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

News AMD launches Piledriver-powered FX processors

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 23 Oct 2012.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    11,966
    Likes Received:
    1,574
  2. Lenderz

    Lenderz Member

    Joined:
    4 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    380
    Likes Received:
    15
    Whilst its not giving Ivy Bridge a run for its money I think its pretty decent bang for buck for the average consumer. Which can't be a bad thing, perhaps AMD can start to compete in that niche again.
     
  3. Snips

    Snips I can do dat, giz a job

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,940
    Likes Received:
    66
    I don't think you can start using the ever present myth tag in an AMD topic of "best bang per buck" until the reviews and performance comparisons are out.
     
  4. SpAceman

    SpAceman New Member

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    267
    Likes Received:
    4
    I had a bit of a chuckle thinking about how AMD need a 4GHz octo-core to compete with a 3.4GHz quad from Intel.

    Sad times.
     
  5. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    36
    i5-3570K = 77w TDP

    FX-8350 = 125w TDP

    Ouch.
     
  6. The_Crapman

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

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    779
    I hope to god these have more than a 15% increase over bulldozer.

    Going on the gaming results for Arma 2 from the fx8120 review:
    FX-8150@4.818GHz gets an fps of 70min, 82avg.
    15% increase on these would be 80.5min, 94.3avg.
    the i5-3570K clocked in at 92min, 104avg AT STOCK SPEED.

    You need more than 15% and a spare £30 AMD. you really do.
     
  7. tonyd223

    tonyd223 king of nothing

    Joined:
    12 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    388
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not sure why Bit-Tech doesn't have a review?
     
  8. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    More AMD power sucking 4ghz + chips, if intel one day releases an 8 core consumer CPU and it runs at 4ghz you can be pretty certain it will compete with just itself for performance.

    Technically speaking this is still just 4 cores 4 threads in windows is it not?

    If you built a system using only AMD parts you would require some decent sized psu vs a competing intel nvidia build.

    Would also wonder about heat and noise produced by said AMD system
     
  9. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    The frequency is a thing, the architecture is another. What I care about it the performance / price ratio, not the perf / freq ratio. Go on AMD, I'm with you. I'm curious to see multi-threaded performances.

    Oh ... and while you are all throwing rocks at AMDs face ... aren't you forgeting the IB internal temp issue ? The TDP is maybe low with IB, but the core temperature is rather high. We need competition, Intel is leading the bal right now (with high pricing politic). You should encourage AMD instead of spitting your venom in their face.

    Oh .... and gaming is not the only thing a computer can do.
     
  10. The_Crapman

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

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    779
  11. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    anandtech have ran the numbers

    AMD claims some wins in multi thread where it can use its 8 cores, Loses every single single threaded performance benchmark, Lost on every game as well in the tests where they had a old i7920 visiable it was still kicking it to amd in games and that chip is 4 years old.

    Power consumption test is the kicker for me, both AMD chips were above 200 watt system usage when under full load the intel chips were below 90watts. Thats a huge saving on power and heat in the long run for business system builders who are going smaller cases more performance.

    They overclock pretty well 5ghz they hit on a 4300 and 4.8ghz on the top end chip, Problem was power consumption went insane,

    The top end chip consumed virtually 300 watts of power all by itself (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8) thats more than a top end nvidia gpu consumes lol.

    The problem for AMD at there 15% performance increase per generation they will never catch Intel ever again at the mid end and maybe even the low end in games.

    No 6 core intel cpu was tested by anandtech just the 4 core ones.
     
  12. Hustler

    Hustler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    29
    It is if you buy into the idea that these are genuine 8 core CPU's...to me there nothing more than quads with a fancy form of hyperthreading.
     
  13. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    Given the price it's a very nice chip. If you need multi-threaded perf and can't afford an overpriced i7, then it's a very nice chip. And even an i7 can't compete in multi-core optimized softwares.

    6 cores Intel cpu ... trololol ... look at the price :wallbash:. Gaming performance is not everything there is about CPU ... if you're mainly gaming, go buy an i3, it's more than enough.

    NVidia ... they trully suck at openCL, the openGL performances are software locked to sell more arm-costing quadro GPU ... AMD is not a looser. They offer good bang for bucks.

    Ok their CPUs consume more than Intel ones, but aren't bad given the price. They just aren't aimed at doing the same thing. In multi-threaded scenario, the FX8350 did beat even an i7-3770K, which is far more expensive.
     
    Jaybles likes this.
  14. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Never said it was not a nice chip ( was just given a brief outline of its wins and loses for those that dont have access to the artical at work for whatever reason), For most peoples purposes they will look at 2 Pages Gaming results and power consumption and not see AMD top, thats the way it goes sadly.
     
  15. Lenderz

    Lenderz Member

    Joined:
    4 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    380
    Likes Received:
    15
    Sorry, perhaps I should have mentioned expecting your ever present AMD trolling. But I had looking at reviews and benches all morning. I think they offer a decent bang for buck. Especially in heavily multi-threaded tests. For the average consumer they're not bad chips.
     
  16. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    Same people as those I know, personnaly, who bought an i7 and OCed it to hell just to play a game that was already running @ 60+ fps at stock .... no comment.
     
  17. Adnoctum

    Adnoctum Kill_All_Humans

    Joined:
    27 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    486
    Likes Received:
    31
    It's a straight server chip. It was designed as a server chip. It was optimised as a server chip. It is a server chip.
    That means that its focus was on multi-threaded performance.

    Those who magically were expecting stellar single-threaded performance for their gaming pleasure have either indigo-tinted glasses (I'm looking at you Snips) and have been waiting their chance to troll every forum, or have been living in a cave and missed the last year of Bulldozer.

    You know who I think would be thrilled with this release? Workstation users.
    $200 for this kind of performance, coupled with affordable 970/990 motherboards, ECC support and fully featured from top to bottom of the range.
    To go Intel you'd have to bend over and take it from Intel for Xeon and workstation-class motherboards, and of course you'd have to navigate the Intel feature game to make sure the CPU has all the features you need.
     
  18. Marvin-HHGTTG

    Marvin-HHGTTG CTRL + SHIFT + ESC

    Joined:
    10 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    58
    The word "system" clearly escaped your notice entirely...

    Also the 920 was slower in every game test versus the 8350. It is close though. It is great however to see AMD beating even the 3770K in multi-threaded applications, while costing about £100 less (before getting to the cheaper platform cost).

    It might not be AMD's saviour (single thread performance is poor, but then again there aren't many performance led non-threaded applications so somewhat less important, except to a gamer), but it's compelling enough to have a good look...
     
  19. Valinor

    Valinor New Member

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, at the very least (looking at some reviews) it's more a case of "What am I mainly going to be using this CPU for?", instead of "What's the best Intel chip for this price?". Depending on the workload the FX-8350 makes a lot of sense over everything up to an i7-3770.
     
  20. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    hmmmm anandtechs review seems somewhat intel flavoured compared to alot of the others ; the ikes of cinebench , most have AMD leading the way especially when overlcocked - and also most have this amd chip quite evenly matched to the i5.

    wouldnt have expected for anand to be paid off like this but nothing suprises me now
     

Share This Page