Soldato
Yes interpreting the graph is not really processed by some people.
Let's not forget DM summed it up nicely (in another thread) that if designed to run on an AMD CPU it is not the hardware that would cause the bottleneck.
-
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
- Thread starter ALXAndy
- Start date
Yes interpreting the graph is not really processed by some people.
Let's not forget DM summed it up nicely (in another thread) that if designed to run on an AMD CPU it is not the hardware that would cause the bottleneck.
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.
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.
What's the high def thing like? I never did add that on.
Man I can't wait for fibre.....
Man I can't wait for fibre.....
guys, ive seen that the FX93 CPU's are the same as the FX83 CPU's, but are the FX93 specially binned and will guarantee a high overclock?
for example, if i buy a FX8320 there's a possibility that it wont move anymore from 4.8?
but if i go with a FX9370, i will be able to go over 5ghz with no problems?
do i take the gamble and go FX8320/50 or be on the safe side and get the FX9370?
for example, if i buy a FX8320 there's a possibility that it wont move anymore from 4.8?
but if i go with a FX9370, i will be able to go over 5ghz with no problems?
do i take the gamble and go FX8320/50 or be on the safe side and get the FX9370?
Getting over 5GHz is difficult without high end cooling and a very good board. AMD may be using better parts for the 9370/9590, it's not really known. If you're aiming for 5GHz I'd probably go for the 8350.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
It the same CPU. It's all down to what voltage the individual CPU require for running stable- the FX9370 could well put out more or less heat comparing to a FX8350 on the same clock, depending on what vcore are needed on them.
Soldato
At the same frequency and voltage, they would consume the same power and hence produce the same heat. It depends if the 93xx can use a lower voltage at the 83xx frequency to make a difference.
EDIT as marine says.
The likelihood is that the 9370 may get to 5GHz at a lower voltage, as above. It's quite a lot extra though for potentially 100-200MHz.
I'd really only suggest the 9370 if you're into benching and want the highest clock possible. Most people buy the 8320, but the 8350 is probably worth the little extra if you want to keep temps down and clock high.
I'd really only suggest the 9370 if you're into benching and want the highest clock possible. Most people buy the 8320, but the 8350 is probably worth the little extra if you want to keep temps down and clock high.
How does it matter if the fx only matches 2.5ghz i7? It also matches the 4.5ghz i7... If marine wants to compare heavily declocked chips maybe he should move forums to www.underclockers.co.uk
Caporegime
Talk about a skewed view!
Well who is going to clock their fx or i7 to 2.5ghz? Skew would be cherry picking the one number on the chart that not a single person cares about.
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.
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.
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?
You have to be careful with interpretation, as you can only read into that particular game and that particular benchmark. In general a 2.5GHz 4770K would perform much worse than an 8350 at 4.5GHz in multithreaded tasks.
Power use also depends on core use. The 8350 won't be using much power if only one core is maxed out.
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.
Caporegime
The i7 9XX's eating 200W wasn't a problem because it was 5 years ago, and you know what AMD had 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.
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.
So where were all the worry worts then ? "Oh dear my I7 appears to be using loads of electricity".
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.
Caporegime
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.
And people do care about the 2XX GPU's and their power usage/heat output, I'm certainly not impressed, but I still own one.
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.
And people do care about the 2XX GPU's and their power usage/heat output, I'm certainly not impressed, but I still own one.
Last edited: