AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz - "Piledriver" for AMD Socket AM3+

[buildzoid]

I just read a preformance overview of the new FX series on guru3D and basically the FX 4300/6300 will give you very similar FPS at less power and cash than FX 8350/8320 now considering the architecture is almost identical for these CPU they will overclock to almost the same levels the 6300 cost 75$ less than the 8350(40$ less than i5 3570k) the 4300 80$ less and since games only use a few threads a max of 4 then you could get the 6300 or the 4300 and get it to 4.5-5.0Ghz with a little over 3/4 or 1/2 power consumption. the 6300 is a bit slower/faster in pretty much all benchmarks against the i5 3570k so If I wanted 1 or 2 GPU only gaming rig I'd go AMD.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by Aquinus

Then how do you explain the linear scaling of compute power to each core? Hyper-threading doesn't enable the extra threads to scale as well as having "real cores" so the benefit is highly variable and doesn't always provide an extra core worth of compute. If you look at what happened to AMD processors, single threaded applications took a hit, but multi-threaded applications that use it worked very well. Consider for a moment the performance boost in multi-threaded applications as AMD optimizes the core, shrinks the die, and crams more cores on the die. By sharing the floating point unit (keep in mind that a lot of FP-intensive applications are starting to get programmed on GPUs now, not a lot, but they're cropping up) AMD can optimize what the CPU needs to be good at. A lot more integer math gets done in a processor than floating point math for the average user and generally speaking unless you're doing a lot of parallel floating point operations, you won't take a huge performance hit because at that point you should be considering OpenCL for large amounts of data and I think AMD's is hoping that you will get or use an AMD GPU to improve your floating point performance because there are huge benefits to be had when you can make your FP code run in parallel. Obviously the industry isn't there yet, but it will be before you know it. Also consider all the optimizations that this architecture could use, it is new and AMD needs time to work out the bugs. All things considered I think they're doing the best they can against Intel considering revenue and usable income.

Careful with the "real core" issues there.

AMD "cores" aren't even "real cores", take one out by itself and it won't operate, it requires the rest of the shared hardware its twin is using.


AMD and ATI have both had a history of making hardware to do things that software was not ready for, and about 50% of the time or better it flopped.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by buildzoid

I just read a preformance overview of the new FX series on guru3D and basically the FX 4300/6300 will give you very similar FPS at less power and cash than FX 8350/8320 now considering the architecture is almost identical for these CPU they will overclock to almost the same levels the 6300 cost 75$ less than the 8350(40$ less than i5 3570k) the 4300 80$ less and since games only use a few threads a max of 4 then you could get the 6300 or the 4300 and get it to 4.5-5.0Ghz with a little over 3/4 or 1/2 power consumption. the 6300 is a bit slower/faster in pretty much all benchmarks against the i5 3570k so If I wanted 1 or 2 GPU only gaming rig I'd go AMD.

You got something wrong. i5 will give better performance in games than any AMD CPU. i5 3570K costs the same, draws less power and is around 20-30% faster than FX-8350 in games. That's with single GPU. Dual high-end system would be severely bottlenecked by FX.

Here's FX-8350 vs i7 3770K with 2x HD 7970s. i5 is identical to i7 in most games.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...e/17494-1.html

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Ghost

You got something wrong. i5 will give better performance in games than any AMD CPU. i5 3570K costs the same, draws less power and is around 20-30% faster than FX-8350 in games. That's with single GPU. Dual high-end system would be severely bottlenecked by FX.

Here's FX-8350 vs i7 3770K with 2x HD 7970s. i5 is identical to i7 in most games.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...e/17494-1.html

But how many people can afford one 7970 let alone two for Crossfire. Whilst I'd agree there is a deficiency in high-end multi GPU gaming performance few users will opt for such an expensive setup.

I think the broader message buildzoid was trying to convey was the similarities in gaming performance between the FX 4300, 6300, 8350 and 8320 which is sort of true.

Originally Posted by buildzoid

I the 6300 is a bit slower/faster in pretty much all benchmarks against the i5 3570k so If I wanted 1 or 2 GPU only gaming rig I'd go AMD.

This part I'm in disagreement with. Gaming no. Everything else maybe.

[Steevo]

APU's if you are going to game are still better bang for the buck.

[os2wiz]

Originally Posted by Ghost

You got something wrong. i5 will give better performance in games than any AMD CPU. i5 3570K costs the same, draws less power and is around 20-30% faster than FX-8350 in games. That's with single GPU. Dual high-end system would be severely bottlenecked by FX.

Here's FX-8350 vs i7 3770K with 2x HD 7970s. i5 is identical to i7 in most games.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...e/17494-1.html

You are making a genralization that just does not hold up with many of the newer games. The FX 8350 betters the I5 3570k and equals the I7 3770k in games like Battlefield III , Sleeping Dogs. In poorly designed single threaded games or games that are cpu bound that may be a different stiory. But more and more of the better games are taking advantage of multi-cores as many as 8!!! Wake up a new day is here.

[os2wiz]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Check it out,

The Power PC was a great chip. It was too bad IBM is pretty much out of the cpu business. They had great fabrication and great design teams. They also had the most advanced desktop and server operating system:
OS/2. Far better design than Windows, The Workplace Shell gui was better than windows as well. They made the mistake of trusting Microsoft and it cost them big time.

[EarthDog]

Originally Posted by Ghost

You got something wrong. i5 will give better performance in games than any AMD CPU. i5 3570K costs the same, draws less power and is around 20-30% faster than FX-8350 in games. That's with single GPU. Dual high-end system would be severely bottlenecked by FX.

Here's FX-8350 vs i7 3770K with 2x HD 7970s. i5 is identical to i7 in most games.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8...e/17494-1.html

Originally Posted by os2wiz

You are making a genralization that just does not hold up with many of the newer games. The FX 8350 betters the I5 3570k and equals the I7 3770k in games like Battlefield III , Sleeping Dogs. In poorly designed single threaded games or games that are cpu bound that may be a different stiory. But more and more of the better games are taking advantage of multi-cores as many as 8!!! Wake up a new day is here.

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ing-comparison

[os2wiz]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ing-comparison

There is absolutely nothing factually wrong with what I stated. I qualified my statement if you bothered to read it in its entirety. I said many ,not most, of the new games are being designed for multi core processors. I said that is becoming an icreasing trend and it is. I know what the reports say and it does not negate my observations. Analyze my friend , rote responses lack analysis.

[EarthDog]

I dont recall calling anyone out (reads post again to be sure...NOPE)... just adding a link for you guys to chew on. Put it back in your pants, there is no need for that...in fact, doesnt my link actually support what you are saying as far as the performance goes?

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

I dont recall calling anyone out (reads post again to be sure...NOPE)... just adding a link for you guys to chew on. Put it back in your pants, there is no need for that...in fact, doesnt my link actually support what you are saying as far as the performance goes?

That is why you posted the link right? This clearly shows Once Again, in GAMING both Intel and AMD are competative. Anybody thinking otherwise is delusional.

[EarthDog]

I posted it as it has information they are talking about... that's it!

[Frick]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

I posted it as it has information they are talking about... that's it!

*sarcasm*

[buildzoid]

what I was aiming at with my post was to point out that in games the FX 6300/4300 will be practically equal to the FX 8350 while costing less and consuming less power. If 8350 isn't too far behind the i5 3570k but consumes too much power and doesn't need all the cores then the 6300 and 4300 make ideal cheap gaming CPUs because your only losing cores which won't mean anything in most games. Since they run on less power they should hit higher overclocks than the 8350 and match the i5 in gaming especially the cheap i5s like the 3470