amd fx 8350 disscussion

[vickybat]

I don't agree with the term "theoretical" here and its always not about money. Power is a precious thing and its not about saving ones electricity bills.
Its about thinking for the entire planet than thinking about yourselves. Its part of a very big discussion that isn't ideal for the situation here.

Peak power draw happens when cpu is at 100% load. Most multithreaded apps like handbrake stress all the cpu cores to 100% and i've seen it coz i use it. I guess people will buy 8350 taking its performance into account in those scenarios. Even if we forget power consumption for a moment, what about outright performance?

From what i see, overclocked performance isn't that good too. Let's say even if it reaches, 4.6ghz with a good cooler, how much performance increment we can see?

*i.imgur.com/WkO0V.png

The chart speaks everything. But if people are willing to save 4k, then can go for the cheaper platform. But what about those who are seeking outright performance?
Power consumption will be an icing on the cake for them.

For intensive visualization again overclocking or no overclocking,fx8350 is a better choice simply because of more cores and IOMMU support.

In case of 3D rendering it is quite close between fx8350 and i5 3570k.
In final rendering of models in applications like 3DSMAX,Maya,Revit fx8350 generally fx8350 should be better because these are heavily threaded but it is not the case always.
With overclocking i5 3570k would be quite fast.Again in ray-tracing fx8350 has the advantage.
With 5k saved one can also get a better graphic card which in some cases can translate into moving from hd7870 to hd7950.In such case not only there would be huge improvement in gaming but also a good level of improvement would be seen in compute like in case of OpenCL based 3D rendering.
In situations like this rendering through hd7950 alone would be faster than the combinations of fx8350/i5 3570k+hd7950.
Viewport renderings would be lot faster with a GPU having better compute.
Another thing to consider is,though in most of the 3D modelling applications final render and test render would use full cores upto maximum utilisation there are lot of other functions which are lightly-threaded like previewing the model in viewport and considerable amount of time is spent there are well.Here the single-threaded performance comes into play.

Now applications like Euler3d which are used for CFD analysis the 8 core fx is considerably slower because this application is memory bandwidth limited which is significantly better in case of intel 2nd gen and 3rd gen processors.Now if we move to an application like Ansys which is also used for numerical analysis and fluid dynamics simulation the fx8350 should be lot faster.
An fx8150 is around 10% or more faster than i7 2600k in ansys.Applications like Abaqus which are used for elemental analysis gains a lot from GPU acceleration which means a combination with better GPU would seal the case.
As far as power consumption is concerned at stock the difference would be around 100Watts at load.But that won't matter much.Ivy is lot more power efficient but still it won't be a factor for selection in many cases.

So while selecting the platform the things that would matter are one's requirements,how much he/she can spend,overclocking,applications used etc.

Can you please give some links to support your claims? I agree with the virtualization part though and i5 k processors lacking iommu.
Talking about the fluidic dynamic simulations and benches involving complex calculations, i don't see amd being any match with intel.
Several linux benchmarks like dolyfyn and lammps ( fluid and molecular dynamics) perform brilliantly on intel architecture while poorly in amd. Why is that? Could you give some similar
windows benchmark to confirm what you said? The key here is MPI ( message passing interface) which is a code in fortran or c which is written to assist parallel computing. Amd made 8 cores but failed to harness them in a software point of view. You said rightly about encryption but what about performance at similar clocks?

And can you also give links to support that rendering claim because i believe intel still has the edge here and the gap widens when overclocked.
Its not about utilizing more cores but to see how capable those cores really are.

Anyways, i need to see the performance of 8350 over 3570k in 3d rendering (maya in particular and not synthetic like 3dsmax), fluid dynamics and all.

Btw check the following:

*www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-8.html

*www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-10.html

*www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-12.html

Now the clock differences at stock are big between 3570k and 8350. What will happen when both are clocked similarly lets say at 4.5ghz?
I doubt the fx can hold up and tomshardware meant the same in their article.

Performance gains of i5 in overclocking are significant than the fx overall and i guess even in those multithreaded scenarios. IPC again comes to play here and its not about scheduling.

 

[Cilus]

^^ For overclocking a 3570K to 4.5 GHz, you really need a very good cooler, add another 4K to 5K in your budget as IV bridge does have some issues with overclocking. On the other hand you can go to 4.3 GHz with the stock cooler with AMD and a 2K cooler like Hyper 212 Evo can easily handle a stable 4.6 GHz overclock in case of FX-8350. Vicky, you can't compare speed of Intel and AMD and ask them to run at same speed. Their approach for gaining performance is different; AMD uses more cores and shorter pipelines along with higher speed. They increase the performance by performing relatively low amount of task in every clock Cycle and running at higher speed. On the other hand, Intel uses deeper Pipeline to execute more tasks in single clock cycle rather than running them at higher speed.

 

[avinandan012]

Probably there is a bigger profit margin selling intel procs.

it is possible if shopkeepers make profit by % . Then higher the per unit price higher the profit.

 

[vkl]

Can you please give some links to support your claims? I agree with the virtualization part though and i5 k processors lacking iommu.
Talking about the fluidic dynamic simulations and benches involving complex calculations, i don't see amd being any match with intel.
Several linux benchmarks like dolyfyn and lammps ( fluid and molecular dynamics) perform brilliantly on intel architecture while poorly in amd. Why is that? Could you give some similar
windows benchmark to confirm what you said? The key here is MPI ( message passing interface) which is a code in fortran or c which is written to assist parallel computing. Amd made 8 cores but failed to harness them in a software point of view. You said rightly about encryption but what about performance at similar clocks?

And can you also give links to support that rendering claim because i believe intel still has the edge here and the gap widens when overclocked.
Its not about utilizing more cores but to see how capable those cores really are.

Anyways, i need to see the performance of 8350 over 3570k in 3d rendering (maya in particular and not synthetic like 3dsmax), fluid dynamics and all.

Btw check the following:

Benchmark Results: Content Creation : AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

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

Benchmark Results: Media Encoding : AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?

Now the clock differences at stock are big between 3570k and 8350. What will happen when both are clocked similarly lets say at 4.5ghz?
I doubt the fx can hold up and tomshardware meant the same in their article.

Performance gains of i5 in overclocking are significant than the fx overall and i guess even in those multithreaded scenarios. IPC again comes to play here and its not about scheduling.

As far as final rendering or test renders is concerned,check the Benchmark Results: Content Creation:tomshardware.
In most of the tests fx8350 is ahead of i5 3570k.The point is even if IPC wise fx8350 is quite low and per core performance is also quite lower than that of i5 3570k,when a task like rendering is able to exploit all 8 cores efficiently fx8350 could be faster.As said earlier but that is not the case what happens always.In most of the applications final render does use all cores to max.

As for complex calculations like molecular dynamics and others is concerned many applications do well on ivy/sandy i5/i7 than on fx 8 cores.Examples are Euler3D(fluid dynamics simulation),mathematica 8(technical computing).In Dolphin and LAMMPS fx are not that good.
But there are also applications where fx does quite well.
Do check out NAS parallel benches here:NAS parallel benchmarks v3.3
NAS parallel benchmarks v3.3 more benches.
NAS parallel benchmarks also has MPI implementation in full from versions 2.3 onwards.FX handily beats i5s here and competes well with i7 3770k.

You can also see John the Ripper benches where fx8350 beats the i7 3770k.It is a good number crunching test and does have MPI implementation.

MyriMatch(protein analysis)
*i.imgur.com/MyYSU.gif?1
As far as Ansys is concerned it scales well with the cores,though there are no benches available for the fx but still check this:Ansys fx8150,i7 2600k:CFD-online forums


I never said overclocking i5 3570k won't do anything,in fact I have always maintained overclocking i5 2500/3570k would give more dividends in most of the applications than overclocking fx8150/8350 as for the current situation of softwares.
But when it comes to things like encryption,video encoding fx8350 would have the lead.
As mentioned earlier there can also be situations when one benefits from a better dGPU in case of a constrained budget.
So it's always better to select according to requirements and budget.

 

[topgear]

Not pointing to anypne - just sharing my thoughts and some questions :

can't say if power consumption is theoretical or not but on every benchmark/review out there with a proper power consumption measuring device AMD cpus always shows they consumes more power.

core i5 3570K @ 14k + a Z77 mobo around ~7.7k + Hyper 212 Evo @ 2.2k
FX - 8350 @ 12.5k + a good mobo with vrm heatsink @ ~6.8k + Hyper 212 Evo @ 2.2k

now AMD cpus comes with good cooler which is sufficient for 4Ghz speed and FX-8350 is a 4 Ghz cpu - though I've no idea but to Oc this to say around ~4.5 Ghz we need an after market cooler ? and at 4.5 Ghz speed which one will win ? at at 4.5 Ghz if Intel cpu consumes less power one can build his ri with a much less powerful PSU - say cx430v2 instead of cx500v2 which should shave off some cost and minimizes the platform costs.

 

[Skud]

Problem is that most of us budget the PSU keeping the GPU and future expansions in mind, so chances of using a less powerful SMPS just because of an Intel CPU is more or less minimal. The money saved on the CPU will have a more direct effect on the choice of other hardware.

Also, OCing the i5/i7 on stock cooler should be avoided in Indian condition IMO, forget about running it OCed for any significant length of time. I think we already have a dedicated thread in this topic. Again those 5+ GHz OC figures may give you some bragging rights, but an end user will mostly run their CPU at around 4.2/4.3 GHz for daily use. At this speed, AMD's stock cooler is probably sufficient but you need an aftermarket cooler for i5/i7. This again will increase the cost of the Intel system.

 

[sumonpathak]

Also that Z77 mobo at around 7.7k will meltdown even before it reaches 4.2-4.3...reasons we all know and am too tired to type out all that stuff again

 

[CyberKID]

Anyways, I don't think anyone could just ignore this - Having an Onboard graphics always helps, in case somewhere someday, you have your GFX card gone kaput, and you don't have a spare one, that day you can make use of the onboard graphics.
Consider this:
Case-1: You're going in for an AMD system; you bought the processor (FX-8350) for 12.5K, then you bought a motherboard for 6.5K and then you'll have to buy a graphics card say an HD 6670 for say ~5K (The total comes up to 24K)
Case-2: You're opting an Intel i5 3570K based system; the i5 3570K will set you back by 14.5K (Delta Peripherals), then you get a motherboard say for 7.5K and an aftermarket CPU cooler say CM Hyper TX3 EVO for 1.5K the total is 23.5K (You still have the option to upgrade the graphics card at a later point of time.)
For an average user who won't overclock the processor, there's no point going with an unlocked processor, I think the i5 3570 is also available for 12.5K.

 

[Skud]

Comparing HD6670 to Intel's IGP?

You can pick any low-end graphics card for 1.5k. AMD combo will come to around 20k.

 

[sumonpathak]

:facedesk:
:faceconcrete:

 

[CyberKID]

Comparing HD6670 to Intel's IGP?

You can pick any low-end graphics card for 1.5k. AMD combo will come to around 20k.

where's the comparision? I can't see any.

 

[Skud]

Why are you picking HD6670 for the AMD rig, when you are utilizing Intel's IGP? A simple 1.5k card will do the job. That's still a handsome savings over the Intel rig you mentioned.

 

[CyberKID]

ok. replace the 6670 with some 5450 or 6450 or gt 210, etc for ~1.7-2K you'll be able to bring it down to 20-21K.
My point was not suggesting either. My point was that with the intel rig, you have the option to upgrade the graphics later as you'll have the IGP as against the AMD. Also, in case, your graphics card goes bad, it won't make your system unusable till the time your graphics card in for RMA. Please read the first line of my post carefully.

 

[Skud]

That's one advantage, but the price difference of 8350 & 3570k will let you have a backup graphics card, if you think that's important.

 

[d6bmg]

That's one advantage, but the price difference of 8350 & 3570k will let you have a backup graphics card, if you think that's important.

Most of the people using 3570K use discrete graphics card. If someone is buying 3570K to use HD4000, it would be advisable for him to perform a brain treatment.

 

[sumonpathak]

^^well...i guess any smart Intel buyer would do that
because..well....its better...ya know..being blue and stuff

/sarcasm_mode_off

 

[CyberKID]

Sorry. Got carried away. The point was not that someone leaving the Graphics Card as a part of a rig consisting of a 14K processor. The thing was of having a workable option in case of a problem with graphics card. and still that was my personal thinking.

 

[sumonpathak]

Why would anyone buying a 14K proccy would leave the GPU upgrade for later? Doesnt make sense logically..also this as an argument against Fx doesn't really stand.

Also i dont think any person on the forums was targeted there...

 

[sukesh1090]

@cyberkid,
HD4000 is equal to nothing in gaming performance.you may think all the time that you have back up but when the times when you will have to jump from a discrete to HD4000 then you will feel its wrath.btw if i remember it correctly then those delta peripherals prices are excluding taxes.i may be wrong.
btw AMD could have continued giving those comparitively good on board graphic chips in their mobos rather than throwing it of the window.

power consumption only matters to those pople who run their computer 24X7 under full load but if you are running your computer at full load for hardly 2-3hrs a day then you will save negligible amount of power.if the world is going in that much "go Green" way then every house out there should have CFLs and none of the shops should sell 0,100 watt bulbs.street lights glowing even in the morning.using electric guisers,etc.,we waste hell lot of power everyday for useless things and then we try to save 0.1 or even 0.01% of that in computers.whats the use of it?

 

[CyberKID]

^ I don't know why for us computing never moves up above gaming. Everyone knows that IGP is good for nothing gaming. Why do people give utmost importance to gaming? There are hundreds of things a computer can still do apart from gaming.
I've been living up with a P4 since August 2005, and till quite a few months back my onboard GMA 900 was giving good performance to play casual games like NFS most wanted with highest settings with just 1.5GB of DDR RAM.
Regarding the Delta Peripherals prices, it is clearly described on the page itself that all the prices are inclusive of Tamil Nadu VAT