FX-8350 Benchmarks and review

os2wiz said:
No. I don't get free hardware, I pay for it.
Click to expand...

Clyzm said:
@octoberasian:

I'm not going to requote your horrible rant, but get this through your head: you don't know anyone here. 40+ FPS may matter to some, slightly less encoding time may matter to some, slightly lower temps may matter to some, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the rant . For what it's worth I edited out the objectionable part. But whether or not above 40 fps matters to somebody science shows it is useless. You have to have some objective scientific standards to determine whether a benchmark means something in the real world OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively. The above 40 fps is USELESS and of NO significance to the human eye ,case closed. The lower temps may be more important an issue but probably less power is the only REAL issue that Intel is ahead on right now. That will change after the 28 NM process is completed at Global Foundries. That process produces a better thermal result than .22 nm Intel chips according to the GF technical advisories. The reason for the delay in .28 nm process at this foundry was soley due to the change of the business model there when they were spun off by AMD. This set them back a good year. If AMD ever gets the Steamroller cpu taped out, the rest should now fall in line smoothly. Yes the Intel cpu has some advantages , the AMD has others . But in real terms the differences are meaningless to 99% of all computer users. The FPS issue is totally bogus though. Nobody has proven the importance having higher than 40 fps
in a game, only rantings that I "like it better"or "I feel more comfortable with it". Subjective fantasy vs objective reality standards.
 
lol i think the last part of the link gives it away.

maybe the desktop version will be posted on the egg tomorrow.
 
Typical Newegg price gouging.
Click to expand...

i thought it was the 16 core variant, till i read it was a quad core. Then i was like :eek: almost 900$ for a quadcore lol. Wonder if it comes with a tube of vaseline.
 
Some preliminary reviews are leaking out. One French review site had the FX-8350 overclocked to 5 ghz on air with 1.36v.
 
The AMD FX-8350 was tested under Linux at its stock frequency, a base of 4.0GHz, and then when overclocked to 4.6GHz. Pushing the FX-8350 to 4.60GHz with its unlocked multiplier was extremely easy and required virtually no effort. With additional time and tuning, I'm confident the FX-8350 could be pushed much harder, but even 4.60GHz isn't a bad starting point for this initial Linux testing of the eight-core Piledriver processor.
Click to expand...

from http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_vishera&num=1

looks really good :)
 
To stay on topic before I get into destroying the "40 fps is the human limit" argument, do we have any links to these leaked reviews? I've been hounding every tech site I can think of trying to find some scrap of info on the FX-8350.


os2wiz said:
Sorry for the rant . For what it's worth I edited out the objectionable part. But whether or not above 40 fps matters to somebody science shows it is useless. You have to have some objective scientific standards to determine whether a benchmark means something in the real world OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively. The above 40 fps is USELESS and of NO significance to the human eye ,case closed. The lower temps may be more important an issue but probably less power is the only REAL issue that Intel is ahead on right now. That will change after the 28 NM process is completed at Global Foundries. That process produces a better thermal result than .22 nm Intel chips according to the GF technical advisories. The reason for the delay in .28 nm process at this foundry was soley due to the change of the business model there when they were spun off by AMD. This set them back a good year. If AMD ever gets the Steamroller cpu taped out, the rest should now fall in line smoothly. Yes the Intel cpu has some advantages , the AMD has others . But in real terms the differences are meaningless to 99% of all computer users. The FPS issue is totally bogus though. Nobody has proven the importance having higher than 40 fps
in a game, only rantings that I "like it better"or "I feel more comfortable with it". Subjective fantasy vs objective reality standards.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to your rant, I stated someone else's name in my post. However, I don't agree with you at all. If you're going to say that something is scientifically useless, I want to see sources and backup, or you're just as bad as the people who believe in fantasy standards.

To prove my argument, I'll submit a test of my own:

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Background passive, one ball to 48fps (even faster than your quoted 40!), one to 60fps, motion blur off on both. I start noticing a very distinct difference in motion blur at a speed of 200px/s and 500px/s, and a less distinct difference at 1000px/s. At 2000px/s both objects are moving so quickly and are so blurred that I cannot tell the difference.

Voila, my (human, to my knowledge) eye can tell the difference between 48fps and 60fps, which is, to begin with, 8fps faster than your presumed "limit" of the human eye.

The question of the "limit" of our sight is really a much more complex one. Something could look fluid to us at 20fps, 18 even. 40 certainly looks good, but 60 looks better. Personally, I notice a difference between 60 and 100 in video games that do not have excessive motion blurring, but there are just so many factors to consider. Does the game blur its motion? Is the setting dark? How bright is your monitor? How fast is the object moving? Too fast or too slow, and you won't notice the frame rate at all. Just right (maybe a smooth panning motion) and you'll notice a huge difference. But one fact remains: A faster frame rate is better overall. If your frame rate is too slow (let's say 40), you may not notice when something fast whizzes by or when someone is pretty still talking to you, but you most certainly will notice when you're looking around a room or a landscape for example.

This is a pretty decent, if unscientific read on the subject. There have been many peer reviewed papers written on the limits of the human eye, but this is a whole lot easier to digest without reading through a 300 page PHD paper.
 
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
Some preliminary reviews are leaking out. One French review site had the FX-8350 overclocked to 5 ghz on air with 1.36v.
Click to expand...

I can't find any, at least not any of interest with gaming benchmarks and so on. Guess it's gonna be a long night for me checking the [H]ard AMD processor page every few minutes after midnight.
 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...006519&isNodeId=1&Description=Vishera&x=0&y=0

2012-10-22_17-07-38.png


They're all up for sale.
 
MacLeod said:
I can't find any, at least not any of interest with gaming benchmarks and so on. Guess it's gonna be a long night for me checking the [H]ard AMD processor page every few minutes after midnight.
Click to expand...

They were up for a few hours, then quickly got taken off. One of the mods at Overclock.net archived a few of the results, but we'll find out soon enough anyways.
 
$220? Not bad. $180 for the 8320 is even better. Oh man if these things hold up pretty well in the reviews, I might have to jump on one. Getting excited! C'mon midnight!
 
Looks like it isn't quite on par with i5 on gaming, but it's a very nice step up from the previous generation. Definitely a purchase from me.
 
Came late to the party.... what is the performance percentage difference over the Zambezi?
Noticeable?
 
Forceman said:
Typical Newegg price gouging. :rolleyes:

;)
Click to expand...

True and when I tried to point it out through the user review section they censored my post. I used no explitives but their automated system must see the word "overpriced" as being obscene!
 
I've looked in here some, but really haven't seen anything saying if this is worth replacing my 1100+ for. When should the real reviews be out? I do appreciate what the OP has done for people in here though.
 
I've looked in here some, but really haven't seen anything saying if this is worth replacing my 1100+ for. When should the real reviews be out? I do appreciate what the OP has done for people in here though.
Click to expand...

Check the review sites in the morning, or if you up to it stay up past 12 and you will see a bunch of reviews go live.
 
Reviews have hit. From the looks of it, it's very solid for encoding and generally using all 8 cores. Within this, it beats out the i5s and competes with the i7s.

Gaming performance still has a huge disparity, with the i5s leading by a fairly wide margin, but with the 8350 beating out the 8150 by about 6-15%.
 
Not a lot to see that wasn't expected. It is a shame that the AM3 platform is an ancient mess or AMD could really have a winner with budget gamers. A 6300 offers some real advantages over a new i3 as a cost effective middle ground between two core and multi core gaming. If they throw a 95w 6 core into FM2 maybe it would be easier to recommend. I still don't see any real advantage for your average gamer in selecting the 8350 over an unlocked Intel CPU in cost or performance. Nice gains but not enough to compete with Intel for anyone spending $350+ on a cpu and mobo. A worthy ungrade for anyone already into AM3+.
 
So you want something that runs at 150 fps vs 70 fps when you'll have trouble switching out of the game if you want to do some real work.

Besides me thinks hyperthreading is a farce although it beats real AMD cores(or maybe it doesnt), but i would have bought Intel if they did not have that hyperthreading thing...

Just my POV though..and i dont intend to hurt anyone's sentiments.
 
rishidev said:
So you want something that runs at 150 fps vs 70 fps when you'll have trouble switching out of the game if you want to do some real work.

Besides me thinks hyperthreading is a farce although it beats real AMD cores(or maybe it doesnt), but i would have bought Intel if they did not have that hyperthreading thing...

Just my POV though..and i dont intend to hurt anyone's sentiments.
Click to expand...

Huh?

You know you can buy Intel processors that don't have hyperthreading, right?
 
A promise kept .....................but this is what bulldozer was supposed to be!
A fantastic price/performance ratio.
Anybody with an older am3+ mobo can upgrade.
its $195 if i read correctly.
 
rishidev said:
and dear sir they cost more...much more.
Click to expand...

$225 for a 3570K ($189 at Microcenter). So pretty much the same ballpark.

But, back on topic, too bad this wasn't Bulldozer - would have made things a lot more interesting the past few years.
 
Last edited:
I find it incredible how in various reviews, power consumption of 8350 ranges from 40W more than the 8150 to 40W less... If it's 40W less, i will buy it. If it's 40W more i won't. Am i supposed to flip a coin? Duh.
 
Last edited:
same thing for bulldozer...the power used alone made you look away..

my guess is nobody uses amd chips at stock settings.

overclock and undervolt.............

But one thing is for sure Piledriver is power efficient much more than bulldozer and AMD has really worked to make it better.
 
rishidev said:
same thing for bulldozer...the power used alone made you look away..

my guess is nobody uses amd chips at stock settings.

overclock and undervolt.............

But one thing is for sure Piledriver is power efficient much more than bulldozer and AMD has really worked to make it better.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, at least with Bulldozer you were certain that it's power hungry, more than Thuban.

Here you have so called "professional reviewers" saying:

Under heavy load the things are even worse for Socket AM3+ platform. In the end Vishera processor turned out even less energy-efficient than its predecessor,

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350_8.html#sect0

FX-8350 is almost 13% more efficient than its predecessor. Perhaps more important, it proves to be more efficient than Phenom II X6 1100T.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,review-32550-17.html


Now, if i don't want something that consumes more than my Thuban, who should i believe? I think i may buy an 6300 95W for summer time for my video-encoding rig, when my 1090T gets too hot and heats up the entire room to unbearable levels. With such "reviews", i can't risk giving over 150 euros for something i m not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top