The two things AMD screwed up most with BD was.
Poor software optimization at release this can be shown by the gains with Win8 and many Linux benchmarks show with updated versions of GCC with more modern optimizations turned on AMD gets a nice boost.
Poor pricing at release and still.
Battlefiled3 multiplayer is pretty CPU dependnt but even then the game is no console port its well optimized for mutlicore cpus.
Skyrim I would like to see a benchmark with some of the threaded features turned on that are disabled by default.
Anandtech shows the 8350 a lot closer to the I5 then toms. This could be a result of Win8 we need a more direct comparison on exactly same hardware to know for sure.
While not very surprising for AMD its more surprising on Blizzards part.
In past years wow xpacs have hardly used 2 cores and now it seems to see scaling to some extent to higher core counts.
A game that is actually going to be CPU bound Civ5 shows a solid win for AMD.
Also disappointing why no Windows 8 benchmarks its coming out in a few days and Windows 7 is not optimized for this arch.
Anand has pulled through they have some Win8 benchmarks.
I think its a safe guess Anand and Toms are going to put out a better comparison with the release of Win8 in a few days.
Ya, I'll be waiting for the Windows 8 benchmarks to come up since that will show even more performance improvements over BD. Hopefully motherboard manufacturers will actually start producing some good motherboards for AMD though, that market is quite lacking compared to the offerings for Intel. This is especially relevant for SFF builders looking to use an AMD processor and have very few choices for micro-atx and mini-itx motherboards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
Well, it's another fail tbh. Nothing too exciting.
It's definitely an improvement, but I think we'll still be recommending Intel chips for a while.
Currently GPUs are the only thing keeping AMD alive. Too bad.
Impressive, although for my uses I think my i5 2500k beats it out (Single threaded games).
Looks like Piledriver might be something to recommend for rendering rigs though, correct?
Look at the price difference its cheaper then your I5 2500k and a person can pick up a cheap 8320 OC it to 4.5ghz and beat any stock I5 at a fraction of the cost.
BD was already a solid cpu for cheap workstations this is just making it better.
Another thing to look at is the Fx-4300 might be the new lowend go to CPU.
Also I am in the Steam group chat for this section of the forums to talk about in real time with anyone.
That 8320 is looking pretty tempting for a CPU upgrade.
Ya, I'll be waiting for the Windows 8 benchmarks to come up since that will show even more performance improvements over BD. Hopefully motherboard manufacturers will actually start producing some good motherboards for AMD though, that market is quite lacking compared to the offerings for Intel. This is especially relevant for SFF builders looking to use an AMD processor and have very few choices for micro-atx and mini-itx motherboards.
what do you mean? AMD motherboards have been superior over intel ones for a while now.
The power consumption is bad though still, AMD kinda needs to focus on power consumption more then trying to build power housing CPUs. Sadly how I see it at moment. The APUs are a brillant start, as Intel tends to keep with their ULV GPUs.
At most seems to improved performance. But this is a step I guess, Intel at moment is mostly focusing on power consumption.
what do you mean? AMD motherboards have been superior over intel ones for a while now.
IIRC there are still no AM3+ motherboards that even support PCIe 3.0 and there are many more Intel motherboards to choose from than AMD. There are only 58 AM3+ motherboards on Newegg where as there are 173 LGA 1155 motherboards. The number of LGA 1155 motherboards in the micro-atx form factor is equal to the total number of AM3+ motherboards on Newegg. AMD has NOTHING as far as enthusiast motherboards go for SFF. Not a single micro-atx AM3+ board goes anywhere near the overclocking potential available on LGA 1155 boards.
Even with ATX motherboards, AM3+ boards with similar features to LGA 1155 boards often cost the same or more than an equivalent AM3+ board.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
The power consumption is bad though still, AMD kinda needs to focus on power consumption more then trying to build power housing CPUs. Sadly how I see it at moment. The APUs are a brillant start, as Intel tends to keep with their ULV GPUs.
At most seems to improved performance. But this is a step I guess, Intel at moment is mostly focusing on power consumption.
To me I really don't care on power consumption the fact is for an overclocker the 8320 is a pretty good deal.
Yeah, didn't think about overclocking. Can't wait to see more benchmarks and hear more about them. I'd love to start recommending something other than an Intel CPU constantly. Just feels like I've been clicking the "i5" button way too much. I'd like to mix it up a bit. I don't know much about AMD's CPUs, and that's because their current ones are crap. If they could put out some good CPUs, I'd learn more about them, which is always nice.
To me I really don't care on power consumption the fact is for an overclocker the 8320 is a pretty good deal.
Very good indeed. The FX series overclocks very well so achieving higher clocks than a stock 8350 on the 8320 would be quite easy. Considering that the only way you'll be getting an unlocked SB or IB i5 for the same price as an 8320 would be if you lived near a Microcenter or snagged a deal online, the 8320 is priced very well for overclockers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
Yeah, didn't think about overclocking. Can't wait to see more benchmarks and hear more about them. I'd love to start recommending something other than an Intel CPU constantly. Just feels like I've been clicking the "i5" button way too much. I'd like to mix it up a bit. I don't know much about AMD's CPUs, and that's because their current ones are crap. If they could put out some good CPUs, I'd learn more about them, which is always nice.
I would not consider the current ones crap they do well in some markets and poor in others.
Well you can stop recommending the I3 and start recommending the Fx-4300 its competitive for the price.
IIRC there are still no AM3+ motherboards that even support PCIe 3.0 and there are many more Intel motherboards to choose from than AMD. There are only 58 AM3+ motherboards on Newegg where as there are 173 LGA 1155 motherboards. The number of LGA 1155 motherboards in the micro-atx form factor is equal to the total number of AM3+ motherboards on Newegg. AMD has NOTHING as far as enthusiast motherboards go for SFF. Not a single micro-atx AM3+ board goes anywhere near the overclocking potential available on LGA 1155 boards.
Even with ATX motherboards, AM3+ boards with similar features to LGA 1155 boards often cost the same or more than an equivalent AM3+ board.
Numbers mean nothing, do you have any idea how late the intel boards were to intruduce sata 3? Most if not all of 1155 boards only have 2 sata 3 ports... My 2 and a half year old am3+ board has 6. It was also a very cheap board. As of now pcie 3 is irrelevant and will be for quite a while still, pcie 1 bandwidth is still enough.
I would not consider the current ones crap they do well in some markets and poor in others.
Well you can stop recommending the I3 and start recommending the Fx-4300 its competitive for the price.
Are we sure about that already? Is it competitive for the price even if the person won't be overclocking?
I can see that it's scoring better, but is that only on multithreaded games? Also, it's only on Windows 8.
Are we sure about that already? Is it competitive for the price even if the person won't be overclocking?
I can see that it's scoring better, but is that only on multithreaded games? Also, it's only on Windows 8.
Yes I am sure unless Intel has a massive price drop within the next two days.
Its on Diablo and Skyrim two for the most part not well threaded games.
Anand only benchmarked them under 8 so until we got some more benchmarks its not a 100% sure.
I think they should move away from AM3+ and AM3, its old and outdated. The CPU is meh, not a huge difference between last generations. I was thinking of getting it but the fact that barley any AM3(+) MoBos have a PCIe 3.0 slot put me off.
pcie 3.0 atm has no real world benefits. Pcie 2.1 at 4x speed doesn't even bottleneck a 5970, which is a dual gpu card remember. Pcie 3.0 would only be useful in 2+ years for extreme sli/crossfire configurations.
The 3570k is also more expensive then PD so I don't think AMDs goal was to compete with the higherend I5s.
The 8350 is a pretty poor deal the lowend actually beats the I3s in the same price point.
The 8320 like I said before is a great deal slap on a water cooler hit 5.2ghz+ and laugh at the I5s.
AMD motherboards don't cost that much, you can get a practically top end board for $135($115 with rebate), they have more Sata III connectors in general and in additon to that you don't have to replace it every time you upgrade your CPU
AMD motherboards cost around the same amount as an equivalent Intel motherboard. An ASRock Z77 Extreme4 only costs $115 and comes with 4 SATA II ports and 4 SATA III ports. If you are going to run a large amount of HDD's for storage you might as well get a file server to hold them all instead of wasting SATA ports on drives that won't make use of SATA III speeds. Unless you have more than 4 SSD's there's really no point in having so many SATA III ports when SATA II will work just as well.
You still can't disregard the fact that there are MANY more motherboards available for current Intel CPU's than there are for current AMD CPU's. I will have to switch to Intel if I wish to watercool because I plan on using a skinnier motherboard that doesn't reach the standoffs on the right side in order to make room for a tube-style reservoir. Intel has two motherboards like that which are also great for overclocking. The only AM3+ board like that with decent VRM cooling has only a 4+1 phase design which is less than ideal for overclocking an 8320.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
Windows Benchmarks.
http://www.tomshardw...eview,3328.html
http://semiaccurate....cessor-vishera/
http://www.anandtech...d-fx4300-tested
Linux Benchmarks
http://www.phoronix....erabdver2&num=1
The two things AMD screwed up most with BD was.
Poor software optimization at release this can be shown by the gains with Win8 and many Linux benchmarks show with updated versions of GCC with more modern optimizations turned on AMD gets a nice boost.
Poor pricing at release and still.
Battlefiled3 multiplayer is pretty CPU dependnt but even then the game is no console port its well optimized for mutlicore cpus.
Skyrim I would like to see a benchmark with some of the threaded features turned on that are disabled by default.
Anandtech shows the 8350 a lot closer to the I5 then toms. This could be a result of Win8 we need a more direct comparison on exactly same hardware to know for sure.
While not very surprising for AMD its more surprising on Blizzards part.
In past years wow xpacs have hardly used 2 cores and now it seems to see scaling to some extent to higher core counts.
A game that is actually going to be CPU bound Civ5 shows a solid win for AMD.
Also disappointing why no Windows 8 benchmarks its coming out in a few days and Windows 7 is not optimized for this arch.Anand has pulled through they have some Win8 benchmarks.
I think its a safe guess Anand and Toms are going to put out a better comparison with the release of Win8 in a few days.
Looks like Piledriver might be something to recommend for rendering rigs though, correct?
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
It's definitely an improvement, but I think we'll still be recommending Intel chips for a while.
Currently GPUs are the only thing keeping AMD alive. Too bad.
Look at the price difference its cheaper then your I5 2500k and a person can pick up a cheap 8320 OC it to 4.5ghz and beat any stock I5 at a fraction of the cost.
BD was already a solid cpu for cheap workstations this is just making it better.
Another thing to look at is the Fx-4300 might be the new lowend go to CPU.
Also I am in the Steam group chat for this section of the forums to talk about in real time with anyone.
That 8320 is looking pretty tempting for a CPU upgrade.
what do you mean? AMD motherboards have been superior over intel ones for a while now.
At most seems to improved performance. But this is a step I guess, Intel at moment is mostly focusing on power consumption.
IIRC there are still no AM3+ motherboards that even support PCIe 3.0 and there are many more Intel motherboards to choose from than AMD. There are only 58 AM3+ motherboards on Newegg where as there are 173 LGA 1155 motherboards. The number of LGA 1155 motherboards in the micro-atx form factor is equal to the total number of AM3+ motherboards on Newegg. AMD has NOTHING as far as enthusiast motherboards go for SFF. Not a single micro-atx AM3+ board goes anywhere near the overclocking potential available on LGA 1155 boards.
Even with ATX motherboards, AM3+ boards with similar features to LGA 1155 boards often cost the same or more than an equivalent AM3+ board.
To me I really don't care on power consumption the fact is for an overclocker the 8320 is a pretty good deal.
Very good indeed. The FX series overclocks very well so achieving higher clocks than a stock 8350 on the 8320 would be quite easy. Considering that the only way you'll be getting an unlocked SB or IB i5 for the same price as an 8320 would be if you lived near a Microcenter or snagged a deal online, the 8320 is priced very well for overclockers.
I would not consider the current ones crap they do well in some markets and poor in others.
Well you can stop recommending the I3 and start recommending the Fx-4300 its competitive for the price.
Numbers mean nothing, do you have any idea how late the intel boards were to intruduce sata 3? Most if not all of 1155 boards only have 2 sata 3 ports... My 2 and a half year old am3+ board has 6. It was also a very cheap board. As of now pcie 3 is irrelevant and will be for quite a while still, pcie 1 bandwidth is still enough.
Are we sure about that already? Is it competitive for the price even if the person won't be overclocking?
I can see that it's scoring better, but is that only on multithreaded games? Also, it's only on Windows 8.
Yes I am sure unless Intel has a massive price drop within the next two days.
Its on Diablo and Skyrim two for the most part not well threaded games.
Anand only benchmarked them under 8 so until we got some more benchmarks its not a 100% sure.
pcie 3.0 atm has no real world benefits. Pcie 2.1 at 4x speed doesn't even bottleneck a 5970, which is a dual gpu card remember. Pcie 3.0 would only be useful in 2+ years for extreme sli/crossfire configurations.
Its going too we are not going to go past Pcie2 bandwidth for much more then 2 years.
The 3570k is also more expensive then PD so I don't think AMDs goal was to compete with the higherend I5s.
The 8350 is a pretty poor deal the lowend actually beats the I3s in the same price point.
The 8320 like I said before is a great deal slap on a water cooler hit 5.2ghz+ and laugh at the I5s.
AMD motherboards cost around the same amount as an equivalent Intel motherboard. An ASRock Z77 Extreme4 only costs $115 and comes with 4 SATA II ports and 4 SATA III ports. If you are going to run a large amount of HDD's for storage you might as well get a file server to hold them all instead of wasting SATA ports on drives that won't make use of SATA III speeds. Unless you have more than 4 SSD's there's really no point in having so many SATA III ports when SATA II will work just as well.
You still can't disregard the fact that there are MANY more motherboards available for current Intel CPU's than there are for current AMD CPU's. I will have to switch to Intel if I wish to watercool because I plan on using a skinnier motherboard that doesn't reach the standoffs on the right side in order to make room for a tube-style reservoir. Intel has two motherboards like that which are also great for overclocking. The only AM3+ board like that with decent VRM cooling has only a 4+1 phase design which is less than ideal for overclocking an 8320.