Hello everyone, as I am no designer of CPUs I would like this forum’s people to give an honest review of AMD’s new Pile driver CPU. I know Intel has been leading the market with the i5 and i7 line of CPUs. I guess I am looking to find if AMD has produced something that has equalled at least the i5. I find the cost of Intel’s chips rather over the top even when looking at an i3. For gaming and video editing do you think this new AMD chip has what it takes so to speak? I have included a video from the Egg explaining some of the design changes that some of you will understand a lot more than I do. Thanks to all in advance for your input.
The new FX chips are best at heavily threaded loads, almost always beating out the 2nd/3rd gen i5s, sometimes beating out the lower (~$300) 2nd/3rd gen i7 chips. The lighter the threading on the application, the worse the FX chip is going to do. Intel's single threaded performance outperforms the FX chip's by a decent margin, though that gap was made smaller with the release of the Piledriver chips, its still a prevalent factor. Subsequently, if comparing the FX8350 to the i5 3570k, you'll generally see little to no difference between the applications that use a single core or ones that use 4 or less, because half the FX chip will rest unutilized while the i5 is being fully utilized. Once you get higher, 5 - 8 threads, will you see the FX chip start pulling ahead.
This is why applications like games won't run as well on the FX chips as they will on the i5s, because almost no game is built to run more than 4 threads, many don't run on more than 2, though this trend is slowly starting to change.
Yeah, I'm excited to see what Logan and Wendel have to say about this 'new' chip. AMD has been pretty clear (and they have a graphic in the Newegg vid posted above) about their intention to increase 10-15% year-to-year w/ CPU capability, which means they won't really catch up w/ Intel. But the way i see it, AMD has the less-expensive build market. Although the i5 series is more than affordable, it's still more expensive than the 4, 6, and some 8-Core AMD's. Anandtech did a benchmarking review that was fairly comprehensive with this new CPU, and generally speaking it came up short of the i series, but the numbers were still competitive considering the pricing of the AMD chips, and with gaming and mainstream performance, there isn't a noticeable difference. Maybe the i5 w/ a discrete GPU pulled 86 frames per second in Skyrim, and the AMD 6300 or 8300 pulled 78. Still extremely playable, more than double Xbox/Playstation frame rates, so for ME, if I'M BUILDING A BUDGET COMPUTER, I'll stick w/ AMD/ATI products. I love Intel and nVidia gear. My last build was that combo. But my next build will be budget for around $600 w/ AMD/ATI configuration.
Both CPU's have their good and bad points. I think Logans benchmarks will generally find Intel winning the matchups, but damn, all of these AMD cpus can be had for $200 or less. Some of them less than $100. It's awesome having SO MANY CHOICES, and this competition is ONLY GOOD FOR US AS CONSUMERS.
Thanks guys, I agree that having more competition in the CPU market can only be a good thing for us the consumer. When I saw an 8 core I wondered what in the world would it really is used for. I heard the 4 and 6 cores Zambezi CPU utilized a lot of space for graphics which is rather useless for enthusiasts as we tend to go with separate graphics cards anyway. The great thing about this site is Logan gives an honest opinion on anything he is reviewing. Newegg only talk about the features but you never get the “I don’t like this about it” in a review. If this new AMD CPU is really good perhaps it might force Intel to lower the price a little on some of their products.
I don't really see how you guys can call AMD's cpus "competitive" because they aren't. Intel cpus aren't much more expensive, and AMD's flagship cpu is the only one that can really keep up with the i5's and lower end i7's. Not to mention they use a lot more power and produce a lot more heat than Intel. AMD fits certain niches. The FX series are nice for budget rendering, and the APU's are nice for very low end gaming. If you don't fit into one of those niches (and the mainstream and gaming markets generally don't) then you pretty much have to go Intel. A difference of 10 fps while gaming is called a bottleneck, btw. Usually you want to minimize bottlenecks...
Well, in the years I've been building systems for people, I tend to find most users don't seem to have as much money to lay out on a system as you might think. In terms of gaming rigs I've built over the last few years, I'd say 80% of the builds were at or under the $700 mark. At this current time in the market, I find I don't recommend Intel CPUs for gaming PCs under $800, but from the $800 point and up, its all Intel (note that these price points are including shipping, taxing etc).
Before the Piledriver chips dropped, that number was lower, I'd recommend the i3 chips from systems above $550 and i5s for $800 and up. Since the piledriver chips dropped, they have overtaken my preference for the below $800 point, and the $550 and lower belongs to the Trinity chips (just to note, with the exception of the very rare case, I don't recommend the 8 core piledrivers for gaming, just the 4 and 6 core). These are just general guide lines though, depending on what the client wants I'll alter these builds one way or another. When presenting someone with a build I try to provide them with the pros and cons of that build and its alternatives. Here are two examples of some builds I often recommend for two differing price points.
These builds perform very well for their price point and are both have excellent overclocking potential, among other benefits. If the buget is another $50-$100 higher for the second one, thats usually where I start recommending the i5 chips, and from there and higher is Intel chips for almost any gaming build. But you might be surprised that, at least I've found, that the bulk of gaming PCs end up within those price ranges. So I don't think its fair to your clients/friends to dicount their possible alternatives so thoughtlessly.
EDIT: Also, I generally recommend you throw a few extra 120mm fans in the case when you go with those builds, lest the case will get might hot.
Most gaming builds I see are generally between $700 and $1000. I still like to go with Intel because you can get an i5 for around $200 or less, and they have stronger individual cores than AMD's offerings, which means I know their graphics card isn't going to be bottlenecked.
Although...I don't know. I'm starting to see some people saying that the 8350 is pretty comparable to the 3570K performance-wise. I'm going to have to look at some more reviews because I'm kind of on the fence about piledriver right now.
Well thats pretty much the thing, you'll find the i5s around $200-$220, which is a solid $60-$80 more than the FX6300, if they have that extra bit of budget (hitting the $800 lines) then I'll generally recommend the i5s, but if they don't hit those numbers, I'd have to cut from the GPU to fit in the i5, and at the sub $800 price point thats gonna end up cost a good chunk of frame rate, having to drop from aproximately the HD 7870 to the HD 7850 or lower.
EDIT: The FX3850 > i5 3570? Not in all cases, its still a fairly similar situtation, the i5 has notably better single core performance, not as much of a gap as bulldozer had, but its still there. When it comes to i5 3570k vs FX8350 it really matters what your doing with your system. In games? Its probably still on the i5's favour, though by a smaller margin than before.
At this point, I'm pretty sure thats not possible. AMD doesn't even have its own fabricator anymore, they use globalfoundries and their stock has litterally almost fallen off the market. Its trading at $2.07 a share, if it gets below $2 it will get delisted. They've been down sizing and cutting back, their CPU market is focused on the sub $200 market and I don't honestly think they have the R&D funds to be able to back a chip powerful enough to challenge Intels $500+ chips.
I have done some more research on the FX series of processors and yes, you are correct. I was given the incorrect information from someone whom I thought I could trust to have the correct design information. This is a public forum sir and I don’t believe I have ever been rude to you so I question why you felt it was necessary to use capitalized lettering in a derogatory way of telling me I was incorrect? I am the first one to admit when I am wrong but no one needs this method of getting a point across. I am simply asking you to remember that people of all ages are reading these forums. Thank you.
From what I can tell it would seem that ~$2.00 stock price isn't completely new territory for them, has happened a few times in the past, but their average stock price bounces around $10-$15, except as of late. Its highest point was around $45 in the early 2000s.
And yeah, Nvidia has partnered up with them, perhaps I'm shitting on the idea with little reasoning, perhaps it can be a better overall choice for smaller companies.
Yeah, I'm w/ Cloud Scorpion on most of his previous comments especially in terms of build costs. Intel i processors are very affordable. I don't think they're overpriced, too expensive, or bad value. I think they are exceptional in most of those areas. But if I've only got 5-7 hundo, I'm building an AMD/ATI rig. Glad to see people having an enlightened discussion w/out miopic opinions.
would be interesting to see the amd answer to the 2011 socket i7's.... 16 cores? 6 ghz OC? 6 channel ram? i think amd really has some potentials, they just need some new achotecture, and probably a new socket... ie the AM4. I mean, come on.... there aren't even any e-atx amd mobos out there, aside from servers. I think where amd is loosing out is
B. features... I.E. pcie 3.0 (not that its really usefull, but still....)
as for not having quad channel ram- srsly, who is going to need 64 gb of ram, unless your running a server, in which case, you;ll have a server mobo with an opteron