Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fajw

These video clips make AMD look good.

Recommended Posts

The only problem with the 8350 is the way they organized the cache. 2MB L2 cache which is shared by 2 cores just seems strange. Also i think each core gets only 16KB of L1 cache, where as most Intel CPUs have 32KB. I guess 16KB would be faster seeing as it's smaller, but i would presume that it would increase cache misses. I guess they have done some crazy work with their caching system to avoid cache misses, but i don't know, I'm not convinced. Of course I'm no expert, but I'm just writing "out loud here" hehe.

 

At the prices their CPU are selling for and the prices their motherboards are going for i think AMD is a fucking steal at the moment. It's so cheap for what you get.

 

To put it into perspective.

 

Here in Norway (Prices converted with todays exchange rate)

 

1x Intel 3770K = $444 AUD

 

Other option

 

1x AMD 8350 = $255

1x MSI 990FXA-GD80 = $213

= $468AUD

 

Cheap!

Edited by smakme7757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's it really; current AMD chips aren't as bad as they're made out to be, they're just not the best. Kinda like the age old glass half full/empty argument. Also, I do feel Piledriver in many ways is comparable to the Phenom II, where AMD "fixes" a lot of the issues they had with the initial product (Bulldozer and Phenom), and make it a decent product

 

That being said, would I buy one today? Maybe, but then you have to look at the motherboards. I feel they're quite behind Intel. Heck, even the FM2 boards are much better than the ones currently used on the AM3+ platform :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the fx8350 a cpu that is good enough to run most current games at a solid 60fps? yes but then so is the q6600 and phenom II or even athlon x4 more often than not since they were made to work just fine on the xbox360 weak 3 core cpu

 

am i going to play games at low res? no but i am going to play games moded and tweaked

skyrim and all the games on its engine are massively cpu bound if you increase the view distance and they are gpu mem bound if you mod the textures but does anyone ever test this? no

 

per core intel is about twice as quick as amd per watt used they are far more efficient

amd is making affordable 8 core chips and in programs with good threading support they can catch up to intel and even surpassed there performance in some tests but due to the extra power used the $10 you may save buying it is soon lost

overclocking? intel seems to be way in front with its scaling

 

i love my opteron 170 and want them to get back in front but the bulldozer arc will never quite get there

 

in the past i have thought of bulldozer as the p4 but there is one big difference its catching up and getting better the p4 was all down hill

 

 

if someone sent me a athlon x3 i could test it against my 2600k and show everyone how amd pawns intel :)

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the clips?

just the first few min of the second clip

with shit limited net i dont like to go watching videos

if you want to fill me in on any important bits i missed im all ears

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMDs big issue is shit motherboards, especially in Matx and Mitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMDs big issue is shit motherboards, especially in Matx and Mitx

funny that its also been one of there strong points with a bunch of sata3 ports and usb3 ports while intel up until haswlell has been minimal in these areas

amd mb do tend to cost more though which offsets the cheaper cpu a fair bit unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction: AMDs big issue is shit Matx and Mitx motherboards, the ATX ones have always been very good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction: AMDs big issue is shit Matx and Mitx motherboards, the ATX ones have always been very good

That is not AMD's issue. It is up to motherboard manufacturers to make "good" mATX and mITX boards if they feel there is a market for them. AMD's issue is that on the desktop platform (AM3+), we are using archaic chipsets. The 990FX northbridge is a rebranded 890FX, which is a rebranded 790FX. These were used with the original Phenom!!! The SB950 southbridge is a rebranded SB850, which was a SATA3 refresh of the older SB750. Compare that to other platforms such as Intel Haswell, which has PCIe 3.0 and native USB 3.0. The latter is a huge plus for a lot of people, including me. I absolutely despise sticky tape solutions, as I have quite a few issues with my 890FX board, whereas my laptop with native USB 3.0 is fine. Also I brought up in a previous post that the FM2 platform had better chipsets. The A85X chipset supports native USB 3.0, and is a relatively low power single chip solution. AMD really needs to update their desktop chipsets, even if it still only supported. I do feel a single chip solution that had the same number of PCIe lanes and SATA3 ports, but with the addition of integrated USB 3 would really improve the look for AMD boards

 

Currently, the only good thing about AM3+ motherboards is that they work with a large variety of processors, are quite cheap, and support loads of PCIe 2.0 lanes. You can do 16x + 16x CrossfireX and SLI, which for Intel you generally need LGA2011 boards. But for most people, the only plus is price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for going to that trouble fajw

 

some interesting results but there is some massive inconsistencies

crysis warhead first 1080p test 3770k so far ahead of the other intel processors? and its not like its all ht as the 3820 has that

next in black mesa where on the flip side 3770k getting trashed by those intel processors

then in metro 3770k takes a huge lead again

 

its all over the place and makes no sense they must have something seriously wrong with there test setup and need to do some more runs to try find some consistency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps different games run better on different CPUs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the fx8350 a cpu that is good enough to run most current games at a solid 60fps? yes but then so is the q6600 and phenom II or even athlon x4 more often than not since they were made to work just fine on the xbox360 weak 3 core cpu

 

am i going to play games at low res? no but i am going to play games moded and tweaked

skyrim and all the games on its engine are massively cpu bound if you increase the view distance and they are gpu mem bound if you mod the textures but does anyone ever test this? no

 

per core intel is about twice as quick as amd per watt used they are far more efficient

amd is making affordable 8 core chips and in programs with good threading support they can catch up to intel and even surpassed there performance in some tests but due to the extra power used the $10 you may save buying it is soon lost

overclocking? intel seems to be way in front with its scaling

 

i love my opteron 170 and want them to get back in front but the bulldozer arc will never quite get there

 

in the past i have thought of bulldozer as the p4 but there is one big difference its catching up and getting better the p4 was all down hill

 

 

if someone sent me a athlon x3 i could test it against my 2600k and show everyone how amd pawns intel :)

However, I can challenge this and say that some games prefer the newer architecture and scales better such as the Frostbite Engine or the 4GA engine from Metro. Some of the games that are popular out there are using engines that are derived from 2005 - 2006 (looking at Call of Duty and Skyrim here).

 

Do some people play at low res? There are given how monitors aren't exactly replaced as often as laptops are. And Skyrim is probably a crap engine to use as a benchmark since it uses bloody x87 instructions to run... -___-

 

I agree that Intel has the best bang for buck at this day and age plus AMD is definitely better in the multi-tasking aspect. However, the costs of energy saving really depends on the nature you're using it. If you're at stock, why bother with the 8350 and just go with the 8320. So it's really about the perspectives and the way you use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frostbite Engine is inconsistent at best

one level amd scales great the next it is back to shocking

i should add that despite that inconsistency it does inspire some hope in me

skyrim may be a crap benchmark engine from a technical standpoint but that doesnt change the fact that there is a bunch of good games made on it that can struggle to get playable fps without one hell of a cpu

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the fx8350 a cpu that is good enough to run most current games at a solid 60fps? yes but then so is the q6600 and phenom II or even athlon x4 more often than not since they were made to work just fine on the xbox360 weak 3 core cpu

 

am i going to play games at low res? no but i am going to play games moded and tweaked

skyrim and all the games on its engine are massively cpu bound if you increase the view distance and they are gpu mem bound if you mod the textures but does anyone ever test this? no

 

per core intel is about twice as quick as amd per watt used they are far more efficient

amd is making affordable 8 core chips and in programs with good threading support they can catch up to intel and even surpassed there performance in some tests but due to the extra power used the $10 you may save buying it is soon lost

overclocking? intel seems to be way in front with its scaling

 

i love my opteron 170 and want them to get back in front but the bulldozer arc will never quite get there

 

in the past i have thought of bulldozer as the p4 but there is one big difference its catching up and getting better the p4 was all down hill

 

 

if someone sent me a athlon x3 i could test it against my 2600k and show everyone how amd pawns intel :)

However, I can challenge this and say that some games prefer the newer architecture and scales better such as the Frostbite Engine or the 4GA engine from Metro. Some of the games that are popular out there are using engines that are derived from 2005 - 2006 (looking at Call of Duty and Skyrim here).

 

Do some people play at low res? There are given how monitors aren't exactly replaced as often as laptops are. And Skyrim is probably a crap engine to use as a benchmark since it uses bloody x87 instructions to run... -___-

 

I agree that Intel has the best bang for buck at this day and age plus AMD is definitely better in the multi-tasking aspect. However, the costs of energy saving really depends on the nature you're using it. If you're at stock, why bother with the 8350 and just go with the 8320. So it's really about the perspectives and the way you use it.

 

x87? Isn't that an Intel specific instruction set?

 

The argument that different CPU's work better with different programs is valid. How many are using Intel's compiler suite to make develop their games/programs?

 

I'm not sure we will ever find unskewed results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the past i have thought of bulldozer as the p4 but there is one big difference its catching up and getting better the p4 was all down hill

I dunno about that.

 

There was a decent jump in performance per clock when they went from Willammette to Northwood. The jump was part due to increased L2 and an FSB bump, and part due to the 865PE chipset that brought in dual-channel DDR. They could finally beat Tualatin Pentium III's at the same clock speed.

 

The final Smithfield and Presler CPUs were awesome. Expensive, hot, and power hungry, but awesome.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

northwood was a good step but the later ones while improvements in some ways over there predecessor they were falling further behind amd

they certainly couldnt come close to matching the single threaded performance of the pentium mobile chips like the pm 730 with a 478 adapter

even at 4ghz my 3.2e was getting smashed in single threaded games by the 2.1ghz pm 730 which was able to match a opteron 170 at 2.5ghz

Edited by Dasa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×