FX8350 and similar OctoCores. Whats the advantage nowadays?

[Fugu]

So everything in benchmarks and overclocks as well as badass gaming builds points towards Intel and it's latest X99 platform as well as the Z97 and how powerful these setups are but the price really starts getting up there when you plug in a stick of DDR4 ram or want a 2011v3 socketed Intel chip at near $600.00 cdn. So i'm asking what is the validity in our 8 core AMD chips and do we even have a leg to stand on in any "performance gaming" conversation anymore? It seems that when I open my mouth about owning an 8350fx (in which I documented my OC on this very forum) I get the , "why don't you just get an I5 or an I7 and get away from AMD, they suck." answer. I usually reply with the 8 cores for more multitasking and easy to overclock, inexpensive ect, which is true! Based even on local prices to do an i7 upgrade it's 2x the price of my current home PC and really my performance will only go up on single threaded applications and just a touch more when it does come to gaming if i'm correct.
I'm hoping that i'm naive but i'm not seeing any true advantages to having 8 cores right now. Whats in our future with 8 core compatibility? What's AMD's future on Gaming PC's or should I be tucking pennies away to get into the X99 gaming setup?

-Our AM3+ Socket only really has a dozen or less Motherboards to choose from.
-I can't find any information on upcoming AMD tech (following CES 2015 and AMD.com website)
-What programs/games benefit the best from multi core processing
-where is the True Audio stuff and GCN benifiting games?
-We have the world record in the 8350 for OC but thats not helping us.

My Beast for fun!

 

[Johan45]

Nice looking rig Fugu
The FX really shine in multithread apps like video rendering, They're a real work horse. More and more software is stating to take advantage of many threaded CPU's and OSes are getting better at directing them. It all takes time. I have AMD and Intel stuff and honestly for day to day and current games that need some GPU horsepower you're not going to see much difference.
As for the future, there isn't much out there but speculation since even AMD has said 2016 before any new "enthusiast" CPU from them. It'll most likely have and APU and new socket to go with it so the AM3+ will eventually be put to rest. Just my opinion. Here's a neat thread that someone at OCN is putting together. It's worth a read. It's his "realworld" comparison of an 8350 and a 4790. http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user

 

[Alaric]

I went AMD because I won't buy Intel. I also saved money , have more fun OCing , and I'm not likely to notice any difference gaming. And I won't buy Intel. Ever. They lost me with their compiler tricks.

 

[Mag10]

Honestly the only real differences that I can tell (without having both in front of me) is that AMD draws more power overall which accounts to (depending on model and voltage) around $15-20 USD more per 12 month period. This also makes the room more toasty. The other difference is that Intel's individual cores on a given I series CPU are 25-50% more powerful in terms of performance vs AMD. However, with AMD providing more cores with less raw power gives rise to better multitasking for AMD. And lastly of course is the cost, my 8320 can keep up with the likes of the 8350/4670/90K with some minor overclocking(in my case) but the cost difference for a given middle tier mobo+CPU is around $90-200 cheaper for roughly similar performance over a variety of applications and not just games.

Sure, you may receive (at stock) 10-15% less performance vs Intel, but are you really going to miss a few extra FPS in your favorite game? That is of course unless you average 30-40 FPS already with a given setup, game, resolution, and VRAM. Unless you are willing to relinquish settings for a better FPS or invest into a new GPU I seriously doubt changing a CPU would help THAT much, outside of fated hardware. I myself only upgrade(core components) every 2-4 years after a new build has been compiled, and I find myself over that past 10 years to stick with AMD. That's not to say I have not owned Intel.

Just some thoughts from my experiences.

 

[Woomack]

General performance of AMD isn't bad but I had enough of random performance drops in online games what I never see on Intel ( even lower series ). I had the same on A8 [email protected] and FX8120/[email protected]. Point is that when I'm playing games then I don't care if I can see 200FPS+ and average of 150+ when from time to time I see 0-5 FPS. My next CPU after [email protected] was i3 [email protected] and I had no issues at all ( the same system etc. not even reinstalled drivers ). I don't care if games which I play are optimized for Intel or AMD, it simply shouldn't happen.

Whatever you do, performance on AMD is lower than on Intel setup in similar price but you won't see it unless you actually test it yourself. Most AMD users don't have Intel to compare it and they read various ( usually pretty bad ) articles in the web. AMD even lowered FX series from enthusiast to mid-grade line. There is no high end/enthusiast AMD series nowadays and you simply can't compare it directly with Intel's i7.

When Intel had Sandy Bridge then AMD had FX. When Intel had Ivy Bridge ( 10-15% faster than SB ) then AMD had FX. When Intel moved to Haswell ( 10-15% faster than IB ) then AMD had the same old FX. Recently Intel released Haswell refresh and X99 platform ( 0-30% faster ) while AMD still has the same, barely faster FX CPUs. 3 years on the market with the same, old and slow technology and still so many people say it's great stuff and better than Intel. FX was slow when it was released ( actually slower clock to clock than Phenoms ) so how can it be fast right now when they generally only raised clock and wattage. CPU clock is not the only factor which is improving system performance but in this case AMD has no other strong point. Large but slow cache, really slow memory controller etc.

 

[Dr. McCoy]

My thoughts about it are well, if you're happy with what you have and it's doing what you expect from it, why change?

My 2 cents might not be worth much but I'll say what's on my mind about it anyway.
Might be wrong, maybe not but here it is.

Intel has the lead on gaming performance, that's not in question.
Intel excels due to it's single threaded efficiency and some games even now do not utilize extra cores but that trend is quickly coming to an end. Speaking of FPS, the human eye can only tell so much beyond a given FPS, if memory serves me correctly the eye can only distinguish a difference in graphics up to around 120FPS, anything beyond that is just to get more FPS for benchmarking. As long as grapical slowdowns are not taking place, regardless of what you are running the system is doing it's job - But of course we know they do.

AMD's can struggle to maintain a smooth FPS with scenes/backgrounds/ect that make the CPU/GPU really have to work, that's when the advantage of an Intel makes it's mark with better FPS under these conditions.

However AMD's do have the multicore advantage - AMD's have long been known to be literal workhorses when the need for extra cores comes up and that's why many servers have them, they simply do the job asked of them. Intels can multitask as well and the latest chips can hold their own but AMD can still outperform them in this regard - But only in this regard, all else is where Intel wins out.

As for gaming, I'd still have to say even with multicore useage Intels wins since the work it must do for gaming is of a different nature than for office work. With an Intel's ability to hold more consistent framerates even if multitasking to make the game run, it's simply better for that use. If you need it to do some flatout heavy number crunching, the Octacore AMD's are the chips for the job.

Going back to my opening statement, my AMD's still do what I want them to do and that includes gaming, I don't have the need for a bazillion FPS in games - As long as gameplay is smooth I'm good with it.
I do have an few Intels as well but those are used for benchmarking only and as an FYI, I don't do alot of gaming so that use isn't very important to me personally but I do have the hardware (2600K and a 3770K) if I ever decide to do a gaming based build.

Maybe one day I'll set one up for a daily driver/gamer but ATM my little AMD X2 270 with my CHV is getting the job done with no issues or complaints from me.

 

[Woomack]

However AMD's do have the multicore advantage - AMD's have long been known to be literal workhorses when the need for extra cores comes up and that's why many servers have them, they simply do the job asked of them. Intels can multitask as well and the latest chips can hold their own but AMD can still outperform them in this regard - But only in this regard, all else is where Intel wins out.

It actually ended some time ago. I remember when IBM was keeping one AMD server line because of higher performance in some environments but not anymore. I was on IBM trainings where they were explaining how it works ( back in 2007/2008 ). Right now AMD is losing even there but is adding cores from time to time to keep it running ( what we can't see on the desktop market ). To make the same work AMD needs more cores/threads and even though it's much cheaper then business clients trust Intel much more. AMD CPUs with 2x more threads than Intel cost about the same but are not 2x faster. Still there there can be that multicore advantage.

Officially barely any server manufacturer is offering AMD servers "from the shelf". There are single series but it's really low % of all market. In Polish distribution I can't find even 1 AMD server available from warehouse or quick order and we have one of the biggest markets in central EU ( some distributors are international ).
AMD is mainly available for individual order just because barely anyone is buying AMD for business and distribution is not buying it on stock.

 

[Dr. McCoy]

Thanks for the info - Too bad AMD has lost ground there as well.
I knew Intel would either catchup soon or had already managed to do it by now. With AMD's shift in focus more towards the APU/ARM market, could be one day AMD won't even bother with PC type chips anymore and we'd only have Intel or nothing.

That's when the reality about Intel having a literal monopoly will hit and we'll all feel it in the pocketbook.

 

[RGone]

That's when the reality about Intel having a literal monopoly will hit and we'll all feel it in the pocketbook.

It is said you can put a frog in a pan of water and 'then' turn on the fire below the pan and bring it to a boil and cook the frog and he will never jump out. Heating up is gradual.
RGone...ster.

 

[boanerges57]

Ive got an 8320 running at 3.8ghz (stock cooler due to mounting issue with my nicer air cooler and also radiators - my case is too skinny) and if I run passmark it actually does very well. The floating point score is better than many i7s and the 6 core i7 only beats it by 12% in integer math and 36% in floating point math.... thats a 12 thread @3.3ghz beast with a very good IPC rate.

currently the 5820k is $389 while the 8320 is $149. The 5820k needs fairly costly ram and a fairly costly motherboard on top of that.

given the gaming performance i get i am quite happy with it. i was looking into a new intel build but $/performance just isnt there. If I wanted pure performance the intel is the only viable route. AMD have a lot of catching up to do in IPC and power consumption on the FX line but the chips can often overclock enough to make up for the poor IPC and they definitely out perform equally priced intel chips; they just dont even show up for the fight at the top end.

 

[Hicksimus]

Whenever somebody asks a question like this things seem to derail into a discussion of $600 Intel versus $150 AMD or links to really weird comparisons where each chip is paired with a completely different GPU playing a handpicked set of games. I'm going to take the realistic approach.

Having owned an [email protected] for a short period and a [email protected] which both rang in around the same price at the time...well, sort of...the 8350 came out more expensive by needing an $85 cooler versus a $25 cooler and a $180 mobo instead of a $150 mobo....and a 700w PSU instead of a 500w. You see where this is going. Next up, performance. Could I tell which processor I was using in daily desktop activities? Generally no, I found the 8350 slightly faster in some video work but in google chrome on a page with a huge number of pictures I saw better responsiveness with my 3570k...power draw wasn't so bad for either, I'd call it a draw. Gaming is what set them apart for me. When I launch a game(of about 300 that I own, 251 on steam alone) I want a great experience, or put another way, I want a uniform experience. Only my 3570k could offer this. As an easy example, Planetside 2 in a large fight could bring me to 20-25FPS on the 8350 or 45-60fps on the 3570k before they started working on that game to make it work on the PS4. On that topic, I'm sure that in most cases the 8350 could offer a similar experience IF developers took the time to utilize it properly but they are business ventures and at the time I owned one there were no 8-core consoles to influence their optimization. Perhaps now that those consoles are here we'll see a chance for the AMD octo-core to offer serious value. As I write this an 8350 in Canada is about $200 and a 4690k is $260 so if I had to build right now I'd be on the 4690k because it'd be just like what I described above in terms of cost.

With all that said there is still the charm of owning AMD and many games run just fine especially if your goal is 60FPS. I'll be building another one soon just to see how octo-core console development benefits it and maybe if it starts outpacing my 3570k I'll grab a 5820k to see if the costs bring the benefits...as for now, why compare a 6 or 8 core Intel to an 8 core AMD for gaming when a 4 core smokes it on occasion for less money?

 

[Mandrake4565]

Whenever somebody asks a question like this things seem to derail into a discussion of $600 Intel versus $150 AMD or links to really weird comparisons where each chip is paired with a completely different GPU playing a handpicked set of games. I'm going to take the realistic approach.

Having owned an [email protected] for a short period and a [email protected] which both rang in around the same price at the time...well, sort of...the 8350 came out more expensive by needing an $85 cooler versus a $25 cooler and a $180 mobo instead of a $150 mobo....and a 700w PSU instead of a 500w. You see where this is going. Next up, performance. Could I tell which processor I was using in daily desktop activities? Generally no, I found the 8350 slightly faster in some video work but in google chrome on a page with a huge number of pictures I saw better responsiveness with my 3570k...power draw wasn't so bad for either, I'd call it a draw. Gaming is what set them apart for me. When I launch a game(of about 300 that I own, 251 on steam alone) I want a great experience, or put another way, I want a uniform experience. Only my 3570k could offer this. As an easy example, Planetside 2 in a large fight could bring me to 20-25FPS on the 8350 or 45-60fps on the 3570k before they started working on that game to make it work on the PS4. On that topic, I'm sure that in most cases the 8350 could offer a similar experience IF developers took the time to utilize it properly but they are business ventures and at the time I owned one there were no 8-core consoles to influence their optimization. Perhaps now that those consoles are here we'll see a chance for the AMD octo-core to offer serious value. As I write this an 8350 in Canada is about $200 and a 4690k is $260 so if I had to build right now I'd be on the 4690k because it'd be just like what I described above in terms of cost.

With all that said there is still the charm of owning AMD and I'll be building another one soon just to see how octo-core console development benefits it.

Hicksimus, I have to say I do not see many non biased comments on this subject and I thought yours was a spot on point. I also own both Intel and AMD, my two top tier are in my signature. I also have a 955be which I run daily as well as a I-5 2500k. That said your point on the AMD Fx 8xxx being more expensive is right on the money. Yes you can save a bit with the Cpu but if you want to run it well and or overclock it you need a stout motherboard and also upper tier cooling. I also game on both my top tier setups though I mainly play Gpu bound games. Therefore, I do not see much difference in my gaming experience between the two. Though, your example with Planetside 2 which I believe is more heavily demanding of the Cpu is also accurate. I find it unfortunate that there is little competition in the Cpu market as we speak because it gives no reason for Intel to really put out something spectacular either.

One thing I can say about my AMD setups when it pertains to Benching and Overclocking is, I find them to be more fun to Oc. There are more buttons and knobs to twist with the AMD setups as opposed to the later Intel setups. I also find my Intel chips to be a bit more delicate then the AMD's when really pushed.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

The overclockability and sport of AMD FX processors are still fully functional being able to change reference clock. This in turn ocs the entire system. A feature Intel did away with. No fine tuning with Intel except maybe like 5 reference clock average stable.

So really AMD FX is great for overclocking enthusiasts.

Comparing processing power between Intel and AMD is an age old discussion and beat to death. Intel processes better as the move forward with desktop performance processing vs AMD now more involved with APU more so now then ever.

Amd plans to mix x86 with Arm for hybrid processing. That is what AMD is spending their time on and hopefully something powerful can come of it, but very doubtful.

 

[Woomack]

New AMD in rankings looks more like: set max CPU ratio + 2V + LN2 and get your result. Even though there is wide range of FSB frequency then it's not really helping in performance and barely anyone is using it for fine tuning in OC sports.
Actually in similar way all are using Intel. Those who are using bclk/fsb adjustments can use +/- ~7MHz from each strap what gives ~93-107MHz, ~118-132MHz and ~160-174MHz ( or even higher as on X79 I could run at 180+MHz ). On AMD you won't really use much past 300MHz so available frequency is only between 200-300MHz, not so much more than on Intel. Other thing is that on AMD you can change that 100MHz+ clock but really it's mainly for your own satisfaction as performance is not really changing. Fine tuning for what ? Memory clock ? It's not scalling much past 1866 so what's the point, HT is not affecting performance and CPU-NB hits a wall at 2600MHz+. If you have black series CPU then only CPU ratio has some point.
If you use high density memory then higher FSB won't even run stable in some configurations. I wasn't able to make couple of 2x8GB sets run at more than 225MHz FSB. Memory fun is available mainly for low density ( read old ) memory.

For me Intel is much more fun because I can change many settings that are actually affecting performance and memory overclocking has some point. On AMD you use any available ( new ) memory kit and you hit max memory bandwidth without even trying much.

FSB adjustment is helping mainly all those who have locked CPU ratio. All those who are thinking about overclocking are buying Black series CPUs and AMD has many of them so it's not an issue. Bigger problem have Intel users with lower budget as only Pentium G3258 is in low price. Everything else up to K series i5 is locked and even though has good performance then bclk won't run much higher than 103MHz and higher straps are locked too. Still can use memory ratios up to x29.33 and it's even working but it's kinda pointless when you can't overclock CPU.

AMD FX are fun for OC when you know where to find that fun ( and have LN2 ). However most users find it frustrating in big part because of problems with cooling. AMD is simply for people who "know how".

Once again, I don't hate AMD, I just comment what I see and I would be happy to get new AMD rig if it was worth it. I'm not expecting anything really fast but at least interesting. There is nothing interesting in a 3 year old+ platform, however Kabini was fun for couple of days.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Woomack, I really beg to differ.

To increase performance, you overclock. And you increase performance more (even if a little bit as your saying) if you OC the entire system.

HT is not affecting performance and CPU-NB hits a wall at 2600MHz+

Umm wall?? Since when? FX stock is HT 2600mhz effective clock. The NB should EASILY run 2600mhz. Try increasing chipset voltage WITH the CPU/NB voltage, then you should be able to run 3ghz on the NB no problem.

AMD FX are fun for OC when you know where to find that fun ( and have LN2 ). However most users find it frustrating in big part because of problems with cooling. AMD is simply for people who "know how".

SO much to say in return to this one statement.

FX is fun to OC period. You do not need LN2. Basically it's more challenging. And if you don't like a challenge, then ya you get the OC only overclock with cpu performance gain only... But why??

Frustrating because of lack of research. How many times through the years have guys like you and I gone through the saying "you should have asked first" just as I did while inquiring about the best board to use for LN2 and a 9590 to try and join the 8ghz club. BTW I'm only 800mhz shy of this on a M5AMX L plus or w/e the part number was basically a POS board for LN2 but was able to pump nearly 1.2v with it and a 4+1 power phase. This time, trying to do it right instead of cheap.

Know how comes with practice. RGone may call this wisdom as every piece of HW is different.

But if your interested in OCing a i7 to 5 ghz and beyond.... you'll find the same problem being frustrated with cooling. I know because my 3770K was hot as hell at 1.5125v and 5ghz. daily? ya sure. stable? stable enough?

But really for some one in need of seeing a frame rate higher than the visible eye can read the number.... then yes you buy into Intel. There is no doubt. Intel is superior. But heck man, some games run better on NV cards and some run better on AMD cards (VGA).

So I suppose people should try all walks of life if to make this a hobby.

 

[EarthDog]

So I suppose people should try all walks of life if to make this a hobby.

Some people love American muscle, some love imports. It is what it is.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Some people love American muscle, some love imports. It is what it is.

Indeed.

Perfectly happy with 325cui and 350cui small blocks in my trucks.

 

[EarthDog]

And my old boosted b16a2 will walk them both.

(No idea what you have, just having fun!)

 

[ShrimpBrime]

This may be true for the 03 suburban with the 289HP LT motor. Just because the dang thing is one heavy beast.... The 95' regular pickup shortbed on the other hand has only 190HP with 5.7L and roughly 325 foot pounds of torque around 3200rpm. 3:73 rear end makes this fuel economical at a little over 20 mpg if you drive like gramps on OD all the time. But when swapped with a 4:11 rear end, no changes to the motor, it just goes like hell!!

(Nothing special, just stock trucks over here. No mods other than advancing timing 1 deg on the ol 95' )

 

[Woomack]

Woomack, I really beg to differ.

To increase performance, you overclock. And you increase performance more (even if a little bit as your saying) if you OC the entire system.

Umm wall?? Since when? FX stock is HT 2600mhz effective clock. The NB should EASILY run 2600mhz. Try increasing chipset voltage WITH the CPU/NB voltage, then you should be able to run 3ghz on the NB no problem.

Somehow it was never looking like that when I was testing AMD FX. HT can go even up to 4000MHz but it's not affecting performance so barely anyone is setting it much higher than stock ( or equal to CPU-NB ). CPU-NB on most chips won't run much above 2600MHz. 2600-2800MHz are the most popular clocks for longer tests. Good samples will make 3000+ but at higher voltages and usually good cooling. 3000+ CPU-NB was easily running on Phenoms, not so much on FX.
CPU-NB clock is what affects memory/memory controller performance but it's not overclocking high so performance gain is also not so much visible.

SO much to say in return to this one statement.

FX is fun to OC period. You do not need LN2. Basically it's more challenging. And if you don't like a challenge, then ya you get the OC only overclock with cpu performance gain only... But why??

Frustrating because of lack of research. How many times through the years have guys like you and I gone through the saying "you should have asked first" just as I did while inquiring about the best board to use for LN2 and a 9590 to try and join the 8ghz club. BTW I'm only 800mhz shy of this on a M5AMX L plus or w/e the part number was basically a POS board for LN2 but was able to pump nearly 1.2v with it and a 4+1 power phase. This time, trying to do it right instead of cheap.

It's fun but not for long. If you get FX CPU from higher series then it won't overclock much higher without high voltages and good cooling. Most users have no access to LN2 so they OC 300-400MHz and nothing more. It's frustrating for many users who are buying this platform reading various comments and later ask for help on the forums like our AMD section. You probably see how many threads are there with various issues about AMD FX/APU and overclocking due to motherboard or overheating issues. So yes, it's fun as long as you have best motherboard and you actually know what are you doing.

I've learned not to buy cheaper 990FX board in the hard way. Burned 2x 990FX-UD5 and 3rd had dead BIOS. After 3rd RMA I just sold it but before that I also made couple of guides for Gigabyte forums how to solve RAID issues and some other things. I didn't want to risk another bad board so I paid some more and I got CHV which was actually one of the best boards I had. At the beginning were issues with BIOS and RAID was slow but some users made BIOS with MSI ROM which solved everything.
So why I sold AMD ?
- it was too hot for my daily rig and too slow for benching, I also have no good LN2 access to test it at high clocks
- I hit a wall on memory clock and bandwidth, it didn't like some new memory sticks so I had to make tests only on Intel - AMD was collecting dust
- is bad for memory comparison, simply every higher clocked kits have to be downclocked to keep stability and then most of them perform almost the same because of IMC limits
- I got a good deal for CPU+mobo when it was still worth something ( Polish market of used hardware is really hard )

Know how comes with practice. RGone may call this wisdom as every piece of HW is different.

But if your interested in OCing a i7 to 5 ghz and beyond.... you'll find the same problem being frustrated with cooling. I know because my 3770K was hot as hell at 1.5125v and 5ghz. daily? ya sure. stable? stable enough?

But really for some one in need of seeing a frame rate higher than the visible eye can read the number.... then yes you buy into Intel. There is no doubt. Intel is superior. But heck man, some games run better on NV cards and some run better on AMD cards (VGA).

So I suppose people should try all walks of life if to make this a hobby.

The main difference is that with lower MHz gain you get higher performance gain on Intel. You don't really need 5GHz for a daily rig when everything is working fine on ~4GHz. On AMD FX I had to overclock CPU only to play couple of more demanding games without visible lag and I really saw the difference overclocking these CPUs. For me it's just not right that you have to overclock "high performance" CPU only to play not even new games.
To have any descent performance on FX8120/8320 I had to run them @4.2GHz+. At the beginning it was giving me about the same performance as i7 950/Xeon X5550 @3.8GHz which was generating less heat. Some time later I back to AMD and I got APU A8 6600K. To make it perform good I had to set it to 4.5GHz. This was quite good chip which was running 24/7 @4.7GHz ~1.38V so not much above stock. Still I could easily replace it with i3 [email protected] keeping about the same performance in everything I was using.

Most FX users can't really run these CPUs at 5GHz. In most cases they stuck at about 4.2-4.5GHz. Every new unlocked Intel can make 4.5GHz stable without need of any special cooling.
I also can't get why so many Intel users need 4.5GHz+ for their daily rig ... to browse web, watch movies, play games ( not really so much demanding as most base on gfx power nowadays ) ...
Haswells are getting hot after OC but to perform as good as AMD you don't have to set anything above stock voltage and can use even simple motherboards.

I agree that overclockers should test all platforms, not only stick to one side and spread comments that other brand ( which they don't have and never tested ) is worse etc. Afterall it's all about playing with various settings and benchmarking. What's the fun to test over and over the same stuff.

btw. in Poland barely anyone loves American muscle because of fuel prices where 80% is tax Recently fuel prices on international market dropped by about 50%, in Poland we see about 10% drop and government already thinks to add one more tax.