• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8350 - Piledriver - CPU Review

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
So, how bad is the power comsumption?, if you have 1 gpu, this piledriver cpu will a 650w psu, be good? I have my computer up 24/7 as it's a work computer and not just gaming....My case is air cooled...I like the review for the most part, very well written, but you do need to clarify the power consumption issue a bit more...
Can't wait for you to put this cpu thru more testing...
 
Yes, with one GPU, 650W will be more than enough.

Additionally, power consumption results are all over the board. Some reviews had PD pulling lower wattage, others (like mine) had it pulling higher; so there is a variation between chips - those that took additional voltage to meet the stock frequency requirements and those that took less. I've seen 15%+ power consumption and 15% less. It's very chip-dependent. Mine looks to be one of the highest leakage CPUs out there. I re-tested because it didn't seem right to me. Twice. That's the number the kill-a-watt tells me the system is pulling. :shrug:
 
processors like this would take off so much better if games actually started fully utilizing all cores available.


So true, if only 95% of the game developers did not have to make the games run on the out dated consoles before they port them to the more powerful PC :/
 
That's very subjective. There are lots of games where running multiple AI instances simultaneously that might interact with each other independently from the player could greatly enhance gameplay. It could also hugely improve replay value, if the AIs are random enough to create significantly different situations during each game. Sure, it can all be done through sequential scripts, but that's boring. I want to see NPCs running around on their own, changing reputation levels with each other, random towns starting feuds with each other when one NPC gets lost in the other town while travelling and has to steal food, etc. Scripted worlds get boring.

He tested the only 2 games i even know of that are supposed to support more than 2 cores fully.. not sure what else to tell you here? 2 cores performed the same as 4 and 6 and the only tests that were slower were the single and single +ht test.

linus is in the market of selling hardware so i doubt the guy would lie about it as its not in his interest to do such a thing.
 
It annoys the crap out of me when people like that tell you a 2 core i3 is all you need for a high end gaming rig, its completely the wrong information.

There are a couple of threads on ocUK where overclocked 2500K's are clearly bottlenecking SLi'd GTX 680's in BF3, and in a big way... i do remember a couple of other people complaining about i3's running at 90% with lesser single GPU's.... so i wouldn't trust an i3 on anything more than a GTX 560.

The Frostbite 2 engine likes threads, the more the better, and if anything more not less engines are going to be like that in the future.

But just having 4 cores is not any reason for me not to buy the i5 as 4 is enough, it just makes my system monitor gadget look empty.
maybe you missed the part where he said higher performance processors make a difference but the core count doesn't seem to be doing anything.

and he tested on bf3 aka fb2 engine.
 
He tested the only 2 games i even know of that are supposed to support more than 2 cores fully.. not sure what else to tell you here? 2 cores performed the same as 4 and 6 and the only tests that were slower were the single and single +ht test.

Somebody tested all both of them? I'm pretty sure "two" is nowhere close to a representative sample of anything worth sampling.

I don't care how many current games don't use multiple threads. I only care that some developers aren't idiots and are actually making use of multiple cores, and that there are lots of opportunities for multi-core stuff in games that may or may not be implemented yet.
 
Somebody tested all both of them? I'm pretty sure "two" is nowhere close to a representative sample of anything worth sampling.

I don't care how many current games don't use multiple threads. I only care that some developers aren't idiots and are actually making use of multiple cores, and that there are lots of opportunities for multi-core stuff in games that may or may not be implemented yet.

What i'm trying to say is those are the only 2 games that i know of that state use multi core benefits "more than 2" and they saw no real world benefit from it in their tests..

And your correct they aren't implemented yet.

That's not my point my point was the reason this processor being reviewed is most likely getting trounced in games is because it doesn't receive benefit from having 8 cores.
 
maybe you missed the part where he said higher performance processors make a difference but the core count doesn't seem to be doing anything.

and he tested on bf3 aka fb2 engine.

I did, i don't think he tested that right because my own tests tell a different story.

4 Cores at 4.2Ghz

#1 78%
#2 82%
#3 89%
#4 60%

x4 @ 4.2Ghz = 61%


6 Cores at 3.2Ghz (1Ghz lower)

#1 85%
#2 75%
#3 53%
#4 44%
#5 84%
#6 46%

x6 @ 3.2Ghz = 56%

http://abundantcores.blogspot.co.uk/p/a-cpu-can-bottleneck-and-gpu-in-gaming.html
 
Last edited:
I did, i don't think he tested that right because my own tests tell a different story.

4 Cores at 4.2Ghz

#1 78%
#2 82%
#3 89%
#4 60%

x4 @ 4.2Ghz = 61%


6 Cores at 3.2Ghz (1Ghz lower)

#1 85%
#2 75%
#3 53%
#4 44%
#5 84%
#6 46%

x6 @ 3.2Ghz = 56%

http://abundantcores.blogspot.co.uk/p/a-cpu-can-bottleneck-and-gpu-in-gaming.html

That does not prove your point, you need to run the same CPU clock speed and disable cores from 6-4-2 and mesure FPS or GPU load.

It's all about clock speed not load with CPU unless your using a 100% load and load over 100% with the CPU.
 
That does not prove your point, you need to run the same CPU clock speed and disable cores from 6-4-2 and mesure FPS or GPU load.

It's all about clock speed not load with CPU unless your using a 100% load and load over 100% with the CPU.


Admitidly this is not why i did that testing, but what you talk about is already there.

4 Cores at a higher clock resulted in higher usage than 6 cores at a lower clock.

But for this purpose i will do it more precisely, its not going to be done over night tho... need a little time to do it.
 
Not sure why you're worried Frakk. These new chips look like a great buy.... Finally something better than my old Thuban was....

EDIT: WOOT! They're in stock here in Australia.... I'm buying one as soon as my next pay comes in next week!
 
Last edited:
Admitidly this is not why i did that testing, but what you talk about is already there.

4 Cores at a higher clock resulted in higher usage than 6 cores at a lower clock.

But for this purpose i will do it more precisely, its not going to be done over night tho... need a little time to do it.
sorry frakk, wingman us spot on. To properly test it needs to have the same clocks, just drop cores. ;)
 
Not sure why you're worried Frakk. These new chips look like a great buy.... Finally something better than my old Thuban was....

EDIT: WOOT! They're in stock here in Australia.... I'm buying one as soon as my next pay comes in next week!


More mainstream games at real resolution are starting to come to light (games other than World of warcraft @ 1280 x 720 :sly:)
It looks like its doing quite well against the i7 3770K, so yeah. its looking like a much better chip :)
 
That does not prove your point, you need to run the same CPU clock speed and disable cores from 6-4-2 and mesure FPS or GPU load.

It's all about clock speed not load with CPU unless your using a 100% load and load over 100% with the CPU.

sorry frakk, wingman us spot on. To properly test it needs to have the same clocks, just drop cores. ;)


Ok, i ran the tests again, this time as wingman99 suggested :)

BF3 Ultra Preset @ 1920 x 1080P

Phenom II @ 1.2Ghz

2 Cores; GPU usage = 27% / CPU usage = 99.8% / FPS = 31

picture.php



4 Cores; GPU usage = 76% / CPU usage = 91.1% / FPS = 47

picture.php


6 Cores; GPU usage = 95% / CPU usage = 72.6% / FPS = 70

picture.php



BF3 quite clearly responds to how many cores you have. :)
 
Frakk ran at 1.2GHz so that the CPU utilization difference would be more clear, and the GPU utilization difference was more pronounced. He was demonstrating that the utilization changed depending on how many cores were enabled.

Frostbite 2 is the BF3 engine, and it supports up to 8 cores. Not many games use FB2 yet, but here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine)#Games_using_Frostbite

With all that in mind, I think his results show BF3 in his setup is pretty GPU limited on BF3, as with only 6 cores running at 1.2GHz, the GPU is maxed out while the CPU has extra cycles sitting around.
 
Last edited:
I may need to put my purchase off for a buy, just bought a cr@pload of pro audio equipment...... Not sure weather to put a happy smiley after that comment due to the equipment, or an unhappy one since now I can't buy the new CPU.... :shrug:

Hmmm, BF3 shows that at least games are starting to go in the right direction. About time!
 
Back