AMD FX-Series FX-8100: good for multitasking 8x?

[podiumgirl]

Hi there,

I'm seeking advice on the AMD FX-Series FX-8100 processor...

I'm not a gamer. I'm running engineering numerical software. I've been on a cluster to-date, but because of outdated packages (and resistance to upgrade) I need to set up my own desktop system where I'll have more control. Each job (or task) is single threaded, so I'd like to utilize as many cores as possible and thus run as many jobs as possible.

Would this processor actually facilitate 8 simultaneous jobs? I don't plan on doing much else with the computer. Miscellaneous internetting, music, etc will be done elsewhere. I plan to install Ubuntu.

I must keep costs down as much as possible (ie, I'm a grad student and this is out of my pocket!). I've been eyeing an inexpensive (<$500) Acer computer from Newegg that has this processor.

Please note that despite my high performance computing experience, I'm still a newbie with this stuff!

Thanks,
-AFL

 

[kylekillzone]

that processor is fully compatable for what you are doing just i recommend building a computer with that processor instead of buying a pre built one. you will learn much more about a computer and how it works and you will be comfortable to tweak it how you like.

 

[obsama1]

For running many tasks, it's great, but I'd wait for Piledriver. The FX-8350 comes out this Oct., and will perform 10-15% better, and use less power.

 

[bryonhowley]

that processor is fully compatable for what you are doing just i recommend building a computer with that processor instead of buying a pre built one. you will learn much more about a computer and how it works and you will be comfortable to tweak it how you like.

Agree 100% plus you can get the parts you really need and can update it as you need in the future.

As for the FX-8100 CPU goes it will work just fine for what you need and much more. I have the FX-8120 and it is very good for everything I have used it for mostly gaming but I have not had any problems with hd video encoding or anything else.

 

[FinneousPJ]

It is great value for money for your kind of usage.

 

[luciferano]

It probably won't beat an i7 at its clock frequency, but for the money, the FX-81xx CPUs have incredible highly threaded performance for the money, albeit they should be undervolted if you care about power consumption because they're kinda power hungry and have unnecessarily high voltage for their stock frequencies.

 

[podiumgirl]

Thank you all for your advice and input -- much appreciated. While building my own computer would be a fun project (and what grad student doesn't like a good challenge?!), I opted for an earlier graduation date and I bought the computer.

Thanks!

 

[gamerk316]

Heres the root question: Are these single threaded tasks eating 100% of a CPU core? If not, you'll get more performance out of Intel overall, even when doing multiple tasks at once. Heck, even if you have 8 tasks each using 100% of a single core, depending on workload and the way the application is compiled, Intel still might be faster.

 

[luciferano]

Any task that can scale anywhere near 100% across eight cores wouldn't care about Intel's lightly threaded advantage. Some tasks do care, but your example is still wrong. Any task where you do eight single-threaded instances of something is more likely to favor AMD over Intel except maybe some floating point work.

 

[gamerk316]

^^ Keep in mind though, AMD has worse memory access times, and Intels cores are stronger. So depending on work, its quite possible Intel would be just as fast even in heavily threaded situations.

 

[luciferano]

For those who don't mind overclocking. overclocking the CPU/NB frequency (how much depends on the CPU, memory, and program, so it can be a little complicated, but 2.8GHz is a good point for those who don't want to get really into it) of AMD's platforms pretty much fixes that deficiency, although it is still a good point nonetheless.