AMD FX-8350 Overclocked to 8.176 GHz with 8 Cores Enabled

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Well, mine Phenom II 965 did quite well at 4,4GHz and it goes now for 92 euro here in Europe

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2300583.png

what cooling and where are your system specs dude

[FYFI13]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

what cooling and where are your system specs dude

Corsair H80 with stock fans, other parts you can see in the link + Zalman 850HP power supply.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Corsair H80 with stock fans, other parts you can see in the link + Zalman 850HP power supply.

good system i might say.

I built my bro one with a x2 555BE, unlocked it to B55/955 BE (Stock cooler for that CPU)

I might eventually build a 8350 based or A105800K based machine

[FYFI13]

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

good system i might say.

I built my bro one with a x2 555BE, unlocked it to B55/955 BE (Stock cooler for that CPU)

I might eventually build a 8350 based or A105800K based machine

Thank you Actually i'd buy an FX8350 if it was compatible with my AM3 mainboard, it's a good overclocker, does it's job on highly threaded apps and so on but if i can get 3470K for the same price my choice will be clear, unfortunately.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Nah, now it's equal to Phenom II on gaming.

...And 2x better than it in everything else.

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Well, mine Phenom II 965 did quite well at 4,4GHz and it goes now for 92 euro here in Europe

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2300583.png

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Yeah, if Phenom II runs at 3,4GHz... I'm not talking about well multi-threaded games like Battlefield 3, take a look at S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat. An overclocked Phenom II 980 (@4.4GHz) beats the crap out of all Piledozers.

Very few Phenoms II will reach 4.4GHz, TBH that architecture typically caps out at 3.8-4.1GHz. If yours clocks higher you are in a lucky minority.

More bulldozers and Piledrivers reach 4.5-5GHz than Phenom IIs do 4.1 GHz

[WhiteLotus]

I will say this is certainly impressive. Now make them come out of that out of the box and I might go and buy one.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Thank you Actually i'd buy an FX8350 if it was compatible with my AM3 mainboard, it's a good overclocker, does it's job on highly threaded apps and so on but if i can get 3470K for the same price my choice will be clear, unfortunately.

did your board actually come with a bios update because I know AM3 supports AM3+ CPUs but AMD doesnt guarantee it, so its up to board makers to make that decision. I mean Asus and I believe Gigabyte did without a socket change. Hey what ever works for you bro, I just feel this helped AMD actually. If i was going intel Id be going skt 2011 with a IVB-E

[nt300]

Originally Posted by DannibusX

So the argument shifts from "Meh, unimpressive, when a chip is capable of doing that with more than one core, THEN I'll be impressed." to "Meh, when a chip is capable of doing that for everyday computing THEN I'll be impressed."

Interesting.

When a chip is capable of doing this with all 8 cores for everyday tasks while turning my hand into a vagina, THEN I'll be impressed.

This is testiment that we can push the CPU very high on air and water with all 8 cores. Good work for AMD

[FYFI13]

Originally Posted by Dent1

...And 2x better than it in everything else.

Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.

Originally Posted by eidairaman1

did your board actually come with a bios update because I know AM3 supports AM3+ CPUs but AMD doesnt guarantee it

Nope, unfortunately... The best i can throw in is Phenom II 1100T.

Edit. i swear the God there was post between mine two o_O

[nt300]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.

And how does Piledriver fail? Benchmarks show it is quite competative and the cost is the best bang for the money.

[FYFI13]

Originally Posted by nt300

And how does Piledriver fail? Benchmarks show it is quite competative and the cost is the best bang for the money.

On some single threaded games it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance (which is ~60% cheaper) and that isn't good in any way. I was hoping from PD at least same IPC as Phenom's had.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Agreed, but... I need CPU for gaming, video editing and transcoding only. Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.


Nope, unfortunately... The best i can throw in is Phenom II 1100T.

Edit. i swear the God there was post between mine two o_O

ya your prev post there were two who had posted before i did,

nt300 i know your a lil irked, but honestly PD was a interim update- it is still the same design series as BD, its probably good now but it will probably be SR that totally replaces PHII in everything. Eventually PHII chips will runout and what will we have then, PD based FX CPUs and PD based Athlons to replace BD and Stars in the AM3+ market. Im sure AMD isnt finished improving the chips, they will keep refining them with newer steppings of PD till SR is ready to go.


FYFI13- there was no guarantee Single thread IPC would improve drastically. Im sure SR does it better than PHII and BD/PD.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

On some single threaded games it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance

Originally Posted by FYFI13

Last two tasks are being done by GPU so all i need from CPU is good frame-rate in games and Piledozers failing at it.

I've seen Piledriver fail in gaming compared to Intel. But I haven't seen many indepeth reviews of the Piledriver vs Phenom II in gaming.

Show me the review of Piledriver vs Phenom II in gaming please.

[de.das.dude]

sweet lord of sex kittens

[Mindweaver]

WOW! Now this is really good news!

[NHKS]

IMPRESSIVE indeed!..

apparently, NAMEGT had 24 tasty 8350's at disposal of which the best achieved this feat.. talk about cherry picking the cherries..

I hope quality yields will be common (so that conventional cooling can achieve 5GHz or more easily) considering that PD is on a mature 32nm..

[Dent1]

FYFI13, you've gone silent

I'm sure you are still digging out the Piledriver vs Phenom II gaming benchmarks.

It's OK. I know you won't repond or reply to my request.

[de.das.dude]

Originally Posted by FYFI13

On some single threaded games it needs to be overclocked to match Phenom II performance (which is ~60% cheaper) and that isn't good in any way. I was hoping from PD at least same IPC as Phenom's had.

hey, no one told its still the 90s

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by KainXS

I wish I could get a cherry picked chip like that -_-

Me too , very impresed, another totally polarising thread

[baggpipes]

Looks good to me....



http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ver-cpu-review

[brandonwh64]

Originally Posted by baggpipes

Looks good to me....

http://www.overclockers.com/wp-conte...3dmvantage.jpg

So it takes 4.9Ghz to reach close to the same score as a 3770K at stock? I maybe reading this graph wrong

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

So it takes 4.9Ghz to reach close to the same score as a 3770K at stock? I maybe reading this graph wrong

So it takes an overclocked $219 processor to dust a $319 processor. I must be reading it wrong too

I'm going to start posting cinebench, so we can see the FX dust the Ivy Bridge all day.



Edit:



Takes a 4.8GHz for the 3570k to beat the FX-8350 (4GHz)

I must be reading the graph wrong?

[brandonwh64]

Who cares about cinebench?

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Who cares about cinebench?

Who cares about 3D Mark Vantage. I stopped caring about synthetic points years ago.

Edit:

Originally Posted by brandonwh64

Then why get upset and stary saying things like "OH NO HE DIDN"T don't make me get out the cinebenches!" I only asked a simple question and didn't need the mad black woman attitude.

Come on, it wasnt just a question. We could all hear the sarcasm as you said it. If there was no sarcasm. My bad.

[entropy13]

Who cares if the Pentium is better in Skyrim? It's just Skyrim!




Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Batman: Arkham City? It's just Batman: Arkham City!




Who cares if the i5 2400 is better in Civilization V? It's just Civilization V!

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...or-reviewed/14

Who cares if it's still behind in gaming? It's just gaming!