why do people bash the amd fx 8350

[i_build_nanosuits]

waahhh FAA is on fire, i'm out of popcorn LOL!!

Seriously guys i just did updated from an FX-8320@4.6GHZ to an i7 and i did played some CPU intensive game with hyperthreading disabled at various clock speed and @4.6GHZ the FX compare to about a core i5-4430 in most games, it run's MOST of them very well as long as it's not a single-threaded MMO or something like that, i think the FX-8350 is stupid because it's the same as the 120$ FX-8320 that you can overclock yourself and save some bucks, the FX-8320 is a great CPU for budget gaming, probably the best AMD has to offer price/performance ratio IMHO...but the intel I5 is just plain better...at 4.6GHZ the FX consume a lot and heats up a lot too...single thread performance is nowhere near an intel at same clock and for games this is important especially if you are using high end GPU's...anything up to the GTX770 or R9280X will be good for 8 core FX, more than that i have no choice but to RECOMMAND intel. GPU load is now much more consistent in CPU intensive games, watch dogs is now butter smooth where as before it was kinD of micro stuttering all the time and choppy.

[dev893]

Hey all, I got the Amd fx 8350 for my first gaming rig and everywhere people say it's terrible for gaming you have to lower settings to medium because of the cpu bottleneck well I been playing skyrim, far cry 3 etc and it performs beautifully so why bash it?

because there are a lot of intel fanboys out there

[Humbug]

 

8350 = 8150. 10% IPC at best. Apparently a 10% IPC boost is enough to make bulldozer a great unbeatable futureproof best value cpu or even better giving Logan plenty of reasons to fabricate benchmarks with a 350% fps difference in a gpu bound game.

 

 

Without pretending that it's some wonder chip... It's very easy to see why the 8350 received more favorable reviews than the 8150.

It was released only 1 year after 8150. Considering the timeframe the improvements were good

-Better IPC

-Combined with higher clockspeeds

-Lower price point

-Ability to achieve above while still maintaining lower power consumption

 

[harrynowl]

people bash it for the single threaded Penryn IPC/performance and the price/features (or lack of) on the AM3+ platform, including the power consumption

 

But it isn't terrible it's kind of just made irrelevant by FX8320 for quite a bit less, or FX9370 for a tad more.

 

IMO I think if AMD never made FX9xxx a thing FX8350 would be more popular because of the overclocking headroom.

[Kamina]

The 8350 is poorly priced compared to the i5, at least here in the US. This wasn't always the case with sandybridge and Ivybridge when their mutli threaded performance were somewhat weaker to the 8350 and price/performance ratio was better imo. Now they're pretty on par when it comes to using all cores, and the added bonus from the single core performance makes the i5 a better cpu for the price.

 

Better to get an 8320 is what I'm saying as price/performance is remains to be great for the price, unless you got the 8350 during a deal.

[vm'N]

AMD should have rather have went with the old phenom ii design, adding an additional ALU/AGU.

Changing the SIMD to 2x128 FMAC and 1xMMX.

And ofc have support for newer ISAs

 

This alone would have been most more competitive overall.

[harrynowl]

AMD should have rather have went with the old phenom ii design, adding an additional ALU/AGU.

Changing the SIMD to 2x128 FMAC and 1xMMX.

And ofc have support for newer ISAs

This alone would have been most more competitive overall.

Aye. I think if they had the chance they would have stuck with K10, they were building a server architecture (lots of integer cores needed in small die space) rather than taking existing K10 designs and reducing the tdp to 95W and adding the things you mentioned.

I think one of the problems was K10 had very little clock speed headroom. Most Phenom designs struggle to get past 4 completely stable regardless of the voltage

But it looks like CMT is dying now anyway.

[vm'N]

Aye. I think if they had the chance they would have stuck with K10, they were building a server architecture (lots of integer cores needed in small die space) rather than taking existing K10 designs and reducing the tdp to 95W and adding the things you mentioned.

I think one of the problems was K10 had very little clock speed headroom. Most Phenom designs struggle to get past 4 completely stable regardless of the voltage

But it looks like CMT is dying now anyway.

It is true that bulldozer was aimed for servers. Bulldozers architecture are purely made for parallel workload. Servers are generally doing multithreaded workload (which is not the same as parallel). The original CMT design (where the entire frontend is shared) can only handle weaker multithreading (before the other core in the module will throttle).

CMT is only truly functional in a very few workloads.