WARNING:-
I waffle - Please dont read this and moan about me waffling. If youre not happy, dont read it.
Ok, me and my mate are having an arguement... Its just a fun thing that we are doing, so nothing serious.
But, we are running a few of my setups on a few various benchmarks and we are having some interesting results.
What its boiling down to, is whether they are, or are not true multi core CPUs.
We are also comparing a few other Intel setups, with having the ability to run on and off cores or HyperThreading, and basically we are just messign abotu for no good reason otehr than the Lock in is driving us to boredom.
Now, back to the AMD CPUs, the big debate is going between 4,6, and 8 core CPUs
For example, I have these 3 setups A10-6800K + FX-6300 + 8350 that we are playing with
Now, what we have done, is clocked them all to 4.1Ghz and then wrung their necks with all kinds of nonsense to get them to give us some news on what they are capable of.
The thing is, that while the 8350 is 8 core, we are finding the the 6300 is often handling things better than it.
We have tried to do some cache heavy things too. The kinds of work we are getting them to do, is Converting multiple videos, using single and multiple cores, Prime95, SuperPI, 3DMark and some gaming, sometimes at the same time, basically just nburnint the candle at boths and the middle.
The A10 is also surprisingly nippy and has incredibly good on board graphics that has actually surprised me a little bit. I have a matching GFX card for it and been toying in the past with Hybrid Graphics and even the CPU ( or rather the APU ) on its own, is a fairly half decent little gamer.. Ok, its not going to handle the latest games at 1080, but its handlign some basic games a lot better than I thougth it could. But anyway, thats a detail.
What I am thinking now here, is maybe that something has to do with the cache and how the AMD is sharing it.
It seems to me... ( And I have read some stuff that both says this and says the opposite ) but this is what these CPUs are doing :- ( Please correct me )
A10-6800K = NOT 4 CORES , but rather 2 Dual cores, each core sharing 1 cache
FX-6300 = True 6 Cores with one cache each
8350 = 4 Dual cores with 4 caches, as the A10 is.
--
We are also piddlign about with comparing my i3, i5 and i7 laptops... My daughters Laptop is an i5 with 8 cores and I was blown away at that... I should have given her one of myu others but it turns out its a great little monster, and my I5 as it turns out is dual core with Hyperthreading ( So an i3 with a bigger cache then? - but then does that make the 8 core i5 and i7 with a lower cache? LOL )
Its annoting when my rubbish i3 ( 2.4Ghz ) laptop that I got from a junk shop for £50 ( broken screen - fixed for £25 ) is a ton quicker than my oldest i7 ( 1.6Ghz ) that cost me £800 ( its still running perfectly though, but the heat is like a volcano so its not got long left unless I can stop it clocking itself )
Anyway, what the arguement is about, if I can stopp waffling for just one second, is the AMD CPUs...
Weirdly, the FX6300 seems to be a sweet little workhorse that is handling things a lot better than the other two... I expect the A10 to be the slowest of course, but the 8350 should be much better.
Oh, and one other thing...
I bought a 9590 about 2 years ago... The 9590 is 4.7 Stock and the 8350 can run at 4.7 with ease.
I decided to get the 9590 because I didnt want to keep the 8350 running so high.
turns out that the 9590 got so hot, that I had to also upgrade my cooler. I was using a 120x120 alpenholm AIO and I did plop a noctus 140 onto it , but it was so big I got paranoid and went with a 120x240 Corsair and thats fine. It did idle on the 120x120 but as soon as I tried to do anything... Whoop! temps flew past 80c
Whereas the 8350 could run just fine at 4.7 withotu overheating...
So that CPU upgrade was the biggest waste of time EVER!
Still got it though LOL
I waffle - Please dont read this and moan about me waffling. If youre not happy, dont read it.
Ok, me and my mate are having an arguement... Its just a fun thing that we are doing, so nothing serious.
But, we are running a few of my setups on a few various benchmarks and we are having some interesting results.
What its boiling down to, is whether they are, or are not true multi core CPUs.
We are also comparing a few other Intel setups, with having the ability to run on and off cores or HyperThreading, and basically we are just messign abotu for no good reason otehr than the Lock in is driving us to boredom.
Now, back to the AMD CPUs, the big debate is going between 4,6, and 8 core CPUs
For example, I have these 3 setups A10-6800K + FX-6300 + 8350 that we are playing with
Now, what we have done, is clocked them all to 4.1Ghz and then wrung their necks with all kinds of nonsense to get them to give us some news on what they are capable of.
The thing is, that while the 8350 is 8 core, we are finding the the 6300 is often handling things better than it.
We have tried to do some cache heavy things too. The kinds of work we are getting them to do, is Converting multiple videos, using single and multiple cores, Prime95, SuperPI, 3DMark and some gaming, sometimes at the same time, basically just nburnint the candle at boths and the middle.
The A10 is also surprisingly nippy and has incredibly good on board graphics that has actually surprised me a little bit. I have a matching GFX card for it and been toying in the past with Hybrid Graphics and even the CPU ( or rather the APU ) on its own, is a fairly half decent little gamer.. Ok, its not going to handle the latest games at 1080, but its handlign some basic games a lot better than I thougth it could. But anyway, thats a detail.
What I am thinking now here, is maybe that something has to do with the cache and how the AMD is sharing it.
It seems to me... ( And I have read some stuff that both says this and says the opposite ) but this is what these CPUs are doing :- ( Please correct me )
A10-6800K = NOT 4 CORES , but rather 2 Dual cores, each core sharing 1 cache
FX-6300 = True 6 Cores with one cache each
8350 = 4 Dual cores with 4 caches, as the A10 is.
--
We are also piddlign about with comparing my i3, i5 and i7 laptops... My daughters Laptop is an i5 with 8 cores and I was blown away at that... I should have given her one of myu others but it turns out its a great little monster, and my I5 as it turns out is dual core with Hyperthreading ( So an i3 with a bigger cache then? - but then does that make the 8 core i5 and i7 with a lower cache? LOL )
Its annoting when my rubbish i3 ( 2.4Ghz ) laptop that I got from a junk shop for £50 ( broken screen - fixed for £25 ) is a ton quicker than my oldest i7 ( 1.6Ghz ) that cost me £800 ( its still running perfectly though, but the heat is like a volcano so its not got long left unless I can stop it clocking itself )
Anyway, what the arguement is about, if I can stopp waffling for just one second, is the AMD CPUs...
Weirdly, the FX6300 seems to be a sweet little workhorse that is handling things a lot better than the other two... I expect the A10 to be the slowest of course, but the 8350 should be much better.
Oh, and one other thing...
I bought a 9590 about 2 years ago... The 9590 is 4.7 Stock and the 8350 can run at 4.7 with ease.
I decided to get the 9590 because I didnt want to keep the 8350 running so high.
turns out that the 9590 got so hot, that I had to also upgrade my cooler. I was using a 120x120 alpenholm AIO and I did plop a noctus 140 onto it , but it was so big I got paranoid and went with a 120x240 Corsair and thats fine. It did idle on the 120x120 but as soon as I tried to do anything... Whoop! temps flew past 80c
Whereas the 8350 could run just fine at 4.7 withotu overheating...
So that CPU upgrade was the biggest waste of time EVER!
Still got it though LOL
