1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD announces its first 5GHz CPU

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 12 Jun 2013.

  1. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    And will use the existing AM3+ socket. Which was a huge part of the reason why I decided to jump ship because I was sick of having to buy new bloody boards all the time.
     
  2. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Right here you go then.

    [​IMG]

    The score has dropped by 100 points which is pretty much a margin of error. I wasn't about to run it over and again over the sake of 100 points.

    So there, feel free to run the benchmark (trying to stay within the same ghz range) on any CPU and let's see how it stacks up to the £113 8320.

    There's no point in my benchmarking my game collection as -

    I have hundreds, including all of the latest

    Games cost money, 3Dmark is free and a good way to get a rough idea of how a CPU performs by its physics score.

    I've posted conclusive proof (at least I see it that way given I'm not dishonest) that my 8320 clearly beats my Xeon when 8 cores are being used. Which stacks up with the videos I posted today.
     
  3. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
  4. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,827
    Likes Received:
    118
    An x6 + 7870 beats a fx8350 and a 670 hmm WTF lol. Even if it is by a crappy 80 points.

    Harl is ahead on the averages thats pretty surprising.
     
  5. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    that card wasn't an `LE` either just a regular 7870

    would like to see a full compare link from andy
     
  6. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Nice to know you've paid attention to this thread. I don't run a 8350 I run a 8320.

    My CPU scores higher so I'm not sure what you mean. I also don't have my GPU overclocked as there's no point what with having SLI and all. He's got his overclocked to within an inch of its life :D

    Edit. 3570k @ 4.2ghz.

    [​IMG]

    See? dead level. Only difference is the price.
     
    Last edited: 14 Jun 2013
  7. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,827
    Likes Received:
    118
    is all you care about physics score?
     
  8. CrapBag

    CrapBag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    7,732
    Likes Received:
    395
    Yeh I too have noticed the over emphasis on physics score.

    Im far more interested in overall gpu score than physics.
     
  9. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Seeing that it's the score that pertains to the CPU, yes.

    I said earlier in this thread that clock for clock in ghz when all 8 cores on AMD's CPUs are used they are faster than the four cores of the Intel 3570k at the same clock speed.

    The same translates into games, too. The 8320 and 8350 clock per clock are up there with the I7, when supported properly.

    Which has been my point throughout this entire thread. Well, that and this -

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

    We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

    And of course this.

    as Avalanche Studios' Chief Technical Office, Linus Blomberg, tells us.

    "I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says.


    That's a bit of a faff for me because my desktop isn't connected to the internet. That's why my scores are not being sent up. I'll see what I can do but getting it online is a major faff.
     
  10. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Well after a serious faff I managed to get the PC online.

    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/780243

    Which says two things.

    1. Disabling SLI in a profile doesn't work properly (I forcibly disabled it for that run)

    2. As I mentioned earlier my physics score is higher when I only run one card. It's now where it should be vs the I5.
     
  11. captain caveman

    captain caveman life is pain

    Joined:
    14 May 2010
    Posts:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    thought as much, just puzzled by all the comments saying it will be slower than intel 3570.
    I do hope its good if nothing else but to kick intel out of its mediocre ways and gives faster chips
     
  12. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    It will be faster than the 3570 by miles, when supported properly.

    So expect lots of reviews slagging it off for poor single core performance, because at the end of the day it is an 8350 with a stupid high stock speed.

    I mean don't get me wrong I wouldn't expect people to only review it using multi threaded apps and software, but give it time.. Might be a bit premature for some but once the consoles come along it'll come into its own :)

    I would just Google 8350 5ghz. There are plenty out there running at that speed :)
     
  13. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    thank you for uploading a compare :D

    seems the latest patch for 3dmark bumped physics scores up - mines at 8048 now (yours being 8215), but then again I am 2 cores and 500mhz lower!
     
  14. konstantine

    konstantine New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    51
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is such a cheap move by AMD. Instead of wasting all that silicon on producing those crappy chips, why don't they use GLOFO's 32nm to manufacture GPUs, instead of buying more expensive silicon from TSMC..?

    The Kabini quad core is pretty complex, logic wise, and consumes quite a bit less power than the competing dual cores..

    Actually, why don't they just dump their moronic design philosophy and build quad issue cores with hyper-threading and no shared parts between neighboring cores? A 3-issue 10.5 Stars core is quite a bit faster than a Piledriver core at the same clock speed.
    I mean hyper threading is such a great approach to maximize performance at a very low cost.

    AMD is becoming the degenerate of the industry.. I hope they survive for the sake of keeping GPU prices down. Not that we're going to get any decent games in the future, cuz I've seen 'em those shitty upcoming games and they all look crippeld with alright visuals and crappy primitive mechanics.
    Battlefield 4 particularly was such a disappointment.
     
  15. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Not surprising given that your cores are faster than Piledrivers :)

    Obviously they're all being used properly too. Shame that AMD couldn't get support in for their mass cored CPUs earlier really.

    Never mind. Do you still have it? haha will be worth hanging onto that, given it'll be right up there with the best for gaming :)
     
  16. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,483
    Likes Received:
    1,700
    YEHBABY likes this.
  17. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,827
    Likes Received:
    118
    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/787665?

    my old i7950 rig for a comparison on physics. cpu at 3.06ghz stock speed. ( despite what it says of 2.8ghz lol 3dmark is still fubar for me )

    For all of AMDS improvements its less than 200 points ahead of a 4 year old cpu.

    If all you do is gaming would anyone upgrade for 200 points. Which is the point many have made why spend money on a CPU that you dont need when you can upgrade your gpus and push the graphics higher and higher.
     
  18. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    But no one is telling any one to spend money on a CPU they don't need dude. Let's say you were buying a new PC or upgrading something like a Core 2 Duo?

    Intel I5 = £204 (as of checking Aria this minute)
    AMD FX 8320 + Asrock 990FX Extreme3 = £200.

    In gaming? well we can agree surely that the most important part is the GPU yes? so the £100 you save over going with the FX 8320 and board that will allow a 4.2ghz overclock can then be put into a GPU. Something like a 7950 instead of the 7850 you would get if you went with Intel.

    And the overall difference? so small (in CPU terms in gaming) that you'd have to be Clark Kent to tell the difference.

    The I7 950 at one point cost nearly £300. I should know, I paid £270 for mine just as SB was about to launch (I was put off by the chipset problems with SB). The FX 8320 cost £130 at launch, and the I7 is still one hell of a CPU. More than enough for gaming I'm sure we can agree.

    So if you can get a board and CPU that perform the same why spend £100 more?

    I'm pretty certain that when devs all make the switch and start to fully optimise their engines for AMD's architecture that the difference will become even more pronounced. In which case why spend a ton more for something the same or not as good?

    It's just like the AMD XP days. Cheap CPUs able to duke it out with, or better, Intel's far more expensive CPUs.

    And something about your score doesn't add up either, given this.

    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/81405
     
  19. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,827
    Likes Received:
    118
    Older version andy they patched it recently and the physics scores have gone up alot since that patch no idea why.
     
  20. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ah OK thanks for that !

    I did some digging and yeah, appears there was a HT issue with the first revision.


    I didn't doubt it if I'm honest. I must get myself a power meter...
     

Share This Page