AMD FX 8350 kicks i5-i7 Thread

So lately there were couple of videos on youtube, it suprised me how AMD Vishera/Piledriver FX 8350 was a huge improvement over Bulldozer and how it destroyed i5 and i7 CPU's. It seems that AMD is going back to its old glory days, maybe next generation AMD CPU's and AMD ATI GPU's will destroy the competition.

So watch all of those videos and please reply, if you dont reply we will not able to know your opinion. Please dont be fanboys, dont be biased. I hate fanboys.

Sometimes Intel is better, sometimes AMD is better... Its darvinism,okay? No fanboying.

Edited by: theravenswolf

It's better than it's predecessors, but it still doesn't really compete with Intel's newer i7s. Intel's eight core Xeons wipe the floor with it. What it does however offer is value for money. It's relatively inexpensive compared to it's Intel equivalents.
Cpubenchmark.net

ambershee wrote: It's better than it's predecessors, but it still doesn't really compete with Intel's newer i7s. Intel's eight core Xeons wipe the floor with it. What it does however offer is value for money. It's relatively inexpensive compared to it's Intel equivalents.
Cpubenchmark.net

ambershee... Intel's CPU are single-threaded, I don't know if they have even one multi-threaded CPU. Single-threading CPU's had hit the limit/ceiling, I doubt they can be considerably improved while AMD Vishera/Piledriver FX 8350 is a multi-thread CPU with 8 cores clocked at 4.0/4.2(overclockable to 4.8+)Ghz and its really the future since sooner or later video game companies will finally start using 4 to 6 cores rather than just 2-3 "

Same thing applies for multi-thread, it will trash the crap out of Intel. AMD somewhat neglected single-thread CPU market but they focused on the future, multi-threading...

I don't think you understand what threading is.

You can very happily run multi-threaded applications on any current Intel CPU across multiple cores, and in quite a few cases, multiple threads on a single core. Additionally, the clock speed is not strictly important, it's the architecture and instruction set that really drives it.

I've been running multi-threaded applications since I first picked up a Pentium 4 HT about a decade ago.

Edited by: ambershee

Oh sorry. My english language skills are not well. I wanted to say:
AMD beats Intel in multithread apps... While Intel in single thread apps.

The above benchmark results I posted say otherwise :p

Oh the benchmarks... Well sir, AMD FX 8350 is better when you look at "performance for a price". If overlclocked FX 8350 is better than i7 3770k.
The third generation of bulldozer will beat i7's. AMD Bullzoder - Piledriver: Vishera FX 8350 costs about 180-200$ compared to Intel i7 3770k that costs 300-330$.

I apologise for my english language skills, its not my mothertounge.

It seems that Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 will use AMD/ATI GPU's, PS4 will have an AMD CPU while its rumored that Xbox 720 could also have an AMD CPU. I wouldt be suprised if Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 are toe to toe with each other, even thought various sites wrote that PS4 will be faster/better than Xbox 720.

Intel is Apples equivalent in price, I am not biased. Intel is sometimes better and so the AMD. Depending on the point of view... Intel CPU's are good for single threaded tasks while AMD for multi-tasking since its arhitecture is focused on it. If you want as much as possible FPS in games go with Intel since you also want waste your money...

I am trashing Intel, I admit. Pentium 4 dint served me well as Sempron.

Amber, do you think that game companies will adapt their engines to use 6 or even 8 cores in next 3 years...

ambershee wrote: The above benchmark results I posted say otherwise :p

Not really, the only specific benchmark the website lists is the single-threaded performance, the main one is an average of all the scores.

theravenswolf wrote: If overlclocked FX 8350 is better than i7 3770k.

Yeah, over-clocked vs stock.
If the i7 3770k gets pushed just as much as the FX-8350, the i7 will win.

I agree with you CILITO, but the flaw of your answer is that Intel CPU's cant be clocked as much as AMD's CPU's.

Its terrible when reviewers dont do multi-threading tests, then you can see how those reviewers are not as good as people think of them. Sometimes they are just too sloopy "

theravenswolf wrote: Oh the benchmarks... Well sir, AMD FX 8350 is better when you look at "performance for a price". If overlclocked FX 8350 is better than i7 3770k.

ambershee wrote: What it does however offer is value for money. It's relatively inexpensive compared to it's Intel equivalents.

Like I said before ^ ^ ^
But your comparison is still unfair; if you can overclock the 8350, you can certainly overclock the 3770k - and I'm pretty sure the latter will outperform it. The 3930k is more of the physical equivalent anyway, and that will probably outperform it without any overclocking at all.

You can overclock current Intel processors way into the 4Ghz range (I've seen a few crazy people push it to over 5Ghz - I dread to think how long they actually last like that). The reality there is that it isn't generally assumed to be ideal and reduces life expectancy.

CILITO wrote:

ambershee wrote: The above benchmark results I posted say otherwise :p

Not really, the only specific benchmark the website lists is the single-threaded performance, the main one is an average of all the scores.

It includes multi-threaded testing; the score is an aggregate of various tests. This is why the six core consumer i7 rates a 3rd higher than the next nearest quad core.

Edited by: ambershee

5Ghz is not impressive, you can way easily clock FX to 5Ghz and the world record in overclocking was made with AMD FX and it was near 8.5Ghz...

Intel only wins in single threading, AMD FX design is more towards multi-threading.

One thing you aren't taking into account is that the i7 has decent integrated graphics. If the couple of pages I've read are correct, the AMD FX line doesn't have integrated graphics. Anyway, I'm a regular gamer and I dont even have a graphics card because the Intel HD 4000 is good enough to handle all but the newest games.

On the multi-threading topic, AMD has done some good stuff, but its not really applicable for gaming, and won't be for some years yet. It comes down to the fact that the current graphics libraries (OpenGL, DirectX, etc) weren't designed to handle multi-threaded rendering. Someone would have to redesign a graphics library from the ground up, and getting cores to work together on rendering is a very difficult and complex task.

Also, the high Ghz is cool and all, but its not very practical. You can only feed data to your processor via various buses, and the cost of the bus speeds that would be required to even make use of it would be enormous. Not to mention the fact that the processors life expectancy is very low, and then you have to buy and overclock a new one, or the $$ you spent on the system to support it is wasted.

Edited by: lancer611

lancer611 wrote: One thing you aren't taking into account is that the i7 has decent integrated graphics. If the couple of pages I've read are correct, the AMD FX line doesn't have integrated graphics. Anyway, I'm a regular gamer and I dont even have a graphics card because the Intel HD 4000 is good enough to handle all but the newest games.

On the multi-threading topic, AMD has done some good stuff, but its not really applicable for gaming, and won't be for some years yet. It comes down to the fact that the current graphics libraries (OpenGL, DirectX, etc) weren't designed to handle multi-threaded rendering. Someone would have to redesign a graphics library from the ground up, and getting cores to work together on rendering is a very difficult and complex task.

Also, the high Ghz is cool and all, but its not very practical. You can only feed data to your processor via various buses, and the cost of the bus speeds that would be required to even make use of it would be enormous. Not to mention the fact that the processors life expectancy is very low, and then you have to buy and overclock a new one, or the $ you spent on the system to support it is wasted.

Lancer 611, AMD "Bulldozer" - Piledriver/Vishera FX 8350 does not have an intergrated APU/IGP so yes FX does not have. It does not have it because of cost reduction and it was not designed to have an APU. A series was designed to have an APU/IGP and it destroys Intel HD Graphics 4000, APU/IGP from A10 5700 and 5800k is twice as fast as Intel HD 4000 and with 6670 you can do a hybrid crossfireX. APU of A10 is an integrated Radeon HD 7660 that can handle L4D2 at Full HD at maximum graphics if I remember correctly.

I noticed that, anyway it seems Source Engine from Valve somehow performs better on AMD FX. So I wonder if multi-threading is partially supported since we all know that this engine is very well optimized and configurable. Its a shame that any of the graphical libraries does not support at all multi-threading, it should because of its advantages that can outperform single-threaded CPU's and we can see advantages of multi-threading at Sony Vegas, I am not a coder but I know its hard since I have couple of friends that code. One of them is a hacker.

My opinion is that its possible to slowly modify or add features to those graphical libraries to support multi-threading, they should develop version that supports multi-thread. It would be just another graphical library with similarities to single threaded counter part. Since there are alot of coders that know to code for DirectX, Open GL and other less known graphical libraries, I would suggest they work together to make this possible since we will benefit in almost every possible way that we can imagine.

The problem is the design of the CPU's and lack of real innovation at some point. We can improve what we know but we should try to find a way to make use of it in a different way. Its sad that coders are segregated and because of 24/7 competition we actually suffer for it.

theravenswolf wrote:
Lancer 611, AMD "Bulldozer" - Piledriver/Vishera FX 8350 does not have an intergrated APU/IGP so yes FX does not have. It does not have it because of cost reduction and it was not designed to have an APU. A series was designed to have an APU/IGP and it destroys Intel HD Graphics 4000, APU/IGP from A10 5700 and 5800k is twice as fast as Intel HD 4000 and with 6670 you can do a hybrid crossfireX. APU of A10 is an integrated Radeon HD 7660 that can handle L4D2 at Full HD at maximum graphics if I remember correctly.

Honestly, for gamers its really just potato patoto. They both get the job done, and both will need to be replaced in a few years. The only reason I buy intel is because I always have; I know that it works.

theravenswolf wrote: I noticed that, anyway it seems Source Engine from Valve somehow performs better on AMD FX................ Its sad that coders are segregated and because of 24/7 competition we actually suffer for it.

Have you ever played jenga? Its a fun game, where players take turns pulling one block out of a tower made of blocks, and then put that block at the top of the tower. The goal is to keep the tower standing as long as possible. Think of that as the single threaded way. Now, the multi-threaded way is if all the players continually pull out blocks simultaneously and stack them on the top all at once as well. Sounds like a disaster right? Yeah, thats why multi-threaded programming is hard.

HAHAHAHA nice description of Single-Thread and Multi-Thread, but if you can stack two simultaneously its better but also harder to implement.

ambershee wrote: It includes multi-threaded testing; the score is an aggregate of various tests. This is why the six core consumer i7 rates a 3rd higher than the next nearest quad core.

I am aware it includes it, but that doesn't change the fact that the only score that is listed other than Single-Threaded performance is an average of ALL the scores, it doesn't go into specifics about the other tests.
Edit: Just did some research, and the i7 3930k costs three times the best consumer processor that AMD has on the market, what in the heck did you expect?

theravenswolf wrote: the flaw of your answer is that Intel CPU's cant be clocked as much as AMD's CPU's

Not exactly what I was talking about, what I meant was that if both are pushed to their limits the Intel will come out on-top.

Edited by: CILITO

CILITO wrote: Edit: Just did some research, and the i7 3930k costs three times the best consumer processor that AMD has on the market, what in the heck did you expect?

I never said it was cheap :p