Thoughts on AMD's new CPUs?

[hoppi]

I've just seen the FX9370 (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-361-AM) and the FX9590 (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-360-AM). Both have 220W TDP, so they're quite demanding... Also, they're quite expensive in my opinion.
What do you guys think? (By the way, this is just a genral discussion about these CPUs, I'm not looking for buying advice.)

[hoppi]

What motherboard have you chosen?

[Velmarshal]

THE KING IS DEAD の投稿を引用：

Iv always been a fan of AMD and the Intel chips beating it (it seems) are double - up to five times the price.

I think you should check your numbers. A comparable intel CPU to 8350 is 3570K, and sure as hell ain't 5 times more expensive.

[Pant]

Velmarshal の投稿を引用：

THE KING IS DEAD の投稿を引用：

Iv always been a fan of AMD and the Intel chips beating it (it seems) are double - up to five times the price.

I think you should check your numbers. A comparable intel CPU to 8350 is 3570K, and sure as hell ain't 5 times more expensive.

I lol'd hard at this guy, last time I checked I paid $215 USD for my 3570k

[LoTekRabbit]

Velmarshal の投稿を引用：

THE KING IS DEAD の投稿を引用：

Iv always been a fan of AMD and the Intel chips beating it (it seems) are double - up to five times the price.

I think you should check your numbers. A comparable intel CPU to 8350 is 3570K, and sure as hell ain't 5 times more expensive.

Love how people make stuff up

[BvL | QORTEC]

I'll give AMD props for pulling this off.
Though it kinda feels like Nvidia's Titan, it's way to expensive for most people, and the price performance doesn’t scale, but its arguably the best GPU out there, and if you have the money you'll get it, if you don't no chance in...
That being said I would like to see benchmarks on AMD's new cup and compare it to Intel's i7's. Also I hope that AMD will be able to use what they have learnt form this to make a more affordable 5GHz CPU that will make Intel run for their money by this time next year.

[Rove]

BvL | QORTEC の投稿を引用：

I'll give AMD props for pulling this off.
Though it kinda feels like Nvidia's Titan, it's way to expensive for most people, and the price performance doesn’t scale, but its arguably the best GPU out there, and if you have the money you'll get it, if you don't no chance in...
That being said I would like to see benchmarks on AMD's new cup and compare it to Intel's i7's. Also I hope that AMD will be able to use what they have learnt form this to make a more affordable 5GHz CPU that will make Intel run for their money by this time next year.

Check it out vs a ocerclocked 4.4 ghz i7 3960x extreme in the gaming benchmarks:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/18/

[rotNdude]

SyPTo の投稿を引用：

rotNdude の投稿を引用：

The power supply of a computer is expected to output fixed voltages. If the amperage of the components didn't change as the components were overclocked by increasing the voltage, then overclocking would not increase the necessary output power of the PSU unless it was due to the VRMs and associated components on the motherboard becoming less efficient as you increased the output voltage. That simply isn't the case.

you mean overvolting for over clocking there's a whole new set you have to take into calculations.


P = C V^2 f

wich is the dynamic power consumed by switching circuits all the cpu is a big switch ,(and as you can see , there's no amperage in that formula again , cause it's still fixed)
and yes applying a bias to the transister will increase the amperage however it's still fixed , the transistors they use in these circuits are no more then switched and not opamps , by applying more bias to the transistor it will not linear use more amperage because again it's an switch and not an opamp or an amplifying circuit.

and circuits DO become less efficient at higher voltages , this is why you get an increase in temperature which is non linear to the voltage increase , just like a car , the faster you go the more fuel it uses but again it's not a linear progression of fuel useage.

I assume you're going to class at this point in electronics. Keep in mind that dissipated power in any circuit is dependent upon the current and the voltage. You can't have power dissipation without both. I'm glad we agree on that and the higher core voltage you apply to the CPU, the higher the associated power dissipation is going to be. That's where this whole conversation started out with these newly marketed CPUs running at a 1.65V core voltage.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/08/25/why-p-scales-as-cv2f-is-so-obvious-pt-2-2

These new AMD CPUs are just an attempt by AMD to provide something that is comparable to Intel with their Extreme series of CPUs.

[Ad Hominem]

TenClub の投稿を引用：

Love how people make stuff up

MrPants の投稿を引用：

I lol'd hard at this guy, last time I checked I paid $215 USD for my 3570k

Not making anything up, I was basing it off of
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

The intel chips just slightly above and below are more expensive

[Pant]

THE KING IS DEAD の投稿を引用：

TenClub の投稿を引用：

Love how people make stuff up

MrPants の投稿を引用：

I lol'd hard at this guy, last time I checked I paid $215 USD for my 3570k

Not making anything up, I was basing it off of
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

The intel chips just slightly above and below are more expensive

Primitive technologies are always less expensive to produce and therefore can be sold for less. Besides pretty much everything above the 8350 on that list is a Xeon or an 2011 socket chip, the Xeons can't be compared to an 8350 as they are for heavy computing not general usage and gaming and pretty much any 2011 socket chip will obliterate anything from the AMD camp, and that's not even taking into account the ivy-E series which should be 30% faster tha current E CPU's and be around the same price(after launch inflation subsides). Your claim of 5 times more expensive only holds true to the Xeon chips which in terms of sheer computing power cannot be matched by anything AMD can produce that includes the 9590 with its silly clock speed.

Pay more = Get more

Thats the way the world works, that's the way it will always work. Just look at the top of the list for proof.

[Ad Hominem]

Pay more != get more.

There comes a point where you get much less bang for your buck and no matter how much money you throw at it, you will get only marginally more. Since I am on a budget, the 8350 seems like a great bang for buck ratio, and it doesnt run on that silly 220 TDP.

Also from what I can gather from the chart, the 8350 way better than the 3570k for the same price

[hardrada]

Overclocked 8350's, nothing special. Wait for Steamroller. AMD is ♥♥♥♥ these days and only good for budget, hope Steamroller changes this so we can have some competition.

[Velmarshal]

I just read something strange on that site, "The industry's only 8-core desktop processor". So that means 8350 isn't an octacore CPU?

THE KING IS DEAD の投稿を引用：

Also from what I can gather from the chart, the 8350 way better than the 3570k for the same price

http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html - no it's not.
These debates were held countless times on these forums. Yes AMD's CPU do number crunching better than intel and that's about it. And in the other case when Rove suggests AMD cards just because they have higher GFLOPS, which only means that those cards can do number crunching better than nvidia, when you look at the real world benchmarks the condition is different. I'm not saying that AMD cards are bad, they would perform far better than nvidia if AMD released a proper driver for once.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html - in this case, 8350 on stock clocks is closer to 3470, and when benchmarking CPUs in games, ever 1 ~ 2 fps count, because it's your GPU that does most of the job. Just ask around Planetside 2 community and how their CPUs perform. (Because even 9800 GT can run that game on ultra, but you need a good CPU for larger battles).

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-8350 - another comparison

Overall that site has some really weird results, some CPUs score abysmally high while some score really low. I remember seeing Q6600 scoring something like 7k on that site, which is crazy, I hope they fixed that, just so they don't look so silly anymore.

To cut it short, real world benchmarks is all that matters, you can stick your numbercrunching where sun doesnt shine if that cpu is going to bottleneck new graphics cards or simply suck in games.

[Rove]

Dude I simply can not believe that AMD hit all the highpoints, CPU Ghz, CPU core count, GPU GFLOPS and GPU RAM better, first or cheaper than the competition and somehow also makes the worst CPUs and GPUs. It just doesn't add up. How could they possibly inflate their numbers with "meaningless" Ghz, cores, GFLOPS and GB of RAM all at once? More to the point why would they do that? They hit every single high-point and then people try and say they are worse.

As for all these 3rd party reviewers. While it is illegal to advertise your own product as something it's not; It is not really illegal if someone else does it for you as long as you are not paying them to. Who knows the difference as long as you do not get caught paying them off?

Many of these 3rd party reviewers spit out numbers using the latest and potentially most buggy games. Mostly I have stopped paying attention and stopped believing anything some journalist who know's where in the world is saying on their review. The numbers don't add up at all.

I get 60+ FPS in all my games unless the software is glitchy.

The PS3 is only 153 GFLOPS and spits out playable framerates. The Xbox 360 has less GFLOPS and is still playable.

Yet some stupid or corrupt reviewers claim that 1500+ GFLOP GPUs with decent CPUs are not even getting playable framerates in "crysis 3" and other newer console titles while 4000+ GFLOP parts like the HD 7970 GE or GTX Titan are "struggling" to get some absurdly low FPS under 60 that is "barely" playable.

If the games were actually programmed that poorly and the "optimization difference" between console and PC code compilers is that bad the games should never have been released and they should have spent that time re-writing the PC compilers instead.

It's all a bunch of lies I say!

Use your own eyes, and brain.

Intel for offices, again and again.

[rotNdude]

I think AMD is doing just fine in the video card arena. I think where they started to stumble a bit is in the CPU arena.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture

I don't think trusted review sites try to skew the numbers.

[Shameless]

These CPU's are a just a stop gap. AMD's big issue with there CPU's is that bulldozer and Piledriver are optimized for multicore performance, this is why you see them with 6 and 8 cores, which also explains why Intel can smoke them. The Piledriver 8950 does a good job with keeping up with a i5 and is priced from 180 to 190 which is well under the i5. I'm waiting to see what steamroller will do as they have said their working on single thread performance this go around.