Athlon X4 880K CPU Review

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
For those of you that like things on the AMD side of the isle, there is a Athlon X4 880K CPU review posted at Hardware Secrets that you really should check out. A 4GHz quad core processor for under a hundred bucks, what's not to like?

AMD has maintained, for some time, two main families of processors: the FX models, with no integrated video and using AM3+ socket, and the A-series processors (A.K.A. APUs,) with integrated video and using FM2+ socket. Recently, however, AMD announced new processors that use the FM2+ socket with no integrated GPU, using the brand Athlon. One of them is the Athlon X4 880K, which we are testing today. But is it a good buy?
 
You know, they make a good point there. AMD should name their next high-end chip Athlon. Nostalgia plus half decent performance will move more units than if they call in the AMD FX 99000 or something. Frankly FX is a burned brand at this point because of how badly Bulldozer performs.
 
Quix said:
You know, they make a good point there. AMD should name their next high-end chip Athlon. Nostalgia plus half decent performance will move more units than if they call in the AMD FX 99000 or something. Frankly FX is a burned brand at this point because of how badly Bulldozer performs.
Click to expand...

This is very true. I saw "Athlon" in the title and instantly warm thoughts of my 1st gen Athlon came to mind. That was a 500mhz that ran happily at 750 and crushed whatever Intel could put out at the time.
 
Gweenz said:
This is very true. I saw "Athlon" in the title and instantly warm thoughts of my 1st gen Athlon came to mind. That was a 500mhz that ran happily at 750 and crushed whatever Intel could put out at the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had a little bit of hope when i saw the Athlon name. I still remember how amazed i was when i got my t-bird. Didn't OC it but it still felt blazingly fast compared to what i was running prior.
 
I wonder how much the memory makes a difference on the platform? I don't think there would be much difference caused by DDR4 vs DDR3 2133, but it would be interesting to have a closer look anyway.
 
All I could see is, here it is 2016, they produce Rise of the Tomb Raider on the XBox One and it runs well. (Multi core aware and all that.) However, on the PC, they clearly have the game running off just one core of the cpu and nothing else. It is any wonder I choose to play the game on the XBox One instead?
 
ManofGod said:
All I could see is, here it is 2016, they produce Rise of the Tomb Raider on the XBox One and it runs well. (Multi core aware and all that.) However, on the PC, they clearly have the game running off just one core of the cpu and nothing else. It is any wonder I choose to play the game on the XBox One instead?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it sounds like you chose the platform solely on how the game uses the said platform and not the overall performance on the said platform.
 
chenw said:
Yes, because it sounds like you chose the platform solely on how the game uses the said platform and not the overall performance on the said platform.
Click to expand...

Yep, the point I made completely went over your head, I see. Oh well, that is why we have what we have on the PC in 2016.
 
Odd results. You'd think the 880 would smoke the G4400 in video encoding since it has 4 core instead of two. Divx encoding on my rigs utilize all cores.

I was really considering a new Athlon or A10 for a new Plex server build. I may have to re-think that.
 
Riccochet said:
Odd results. You'd think the 880 would smoke the G4400 in video encoding since it has 4 core instead of two. Divx encoding on my rigs utilize all cores.

I was really considering a new Athlon or A10 for a new Plex server build. I may have to re-think that.
Click to expand...

Considering the IPC difference, AMD Quad core at 4 GHZ is roughly equal to Intel Dual core at 4 Ghz
Half the IPC and Double the cores = similar performance to a pentium.
 
chenw said:
Enlighten me then, because I completely failed to see the point.
Click to expand...

The point is, here we are in 2016, a game that runs on a multiple cores on a console only runs on one core on a desktop computer? We have had quad core cpu's since 2006, why anyone would think single core gaming is acceptable in 2016 is beyond me.
 
Because the API was the limit, DX 11. Developers just have not mature enough yet with DX12 - it is coming.
 
noko said:
Because the API was the limit, DX 11. Developers just have not mature enough yet with DX12 - it is coming.
Click to expand...

That's just for the gfx side, yeah? Certainly heavier games could be using MT already on the compute side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top