8150 vs 8350

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 14:13

OcUK,

For my Numerical Modelling PC (No GFX needed), I require a true 8 core processor. Naturally I am drawn to the 8350 for the increase in clock speed, but does the price reflect this? Does the 8350 bring anything else to the table?

Steve.

Martini1991 · 31 Dec 2012 at 14:14

It's better clock for clock too, more efficient power usage wise.

Best bang/buck is an FX8320 and then clock it up a bit.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 14:18

Martini1991 said:
It's better clock for clock too, more efficient power usage wise.

Best bang/buck is an FX8320 and then clock it up a bit.

I didn't think of that option! Thank you.

mmj_uk · 31 Dec 2012 at 14:52

There's no such thing as a true 8 core processor outside of the server market (Xeon's) and they are extortionately expensive. AMD processors do not have 8 independent cores which is what would constitute a 'true' 8 core design.

Ignoring number of cores a 3930K would give the best performance in practically every piece of software available, it'll probably outperform the 8 core Xeon's in most things and is less than half the price.

humbug · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:11

There a pretty complex chip, i did read an AMD PDF explaining the inner workings on the chip, not that i can find it right now....

It seems they have 8 Integer cores and 8 threads @ 128Bit or 4 threads @ 256Bit, depending on what is asked from it.

They have 4 Modules with 2 cores in each module, When the Threading is high enough either by application or multiple threads running on the OS from multiple apps you will get 8 threads @ 128Bit, if threading is low the 2 cores in each module with join up to form one big core and thread as one through a 256Bit pipe.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:12

mmj_uk said:
There's no such thing as a true 8 core processor outside of the server market (Xeon's) and they are extortionately expensive. AMD processors do not have 8 independent cores which is what would constitute a 'true' 8 core design.

Ignoring number of cores a 3930K would give the best performance in practically every piece of software available, it'll probably outperform the 8 core Xeon's in most things and is less than half the price.

Does that mean an i7 would perform the same as the 8350 for parallel jobs that use 8 cores? Are there benchmarks for this level of parallelisation?

passey89 · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:15

mmj_uk said:
There's no such thing as a true 8 core processor outside of the server market (Xeon's) and they are extortionately expensive. AMD processors do not have 8 independent cores which is what would constitute a 'true' 8 core design.

Ignoring number of cores a 3930K would give the best performance in practically every piece of software available, it'll probably outperform the 8 core Xeon's in most things and is less than half the price.

how does the piledriver not have true 8 cores?

Jokester · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:18

Because it contains 4 "modules" that each contain 2 cores that share resources.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:19

passey89 said:
how does the piledriver not have true 8 cores?

Wiki says it has 4 cores and 8 clusters :confused:

Martini1991 · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:19

passey89 said:
how does the piledriver not have true 8 cores?

2 cores on a module can't run entirely independently as they share resources.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:26

So may I ask again... What would perform better for an 8 thread numerical process - the 8350 or an i7?

humbug · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:33

yellowputty said:
So may I ask again... What would perform better for an 8 thread numerical process - the 8350 or an i7?

Its hard to say for sure, in encoding for example (Depending on the application) the FX-8350 performs better in some, in others the i7 performs better.

They are probably roughly about the same, but the FX-8350 will use about 40/50w more power to do the same job.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 15:40

Hmmm. I wish it was more clear cut.

"7-zip is almost the perfect scenario for AMD's Vishera: a heavily threaded integer benchmark. Here the FX-8350 is able to outperform the Core i7 3770K."

The 3770k is almost £100 more expensive, but going for the AMD would require a Motherboard change.

Hagar · 31 Dec 2012 at 16:00

ran several tests with 32, 64, 128Mb size.

yellowputty · 31 Dec 2012 at 16:05

nkata said:
ran several tests with 32, 64, 128Mb size.

Thank you nkata - are you running at 5GHz? Is this on air?

Hagar · 31 Dec 2012 at 16:08

yellowputty said:
Thank you nkata - are you running at 5GHz? Is this on air?

4.9GHz on air. Phanteks cooler.

humbug · 31 Dec 2012 at 16:12

nkata said:
4.9GHz on air. Phanteks cooler.

No guarantee of that, think more along the lines of 4.7Ghz, more if your lucky with the silicone.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 31 Dec 2012 at 17:02

An FX8350 has 8 integer cores,with a pair of cores sharing a FPU unit. The FPU can actually run two FP operations at once(a sort of SMT like arrangement),although each operation will run slower, but throughput would be higher.

Martini1991 · 31 Dec 2012 at 18:07

It's kind of ironic given AMD made such a fuss over their true quad core lark with Agena.