Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kinda Sad? :( AMD-8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 14, 2012 9:26:31 PM

So, I got all excited for the new Piledriver 8350, and I ordered it for Christmas. So now that's at my house, and under the tree waiting to be unwrapped. I'm having some pretty bad second thoughts. It's upsetting to me that the Piledriver is still vastly under performing as compared to Intel's offering especially against the 3570K.

Now granted I do video and graphics editing, and I am an engineer using Soldworks and Autocad, which needs a lot of multi-threading support.

And I did buy it for only $188.
And I'm pairing it with a Radeon 7870.


Anyone care to make me feel better about buying this chip? Cause I'm thinking about returning it back to the seller, then plopping down an extra $20 or so and then getting the 3570k. Or I can wait for Steamroller to come out, sell the 8350, and pray Steamroller is better?

More about : kinda sad amd 8350

a c 109 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 9:37:11 PM

The piledriver isn't far behind the i5, especially in gaming and mulit-threaded apps.

You can overclock it and get a lot of performance out of it, the 8350 would perform better in highly threaded apps.
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 9:44:52 PM

Hi, What motherboard do you have? You can't use Intel or AMD with the same board.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2012 9:45:25 PM

8350 is a good buy for multithreaded work loads. Not AS good a buy for gaming, but it gets the job done. Wish I had an 8 core for World Machine, I tell you what.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 9:45:39 PM

It's got 8 threads , how much would you have paid for 8 threads in a intel chip ? Plus like J said the piledriver OC's like a beast, I have seen 4.4 on the stock HS not that I recommend it.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 9:46:34 PM

ASUS M5A99X EVO AM3+ AMD 990X SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 9:47:14 PM

Dont be worried im running a fx-4100 with a gtx 480 (which is about the same as a 7870) and im still slightly bottled necked at my gpu. Still dont take my word for it check out here the 8350 only gets 4fps less than the 3570K in bf3.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...
and only 2fps less than the 3570k in crysis 2.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

I dont really see a big difference and without a very very power full card like the gtx 680 or HD 7970 i dont think you will need to worry.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 9:47:37 PM

alexoiu said:
Hi, What motherboard do you have? You can't use Intel or AMD with the same board.


Yeah, I know, the sockets aren't compatible, I was assuming that I'd return the board too.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2012 9:48:21 PM

Yes piledriver is as good as intel i5 for applications like photshop because it actually takes advantage of all 8 cores. Not so much for gaming though. Most games only use 2-4 cores so thats why intel is better.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 9:48:57 PM

for the kind of work your doing the FX8350 is a very good purchase :D  i hope this will make you feel better now /no1
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 10:01:47 PM

FX-8350(FD8350FRW8KHK,4.0GHz,8C,125W,rev.C0,AM3+) ALL 1604

Notice the 1604. It was released in October 2012. If the board had been manufactured before that, it would not support the CPU without a BIOS update.
You can check the BIOS version on the motherboard or by the first characters (letters/digits) of the serial number.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 10:20:30 PM

alexoiu said:
FX-8350(FD8350FRW8KHK,4.0GHz,8C,125W,rev.C0,AM3+) ALL 1604

Notice the 1604. It was released in October 2012. If the board had been manufactured before that, it would not support the CPU without a BIOS update.
You can check the BIOS version on the motherboard or by the first characters (letters/digits) of the serial number.



So I have a motherboard revision 1.01, but no indication as to what BIOS version it runs.
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 10:23:26 PM

There's a sticker on the board (a thin one with a barcode). The last separated 4 digits stand for the BIOS version.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 10:29:26 PM

alexoiu said:
There's a sticker on the board (a thin one with a barcode). The last separated 4 digits stand for the BIOS version.


Thanks, BIOS revision 1208. Looks like I'm gonna have to find a processor for this sucker.
m
0
l
December 14, 2012 10:30:15 PM

Nothing wrong with the AMD 8350.
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 10:32:00 PM

Yes. Either that or buying a BIOS chip flashed with the latest vesion and replacing the boards one (it's on socket).
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
December 14, 2012 11:55:57 PM

I switched from a Phenom II X6 1045t @ 3.4 Ghz, to a 2600K @ 4Ghz.

Wish I still had all that money I spent on the Intel MB and CPU.

It turns out that my two GTX 560's (SLI) were doing most of the heavy lifting for my games.



m
0
l
December 15, 2012 1:00:12 AM

Z1NONLY said:
I switched from a Phenom II X6 1045t @ 3.4 Ghz, to a 2600K @ 4Ghz.

Wish I still had all that money I spent on the Intel MB and CPU.

It turns out that my two GTX 560's (SLI) were doing most of the heavy lifting for my games.



See? That's my thought process, for games, the majority of time I thought I would just be using graphics card. Question remains, could you Hybrid compute with this chip? Maybe assist the single threaded applications where AMD just fails?
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 1:11:41 AM

alexoiu said:
Yes. Either that or buying a BIOS chip flashed with the latest vesion and replacing the boards one (it's on socket).


I'm not sure whether or not any friends or colleagues have a processor that will fit this motherboard.

Could this be a viable alternative?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIOS-Chip-ASUS-M5A99X-EVO-/2608...

OR

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Bios-Chip-Asus-M5A99X-EVO-/...

This would be a lot cheaper than buying a Sempron for $30, which is the next cheapest alternative
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 2:36:15 AM

Z1NONLY said:
I switched from a Phenom II X6 1045t @ 3.4 Ghz, to a 2600K @ 4Ghz.

Wish I still had all that money I spent on the Intel MB and CPU.

It turns out that my two GTX 560's (SLI) were doing most of the heavy lifting for my games.

Agreed--my two GTX 560's (SLI) do all the heavy lifting with my FX 8350. A lot people say what they think the cpu can't do but don't understand whether it's intel or amd that if you cpu doesn't bottleneck your gpu's then they do most of the work in 1080p and high resolutions.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 3:29:47 AM

Here's a good way to make you feel better: you'll have a CPU with 8 freakin' cores. Yeah, it's not as fast as it sounds, but that's still pretty sweet. :)  You're welcome.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 3:45:34 AM

Ihave the 8350 , it's great for C A D and video editing , you'll be pleased with the purchase . A great CPU , It was a step up from my 1090t , makes a noticible difference on multi threaded applications
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 4:17:32 AM

You will not benefit with the i5-3570K when it comes to multi-threaded applications. Because it has Hyper Threading Disabled. If you want multi-tasking with Intel, go with the i7-3770K which is faster than the 8350 but costs $100 more.
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 15, 2012 4:18:06 AM

skurtov said:
I'm not sure whether or not any friends or colleagues have a processor that will fit this motherboard.

Could this be a viable alternative?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIOS-Chip-ASUS-M5A99X-EVO-/2608...

OR

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Bios-Chip-Asus-M5A99X-EVO-/...

This would be a lot cheaper than buying a Sempron for $30, which is the next cheapest alternative



Yes. If in US, you can order one from ASUS eStore. If not, ebay or dedicated sites are the alternative.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 4:51:21 AM

Dude, It's freaking awesome, I want one SO bad. It performs well, It's not the best, but it performs great! It's right behind the i7s and i5s.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
December 15, 2012 5:18:44 AM

griptwister said:
Dude, It's freaking awesome, I want one SO bad. It performs well, It's not the best, but it performs great! It's right behind the i7s and i5s.


I don't really disagree with the main point (that the 8350 is a good CPU), but you went all over the map in two sentences, lol. "Freaking awesome", "performs well", "it's not the best", "performs great"... All in two sentences, lol. Make up your mind.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 5:23:09 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I don't really disagree with the main point (that the 8350 is a good CPU), but you went all over the map in two sentences, lol. "Freaking awesome", "performs well", "it's not the best", "performs great"... All in two sentences, lol. Make up your mind.

Gaming wise, not the best. Multi-tasking wise, It's friggin amazing! I was put into awe lol.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 6:14:13 AM

alexoiu said:
FX-8350(FD8350FRW8KHK,4.0GHz,8C,125W,rev.C0,AM3+) ALL 1604

Notice the 1604. It was released in October 2012. If the board had been manufactured before that, it would not support the CPU without a BIOS update.
You can check the BIOS version on the motherboard or by the first characters (letters/digits) of the serial number.

Not supporting the cpu does NOT MEAN IT WON'T BOOT.

It means when it does boot, it will see an "unknown cpu" and probably clock it at 1.5 ghz or 2.4ghz. From there, update the bios, its software, not a chip.

as for gaming, 90% of the games out there are limited by the gpu.

Review sites try to find those 10% that do favor intel and just post those games because thats the ONLY games that make a difference, until you get to running 3 video cards.
m
0
l
a c 114 à CPUs
December 15, 2012 6:29:08 AM

noob2222 said:
Not supporting the cpu does NOT MEAN IT WON'T BOOT.

It means when it does boot, it will see an "unknown cpu" and probably clock it at 1.5 ghz or 2.4ghz. From there, update the bios, its software, not a chip.

as for gaming, 90% of the games out there are limited by the gpu.

Review sites try to find those 10% that do favor intel and just post those games because thats the ONLY games that make a difference, until you get to running 3 video cards.


Well, I say it won't boot.
Just one example:
"Asus's box has Advertisement stating this motherboard was designed for the AMD FX series of CPU's. My issue is my AMD FX-8120 CPU did not work when I plugged it in and I was forced to waste my money on another CPU just to update the mobo's bios so it can accept my AMD FX-8120.

My only issue was the FACT Bulldozer does not work on this motherboard without a BIOS UPDATE. So I find it completely unfair that the buyer is forced to either pay for an updated BIOS CHIP which ASUS will send to you for a price and/or buy an original AMD Phenom II CPU just to update the bios before you can plug in a Bulldozer based CPU."
http://www.amazon.com/Crosshair-Formula-Republic-Gamers...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 6:44:01 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I don't really disagree with the main point (that the 8350 is a good CPU), but you went all over the map in two sentences, lol. "Freaking awesome", "performs well", "it's not the best", "performs great"... All in two sentences, lol. Make up your mind.

Yep, it is pretty funny.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 7:14:19 AM

alexoiu said:
Well, I say it won't boot.
Just one example:
"Asus's box has Advertisement stating this motherboard was designed for the AMD FX series of CPU's. My issue is my AMD FX-8120 CPU did not work when I plugged it in and I was forced to waste my money on another CPU just to update the mobo's bios so it can accept my AMD FX-8120.

My only issue was the FACT Bulldozer does not work on this motherboard without a BIOS UPDATE. So I find it completely unfair that the buyer is forced to either pay for an updated BIOS CHIP which ASUS will send to you for a price and/or buy an original AMD Phenom II CPU just to update the bios before you can plug in a Bulldozer based CPU."
http://www.amazon.com/Crosshair-Formula-Republic-Gamers...

1208 supported fx chips, but looking around, looks like there was a glitch with 1102 bios version where some of them wouldn't boot.

chances are if it doesn't boot, using 1 memory stick will allow it to work for updating the bios.

Asus forums were a bit tricky to find, http://vip.asus.com/forum/topic.aspx?board_id=1&SLangua...
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 7:58:01 AM

I would say that the 8350 is a great chip. Here's a review of it vs a 3770K for gaming.

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8350-piledriver-gami...

Note they used a 7950 and said they really got a good benefit with the new drivers. Are you going to see a chip with the 8350 that will beat down the 3770k? No. Some of the benchmarks though, the 8350 actually is ahead of a 3770k, so my guess would be it would at least run with an i5 3570k, and probably beat the i5 in a portion of benchmarks, gaming or otherwise.

But I wouldn't say Piledriver is vastly underperforming by any stretch. Considering where they were with Bulldozer, I think Piledriver is a success to bounce back this far. Hope they continue the trend.

I don't know what I have under the tree exactly, but I did get a discount on a new motherboard, so I picked up a Gigabyte 970a-ud3, and my wife is getting me a 7850 2gb card. So that's a start.

But everything aside, the video card really is where your biggest gaming performance is gonna be, and the 7870 should be a strong card for you. As for AMD chips, guys are going to say they aren't as good, and the benchmarks may not bear that out. But I will say I'm a gamer, and I'm also a tech, I work as a network admin and do repairs. I always use AMD one reason is pricing. I can usually get an AMD chip that does what I want for a little better price. I know Intel has gotten better, but google sometime intel broadwell. The reports are that Intel is going to start soldering processors to motherboards. For me, if I ever had the thought about jumping to intel, which did cross my mind, the idea of my cpu being soldered to the motherboard is making me stick to AMD. I don't want to support a company forcing those on typical desktop users.

For many, no trouble they just buy new computers. For me, I'm not poor or anything, but I am budget conscious. When I buy, I want the best bang for my buck. I don't want to throw money away even if I've got it. If you have a cpu soldered to a motherboard and your motherboard dies, guess what, you probably have to rebuy your cpu also even though it's perfectly functioning. So a 100 dollar fix now might be a 400 dollar fix. Or what if you have a premium motherboard and the cpu goes out 3 months in, which I've seen happen. Oh wait, you may have warranty, but you get the joy of dismantling your PC to send Intel the board.

Why go through that? With me, I typically buy all my parts at my local Microcenter(45 minute drive is worth it). Buy the 2 year warranty, and if I have problems, back it goes, they swap it right then and there, no middlemen, no waiting on parts to come in stock. They either exchange it, or I can get store credit to get whatever I want.

Edit *Apologize for the rant.

Also did want to comment, sometimes systems will not boot if the CPU is not supported. My current board that happened. I'd flashed to the latest BIOS in order to use a new Athlon II quad core chip I'd bought, manufacturer's site said no problem, this BIOS update supports this chip. Dropped my new chip in, no boot. I ended up having to put my old chip back in, and found a file for an older BIOS file for my board(provided by one of the kind members on the forum), that I'd just happened to save somewhere, the manufacturer's site no longer hosted the file. But I flashed to the older BIOS, dropped the chip in and voila, it worked perfectly.

But to what the other guy was saying, I have seen it happen the other way also, you get a board needing a BIOS update, and it reads your new 6 core as an 800mhz processor.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 8:30:03 AM

Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really. Check out the recent SBM for example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overcloc...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/do-it-yourself-buil...

Also, it's much better for the WORK you're doing, which i think you should be more worried about than a 2-7% difference in FPS (which translates to about 5 fps on an average).

At 1080p your GPU would be the bottleneck anyway so non-issue again.

Then for the BIOS. Recently help pick out parts for a friend, his BIOS *technically* needed an update to support the CPU (Core i3-3220, since it was released a while after the i5s, i7s and the board) but it booted up properly. In fact, i doubt he's flashed the BIOS even now, and it's been over a month.

So if it doesn't work then try whatever you were discussing, as simple as that.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 8:34:05 AM

On those BIOS flashes, I've honestly gotten to where my opinion is if it's not broke, don't fix it. So many manufacturers put BIOS flashes out there and want people to use them. If my system boots and works properly, there's NO reason to flash the BIOS unless you need it for compatibility with a CPU or devices, or you are having trouble. Other than those things, once you set things up and overclock and whatever you are going to do, leave things alone!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 10:52:40 AM

The CPU dictates the 99th percentile of frames, and even higher, the CPU does bottleneck the video card, the question is what percentage of the time is spent under X fps?
- The below graph demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Bear in mind this is with the HD7970 GPU, which is even more powerful, and the AMD-8350 chokes it pretty badly!

Quote:
Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really.

- Anything over 16.666~ ms is under 60fps!


- Looks like a really bad deal to me.
- The above graph was taken from a Radeon HD 7970 3GB card using v12.3 of the drivers.

The Core i5 outperforms the AMD-8350 in every game, the performance isn't close.
- 'performance' including the minimum frame rate, 99th percentile and stuttering issues, etc.

1 in 8 frames will stutter on the AMD-8350 due to it's design, the Intel Core i5 is much smoother.
- The reason for this is that it is really just a 4 core CPU with SMT, the resource contention within the AMD-8350 makes it terrible to game on.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 11:28:14 AM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
The CPU dictates the 99th percentile of frames, and even higher, the CPU does bottleneck the video card, the question is what percentage of the time is spent under X fps?
- The below graph demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Bear in mind this is with the HD7970 GPU, which is even more powerful, and the AMD-8350 chokes it pretty badly!

Quote:
Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really.

- Anything over 16.666~ ms is under 60fps!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif
- Looks like a really bad deal to me.
- The above graph was taken from a Radeon HD 7970 3GB card using v12.3 of the drivers.

The Core i5 outperforms the AMD-8350 in every game, the performance isn't close.
- 'performance' including the minimum frame rate, 99th percentile and stuttering issues, etc.

1 in 8 frames will stutter on the AMD-8350 due to it's design, the Intel Core i5 is much smoother.
- The reason for this is that it is really just a 4 core CPU with SMT, the resource contention within the AMD-8350 makes it terrible to game on.



I've seen people discuss disabling the 4 ("virtual cores"?), the ones that share the IPC and cache (am I right on this, not exactly familiar with the architexture), and that helps to reduce the gaming bottleneck and single threaded tasks
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 11:34:12 AM

As for the BIOS chip, I'll just buy one, the Ebay seller allows defective replacement up to one year, which I don't think ASUS does. Anyways, the BIOS chips on Asus boards are easy to replace and it will ensure that the thing works on the 26th when I build it :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 1:30:07 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
The CPU dictates the 99th percentile of frames, and even higher, the CPU does bottleneck the video card, the question is what percentage of the time is spent under X fps?
- The below graph demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Bear in mind this is with the HD7970 GPU, which is even more powerful, and the AMD-8350 chokes it pretty badly!

Quote:
Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really.

- Anything over 16.666~ ms is under 60fps!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif
- Looks like a really bad deal to me.
- The above graph was taken from a Radeon HD 7970 3GB card using v12.3 of the drivers.

The Core i5 outperforms the AMD-8350 in every game, the performance isn't close.
- 'performance' including the minimum frame rate, 99th percentile and stuttering issues, etc.

1 in 8 frames will stutter on the AMD-8350 due to it's design, the Intel Core i5 is much smoother.
- The reason for this is that it is really just a 4 core CPU with SMT, the resource contention within the AMD-8350 makes it terrible to game on.

You do understand that Graph actually makes the FX 8350 look pretty good right about now... Don't ya? Saying it's terrible is a bit harsh.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 1:59:14 PM

griptwister said:
You do understand that Graph actually makes the FX 8350 look pretty good right about now... Don't ya? Saying it's terrible is a bit harsh.



Until you see how much it costs, and how it compares to a lower cost intel cpu, the locked 3470 thrashes it and is cheaper.


And that's not even including the facts you need a aftermarket cpu cooler, AND the godawful energy consumption after it is overclocked.
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 2:28:56 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
The CPU dictates the 99th percentile of frames, and even higher, the CPU does bottleneck the video card, the question is what percentage of the time is spent under X fps?
- The below graph demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Bear in mind this is with the HD7970 GPU, which is even more powerful, and the AMD-8350 chokes it pretty badly!

Quote:
Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really.

- Anything over 16.666~ ms is under 60fps!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif
- Looks like a really bad deal to me.
- The above graph was taken from a Radeon HD 7970 3GB card using v12.3 of the drivers.

The Core i5 outperforms the AMD-8350 in every game, the performance isn't close.
- 'performance' including the minimum frame rate, 99th percentile and stuttering issues, etc.

1 in 8 frames will stutter on the AMD-8350 due to it's design, the Intel Core i5 is much smoother.
- The reason for this is that it is really just a 4 core CPU with SMT, the resource contention within the AMD-8350 makes it terrible to game on.



Actually, that graph shows that the 8350, while not quite equaling or besting the Intel chips, is a vast improvement over the Phenom II. I don't see where the 8350 "chokes it badly".
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 2:34:12 PM

maxalge said:
Until you see how much it costs, and how it compares to a lower cost intel cpu, the locked 3470 thrashes it and is cheaper.


And that's not even including the facts you need a aftermarket cpu cooler, AND the godawful energy consumption after it is overclocked.



The 8350 is $10 more than the 3470 on NewEgg, nothing to write home about. As far as needing an aftermarket cooler, that is probably good advice for any cpu, even running at stock, when the processor is under medium-heavy loads like it would be doing the kind of work the OP was referring to.

Edit - OP, are your work programs number 1 priority, or is this a gaming machine that you intend to also use for work? If it's the former, I say stick with the Piledriver, and let me know how it performs in your programs :D  ; I do a lot of CAD work and I am curious to see how the 8350 stacks up against my 2600K.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
December 15, 2012 2:45:58 PM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
The CPU dictates the 99th percentile of frames, and even higher, the CPU does bottleneck the video card, the question is what percentage of the time is spent under X fps?
- The below graph demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Bear in mind this is with the HD7970 GPU, which is even more powerful, and the AMD-8350 chokes it pretty badly!

Quote:
Well, the 8350 won't bottleneck you to the point that your FPS drops below 60, so it's a non-issue really.

- Anything over 16.666~ ms is under 60fps!

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif
- Looks like a really bad deal to me.
- The above graph was taken from a Radeon HD 7970 3GB card using v12.3 of the drivers.

The Core i5 outperforms the AMD-8350 in every game, the performance isn't close.
- 'performance' including the minimum frame rate, 99th percentile and stuttering issues, etc.

1 in 8 frames will stutter on the AMD-8350 due to it's design, the Intel Core i5 is much smoother.
- The reason for this is that it is really just a 4 core CPU with SMT, the resource contention within the AMD-8350 makes it terrible to game on.


I was basically running an 1100t (Worst one on the chart) and the difference in the visual experience was not distinguishable when I switched to the 2600k @ 4Ghz.

The difference in my checking account balance was very distinguishable though.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 2:48:41 PM

Just Love these "wars"
First and formost - OP That system will work just great - Just Not my choice.
Not a gamer, So FPS is meaninless to My - But then unless the CPU bottlenecks - Thats predominately controlled by the GPU.

ohiou_grad_06 - "Soldered in CPUs", so biased, already debunked by Intel. That statement was taken out of content - It Only applies to Boards that made sense to Soldered in. NOTE MBs bios chip(s) have run this gromment. Early days they were al plug-in chips. Then they evolved to soldered in and now you see the return of some being plug-in chips. Answer found in electronics 101 for pros/cons

Back on topic. As I stated, noting wrong with OPs choice. Benchmarks can be deceiving - Look at SSDs. Higher does NOT always translate in to a noticable USER day-to-day performance. Normally a diff of 10% in performance is Not detectable by user. Be thay SSD read/writes, or FPS.

My choice is more governered by Company support chipests/drivers - Unfortuanately AMD has been hurt by this lately. Purely a personnel/$$$ issue. AMD is on record as saying they would no longer compete on high end - No Big issue as I surely can not JUSTIFY (Money not the issue as I have) the real High end. Look at Trim support for SSD, AMD very late, then there is Trim support for SSD when member drive of Raid config. Then for Notebooks, Nvidea dGPUs where better supported when switching between iGPU (2D App ie word/excell) and dGPU (for 3D apps ie DVD movie or Game). All My Desktops have AMD GPU, but switch to Nvidea for laptop.
Anybody look at stock prices, read financial reviews?? Some times it Not just about a few FPS or completing this task a few mSecs faster.
@ $2.40 (under $2.00 at one point this month) - Well lets just say that it will either Sink or Swim - My Xball doesn't work to well. So lets just say unless it improves it's ripe for pickings.

Added: Just notice the Comment about HSF - INTEL's HSF stinks and I do Not remove from Box even for stock CPU - So not really an issue for OCing as Both require a NEW 3rd party HSF, But in the Non-clocked CPU I still recommend replacing the crappy intel jopke of a HSF. An OLD poster here, SupremeLaw, put it very well - Intel should be sued of the poor designe (Back in the E6xxx days)
m
0
l
December 15, 2012 5:02:45 PM

Actually, the choice is clear: Intel has an obvious domination in efficiency. I wouldn't look at the issue from the performance point. Vishera deserves its price if you consider its performance. The key issue is about efficiency. Vishera can compete against the similarly priced intel offering(s), only if you see it from performance standpoint. Gaming is not its specialty but at high resolutions, generally CPU speed is less relevant (it still has an effect though). Bottom line: Vishera is good CPU only if you omit the power consumption aspect from the mix. If you do not care power efficiency, you are going to like it
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 5:38:00 PM

skurtov said:
See? That's my thought process, for games, the majority of time I thought I would just be using graphics card. Question remains, could you Hybrid compute with this chip? Maybe assist the single threaded applications where AMD just fails?


What happens is that a Graphics cards can be a bottleneck for a system with a fast CPU. So while the CPU can keep feeding the Graphics card more work to render, the resolution and the complexity of what is being rendered could max out certain aspects of the Graphics Card such as: ROPs (Raster Operators handle anti-aliasing, Z and color compression, and the actual writing of the pixel to the output buffer), the TMUs (Texture Mapping Units is able to rotate and resize a bitmap to be placed onto an arbitrary plane of a given 3D object as a texture), the Memory Bandwidth (used mostly to transfer large textures in and out of memory to the GPU for output to the screen), the amount of Memory (important for high res gaming), the Compute ability (ALU/SFU/SPU GFLOPs) etc etc.

With gaming at 1080p you're going to be taxing a lot of those aspects or components of a Graphics Card. So while the CPU is ready and willing to feed more information to the Graphics card, for processing, the latter is still backed up working on previous frames from previous data sent to it from the CPU.

Think of the CPU as the Wide end of a funnel and the GPU as being the small end. CPU can feed a lot of data into that funnel but it takes a while before the GPU processes it all.

This changes, of course, when using CrossfireX or SLI on high end Graphics cards in Dual, Tri and Quad configurations. The addition of more graphics performance tips the scales and now the CPU is the bottleneck. Of course this all depends on the resolution being used, level of AA, AF and the complexity of the game being rendered.

Food for thought :) 
m
0
l
!