Discussion in 'Reviews' started by cadaveca, Oct 19, 2012.
Did that with an 8150. Single IPC still isn't good.
Clock it higher and make sure to kick the bus up while your at it. Pure multi clocks don't help as much.
8350 is not 8150.
Did that, single IPC is still substandard to it's competition. Besides I sold that chip for a much or capable 3770K. Oh well, I'm glad some people find AMD's CPU offerings up to their needs. They just don't meet mine. While the 8350 shows improvement over the 8150, it's still not enough for me when I can run my CPU at stock and not have any issues (or just have more FPS) with gaming.
You upgrade regularily.
For those on a budget, that don't already have SKT1155 Intel chips, the 8350 is a damn mighty good option.
For you...nah, not so much.
Kinda silly to even discuss.
However, I swapped out my I7 3820 for FX-8350.
Well sure! If you have the chipset to run it, it's a logical upgrade.
The point is 2 more MB L3 Cache. What did you miss?
Level 3 or L3 cache is specialized memory that works hand-in-hand with L1 and L2 cache to improve computer performance.
PAYING for it isnt the problem for me... Its the fact that it uses WAY more than it needs to for similar performance.....the fact that scaling is poor at Tri+, heatdump, and the potential problems multi GPU come up with in games (no profiles to name one).
OH well, I digress.
Im not missing a thing. It trades punches with a 2600K even though the 2600K has less cache, and has a 200Mhz clockspeed deficit. So yippee it has more cache but its performance is what it is WITH the extra cache so it doesnt matter it has more cache. Did any review disable the cache for comparison? LOL, no... so again, that was completely not relevant. Are you with me now?
I missed this post.. Yes, correct, its priced right, but that was never the issue (right? wasnt in my head! ).
I dont find this remotely like 939. In the s939 days, AMD lead performance nearly across the board... it was also MUCH easier to compare apples to apples at that point as it was single v single, dual v dual core and I think, IIRC, pricing was in the ballpark. These days, it depends on who you talk to as to what is relevant..Let's not forget though the original FX chips were priced terribly, just like the "X" chips of Intel are these days.
Is it fair to compare an 8 'core' AMD vs an Intel quad/quad with HT or Hex w/HT price not withstanding? Is it fair to go solely by price ignoring core/thread count? Its dizzying!!
Replacing my Phenom X4 955 with this in my work eSXi box. But alas I am cheap...8320.
I despise [H] and he despises AMD so why bother reading that.
It's an improvement never the less and runs at less volts too. AMD is in the right direction, they just have to ensure Steamroller blows both Bulldozer and Piledriver out of the water in 2013.
You are too kind sometimes! [H]ardforum is one of the biggest pieces of poop i have ever come across on the net. The only thing worse than their colour scheme is the majority of their community.
YES!! Too much head in butt disease in the world these days.
One can keep hoping I guess. Wishful thinking doesn't make me buy a product though. I think there's more of a chance of AMD leaving the desktop CPU market especially in light of how horrible their management has been. Yes I am disappointed with Piledriver and with AMD as a whole. Not to mention how much money I lost on their company due to their incompetence.
Thanks for the review.
It's a very good chip for that price indeed, but let's not forget that this is not an entry level CPU. People who are going for this kind of performance can't ignore the speed and the efficiency what Ivy Bridge has to offer. That being said, (and while I personally prefer Ivy Bridge over Piledriver atm), I still think that this aggressive pricing will pay up for AMD on the long run.
ps.: You accidentally a i5-3770K in the Test System 4
Glad my prediction was right -- this IS Bulldozer done right.
If I was still on AM3, I'd buy this CPU without any hesitation. If it was released a little over a year ago, I probably never would have went with Sandy Bridge for my build.
P.S. Any chance of including the 2500K in the comparisons? The way I see it, especially in the 3D benchmarks, Ivy Bridge could be edging out the FX-8350 more than it should due to PCI-E 3.0. The 2500K would be fair game.
Well from the review posted by Erocker, Kyle said,
I don't like Kyle personally but I wouldn't say he is super biased when it comes to computer hardware. Is the most vocal members of H staff conservative like Glenn Beck politically? Yes, and it shows up in their news and general sentiment unfortunately. That and they don't treat people with respect for the most part. :shadedshu
I enjoy their trade forum and marketplace though. They moderate their marketplace very well and I am thankful for that.
Somehow he managed to do an entire benchmark were AMD lost. The only processor at stock speed was the FX 8350 and yet you think it was unbiased. Last time I checked unlocked or not most people do NOT overclock. A proper benchmark should have at bare minimum shown stock vs stock performance with a section dedicated to clock vs clock which we all knew going into this AMD would loose. Hence it is a completely worthless review.
As I said in the other FX 8350 thread it completely depends on the benchmark
Weird how other websites can allow AMD to show higher performance than Intel and Kyle cannot. There are also many more benchmarks that show the FX 8350 beating the 3770K in multithreading. If you want I can go hunt them all down, then everyone can just revel at how much better in "games" Intel is.
- TPU's review uses win7. Iirc Windows 8 has some additional SMT optimization which might produce some different results in (rare) heavily multithreaded cases.
- Also: sadly, developers are still (can't or) not putting enough effort into making their code more SMT friendly, and efficiently and fully feeding 8 cores won't just happen by "itself", so, 80-90% of the times you gonna need to rely on the performance what your CPU can give you with 1-3 threads. I wish that everything would just run on as many cores as the CPU has, but that's still not how it is today.
I dont go to [H] for any reason (PSU reviews maybe)... but do they use these same benchmarks for Intel CPU's? If not, you have a point, otherwise, its a pretty big jump to say they did that intentionally, ya know? I mean, look around to any sites and see they all use different things. In no way can one say they cherry picked benchmarks if they use the the same benchmarks for a while..
Perhaps its time to admit we landed on the moon, there was only one shooter of JFK, and the 9/11 building collapse was caused by the terrorist planes and not the government demolishing them...
Actually he did skip any benchmark that showed AMD performing better. Take a look at the 3960X review
That is just a couple of benchmarks he skipped.
Ooooof..... wow. Well, that was almost a year ago, what did they use when IB was released in April? Its possible they changed it up since then? I dont know, clearly we see differently until you can prove something.
EDIT: the IB review doesnt have those either... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/23/intel_ivy_bridge_processor_ipc_overclocking_review/1
You can argue that point 'til the cows come home- best case scenario is win some lose even in an ideal test enviroment ( no Intel compile + multithreaded). The problem being that to realize any notable performance lead over IB you'd have to aggregate a very esoteric software suite, in a niche OS market, and not being overly concerned about power usage...which would seem counter-productive given that sotware utilization is geared towards heavily multi-threaded and CPU intensive workloads.
BTW: If anyone was interested in Windows 8 vs Windows 7 performance for Piledriver, I'd suggest a read of the AMD affiliated Planet3DNow review.
Thanks for that link. It's nice to see that Win7 is still performing better, even if the difference is marginal.
ps.: at least, win8 still has a nice free Pinball
Look closely at your compiler information at the bottom of those images. If you look at the top one were AMD performed better you will notice it used gcc options -lssl -lcrypto -lm -lz -fopenmp -lcrypt -ldl vs the one were AMD performs worse only uses gcc options -03 -march-native. What is interesting about that is it labels what both sets of processors are aloud to use and oddly enough you appear to have linked that AMD is not as good at single IPC. Did you happen to figure that out on your own? I do not think I have seen that mentioned here before.
OR........ they are completely different benchmarks using different compiling options/abilities? (No idea... just a ignoramous looking at it, but it seems its an easy fallback, true or not, for AMD users to fall back on). Do you know what they do? If so, can you explain what they do as I dont know.
Separate names with a comma.