Hardware Secrets Forums


Go Back   Hardware Secrets Forums > Miscellaneous > Content Comments



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-22-2012, 08:00 PM   #1
Hardware Secrets Team
Administrator
 
Join Date Nov 2004
Posts: 5,598
Hardware Secrets Team is on a distinguished road

Default FX-8350 vs. Core i5-3470 CPU Review

There has been a new article posted.

Title: FX-8350 vs. Core i5-3470 CPU Review
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...PU-Review/1657

Here is a snippet:
"Today, AMD is releasing its second-generation of FX CPUs, dubbed "Vishera." The FX-8350 is currently the highest-end model available, running at 4 GHz and costing USD 195. Let's see how it fares again..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Hardware Secrets Team is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Old 10-22-2012, 10:32 PM   #2
kbrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date Nov 2011
Posts: 5
kbrian is on a distinguished road

Default Newer Bios?

I was curious if the bios for the amd board had been updated. I thought I saw a version of 1605 (?). I bring it up simply because another reviewer mentioned that the FX-8350 performance was much improved over whatever old version he had.
kbrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:20 AM   #3
Gabriel Torres
Administrator
 
Gabriel Torres's Avatar
 
Join Date Oct 2004
USA
Posts: 4,436
Gabriel Torres is on a distinguished road

Default

kbrian,

We upgraded the BIOS with the latest version provided by AMD, which was not made public before. I will double check the version number published, it may be wrong.

Thanks,
Gabriel.
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
Hardware Secrets
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Gabriel Torres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 09:48 AM   #4
Gabriel Torres
Administrator
 
Gabriel Torres's Avatar
 
Join Date Oct 2004
USA
Posts: 4,436
Gabriel Torres is on a distinguished road

Default

The BIOS used was the 1605. I posted the wrong information on the text (which I have just fixed). Thanks.
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
Hardware Secrets
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Gabriel Torres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 02:45 PM   #5
Athlonite
Senior Member
 
Athlonite's Avatar
 
Join Date Sep 2010
Posts: 139
Athlonite is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Athlonite
Default

and did we install the two hotfix patches for the FX CPU's so that Win7 knows how to use the things properly or was the install a vanilla one
Athlonite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 08:57 PM   #6
kbrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date Nov 2011
Posts: 5
kbrian is on a distinguished road

Default Differences amongst reviews

It is interesting that there have been some differences in reviews around the web. Initially, I thought it could have been a bios issue like I originally suggested. I haven't look closely to compare which benchmarks are being used. Of course the constant is that PD pulls a lot of power.
kbrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 08:27 AM   #7
Gabriel Torres
Administrator
 
Gabriel Torres's Avatar
 
Join Date Oct 2004
USA
Posts: 4,436
Gabriel Torres is on a distinguished road

Default

Athlonite,

We used a plain Windows 7 install. You may be right. This might explain the differences between our numbers and some others around the web.

It is great to have other websites, so you can compare results, especially because each website use their own set of programs for benchmarking.

Gabriel.
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
Hardware Secrets
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Gabriel Torres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:28 AM   #8
FXTruePower
Junior Member
 
FXTruePower's Avatar
 
Join Date Apr 2013
Posts: 1
FXTruePower is on a distinguished road

Default

Hello everyone,
While there are some differences in the build I have compared to the one being used for this test...I still can not see how those scores are possible. My buddy, had all the parts as shop to put together the I5 build from this test, and we brought my build on over. It was a humiliation to the i5 build. The FX8350 completely plowed through and over every single test we put the two up against. Maybe if you had some beefed up i7 and some other tweaks thrown in there I could of bought into it. Firstly, all the FX 8 Cores can be majorly overclocked and stand up to the abuse far better than the i5's and some of the i7's. I think a lot of us Amd buffs have learned that the FX 8 core line does far better on the Sabertooth 990FX. I don't know if there was bios issues and perhaps some conflicts within the system or what. I would gladly allow anyone of you to to run the same test on my system, and watch the room fill with laughs as those results are beat out the front door. Many people are pro intel. Many people buy the i5's and i7's just because of the name, and then look for ways to make the competition look worse. This is one of those times. Once again, I humbley and anxiously will wait for anyone for to run these same test on my PC with the FX8350. Just let me have my camera recording, it will be one of those moments I chuckle about for many years to come.
FXTruePower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 07:39 AM   #9
Gabriel Torres
Administrator
 
Gabriel Torres's Avatar
 
Join Date Oct 2004
USA
Posts: 4,436
Gabriel Torres is on a distinguished road

Default

Hi,

Please post the results, testing configuration, programs used, etc. Just saying what you are saying doesn't help us or any of our readers, since it will become your word against ours.

Best regards,
Gabriel Torres
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
Hardware Secrets
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Gabriel Torres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 10:37 AM   #10
Pholostan
Junior Member
 
Join Date Oct 2012
Posts: 3
Pholostan is on a distinguished road

Default My overclocking experience

I have an Asus Sabertooth R2.0 motherboard and a FX-8350. It overclocks to 4.4 GHz on stock voltage (turbo disabled of course), all power saving features working. There is an excellent guide for Asus motherboards on OCN:
www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard/

I have overkill water cooling, and my maximum overclock is around 5.2 GHz. Not stable though, and at close to 1.6 V on the CPU. I've found no benefit form raising CPU NB or VDDA voltage. It is suggested that VDDA does not do much on Asus boards, on my Gigabyte board it did help with bus overclocking. CPU-NB is usually only needed to increase if you're trying to overclock RAM and/or CPU-NB speed. But as always with overclocking, YMMV
I do not overclock my RAM at all. I use four sticks at 1600 MHz, that's the max supported, you can run two sticks at 1866 MHz. I have lot's of cheap RAM, really like not to have to use any swap.

The performance is in line with the review here. Others have had similar results. The AMD FX can't compete with Intel in single tread, the workload needs to be heavily multithreaded for it to compete and surpass the ordinary i5/i7. And the power consumption is bad compared to Intel too, terrible when overclocked actually. Although, for the price, overall performance is decent. And a nice upgrade from my old Phenom dual core.

And if you run any virtual machines, the FX do this really well for the money. And ECC RAM is supported, also very good value. But these kind of things probably are of a less concern for an ordinary desktop user.
Pholostan is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Reply

Share This Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:23 PM.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. ()
2004-12, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All rights reserved.