Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    AMD today is lifting the lid on their Piledriver-based 2012 FX "Vishera" processors. Just weeks after the "Bulldozer 2" Trinity APUs were launched, the new high-end AMD FX CPUs are being rolled out. Being benchmarked at Phoronix today under Linux is the new AMD FX-8350 processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18051

  • #2
    It's nice for amd that there are at least some results better than intel's quad cores. It is easy to guess which benchmarks use much more commands for the integer function units compared to the floating point ones. Maybe cray could be analyzed in that way. Basically amd can only shine in fully multithreaded benchmarks and preferred without fpu code (because there are only 4 fpus but 8 for integer). I miss a bit povray, thats a fully single threaded benchmark, similar to cinebench in single threaded mode.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yet more trash from AMD.

      Jesus christ, step it up or go home.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
        Yet more trash
        How much exactly do you know about CPU design?

        Comment


        • #5
          heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

          http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

          AMD is just try to fool us.

          Comment


          • #6
            Why are the AMDs doing so badly in floating point arithmetics? It's not like Intel has 8 FPUs and 4 integer cores...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
              heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

              http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

              AMD is just try to fool us.
              TDP = Thermal Design Power

              TDP is an indicator on how much sustained thermal power you have to get rid of for stable operation, not a figure for maximum power consumption. Maximum power consumption may well exceed the TDP for short periods of time.
              Last edited by SavageX; 10-23-2012, 02:57 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SavageX View Post
                TDP = Thermal Design Power

                TDP is an indicator on how much sustained thermal power you have to get rid of for stable operation, not a figure for maximum power consumption. Maximum power consumption may well exceed the TDP for short periods of time.
                You are wrong because its not a short period of time you can force this output all the time.
                Thats why the Opterons clocked so much lower because the Opterons really do not HIT the TDP.
                In my point of view this cpu is only stable in a 125watt TDP cooling system if you downclock it.
                also this cpu need a 8-10phase 140-150watt mainboard.

                don't even try to buy a 125watt mainboard and 125watt cooling solution for this cpu.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
                  You are wrong because its not a short period of time you can force this output all the time.
                  Thats why the Opterons clocked so much lower because the Opterons really do not HIT the TDP.
                  In my point of view this cpu is only stable in a 125watt TDP cooling system if you downclock it.
                  also this cpu need a 8-10phase 140-150watt mainboard.

                  don't even try to buy a 125watt mainboard and 125watt cooling solution for this cpu.
                  Note that the CPU turbo mode is temperature dependant. The CPU will throttle back to base clock if CPU temperature exceeds the comfort threshold, thus a 125 Watt cooling solution will keep the CPU safe, even though you may get better sustained turbo with a more powerful cooler.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SavageX View Post
                    Note that the CPU turbo mode is temperature dependant. The CPU will throttle back to base clock if CPU temperature exceeds the comfort threshold, thus a 125 Watt cooling solution will keep the CPU safe, even though you may get better sustained turbo with a more powerful cooler.
                    thatís just cheating in benchmarks because you only get the result with some nasty tricks means cheat cooling solutions.

                    John Doe cooling solution at home will never get any good result.

                    But hey thatís the fake world we life in.

                    In my point of view this is a ~150watt TDP cpu and the intel one 3770K is a ~100 watt TDP cpu.

                    Now you can save money on the CPU and then pay more power bill or you spend more money on the CPU and save on power bull in the end you pay exact the same.

                    There is no competition at all !

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
                      thatís just cheating in benchmarks because you only get the result with some nasty tricks means cheat cooling solutions.

                      John Doe cooling solution at home will never get any good result.

                      But hey thatís the fake world we life in.

                      In my point of view this is a ~150watt TDP cpu and the intel one 3770K is a ~100 watt TDP cpu.

                      Now you can save money on the CPU and then pay more power bill or you spend more money on the CPU and save on power bull in the end you pay exact the same.

                      There is no competition at all !
                      No, a 125 Watt TDP CPU is a 125 Watt TDP CPU. It's part of the specification, and the CPU will be fine with a 125 Watt cooling solution, and both AMD and Intel guarantee stable operation at the base frequency. Turbo *always* is dependant on the exact setup the CPU is operating in. And yes, this uncertainty in benchmarking was already critizied back when Intel introduced Turbo a few years ago. Also note that Turbo usually works fine with the stock cooling solution provided in boxed sets, Intel or AMD. You usually cannot do worse than that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
                        heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

                        http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

                        AMD is just try to fool us.
                        I guess you might not be too smart, if you do not understand that the power measured is referred to the total system and not just the cpu itself..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sonnet View Post
                          I guess you might not be too smart, if you do not understand that the power measured is referred to the total system and not just the cpu itself..
                          No, this is measured on the 12 Volt CPU supply line. It includes only the CPU and voltage regulators, so not *everything* is CPU power consumption (the voltage regulators do not ooperate at 100% efficiency), but certainly most is.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SavageX View Post
                            No, this is measured on the 12 Volt CPU supply line. It includes only the CPU and voltage regulators, so not *everything* is CPU power consumption (the voltage regulators do not ooperate at 100% efficiency), but certainly most is.
                            don't even try to talk smart to a human who use the word "smart" to insult another human:

                            sonnet:"I guess you might not be too smart, if you do not understand that the power measured is referred to the total system and not just the cpu itself.. "

                            FAIL... hey I'm maybe not so smart you expect but in fact you are Stupid! (this is a statement of fact not a insult)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SavageX View Post
                              No, a 125 Watt TDP CPU is a 125 Watt TDP CPU. It's part of the specification, and the CPU will be fine with a 125 Watt cooling solution, and both AMD and Intel guarantee stable operation at the base frequency. Turbo *always* is dependant on the exact setup the CPU is operating in. And yes, this uncertainty in benchmarking was already critizied back when Intel introduced Turbo a few years ago. Also note that Turbo usually works fine with the stock cooling solution provided in boxed sets, Intel or AMD. You usually cannot do worse than that.
                              The real point is the Intel Core i7-3770K do have a TDP: 77W and a TURBO peak load of maybe 100 Watt.
                              In fact the intel cpu is the "better" cpu. it also clocks at 3,5ghz vs 4-4,6ghz on the amd side.
                              imagine what is if intel clocks he cpu at 4ghz and ~125watt TDP...

                              AMD's 8350 only win some benchmarks because this cpu burns the energy away like a barbecue broiler.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X