FX-8350 Benchmarks and review

The gig ud3 is very different then the ud5/7. It's not just the cooling. It has the same older vrm and power delivery that the 7 and 8 series boards had. It's a great board for phii, but it can't even handle an fx-8120 at stock if you disable the throttling. They don't have an option for it in the bios because it can't handle it. I did a work around to do it, and it killed both the board and CPU. Again at stock speeds, using prime95. Vrms and nb were pushing well past 100c.
__________________
Click to expand...

Negative sir, the revision 1.0 boards were that way. The 1.1+ revisions all offer LLC, which is exclusive to digital Circuits.

I have the ud3, revision 1. and your findings are COMPLETELY FALSE. My VRMS do not go over 60c. (i did add a fan to that region) The throttling was a bios problem, and has been fixed, but if you disabled cool and quiet before it was fixed, throttling was only a issue with cool and quiet enabled. I can clock my 8120 to 5.2ghz on the UD3 revision 1.0. No throttling or anything nasty like that. Maybe you should have tried to update your bios.....

The UD3 is a great board for the FX processors, and soon to come FX piledrivers.
 
I agree with AMD's focus on MultiThreaded performance over single.

Single threaded performance is going the way of the Dinos. Period. Its going to get harder and harder to find new PC only games that actually are coded for single threaded use. The next gen of consoles are all going to be coded to use multiple cores etc...

As far as using a word processor... LOL who cares how much faster processor A is at typing text over processor B. It seems pretty instantaneous to me even on an 8086 processor form the 1980's.

The market is making a shift from single to multi at a rapid almost lightspeed pace. Intel is still mega powerful in both arenas but AMD is showing signs that it may very well be able to take charge in multithreaded performance as time progresses and they figure out a few more things. Just an opinion and not a fact.
 
tangoseal said:
I agree with AMD's focus on MultiThreaded performance over single.

Single threaded performance is going the way of the Dinos. Period. Its going to get harder and harder to find new PC only games that actually are coded for single threaded use. The next gen of consoles are all going to be coded to use multiple cores etc...

As far as using a word processor... LOL who cares how much faster processor A is at typing text over processor B. It seems pretty instantaneous to me even on an 8086 processor form the 1980's.

The market is making a shift from single to multi at a rapid almost lightspeed pace. Intel is still mega powerful in both arenas but AMD is showing signs that it may very well be able to take charge in multithreaded performance as time progresses and they figure out a few more things. Just an opinion and not a fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the problem is Intel could whip out an 8-core desktop CPU in no time (They already have 8 Core Sandy Bridge Xeons). Intel agree's multi-threading is the future, its just for current desktop use, 99% of desktop use required no more than 2 cores, 4 cores being overkill.

When the time comes that most applications would benefit from 4+ cores Intel will make desktop CPU's based on the 8, 12, 16 core Xeons.
 
ebduncan said:
Negative sir, the revision 1.0 boards were that way. The 1.1+ revisions all offer LLC, which is exclusive to digital Circuits.

I have the ud3, revision 1. and your findings are COMPLETELY FALSE. My VRMS do not go over 60c. (i did add a fan to that region) The throttling was a bios problem, and has been fixed, but if you disabled cool and quiet before it was fixed, throttling was only a issue with cool and quiet enabled. I can clock my 8120 to 5.2ghz on the UD3 revision 1.0. No throttling or anything nasty like that. Maybe you should have tried to update your bios.....

The UD3 is a great board for the FX processors, and soon to come FX piledrivers.
Click to expand...
How are you going to say what I said is completely false, when you dont even know what your saying or what Im refering to?
No BIOS update is going to make a board magically change to newer VRMs and mosfets. The newer revision may have had that changed, but that doesnt change the fact that at least the early ones could not handle an 8 series bulldozer.

I also said nothing about the Vdroop or LLC, which even with later BIOSs wasnt really fixed all that well.

There is no BIOS option to disable throttling, and only way to do it was with AOD. If you run coretemp, it says the speed of all cores. If you start prime on a original 990FXA-UD3, it will throttle half the cores. If you disable throttling with AOD, it will heat up the NB and VRMs until they die. The board doesnt not have the physical ability to run that much current, and a BIOS update cant change that.

Look around at some of the more hard core OCing sites, and you can see examples of this.
 
look at my signature.

Then click the validation link, and it proves all of your statements wrong.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2178875

and this is a old one, before i updated to 7870's. And have my ram at 9-9-9-24. Guess i should update that. MY Psu isn't exactly great either, but i have the needed wattage to get by.
 
tangoseal said:
I agree with AMD's focus on MultiThreaded performance over single.

Single threaded performance is going the way of the Dinos. Period. Its going to get harder and harder to find new PC only games that actually are coded for single threaded use. The next gen of consoles are all going to be coded to use multiple cores etc...

As far as using a word processor... LOL who cares how much faster processor A is at typing text over processor B. It seems pretty instantaneous to me even on an 8086 processor form the 1980's.

The market is making a shift from single to multi at a rapid almost lightspeed pace. Intel is still mega powerful in both arenas but AMD is showing signs that it may very well be able to take charge in multithreaded performance as time progresses and they figure out a few more things. Just an opinion and not a fact.
Click to expand...
There are still scenarios (emulation like PCSX2 and JPCSP, Dwarf Fortress, etc.) where the sideways and even negative progress AMD has made in single-thread performance is disheartening even to a longtime fan. Sooner or later I'm going to feel the need to upgrade and it doesn't look like AMD will have any options for my priorities.
 
ebduncan said:
look at my signature.

Then click the validation link, and it proves all of your statements wrong.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2178875

and this is a old one, before i updated to 7870's. And have my ram at 9-9-9-24. Guess i should update that. MY Psu isn't exactly great either, but i have the needed wattage to get by.
Click to expand...

Cecil knows his stuff, your validation doesnt prove anything. So your at 4.9ghz with no load... he's saying it will throttle heavy load and if you disable it, its a ticking time bomb.
 
Furthermore, AMD's 'more cores' approach still means shit if each core is slow as hell. Right now, their 8 cores are still only 'almost as fast' as Intel's 4+hyperthreading. The 6 and 8 core SB chips are faster than AMD's 8, 12, and 16 core chips. You can't have great multi-threaded performance if your single-threaded performance blows.
 
Cecil knows his stuff, your validation doesnt prove anything. So your at 4.9ghz with no load... he's saying it will throttle heavy load and if you disable it, its a ticking time bomb.
Click to expand...

right

Tell that to all the ud3 owners on overclock.net.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1023100/official-gigabyte-ga-990fxa-series-owners-thread-club

The UD3 is a good board, for any AMD am3, amd3+ cpu

"There is no BIOS option to disable throttling, and only way to do it was with AOD. If you run coretemp, it says the speed of all cores. If you start prime on a original 990FXA-UD3, it will throttle half the cores. If you disable throttling with AOD, it will heat up the NB and VRMs until they die. The board doesnt not have the physical ability to run that much current, and a BIOS update cant change that.

Look around at some of the more hard core OCing sites, and you can see examples of this."

They don't throttle, there was a bug in the bios with some of the first bios. which resulted in said throttling but it was not due to the VRMS. Opening Amd overdrive disabling turbo core and turning it back on fixed the problem is what you might be referring to. This issue has been resolved for quite some time now. Yes a new bios fixed it, it was not VRM related. Anyways I am not going to hijack this thread further. As these posts have nothing to do with Texanman and his Piledriver.
 
I don't have any problems with my board, though I admit the bios was a bit iffy at the start..it has improved over time.
 
tangoseal said:
I agree with AMD's focus on MultiThreaded performance over single.

Single threaded performance is going the way of the Dinos. Period. Its going to get harder and harder to find new PC only games that actually are coded for single threaded use. The next gen of consoles are all going to be coded to use multiple cores etc...
Click to expand...
Maybe it is the future, the problem is AMD's current CPU designs aren't even particularly good at multi-threading, seeing as how its 315 mm^2 BD can only match the throughput of a 216 mm^2 Hyper Threaded Sandy Bridge with applications/tasks that use 8+ CPU intensive threads.

Sandy Bridge's powerful single-threaded performance means that it is strong across the board; 1 thread, 2 thread, 8 threads whatever. BD's weak single-threaded performance means that it is only strong at 8+ threads, at 4 threads you're looking at performance barely matching 3 year old CPUs clocked 1 GHz lower.
 
Browsing for more info on this chip led me to softpedia and an interesting article revealing very similar results as those posted in this thread: fx-8350 Bench
The most interesting being that CPU-z reg# identical to the one posted here. Now the validator issues unique ID's/submission even if identical system data is uploaded. Hmmmm...

--Nvm they built that article from this thread>.>
 
Last edited:
PcGuy78 said:
Browsing for more info on this chip led me to softpedia and an interesting article revealing very similar results as those posted in this thread: fx-8350 Bench
The most interesting being that CPU-z reg# identical to the one posted here. Now the validator issues unique ID's/submission even if identical system data is uploaded. Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

Nope, they are just repeating what was said here in a news format. Pay attention to the source. Nothing new or different in that article.
 
Tsumi said:
SuperPi uses the x87 code path, which Intel has always been better than AMD in. Also, virtually nothing uses x87 nowadays.
Click to expand...

This^^

x87 is archaic stuff. Measuring it's performance may be fun but has no bearing on anything like modern software.
 
Action_Parsnip said:
This^^

x87 is archaic stuff. Measuring it's performance may be fun but has no bearing on anything like modern software.
Click to expand...

So are we calling Fortran archaic and dismissing it as well? I know a very large group of engineers using it right now to simulate environmental impacts of urban development. Apparently you missed where I clarified the difference between "daily use" and "real world". "Daily use" is what most people do, aka the norm, and "real world" is where people may use specific languages or instruction sets and optimize a certain way for certain projects. Apparently so did the person you quoted.

In other words, just because a few people do something the way that is not "fair and balanced" does not mean it can be dismissed.
 
ebduncan said:
right

Tell that to all the ud3 owners on overclock.net.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1023100/official-gigabyte-ga-990fxa-series-owners-thread-club

The UD3 is a good board, for any AMD am3, amd3+ cpu

"There is no BIOS option to disable throttling, and only way to do it was with AOD. If you run coretemp, it says the speed of all cores. If you start prime on a original 990FXA-UD3, it will throttle half the cores. If you disable throttling with AOD, it will heat up the NB and VRMs until they die. The board doesnt not have the physical ability to run that much current, and a BIOS update cant change that.

Look around at some of the more hard core OCing sites, and you can see examples of this."

They don't throttle, there was a bug in the bios with some of the first bios. which resulted in said throttling but it was not due to the VRMS. Opening Amd overdrive disabling turbo core and turning it back on fixed the problem is what you might be referring to. This issue has been resolved for quite some time now. Yes a new bios fixed it, it was not VRM related. Anyways I am not going to hijack this thread further. As these posts have nothing to do with Texanman and his Piledriver.
Click to expand...

With all this talk about overheating NB on UD3 boards I inquired and Gigabyte support responded with the following:

"The normal idle temperature for the chipset should be 45-50C, and stressed between 65-75C.
Just make sure to have the latest Bios before installing the FX-CPU".

That said, with my overclocked 965 @ 1.425 volts my NB currently idles at 43-44 degrees Celcius and maxed out 64 degrees using Prime 95...All in all, I am a little concerned when I do upgrade to Piledriver or Steamroller...hopefully they won't be as power hungry...
 
SLee said:
Maybe it is the future, the problem is AMD's current CPU designs aren't even particularly good at multi-threading, seeing as how its 315 mm^2 BD can only match the throughput of a 216 mm^2 Hyper Threaded Sandy Bridge with applications/tasks that use 8+ CPU intensive threads.

Sandy Bridge's powerful single-threaded performance means that it is strong across the board; 1 thread, 2 thread, 8 threads whatever. BD's weak single-threaded performance means that it is only strong at 8+ threads, at 4 threads you're looking at performance barely matching 3 year old CPUs clocked 1 GHz lower.
Click to expand...

My Fx can play ANY game out now great. Got to start somewhere and I think AMD started with its actual multiple cores. Next is the single thread per core performance. Really it is my fav chip yet and ive bought Intel the last 5 years. skipped over P2. Always an AMD fan though and used them before P2.
 
psy81 said:
With all this talk about overheating NB on UD3 boards I inquired and Gigabyte support responded with the following:

"The normal idle temperature for the chipset should be 45-50C, and stressed between 65-75C.
Just make sure to have the latest Bios before installing the FX-CPU".

That said, with my overclocked 965 @ 1.425 volts my NB currently idles at 43-44 degrees Celcius and maxed out 64 degrees using Prime 95...All in all, I am a little concerned when I do upgrade to Piledriver or Steamroller...hopefully they won't be as power hungry...
Click to expand...

I misinterpreted the response from Gigabyte...Under load normal NB temps should be between 65-75 which means I'm well within the threshold :)
 
Here's the questions to ask yourself:
Do you play computer games?

Does the game you have play smoothly at above 40 or 50 FPS?

Ok, if it does, then does AMD and Intel provide that same smooth gameplay?

Is a difference of 10 to 15 FPS a live or die situation between an AMD and Intel processor?​

That's the thing-- people have their own personal choices in what processor they'll use. And, to a lot of people, normal consumers that is, will not tell the difference between 10 and 15 FPS in a game as long as the game is running fine. Those are the kinds of customers that make up most of the computer market, not enthusiast gamers. These kind of people don't care if they're encoding video or not.

To enthusiast gamers, especially those on [H], the difference of 10 to 15 FPS is life or death to them especially online. To those on [H] and to a lot of forum readers here, Intel is the go-to choice for them. But, AMD can do just as good as an Intel processor even if the difference is 10 to 15 FPS. It won't be great, but it'll still run good.

If 10 to 15 FPS is important to you, buy Intel.

If it isn't and still runs fine for you, go with AMD or Intel

The choice is still ultimately yours to make.
 
Last edited:
Agree. Especially at a pricing standpoint. An amd rig will cost a little bit less right now, compared to a 2500k + decent mobo.
Most people wouldn't notice the difference, or at least may have other priorities over gaming (like rendering).

Not me, I am a price/performance guy, and intel is currently in the lead.
 
sun_tzu said:
Agree. Especially at a pricing standpoint. An amd rig will cost a little bit less right now, compared to a 2500k + decent mobo.
Most people wouldn't notice the difference, or at least may have other priorities over gaming (like rendering).
Click to expand...

Not anywhere near what it used to be. 8320/8350 is going to be at least $200 at launch, plus $150 for a decently nice 990FX. Less then $50 more would get a 3570K and Z77.

AMD's price lead was really in the lower end, before the Pentium and I3 lines got so great. I change my rig at least every 2-4 weeks just for the fun of it. I always try to get an AMD rig, but lately Intel combos have been cheaper, same price, or slightly more for much better performance. I have a MicroCetner I go to, and the AMD combo deals just arent as good as they were about a year ago, or more.
 
Just took a look at my kill-a-watt while I was playing xcom a little while ago. 295w was the peak it reached during my game play which might not be the most demanding game it sure isn't the least.
 
I rather have a trinity than a i3.

5800k trinity vs 3220 ivy bridge only time ivy wins is in single thread. For the kicker the Trinity is unlocked and can overclock to surpass the ivy bridge in everything. Combined with its superior graphics performance....


As for piledriver, well that remains to be seen, but 8350 will be priced around the 3570k. If Bulldozer is anything to go by, the 2500k and 8150 are pretty even except in single thread.

Mutithread the bulldozer was atop the 2500k. Piledriver should beat the 3570k in mutithread and loose single thread. More of the same, however Ivy bridge doesn't clock as high, and piledriver seems to clock higher than Bulldozer. Ivy Bridge will still certainly be more power efficient though.

295watts is not bad at all. for gaming load with a 570. I'm at around 750 watts full load with my 8120@ 4.9ghz and 7870 crossfire oc. Seems Amd got power consumption in check a bit. Its an improvement but still not as power efficient as the intel processors. 5 more days and there will be reviews everywhere of piledriver. Kinda wondering how well they overclock.
 
Cecil said:
Not anywhere near what it used to be. 8320/8350 is going to be at least $200 at launch, plus $150 for a decently nice 990FX. Less then $50 more would get a 3570K and Z77.

AMD's price lead was really in the lower end, before the Pentium and I3 lines got so great. I change my rig at least every 2-4 weeks just for the fun of it. I always try to get an AMD rig, but lately Intel combos have been cheaper, same price, or slightly more for much better performance. I have a MicroCetner I go to, and the AMD combo deals just arent as good as they were about a year ago, or more.
Click to expand...

you don't even need a 990FX, you can get a very good 970 with the SB850 southbridge for under 100 bucks or the 990X for 100-120 bucks.
 
Texanman said:
Just took a look at my kill-a-watt while I was playing xcom a little while ago. 295w was the peak it reached during my game play which might not be the most demanding game it sure isn't the least.
Click to expand...

Nice.

Action_Parsnip said:
x87 is archaic stuff. Measuring it's performance may be fun but has no bearing on anything like modern software.
Click to expand...

Skyrim launched with a lot of x87 instructions, I know Skyrim is running of a ~6 year old code base that is a complete mess, but it is still a recent game launch used by a lot of people. A "random" user discovered the poor code and the community more or less forced Bethesda to clean up their code.

PhysX was based back in 2010 for having a lot of x87 code, I do not know if Nvidia has cared to update this code.

Bottom line, coders still use x87 and they should be fish slapped for doing it.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
you don't even need a 990FX, you can get a very good 970 with the SB850 southbridge for under 100 bucks or the 990X for 100-120 bucks.
Click to expand...

You can also get perfectly good Z77s for $100, or Z75s/H77s/B75s for less then that too ;)
 
runs2far said:
Nice.



Skyrim launched with a lot of x87 instructions, I know Skyrim is running of a ~6 year old code base that is a complete mess, but it is still a recent game launch used by a lot of people. A "random" user discovered the poor code and the community more or less forced Bethesda to clean up their code.

PhysX was based back in 2010 for having a lot of x87 code, I do not know if Nvidia has cared to update this code.

Bottom line, coders still use x87 and they should be fish slapped for doing it.
Click to expand...

I believe PhysX uses x87 because nVidia wants to intentionally gimp PhysX performance on a CPU. It would take them virtually no effort to recompile the code for SSE.
 
Texanman said:
Just took a look at my kill-a-watt while I was playing xcom a little while ago. 295w was the peak it reached during my game play which might not be the most demanding game it sure isn't the least.
Click to expand...

Hi, can u do the same with BF3? 64players map thank!!! :)
 
SSE2 is where x87 became somewhat less significant. It's almost like real information gets completely ignored around here...
 
octoberasian said:
Here's the questions to ask yourself:
Do you play computer games?

Does the game you have play smoothly at above 40 or 50 FPS?

Ok, if it does, then does AMD and Intel provide that same smooth gameplay?

Is a difference of 10 to 15 FPS a live or die situation between an AMD and Intel processor?​

That's the thing-- people have their own personal choices in what processor they'll use. And, to a lot of people, normal consumers that is, will not tell the difference between 10 and 15 FPS in a game as long as the game is running fine. Those are the kinds of customers that make up most of the computer market, not enthusiast gamers. These kind of people don't care if they're encoding video or not.

To enthusiast gamers, especially those on [H], the difference of 10 to 15 FPS is life or death to them especially online. To those on [H] and to a lot of forum readers here, Intel is the go-to choice for them. But, AMD can do just as good as an Intel processor even if the difference is 10 to 15 FPS. It won't be great, but it'll still run good.

If 10 to 15 FPS is important to you, buy Intel.

If it isn't and still runs fine for you, go with AMD or Intel

The choice is still ultimately yours to make.
Click to expand...

There's one other aspect you miss:

If you pay extra for the Intel quad core now, you won't be as tempted to upgrade a year or two down the line. I can't tell you how many people on this board have upgraded from Phenom II x4 to Phenom II x6 over the last couple years, and some have gone from that over to Bulldozer (and bought a new 990FX board to facilitate this). That's TWO upgrades inside of two years for some of these people (and for the many that did not bite on Bulldozer, they are STILL looking for a viable AMD upgrade path!)

If you just spent about $100 more on a release-day 2600k, you'd be done with the upgrade game for years (because it's more powerful than even an 8150). Imagine getting 2+ more years out of your chip for an extra $100 at purchase time! It can happen if you don't give in to obviously over-hyped products.

So Intel is (today) also the destination for people who don't want a complimentary side of bullshit included with their CPU purchase :D Getting a second-best CPU with no real upgrade path is quite annoying for the price/performance hardcore users AMD usually attracts.
 
There's one other aspect you miss:

If you pay extra for the Intel quad core now, you won't be as tempted to upgrade a year or two down the line. I can't tell you how many people on this board have upgraded from Phenom II x4 to Phenom II x6 over the last couple years, and some have gone from that over to Bulldozer (and bought a new 990FX board to facilitate this). That's TWO upgrades inside of two years for some of these people (and for the many that did not bite on Bulldozer, they are STILL looking for a viable AMD upgrade path!)

If you just spent about $100 more on a release-day 2600k, you'd be done with the upgrade game for years (because it's more powerful than even an 8150). Imagine getting 2+ more years out of your chip for an extra $100 at purchase time! It can happen if you don't give in to obviously over-hyped products.

So Intel is (today) also the destination for people who don't want a complimentary side of bullshit included with their CPU purchase Getting a second-best CPU with no real upgrade path is quite annoying for the price/performance hardcore users AMD usually attracts.
Click to expand...


This is hardocp, people will upgrade if something new comes out and seems remotely viable. I rocked a phenom 9950@3ghz for 3 years.... before the upgrade bug bit again.
 
defaultluser said:
So Intel is (today) also the destination for people who don't want a complimentary side of bullshit included with their CPU purchase :D Getting a second-best CPU with no real upgrade path is quite annoying for the price/performance hardcore users AMD usually attracts.
Click to expand...

They both have equal amounts of "bullshit" when purchasing, but AMD systems have a much longer upgrade lifespan. Your AM2+ CPU is, if you wanted, able to be placed in the same system as a Piledriver. That provides you the option to begin building a new system but not need to fork out $500 right off the bat. Alternative, and I won't deny it as an AMD fan myself, in doing so you are continuing to utilize hardware or buses that in the end may actually be hampering performance. This is a bad example and most likely quite unrelated, but to me it seems plausible to some degree: Look at the FM1 APUs, based on the Phenom II but did away with the Northbridge, and now you've got some pretty incredible memory performance on them after a bit of tweaking (I realize that AMD hasn't had the memory controller on the NB since A64). I'm curious what Piledriver on FM2 may be able to achieve with twiddling.

Intel had dropped 1156 for 1155 (which I'm not disregarding that AMD drop FM1 right away) and then changed how everything was connected with overclocking, limiting people quite a bit. Then they decided "oh alright, we goofed and should rework that a bit", so IIRC anyone with an 1155 who wanted the improved overclock options had to buy a new motherboard again. Not to mention if you wanted to go with Intel's crème de la crème you had to buy an insanely expensive motherboard along with an insanely expensive CPU (both 1366 and 2011). Yea you get some awesome performance, I'm not an AMD fanboy that is blind to that fact, but you sure have to pay for it that's for sure :(

At the end of the day, if gaming is your primary focus and you have budgeted your system out well enough to be able to purchase a really nice GPU, your choice in CPU isn't going to matter much. Again there are exceptions and tradeoffs, but when isn't there? :) Yet, f you have no budget... then you really aren't needing to worry about all these sorts of things are you? lol :p
 
I heard rumors that this chip was suppose to be released today, doesn't look like that will happen.
 
Tsumi said:
I wonder how the hell is that processor running at 0.9v.
Click to expand...


Is it possible it's not reading the C-states correctly and it's running at a low multiplier/low voltage but the clock speed is being detected wrong and should read 800 mhz or whatever the lowest C-state is for the FX-8350?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top