is it true that AMD fx 8350 is just a 4 cores CPU?

[dafuqawew]

some guys says its just 4 cores .
and each one of them has 2 modules or whatever. i dont know what they are saying but i get their point that theyre saying amd fx 8350 is just 4 cores CPU. my question is ... is that true ?
is amd fx 8350 just 4 cores CPU ? thanks

 

[madmatt30]

It all comes down to budget & use.
They're incomparable IMO.
Id take an fx 8 core over a locked 4440-4460 for my uses ,Id take an unlocked k i5/i7 over any current amd chip.
The k's are a totally different price point though.

Its a fantasy you need to spend huge amounts of money on over clocking an 8 core ,a £70 motherboard & a £20-30 cooler will take you to 4.5ghz+ fairly easily.

 

[DubbleClick]

A xeon e3 1230v3 is about twice as fast in single core applications and as fast as a fx 8350 in multithreaded applications.

A fx 8350 expense isn't just $165. You need at least a $80 motherboard for stable vrm power delivery and at least a budget cooler. At stock. That's $275 at stock. For a real overclock over 4.5ghz, you need a good 990fx board ($120+++) and a very strong cpu cooler, preferably an AiO on H100I level ($100). That sums up to $385. That now gets you to 65% of a xeons single thread performance (600-650 points when the xeon scores 1000) but superior multi thread performance (~15%). The xeon is now way better value with $220+$50 = $270 total.

Not to mention 200w+ power draw compared to 84w.

And at that point you could get an I7 4790k on a z97 board and totally kill the fx in all tasks.

 

[Jay Stew]

Still gotta give props to the i5 I mean it is a hell of a quad core chip. I upgraded from a Q6600 which I held onto for way to long because I was in love with it. It was also a really good low cost gamer quad core though as someone will surely point out not a true quad core lol it still kicked ass!

 

[Jay Stew]

A xeon e3 1230v3 is about twice as fast in single core applications and as fast as a fx 8350 in multithreaded applications.

A fx 8350 expense isn't just $165. You need at least a $80 motherboard for stable vrm power delivery and at least a budget cooler. At stock. That's $275 at stock. For a real overclock over 4.5ghz, you need a good 990fx board ($120+++) and a very strong cpu cooler, preferably an AiO on H100I level ($100). That sums up to $385. That now gets you to 65% of a xeons single thread performance (600-650 points when the xeon scores 1000) but superior multi thread performance (~15%). The xeon is now way better value with $220+$50 = $270 total.

At stock it runs at 4ghz comes with its on heatsink and fan. Turbos to 4.2! Leave it there if you want to. It still has 8 cores at stock.

Want your extra 20-25%
Step 1 Turn off turbo
Step 2 Turn off the core quieting thing

Step 3 OC. I have had mine running at 4.7 stable, but I dialed it back just a bit and dialed back the voltage just a bit; have mine overclocked on Air on a cooler you probably never even heard of that was just laying around the Zalman 9700, and I it overclocked at 4.6ghz, and on an MSI 970 gaming $88 which isn't any pro OC Mobo and Im not even running the fan at max speed and... you are full of it.

It will definitely overclock harder and farther on water but it isn't necessary. I have heard the $20 Hyper 212 EVO does better than the Zalman so I could push it even farther on air. When I do go H100i when it is on sale I will bump it up around 5ghz.

Lets remember kids you can't run an intel cpu without a motherboard either. So it isn't like 65 and 88 is a big difference. That isn't $70 of difference and even if your dirt cheapest mobo is $65? Would that even include USB 3.0 ports? LOL

 

[DubbleClick]

B85 boards are ~$50 and give you 4-6 usb 3.0 ports and as many sata3 ports. You also get pcie gen 3.

4.7ghz is an overclock you won't achieve with a 970 board on a $30 hyper 212 evo on average. And even then, that's a 18% overclock which will likely boost performance by 15%, not the 20-25% you claimed.

Face it, benchmarks speak against you. The fx 8320/50 has great value for budget workstation builds, but that's it.

 

[madmatt30]

I have no idea where these facts are concerning over clocking costs ,here is $245 worth of components that will push pretty much whatever an 8320 is capable - I can pretty much guarantee a minimum of 4.5ghz on that.


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($135.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: RAIJINTEK THEMIS Evo 65.7 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $245.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-06 09:45 EDT-0400

& yes Id still pick an i5 over it for purely a gaming build .

In all honesty once you're past 4.3/4.4 the ratio of performance /temps/power draw doesn't make it worthwhile going any further apart from doing it for bragging rights.

 

[Jay Stew]

B85 boards are ~$50 and give you 4-6 usb 3.0 ports and as many sata3 ports. You also get pcie gen 3.

4.7ghz is an overclock you won't achieve with a 970 board on a $30 hyper 212 evo on average. And even then, that's a 18% overclock which will likely boost performance by 15%, not the 20-25% you claimed.

Face it, benchmarks speak against you. The fx 8320/50 has great value for budget workstation builds, but that's it.

Want to come over to my house and watch it run benchmarks, or rn through a render, or play Forged Alliance while I stream it while I record it while I pound out a video render, because your conjecture is simply wrong. The benchmarks which you haven't provided by the way?

 

[Jay Stew]

A xeon e3 1230v3 is about twice as fast in single core applications and as fast as a fx 8350 in multithreaded applications.

A fx 8350 expense isn't just $165. You need at least a $80 motherboard for stable vrm power delivery and at least a budget cooler. At stock. That's $275 at stock. For a real overclock over 4.5ghz, you need a good 990fx board ($120+++) and a very strong cpu cooler, preferably an AiO on H100I level ($100). That sums up to $385. That now gets you to 65% of a xeons single thread performance (600-650 points when the xeon scores 1000) but superior multi thread performance (~15%). The xeon is now way better value with $220+$50 = $270 total.

Not to mention 200w+ power draw compared to 84w.

And at that point you could get an I7 4790k on a z97 board and totally kill the fx in all tasks.

Fan boi Fan boi Fan boi lol

 

[pjstar30]

Still gotta give props to the i5 I mean it is a hell of a quad core chip. I upgraded from a Q6600 which I held onto for way to long because I was in love with it. It was also a really good low cost gamer quad core though as someone will surely point out not a true quad core lol it still kicked ass!

The Core2Quad and Core2Duo CPUS are still really good gamer chips. I have a Core2Duo machine that I'm currently running Grand Theft Auto V on (min specs are listed as Core2Quad for some reason) and I actually have yet to find a game that isn't playable on it.

 

[DubbleClick]

The Q6600's single core performance isn't even worse than a fx 8320's, so that does kinda make sense.

I provided benchmarks, by the way. You can clearly see an I5 beating the fx in about 90% of all benchmarks by a fairly large margin. A xeon, being the equivalent to an I7, does actually win in all.

Now I request you to post benchmarks that back up any of your claims (if you feel like giving us a good laugh bring up teksyndicate because until that, the fanboy here is only you.

But if you feel like it, go ahead and post your own cpu benchmarks with cpu-z validation on the screen. I might actually bother to rip them all off, in case you don't believe anandtech (which would kinda mean you're wrong here in this forum).

 

[Jay Stew]

Still gotta give props to the i5 I mean it is a hell of a quad core chip. I upgraded from a Q6600 which I held onto for way to long because I was in love with it. It was also a really good low cost gamer quad core though as someone will surely point out not a true quad core lol it still kicked ass!

The Core2Quad and Core2Duo CPUS are still really good gamer chips. I have a Core2Duo machine that I'm currently running Grand Theft Auto V on (min specs are listed as Core2Quad for some reason) and I actually have yet to find a game that isn't playable on it.

Yeah I really liked my Q6600 which is why I did not upgrade years ago. Had I gone with an E6600 I would have been really hard pressed to stick with it. Having a good quad core already made the choice between doing a quad core or going for an octcore more tricky for me. Knowing how much rendering is cpu based I figured I'd give the FX a shot. If I ended up being wrong, I could always throw in for an i5 later on. I feel like the FX is the best of both worlds, lots of cores so heavy multitasking is no sweat while the cores are not substantially worse than the i5, at least not the point where it really makes any significant difference with a great GPU. There is nothing wrong with Q6600 or the late model i5's its just I wouldn't want to pay $240 for an i5 if I could essentially match it in gaming with the FX and beat it in video rendering at the price point it sits at $165.

I've never seen a cpu actually increase in cost and for awhile the FX chips were hovering around $130 and now they are back at $165. That made me look at AMD seriously for the first time.

 

[Jay Stew]

The Q6600's single core performance isn't even worse than a fx 8320's, so that does kinda make sense.

I provided benchmarks, by the way. You can clearly see an I5 beating the fx in about 90% of all benchmarks by a fairly large margin. A xeon, being the equivalent to an I7, does actually win in all.

Now I request you to post benchmarks that back up any of your claims (if you feel like giving us a good laugh bring up teksyndicate because until that, the fanboy here is only you.

But if you feel like it, go ahead and post your own cpu benchmarks with cpu-z validation on the screen. I might actually bother to rip them all off, in case you don't believe anandtech (which would kinda mean you're wrong here in this forum).

Sure...
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350

CPU boss is no fan of AMD, but if you want to stand by your BS that the Q6600 isn't weaker than the FX at stock go ahead.

Not sure how you can call me a fanboy when I'm comparing apples to apples and you want to compare the best Intel has against FX, and when you are wrong when you said Q6600 beats FX, and when you are wrong about the whole fan boy BS, I have my Q6600 rig sitting right behind my FX on the same desk. So tell me another one.

I further reject your duplicity that Q6600 isn't even that bad of a chip when it clearly isn't even in the same class as an FX. Made 5 years prior, on a 65nm process, missing four cores, it isn't even a compare bra.

I wish I had a DDR3 MOBO I'd prolly still be using it for another year.

 

[nikoli707]

shanghi 64 man server benchmark with sli 770s maxed out 1080p. the worst amd loses out in any game.

 

[Alpha3031]

The Xeon is faster 8-thread, just by the way.

An typical Bulldozer CPU has half the IPC of an Intel CPU (Haswell architecture). At 3.5 GHz (4 core turbo, no OC) vs 4.7 GHz (a excellent overclock, even for a 140 mm cooler, which the 212 evo is not), that's about 18% clock scaling. Taking into account 30% multicore for HyperThreading (HT, also SMT) and 80% for CMT (Clustered MultiThreading), we get 4*3.5*1.3*1, or 18.2 Haswell Core GHz equivalents, for the Xeon, and 4*4.7*1.8*0.5, or 16.92 Haswell Core GHz equivalents, therefore, in an 8 thread workload, the Xeon is 7.5% faster. The cost difference is negligible if you plan to be able to overclock that much, and easily worth less than a few hours (assuming you're payed in the $7-40/hr range).

 

[nikoli707]

you cannot +4 bin haswell processors... that is old sandy bridge/ivy bridge stuff such a shame. by that measure non k ivy bridge and sandy bridge can potentially be faster than haswell if you have a z board or an h/b board with unofficial overclocking. but none of the xeon revisions afaik from sandy bridge and later have been able to go +4 bins or any bins at all, completely locked. i5-2400/i7-2600 and i5-3570/i7-3770 non k (and similar) processors yes, you can go +4 over or up to 4.0/4.1ghz assuming no base clock changes, up to 4.3/4.4ghz with bclk up to 108.5 but highly unlikely to get over 103mhz.

 

[Brian M power]

B85 boards are ~$50 and give you 4-6 usb 3.0 ports and as many sata3 ports. You also get pcie gen 3.

4.7ghz is an overclock you won't achieve with a 970 board on a $30 hyper 212 evo on average. And even then, that's a 18% overclock which will likely boost performance by 15%, not the 20-25% you claimed.

Face it, benchmarks speak against you. The fx 8320/50 has great value for budget workstation builds, but that's it.

I have to void your claim of a 970 chipset not being able to handle 4.7GHz. I'm running at 4.75GHz on an MSI 970 gaming, combo'd with an fx-8320 and cooled by a CoolerMaster Eisberg. A 990fx chipset really only allows for around 100MHz more OC.

I should also like to think a 6+2 power phase is perfect for a clock speed of 4.7.

The fx is a fantastic and cheap CPU for the average gamer and one also has to take into account the fact that DX12 will be able to take (in a massive way) much more of an advantage of multicore CPUs.

If DX12 can manage CPU workload the same way video editing takes advantage of multicore CPUs, the it would/will be a level playing field.

 

[nikoli707]

driver overhead, architecture and instruction sets are everything, cores mean nothing.

 

[Brian M power]

Is this why a phenom ii x4 @ 3.8GHz can't stream videos in 4k, yet the fx8 can and does with flying colours?...Even though the phenom is faster handling single threads?

 

[Saga Lout]

A two year old thread raised from the dead to become an argument with precious little firm evidence on either side?

Closing time, methinks.