Just swapped my 1055T for a FX-8350 - underwhelmed!

[d_brennen]

Disappointed as there were no wow improvements vs the money spent. And not WoW, I don't play MMOs, I've always been quite current with GPUs and game at 1920*1080. Perhaps some higher frames per second but nothing game breaking, and if it were it would probably be borderline anyway :/ Can't stop the shiny new itch though

 

[Marine-RX179]

Disappointed as there were no wow improvements vs the money spent. And not WoW, I don't play MMOs, I've always been quite current with GPUs and game at 1920*1080. Perhaps some higher frames per second but nothing game breaking, and if it were it would probably be borderline anyway :/ Can't stop the shiny new itch though

Yea but I really don't get the side-grading from the i5 2500K to the FX-8350. Even in 6-8 threaded games, the overclocked i5 2500K wouldn't really be much behind the overclocked 8350 (if at all). I honestly wouldn't invest that kinda of money something which would be slower in anything that do not use at least 6 cores...

 

[ubersonic]

- Going from 2C/2T to 2C/4T on Intel basically gains no performance, which suggests only 2 threads. But...
- Big jump from 2C to 3C on Llano, and a bigger one going from 2C/4T to 4C/4T with Sandy Bridge. Both of which suggest at least 3 threads.
- But FX results do show significant scaling from 4C to 6C. So > 4 threads?
- From 4C/4T Intel to 6C/12T is an increase minor enough to be accounted for by SB-E's larger caches.

I'm not seeing any obvious pattern there.

Its puzzling isn't it, my take would be that either HT is doing nothing for the game and the 2C/2T to 2C/4T difference is due to stuff in the background getting a better deal, or it is being used but so badly its slowing down the main thread which are more important to the game. with the i5/i7 though I would agree it looks like cache providing the difference (either that or the testers forgot to account for something SB-E had over SB like ram channels or PCI-E 3.0 /shrug). Llano quad beating piledriver quad could simply be due to 4C architecture working better with the game than 4C/2M architecture. Its a most perplexing scenario that's for sure...

 

[OliverDavis]

To clear a few things;
- FX-8350 is a true octo core CPU. There are 8 physical cores. They just share a few resources, hence the module design. Intel have done this before too, though very long ago.
- The FX chips are not hot, at all. If anything Intel are hotter, but allow for higher temps. You hit a thermal wall on FX quicker than on an Ivy/Sandy/Haswell chip. This is because the FX thermal limit is 60'c, Intel is 90'c+. At 4.6Ghz, both chips on the same cooling the FX will run around the same temperature, but with twice the cores creating heat.
- The FX chips and also A-Series are likely to get a huge performance boost in games over the next year thanks to PS4 + XB1 using a similar architecture but only a 1.6Ghz clock. This could actually put AMD ahead of Intel in gaming because games will be utilizing 8 cores with a lower IPC, to a point where an i5 will be slower than an FX-8xxx and only the i7 will keep up, but struggle due to the hyperthreads not being true cores.

 

[ubersonic]

- FX-8350 is a true octo core CPU. There are 8 physical cores. They just share a few resources, hence the module design. Intel have done this before too, though very long ago.

I don't want to come off as an AMD hater here, I was a fan of theirs for a long time, but the FX-8's are NOT "true" 8 core chips, they do not have 8 fully independent cores like a Xeon, they have four modules which each have two cores. Its a cheap way of implementing a design which has comparable performance to 8 core yet lower costs.

 

[Alasdairhurst]

I love my phenom II I've had a 965BE and upgraded to a 1100T and lost interest with bulldozer, piledriver and the APU's. I've done a couple of builds with FM1 and FM2 but nothing really stood out. I have a 4770k waiting to be added to my build now (just need the memory and watercooling stuff )

 

[Marine-RX179]

The FX chips and also A-Series are likely to get a huge performance boost in games over the next year thanks to PS4 + XB1 using a similar architecture but only a 1.6Ghz clock. This could actually put AMD ahead of Intel in gaming because games will be utilizing 8 cores with a lower IPC, to a point where an i5 will be slower than an FX-8xxx and only the i7 will keep up, but struggle due to the hyperthreads not being true cores.

I honestly don't see that happening, considering that CPU scaling with games that already use 8 cores like Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 etc barely putting a FX-8350 at 4.0GHz on par with the Ivy i5 at 3.20GHz when graphic is not the limitation. Also, rubbing more sand to the wound, the K version of the i5 has much more average overclocking headroom than the FX-8350 (average 1.1GHz/33% overclock vs 500MHz/12.5% overclock).

Even with games using 8 cores, it doesn't change the fact that the individual core on the AMD CPU are quite weak comparing to the Intel's. Also, I think saying games don't need high IPC because console only got a 1.6GHz "8 cores" CPU is kinda flawed in logic, considering consoles' frame rate target is still 30fps~fps, whereas many PC gamer's expectation nowadays is higher than that at 45fps+ (even higher if people using 120Hz monitor). Also, a stock clock FX-8 (which is faster than the console's 8 cores at 1.6GHz) only delivering average 61fps in Crysis 3, the consoles 8 cores 1.6GHz would most likely only hoping to deliver 20-40fps, should the Crysis 3 be available on the new consoles.

Also, consoles CPU only need to not bottleneck the graphic used in the consoles, whereas PC gamers graphic will become faster with each upgrade.

 

[harshuk]

This is an interesting read as I have a 965be and my mobo with a bios update will support the fx range. Therefore I was intending to upgrade to an 8350 however I think maybe an 1100t would probably do the job.

 

[Marine-RX179]

This is an interesting read as I have a 965be and my mobo with a bios update will support the fx range. Therefore I was intending to upgrade to an 8350 however I think maybe an 1100t would probably do the job.

Depending on how cheap you can find a 1100T IMO. If you still have to pay around £80-£90 for one, then I think you would still be better off going for the FX6300 or FX8320 (but not the expensive 8350), as if you overclock them high, they would still be faster than the 1100T. You have to bare in mind that unlike the OP, you are coming from a X4 not the X6 CPU.

 

[Rroff]

- The FX chips and also A-Series are likely to get a huge performance boost in games over the next year thanks to PS4 + XB1 using a similar architecture but only a 1.6Ghz clock. This could actually put AMD ahead of Intel in gaming because games will be utilizing 8 cores with a lower IPC, to a point where an i5 will be slower than an FX-8xxx and only the i7 will keep up, but struggle due to the hyperthreads not being true cores.

Even in the best designed games theres a fair amount that you have no choice but to process sequentially and some of it is amongst the heaviest workload. The effects of this are mitigated a bit on the consoles due to the relatively slow GPU and capped framerates providing a bottleneck.

 

[d_brennen]

Yea but I really don't get the side-grading from the i5 2500K to the FX-8350. Even in 6-8 threaded games, the overclocked i5 2500K wouldn't really be much behind the overclocked 8350 (if at all). I honestly wouldn't invest that kinda of money something which would be slower in anything that do not use at least 6 cores...

Sidegrading perhaps, to an overclocked 8320, but left me a chunk of change and something new to fiddle with. My point is, kind of, OP isn't missing much if anything unless he plays archaic games, even then it's not the end of the world some people make it out to be

 

[Hagar]

I have owned an 8350 since day one in October last year and prefer it to my previous 1090T. it cost £80 to upgrade and as well as shiny new kit, generally performs very well.

I am not a prolific gamer and only have a 6950 for occasional games.

Power wise the system uses 60W more than my 1090T.

Heatwise it generates a bit more than the 1090T but only a couple of degrees and a top air cooler will control it.

4.6GHz is a relatively easy overclock prime stable and otherwise 5GHz is stable using AIDA64 and similar stress testers.

 

[OliverDavis]

I honestly don't see that happening, considering that CPU scaling with games that already use 8 cores like Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 etc barely putting a FX-8350 at 4.0GHz on par with the Ivy i5 at 3.20GHz when graphic is not the limitation. Also, rubbing more sand to the wound, the K version of the i5 has much more average overclocking headroom than the FX-8350 (average 1.1GHz/33% overclock vs 500MHz/12.5% overclock).

Even with games using 8 cores, it doesn't change the fact that the individual core on the AMD CPU are quite weak comparing to the Intel's. Also, I think saying games don't need high IPC because console only got a 1.6GHz "8 cores" CPU is kinda flawed in logic, considering consoles' frame rate target is still 30fps~fps, whereas many PC gamer's expectation nowadays is higher than that at 45fps+ (even higher if people using 120Hz monitor). Also, a stock clock FX-8 (which is faster than the console's 8 cores at 1.6GHz) only delivering average 61fps in Crysis 3, the consoles 8 cores 1.6GHz would most likely only hoping to deliver 20-40fps, should the Crysis 3 be available on the new consoles.

Also, consoles CPU only need to not bottleneck the graphic used in the consoles, whereas PC gamers graphic will become faster with each upgrade.

FPS - New consoles target is actually 60fps. Even more than half of the games for the now older generation (PS3 + 360) had a target of 60. Just the later games started dropping to 30 and adding motion blurring. Forza 4 = constant 60fps > Forza Horizon 30fps + motion blur. Most current games may use 4+ threads, but not evenly. You will have half the threads running the cores @ 100%, the other half @ 30%. Next gen consoles are meant to have even thread loads. So code for 16 threads and have them move around to even core load. This will benefit AMD's Module design loads, but Intels Hyperthreading not so much.

 

[james_2k]

hehe, sounds like wishful thinking

 

[V F]

What a confusing odd topic. All I keep reading is Phenom II is faster than these new AMD's from certain people. Then it's 8xxx are not far if not on par with i5 2500s, then people buy them and say they are disappointed with the upgrade to the AMD 8xxx and others saying the i5 2500 leaving the AMD 8xxx in the sunset. Rinse and repeat.

Then it's usually from those saying AMD aren't that far behind Intel nowadays even the i7's. Yet I keep reading so many people buying these AMDs saying they are disappointed. :s

 

[Marine-RX179]

FPS - New consoles target is actually 60fps. Even more than half of the games for the now older generation (PS3 + 360) had a target of 60. Just the later games started dropping to 30 and adding motion blurring. Forza 4 = constant 60fps > Forza Horizon 30fps + motion blur. Most current games may use 4+ threads, but not evenly. You will have half the threads running the cores @ 100%, the other half @ 30%. Next gen consoles are meant to have even thread loads. So code for 16 threads and have them move around to even core load. This will benefit AMD's Module design loads, but Intels Hyperthreading not so much.

Regardless, if you look at my previous example of Crysis 3 on FX-8350 at 4.0GHz only managing 61fps, for the console 8 cores 1.6GHz you would know frame rate is gonna be an issue.

 

[Rroff]

What a confusing odd topic. All I keep reading is Phenom II is faster than these new AMD's from certain people. Then it's 8xxx are not far if not on par with i5 2500s, then people buy them and say they are disappointed with the upgrade to the AMD 8xxx and others saying the i5 2500 leaving the AMD 8xxx in the sunset. Rinse and repeat.

Then it's usually from those saying AMD aren't that far behind Intel nowadays even the i7's. Yet I keep reading so many people buying these AMDs saying they are disappointed. :s

Depends entirely what your doing with them, but 8xxx CPUs are far better at workstation/server type workloads than general desktop useage.

 

[Marine-RX179]

What a confusing odd topic. All I keep reading is Phenom II is faster than these new AMD's from certain people. Then it's 8xxx are not far if not on par with i5 2500s, then people buy them and say they are disappointed with the upgrade to the AMD 8xxx and others saying the i5 2500 leaving the AMD 8xxx in the sunset. Rinse and repeat.

Then it's usually from those saying AMD aren't that far behind Intel nowadays even the i7's. Yet I keep reading so many people buying these AMDs saying they are disappointed. :s

Forget about what people "think", just read the following CPU performance comparison and make your own judgement:

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

Both games are heavily-threaded to take advantage of all the cores on the AMD CPU, yet the result clearly show that the FX-8350 at 4.00GHz is only roughly on par with the Ivy i5 at 3.20GHz. And then an K version i5 at 3.40GHz overclocking from 3.40GHz to 4.50GHz comparing to the FX-8350 overclocking from the 4.00GHz to 4.50GHz would have more than twice the overclocking headroom.

 

[d_brennen]

Forget about what people "think", just read the following CPU performance comparison and make your own judgement:

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

Both games are heavily-threaded to take advantage of all the cores on the AMD CPU, yet the result clearly show that the FX-8350 at 4.00GHz is only roughly on par with the Ivy i5 at 3.20GHz. And then an K version i5 at 3.40GHz overclocking from 3.40GHz to 4.50GHz comparing to the FX-8350 overclocking from the 4.00GHz to 4.50GHz would have more than twice the overclocking headroom.

£125 (or £160 for FX8320 vs 3770k) buys you 5fps in Far Cry 3 with a good GPU and 8fps in Crysis 3. Much ado about nothing

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i7-3770K 3.50GHz (Ivybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor (77W) - Retail £279.95
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8350 Black Edition 4.00GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £155.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
Total : £567.32 (includes shipping : £9.50).

 

[Marine-RX179]

£125 (or £160 for FX8320 vs 3770k) buys you 5fps in Far Cry 3 with a good GPU and 8fps in Crysis 3. Much ado about nothing

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i7-3770K 3.50GHz (Ivybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor (77W) - Retail £279.95
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8350 Black Edition 4.00GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £155.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
Total : £567.32 (includes shipping : £9.50).

I don't know why you are quoting i7, when I'm talking about i5

A IvyBridge i5 at 3.20GHz matches the performance of the FX-8350 at 4.00GHz...if people just get a 2500K/3570K, and both the i5 and the FX-8 overclocked to 4.50GHz, the i5 would still be ahead. The HT on the i7 helps a little, but it ain't really improve the gaming performance over i5 that much.