bit-tech.net

AMD FX-8350 review

Comments 1 to 25 of 58

Reply
xxxsonic1971 6th November 2012, 11:21 Quote
I might as well keep my old i7 920 for another couple of years then...
GuilleAcoustic 6th November 2012, 11:26 Quote
thanks for the review. Not bad considering the price tag and the plateform cost. For pleople running 2007 / 2008 era CPU (like my Q6600), this could be a good upgrade.

But I'm more tempted by an A10-5700 (space issue and low power requirement).
rollo 6th November 2012, 11:39 Quote
The biggest issue for most who on here might still have the i7920 or some who have the 980 990 chips they have now had those chips for 3-4 years and they are still ahead of amd in every benchmark if they own the later 2. An overclocked i7 920 is still as fast as this at stock ( in most of the tests here) and nobody is going to buy for the sake of it.

For the gaming platform i run i still dont have a reason to upgrade my overclocked i7950 to something faster. my vid and photo edit machine was upgraded already.
GuilleAcoustic 6th November 2012, 11:43 Quote
Given the signature I see in many profiles here ... a lot of us still use C2D/C2Q CPUs.
Madness_3d 6th November 2012, 11:44 Quote
Quote:
Nvidia GeForce GTX 490 3GB graphics card
That must have been OEM only :P

Sticking with my 965 until Haswell at the mo. Using my desktop less and less these days so really struggling to justify upgrades.
Hustler 6th November 2012, 11:44 Quote
sigh...unless AMD can increase their IPC by at least 30-40% to at least match Sandy-bridge, never mind Ivy-Bridge, I just cant see any of their CPU range ever appealing to me again.

I'm into emulation in a big way, and that needs as much single threaded performance as possible, precisely what AMD cant offer these days, once you go past 2 or 3 cores in the world of emulation, your into fast diminishing returns.

I'm sure for modern games, when paired with a good GPU, these AMD chips are perfectly adequate and you are only really talking about the difference between 80fps or 100fps, therefore pretty irrelevant if they're slower than Intel's line-up, but I'm not into modern games.
Blackshark 6th November 2012, 12:10 Quote
I am looking at a 4 CPU AMD server with the new 16 core processors at work, to demolish our PostGIS delays. 64 cores running at 2.2GHz. For the same money I can get 16 3.3Ghz cores from Intel or 24 slower.... It we had went with SQL 2012 then that would have been ok because of the licencing costs, but with PostGIS more cores = happy customers. For the server market AMD are providing some compelling solutions. For integrated solutions, netbooks, laptops and the base end of the PC market, AMD is the way to go. But for enthusiasts it is hard to see anything that they can provide.

In terms of CPU design, I assume by now AMD must have taken Intels design apart and understand where the single threaded performance difference is coming from.

And remind me, why have we not had a the same level of die shrinkage with AMD? as intel.
Baz 6th November 2012, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshark

And remind me, why have we not had a the same level of die shrinkage with AMD? as intel.

AMD doesn't own its own fabrication labs anymore, they got spun off into newco Global Foundries, so AMD's kind of at the mercy of GloFlo. If it says it can't do the 22nm process, AMD is stuck on 32nm until it can.
Panos 6th November 2012, 12:20 Quote
Hmm. Sticking with my water cooled T1100 @ 4.6Ghz.
However I am surprised for the low FPS the 690 GTX produces. I have a 580 GTX and with everything on, including HD gfx & texture mods, I get way better fps!!!
Baz 6th November 2012, 12:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panos
Hmm. Sticking with my water cooled T1100 @ 4.6Ghz.
However I am surprised for the low FPS the 690 GTX produces. I have a 580 GTX and with everything on, including HD gfx & texture mods, I get way better fps!!!

Our benchmark takes place outside whiterun during a storm; lots of weather effects and a large area to render, not inside a city or dungeon, where frame rates are typically much higher.
The_Crapman 6th November 2012, 12:43 Quote
Meanwhile consumers aren't getting the best deal, with it costing £165 on scan and a whopping £180 on overclockers! I honestly see no reason at all for anyone to buy this processor.
Baz 6th November 2012, 12:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Crapman
Meanwhile consumers aren't getting the best deal, with it costing £165 on scan and a whopping £180 on overclockers! I honestly see no reason at all for anyone to buy this processor.

Still cheaper than the £200 the FX-8150 launched at. Oddly, I noticed that it's sold out almost everywhere too (or at least, on order) so someone's buying them!
GuilleAcoustic 6th November 2012, 12:46 Quote
It costs 100€ less than an i7, 15€ less than an i7-2500k ... nothing to add.
Spreadie 6th November 2012, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxsonic1971
I might as well keep my old i7 920 for another couple of years then...
Yep, my 920 @ 4.2GHz is probably on par with the 8350.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshark
For the server market AMD are providing some compelling solutions. For integrated solutions, netbooks, laptops and the base end of the PC market, AMD is the way to go. But for enthusiasts it is hard to see anything that they can provide.
Yes, they clearly have something to offer the server market, and I do find their APUs quite appealing.

I wouldn't touch their desktop line with a bargepole, though.

Design a new memory controller, AMD.
maverik-sg1 6th November 2012, 12:53 Quote
It's a shame you're not choosing win8 for this review - given AMD was all about these cores being designed around and beyond win8 in terms of max performance.

Thats said AMD should be more honest in their markeing, it's not 8 full x86 cores at all, more like 4 cores each with a co-processor (maybe call it 4+4).

Even when all that is said an done - agree with whats been said, more IPC's and less power draw are required to make this a viable option for many.
Harlequin 6th November 2012, 13:03 Quote
can you rerun this on Win 8 please - the scheduler is apparantly better designed
fdbh96 6th November 2012, 13:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
can you rerun this on Win 8 please - the scheduler is apparantly better designed

Toms hardware (I think) tested it and in some cases it was worse than a hot fixed win7.

Amd really are in trouble, it doesnt even beat the i5 when overclocked, let alone at stock at a higher power consumption and without a gpu inside. I dont see why people would buy these unless the only thing you ever used was multi threaded applications, which is probably a very small demographic.
Harlequin 6th November 2012, 13:20 Quote
actually it does depend on whicha rticle you read - with some it really does do well against the i5
rollo 6th November 2012, 13:49 Quote
Can't see bit rerunning all benches for windows 8
GuilleAcoustic 6th November 2012, 14:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
Toms hardware (I think) tested it and in some cases it was worse than a hot fixed win7.

Amd really are in trouble, it doesnt even beat the i5 when overclocked, let alone at stock at a higher power consumption and without a gpu inside. I dont see why people would buy these unless the only thing you ever used was multi threaded applications, which is probably a very small demographic.

An overclockable i5 will cost you far more than this AMD (K series CPU + Z series mobo). It's not for enthousiast gamers, but more for "multi-thread" user. It's not a bad CPU, but Intel architecture is "better" at the moment.

AMD really need a better memory controller and a reduced engraving process.
runadumb 6th November 2012, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Yep, my 920 @ 4.2GHz is probably on par with the 8350.

Don't know about you but I went a little pale(r) when I saw the difference in Power consumption between Ivy bridge and the old i7. With that in mind and the fact (like hustler) I'm a huge emulation fan I can see me going Haswell next year.

Just finished Metroid Prime and have moved onto Ratchet & Clank. I can certainly do with a good speed up at times during those two games.
Anfield 6th November 2012, 14:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
I went a little pale(r) when I saw the difference in Power consumption between Ivy bridge and the old i7.

Yeah its certainly impressive how much Intel managed to improve power consumption while also improving performance, At idle OC'd a 3770k uses roughly half the power compared to a OC'd 920.
Spreadie 6th November 2012, 14:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Don't know about you but I went a little pale(r) when I saw the difference in Power consumption between Ivy bridge and the old i7. With that in mind and the fact (like hustler) I'm a huge emulation fan I can see me going Haswell next year.

The power use does look a bit , but just look at the bottom half of the (LOAD) table and feel a little better. ;)

Lower power consumption is nice, but an i7 920 with a decent GFX card and an SSD isn't really going to feel any different to a similarly specced Ivy Bridge, outside of benchmarks. As such, and being a tight git, I won't be changing my CPU/Mobo until they start to struggle, something dies or I get a big fat juicy bonus at work (and the missus hasn't already spent it).
.//TuNdRa 6th November 2012, 14:56 Quote
As usual from AMD with the FX series; Good attempt, but a bit short of the mark. Had they released this as the first generation, rather than Bulldozer; It might've gotten somewhere.

This just feels like too little too late. I know they're trying to keep backwards compatability, but the Bulldozer chips, at least, benefit from increased memory bandwidth in a pretty pronounced way, sticking with the 990FX Northbridge means they just can't get it. Upgrading to proper 32 bit unidirectional HyperTransport might help, simply because then there wouldn't be a need to clock up the Northbridge just to get more memory bandwidth opened up to the chip.

What's more annoying is that AMD seem to be hobbling themselves, at least with the HT-Link, The 990FX chipset supposedly has support for 32-bit wide HT connections, but every processor is limited to 16 max. I don't understand the logic in it.
TheDodoKiller 6th November 2012, 15:13 Quote
I don't understand how AMD are still making such hosh posh cpus. For it to be only slightly better than a 2 generation old, previous chipset is just unacceptable. I cant imagine the shareholders being too jolly, either.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums