clone wrote:agreed but if you bought an FX 8350 you'd still be able to game on it and to be honest if gaming was the main concern then FX 6300 and i3 should be at the top of the list not FX 8xxx or i5 or i7.Concupiscence wrote:I wouldn't get an FX-8350 if gaming were my primary concern
Concupiscence wrote:From the benchmarks I've seen it's at least on par with my Lynnfield i5 750 for those [gaming] purposes
Concupiscence wrote:...Most games just don't scale gracefully to more than four cores...
Jason181 wrote:Concupiscence wrote:...Most games just don't scale gracefully to more than four cores...
This actually helps AMD since it only has four relatively weak FPUs, whereas the Intel has four strong FPUs and enough headroom in them to make hyperthreading perform above par for a lot of fpu-intensive loads.
The real issue for hardcore gamers is two-fold: Maximum frame latencies and overclocking. SB And IB overclock very, very well and already have lower maximum frame latencies almost across the board.
Someone mentioned that anything 60 fps or above is a "pass," but I think 99th percentile below 16.7 ms is more desirable (as well as much harder to achieve). I personally will take all the fps I can get; I too have a 120 hz monitor, and it needs to be fed!
Concupiscence wrote:Is there a good reference guide to the Bulldozer / Piledriver FPU design?
Concupiscence wrote:I heard its SIMD execution was 256 bits wide and not bad, other than the fact that it's 16 stages deep... which, clock for clock, still puts Piledriver miles ahead of the Prescott monstrosities of yore.
Bensam123 wrote:There is no mention of power consumption, which is great IMO. That issue seems to be hugely blown out of proportion and never put into context that is applicable to most users. The only place power consumption matters is in mobile applications where you rely on battery life or server farms. $40 can buy you a lot of power in most places. It's all about the $/performance.
flip-mode wrote:maxxcool wrote:like a boss.
And yeah, people often seem not to notice the i5s below the 3570.
Bensam123 wrote:I don't think a PSU or a larger cooler is as much of a problem as people make it out to be. I know TR has listed that a few times, but really almost all modern heatsinks can dissipate the 130w TDP of a 8350. Unless you're OCing, but that throws any sort of power efficiency lead out the window for IB due to leaky transistors. I mean you can still use a stock heatsink with a 8350... that in itself tells you how little that means.
If a extra 50w throws your PSU into a tantrum I'm pretty sure it has more problems then your processor. You could tack on other frivolous things justify buying a chip with lower power consumption like noise of said cooler, the cost of heating a house you cool with AC in the summer (which works inversely in the winter), another way of differentiating the results (it's really all it amounts to).
Good! Now go play some Crysis 3! Apparently it absolutely loves your FX 8350 too.
AMD64Blondie wrote:Although this is an AMD vs AMD price comparison.. back in August 2005 I paid $405 shipped for a brand-new AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800.
In November 2011 I paid $270 shipped for a brand-new AMD FX-8150.
(i had a few other AMD CPUs between those 2..a Phenom 9500,Phenom 9950Phenom II X4 955,and finally a Phenom II X6 1090T before the FX-8150.)
Amazing how far CPUs had progressed in 6 1/2 years.
(Hard to believe that it was 6 1/2 years between buying those 2 CPUs.)
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests