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

Hardware AMD FX-8350 review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 6 Nov 2012.

  1. brumgrunt

    brumgrunt New Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    27
  2. xxxsonic1971

    xxxsonic1971 W.O.T xxxsonic1971

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    899
    Likes Received:
    23
    I might as well keep my old i7 920 for another couple of years then...
     
  3. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    thanks for the review. Not bad considering the price tag and the plateform cost. For pleople running 2007 / 2008 era CPU (like my Q6600), this could be a good upgrade.

    But I'm more tempted by an A10-5700 (space issue and low power requirement).
     
  4. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    The biggest issue for most who on here might still have the i7920 or some who have the 980 990 chips they have now had those chips for 3-4 years and they are still ahead of amd in every benchmark if they own the later 2. An overclocked i7 920 is still as fast as this at stock ( in most of the tests here) and nobody is going to buy for the sake of it.

    For the gaming platform i run i still dont have a reason to upgrade my overclocked i7950 to something faster. my vid and photo edit machine was upgraded already.
     
  5. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    Given the signature I see in many profiles here ... a lot of us still use C2D/C2Q CPUs.
     
  6. Madness_3d

    Madness_3d Bit-Tech/Asus OC Winner

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    34
    That must have been OEM only :p

    Sticking with my 965 until Haswell at the mo. Using my desktop less and less these days so really struggling to justify upgrades.
     
  7. Hustler

    Hustler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,014
    Likes Received:
    32
    sigh...unless AMD can increase their IPC by at least 30-40% to at least match Sandy-bridge, never mind Ivy-Bridge, I just cant see any of their CPU range ever appealing to me again.

    I'm into emulation in a big way, and that needs as much single threaded performance as possible, precisely what AMD cant offer these days, once you go past 2 or 3 cores in the world of emulation, your into fast diminishing returns.

    I'm sure for modern games, when paired with a good GPU, these AMD chips are perfectly adequate and you are only really talking about the difference between 80fps or 100fps, therefore pretty irrelevant if they're slower than Intel's line-up, but I'm not into modern games.
     
  8. Blackshark

    Blackshark New Member

    Joined:
    13 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    135
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am looking at a 4 CPU AMD server with the new 16 core processors at work, to demolish our PostGIS delays. 64 cores running at 2.2GHz. For the same money I can get 16 3.3Ghz cores from Intel or 24 slower.... It we had went with SQL 2012 then that would have been ok because of the licencing costs, but with PostGIS more cores = happy customers. For the server market AMD are providing some compelling solutions. For integrated solutions, netbooks, laptops and the base end of the PC market, AMD is the way to go. But for enthusiasts it is hard to see anything that they can provide.

    In terms of CPU design, I assume by now AMD must have taken Intels design apart and understand where the single threaded performance difference is coming from.

    And remind me, why have we not had a the same level of die shrinkage with AMD? as intel.
     
  9. Baz

    Baz I work for Corsair

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    92
    AMD doesn't own its own fabrication labs anymore, they got spun off into newco Global Foundries, so AMD's kind of at the mercy of GloFlo. If it says it can't do the 22nm process, AMD is stuck on 32nm until it can.
     
  10. Panos

    Panos Member

    Joined:
    18 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hmm. Sticking with my water cooled T1100 @ 4.6Ghz.
    However I am surprised for the low FPS the 690 GTX produces. I have a 580 GTX and with everything on, including HD gfx & texture mods, I get way better fps!!!
     
  11. Baz

    Baz I work for Corsair

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    92
    Our benchmark takes place outside whiterun during a storm; lots of weather effects and a large area to render, not inside a city or dungeon, where frame rates are typically much higher.
     
  12. The_Crapman

    The_Crapman Don't phone it's just for fun.

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    948
    Meanwhile consumers aren't getting the best deal, with it costing £165 on scan and a whopping £180 on overclockers! I honestly see no reason at all for anyone to buy this processor.
     
  13. Baz

    Baz I work for Corsair

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    92
    Still cheaper than the £200 the FX-8150 launched at. Oddly, I noticed that it's sold out almost everywhere too (or at least, on order) so someone's buying them!
     
  14. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    It costs 100€ less than an i7, 15€ less than an i7-2500k ... nothing to add.
     
  15. David

    David RIP Tel

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,282
    Likes Received:
    2,238
    Yep, my 920 @ 4.2GHz is probably on par with the 8350.

    Yes, they clearly have something to offer the server market, and I do find their APUs quite appealing.

    I wouldn't touch their desktop line with a bargepole, though.

    Design a new memory controller, AMD.
     
  16. maverik-sg1

    maverik-sg1 Member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's a shame you're not choosing win8 for this review - given AMD was all about these cores being designed around and beyond win8 in terms of max performance.

    Thats said AMD should be more honest in their markeing, it's not 8 full x86 cores at all, more like 4 cores each with a co-processor (maybe call it 4+4).

    Even when all that is said an done - agree with whats been said, more IPC's and less power draw are required to make this a viable option for many.
     
  17. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    can you rerun this on Win 8 please - the scheduler is apparantly better designed
     
  18. fdbh96

    fdbh96 New Member

    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    Posts:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    33
    Toms hardware (I think) tested it and in some cases it was worse than a hot fixed win7.

    Amd really are in trouble, it doesnt even beat the i5 when overclocked, let alone at stock at a higher power consumption and without a gpu inside. I dont see why people would buy these unless the only thing you ever used was multi threaded applications, which is probably a very small demographic.
     
  19. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    actually it does depend on whicha rticle you read - with some it really does do well against the i5
     
  20. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Can't see bit rerunning all benches for windows 8
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page