wccf: fx-8350 benchmark preview: fritz, cinebench, and OBR oh my!

we have initial results for the fx-8350 codename "vishera orochi" (for those curious the 8150 is zambezi orochi) are in these are all synthetics so keep your hats on:

cinebench 11.5:

single core: 1.06m

full cores: 6.82m (to put this in perspective the 2600k gets a 6.02 @ stock)

full cores + OC by .2ghz: 7.53m

fritz chess:

stock: 13020 k/s (a 2600k get 13130k @ stock)

temps under watercooling @ stock (antec H80):

avg of 20c while idle

avg of 35c under load

so temps have been decimated and preformance in multi-threaded applications rivals or exceeds a 2600k (or if you prefer a 3570k) @ stock.

single core results are rather lousy still but if you go by OBR's rubric its benching results are actually basically hairs behind a stock 2600k while its single and multi results by themselves run alot closer to a core i7 gen 1 flagship (or a low end core i7 extreme gen 1)

NOTE: image below taken from OBR and should be taken with all (or the lack of) respect due to it

http://wccftech.com/retail-amd-fx-8350-watercooling-package-pictured/

Is that good?yonyz

Picking one up, I am excite.

ridicolus. AMD is wasting their time with that architecture.

ridicolus. AMD is wasting their time with that architecture.

DoomZaW

Says the random nobody on the internet

Well, it is sorta true. They guessed wrong with Bulldozer, the software didn't exactly head in the same direction they were thinking, and there is only so much you can do to tweak and improve a fundamentally underperforming architecture, in certain situations.

There really isn't much you can do though, the research and developement has alrady been completed, you would be wasting that money if you don't produce a new product. These projects take lots of time and money, you simply don't drop the architecture to work on the next...

So it's a slightly overclocked, lower temp BD? Multithread perf is good but what AMD needs to fix is single threaded performance. Also, the 2600k gets 6.86 multithreaded in Cinebench 11.5 according to Anandtech

So it's a slightly overclocked, lower temp BD? Multithread perf is good but what AMD needs to fix is single threaded performance. Also, the 2600k gets 6.86 multithreaded in Cinebench 11.5 according to Anandtech

red12355

theres a joke about anandtech.. goes a little like this:

"i have an lga 775 single core system and want to play quake IV

anandtech user: get a 2600k

i want to get 10 more fps in cod4:

anandtehc user: get a 2600k"

and i hate to say it but these jokes are not jokes at all.. their a reality, im a suer there. i dont visit often under my screen name anymore but anandtech may be thurough but it defi. has biases

its the semiaccurate of intel products

am i saying that their assessment of bulldozer being inferior to sandybridge is wrong.. no i am not, but im saying that they do adjust the numbers to add salt to the wounds once and a while. its what they do

at teh end of theday, i am guessing the AMD will still cost a lot less then intel model i5?

mm that it does on anandtech but i dont use anandtehc. i prefer HWC and guruht. anandtech's community and its reviewer are intel fanboyys (by and large)

theres a joke about anandtech.. goes a little like this:

"i have an lga 775 single core system and want to play quake IV

anandtech user: get a 2600k

i want to get 10 more fps in cod4:

anandtehc user: get a 2600k"

and i hate to say it but these jokes are not jokes at all.. their a reality, im a suer there. i dont visit often under my screen name anymore but anandtech may be thurough but it defi. has biases

its the semiaccurate of intel products

am i saying that their assessment of bulldozer being inferior to sandybridge is wrong.. no i am not, but im saying that they do adjust the numbers to add salt to the wounds once and a while. its what they do

ionusX

What are you talking about?

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

mm that it does on anandtech but i dont use anandtehc. i prefer HWC and guruht. anandtech's community and its reviewer are intel fanboyys (by and large)Slow_Show

What are you talking about?

I thought it was quite obviouskraken2109

I mean in terms of him accusing Anandtech of being some den of rabid Intel fanboys, not the legibility of his post.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]I thought it was quite obviousSlow_Show

I mean in terms of him accusing Anandtech of being some den of rabid Intel fanboys, not the legibility of his post.

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]I thought it was quite obviousNailedGR

I mean in terms of him accusing Anandtech of being some den of rabid Intel fanboys, not the legibility of his post.

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

You'd have to try hard to say anything positive about AMD's cpus these days. I've got phenom 965 myself, and i've been thinking about upgrading. But there is no way in hell im looking at AMD anytime soon, considering the FX's barely even perform better in games.

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

NailedGR

I lurk every once in a while. Maybe I'm just not looking at the right threads, but I've never seen anything other than the usual odd troll/fanboy.

And even if the forums are a wretched hive of scum and villainy, that still leaves the whole accusing one of the more respected tech sites out there of fudging their numbers to favour Intel thing.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

Slow_Show

I lurk every once in a while. Maybe I'm just not looking at the right threads, but I've never seen anything other than the usual odd troll/fanboy.

And even if the forums are a wretched hive of scum and villainy, that still leaves the whole accusing one of the more respected tech sites out there of fudging their numbers to favour Intel thing.

So you are totally just going to ignore that anandtech still uses CS4 to benchmark when CS6 has been out quite some time and FX processors mop the floor with intel processors in CS6?

[QUOTE="red12355"]

So it's a slightly overclocked, lower temp BD? Multithread perf is good but what AMD needs to fix is single threaded performance. Also, the 2600k gets 6.86 multithreaded in Cinebench 11.5 according to Anandtech

ionusX

theres a joke about anandtech.. goes a little like this:

"i have an lga 775 single core system and want to play quake IV

anandtech user: get a 2600k

i want to get 10 more fps in cod4:

anandtehc user: get a 2600k"

and i hate to say it but these jokes are not jokes at all.. their a reality, im a suer there. i dont visit often under my screen name anymore but anandtech may be thurough but it defi. has biases

its the semiaccurate of intel products

am i saying that their assessment of bulldozer being inferior to sandybridge is wrong.. no i am not, but im saying that they do adjust the numbers to add salt to the wounds once and a while. its what they do

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="Slow_Show"]

I mean in terms of him accusing Anandtech of being some den of rabid Intel fanboys, not the legibility of his post.

DoomZaW

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

You'd have to try hard to say anything positive about AMD's cpus these days. I've got phenom 965 myself, and i've been thinking about upgrading. But there is no way in hell im looking at AMD anytime soon, considering the FX's barely even perform better in games.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Have you not been to the anandtech forums?

kraken2109

You'd have to try hard to say anything positive about AMD's cpus these days. I've got phenom 965 myself, and i've been thinking about upgrading. But there is no way in hell im looking at AMD anytime soon, considering the FX's barely even perform better in games.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

You'd have to try hard to say anything positive about AMD's cpus these days. I've got phenom 965 myself, and i've been thinking about upgrading. But there is no way in hell im looking at AMD anytime soon, considering the FX's barely even perform better in games.

mitu123

So you are totally just going to ignore that anandtech still uses CS4 to benchmark when CS6 has been out quite some time and FX processors mop the floor with intel processors in CS6?

NailedGR

Maybe? So long as their CS4 test is producing valid and relevant results there's no reason to ditch it. There are different ways to bench CS -- Anandtech could switch to CS6 and reproduce the exact same results as their CS4 test, and I'm sure you could come up with a CS4 test that reproduces whatever CS6 benchmark you're talking about.

I don't know enough about CS to speak to which test is a better representation of real-world use (or if they're both equally valid, for that matter), but "some other source said FX mops the floor with Intel" is hardly proof of bias.

I iz jelly. Time to upgrade!

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

So you are totally just going to ignore that anandtech still uses CS4 to benchmark when CS6 has been out quite some time and FX processors mop the floor with intel processors in CS6?

Slow_Show

Maybe? So long as their CS4 test is producing valid and relevant results there's no reason to ditch it. There are different ways to bench CS -- Anandtech could switch to CS6 and reproduce the exact same results as their CS4 test, and I'm sure you could come up with a CS4 test that reproduces whatever CS6 benchmark you're talking about.

I don't know enough about CS to speak to which test is a better representation of real-world use (or if they're both equally valid, for that matter), but "some other source said FX mops the floor with Intel" is hardly proof of bias.

I don't doubt that in 4 years something as big as Adobe creative suite has had some noticeable changes, including to performance and how the software does things.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] A 965 gives most of the performance of something like a 2500k, that's a positive.ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] I wouldn't trust a 965 for the highest end of gaming, but it's definitely a cpu that gets the job done. Still not for me though.

mitu123

i dont mean to be the bearer of bad news but @ 1600p phenom II x4 970 = 3930X @ 5ghz

nexus wars is really the only situation where the phenom II grinds to a halt but even then the core i7 probably would have a breaking point there as well as in the final wave there are a few thousand units in a single screen of ground and @ 1200p its a case of crying over spilt milk more than anything.

so i consider your point valid.. but only when doing things in case specific scenario's that not everyone will be in.

Looks decent. I've always been a fan of AMD but went with Intel this time around because I had the cash and the information at hand told me it was the best route. These tests show at least some promise of an AMD CPU worth picking up though, depending on price.

mm that it does on anandtech but i dont use anandtehc. i prefer HWC and guruht. anandtech's community and its reviewer are intel fanboyys (by and large)ionusX

If you actually look around for 2600k scores, ~6.8 is what it gets. Look at the legitreviews, guru3d and hardwaresecrets are reviews. Link me to the site that puts it at 6.02.

am i saying that their assessment of bulldozer being inferior to sandybridge is wrong.. no i am not, but im saying that they do adjust the numbers to add salt to the wounds once and a while. its what they doionusX

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"] i would actually.. if im gaming @ 1600p or w/e im probably not going to give two flying f!ck which 4-core cpu from the am3 ( + ) , 775, 1136, 1156, 2011, or 1155 socket im actually using as their all OP

ionusX

i dont mean to be the bearer of bad news but @ 1600p phenom II x4 970 = 3930X @ 5ghz

nexus wars is really the only situation where the phenom II grinds to a halt but even then the core i7 probably would have a breaking point there as well as in the final wave there are a few thousand units in a single screen of ground and @ 1200p its a case of crying over spilt milk more than anything.

so i consider your point valid.. but only when doing things in case specific scenario's that not everyone will be in.

That is false, what your pointing out is a GPU bottleneck, doesnt mean in the slightest that those processors are "equal" at that resolution

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] For cpu extensive things in games having anything better than a 965 is a great thing.

way2funny

i dont mean to be the bearer of bad news but @ 1600p phenom II x4 970 = 3930X @ 5ghz

nexus wars is really the only situation where the phenom II grinds to a halt but even then the core i7 probably would have a breaking point there as well as in the final wave there are a few thousand units in a single screen of ground and @ 1200p its a case of crying over spilt milk more than anything.

so i consider your point valid.. but only when doing things in case specific scenario's that not everyone will be in.

That is false, what your pointing out is a GPU bottleneck, doesnt mean in the slightest that those processors are "equal" at that resolution

That is exactly what he is saying, way to read.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] For cpu extensive things in games having anything better than a 965 is a great thing.

way2funny

i dont mean to be the bearer of bad news but @ 1600p phenom II x4 970 = 3930X @ 5ghz

nexus wars is really the only situation where the phenom II grinds to a halt but even then the core i7 probably would have a breaking point there as well as in the final wave there are a few thousand units in a single screen of ground and @ 1200p its a case of crying over spilt milk more than anything.

so i consider your point valid.. but only when doing things in case specific scenario's that not everyone will be in.

That is false, what your pointing out is a GPU bottleneck, doesnt mean in the slightest that those processors are "equal" at that resolution