Observations with an FX-8350

[Puppies04]

Agree with you on bulldozer. I was a little disappointed with it, but it wasn't as bad as people thought.

I don't think it was the fact it was a "bad" chip, more the fact that they was usually an intel chip at nearly every price point that was a better buy. We ended up with a lot of arguments around here because AMD fans would suggest an AMD build then Intel fans would post a load of benchmarks that showed that an Intel build would be better (say for example the OP was planning on making a gaming rig) and then it just turned into a slanging match between the 2 sides.

We also had a certain amount of what can only be described as suspicious first time posters turning up asking for builds where their usage would be 5 programs that BD chips were competitive against intel in which almost nobody would use together.

I do get that in 90% of "normal" activities it would be almost impossible to tell the difference between an AMD rig and an intel one.

 

[Homeles]

I do get that in 90% of "normal" activities it would be almost impossible to tell the difference between an AMD rig and an intel one.

But if there are benchmarks that show a distinct advantage, would you not pick the winning product? It doesn't matter if you don't notice a difference. Even if it's less than a second, those fractions of a second add up over time. The "I can't notice a difference" argument is a very common one in enthusiast circles, and it's a rather bad one. What's the point in online reviews and benchmarks if you don't notice the difference anyways? You can downplay a product's inferiority all you want, but at the end of the day it is still objectively inferior.

I'd argue that a lot of people don't even know how to tell the difference between two pieces of hardware. Take a look at the microstutter debate that popped up with The Tech Report's re-look at the GTX 660 Ti vs. the HD 7950. A lot of people argued that they can't even sense microstutter. I'd argue that they don't even know what microstutter looks like, and if showed what to look for, they'd change their minds. At any rate, humans are an absolutely terrible tool for determining which product is better than another.

With hardware, you also have to look at power usage, and I'd argue that hardware communities have a very irresponsible and wasteful attitude towards it. You'll hear "I don't care about power consumption" tossed around a lot. Go you. Way to be a product of our wasteful society.

 

[Puppies04]

But if there are benchmarks that show a distinct advantage, would you not pick the winning product? It doesn't matter if you don't notice a difference. Even if it's less than a second, those fractions of a second add up over time. You also have to look at power usage, and I'd argue that hardware communities have a very irresponsible and wasteful attitude towards it.

Yes I would, hence the fact when I bought my last rig I looked at what I was going to be using the machine for and bought one based on a 2500K instead of an AMD rig.

As for power usage it all comes down to the usage model again, if someone is going to be running the RIG flat out 24/7 then it is going to be a consideration. If however they want a machine to surf the web and play flash games 1-2 hours a day the difference in power usage is going to be a few $ per year and really wouldn't be at the top of my considerations list.

 

[Homeles]

As long as it makes it on the list somewhere, that's fine. In forums such as these, generally it's completely disregarded.

 

[Idontcare]

But if there are benchmarks that show a distinct advantage, would you not pick the winning product? It doesn't matter if you don't notice a difference. Even if it's less than a second, those fractions of a second add up over time. The "I can't notice a difference" argument is a very common one in enthusiast circles, and it's a rather bad one. What's the point in online reviews and benchmarks if you don't notice the difference anyways? You can downplay a product's inferiority all you want, but at the end of the day it is still objectively inferior.

There's no question that you are right.

Even knowing what I know now about the FX-8350, if I were limited to buying just one computer and every dollar counted then I would definitely go with a 2500k or 3570k and OC it versus going with an FX-8320 or FX-8350 and OC that.

Benchmarks are good proxies for real-world performance within its given consumer-app segment.

What I was more getting at is just that buying second-best, while not the absolute best thing to do with one's money, doesn't mean you got taken to the cleaners either.

You do still end up with a machine which costs roughly the same amount at the door, and only slightly more over the course of 3 yrs of operation, but will give you performance that is on par (not leagues below and lagging badly) with the Intel system.

It just isn't the end of the world to get second-best. But yes, intentionally getting second best when you could have just as easily purchased the best is a silly mistake to make. I'm not advocating that.

But take SSD's for example. I stopped caring about make/model long ago. I now buy pretty much based on $/GB so long as it is an OCZ/Samsung/Intel model that doesn't fall at the bottom of Anand's review charts.

Samsung 830 or an OCZ Vertex 3? I could not care less, there are performance differences that benchmarks will tell me but its all in the noise as far as my watch and wallet are concerned.

In this regard, for my apps of interest (backtesting in metatrader and transcoding with TMPGEnc) my wallet and my watch don't really care whether I bought an FX-8350 or a 2500K.

But if I could only buy one, and my watch or my wallet were so hard-pressed that I had no choice but too care, then I'd opt for a 2500K, no question.

Its like deciding whether I am going to Fuddruckers or Red Robin for a burger and fries. You aren't going to buy a 1lb burger at Red Robin, and neither is going to give you the same quality of ingredients, but for comparable burger size and price (say a 1/3lb cheeseburger at either place) I am hard-pressed to care to which is the "better bargain" down to the penny...they both taste great when I am hungry

 

[Idontcare]

As long as it makes it on the list somewhere, that's fine. In forums such as these, generally it's completely disregarded.

Effect of Temperature on Power-Consumption with the i7-2600K

i7-3770K vs. i7-2600K: Temperature, Voltage, GHz and Power-Consumption Analysis

And you can count on one coming for this FX-8350

 

[Puppies04]

As long as it makes it on the list somewhere, that's fine. In forums such as these, generally it's completely disregarded.

Perhaps in other forums but you do the members here a disservice if you think that sort of thing happens around here.

Anyone who posted asking for advice on a build that was going to be running either CPU or GPU intense programs for long periods of time would have the power usage of any components pointed out to them.

In fact I think sometimes people get a little too carried away with power usage, people often link graphs showing bulldozer chips at full load and explain that they will be no good for gaming when in reality nearly all games are going to load less than half the CPU. The lack of single threaded performance is another matter however which is why nearly all gaming rigs get spec'd with intel CPUs around here.

Anyone claiming that this is some kind of "witch hunt" against AMD needs to take a long hard look at the performance figures and/or grow up a little.

 

[Homeles]

Effect of Temperature on Power-Consumption with the i7-2600K

i7-3770K vs. i7-2600K: Temperature, Voltage, GHz and Power-Consumption Analysis

And you can count on one coming for this FX-8350

Since you mentioned it, your Ivy Bridge de-lidding experiments and the power consumption scaling you just linked are oft-cited on Reddit's /r/hardware. Better content than Tom's Hardware produces, no doubt.

Perhaps in other forums but you do the members here a disservice if you think that sort of thing happens around here.

Anyone who posted asking for advice on a build that was going to be running either CPU or GPU intense programs for long periods of time would have the power usage of any components pointed out to them.

In fact I think sometimes people get a little too carried away with power usage, people often link graphs showing bulldozer chips at full load and explain that they will be no good for gaming when in reality nearly all games are going to load less than half the CPU. The lack of single threaded performance is another matter however which is why nearly all gaming rigs get spec'd with intel CPUs around here.

Anyone claiming that this is some kind of "witch hunt" against AMD needs to take a long hard look at the performance figures and/or grow up a little.

I agree with all of the points you have made. This forum is a cut above the rest, or at least above OCN and the Reddit hardware communities I've visited. Beyond3D is a bit better, as a lot of those guys are developers or have been following the industry for a long time at a technical level.

Samsung 830 or an OCZ Vertex 3? I could not care less, there are performance differences that benchmarks will tell me but its all in the noise as far as my watch and wallet are concerned.

Part of the issue with SSDs is that they've very "gray." Obviously more sequential read/write performance is better than less, and more random performance is better than less, but how do you decide which is better when both metrics are great? Up until Anand's recent pushing for and exposure of IO consistency, there wasn't any real metric where you could say "oh, this performance drive is better than the other." They're just too similar. With CPUs though, it's a lot more black and white. There's also a lot more real world data available.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Keep on with your enslavement to confirmation bias — you're a textbook case. I actually have made intelligent contributions to this thread. You'll never accept that, however.

You can keep telling yourself that, doesn't make it true. What confirmation bais do i have? I buy the best value/perf systems to meet my needs; I have a combination of AMD and Intel hardware.

Quit with the "oh, Intel fanboys are persecuting us" sob story. It's childish.

Making up stories is childish, maybe you should find where i said that, all i said is that in this thread, people don’t actual care about what you have to say because we are looking at FX83XX and that alone. in that topic you have added nothing.

Instead, address the arguments being made directly. Don't like that people are pushing single threaded performance? Try making a well-reasoned response as to why it's not important.

Learn to read, seriously.
1. Quote where I said anything like that
2. Quote where I said single thread performance isn't important
3. Explain how this doesn't directly contracted what you have said

on very serial dependent code( not just single threaded) where OOOE is limited and PD's front end overall not being that great, the raw IPC of SB/IB smashes PD. Outside of that it really isn't that bad, its the things that hurt serial code people notice the most, miss predicts, instruction decode, L1 write bandwidth ( boy did they mess that one up!!!). its probably only 10% of BD/PD deign that makes BD/PD "bad", which is a shame for AMD.

4. look at my argument where i completely justified why piledriver is way better for what i am using it for, I can’t get equal performance from a 3770 and can’t use a 3770k both of which are MORE EXPENSIVE.

Good luck with that. You've got a pretty massive percentage of the desktop PC crowd that games.

Not really, you have a massive amount of the desktop PC crowd that buy mid tier balanced systems ie Value for Money. They also don’t run games like people do who are trying to benchmark CPU's. The end result is (atleast with Australian pricing) you’re better off with a 8350 and a 7950/660ti then a 3770k/non k and a 7850/660. 3570 is a different proposition just for gaming there's no question right now that its better. but then it is also a lot worse at quite a few very common tasks like transcoding.

 

[Homeles]

You can keep telling yourself that, doesn't make it true. What confirmation bais do i have? I buy the best value/perf systems to meet my needs; I have a combination of AMD and Intel hardware.

You are suffering from confirmation bias, as demonstrated by your completely incorrect belief that "only intel fans feel the need to come into completely unrelarted threads and throw intel related benchmarks around." AMD fans do this as well, and you know this.

Making up stories is childish, maybe you should find where i said that, all i said is that in this thread, people don’t actual care about what you have to say because we are looking at FX83XX and that alone. in that topic you have added nothing.

Gladly:

only intel fans feel the need to come into completely unrelarted threads and throw intel related benchmarks around.

GG.

Learn to read, seriously.
1. Quote where I said anything like that
2. Quote where I said single thread performance isn't important
3. Explain how this doesn't directly contracted what you have said

Contracted? I haven't contracted anything. I'm quite healthy.

4. look at my argument where i completely justified why piledriver is way better for what i am using it for, I can’t get equal performance from a 3770 and can’t use a 3770k both of which are MORE EXPENSIVE.

Why is this relevant to our discussion?

Not really, you have a massive amount of the desktop PC crowd that buy mid tier balanced systems ie Value for Money. They also don’t run games like people do who are trying to benchmark CPU's. The end result is (atleast with Australian pricing) you’re better off with a 8350 and a 7950/660ti then a 3770k/non k and a 7850/660. 3570 is a different proposition just for gaming there's no question right now that its better. but then it is also a lot worse at quite a few very common tasks like transcoding.

Well, considering that no one is pushing the 3770K as a "value" processor, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[itsmydamnation]

You are suffering from confirmation bias, as demonstrated by your completely incorrect belief that "only intel fans feel the need to come into completely unrelarted threads and throw intel related benchmarks around." AMD fans do this as well, and you know this.

care the point me to threads on this forum where that actually happens in a completely unsolicited way. Much like it happened in this thread.

Gladly:


GG.

your failing at comprehension is astounding, the point was; which you continue to constantly ignore. Is for the purpose of what was being discussed, those benchmarks are irrelevant. Now let’s watch you ignore that point yet again, what would that be now, the 4th time?

Contracted? I haven't contracted anything. I'm quite healthy.

nice smug answer, love to see how you complete ignore the content, i guess that’s because you don’t have answer. typical troll tactics there.

Why is this relevant to our discussion?

im seeing a constant pattern here with you inability to comprehend,
let me break it down, slow for you.

you posted:

Instead, address the arguments being made directly. Don't like that people are pushing single threaded performance? Try making a well-reasoned response as to why it's not important.

I posted

4. look at my argument where i completely justified why piledriver is way better for what i am using it for, I can’t get equal performance from a 3770 and can’t use a 3770k both of which are MORE EXPENSIVE.

Now let’s compare processors,
1. has higher single threaded perf, one has lower
2. one has constant perf across all thread, one doesn't
3. one supports overclocking and IOMMU , the other doesn't.

now see how when you put pieces together how you can come to explainations against:

Try making a well-reasoned response as to why it's not important.

See the reasoning of why in my case choosing the processor with absolute single thread performance isn’t the best. Thus giving an answer to your question.

Well, considering that no one is pushing the 3770K as a "value" processor, I'm not sure what your point is.

Seeing no one but people pushing intel products brought gaming into it ( go look at the benchmarks in this thread) I dont understand you point to even to begin with. But my point was within a balanced system for gaming a 8350 is a perfectly justifiable option.

 

[Jovec]

As enthusiasts, we should spend our money where we want. It doesn't have the be the fastest, or best value, or some other metric. I have an idle 1090t system that I plan to change to an 8350. I want to support AMD. I want to tinker again with AMD OC'ing. I know that the system will be "fast enough" and that the power consumption won't add up to too much extra coin. It's also possible that Vishera will be the last enthusiast CPU AMD produces and I'd like to own one if so.

But in one sentence, AMD offers no compelling reason to switch to it's processors from ones we've owned (or had the ability to own) for 20 months now.

Vishera does have competitive multi-threaded performance. But if as a consumer I depend on MT performance to earn money, I'd probably be better off spending more for 6c/12t or 2s/4s systems, let alone saving $100-$200 (compared to 4c/8t SB or IB) up-front. If MT performance isn't a money-maker than differences of a few minutes (or even a few hours) completion time shouldn't effect me, and for

Vishera makes sense if your current motherboard supports it. It makes sense if you want a bunch of native Sata 6Gbps ports. It makes sense if you want both the ability to OC and have IOMMU support. If AMD confirmed Steamroller (and socket compatibility), then the decision to switch platforms is somewhat easier to make.

The flip-side to this is that AMD is only competitive (such as it is) because Intel allows it to be. We can safely deduce that AMD is running Vishera CPUs at near maximum frequency and power draw; if AMD could have launched Vishera with an extra 800, 400, or even 200MHz it would have, either to make it more compelling in benchmarks/reviews and/or push the price up. We can also safely deduce that Intel has plenty of frequency head-room in their current line-up, and could probably add 200-400MHz to it's line-up across the board without raising stock voltage. We also know Intel has high margins and can afford to get into a price war shoudl it become necessary. AMD is competing not only with Intel, but with the immediate potential of Intel.

 

[Homeles]

care the point me to threads on this forum where that actually happens in a completely unsolicited way. Much like it happened in this thread.

Actually, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that "only intel fans feel the need to come into completely unrelarted threads and throw intel related benchmarks around." So you first.

your failing at comprehension is astounding, the point was; which you continue to constantly ignore. Is for the purpose of what was being discussed, those benchmarks are irrelevant. Now let’s watch you ignore that point yet again, what would that be now, the 4th time?

They're not irrelevant. You can thank this guy for that:

Viral marketing did take its toll with the "single thread perf is all" mantra.

As pointed by Inf64 softs are more and more multithreaded and people
dont realize at wich point a 8350 has so much more processing power
than a i5.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

nice smug answer, love to see how you complete ignore the content, i guess that’s because you don’t have answer. typical troll tactics there.

Maybe it's because there is no "content."

As far as "not having an answer," that one damning quote of yours already addressed your second request.

Seeing no one but people pushing intel products brought gaming into it ( go look at the benchmarks in this thread) I dont understand you point to even to begin with. But my point was within a balanced system for gaming a 8350 is a perfectly justifiable option.

No, your point was "only intel fans feel the need to come into completely unrelarted threads and throw intel related benchmarks around."

It doesn't matter what else you've said. You've not addressed this ridiculous statement that you made.

 

[Homeles]

As enthusiasts, we should spend our money where we want.

Sure, but if you're going to publicly express reasoning as to why you chose to spend your money that way, you should expect to have that reasoning criticized.

It doesn't have the be the fastest, or best value, or some other metric. I have an idle 1090t system that I plan to change to an 8350. I want to support AMD.

So you buy a low margin part? There are better ways to support AMD.

I want to tinker again with AMD OC'ing.

Now this is fine. But so rarely do you see "old school overclocking" tossed around in a Bulldozer argument.

It's also possible that Vishera will be the last enthusiast CPU AMD produces and I'd like to own one if so.

"Argument from possibility of going out of business." Haha, I haven't heard that one before. I like it

 

[Jovec]

Sure, but if you're going to publicly express reasoning as to why you chose to spend your money that way, you should expect to have that reasoning criticized.

There are a few situations where I believe Vishera is a fine choice which I outlined in my previous post.

There are some situations where Vishera is a bad choice. Often this is due to mis-information or a mis-understanding of its capabilities and limitations.

There are numerous situations where Vishera will be indistinguishable from a comparable Intel CPU, even if it is not the best choice. And there are countless situations where an informed enthusiast/hobbyist may choose to buy AMD/Vishera. In my case, computers are a hobby. I have disposable cash. I want an 8350. No other justification is needed.

My mains are a 2600k and 2500k, and I expect I'll move to Haswell. If I were buying a main rig again today (or recommend one) it would still be Intel. IDC bought an 8350 to play around with it. I'm sure he bought it with a good understanding of how it compares to Intel offerings. I look forward to his posts, and to my own (less intensive) observations.

When it comes to the purchases of others, all we can do is politely argue our opinions, help them understand the facts, and let them make their own call. If they decide differently than you would have, so be it.

So you buy a low margin part? There are better ways to support AMD.

AMD CPUs: Skt 939 BE-2300. Skt 939 4800. 2x Athlon 2 240s. Athlon 2 620. Phenom 2 550. Phenom 2 940. Phenom 2 705e. Phenom 2 955. Thuban 1090t. Llano 3850.

These CPUs were either bought for value (Althon 2s, 550 with unlocked cores), HTPC use where they performed as well as the competition (BE-2300, 705e, 3850), or with a firm understanding of their price/performance or lack thereof (940, 955, 1090t).

AMD GPUs: 4650 x2 . 4670. 4850. 4870. 5670. 5770. 5850. 6870. 6950. 7950.

AMD has gotten plenty of my money. If Zambezi and Trinity were better, I would probably have purchased them too.

Now this is fine. But so rarely do you see "old school overclocking" tossed around in a Bulldozer argument.

Again, hobby.

"Argument from possibility of going out of business." Haha, I haven't heard that one before. I like it

Not necessarily going out of business, just eliminating their performance/enthusaist CPUs. While I don't follow the industry as closely as some, I do not believe AMD has confirmed Steamroller will be either released or cancelled. But we speculate and otherwise waste bandwidth and CPU cycles on message boards for fun.

 

[guskline]

IDC: Eye surgery went well and back to work. I'll try to PM you my BIOS settings for my 8350 at 4599Mhz (21x219). Obviously your mb is the best Asus 990FX so it might not need tweeked as much. I have an Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev1 mb which is solid. It doesn't have as many automatic tweek parameters as yours but my settings might give you a baseline. As i mentioned when questioned about my max OC, I tend to be a little conservative even with OCing. I want rock solid stability with acceptable temps. In that regard, the Corsair H100 with 4 fans really helps as does the HAF 932 case. From what I have read, the stock AMD HSF isn't very good for dissipating heat with OCing.

 

[MrHT]

Wheres the cherry picking? Piledrivers architecture was clearly designed for MT apps in mind and it succeded there, the FX-8350 is a stronger chip than Intels quadcores, it stays in Core i7 class in the most heavy multithreaded apps and usage, case closed. Lets move on.

It's not valid at all. It's an anecdote

.

 

[Abwx]

http://www.cowcotland.com/news/34882/overclocking-fx-8350-8794-33-mhz.html

 

[2is]

Viral marketing did take its toll with the "single thread perf is all" mantra.

As pointed by Inf64 softs are more and more multithreaded and people
dont realize at wich point a 8350 has so much more processing power
than a i5.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

So much more processing power that's so well hidden and so difficult to exploit that the majority of the time you see it is with apps most people will never use...

 

[AnonymouseUser]

So much more processing power that's so well hidden and so difficult to exploit that the majority of the time you see it is with apps most people will never use...

I agree: Core i7 is way overrated.

That's what you meant, right? After all, it's no better in most games than the i5, so it's a total waste. amirite?

 

[Abwx]

So much more processing power that's so well hidden and so difficult to exploit that the majority of the time you see it is with apps most people will never use...

I suggest that you keep on your trolling attitude in an Intel
dedicated thread , there s enough pollution brought
by junk spreaders as you in this one....

 

[2is]

I agree: Core i7 is way overrated.

That's what you meant, right? After all, it's no better in most games than the i5, so it's a total waste. amirite?

No, I meant exactly what I said, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Let me guess, you're also a member of the steam forums and regularly type "QQ moar" in threads?

You are right about one thing though, if your only goal is gaming, the i7 is kind of a waste as the i5 is just as good in MOST games. However, if you're not playing MOST games and/or if you want a CPU that not only has superb gaming performance but also had great multi-threading capability. The only thing that is better than an i7 is another i7.

I suggest that you keep on your trolling attitude in an Intel
dedicated thread , there s enough pollution brought
by junk spreaders as you in this one....

Your suggestion is noted... It will be ignored, but noted nonetheless. I suggest you be a little more realistic with where you place AMD's "computational power" if you get offended when called out on it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

No, that's not what I meant exactly what I said, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Let me guess, you're a member of the steam forums and regularly type "QQ moar" in threads?

You are right about one thing though, if your only goal is gaming, the i7 is kind of a waste as the i5 is just as good in MOST games. However, if you're not playing MOST games and/or if you want a CPU that not only has superb gaming performance but also had great multi-threading capability. The only thing that is better than an i7 is another i7.

Well thanks for clearing that up. whodathunkit?

 

[Idontcare]

IDC: Eye surgery went well and back to work.

Glad to hear that :thumbsup:

I'll try to PM you my BIOS settings for my 8350 at 4599Mhz (21x219). Obviously your mb is the best Asus 990FX so it might not need tweeked as much. I have an Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev1 mb which is solid. It doesn't have as many automatic tweek parameters as yours but my settings might give you a baseline. As i mentioned when questioned about my max OC, I tend to be a little conservative even with OCing. I want rock solid stability with acceptable temps. In that regard, the Corsair H100 with 4 fans really helps as does the HAF 932 case. From what I have read, the stock AMD HSF isn't very good for dissipating heat with OCing.

Yeah I expect it won't translate perfectly, but just having a good idea in terms of a template to work with will be a immensely helpful.

 

[MrHT]

Wheres the cherry picking? Piledrivers architecture was clearly designed for MT apps in mind and it succeded there, the FX-8350 is a stronger chip than Intels quadcores, it stays in Core i7 class in the most heavy multithreaded apps and usage, case closed. Lets move on.