AMD 8350 Faster than people would believe?

Martini1991 · 27 Jan 2013 at 11:38

Rossi~ said:
That last link actually supports my statement. All of those games can use 8 cores. Therefore the FX8350 is up there.

Don't be daft, you're not allowed to give an opinion which represents reality, it'll be ignored and "proven wrong" at any chance someone gets.

Cooper · 27 Jan 2013 at 13:34

Rossi~ said:
That last link actually supports my statement. All of those games can use 8 cores.

I just can't bring myself to think of them as 8 core CPU's TBH...for me they'll always be dual,triple & quad cores with fancy threading sauce..

There performance makes much more sense when thought of like this.

troops · 27 Jan 2013 at 14:16

In the response video that kid in the background was so irritating.

Roalith · 27 Jan 2013 at 14:33

Subjectively, using an FX8350 at home and an I5 Sandy Bridge at work (and otherwise similar specifications in desktop use)... there really doesn't feel like there's much difference between the two.

Both are more than fast enough for what I want to do, although the FX 8350 gets meaty jobs like transcoding 50 wavs to mp3s (just as an example) done a lot quicker thanks to the extra cores. If I had the option though, I would probably swap the two over and have the Intel at home and the AMD at work.

kitch9 · 27 Jan 2013 at 15:34

Rroff said:
Consoles work a fair bit differently to PCs tho, lot of things are emulated in software on a CPU core instead of having dedicated hardware, etc. so more cores get better use there than they would on the PC.

No. Nothing is being "emulated," you appear to be not sure what it means. When a AMD CPU is in the Wii, PS4 and Xbox, the benefits for AMD go only be good.

Alkalinepro5 · 27 Jan 2013 at 15:40

moar corez = moar power TBFH. This is just plain Scienze. U dunt wanna mess with scienz3 br0 LOL

humbug · 27 Jan 2013 at 15:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
They posted this newer comparison recently:

It does not use xsplit.

Thanks CAT.

It is pretty subjective actually, there are situations when Intel is better than AMD or AMD better than Intel.
So it depends on what you do, and you can never have the best of both worlds.
But i completely agree with them, if you have a top of the line GPU and CPU from either camp you don't play games at reduced settings 1080P if you can get good frame rates at high settings, thats what such GPU's are for.
And you certainly don't play at 800 x 600 or 1280 x 768, to often i see so called reviews like that and i'm left thinking "well that told me absolutely nothing at all, what a complete wast of my time"
And they are also right that the amount of games some reviewers test is shrinking, to the point now where some are left with just 2 of the same games they have already been using for many years, one or two extremely well known reviewers selection of CPU benchmarks is pretty bleak, photoshop CS4 (which no one has used since 2007) Cinebench and WoW and a handful of synthetic benches, no information there at all.

And forums, how many times do you see people recommending Pentium G chips over FX-4's and mid range APU's?

Look at the state of this...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

Even with higher FPS than AMD's low end CPU the Pentium G is a stuttering mess by comparison.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/8

There is no place for a Pentium G in any rig remotely for gaming at all, your better off with a cheap AMD.
IMO same goes for the 2 thread i3's, in games that use and need a lot of threads the i3 will grind and stutter along just the same once online.

While i do think the FX Piledriver chips compete well with current i5's / i3's, and are a real alternative. I don't think that AMD's current line of CPU's is great and think it could be better.
But i also think some reviewers really need to get out from under Intel's skirt.

'If' and as AMD manage to improve upon their single core IPC in the near future; this argument will start to heat up to thermonuclear levels and become increasingly ridicules in some quarters, which i suspect some reviwers will become increasingly less relevant, loosing the plot more and more.

Hagar · 27 Jan 2013 at 16:59

While I bought the 8350 because I had the AM3+ platform already, it was the sensible choice. If I had not and was approaching a complete new build with mobo and cpu, I would have thought long and hard over either manufacturer.
There is little financial difference between the two, if you buy a cheapish but respectable motherboard so that is not really an issue. Lots of reviewers pick on power usage and at normal clocks Intel has the edge but overclocked, both processors will draw 250w+ under load.
If you only game and go for the highest instructions per clock you would inevitably choose an Intel 1155.
If you are not wholly committed to windows and run software in linux and using vmware or do lots of multithreaded stuff, I would submit the 8350 marginally has it.
My processor history and builds I have done since 1993 has it approximately equal Intel/AMD.
My current personal preference is with AMD and I do not think it loses out to a 3570 at all, comparing my computer with people I know.

Smoogels · 27 Jan 2013 at 17:06

troops said:
In the response video that kid in the background was so irritating.

Agreed. The majority of there videos are pretty annoying

humbug · 27 Jan 2013 at 17:44

Smoogels said:
Agreed. The majority of there videos are pretty annoying

To quote him

"I'm a reviewer, i'm very technical, don't argue with me"

I think that says about all anyone needs to know about that kid and his reviews.

Cooper said:
Always unnerving to see fan-boys in the flesh, so to speak, they should remain anonymous behind the screen and keyboard, because these vids make them look twice as big a douche's than they already are.

Total ** Fully star out swearing ** !, always, and often with superhero posters on the wall.

BTW, looks like Black Mersa is a free game, Downloading it now

Alkalinepro5 · 27 Jan 2013 at 18:35

humbug said:
To quote him

"I'm a reviewer, i'm very technical, don't argue with me"

I think that says about all anyone needs to know about that kid and his reviews.

Total T#ats!, always, and often with superhero posters on the wall.

BTW, looks like Black Mersa is a free game, Downloading it now

So, which super hero do you have on your wall?

Tuvoc · 27 Jan 2013 at 18:38

How is 8350 single threaded performance compared to an 1100T @ 3.7 ? Still slower as Bulldozer was ? I'm struggling to see any benchmarks for that.

humbug · 27 Jan 2013 at 19:02

Alkalinepro5 said:
So, which super hero do you have on your wall?

Winston Churchill

Tuvoc said:
How is 8350 single threaded performance compared to an 1100T @ 3.7 ? Still slower as Bulldozer was ? I'm struggling to see any benchmarks for that.

I spent some time looking for that my self, like you i can't find any direct results for that.
But from what i have been able to workout from what is there, it seems the FX-8350 is 5% slower per core pre clock than an x6, but because its capable of much higher clock speeds it puts it about 10% ahead, and more than that in multi threaded situations.
in x264 encoding for example; it just utterly annihilates the x6 1100T.

Edit- have a look http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

And http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/11

Phixsator · 27 Jan 2013 at 23:34

Rossi~ said:
That last link actually supports my statement. All of those games can use 8 cores. Therefore the FX8350 is up there.

Seems ive misread your post and overlooked a few things. Peace

Freddie1980 · 27 Jan 2013 at 23:51

So the 8350 isn't a pile of crap after all...............I would like to think most of knew that already but I still wouldn't recommed the 8350 to someone looking to build a pc. Why? Because the 8320 is a a hell of a lot cheaper!

Phixsator · 27 Jan 2013 at 23:57

Freddie1980 said:
So the 8350 isn't a pile of crap after all...............I would like to think most of knew that already but I still wouldn't recommed the 8350 to someone looking to build a pc. Why? Because the 8320 is a a hell of a lot cheaper!

around 30 bucks where I live.. don't know if I would call that hell of a lot but it sure adds up for those on a tight budget

kn100 · 28 Jan 2013 at 00:40

I am strugging to pick between the 8320 and the 8350....I am wondering if they were actually binned differently - does anyone have any knowledge to add to this? If they aren't, I may just take my chances and get the 8320 and dump the extra cash into a better PSU/Mobo

d_brennen · 28 Jan 2013 at 00:50

kn100 said:
I am strugging to pick between the 8320 and the 8350....I am wondering if they were actually binned differently - does anyone have any knowledge to add to this? If they aren't, I may just take my chances and get the 8320 and dump the extra cash into a better PSU/Mobo

There probably is some binning but if the process is spot on then there will be chips sent to the lower end SKU just to fill the numbers. You may get a peach of an 8320 and a dog of an 8350, for example. Silicon lottory

kn100 · 28 Jan 2013 at 01:09

d_brennen said:
There probably is some binning but if the process is spot on then there will be chips sent to the lower end SKU just to fill the numbers. You may get a peach of an 8320 and a dog of an 8350, for example. Silicon lottory

So let's say you were buying one today, which would you get yourself - if you had to pick - if the price difference would allow you to get a better PSU/a better motherboard.

d_brennen · 28 Jan 2013 at 01:15

I'd buy a second hand 2500K

In all seriousness, I'd get the 8320, it'll likely have the same clock ceiling as the 50, maybe at the expense of a few degrees higher temp or a couple of hundred MHz