• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD FX 8320 analysis

nikki5974 said:
not a lot tbh i went chf-z for the colour scheme over the sabretooth
Click to expand...

It is quite a lot tbh.

Saber has 8+2 power stages. CHV has 8+2+2
CHV has a different RAID controller.
CHV has Intel Pro series network controller (not a Realtek)
CHV has Supreme Audio.
CHV has ROG connect.
CHV has Three Way SLI support.

So the extra £40 IMO does net you a lot of stuff. The better sound card and network card are worth it alone.
 
Yeah they'll both overclock around about the same tbh. The CHV would only come into its own under LN2.

Obviously both work the same but you do get your luxuries with the CHV. Three way SLI for example will cost you £250+ on an Intel board.

I gotta say though the sound card is bloody marvellous, as is the software that comes with it.
 
alex_123_fra said:
On Z87 I don't think you'll find 3-way+ SLI for that sort of price.
Click to expand...

Which was exactly what I was referring to. But the troll, well he's gots to troll.

Comes along and shows a crap socket 2011 board and his second hand board.

Way to go. /slow claps. I think he rides the short bus.

Back in reality the cheapest tri sli board on 1150 costs around £250. But of course he realised that and was deliberately trolling.
 
I've got a boxed mint condition XFI Fatal1ty FPS with the front box thing. Sadly it's PCI so I can't use it. In my rig I have no PCI and in my lady's the coolers block all of the PCI slots :(

Can't bring myself to get rid of it though as it's gorgeous.
 
The last time I benched Sleeping Dogs I got around 100 FPS. I benched it on both my Xeon and the FX 8320 and the results came back pretty much identical.

So I would assume it's GPU bound more than the CPU. Obviously I can't rerun the tests right now as it won't run on my systems in offline mode (it obviously needs something to run).

However, it's a crap game. It's just the same thing over and over (press Y to defend, smack the git a couple of times then repeat ad nauseum) so I don't know why people see it as important.

When I'm back online and not laptop bound I will put it to the test, and also test out some other games too and come back with more stats and figures.
 
Centurions are only worth the money if you aim to go over 5ghz. That isn't possible on an AIO so you'll be custom water at which point money would be much less of an object due to the costs of custom water cooling.

Of late we've seen quite a few 8320s hit 5ghz (mine will but I don't like the heat it pumps out) so the 8320 or 8350 are obviously the bargain choices. There have been a couple of duds mind you.
 
dmferrett said:
But the chart is very useful as it shows in simple black and white laymens terms that the 8350 needs 4.5Ghz to not quite match an i7. This is a huge deal especially as at 2.5Ghz that chip will use 35watt's of power or less.

The 8350 will need circa 200w-250w at 4.5Ghz (thats a guess I dont know their exact energy burn) to match a cpu running at 35-50W's.
Its a total eye opener.

I am pro AMD and would buy them at the drop of a hat if they were even slightly competitive.

You surely agree there is a huge IPC and energy difference between the 8350 and Haswell?
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean when you say competitive. At the high end? no, AMD have nothing to offer. However, everything up to the 4770K (IE the 4670K) is toppled by AMD's pricing. In gaming (as an overall average sort of summary) the 6300 can do pretty much anything the 4670k can and you can get a 6300 with board and ram for the same price.

The power argument? we've done it before and I've posted a lot of figures that show it's literally £15 a year or something daft like that. But hey, let's not use the power argument because it's one that can be used by both sides (in so much as the Intel lot didn't care when the I7 9x0 happily ate 200w when overclocked).

The Intel guys have only started using that as an argument since Intel dropped power use. But the irony is, of course, they did not do that for the enthusiast to save money in fuel bills. They did it for their own agenda (laptops and tablets etc) so if anything it wasn't done for the enthusiast at all and has only served to screw the enthusiast (tiny dies can't be soldered as they'll crack for example ruining the overclocking element unless you want to void your warranty).

The bottom line (even in la la land where a lot of enthusiasts live) is that 99% of us are going to be hindered by the old green paper (money) and thus common sense needs to be factored in. Which all points to AMD as that's where the cheap stuff is.
 
Martini1991 said:
The i7 9XX's eating 200W wasn't a problem because it was 5 years ago, and you know what AMD out then? Agena, and it was utterly and completely outplayed.

Using more power and not having the performance advantage isn't the same as being years ahead of your competitor and using more power.

The FX6300 and the 4670K gaming similar part? That's not even worth a response.
Click to expand...

So where were all the worry worts then ? "Oh dear my I7 appears to be using loads of electricity". :rolleyes:

No one cared. Just like no one cares about the 290x using ridiculous power. They only care when it happens to be something they can use to argue with.

Can you name me a game that the FX 6300 could not run? like totally not work unless you have a 4670k?

And I don't want any extreme examples either of ten graphics cards. I want an example where with a FX 6300 and a decent mid ranged GPU like the 280x or even lower can't run a game at all.

I want real world figures. Not torture tests or anything stupid.
 
Martini1991 said:
How is "Not being similar" the same as "completely useless" (As you've tried to make my post sound)

And way to ignore the point about the power usage of the original i7's compared to its performance at the time (And it was half a decade ago)

But of course, I'm obviously raising up the biased points, because I'm a blates fanboy.
Click to expand...

How on earth are they not similar? they're a CPU that you put in your PC and use. For gaming, streaming, going on the internet. You're talking as if they're not comparable which is just daft.

My question was - name me a game that the 4670k could run, but, the 6300 could not manage. I think you would find that the answer would be 0.

What I'm doing here is pointing out just how much of a CPU and or GPU is just pure snobbery.

You know? being real.
 
The 8320 is definitely the chip to choose if you're an enthusiast. The totally lame out of the box clocks are just begging to be pushed to hell :D

The 8350 is definitely the safe bet but you do pay for that safety.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Em...didn't Nvidia forced their partners to lock down the voltage (even on MSI Lightning and EVGA Classified if I remember correctly) on the GTX680 because they were rebadging it to the GTX770 and want to make it "look" a fair margin faster than the GTX680? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think they just wanted to cut down on RMA tbh. They locked all of the 6 series.
 
teppic said:
It's easy to find older benchmarks of the 670 doing better because at launch the 79xx drivers were bad. It's irrelevant to today though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say that tbh. Early reviews showed the 670 in a much better light than now.

Having said that though there were a couple of incidents during benching that my 670s were slightly ahead of the 7990. They had a higher overall FPS than my 7990 in BF4, yet the min on the 7990 was 20 FPS higher and that's the one that counts.
 
My 670s are clocked quite high out of the box. 1085 boost IIRC. Sadly I can't overclock them as one will just crash with something stupid like an extra 15mhz.

The core use has me intrigued I must say. That looks like a decently even spread load for a game as old as it is.
 
Aha ! just found this digging through my Photobucket..

Xeon E3 1220 @ 3.4ghz.



So it's definitely not CPU bound. What's really, really odd is how close my min FPS were to the 670s in the rig they're in now (running @ X16 X4 hacked).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom