AMD FX-8350 - "Piledriver" for AMD Socket AM3+

[cdawall]

-random banter with zilch to do with FX 8350 review-

I think all of your posts here can be summed up with this one simple question.

Which pen do you like better?

 

[eidairaman1]

ME BALLS HURT!

LMAO!

 

[drdeathx]

I think all of your posts here can be summed up with this one simple question.

Which pen do you like better?

http://img.techpowerup.org/121025/Capture049.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121025/Capture050.jpg

I wouldn't go "That" far yet but to tell you the truth. $200 for the 8350 is priced right and AMD surprised me a bit here.

 

[Super XP]

I see the 3570k and the FX8350 at roughly the same price.
3570k = $230 on average
FX-8350 = $220 on average

Proper OC motherboards are roughly the same price too.

So why would you buy a processor like the FX-8350 that uses far more power, and suffers from poor single threaded performance which we use most day-to-day? The multi-threaded performance was roughly equivalent.

*** Why are you guys talking about Apple. lol

The best Socket AM3+ motherboard is the ASUS Crosshair V Formula. An Intel equivalent mobo would set you back a lot more. Combine this with the FX-8350 @ $200 and you can buy a better grhics card with the savings. INTEL setups are overpriced. INTEL mobos can go upgo $500+ a board

 

[EarthDog]

The best Socket AM3+ motherboard is the ASUS Crosshair V Formula. An Intel equivalent mobo would set you back a lot more. Combine this with the FX-8350 @ $200 and you can buy a better grhics card with the savings. INTEL setups are overpriced. INTEL mobos can go upgo $500+ a board

Lets not mix oil and water... X79 boards may cost $500, but Z77 boards are cheaper by in large. $450 is the most and that is because of thunderbolt... BLEH. Thing is you dont remotely need such a motherboard (on either platform). For example, on 'high end' boards at the same price as the CHVF, you can buy a z77 MSI Mpower or Asrock OC Formula. To that end, the Asrock Z77 extreme 4 will handle daily driver clocks (4.5Ghz+) easily and that comes in at $130.

Apples to apples however the Z77 MVF is $280. $50 more than a CHVF.

 

[cdawall]

Lets not mix oil and water... X79 boards may cost $500, but Z77 boards are cheaper by in large. $450 is the most and that is because of thunderbolt... BLEH. Thing is you dont remotely need such a motherboard (on either platform). For example, on 'high end' boards at the same price as the CHVF, you can buy a z77 MSI Mpower or Asrock OC Formula. To that end, the Asrock Z77 extreme 4 will handle daily driver clocks (4.5Ghz+) easily and that comes in at $130.

As does the Biostar TA990FXE for $109. Now that may not sound like much to some but the couple of bucks between it and the CPU adds up to the difference between a graphics card using the stock cooler and one using an aftermarket cooler.

or the Asrock 990FX for $119 that includes 8GB of DDR3 1600 right now nice deal on that one.

 

[EarthDog]

As does the Biostar TA990FXE for $109. Now that may not sound like much to some but the couple of bucks between it and the CPU adds up to the difference between a graphics card using the stock cooler and one using an aftermarket cooler.

or the Asrock 990FX for $119 that includes 8GB of DDR3 1600 right now nice deal on that one.

Right. The extreme 4 was just $110 with same same free ram (expired). I see the(your) point here. $20 matters to a lot of people.

My point was just pop the balloon of $500 intel boards being anywhere close to relevant within this context and much lower end boards on both sides will be fine... which brings Helios's point back to relevance as well (price - not getting in to the performance thing).

 

[cadaveca]

which brings Helios's point back to relevance as well (price - not getting in to the performance thing).

Price is perfectly suited to performance. This is really a $269 chip(IMHO), but cost of ownership due to higher power draw = $200 is perfect.

AMD isn't messing around. Kinda reminds me of when 939 launched, actually...

 

[drdeathx]

The best Socket AM3+ motherboard is the ASUS Crosshair V Formula. An Intel equivalent mobo would set you back a lot more. Combine this with the FX-8350 @ $200 and you can buy a better grhics card with the savings. INTEL setups are overpriced. INTEL mobos can go upgo $500+ a board

LOL, Who says the crosshair is the best mottherboard? Please explain why?

 

[cadaveca]

LOL, Who says the crosshair is the best mottherboard? Please explain why?

BIOS for memory clocking? If memory clocking/tweaking is truly important to you, ASUS wins, hands down right now.

And that is through ALL platforms. They have one damn good BIOS engineer.

 

[drdeathx]

Lets not mix oil and water... X79 boards may cost $500, but Z77 boards are cheaper by in large. $450 is the most and that is because of thunderbolt... BLEH. Thing is you dont remotely need such a motherboard (on either platform). For example, on 'high end' boards at the same price as the CHVF, you can buy a z77 MSI Mpower or Asrock OC Formula. To that end, the Asrock Z77 extreme 4 will handle daily driver clocks (4.5Ghz+) easily and that comes in at $130.

Apples to apples however the Z77 MVF is $280. $50 more than a CHVF.

Not all X79 boards are $500. The CPU performance is exactly the same on any Z77 or X79 motherboard. Overclocking capabilities may be 100-200MHz better on a top shelf board but thats it. Gigabyte makes 2 X79 motherboards at the $300 price point. Just saying. Yes Z77 boards are cheaper and just above AMD platform.

You cannot compare Intel boards to AMD boards. AMD boards do not have an Intel controller plus they do not have PCIE 3.0. The raw extras performance is much better on the Z77 Platform ( sata speed, PCIE Speed, memory speeds)which really does not cost a heck of a lot more than AMD Platform. you can get a Z77 motherboard for $125 and at microsenter a core i5 3570K for $179 making Intel Z77 + IvyBridge cheaper than AMD. i7 3770K at Miocrocenter is $279 making a potential Intel Rig only $80 more than a 8350. just sayin.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drdeathx
LOL, Who says the crosshair is the best mottherboard? Please explain why?

BIOS for memory clocking? If memory clocking/tweaking is truly important to you, ASUS wins, hands down right now.

And that is through ALL platforms. They have one damn good BIOS engineer.

Amen brother, and thats another reason i like Amd chips at the minute, there is much more that can be tweeked and tuned, you could spend weeks getting it just so

 

[EarthDog]

Not all X79 boards are $500. The CPU performance is exactly the same on any Z77 or X79 motherboard. Overclocking capabilities may be 100-200MHz better on a top shelf board but thats it. Gigabyte makes 2 X79 motherboards at the $300 price point. Just saying. Yes Z77 boards are cheaper and just above AMD platform.

You cannot compare Intel boards to AMD boards. AMD boards do not have an Intel controller plus they do not have PCIE 3.0. The raw extras performance is much better on the Z77 Platform ( sata speed, PCIE Speed, memory speeds)which really does not cost a heck of a lot more than AMD Platform. you can get a Z77 motherboard for $125 and at microsenter a core i5 3570K for $179 making Intel Z77 + IvyBridge cheaper than AMD. i7 3770K at Miocrocenter is $279 making a potential Intel Rig only $80 more than a 8350. just sayin.

Yes, I know . I didnt mention that point as its not relevant to the conversation. BUT there is one $600 X79 mobo, LOL! ON average X79 boards are much more expensive than Z77. I mean that has been out for a year and 2 mobo's under $200, none under $100. BUT enthusiast platform vs mainstream as well so....

CPU performance IS different from those platforms DEPENDING ON THE CPU USED. For example, if some got X79 and i7 3820 (fool!) vs 3770k, the 3770k wins out as its faster clocks and IPC as well as quad channel memory really making no difference for the most part. Now, you use a 2600K and 3820, performance should be the same as they are both SB chips and quad ch memory still doesnt matter.

ALso, SATA speeds are the same (SATAIII), and so are memory speeds... in fact, IB has a more robust IMC than SB-E chips so memory can be faster speed wise, though bandwidth (absolutely useless over dual channel for 99% of things) is greater. No point in a bigger pipe(quad ch) with the same amount of water flowing through it(data).. it wont move faster.

 

[cdawall]

Right. The extreme 4 was just $110 with same same free ram (expired). I see the(your) point here. $20 matters to a lot of people.

My point was just pop the balloon of $500 intel boards being anywhere close to relevant within this context and much lower end boards on both sides will be fine... which brings Helios's point back to relevance as well (price - not getting in to the performance thing).

I agree 100% the only downside on the Intel side is to get some of the features available on even that $109 board you need X79. Z77 simply lacks PCI-e lanes...Intel really did cut Z77 down in comparison. I wish nvidia still had a chipset division to make some "better" Intel boards.

 

[erocker]

I agree 100% the only downside on the Intel side is to get some of the features available on even that $109 board you need X79. Z77 simply lacks PCI-e lanes...Intel really did cut Z77 down in comparison. I wish nvidia still had a chipset division to make some "better" Intel boards.

The lack of PCI-E lanes (if running dual video cards) makes almost zero difference especially when comparing to a competing chipset like the 9 series from AMD.

 

[drdeathx]

Yes, I know . I didnt mention that point as its not relevant to the conversation. BUT there is one $600 X79 mobo, LOL! ON average X79 boards are much more expensive than Z77. I mean that has been out for a year and 2 mobo's under $200, none under $100. BUT enthusiast platform vs mainstream as well so....

CPU performance IS different from those platforms DEPENDING ON THE CPU USED. For example, if some got X79 and i7 3820 (fool!) vs 3770k, the 3770k wins out as its faster clocks and IPC as well as quad channel memory really making no difference for the most part. Now, you use a 2600K and 3820, performance should be the same as they are both SB chips and quad ch memory still doesnt matter.

ALso, SATA speeds are the same (SATAIII), and so are memory speeds... in fact, IB has a more robust IMC than SB-E chips so memory can be faster speed wise, though bandwidth (absolutely useless over dual channel for 99% of things) is greater. No point in a bigger pipe(quad ch) with the same amount of water flowing through it(data).. it wont move faster.

3820 has 10Mb of L3 cache. 2600K has 8Mb L3 cache.

 

[EarthDog]

Z77 simply lacks PCI-e lanes...

I hear this a lot... but to what end? Who needs them? Tri+ SLI people perhaps (benching). Z77 also has a PLX chip to give more lanes. Yes, latency is added, however, performance isnt but a couple % different with that vs native lanes on X79 (which until IB-E comes out is still PCIe2.0 IIRC). Tests here show 8x/8x you barely lose a thing.

Technically you are correct, but the differences in performance are negligible for dual card people regardless so, I guess does it really matter?

3820 has 10Mb of L3 cache. 2600K has 8Mb L3 cache.

Bears poop in the woods.... whats your point?

Performance is performance. I dont care if I have a boosted rice rocket that runs 12's, or a N/A big block car that runs 12's... they still run 12's, they just get there a different way.

Look: 3820 has 10Mb of L3 cache. 2600K has 8Mb L3 cache.[/QUOTE]Bears poop in the woods.... whats your point? Performance is performance. I dont care if I have a boosted rice rocket that runs 12's, or a N/A big block card that runs 12's... they still run 12's, they just get there a different way. Look: With a 200Mhz clockspeed advantage and cache advantage it trades punches with a 2600K. "]With a 200Mhz clockspeed advantage and cache advantage it trades punches with a 2600K (AND 3820 can use 40W more!!!).

I think so. Price/performance, even with Intel being more expensive is still on Intel's side. Much more so. You're right with x8 + x8, the thing is with AMD and x16 + x16 performance can be up to 50% less.. Not to mention single GPU performance with Bulldozer/Steamroller doesn't compare to a similarly priced chip such as the 2500K. Of course I'm talking gaming whether that's important to you or not.

Indeed... I have my blinders on today..

thanks!

 

[erocker]

I guess does it really matter?

I think so. Price/performance, even with Intel being more expensive is still on Intel's side. Much more so. You're right with x8 + x8, the thing is with AMD and x16 + x16 performance can be up to 50% less.. Not to mention single GPU performance with Bulldozer/Steamroller doesn't compare to a similarly priced chip such as the 2500K. Of course I'm talking gaming whether that's important to you or not.

 

[cdawall]

The lack of PCI-E lanes (if running dual video cards) makes almost zero difference especially when comparing to a competing chipset like the 9 series from AMD.

I agree however what happens when you are not using those PCI-E lanes for video cards. A full loaded system with two video cards in 8x/8x with a raid card at 16x is something you can do on AMD without a PLX chip. Will most users take advantage of that? Heck no. However in an encoder box I for one would be looking at a Piledriver chip to begin with since they perform better in that exact instance, but the lane configuration is much more usable for that. I feel like a comparison showing a big fancy raid card would show major differences.

I hear this a lot... but to what end? Who needs them? Tri+ SLI people perhaps (benching). Z77 also has a PLX chip to give more lanes. Yes, latency is added, however, performance isnt but a couple % different with that vs native lanes on X79 (which until IB-E comes out is still PCIe2.0 IIRC). Tests here show 8x/8x you barely lose a thing.

I am already looking at swapping to tri-sli myself. It isn't the most effective way to fix my lack of graphics power, but I have 3 GTX 470's so why not.

I honestly just find it frustrating that Intel specifically cuts down Z77 to try and force people into paying more for X79. AMD has proven for under $150 you can have just about every X79 feature yet in that price range you don't have those options. You get handed a constantly replaced socket (which is EOL here soon with LGA1150 coming out) and a cpu that is better suited in single IPC rather than multithreading. While yes I will not argue at this time a 3570K can beat an 8350 pretty handily in quite a few games, what is to say that's not changing. We are already seeing it in other app's games are next.

Technically you are correct, but the differences in performance are negligible for dual card people regardless so, I guess does it really matter?

I don't think that specifically does. I think the all around package does. When steamroller comes out it will be nice to take a brand new $200-250 chip and drop it onto a 990FX motherboard. Will it be the latest and greatest board? NOPE, but as we see now it already has all the PCI-e lanes and features available which might make the board still heavily competitive then.

I think so. Price/performance, even with Intel being more expensive is still on Intel's side. Much more so. You're right with x8 + x8, the thing is with AMD and x16 + x16 performance can be up to 50% less.. Not to mention single GPU performance with Bulldozer/Steamroller doesn't compare to a similarly priced chip such as the 2500K. Of course I'm talking gaming whether that's important to you or not.

Here is my thing on the gaming. Are you over 60FPS? Well cool I know I cannot see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS and considering my monitors are OC'd to 65Hz I know I will never be able to see the difference because the monitors can't even display it.

It doesn't even do that badly. The only game that is terrible is Skyrim which I don't play so I could care less.

Now take that same 2500K and transcode a video.

Seems to be more of a performance difference in that particular instance than the video games of the same review...

 

[EarthDog]

You are asking them to cater to the EXTREME minority who uses more than 2 cards or two cards plus an incredibly expensive 16x RAID card (a proper one anyway). Those that should go X79. Simple to me. I dont go to Nissan begging them to shoehorn the Maxima Motor in a Sentra either.

As far as the other stuff, we can both list specific examples to fit our talking points as was done here (and out of drdeath's generic context)... but I dont want to get in to that (specifically mentioned that point). Each person buying a PC needs to understand his/her own needs and their budget, then choose a platform accordingly.

As for you, or anyone, NOFKING way would I tri SLI 3 470's. Too much power, too much heat, and tri SLI+ is not very efficient. If you have em, I guess. But not worth the hassle to me. Id rather sell those bad boys and grab a 7970 + 12.11 at this time. I WILL BE perfectly happy with that setup on 2560x1440 playing BF3 on ultra (680 LIghtning currently).

 

[erocker]

I agree however what happens when you are not using those PCI-E lanes for video cards. A full loaded system with two video cards in 8x/8x with a raid card at 16x is something you can do on AMD without a PLX chip. Will most users take advantage of that? Heck no. However in an encoder box I for one would be looking at a Piledriver chip to begin with since they perform better in that exact instance, but the lane configuration is much more usable for that. I feel like a comparison showing a big fancy raid card would show major differences.



I am already looking at swapping to tri-sli myself. It isn't the most effective way to fix my lack of graphics power, but I have 3 GTX 470's so why not.

I honestly just find it frustrating that Intel specifically cuts down Z77 to try and force people into paying more for X79. AMD has proven for under $150 you can have just about every X79 feature yet in that price range you don't have those options. You get handed a constantly replaced socket (which is EOL here soon with LGA1150 coming out) and a cpu that is better suited in single IPC rather than multithreading. While yes I will not argue at this time a 3570K can beat an 8350 pretty handily in quite a few games, what is to say that's not changing. We are already seeing it in other app's games are next.



I don't think that specifically does. I think the all around package does. When steamroller comes out it will be nice to take a brand new $200-250 chip and drop it onto a 990FX motherboard. Will it be the latest and greatest board? NOPE, but as we see now it already has all the PCI-e lanes and features available which might make the board still heavily competitive then.



Here is my thing on the gaming. Are you over 60FPS? Well cool I know I cannot see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS and considering my monitors are OC'd to 65Hz I know I will never be able to see the difference because the monitors can't even display it.

http://img.techpowerup.org/121025/Capture053.jpg

It doesn't even do that badly. The only game that is terrible is Skyrim which I don't play so I could care less.

Now take that same 2500K and transcode a video.

http://img.techpowerup.org/121025/Capture052.jpg

Seems to be more of a performance difference in that particular instance than the video games of the same review...

You kinda cherry picked a couple benchmarks there. But I see your point. Then again talking about not needing anything over 60 fps and then talking about using two video cards and a raid controller makes no sense to me. As a gamer I'd still take the 2500k (or even a lesser Intel chip) over any AMD offerings which really kinda sucks for me.

 

[cdawall]

You are asking them to cater to the EXTREME minority who uses more than 2 cards or two cards plus an incredibly expensive 16x RAID card (a proper one anyway). Those that should go X79. Simple to me. I dont go to Nissan begging them to shoehorn the Maxima Motor in a Sentra either.

As far as the other stuff, we can both list specific examples to fit our talking points as was done here (and out of drdeath's generic context)... but I dont want to get in to that (specifically mentioned that point). Each person buying a PC needs to understand his/her own needs and their budget, then choose a platform accordingly.

As for you, or anyone, NOFKING way would I tri SLI 3 470's. Too much power, too much heat, and tri SLI+ is not very efficient. If you have em, I guess. But not worth the hassle to me. Id rather sell those bad boys and grab a 7970 + 12.11 at this time. I WILL BE perfectly happy with that setup on 2560x1440 playing BF3 on ultra.

There are more people running Bulldozer rigs to encode and transcode than you think. They are good at it just like P4's were. The Bulldozer and Piledriver rigs do some other things well also, but encode is their bread and butter. It is as far as I am concerned a server chip released on a desktop board.

As for the GTX 470's I don't pay for electricity (in fact you probably do) so the more the merrier.

You kinda cherry picked a couple benchmarks there. But I see your point. Then again talking about not needing anything over 60 fps and then talking about using two video cards and a raid controller makes no sense to me. As a gamer I'd still take the 2500k (or even a lesser Intel chip) over any AMD offerings which really kinda sucks for me.

I picked the multithreaded benchmarks it is designed to compete in. Single IPC is dead I could care less if a Pentium with MMX beats it. As for the multi-card and SAS...multipurpose rig? Video games and video encoding seems simple to me.

 

[erocker]

Single IPC is dead

I don't believe it is at all. Plently of applications say otherwise.

 

[m1dg3t]

Good review Dave! As usual I sure am glad to see AMD making headway with their new tech, Intel is becoming complacent with the lack of direct competition. IVB TIM fiasco anyone?

From my experiences it was/is always more cost effective to build an AMD based system, generally got more for your $$$. Also it seems that AMD has always catered more to the "tweakers" as they always include a plethora of options to play with I recall the days when AMD was "wiping the floor" with Intels, they weren't long ago... The shoe is on the other foot now, soon the cycle will repeat. Nature of the beast

Keep up the good work Dave

 

[cdawall]

I don't believe it is at all. Plently of applications say otherwise.

Then disable all but one module on piledriver and clock it up. People have 5.5+ on 4170's with both modules enabled I am sure you can get even high with piledriver. The same thing would fix the terribly coded skyrim.