Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

8350 vs Haswell

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2012 11:30:11 PM

Should I upgrade to an FX 8350 or wait and get a Haswell i5? I currently have a 970 AM3+ Asus board with an FX 4100. If I were to get the Haswell i5, I would not OC it. The FX 8350 would be OC'ed to 5.0GHz though. My uses are watching movies/tv shows, web browsing, light gaming, and everything inbetween. I want it to last until 2015 when I will most likely completely rebuild my system along with a Skylake i5. It will eventually be paired with crossfire Radeon 7770s and 16GB 1333 RAM.

More about : 8350 haswell

a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 5:52:54 AM

If you are on a AM3+ setup to use any Intel platform, it goes without saying you will need to change your entire setup which costs, as for light usage that doesn't require a power right so contemplate your cheapest route forward.

Dual 7770's is not really the best available option, it scales well in some titles but the results are less than impressive in others. A single 7950 can 90% of the time out perform two Cape Verde's, If longivity is your game then you need to also cop out a bit on a GPU with more power.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 6:01:59 AM

If I were you, And I had the money. I'd go to haswell then it leaves the door cracked for Skylake when it comes out. As for your GPU's... whats your budget?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 6:48:41 AM

1] 8350 is the most current chip from AMD that supports his AM3+

2] Steam Roller also confirmed on AM3+ though I expect new chipsets though I am sure on a bios flash a existing AM3+ will operate with a Steam Roller part.

3] He has 3 Generations upgradebility without needing to manditorily change motherboard though obviously on features he will be left behind.

4] Haswell is only expected Q2-3 on a new socket which will cost money over and above the existing setup which is not exhausted.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 9:39:11 AM

with cf 7770s you wouldn't need to hit 5.0 ghz, 4.0 (stock) would probably still be bottlenecked by that gpu setup.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 10:13:36 AM

Yeah 7770's are good but like above it barely makes high end grade and will limit a CPU before it is limited.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 4:30:21 PM

Yeah I saw Steamroller will support AM3+, though the chipsets do concern me. I will hold off until Steamroller as long as it comes by the end of 2013. I have heard that PCIE 3.0 is not a big difference than 2.0. While my motherboard does not have onboard USB 3.0, my case does not either. I rarely use USB anyways. My biggest concern with AMD is that it will go bankrupt or be bought by another company. Btw if I go with Intel I will get a GTX 650 instead. All I would need to upgrade is the motherboard and CPU. As long as Haswell is DDR3 I will be fine with all of my other components.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2012 8:16:55 PM

Yea haswell will be DDR3, Only 1 or 2 companys have DDR4 ram right now but it won't be the industry standard to earliest 2014.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 12:16:32 AM

And I wanted to OC the 8350 to 5.0GHz because I want it to get at least close in performance of Haswell.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 1:30:16 AM

montosaurous said:
And I wanted to OC the 8350 to 5.0GHz because I want it to get at least close in performance of Haswell.

Which won't happen
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 1:51:25 AM

My FX 4100 is fine for my current uses, but it will only be sufficient for 1-2 years longer. Does performance differ with OS, such as Linux which utilizes hardware better than Windows?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:06:14 AM

montosaurous said:
My FX 4100 is fine for my current uses, but it will only be sufficient for 1-2 years longer. Does performance differ with OS, such as Linux which utilizes hardware better than Windows?

Linux has been known to favor Linux better than Windows. Supposedly Windows 8 is where bulldozer will shine... (Yea right)

But IMO its tid for tat between Intel and AMD for Windows. I think they all have their +'s and -'s but in the end when the dust settles... Intel's latest and greatest will beat AMD's latest and greatest.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:32:21 AM

Rockdpm said:
Which won't happen


Rockdpm said:
Linux has been known to favor Linux better than Windows. Supposedly Windows 8 is where bulldozer will shine... (Yea right)

But IMO its tid for tat between Intel and AMD for Windows. I think they all have their +'s and -'s but in the end when the dust settles... Intel's latest and greatest will beat AMD's latest and greatest.


Bulldozer already does shine in certain things, in some things it beats out Intel. Direct X11 games, which are the newest and sexiest. (BF3 for example) FX-8150s stand right up to I5-2500Ks and i7-2600Ks (since Ivy has no real advantage over Sandy for gaming, the same applies). The FX-8120 is at a pretty nice price point, for some heavily threaded work like video editing, CAD, etc. Its not as good as an i7 for everything, but you can't argue with $160 bucks for an 8 thread processor compared to $300+ for an Intel 8 thread.

Windows 8 is trash in and of itself. I'm not saying you should buy Bulldozer/PileDriver, but buy it for what it can do on Windows7, Windows 8 is just pure garbage for the Desktop market with its "metro" interface.

Directly to the OP in regards to his question,

For your described system usage, I don't see how you need anything more powerful than an FX-4100. I would consider sticking with that until you find something the 4100 isn't capable of doing. None of your described tasks are particularly CPU demanding. I wouldn't crossfire 2 7770s though. A single, stronger video card setup is usually the best solution.
Share
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:35:09 AM

Of course they will. AMD will never be able to beat intel. I would just upgrade but AMD's future looks grim, and I fear another company will buy them out and ruin them, as well as ATI. I believe that AMD's newest architecture is fundamentally flawed; it will be a long time until more than 4 cores, letalone 4 threads are needed for basic apps. And the fact that each core is split in two bothers me. I use Fedora for everyday use, and I run Windows on a VM. I'm not sure if having more threads helps with VMing, but it might give me a little breathing room.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:38:14 AM

And adding the second 7770 would be more of an upgrade option.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:41:24 AM

montosaurous said:
Of course they will. AMD will never be able to beat intel. I would just upgrade but AMD's future looks grim, and I fear another company will buy them out and ruin them, as well as ATI. I believe that AMD's newest architecture is fundamentally flawed; it will be a long time until more than 4 cores, letalone 4 threads are needed for basic apps. And the fact that each core is split in two bothers me. I use Fedora for everyday use, and I run Windows on a VM. I'm not sure if having more threads helps with VMing, but it might give me a little breathing room.


It doesn't look good for AMD's future at this point, you are correct in your fears.

However, I'm not so sure the new architecture is fundamentally flawed. Its more that its ahead of its time than anything. The architecture can and does perform on par with Intel's architecture in certain things. AMD was thinking "server" when they designed the Bulldozer architecture. The problem with using it for the desktop market is they haven't quite found the balance between stronger single thread performance and strong multi-threaded performance. Maybe they will find it, maybe they won't. In the meantime, based on Trinity benches that Tom's did (if you want the link to the article), you can at least take some comfort in the fact that AMD has met (and in some cases exceeded) its stated goal of increasing Bulldozer's performance by 10% in PileDriver (some things they got 15% improvement). At least they stuck to their roadmap. Its a small victory, but a victory nevertheless.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:41:48 AM

nekulturny said:
Bulldozer already does shine in certain things, in some things it beats out Intel. Direct X11 games, which are the newest and sexiest. (BF3 for example) FX-8150s stand right up to I5-2500Ks and i7-2600Ks (since Ivy has no real advantage over Sandy for gaming, the same applies). The FX-8120 is at a pretty nice price point, for some heavily threaded work like video editing, CAD, etc. Its not as good as an i7 for everything, but you can't argue with $160 bucks for an 8 thread processor compared to $300+ for an Intel 8 thread.

Windows 8 is trash in and of itself. I'm not saying you should buy Bulldozer/PileDriver, but buy it for what it can do on Windows7, Windows 8 is just pure garbage for the Desktop market with its "metro" interface.

Directly to the OP in regards to his question,

For your described system usage, I don't see how you need anything more powerful than an FX-4100. I would consider sticking with that until you find something the 4100 isn't capable of doing. None of your described tasks are particularly CPU demanding. I wouldn't crossfire 2 7770s though. A single, stronger video card setup is usually the best solution.

I didn't say it doesn't shine. But for gaming yea Bulldozer does ok but rendering and such is where bulldozer's strength is
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:42:25 AM

montosaurous said:
And adding the second 7770 would be more of an upgrade option.

You're still better off with a single, stronger video card, you avoid potential microstuttering issues that way.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:54:05 AM

nekulturny said:
You're still better off with a single, stronger video card, you avoid potential microstuttering issues that way.

Why I always try to get a single tier card from now on
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 2:55:53 AM

Rockdpm said:
Why I always try to get a single tier card from now on

Yea... you're better off selling the lower end card, or using it for something else, rather than adding a 2nd lower end card. I just popped a 7870 in to replace my 550 TI. The 550 TI, I will use to build a computer for my mother rather than let it collect dust.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:00:17 AM

Where is a good place to sell used hardware at?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:02:59 AM

Craig's List, ebay, friends, family, etc. I think this forum even has a classified's section. You might be able to get $50 out of your 7770. No, its not anywhere near what you paid for it, but if you get it, I'd take it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:19:12 AM

I know. I bought my PS3 for $400 in 2008 and got $150. Doesn't bother me at all. I mean, a single 7770 is fine for me now. I just figured adding a second would last me 3 years. I'll probably upgrade with the 8000, or possibly 9000 series (depending on time of release) then. I figure an SSD will be a much better upgrade now than the CPU then, and I'll hold off until Steamroller, possibly excavator if it isn't on FM3/AM4 and AMD's last Pure CPU.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:22:08 AM

montosaurous said:
I know. I bought my PS3 for $400 in 2008 and got $150. Doesn't bother me at all. I mean, a single 7770 is fine for me now. I just figured adding a second would last me 3 years. I'll probably upgrade with the 8000, or possibly 9000 series (depending on time of release) then. I figure an SSD will be a much better upgrade now than the CPU then, and I'll hold off until Steamroller, possibly excavator if it isn't on FM3/AM4 and AMD's last Pure CPU.

An SSD wouldn't be a bad toy to have. I would at least buy one that is 128GB capacity though, ideally I'd get the 256GB. I'd suggest Crucial M4's. But yea, for what you're doing, light gaming, and watching videos, your system is fine for that, you don't need 16GB of RAM either. 8 is more than plenty enough.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:40:27 AM

Yea the Crucial M4's seems to be best of the best for SSD value
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 3:42:34 AM

Yeah I'd get a Crucial 128GB M4. I really like Crucial's RAM, so I think I can trust their SSDs. 16GB RAM is for my VMing, which I like to give Windows a lot since it's a resource hog.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 4:46:50 AM

montosaurous said:
Yeah I'd get a Crucial 128GB M4. I really like Crucial's RAM, so I think I can trust their SSDs. 16GB RAM is for my VMing, which I like to give Windows a lot since it's a resource hog.

Yea, but at least with WinVista and 7, its pretty good about giving you memory back when its done with it. 98,2k, XP, not so much.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:04:31 AM

I might use some DOS as well. If I find the money, eh why not add some RAM?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:07:12 AM

Can't hurt I guess, but I just don't think you'll see a benefit from it. I've got 16 gigs, I haven't managed to use more than 6 of it per Windows Task Manager. Although I don't use my computer for hardcore stuff like AutoCad, video editing, etc. Some of that stuff, yea 16GB could probably be used.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:15:55 AM

You can never have too much RAM. I mean, I like my system to feature a powerful CPU, lots of RAM, and tons of storage. Almost like a server.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:18:56 AM

lol, well.. maybe you can look at the FX-8350s after their price drop. I've got my eye on em too, but I'll wait for em to drop in price like the 8150s did. Actually, I'll probably get an 8320. Since like the 8150s, the 8120s are the same CPU, just clocked lower.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:22:36 AM

My only concern with AMD is that it will get crash and burn for financial reasons, as I said.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:32:12 AM

They probably will, but their CPUs that they sold before they crashed and burn will still work :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:36:14 AM

I guess. I just hope they let ATI go first.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 5:47:33 AM

ATI could indeed survive. They've made a pretty good dent in Nvidia's market, they can match Nvidia with better products with more aggressive pricing. GTX 5xx series last year got smashed by AMD 6xxx and 7xxx series and so far, AMD has Nvidia pinned to the wall with their new GTX 6xx series.

AMD's APUs downright embarrass Intels on-board graphics, its just a matter of market. Intel outsells AMD CPUs 5 to 1, and really they shouldn't, especially for the mobile market, AMD just plain has the better product in my opinion.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 6:09:05 AM

The only thing intel does better for mobile is power efficiency, which unfortunately is important there. Intel beats AMD in most benchmarks, but why are they always the same 10 benchmarks? Another option is getting a Thuban. Think that would beat an FX 8350?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 6:15:39 AM

Best answer selected by montosaurous.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 6, 2012 7:13:47 PM

montosaurous said:
The only thing intel does better for mobile is power efficiency, which unfortunately is important there. Intel beats AMD in most benchmarks, but why are they always the same 10 benchmarks? Another option is getting a Thuban. Think that would beat an FX 8350?


They usually run synthetics, and a few games, and a couple productivity apps. Depends on the site. Synthetics definitely do have their place, but you have to remember context and the definition of the word "synthetic". Say if someone needs a laptop for school and lite gaming on the go (even though laptops aren't the most ideal gaming platforms), and they're choosing between a laptop with an i3 and HD 3000 graphics or a new Trinity APU. Both cost about the same, you'll get tons of fanboys here showing up and saying "oh yea, definitely get the i3 cus its a much better CPU"... *record scratching sound* hold up a minute... How much CPU power do you really need to run Microsoft Office, a browser window to research stuff for school? Answer? Hardly any. In fact, I use a 5 year old laptop with a Core2Duo for that, and it does it very well. So, for your gaming needs? Say you want to run games like WoW or D3? Both pretty scalable and able to play comfortably on a laptop... The Trinity is the superior product.

As far as Thuban, eh. I wouldn't bother unless you could find a 1090T or 1100T Black Edition, and they're pretty damn near impossible to find. But no, I think the FX-8350s will perform better. 8150s already do beat Thubans in multi-threading, just like the Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge dilemma, its the single core performance that suffers primarily.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2012 11:46:24 PM

I could run Sims 3 maxed out with a GT 430, Core 2 Duo e4400, and 4GB RAM. So not intensive at all for word low end games. Thubans are also really expensive for the places that do sell them since I checked.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 1:35:34 AM

montosaurous said:
I could run Sims 3 maxed out with a GT 430, Core 2 Duo e4400, and 4GB RAM. So not intensive at all for word low end games. Thubans are also really expensive for the places that do sell them since I checked.

The truth behind the reason Phenom II X6's are more than 8150's is because they have a better design and raw power to handle stuff. I feel confident enough to even compare a Phenom II X6 1100T to a 2600K
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 1:52:36 AM

You must also remember that that Thuban and Deneb weren't meant to compete with Sandy and Ivy, rather Clarkdale and Lynnfield. This is why the FX was considered a failure, because it couldn't compete with intel cpus letalone previous generations.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 1:59:45 AM

That is true
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:02:36 AM

Well, Phenom IIs with C3 steppings (That would be Deneb 965-980s) were meant to compete with Sandy. And actually, the dirty little secret is, they in fact did compete very well with some of Intel's early Sandy releases.

Specifically i5-23xx. My ex had an i5-2300.. My Phenom II @ 4.0 performs better than his i5 @ 2.8GHZ. Sure, it does say something that the AMD CPU has to run at a higher clock speed to, barely outperform it, but indeed it does, which isn't bad for an "inferior" architecture that is several years old.

Check it out:

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:12:29 AM

I meant Deneb was 2009 while Sandy and Ivy were 2012. AMD said something about them wanting to play the value card instead of competing directly. They were actually doing well performance wise until Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:22:37 AM

Sandy Bridge was released Jan, 2011.

Yea, but AMD revised the K10 microarchitecture a couple times rather than scrap it. The Phenom II 980 and 975 with C3 stepping were released roundabouts in March 2011, which was a couple months after Sandy Bridge was underway. And yea, value is nice, but Bulldozer definitely didn't help them in that market. I have to wonder if they would have been worse off if they tried to improve the K10 again rather than go Bulldozer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:37:51 AM

nekulturny said:
Well, Phenom IIs with C3 steppings (That would be Deneb 965-980s) were meant to compete with Sandy. And actually, the dirty little secret is, they in fact did compete very well with some of Intel's early Sandy releases.

Specifically i5-23xx. My ex had an i5-2300.. My Phenom II @ 4.0 performs better than his i5 @ 2.8GHZ. Sure, it does say something that the AMD CPU has to run at a higher clock speed to, barely outperform it, but indeed it does, which isn't bad for an "inferior" architecture that is several years old.

Check it out:

http://imageshack.us/a/img215/198/i52300vphenomiiat4ghz.jpg

Wait... so your a.... Girl? dang didn't know that one...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:38:25 AM

Bulldozer could just be another Phenom
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:40:39 AM

Rockdpm said:
Wait... so your a.... Girl? dang didn't know that one...

No, lol.. People assume that a lot when I mention that my ex was a male. I'm used to it.

montosaurous said:
Bulldozer could just be another Phenom


I don't think PileDriver will be a huge increase over 1100T's performance, but I do think it will be somewhat better.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:47:20 AM

nekulturny said:
No, lol.. People assume that a lot when I mention that my ex was a male. I'm used to it.



I don't think it will be a huge increase over 1100T's performance, but I do think it will be somewhat better.


Yeah I've never met a female who has a great knowledge of computers. I'm quite knowledgeable, though inexperienced. When I can't make up my mind I ask other for their opinions and advice, and also gain some knowledge for myself.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
October 7, 2012 2:50:41 AM

lol, you'd be surprised, there are some out there. Even weirder, I know some females who know cars.. I know cars too.... hey, not every gay guy can give you fashion tips :lol: 
m
0
l
!