory G. Skill Trident X DDR4 8GBx2 (16 GB) 4266mhz dimms
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming X Twin Frozr GTX 1080 Ti
Storage 512GB Samsung 960 EVO M2 NVMe drive,500 GB Samsung 860 EVO ssd, 1 TB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Samsung 28 inch 4k Freesync monitor
Case ThermalTake V71 Full tower gaming case
Power Supply Corsair 1200 watt HX Platinum PSU
Mouse Razor Mamba Tournament Edition
Keyboard Das tactile mechanical gaming keyboard
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench 15 64 bit Open GL 146.7 FPS Cinebench 15 CPU 1958 at 4.25 GHZ Priority set to real-time
Compared to identically priced 2500k. If a game is cpu intensive then Intel wins. Otherwise it's a tie. So Intel is better for people that game a lot - like me. AMD is bad in this competition as far as games are concerned.

Not quite true. In most games the frame rate is a good 60 or higher. There are a few where it drops down to 40 at some points with the most intensive settings. I can't see you complaining about a handful of poorly designed and poorly threaded games. Why not complain to the software developer about their pathetically poor design???? Multithreaded games are the wave of the future. Single threading is an old poor design and is dying.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
While I do agree that not using the proper instructions are a huge deal and in SOME tests show big differences while others do not (Cinebench showing little difference to CPUID), I also think that it is an architectural thing too. As Im sure you know, each Intel core (well that WAS A core until AMD changed the definition I guess) is FPU and Integer whereas AMD's 'modules' are 2 integer and one FPU(?). So I would imagine it goes both ways since when comparing it to an Intel chip it has the same amount of FPU's (quad with HT) as an 'octo' core (by AMD definition).
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.31/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
Yeah, but the change between the two is so large...so greater than anything I am really used too.. Ididn't see that with SNB at all.


I am going to ask AMD for a few more chips. Perhaps we can get some clocking going over the winter. You guys game for some challenges?

id love to see the waterblocked version ocd with some grr:)
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
While I do agree that not using the proper instructions are a huge deal and in SOME tests show big differences while others do not (Cinebench showing little difference to CPUID),

Cinebench is the only encoding benchmark that shows Intel ahead of the pack. It does not allow AMD processors to use AVX as a whole. Whenever AMD uses AVX it quite honestly demolishes the competition. Much like back in the P4 days when netburst ate video encoding up. Now these have a lot less of a performance drop in other applications vs P4.

I also think that it is an architectural thing too. As Im sure you know, each Intel core (well that WAS A core until AMD changed the definition I guess) is FPU and Integer whereas AMD's 'modules' are 2 integer and one FPU(?). So I would imagine it goes both ways since when comparing it to an Intel chip it has the same amount of FPU's (quad with HT) as an 'octo' core (by AMD definition).

I am sure some of it is an architectural difference. Which is why we are seeing AMD run well in multithreaded benchmarks, terrible in single IPC and mediocre in a handful of honestly biased benchmarks.

As I said before there is a reason AMD chips are being picked up for the server market. They are not bad and a massively multithreaded environment that is properly coded to make use of not only the new core hierarchy but also the technology available (AVX, SSE etc) they are actually quite good often times substantially better than an Intel alternative. It really really comes down to using the right encoders that allow use of all of the parts of the AMD cores. Like Dave said watching the power consumption during benchmarks it is blatant the cores are idling through things instead of running the cores up like it should.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Cinebench is the only encoding benchmark that shows Intel ahead of the pack. It does not allow AMD processors to use AVX as a whole. Whenever AMD uses AVX it quite honestly demolishes the competition. Much like back in the P4 days when netburst ate video encoding up. Now these have a lot less of a performance drop in other applications vs P4.



I am sure some of it is an architectural difference. Which is why we are seeing AMD run well in multithreaded benchmarks, terrible in single IPC and mediocre in a handful of honestly biased benchmarks.

As I said before there is a reason AMD chips are being picked up for the server market. They are not bad and a massively multithreaded environment that is properly coded to make use of not only the new core hierarchy but also the technology available (AVX, SSE etc) they are actually quite good often times substantially better than an Intel alternative. It really really comes down to using the right encoders that allow use of all of the parts of the AMD cores. Like Dave said watching the power consumption during benchmarks it is blatant the cores are idling through things instead of running the cores up like it should.
As far as the AVX, I have no idea. If that has to do with CPUID and such, that link I provided used a generic CPUID to force the use of all instructions in which cinebench appears to show no favorites. If its beyond that, I will admit I have no clue.

I hear ya... and appreciate the informaion cdawall. :)
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
As far as the AVX, I have no idea. If that has to do with CPUID and such, that link I provided used a generic CPUID to force the use of all instructions in which cinebench appears to show no favorites. If its beyond that, I will admit I have no clue.

I hear ya... and appreciate the informaion cdawall. :)

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

There is a little information on the CPUID I was talking about. As for your generic CPUID you are correct there is zero optimization for a CPUID that doesn't exist. The issue is when run under a processor that supports AVX cinebench will allow intel cpu's that support AVX utilize while not allowing the AMD ones to do so.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
424 (0.10/day)
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI Gaming M7 AC
Cooling AlphaCool Eisbaer 360
Memory G. Skill Trident X DDR4 8GBx2 (16 GB) 4266mhz dimms
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming X Twin Frozr GTX 1080 Ti
Storage 512GB Samsung 960 EVO M2 NVMe drive,500 GB Samsung 860 EVO ssd, 1 TB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Samsung 28 inch 4k Freesync monitor
Case ThermalTake V71 Full tower gaming case
Power Supply Corsair 1200 watt HX Platinum PSU
Mouse Razor Mamba Tournament Edition
Keyboard Das tactile mechanical gaming keyboard
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Cinebench 15 64 bit Open GL 146.7 FPS Cinebench 15 CPU 1958 at 4.25 GHZ Priority set to real-time
While I do agree that not using the proper instructions are a huge deal and in SOME tests show big differences while others do not (Cinebench showing little difference to CPUID), I also think that it is an architectural thing too. As Im sure you know, each Intel core (well that WAS A core until AMD changed the definition I guess) is FPU and Integer whereas AMD's 'modules' are 2 integer and one FPU(?). So I would imagine it goes both ways since when comparing it to an Intel chip it has the same amount of FPU's (quad with HT) as an 'octo' core (by AMD definition).

I'll agree that the question of the decoders that send the data to each mdoule have been particularly affected in floating point usage. That is unquestionable. That will be addressed in Steamroller you can't expect all issues to be corrected one generation. Steamroller will add another decoder I believe to each module to correct this issue. You could not accomplish that without first going down to .28 nm process. I am confident in spite of the mantras that AMD will survive this down cycle and will then be able to spit significant improvements in a timely fashion. It had to get its house in order before moving forward in any revolutionary way. I think AMD has survived the worst of a [painful reorganization and hopefully will be be able to add engineering and marketing staff in another 12 months.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

There is a little information on the CPUID I was talking about. As for your generic CPUID you are correct there is zero optimization for a CPUID that doesn't exist. The issue is when run under a processor that supports AVX cinebench will allow intel cpu's that support AVX utilize while not allowing the AMD ones to do so.
OK, so it is CPUID... (read that agner link, know that, mentioned that already above and was linked in my link to OCF, thank you again though!).

That said, if you look at the Cinebench test, none of the CPUID's he used showed a difference. Am I wrong in thinking that this shows no bias since there are no changes regardless of CPUID? Or since he used an atom CPU or something would my thinking be off since it doesnt have AVX extensions (guessing here).

Feel free to PM as we are drifting a bit... :)
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
1,243 (0.20/day)
Location
Repentigny, QC, CANADA
System Name CTG Computer
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800x
Motherboard Asus Strix B550-F
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S
Memory 2x 16gb G.SKILL F4-3600C16D-32GTZN
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RX6800XT Gaming OC
Storage WD Black SN850 1TB
Display(s) MAG274QRF-QD | Asus vg248qe
Case Fractal Meshify 2
Audio Device(s) Creative SoundBlasterx G6
Power Supply eVGA SuperNova 750w G2
Mouse Logitech G pro Wireless
Keyboard Corsair Strafe RGB MK2
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Thanks for the review :)

There is one thing I'd like to know, for the power consumption, What program you did to have full system load? and full system has been taken with what? as a full system, I do think that 100w if kinda low... My rig, at idle, with the HD6950 (1x), would be about 70-80w at idle, 2 hard drive and 1 SSD, and this has been taken at the wall, with the Kill-a-watt (by the way, my UPS does also give the same wattage or so).

Thanks if you can answer :D

BTW, AMD has some good performance, on some other review, games aren't that better, still alot behind Intel is alot of games, but multi-thread it is quite good (single thread, Intel seems to be faster). Theses CPU are workstation/servers at best, I would still use Intel for low power/performance as desktop.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
OK, so it is CPUID... (read that, know that..was linked in my link, thank you again though!).

That said, if you look at the Cinebench test, none of the CPUID's he used showed a difference. Am I wrong in thinking that this shows no bias since there are no changes regardless of CPUID? Or since he used an atom CPU or something would my thinking be off since it doesnt have AVX extensions (guessing here).

Feel free to PM as we are drifting a bit... :)

This should be the last post unless shenanigans happen, but yes you are correct since the atom lacks a huge number of instruction sets there will be no variation.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
SHENS! Thank you for bringing it back to a respectable, intelligent conversation free of disparaging remarks. This was fruitful IMO. :)
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,680 (4.29/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL, GPU-2x360mm, 2xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x16GB G.Skill 3600
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron, Steam controller
Keyboard Keychron K8
Software W10P
Thanks for the review :)

There is one thing I'd like to know, for the power consumption, What program you did to have full system load? and full system has been taken with what? as a full system, I do think that 100w if kinda low... My rig, at idle, with the HD6950 (1x), would be about 70-80w at idle, 2 hard drive and 1 SSD, and this has been taken at the wall, with the Kill-a-watt (by the way, my UPS does also give the same wattage or so).

Thanks if you can answer :D

BTW, AMD has some good performance, on some other review, games aren't that better, still alot behind Intel is alot of games, but multi-thread it is quite good (single thread, Intel seems to be faster). Theses CPU are workstation/servers at best, I would still use Intel for low power/performance as desktop.



Even in crossfire 7970's pull less wattage of your 6950 idle.

SHENS! Thank you for bringing it back to a respectable, intelligent conversation free of disparaging remarks. This was fruitful IMO. :)

Now we can't have that! :laugh:
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (0.61/day)
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
467 (0.11/day)
Location
Lithuania
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z87 Extreme 4
Cooling Lepa NeoIllusion RGB CPU cooler
Memory 2*4GB Patriot G2 Series RAM
Video Card(s) MSI Radeon R9 380 4GB
Storage Transcend SSD 740 256GB + WD Caviar Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung SA 300 24" Full HD
Case NZXT Phantom 530 + Bitfenix Recon fan controller
Audio Device(s) Creative SB0770 X-Fi Xtreme Gamer
Power Supply PC Power and Cooling Silencer MkIII 750W 80+ Gold
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Steelseries Apex RAW
Benchmark Scores IT WORKS
Much better than Bulldozer but far away from Core i5 3470 :(
9.0 is too much
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
6,770 (0.98/day)
Location
Republic of Asia (a.k.a Irvine), CA
System Name ---
Processor FX 8350 @ 4.00 Ghz with 1.28v
Motherboard Gigabyte 990FX-UD3 v4.0, Hacked Bios F4.x
Cooling Silenx 4 pipe Tower cooler + 2 x Cougar 120mm fan, 3 x 120mm, 1 x 200 mm Red LED fan
Memory Kingston HyperX DDR3 1866 16GB + Patriot Memory DDR3 1866 16GB
Video Card(s) Asus R9 290 OC @ GPU - 1050, MEM - 1300
Storage Inland 256GB PCIe NVMe SSD for OS, WDC Black - 2TB + 1TB Storage, Inland 480GB SSD - Games
Display(s) 3 x 1080P LCDs - Acer 25" + Acer 23" + HP 23"
Case AeroCool XPredator X3
Audio Device(s) Built-in Realtek
Power Supply Corsair HX1000 Modular
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 bit
Cinebench is the only encoding benchmark that shows Intel ahead of the pack. It does not allow AMD processors to use AVX as a whole. Whenever AMD uses AVX it quite honestly demolishes the competition. Much like back in the P4 days when netburst ate video encoding up. Now these have a lot less of a performance drop in other applications vs P4.



I am sure some of it is an architectural difference. Which is why we are seeing AMD run well in multithreaded benchmarks, terrible in single IPC and mediocre in a handful of honestly biased benchmarks.

As I said before there is a reason AMD chips are being picked up for the server market. They are not bad and a massively multithreaded environment that is properly coded to make use of not only the new core hierarchy but also the technology available (AVX, SSE etc) they are actually quite good often times substantially better than an Intel alternative. It really really comes down to using the right encoders that allow use of all of the parts of the AMD cores. Like Dave said watching the power consumption during benchmarks it is blatant the cores are idling through things instead of running the cores up like it should.

I guess AMD needs to pay these 'benchmark' coders to make use of AMD's tech more or efficiently. Again $ should be spent on these so called marketing tactics. Push $ into their As* and the program will start to favor AMD.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,232 (2.63/day)
Thanks for the review :)

There is one thing I'd like to know, for the power consumption, What program you did to have full system load? and full system has been taken with what? as a full system, I do think that 100w if kinda low... My rig, at idle, with the HD6950 (1x), would be about 70-80w at idle, 2 hard drive and 1 SSD, and this has been taken at the wall, with the Kill-a-watt (by the way, my UPS does also give the same wattage or so).

Thanks if you can answer :D

Better yet, a pic:

In that power bar is PC in kill-a-watt clone, lamp, monitor, and stereo. That bar plugs into it's own circuit @ 15a/120V, as well.




What I report is the average reported over an 1-hour period of a customized CPU-based load.

what's really amazing is that this system, does draw no more than 400W gaming, with dual 7950s!!!
 
Top