News AMD announces its first 5GHz CPU

I changed the pricing since my math was out , as its kilowatt hours not watt hours..... therefore recheck my post

 

Really? well given that I wasn't initially responding to you then it doesn't matter, does it?

What I was responding to was this.

Which is terribly childish and condescending. Why you felt you had to get involved when my reply was not toward you OR had anything to do with you is a bloody mystery. However, when you did you then started with the insults.

Maybe the next time you get stuck into some one you'll figure out if it has anything to do with you first.

 

Actually I thought you misread Parge's comment entirely. It's quite common for people to defend their purchase, such the way you are. He was just highlighting that.

Anyway I just didn't like the way you seem to justify your arguments with the word scientifically. Especially in that thread for arguing the pros of an 8 core AMD CPU you biased your method to validate your hypothesis.

 

Arguing on the internet is cool again apparently.

 

And what you need to understand is that I am a 40 year old man who is perfectly capable of making his own mind up.

Usually in the face of adversity and pure ignorance, when people give you the "There there !" routine when they see you as of subnormal intelligence given you are autistic.

As I have said over and over, to you and any one else - I own both an AMD FX 8320 *and* a Intel Xeon that is based on the I5 2400. It has more cache than the I5 however, and no annoying under powered GPU aboard.

The comparative chip from Intel currently costs around the £140 mark. I paid £149 for mine in a sale ages ago.

In not one single test can it compete with the AMD (edit - when the test is fair). In fact, I saw the AMD for what it is - an upgrade.

As for my method? no, sorry I don't see anything wrong with that, given that the CPU I have compared it to costs more than the AMD part. I've welcomed people to run the same benchmarks as I have (and even posted mine and links to them) and they haven't bothered.

Which there wouldn't be a lot of point to given that my findings are quite correct. IE - using 3Dmark Firestrike as an example of something that eats all 8 cores? then clock for clock the FX is faster than the Intel part.

Which would be down to core count, which is something that AMD have not yet had the credit for. So far all people have been able to say is "Well the AMD uses about three thousand pounds more electricity !" and "Intel have the better single core performance !".

Some of which is true, some of which isn't. However, it's no secret that when an application or game can make use of all of those threads? then AMD most certainly have a place in the market.

Times are changing. Give it a year? it'll be "But Intel simply can't compete with AMD's sheer amount of cores" and "But the AMD only costs about 1p more a decade to run !".

You know? false myths and all that crap that tends to happen.

I've never, in all of my 40 years, EVER been a fanboy. I don't care who makes what, I'm just passionately in love with the technology. And technically the AMD FX CPUs are pretty incredible.

First to market again ! just like the first X64 desktop CPU that every one (Intel included) laughed at, yet here we all are sitting on X64 OSes with 16gb of ram.

Funny that !

 

Oops DP sorry !

 

are you saying that bit-tech are lying about there benchmarks then, because AMD are at the bottom for everything all of the time

 

All of the time? funny that because I just checked over the review for the 8350 again and the only two games they tested the 8350 in were TESV (famed for hating more than two cores) and Total War: Shogun 2.

There's no other games tested there, not even BF3 which is known to support 8 cores and fare much better on the AMD chips.

If I were to rewind the clock back to November 2012 when they initially reviewed the 8350? there was one or two games then that supported the AMD CPUs properly. However, neither of them were tested then but looking around BF3 is an 8 core lover, as is Crysis 3.

Not only that, but since then two hot fixes have been released for Windows 7 (8 has them natively) that drastically improved performance. They were to do with core parking and caching issues. Basically the 8 core AMDs were dumping their cache mid operation causing lag. You can find them both here.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

Currently, the CPU scheduling techniques that are used by Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not optimized for the AMD Bulldozer module architecture. This architecture is found on AMD FX series, AMD Opteron 4200/4300 Series, and AMD Opteron 6200/6300 Series processors. Therefore, multithreaded workloads may not be optimally distributed on computers that have one of these processors installed in a lightly-threaded environment. This may result in decreased system performance for some applications.

And.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

Which I would hazard a guess and say were not installed at the time of review, given they don't download automatically. AMD's fault? yeah pretty much. Releasing a CPU that isn't supported properly, then release a fix.

However, what I am focusing on more is what has happened since then. We're slowly seeing more and more apps and games coming along that DO support 8 cores. 3Dmark (13) for example. When pitted against the quad core Intels the AMD comes out ahead. Not by miles, but then the AMD CPUs cost almost half of the Intels. Then as I mentioned there is BF3, where AMD do not suffer at all, and in Crysis 3? take a look here.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

The 8350 comes out ahead of the 3770k.

Then of course one needs to realise that pretty much every console port we get will be fully optmised to see and use AMD's architecture properly. It doesn't just end there, either. AMD have been spending their time and money getting into bed with as many game devs as possible, and getting them aboard their "Gaming Evolved" strategy.

Don't think for one minute that I'm saying any one should dump their Intel CPU and get an AMD one, I'm just saying that as a new purchase they are a choice again, instead of something to just avoid. They're also far cheaper than the comparative Intel solution.

 

I read that and thought of this

 

I'm sure I saw that years ago actually - it's brilliant! That brightened up my morning - cheers Dave!

 

How do I cry in tapatalk

 

Couple of videos.. First up, Battlefield 3, 8350 vs 3570k.



Video is dated pre hot fix, but whatever. There's 1 FPS in it. Of course, it's not worth buying the 8350 as the 8320 is about £40 less and pretty much identical. You probably wouldn't get the same extreme overclock out of the 8320 but you'd definitely get a good "day to day" OC.

Then onto Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 (both using the 8 core munching Cryengine 3). 3770k vs 8350 both overclocked.



And again there's literally nothing in it to separate the two.

Which pretty much goes along with the Crysis 3 tests I performed.

 

AMD have definitely closed the gap a fair bi for the first time since Core 2 architecture revolutionised the game, and there is a lot to like about their latest processors (particularly the cost). But be completely honest with yourself: if they were the best processors at the price points do you no think that the general consensus on all the review sites on the net, hardware mags and user opinions would be reflective of this?

As it stands, the overwhelming majority still come back to recommending Intel for the time being, despite how much we all want AMD to come out on top. However hard you try to defend your purchase, you are always going to come up against this brick wall unfortunately.

 

Right now as of this second? depends. If websites took another look at the 8 core CPUs and then decided to prospect a little like I have? then yes, right now you can, with your hand on your heart, say that certain AMD CPUs are worth having.

PCformat now recommend a 6300 over the I3 because of two factors. One - forthcoming (and existing though very small !) core support and two - it can be overclocked.

I'm not being funny here, but when you have a 6 core unlocked CPU that costs less than the locked derped I3?

http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials...3++6-Core+Processor+-+Retail+?productId=52724

vs

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Comp...t+LGA1155+Processor+-+Retail+?productId=52002

There really is no contest at all. Then we move up to their next offering, the 8 core 8320, priced around £113. The cheapest locked up entry level I5 costs around £130.

The 8 core AMD can be easily pushed, even by an overclocking amateur, to 4.2ghz on a crap board with 4+1 power stages. At that level (as I have shown) when 8 cores are in use the FX 8320 absolutely wees over the Intel price for price counterpart (that being my Xeon E3 1220, r I5 2400, or Ivy whatever they're all about the same).

Spend a little more on the board? 4.6ghz is usually a given on the FX 8320 given that both the multi and FSB can be used for overclocking. Me? I used the FSB as I find it much more challenging, and here we have my overclock stable 24/7.



And when I overclocked my Xeon.



You can note by the similarities and the usernames that they are both legit and both belong to me. And the fact is? the 8320 absolutely smashes the Xeon to bits in games that support 8 cores, and even dukes it out (thanks to the free 700mhz overclock !) with the Intel even on games that support less threads.

Linus from LTT did a couple of great 3570k vs 8350 videos (pre patch but whatever) and again, hardly anything in it, six of one half a dozen of the other, AMD always provided enough FPS to cover your minimums more than acceptably.

I can completely understand that. I'm not trying to get people to dump their Intel systems and move over to AMD (some will out of sheer boredom though). All I'm trying to do here is -

1. Show the true hard facts about what happens when AMD CPUs are being used properly and

2. Try to get the message across that times have changed. Within a year every game released (simply only because the devs are bloody lazy !!) will support 8 AMD cores, fully supporting their architecture, and not running quite as well on Intel CPUs.

I also think (regardless of the power consumption because nobody cares !*) that we should be excited that AMD are pushing their technology to new found levels of speed (5ghz barrier) and more excited that we will all be able to afford their offerings unlike Intel's range where you either buy one of their two top end models or end up with a derped locked down processor.

As of the news today? they've now removed their turbo bin overclock (4 cycles) meaning you can't even get 400mhz out of a non K CPU. They're pushing people to AMD.

* Intel 9xx series. My 950 used an eye watering 208w under load when overclocked using Prime.

Nvidia Fermi. Yes, they revised it, but even Bit-tech had to report that the 590 actually broke PCIE spec and tore it up and threw it out of the window by using more than 300w.

Nobody cares, man. All they want is fun with overclocking and brute force performance.

 

Slightly puzzled as as yet I haven't seen any official comparisons of the AMD fx 9590 to a intel so can somebody provide a link

 

haven't seen any reviews , anywhere of the 9590 yet

 

That would be because it's not out yet

Not sure if they're even going to send out any review samples.. They seem to have been really weird with that. Finding a review of the 8320 is like trying to find rocking horse poo.

 

That's because its a paper launch that has not hit retail channels same old AMD different week. Not even engineering samples of said chips, it will be another ultra rare ultra cost chip they made one before that was £300+ that hit a pretty high level of ghz.

Wish Apple / Samsung would just buy them out already so we don't need to listen to there different supposed launches that arive 2-4 weeks after said launch.

Andy is pro AMD enough he has yet to post his core activity logs for his CPUs for some reason wonder if that's because every game he tested capped at 4 cores 0 threads. Think most would like to see him disable SLI and run the same tests on a single 670 so that others with a intel CPU and a single 670 could beat his scores.

Is AMDs 8 core still effectively 4 real cores and 4 smaller cores ? Or are we finally in real 8 core land.

 

same old NVidia with paper launches.... or


AMD have said its OEM only so no chance of seeing it retail.....


steamroller looks very interesting with the on die ARM core for low power work

 

3Dmark physics score for me was actually higher when running one 670. I have no idea why. It also isn't affected by turning it to Extreme mode. Thus there isn't much point given that the Physics score is the one we should be focusing on, not the graphics score.

I posted benchmarks that showed the difference between the AMD CPU and the Intel price for price equivalent (Oh go on then, I didn't, given the Intel still costs more) showing Crysis 3.

Cryengine 3 has been developed mostly for the PS4 and Xbone. As such it comes as no surprise that when AMD 8 core CPUs are used the results are very favourable. I posted two videos today, go and take a look. Both support 8 cores and both support what I have said in this thread. If the 8350 can duke it out with a 3770k in a game that supports it properly then there's really no need for me to keep posting benchmarks of my Xeon, given they'll be considerably lower than a overclocked I7 3770k.

However, just in case you wanted to see it again. Here is the Physics score from a £130+ Intel CPU that has been forcibly overclocked.



Noting the score of 5844 and that the CPU is forced to run at 3.4ghz when it runs 3.2 on 4 cores at stock.

Now let's move to the 8 core AMD with the 4.2ghz overclock.



Physics score is 8163 and is completely unaffected by SLI.

3Dmark is free to download, and you are free to run your CPU whatever it may be at 4.2ghz and post your results, paying attention to the Physics score.

But as I said earlier, when 8 cores are being used then clock for clock the AMD gets higher scores.