AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

[phoronix]

Phoronix: AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

AMD today is rolling out three new FX-Series processors (the FX-8320E, FX-8370E, and FX-8370) while cutting prices on their existing Vishera AM3+ FX processors. AMD sent over the new FX-8370 and FX-8370E CPUs last week to Phoronix (the FX-8320E is still forthcoming) so we are here with the rundown on the Linux performance of these new FX CPUs compared to a wide variety of other Intel and AMD Linux systems with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20841

[NotMine999]

Nice Review

Phoronix: AMD Launches New FX CPUs, Cuts Prices On Existing Processors

AMD today is rolling out three new FX-Series processors (the FX-8320E, FX-8370E, and FX-8370) while cutting prices on their existing Vishera AM3+ FX processors. AMD sent over the new FX-8370 and FX-8370E CPUs last week to Phoronix (the FX-8320E is still forthcoming) so we are here with the rundown on the Linux performance of these new FX CPUs compared to a wide variety of other Intel and AMD Linux systems with Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20841

A nice review and gave me enough information to make this comment: "By not using Steamroller cores. these new CPUs provide no reason [to me] to upgrade my systems."

In other words, these new CPUs make me say, "Why bother..."

[BreezeDM]

A nice review and gave me enough information to make this comment: "By not using Steamroller cores. these new CPUs provide no reason [to me] to upgrade my systems."

In other words, these new CPUs make me say, "Why bother..."

Even if they were using Steamroller cores, the peformance improvements would be negligible. Steamroller has better IPC, but they can't produce it with the same clock speeds. The only improvement would be in power consumption. Even if they could match the clock speeds, it would only be a 5% performance increase. Does taking the benchmarks in the article with 5% more than FX-8370 make it seem attractive? I would guess not.

[Slartifartblast]

AMD CPUs

We need more Dilthium Scotty, we're using AMD CPUs.

[Pseus]

So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.

[Michael_S]

So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.

I believe AMD enthusiast motherboards are cheaper, so that's something to factor into consideration too. But even that doesn't really work out enough to support getting AMD.

But it's my understanding that part or most of AMD's current woes are related to Intel's monopoly tactics five or ten years back. http://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD-Int..._Complaint.pdf (Legalese, boring reading, but basically Intel used what I consider to be unfair tricks to try to sink AMD. There are easier-to-read summaries of the document if you search around.)

So I only get AMD parts anyway, even knowing that the current Intel lineup is dramatically superior, especially if you're shopping in the $300+ range.

[bakgwailo]

I believe AMD enthusiast motherboards are cheaper, so that's something to factor into consideration too. But even that doesn't really work out enough to support getting AMD.

But it's my understanding that part or most of AMD's current woes are related to Intel's monopoly tactics five or ten years back. http://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD-Int..._Complaint.pdf (Legalese, boring reading, but basically Intel used what I consider to be unfair tricks to try to sink AMD. There are easier-to-read summaries of the document if you search around.)

So I only get AMD parts anyway, even knowing that the current Intel lineup is dramatically superior, especially if you're shopping in the $300+ range.

Tricks? Intel payed partners (Dell/etc) to not use/purchase AMD chips, along with quite a few other very illegal and anti-competitive things during the time when AMD was actually winning the performance war (along with price war). AMD has never really recovered from this, unfortunately.

[Kivada]

So, thinking about price and performance, are AMD's offerings competitive with Intel's Core i5s?

Edit: I see this was mentioned in the last part of the article. IMO, $199 vs $220 is not significant. I'd go with an i5.

Cheaper and the AMD CPUs also get streaming at no performance hit. The extra real cores allow for better multitasking then the i5 will.

[Michael_S]

Tricks? Intel payed partners (Dell/etc) to not use/purchase AMD chips, along with quite a few other very illegal and anti-competitive things during the time when AMD was actually winning the performance war (along with price war). AMD has never really recovered from this, unfortunately.

I try to present the argument in as neutral a way as possible, so that I can't possibly be accused of fanboyism and biased logic.

I don't ever plan to buy Intel parts.

[mendieta]

Cheaper and the AMD CPUs also get streaming at no performance hit. The extra real cores allow for better multitasking then the i5 will.

I think some of the testing shows that for real world multitasking, the i5 does better, or what am I missing? It also provides pretty good graphics with no-headache, first day, open source support. No brainer, but I totally understand the argument of buying AMD just to support them.