# AMD Working on Cost-Effective FX-8300 Eight-Core Processor with 95W TDP



## btarunr (Nov 6, 2012)

It looks like the flagship FX-8350 and next-best FX-8320 won't be the only FX "Vishera" eight-core chips from AMD, despite the fact that the two occupy low price points of US $194 and $164, respectively. A new model called the FX-8300 surfaced on CPU support lists of a certain motherboard vendor, which reveals quite a bit about it. To begin with, the FX-8300 (model: FD8300WMW8KHK) features nominal core clock speed of 3.20 GHz, with TurboCore frequency of around 3.60 GHz. Its clock speed may be the lowest among its peers, but that results in a significant drop in rated TDP. The new eight-core chip has a rated TDP of 95W, down from 125W of the FX-8320 and FX-8350. It is based on the same C0-stepping silicon as the other models. Socket AM3+ motherboards with AGESA micro-code 1.5 should be able to support it. As for pricing, we expect its 95W TDP to serve as a selling point, and don't expect it to be much cheaper than the 125W FX-8320.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## NC37 (Nov 6, 2012)

Hopefully clocks as well as it's bigger 125w brothers. Will be neat to see once this launches.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 6, 2012)

It features unlocked multiplier. For $160-ish, you can unlock it to match the performance of a Core i7-2600K.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 6, 2012)

AMD definitely has some nice budget oriented offerings.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 6, 2012)

8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm

Edit:

This was meant as a funny comment, but everybody took it so seriously, so personally. I have nothing against AMD or like Intel (on the contrary). But if you check some reviews, mostly for games, the performance is a little better, or on pair with an i3, but definitely bellow any i5. That's it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



uh what, its definitely faster then a Intel i3 lol!


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



Make a workstation with a 8 core vs 2 core and see who win? dont troll allover only why intel is faster ,you have to see first the budget than one people have and what  you can get for the price.
Spend money for looks cool and follow what the benchmarks show when you can save money for other things is nonsense than spend for the same thing and obtain a good working machine.
If you put amd vs intel in single thread programs intel works better but after you in a game have 60 + fps where you have to go? make the cool guy in front of the world?


----------



## HammerON (Nov 6, 2012)

Interesting CPU for the price...
Haven't had a AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 FX-55.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



omg, this is so lol statement, epic win dude 

--
i haven't seen any newest amd's vishera in my local electronic retail shop since its released


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



Why are you being so patronising. Have you read the reviews? 

The 4 core piledriver pisses on the i3 in 90% of benchmarks and when it doesn't piss ontop of it, it performs about the same!

The 6 core and 8 core are in a different league.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



Troll alert!

Maybe on single-threaded tasks at stock speeds in 10% of those cases. Oh wait, the i3 doesn't overclock worth crap.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Nov 6, 2012)

Hopefully it's less power hungry at higher clocks than the current pile driver chips!:shadedshu


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 6, 2012)

a111087 said:


> http://www.globalmotorbikes.com/forums/image.php?u=4633&dateline=1343429863
> 
> http://i.qkme.me/367ke7.jpg
> 
> ...



Enjoying yourself?? 


ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

In fairness, while FX8>i3 overall, I think games will be unplayable on this chip before they're unplayable on an IB i3.

Support for SMP in games is just advancing too slowly.

And the power efficiency advantage will still be way in Intel's favour, given that their 95W platforms use a lot more power than Intel's 95W platforms do, and the i5-3550P is 69W iirc.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> ok, ok, but still no faster than the latest i5. This can be easily checked by "googleing ...



What are you talking about?

With the exception of a few single threaded games the Piledriver 8-core is consistantly as fast or faster than the i5 3xxx the majority of tasks. 

In some tasks it wipes the floor with the i7 3xxx.



blibba said:


> In fairness, I think games will be unplayable on this chip before they're unplayable on an IB i3.
> 
> Support for SMP in games is just advancing too slowly.



Doubt it. Although Piledriver is weakest in gaming, the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in  single threading gaming already. So even if SMP is moving slowly the i3 is already at a disadvantage as it's losing or performing about the same in games.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in  single threading gaming already.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 6, 2012)

Single core performance is what matters. Multi-core is so 90s.  It doesn't matter even if you put 1000 in a cores because software never catches up. Fast single cores are the future.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

blibba said:


> http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e316/blibba/skyrim-99th.gif



Ok I'm wrong. One benchmark from one website is the determining factor.

Win Skyrim and its a open and shut case.

Look at a wide spectrum of games and you'll see what I say is true.



hardcore_gamer said:


> Single core performance is what matters. Multi-core is so 90s.  It doesn't matter even if you put 1000 in a cores because software never catches up. Fast single cores are the future.



Then if multi core performance doesnt matter why does the Piledriver FX own the i5 4 core in encoding and rendering 

It's ok  hardcore_gamer, I know you won't answer.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> It's ok hardcore_gamer, I know you won't answer.


Let me help you with that.



hardcore_gamer said:


> Fast single cores are the future.



Actually fast single cores were the past, which is why processors are cropping up with 4+ cores now, Intel, AMD, and hell, even cell phones. The software industry needs to start optimizing for multi-core because there is a point where the CPU core can't get smaller and can't get faster. There are a lot of tasks that can benefit from having multiple cores and as a programmer I can tell you that it's not easy. It takes time to develop this stuff because there are a lot of things you have to consider when you have multiple CPU cores working with shared memory. Optimizing for multiple threads is significantly more difficult and time consuming than optimizing for one thread.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Ok I'm wrong. One benchmark from one website is the determining factor.



Well there aren't any other sites I know that test gaming performance in such a credible way.





















Minor win in BF3, but I feel like you're looking at a margins-of-error victory there, given the clear GPU bottleneck.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

^ blibba, nothing can be concluded on that site,

Skyrim favours i3,
Batman favours i3
BF3 favours FX 8 core
Crysis 2 - virtually the same. No contest.

Isn't enough to make an argument for either side.

Also it really comes down to the test rig and configuration.

Because Anandtech shows the i3 getting owned in Skyrim, which is contradicted with your chart above. Strange.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 6, 2012)

Gaming isn't the only that that computers do and I'm willing to bet that AMD will show a little more ability with some other non-gaming tasks.


----------



## jigar2speed (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



Yeah it almost matches i3 in gaming. Well ofcourse when we start talking about real productive applications which use 4+ Core it can start trading punches with i7 top dogs. I hope you are keeping up with the news and reviews lately.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> ^ blibba, nothing can be concluded on that site,
> 
> Skyrim favours i3,
> Batman favours i3
> ...



Skyrim shows a major i3 victory (285%)
Batman shows a major i3 victory (226%)
BF3 narrow FX victory (20%)
Crysis within margin of error (7%)



Dent1 said:


> Also it really comes down to the test rig and configuration.



Only to a certain extent.



Dent1 said:


> Because Anandtech shows the i3 getting owned in Skyrim, which is contradicted with your chart above. Strange.
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51123.png



Like I said, I can't find any other websites testing gaming performance credibly. FPS is not a good measure of gaming performance.

Example:

in a given second, a system A renders 60 frames, and system B renders 40 frames.
System A took half a second on one frame, and roughly one 118th of a second to render each of the other frames.
System B took one 40th of a second to render each frame.
System A has won by a country mile on FPS, but system B is more fluid to play.

Of course this is an exaggerated example, but I just want to point out how flawed FPS testing is. This is why you get microstutter etc. on multi-GPU systems pulling 100 FPS, and why consoles are playable at 30FPS.



Aquinus said:


> Gaming isn't the only that that computers do and I'm willing to bet that AMD will show a little more ability with some other non-gaming tasks.



Absolutely agreed. If my system was destroyed in a fire tomorrow, I'd probably go for an FX4300.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Lets put the FX 8-core to the side for 5mins.

I'm looking at Tomshardware. They did a review on the 4-core FX vs the i3 3220. (ignore the i5 3350)

The FX 4 core crushes the i3 in almost everything or performs virtually the same.

Even in gaming aside aside (skyrim) the performance was virtually the same.

Anyone whom has to make a choice between the two. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4170-core-i3-3220-benchmarks,3314.html




dude12564 said:


> Not if they need low power draw.



Perhaps. But some eco hippies will always argue the power front. But you can always lower the volts on these chips. Remember its still a four core so power draw will always be worst.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Lets put the FX 8-core to the side for 5mins.
> 
> I'm looking at Tomshardware. They did a review on the 4-core FX vs the i3 3220.
> 
> ...



The FX4 is stronger than the i3, but then it's also stronger than the FX8 in highly threaded tasks. Also, to some extent one should care about power consumption.


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Lets put the FX 8-core to the side for 5mins.
> 
> I'm looking at Tomshardware. They did a review on the 4-core FX vs the i3 3220. (ignore the i5 3350)
> 
> ...



Not if they need low power draw.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

blibba said:


> but then it's also stronger than the FX8 in highly threaded tasks.



I haven't seen many (if any) solid examples of that.




dude12564 said:


> Not if they need low power draw.





blibba said:


> Also, to some extent one should care about power consumption.
> 
> http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/R/356031/original/Power.png



It's a four core so it will always high higher power consumption than a two core. This is a given. Whenever Intel people are losing they change the subject.

But lets not get sidetracked, we are talking about performance here. 






Ignoring the i5 3550.

About 3.7% separates the overall gaming experience in i3s favour.

About 7.6% separates general application experience in the 4 cores FX Piledriver's favour.

For games 3.7% is a small gap, they are virtually the same speed in gaming already. Most people would give up less than 4% gaming for a bigger leap over a few years.

Considering the FX 4 core is almost 8% faster in general application performance, which is also going to be significantly bigger in a few years, the FX 4-core is a better purchase especially when you factor in that its £20 cheaper in the UK too. 

In fact the 6 core Piledriver costs the same as the i3. Which makes me wonder why anyone would consider the i3.




hardcore_gamer said:


> I was being sarcastic mate.



I'm sorry. Just with all the AMD hate sometimes it's hard to tell when people are serious and joking.


----------



## Fourstaff (Nov 6, 2012)

dude12564 said:


> Not if they need low power draw.



This, a small difference of 10w in combined cycle (load/idle over an average day) can easily mean £15 or more in terms of power bill over a year in UK, massively tilting the balance to Intel if everything performs the same. My profile favours low power draw coupled with good single/dual thread performance, so Intel for me.

On top of all those you have to consider AMD's generally cheaper motherboard, but much thirstier chipsets.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 6, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Then if multi core performance doesnt matter why does the Piledriver FX own the i5 4 core in encoding and rendering



I was being sarcastic mate.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 6, 2012)

blibba said:


> http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e316/blibba/skyrim-99th.gif



Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.

/fail


Also, do you guys really not get "hardcore_gamer" is trolling?


----------



## Fourstaff (Nov 6, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.
> 
> /fail
> 
> ...



Hard to tell if someone is trolling or just plain stupid online.


----------



## UbErN00b (Nov 6, 2012)

Seriously people quit the Intel V AMD bitching, this is not the thread for it. I get sick of reading this same shit in EVERY single NVIDIA/AMD/Intel thread, your spoiling it for the rest of us. If you all want to do is flame then piss off to GN and start your own Intel Vs AMD topic there and bitch piss and moan until your hearts are content.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 6, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.
> 
> /fail
> 
> ...



Do you realize how big 10ms is when it comes to computers?

The bottom line is FX CPU's are good if you can utilize the threads, the same way they were with Bulldozer cores.  Not sure why people are still bitching and moaning about which one is better.  It's pretty simple--*generally* Intel CPU's are better where IPC is important, simply put, low thread counts, *generally* FX CPU's are better where the workload is spread across 4-8 threads.  That means in most situations Intel will be better for gaming which utilizes 1-4 threads *usually*, and AMD CPU's will *usually[\b] be better at applications which utilize a lot of threads like rendering and video\audio conversion.*


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 6, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Do you realize how big 10ms is when it comes to computers




In encoding 10ms quicker per 10MB file is huge. 10ms quicker in gaming 


xenocide said:


> The bottom line is FX CPU's are good if you can utilize the threads, the same way they were with Bulldozer cores.  Not sure why people are still bitching and moaning about which one is better.  It's pretty simple--*generally* Intel CPU's are better where IPC is important, simply put, low thread counts, *generally* FX CPU's are better where the workload is spread across 4-8 threads.  That means in most situations Intel will be better for gaming which utilizes 1-4 threads *usually*, and AMD CPU's will *usually[\b] be better at applications which utilize a lot of threads like rendering and video\audio conversion.*


*

But we are talking about the i3 and 4 core Piledriver FX here, IPC is proven not to be a factor when compared these to specific CPUs, as the overall singe threaded performance appear to be virtually the same.

Again we are talking about two specific CPUs. Not Intel vs. AMD in a broader debate in which case you'd be 100% correct.

But yes, we've had our fun. Let's stick to the main topic. I can't wait for the new 95W TDP 8 cores.*


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

UbErN00b said:


> Seriously people quit the Intel V AMD bitching, this is not the thread for it. I get sick of reading this same shit in EVERY single NVIDIA/AMD/Intel thread, your spoiling it for the rest of us. If you all want to do is flame then piss off to GN and start your own Intel Vs AMD topic there and bitch piss and moan until your hearts are content.



This is hardly fanboy flaming. I've been arguing against the merits of the FX8 in my last few posts, and both my systems are AMD, and if I had to replace them, I'd buy AMD. This is a discussion about the merits and demerits of the CPU which this thread is about. I can hardly think of a more relevant topic. If you don't want to read it, unsubscribe.



NeoXF said:


> Oh WOW! AMD FX-8350 is 9.8ms slower than i7-3770K in feeding frames in Skyrim, IT MUST BE TOTAL CRAP.



10ms longer to render frames can be a pretty big deal. And nobody accused anything of being total crap.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 6, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 8 core from AMD working as fast as an i3 from Intel....hmmm



i would report your post for trolling but i think its already been done..


----------



## Frick (Nov 6, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> i would report your post for trolling but i think its already been done..



The mods should have you on ignore


----------



## omagic (Nov 6, 2012)

*haters gonna hate*

I dont know what is this war about... Some poor blind fanboy wrote some stupid thing about FX he didnt even use for a minute and all of You started to punch each other 

I have 2 PCs right now(one mine one my nephew's)

All I can say is theres totaly no way anyone who saw FX working would write such bull****
I use FX-8320@4,3 and i5-2500K@4 and theres no game i saw FX would be worse in everyday gaming... really 

Its fast enough, so is i5 thats all.

I cant understand one thing, for all these years we were told that better hardware in games is the one that can produce higher FPS and now some site that try to be different than others write some funny things about 3-5-10ms? Hey, i can see when game lags.. under 30 fps is visible but I really dont see any 10ms in Skyrim or BF3 or MoH:W or CoD:BO or CIV5 etc so whats the use of placing such benchmarks?

bull****


PS: Im not a fanboy, like i wrote I use both AMD and Intel but when I see some sites placing reviews of Visheras i wonder if they are corrupted or just too stupid to make a benchmark or build\set system right... I get better scores in 8 of 10 test than some sites...


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 6, 2012)

Frick said:


> The mods should have you on ignore


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Nov 6, 2012)

I wonder if it will drop the power consumption significantly? This could be a interesting little chip if you could clock it up to the FX-8350 speed while maintaining lower power use.

Has anyone ever tried to just OC the Turbo clock speed? set it to 3.2 GHz (3.8 GHz Turbo, 4.2 GHz max turbo) cause I think that would be something interesting to try.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

omagic said:


> I cant understand one thing, for all these years we were told that better hardware in games is the one that can produce higher FPS and now some site that try to be different than others write some funny things about 3-5-10ms? Hey, i can see when game lags.. under 30 fps is visible but I really dont see any 10ms in Skyrim or BF3 or MoH:W or CoD:BO or CIV5 etc so whats the use of placing such benchmarks?



Exactly, you see when the game lags. But a game can "lag" at 60FPS if one of those frames takes 100ms to render (ever heard of microstutter?). Consoles often spend the whole time at 30FPS or so, but rarely if ever feel laggy. It is absolutely the rendering times that is visible, and not the FPS. Measuring minimum FPS picks up some of the same effects, but still is not as useful. I feel like you didn't make any attempt to understand this before posting about it.

Just because something is what you are familiar with does not mean it is best. Average FPS benchmarking is generally correlated with smoothness of gameplay, but it is not the same thing.


----------



## omagic (Nov 6, 2012)

*Fx*



blibba said:


> Just because something is what you are familiar with does not mean it is best. Average FPS benchmarking is generally correlated with smoothness of gameplay, but it is not the same thing.



For me important is everyday use, and in that FX-8320 or i5-2500K makes no difference...

Used them, saw that


----------



## UbErN00b (Nov 6, 2012)

blibba said:


> This is hardly fanboy flaming. I've been arguing against the merits of the FX8 in my last few posts, and both my systems are AMD, and if I had to replace them, I'd buy AMD. This is a discussion about the merits and demerits of the CPU which this thread is about. I can hardly think of a more relevant topic. If you don't want to read it, unsubscribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 10ms longer to render frames can be a pretty big deal. And nobody accused anything of being total crap.



Discussing i3 vs fx 4100 has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, I suggest if you want to carry on discussing it start a new one that's on topic.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

omagic said:


> For me important is everyday use, and in that FX-8320 or i5-2500K makes no difference...
> 
> Used them, saw that



Well that's different, and fair enough. Could just be a GPU bottleneck in both cases, but you _could_ be perfectly justified in not caring at all in that case.



UbErN00b said:


> Discussing i3 vs fx 4100 has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread, I suggest if you want to carry on discussing it start a new one that's on topic.



a) I didn't bring up i3 vs 4100, I've just responded to other posts, that's how discussion works
b) I don't think it's totally irrelevant
c) Why are you still subscribed if you hate where this thread has gone so much
d) Your most recent posts have hardly brought discussion back on track


----------



## UbErN00b (Nov 6, 2012)

blibba said:


> a) I didn't bring up i3 vs 4100, I've just responded to other posts, that's how discussion works


 I never said you did however it has nothing to do with the thread at hand and I for one am sick of seeing the same posts in any AMD/Intel news posts, ot's not relevant. 



blibba said:


> b) I don't think it's totally irrelevant


 see a)



blibba said:


> c) Why are you still subscribed if you hate where this thread has gone so much


 Again it's not just this thread a multitude of them, and seeing the same posts repeated in all of them constantly I don't need to subscribe cause they are always at the top of new posts. 



blibba said:


> d) Your most recent posts have hardly brought discussion back on track


 Nice little insightful comment to end your defence of yet another thread being completely derailed by fan boy shouts or nothing related to the op in question, as an FYI you might think I have done nothing to bring the thread back on track, completely disregarding my first post, as well as that a number of posts have been reported for either being off topic or blatant troll posts like the one who mentioned the whole AMD vs Intel debacle in the first instance. 

We all know what the core strengths and arguments are for each manufacturer why we have to make the same points in every thread by either of them is beyond me.


----------



## blibba (Nov 6, 2012)

Basically, I just respond as I see fit to the posts that are made. If people don't ask the same old questions, I won't suggest the same old answers to them. I have not attempted to shape the thread, or introduce any new topic. I feel like your rage might be misplaced, and that a constructive contribution might do more to solve the problem you seem to be so bothered by.


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 6, 2012)

I hope they sell this Bulk OEM on the cheap!  Would be a good move from the 965 BE in the main computer, and relinquish that Phenom II to one of the boys gaming machine’s.  Just wonder how BOIS support on the ASRock 870 EXTREME3 will be.  Save a little power on the home use machine and give shot in the arm to one of the boy’s.  I can probably sell the old Athlon II X4 640 for $30-40, which is like 15-20% less than I got it.


----------



## Covert_Death (Nov 6, 2012)

so gaming asside.... im REALLLLLLY looking forward to slapping my FX-8350 into my rig to use for SolidWorks... anyone who uses big boy apps and software should look at a FX series chip


----------



## omagic (Nov 6, 2012)

*gaming*



blibba said:


> Well that's different, and fair enough. Could just be a GPU bottleneck in both cases, but you _could_ be perfectly justified in not caring at all in that case.



right... i bet You play games @800x600 LOW just to see the power of Intel CPU...

Its easy to see they are simply enough for gaming, no need for 250fps


----------



## Super XP (Nov 7, 2012)

AMD should flood the market with these new CPU's.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 7, 2012)

Well the good news is this thread got out of hand. Since we are on the subject of silliness 

Did anyone else see AMD perform well in an actually multithreaded game?







or any of these?



Spoiler





























































Since everyone loves to throw skyrim in. Take any BD or PD chip disable it down to 1 module with a single core and clock the holy heck out of it. Post back if it outperforms an i3.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.

I recommend keeping the forum code saved for when another thread like this pops up.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 7, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> ^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.
> 
> I recommend keeping the forum code saved for when another thread like this pops up.


Be careful they might post benchmarks specifically written for Intel based CPU's, where it cripples AMD CPU's from properly performing.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 7, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Better careful they might post benchmarks specifically written for Intel based CPU's, where it disables and/or cripples AMD CPU's from properly performing.



or claim how they are better since superpi says so.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 7, 2012)

cdawall said:


> or claim how they are better since superpi says so.


Agreed.


----------



## suraswami (Nov 7, 2012)

All I know is 8350 + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850 + 120GB SSD = 3770K + mid range mobo + 2 x 2GB 7850.

Its ok if my eyes cannot see 5 to 10 fps that I7 churns extra.

No Ocing, put it in, finish setup, have a drink, start to fire bullets.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 7, 2012)

LOL AMD fanboys vs Intel fanboys! )) And all started with an innocent remark, haha. 1 stone in the lake created a big tsunami. Seriously guys, you need to take a break. ))


----------



## xenocide (Nov 7, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> ^ Iam sure the Intel fanboys will not respond.



Not an Intel fanboy, but it fits perfectly into what I said.  In heavily threaded applications the AMD CPU's are great.  Every single one of those benchmarks proves it considering even the BD CPU did well in most of them.


----------



## blibba (Nov 7, 2012)

omagic said:


> right... i bet You play games @800x600 LOW just to see the power of Intel CPU...
> 
> Its easy to see they are simply enough for gaming, no need for 250fps



Er... it appears you agree with the post you quoted, so why the aggression?

Regarding FX performance in multithreaded apps, nobody's disputing it, least of all "Intel fanboys" (am I an Intel fanboy? With both of my rigs running AMD CPUs?). Trouble is, some of the most demanding applications that a lot of people run aren't well threaded (yet).


----------



## cdawall (Nov 7, 2012)

blibba said:


> Er... it appears you agree with the post you quoted, so why the aggression?
> 
> Regarding FX performance in multithreaded apps, nobody's disputing it, least of all "Intel fanboys" (am I an Intel fanboy? With both of my rigs running AMD CPUs?). Trouble is, some of the most demanding applications that a lot of people run aren't well threaded (yet).



Such as what? Skyrim? Some games that are still pushing over 60fps? Because it sure isn't rendering, sure isn't compiling so there isn't exactly much left that's demanding.


----------



## blibba (Nov 7, 2012)

cdawall said:


> Such as what? Skyrim? Some games that are still pushing over 60fps? Because it sure isn't rendering, sure isn't compiling so there isn't exactly much left that's demanding.



Even if it was the case that FX CPUs were pushing a solid 60FPS in every poorly threaded game, that wouldn't be an argument for buying an FX-8350 - it would be argument for buying the cheapest CPU possible with respectable single-threaded performance. Which is probably an eBay Phenom II X2, E8400 or socket 1156 i3. Unless you do a lot rendering, compiling or other demanding tasks, of course, but many people don't. The most demanding things that my PC does aren't very demanding.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 7, 2012)

blibba said:


> Even if it was the case that FX CPUs were pushing a solid 60FPS in every poorly threaded game, that wouldn't be an argument for buying an FX-8350 - it would be argument for buying the cheapest CPU possible with respectable single-threaded performance. Which is probably an eBay Phenom II X2, E8400 or socket 1156 i3. Unless you do a lot rendering, compiling or other demanding tasks, of course, but many people don't. The most demanding things that my PC does aren't very demanding.



So why are yup bothering to comment in a thread about a high end AMD? I personally fail to see what any of this has to do with yet another low cost good overclocking chip from AMD.

But hey if skyrim bad superpi are your thing I highly suggest a heavily overclocked I3.


----------



## blibba (Nov 7, 2012)

cdawall said:


> So why are yup bothering to comment in a thread about a high end AMD? I personally fail to see what any of this has to do with yet another low cost good overclocking chip from AMD.



I've just responded to other posts. Follow my comments back and you'll find that I've never pushed this thread off-topic. I've merely corrected or answered posts by others that have done so.



cdawall said:


> But hey if skyrim bad superpi are your thing I highly suggest a heavily overclocked I3.



SuperPi isn't my thing, this very post is the first time I've ever mentioned it on this forum. But I'm perfectly fine with my Phenom II, thanks. If I was building a new PC tomorrow, I'd buy an FX-4300. It has a better blend of single-threaded performance and "future-proofing" than a dual-core from 2008 could ever provide.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 7, 2012)

blibba said:


> I'd buy an FX-4300. It has a better blend of single-threaded performance and "future-proofing" than a dual-core from 2008 could ever provide.



Although what you said was 100% true. Lets be honest,  the  FX-4300 also has a better blend of single threaded and "future proofing" than a dual core i3 from 2012 too.


----------

