piledriver - Official AMD FX4300,FX6300 and FX8350 review thread

wolvers · 26 Oct 2012 at 09:19

Phixsator said:
I could take it a step further and say complain at http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6 this instead. Shows increased powerdraw over a 920 under load. My opinion was based on that.

That was the review that orginally had me worried about the heat output of an 8350 compared to my 920. I wonder of that HardOCP review was of an older stepping 920 or something.

passey89 said:
Do we have pildrivers in stock then today OCUK?

It's a shame they have been quiet about when they'll get stock.

passey89 · 26 Oct 2012 at 09:37

wolvers said:
That was the review that orginally had me worried about the heat output of an 8350 compared to my 920. I wonder of that HardOCP review was of an older stepping 920 or something.

It's a shame they have been quiet about when they'll get stock.

says expected today on their website so hoping my re-order gets here by monday.

wanted it today really though for weekend play

Hagar · 26 Oct 2012 at 09:47

passey89 said:
wanted it today really though for weekend play

Same here, but was not really expecting it. Could always pick it up I suppose if it is in stock today.

Going to get myself a power tester

to see what stock power in prime looks like at minimum volts.

passey89 · 26 Oct 2012 at 10:10

nkata said:
Same here, but was not really expecting it. Could always pick it up I suppose if it is in stock today.

Going to get myself a power tester to see what stock power in prime looks like at minimum volts.

i would but a live just a little further than I would like to drive up to newcastle

mmj_uk · 26 Oct 2012 at 11:22

Phixsator said:
A lot of us is still sitting on an I7 920, so it perfectly valid for us to compare, both power draw and clock for clock speed.

If you're concerned about power draw why would you even consider an AMD? even with the improvements that PD brings Intel's recent mainstream processors are in a completely different league.

passey89 said:
Its faster than the X6 i smost cases.

what about overclocked? X6's were clocked very conservatively at stock and most did 4ghz.

passey89 · 26 Oct 2012 at 11:47

update piledriver cpus not due in till late next week now.

source 5ub and gibbo

wolvers · 26 Oct 2012 at 12:35

Bummer.

PCZ · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:16

passey89 said:
update piledriver cpus not due in till late next week now.

source 5ub and gibbo

Why didn't i get told that 30mins ago when i phoned up ?
Better cancel and look elsewhere.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:18

Phixsator said:
I could take it a step further and say complain at http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6 this instead. Shows increased powerdraw over a 920 under load. My opinion was based on that.

Also most of the x58 boards that i have worked with are overvolting the cpu like crazy. Example my gigabyte x58-ud4p had the idea of running my 920 C1 at stock clocks at 1,31volts. The sabertooth im on now wants to give it 1,3volt. The lowest stable im been able to do has been 1,05volt so fare. My point is that i dont think this is something the reviewers take in to consideration when they power bench the systems. They most likely just plug the beast in measure and go on to the next cpu on their charts.

And even if when the dust settles it shows that the piledriver is a better at powerconsumption its not by much, but actually quite unimpressive considering the fact that its against (as you pointed out 32nm vs 45nm) a 4 year old chip.

Dont get me wrong here, i would love for the AMD CPUs to be better, i wouldnt even mind using one myself with its current performance if the power draw was a little better.

The problem is the overvolting part can be applied to the FX8150 and FX8350 too, as most reviews are using a particular Asus 990FX motherboard. I have not bothered to really look at this TBH,as the few situations where getting a Bulldozer CPU made sense,it was better to go with a cheaper motherboard anyway,ie, a 785G,970 or even a budget 990X and the lower end CPU models.

Also,if you saw my other thread,Asus took their time with getting a proper BIOS out. It could explain why some people got better overclock results in some reviews than in others. Although I blame AMD for that as they were the ones who sent the motherboards out last year as part of the review kits. Idle power consumption figures do vary between reviews,some putting it at a decent advantage over the Core i7 920 or 950 and others don't.

However,if you look at some other FX8150 reviews though regarding power consumption:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX8150/12.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-19.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150fx_8120fx_6100_and_fx_4170,7.html

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_fx-8150/12.html

The FX8150 increased power consumption at load over the Phenom II X6 1090T and 1100T,and the majority of reviews put it at about the same or slightly lower than a Core i7 920 or Core i7 950.

AFAIK,the FX8350 at worse is around FX8150 level under load,but generally seems to be more Phenom II X6 1090T or 1100T level and is faster. Of course,this does not make it the most efficient CPU either,especially when overclocked.

I would be interested to see how the Phenom II X6 1090T or 1100T fare against the FX8350 overclocked with regards to power consumption.

The problem is that,the official RRP put the FX8350 at around £150 and the FX8320 at £120 to £130. The current prices are too high.

passey89 · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:19

PCZ said:
Why didn't i get told that 30mins ago when i phoned up ?
Better cancel and look elsewhere.

nowhere has any there all pre-order in the UK

Elfmeister. · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:27

PCZ said:
Why didn't i get told that 30mins ago when i phoned up ?
Better cancel and look elsewhere.

The reason I didn't pre order, the same happened when the HD5850 was released IIRC, it's annoying when you plan something for a said date only to be disappointed.

Hagar · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:41

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I would be interested to see how the Phenom II X6 1090T or 1100T fare against the FX8350 overclocked with regards to power consumption.

Now the ETA has been put back I will run the first part of the comparison this week and put my 1090T power consumption up. I will use my 24/7 OC of 233 FSB x 16 and also the max OC on the M5A99X (with bios 1604 as i have updated it).

The FX8350 will have to wait

£167 incl del. is marginally high but looking around the UK probably only about a tenner.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:43

There seems to be two other CPUs which were not released to retail:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8300.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-6350.html

pandem0nium · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:44

JGStonedRaider said:
I think the 8350 is a really nice option, however I won't be getting one.

I'll be seriously surprised if it'll beat my OC'd 960T (@ 6 core / 4.1ghz / 2800ish Cpu-NB) for most gaming. BF3 multiplayer is "my game" and I haven't seen any benchmarks or even approximate benchs for this chip in BF3 multiplayer.

If I needed to buy a new AMD chip for my board the 8350 is the one I'd go for. I just can';t spend the money for something that is very likely to be a worse performer in most games that

Hi Chap,

If think I've said before we have similar setups.

I will be getting the 8350 to replace it and sell my 960T. Bench marks are noticeably faster and if I can get at least 4.8 with closed loop water like some of the reviews I'll be happy

It'll be less than £100 to sell my old chip and get the new one.

The new instruction sets will be nice on things like PCSX2 as well.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 26 Oct 2012 at 13:46

nkata said:
Now the ETA has been put back I will run the first part of the comparison this week and put my 1090T power consumption up. I will use my 24/7 OC of 233 FSB x 16 and also the max OC on the M5A99X (with bios 1604 as i have updated it).

The FX8350 will have to wait £167 incl del. is marginally high but looking around the UK probably only about a tenner.

Thanks! In the US prices are also higher than the RRP. Perhaps in a few weeks prices will drop. If the FX6300 drops to between £90 to £100,it looks an interesting budget option IMHO.

passey89 · 26 Oct 2012 at 14:00

id rather wait for the 8350

Elfmeister. · 26 Oct 2012 at 14:16

Anyway on topic, would I see a decent performance increase in upgradng my Phenom II, I've got a feeling the Phenom is holding back the GTX670 I recently bought, would anyone with my rig consider a 8320/50?

Martini1991 · 26 Oct 2012 at 14:18

If you don't have to buy a new board, then the 8320 could be right for you, lock half the cores so it's 1 core per module (Theoretically should improve the IPC) and take it to like 4.8GHZ, it should be pretty good.
When you encode etc, unlock the cores.

I can't see it being massively different in gaming, but it's easier than jumping to Intel.

pandem0nium · 26 Oct 2012 at 15:11

Martini1991 said:
If you care about PCSX2 performance then AMD isn't exactly the go to CPU vendor.

I mean you'd only have to ask their developers what they'd suggest, straight up Intel.

piledriver supports the SS4a and AVX(or something like that) that my phenom lacks which gives intel the edge on PCSX2.

the latest release is also supposed to be more core/multithread friendly.

Martini1991 · 26 Oct 2012 at 15:14

AVX didn't end up doing much in the end, I follow PCSX2, as far as Multi-Threaded goes it's mainly 2 threads, can utilise a third but it's not really that much, you only have to see the forum users benchmark results, only 4 AMD users were able to break the 60 FPS marker.

102.24 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 5.2 GHz OC - unr3al - CPU-Z
100.00 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 5.0 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
96.97 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.9 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
94.40 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.8 GHz OC - cyber
93.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.7 GHz OC - Rezard
90.14 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 2600K - 4.7 GHz OC - Hambone07si (non-member in this forum)
86.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 4.2 GHz OC (DDR3 1600) - rama
86.25 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 2600K - 4.4 GHz OC - Hambone07si (non-member in this forum)
82.05 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.6 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
81.42 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.4 GHz OC - Unr3al
81.22 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC - Rezard
80.81 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 980X - 4.4 GHz OC - Hambone07si (non-member in this forum)
78.82 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.4 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
78.40 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 4.0 GHz OC - cyber
77.86 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 870 - 4.2 GHz OC (HT off) - hallmark - CPU-Z
77.67 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.2 GHz OC - Unr3al - CPU-Z
75.29 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.0 GHz OC - Unr3al - CPU-Z
74.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (3.7 GHz w/TB) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
73.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 4.2 GHz OC - Kyo3000 - CPU-Z
72.80 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 4.0 GHz OC - gamerX1990 - CPU-Z
71.59 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 661 - 4.2 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF) - fariz_ - CPU-Z
71.11 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2400 - 3.7 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
70.95 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 3570K - 3.4 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
70.11 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 550 - 4.1 GHz OC - abdo123 - CPU-Z
69.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON) - Rezard
68.97 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 540 - 4.0 GHz OC - pbellh - CPU-Z
68.38 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON) - cyber
67.94 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 920 - 3.6 GHz OC - Master_DX
67.65 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 661 - 3.9 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF) - fariz_ - CPU-Z
67.37 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 930 - 3.5 GHz OC (TB & HT) - hyakki - CPU-Z
67.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 4.3 GHz OC - jmuuss - CPU-Z
66.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Rezard
65.17 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 4.2 GHz OC - Butz_san
64.26 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 3.75 GHz OC - jmuuss - CPU-Z
63.49 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 - 4.12 GHz OC - rama
63.24 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6800 - 4.2 GHz OC - Bonobi - CPU-Z
63.24 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE - 4.3 GHz OC - Rezard - CPU-Z
63.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 2100 - 3.1 GHz Stock - Shadow Lady - CPU-Z
63.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 - 3.8 GHz OC, DDR3 1333 MHz - Bonobi - CPU-Z
62.23 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 4.0 GHz OC - Butz_san
62.02 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 - 4.7 GHz OC (2 Modules, Turbo Boost OFF) - azerty16 - CPU-Z
61.54 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 870 - 2.93 GHz Stock (HT On, Turbo On, Affinity 4,5,6,7) - hallmark
61.30 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE - 4.2 GHz OC - Rezard
61.07 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i3 530 - 3.5 GHz OC - ilovejedd
60.92 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2300 - 2.8 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON) - Trotterwatch
60.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i7 2720QM - 2.2 GHz Stock (3.0 GHz w/TB) - Hippolytus - CPU-Z
60.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2400 - 3.1 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF) - Rezard - CPU-Z
60.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 650 - 3.6 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF) - ilovejedd
60.84 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X6 1090T - 4.2 GHz OC - UnrealChrisG - CPU-Z
60.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 - 4.6 GHz OC (2 Modules, Turbo Boost OFF) - azerty16 - CPU-Z
60.38 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6800 - 3.8 GHz OC (DDR3 1333) - Bonobi - CPU-Z
60.26 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.0 GHz (Underclock) - Rezard
60.15 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Pentium Dual Core E5700 - 4.0 GHz OC - Secret Dragoon - CPU-Z
60.04 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition - 4.3 GHz OC - lilmario321 - CPU-Z

EDIT : Shame you can't see NB/RAM speeds, as that'll likely explain the AMD variations.