AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The advantage in AMD is using same socket type in all fx and some other processors (Am3 support some am3+) so no need to buy a new mobo. But Intel use many sockets so buy a new mobo is necessary then new total cost goes higher (example I7 processor use 1155 and 2011 sockets) so upgrading from I3 to I7 (39XX) is not possible.
 
Wow! So Tom's Hardware finally puts the same amount of ram in the Amd and Intel Platforms, when doing benchmarks. But it's still obvouis in their lingo that they are Intel fanboys. Or are working for Intel. I still don't trust them. Since computers are based on clock speeds. How does a 3.2 Intel beat a 4.0 ghz AMD? Besides the differences are so tiny it's not even worth mentioning. Why am I always reading this crap Intel is better for gaming? It sure don't look like it.
 
Since you got absolete Amd processors in the mix. Why don't you put some absolete intel processors in the mix? Ya that's a nice little spin you got going for intel.
 
[citation][nom]zzzzzzzzzzz[/nom]Wow! So Tom's Hardware finally puts the same amount of ram in the Amd and Intel Platforms[/citation]Let me guess, you were one of those guys who complained back in the X58 days about Intel's triple-channel memory controller. 6GB compared to 4GB was "Intel bias" because Intel had more GB. 8GB AMD compared to 6GB Intel was "wrong" because the two extra 2GB DIMMs might cause the motherboard to use slower timings. And using 4GB DIMMs on AMD and 2GB DIMMs on Intel was Intel bias because the smaller DIMMs usually had tighter timings, right? In fact, any comparison by that logic is Intel bias, so we'd might as well not test Intel, right? Or better yet, cripple the triple-channel platform with dual-channel mode, that would have been fair right?
[citation][nom]dfddksken[/nom]Since you got absolete Amd processors in the mix. Why don't you put some absolete intel processors in the mix? Ya that's a nice little spin you got going for intel.[/citation]Chop off the bottom of the chart if you don't like historical perspective, the article is about an AMD processor so the extra AMD coverage is, by your logic, an AMD bias.
 
I bought the 8350 two weeks ago and couldn't be happier. It replaced my Anthlon 4 core processor that was three 4 years old. I stuck it in the same Asus motherboard i bought three years ago and it works
Flawlessly. I went from games useing 100 percent CPU resources to 40 percent. A few years down the road when it gets back to 100 percent, i will over clock it to get me by another 2 years. That means
7 years use for the cost of a $ 200.00 upgrade, stick that in a pipe and smoke it Intel........
 
@hakesterman
Not to be a downer, but that is if the CPU will hold-up for 7 years. Plus, I'm not sure how you came up with "another 2 years" (unless you have some statistics/forecast data) since I think the CPU demands of games (and programs in general) don't increase in a constant fashion as the years go by, I don't think, meaning programs in the future may require a lot more or a lot less (or at least a lot less of an increase as before) CPU resources to perform "well."

Just something to think about. 🙂
 
My FX 8350 play's all the Latest games at 1080P with only 45 percent CPU usage, if that's not a gameing CPU than i don't know what is. I get 75 FPS on high settings, what more could you ask for the price.
 
Can anyone explain why there is less difference in fps between intel & amd in skyrim when the res was 2560x1600 instead of 1680x1050 or 1920x1080.
Res is increased and boom diff is gone !
 
@hitesh12
AFAIK, it's because the bottleneck is shifted more to the GPU instead of the CPU, i.e. since there's more graphical stuff to process when you increase the resolution, the GPU reaches its limits of performance while the CPU waits on it more often.
It's a common phenomenon with other games as well. :)
 
I just built a system with an i5 3570K for my brother. I heard, however, that Linux favors AMD processors much more than Windows does, and the only problem I can see is still the less than ideal single threaded performance. Can you change the Turbo CORE frequency in BIOS? 200 MHz increase for a single thread isn't enough, just as it wasn't enough in the original Nehalem i7. Intel changed that quickly, and my 2630M goes 900 MHz faster when only one core is active, because it has the thermal headroom for it. AMD should do that too.
 


AMD does do that, granted not on most of their CPUs. Both AMD and Intel only have big Turbo frequencies when it comes to their mobile CPUs and maybe also some low-power desktop CPUs.

How much control you have over the Turbo frequencies will depend on the motherboard's BIOS. AMD's Turbo frequencies and much more can also be edited regardless of the BIOS through programs such as PSCheck, but IDK if that can be done in Linux nor do I know if using Linux when those settings are made in Windows will still let the settings apply.
 
Simple question... do they turn on threading in Skyrim for the test? I manually activate all the threading in the config file (ini file) because it is not turned on by default for various loading and background rendering aspects of the game.
 
Toms has a new article out showing the FX coming in close to Intel now.. Only pointing this out because I'm upgrading and read this article first... Dollar per Dollar AMD is a close match..when you consider MB cost they really shine. Not to mention AMD has done their best to keep Motherboards from being obsolete with every new processor..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom