Thoughts on AMD FX-8350????

[patrick47018]

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FX-Series-Eight-Core-Processor-FD8350FRHKBOX/dp/B009O7YUF6

How do you all feel about the FX-8350? Experiences? Pros and Cons?? Etc.

 

[sunnk]

+1 to sarinaide on the improvements - if we see this much progress again with Steamroller (and no progress from Haswell and Broadwell) then Intel will have some serious competition on their hands. And it is indeed like Lego

As for sunnk's experiences and mistrust of benchmarks, I think it's good to learn from experiences, though maybe not when it comes to quantified results. Learn about things like reliability, the difference 120Hz refresh rate makes (or doesn't make), the visual fidelity of FXAA etc from people's experiences (or maybe screenshots for that last one). For performance numbers, people's experiences are A far too subjective and B not guaranteed to be unbiased.

EDIT: And give the "noob" and "fanboy" comments a rest. You're simply making yourself appear childish and immature.

well i think u have learned those things only from years.i know about all that things the fxaa mainly depend on gpu so its out of question.

EDIT:- yeah i m a child of 14 yrs maybe 15 i m behaving like kids because i m but many of the members in toms are kid and they are more intelligent then u and u r behaving like a noob.ok u r well experienced even u r addict u r regular to forums then why dont u have a medal?no one selects u as a best answer?its becuz u have never given a right answer and they have never been satisfied.

 

[sam_p_lay]

well i think u have learned those things only from years.i know about all that things the fxaa mainly depend on gpu so its out of question.

EDIT:- yeah i m a child of 14 yrs maybe 15 i m behaving like kids because i m but many of the members in toms are kid and they are more intelligent then u and u r behaving like a noob.ok u r well experienced even u r addict u r regular to forums then why dont u have a medal?no one selects u as a best answer?its becuz u have never given a right answer and they have never been satisfied.

I could absolutely tear you apart for that idiocy (look at my points/posts ratio for evidence of all my best answers) but I won't because you're a child (who isn't sure if they're 14 or 15 apparently). It also appears English isn't your first language, so I'll allow you some leeway for misunderstanding.

FXAA was one of three examples of things totally unrelated to CPUs used to illustrate a point. The point being that benchmarks are empirical data. They are measured, quantified results. Not the claims of an AMD fanboy child. FXAA was an example of something where benchmarks don't tell the whole story. CPU performance is an example of something where benchmarks do tell the whole story.

 

[sarinaide]

From what I tested and compared against AMD's prior line up, bear in mind that I compare AMD againsts its previous generations it is very easy to suggest a FX 83XX or FX 63XX over prior parts. AMD took the exact same process and nutured it better, some metal level tweaks and the resultant was a vastly improved product.

+ Aida64 and MaxXmem scores improved by around 40% showing a definite IMC improvement, while it is around 30% off where Intel currently are, all things considered and what AMD have to work with that is a significant step up, was particularly impressed with Memory scaling where faster RAM bore significant improvements. What was more impressive is that a Vishera running DDR1600 was capable of beating a Bulldozer and Thuban running at 2133mhz such is the difference in performance.

+ Multi GPU scaling is also improved, this is in no turn down to the 7-10% IPC improvement generally the CPU at baseclocks handled the 7950's and 670's thrown at it pretty well showing up around 12%-17% improvement over Zambezi.

+ Overclocking, Memory clocking Vishera destroys Zambezi on frequency clocking hitting 5.2ghz is very easy on higher end coolers or custom cooling. The world record for 8 cores overclocked sits around 8.7ghz which is just simply phenominal on 2 Cores I believe scores in excess of 10ghz has been set which is testiment to the deeper pipelines these CPU's possess allowing higher frequencies.

+ Power consumption a 4.2ghz 8350 will consume less power than a FX4170 and 6200 with extra cores, this is probably down to the mature 32nm process.

 

[chase3567]

I like my 8350 it does what I need it to do. I use my machine mostly for gaming. Last night was doing
Tests with bf3. I usually run on medium settings when I play online on 3 screen setup. Cranked up the settings to Ultra textures with high settings, hbao, x16 with motion blur.
I was able to run 45-60 fps on 64man maps at 6090x1080. I'm using the 8350 at 4.8ghz with x2 2gb 560s in sli with core clock at 945 up from the 850 out the box.

 

[sam_p_lay]

OP, these are worth a look for examples of FX8350 in a range of games:

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

You'll see examples of games where there's no difference at all (or no difference worth mentioning at least) and of other games where the Intel CPUs have a clear lead. Hopefully that will help you make your decision. I'd say either option is a solid bet.

 

[sarinaide]

I recomend for gaming rigs, the i5 3570k or 3450 alternatively the FX 8350. While in theory the i5 is a better chip this down to stronger single x86 performance the FX 8350 doesn't fall that far behind, but shines in integer workloads and highly threaded applications. The FX 83XX manages to sit snug with the i5 in most gaming synthetics for that is a good alternative.

In our testing one area where AMD is excelling is in SMT technology, AMD's CMT is more productive than Intel's HT and this in coming years will bear dividends as AMD targets heterogeneous computing which is a very exciting element.

Steamroller with a completely new die process will see on guestimation around 15-20% IPC improvements equating to around 30%+ general performance over the Vishera parts along with lower power consumption and another tweak to IMC's no less down to tweaked latencies. AMD invested heavily towards Steamroller so lets hope it is the part that brings AMD right up to Intel's tail lights.

 

[sunnk]

I could absolutely tear you apart for that idiocy (look at my points/posts ratio for evidence of all my best answers) but I won't because you're a child (who isn't sure if they're 14 or 15 apparently). It also appears English isn't your first language, so I'll allow you some leeway for misunderstanding.

FXAA was one of three examples of things totally unrelated to CPUs used to illustrate a point. The point being that benchmarks are empirical data. They are measured, quantified results. Not the claims of an AMD fanboy child. FXAA was an example of something where benchmarks don't tell the whole story. CPU performance is an example of something where benchmarks do tell the whole story.

misunderstanding wtf u r a noob thats it :lol: your best answers evidence is your number of post? well where is the medal then? u havent got 10 best answers only u r a ---------b nothing above that pls before making your posts right u should have evidence and there are most of the fake benchmarks too it will be better to use fx series chip then comment against it.btw which cpu u have?

 

[sam_p_lay]

misunderstanding wtf u r a noob thats it :lol: your best answers evidence is your number of post? well where is the medal then? u havent got 10 best answers only u r a ---------b nothing above that pls before making your posts right u should have evidence and there are most of the fake benchmarks too it will be better to use fx series chip then comment against it.btw which cpu u have?

Points/posts RATIO. Do you know what a ratio is? Grow up you stupid little boy.

 

[sam_p_lay]

To clarify, I have 10,000 points more than you despite only 400 more posts. That means I get more points from my posts, i.e. more best answers. I don't know if badges/medals/whatever are the same thing (I honestly don't care about showing off awards - that's for immature little boys) but I did get a graphics badge/medal/whatever and a Windows one a few months back. Other users mentioned to me that my medals had disappeared, but I've never paid any attention to medals, ranks etc so it really doesn't bother me.

Now you're making a total fool of yourself and you're wasting my time. Continue to embarrass yourself if you wish and demonstrate to the Tom's community that you're a fool to be totally ignored and not taken seriously. Your best course of action is to abandon your current account and create a new one, because nobody will respect you after this.

And I have an i7. I've never owned an FX8350, because that would be a downgrade. It would be a stupid thing for me to buy. Now you can go and tell everyone how your crappy low-end FX6100 beats i7s. Go ahead - you've already recked your reputation, you may as well continue. I'm done wasting time on you.

 

[patrick47018]

Best answer selected by patrick47018.

 

[ryuandken]

fx 8350 dominates the 3570k in everything but its only a few fps behind in gaming. careful about reading benchmarks on toms hardware there intel based and therefor not accurate, they dont call this site intel squad for nothing.

 

[darkspartenwarrior]

The FX-8350 doesn't actually have 8 cores, it's 4 capable of splitting into 8.

The FX series are structured to have 4 "Bulldozer" modules, all 4 have a resource "dump", with L2 cache, FPUs, etc... And each Bulldozer module has 2 cores.

Basically if you're running a high thread/low per core performance application, in this kind of program, the dumps share the resources equally between the pair of cores it serves, so it can adress the high thread needs by giving up per core performance(each core doesn't get as much resources because it's split)

Similarly, if you're gaming, it'll consolidate the resources into a single core, to give better per core performance, but deactivate the 2nd core(lack of resources) for a total of 4 active cores, with 4 deactivated.

In other words, it's glamorized Hyper-Threading, AMD just redefined what a core is.

Also in gaming the FX-8350 is only a few FPS behind the i5-3570k, and the FX-8350, debateably, can overclock better. Also the FX-8350 wins in other aspects.

The real loss for AMD is that they only support gen 2 transfer speeds(bottlenecks down the road), and require external controllers for USB3(USB3 is much slower compared to Z77 native USB3).

 

[ryuandken]

The FX-8350 doesn't actually have 8 cores, it's 4 capable of splitting into 8.

The FX series are structured to have 4 "Bulldozer" modules, all 4 have a resource "dump", with L2 cache, FPUs, etc... And each Bulldozer module has 2 cores.

Basically if you're running a high thread/low per core performance application, in this kind of program, the dumps share the resources equally between the pair of cores it serves, so it can adress the high thread needs by giving up per core performance(each core doesn't get as much resources because it's split)

Similarly, if you're gaming, it'll consolidate the resources into a single core, to give better per core performance, but deactivate the 2nd core(lack of resources) for a total of 4 active cores, with 4 deactivated.

In other words, it's glamorized Hyper-Threading, AMD just redefined what a core is.

Also in gaming the FX-8350 is only a few FPS behind the i5-3570k, and the FX-8350, debateably, can overclock better. Also the FX-8350 wins in other aspects.

The real loss for AMD is that they only support gen 2 transfer speeds(bottlenecks down the road), and require external controllers for USB3(USB3 is much slower compared to Z77 native USB3).

wrong, all fx have true cores, 8350 have 8 physical coers, they just share recsources like the decoder and FP they still have 8 physical cores

 

[justinxtreme]

For $30 more, I would go with an Intel Core i5 3570K quad core processor. Added OSX compatibility (Hackintosh) plus it's faster clock-for-clock all around.

However, if you're dead set on an AMD processor or if you're stuck on the AM3+ platform (already own an existing motherboard), the FX-8350 is not a bad choice. It comes a lot closer to the i5 than I originally expected so going Piledriver is not a bad idea.