Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

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

  • #61
    It's to sad to see AMD is no longer even contending in the high-end segment. AMD is even struggling to compete with Intel's mid range offerings.

    The i7-3770 is not good value at all, if you're looking for value you go for an i5-34x0 or i5-35x0, or for high-end go for an i7-3930k. The i7-3770 does not fit in very well, the i7-3820 offer better value.

    I've been comparing i7-2600 with i7-3930k for workstations, and even at low and medium loads the i7-3930k handles well idling mostly at 1.2 GHz, while the i7-2600 is jumping up in frequency a lot more, even though it's lowest clock is 1.6 GHz. I believe most power users run more applications simultaneously, and while not all applications utilize all six cores, the six cores of i7-3930k is still beneficial for running normal loads cool (e.g. running a web browser, GIMP, a music player and even virtualbox while idling).

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Well, they're approaching parity with Ivy Bridge right now, with current tech.

      Clock for clock, they still have a lot of ground to cover. Granted, intel doesn't have 4GHz parts, but judging by the way the current chips overclock, I don't think they have to sweat much to get there. Oh, and intel chips aren't genuine 8 core designs, they're 4 cores with HT, which by itself puts a dent into performance.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        And there I was thinking users were just firing up a browser, Word and Excel sometimes and a game when they had time on their hands. Silly me, apparently the average user is a prodigious engineer/artist these days.
        The average user will be playing Mp3s from a collection (probably being organised by a database backend) while browsing the web, which means 10 to 20 tabs open, which means 10-20 threads, many of them running flash or something and buffering from youtube while the user is reading something else. And they probably have an anti-virus running on the background and a chat program and a p2p client downloading 3-4 movies minimised somewhere in the taskbar. They might even sync their smartphone or MP3 player with their collection at the same time, which takes a while, so they minimise that. You don't need fluid dynamics to need good multi-threaded performance.

        The user who runs one process which then needs 300 GFLOPS of sustained single-thread performance is rather the exception. Browser, Word and Excel and most games run fine on 5-year old stuff.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post
          http://hardocp.com/article/2012/10/2...overclocking/1
          Clock for clock, they still have a lot of ground to cover. Granted, intel doesn't have 4GHz parts, but judging by the way the current chips overclock, I don't think they have to sweat much to get there. Oh, and intel chips aren't genuine 8 core designs, they're 4 cores with HT, which by itself puts a dent into performance.
          AMD chips aren't genuine 8 core designs either. Both Intel's HT cores and AMD's "modules" are somewhere inbetween a single core and two separate cores. AMD's "module" is a bit closer to two separate cores than an Intel core, though.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
            Am I the only one who noticed that virtually all of the tests where the intel had any significant lead, were tests where the software optimization would necessarily exclude one cpu to the advantage of the other?
            This cuts both ways, and in general the newer processor will always lose. It takes time to get "-march native" working for a new CPU, so of course the compiler will be better tuned for one that is already supported. There was an article a while back about "-march bdzver3", but I presume that is still for older chips than this.

            Oops, I responded to the wrong post. I meant to respond to post #55 by pingufunkybeat. It's still along the same lines as this, but a bit more specific. To amplify this post, what the heck does "-march=native" even mean for a new, unsupported CPU. At this point gcc is looking at the CPU, using some sort of information to make a guess about what it is, and picking that. In that light, it would have been really handy to tell what the real CFLAGS in use ended up being.
            Last edited by phred14; 23 October 2012, 06:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              AMD chips aren't genuine 8 core designs either. Both Intel's HT cores and AMD's "modules" are somewhere inbetween a single core and two separate cores. AMD's "module" is a bit closer to two separate cores than an Intel core, though.
              Yes, I find this to be a funny development.. First they started marketing "more is better" with Mhz, but then changed it so that it really had nothing to do with the performance of the chip.... and now they're doing the same thing with cores...What's next? Performance based on how many pins your CPU has? If so, Intel is screwed because they keep losing a pin or two every generation.. haha.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by phred14 View Post
                To amplify this post, what the heck does "-march=native" even mean for a new, unsupported CPU. At this point gcc is looking at the CPU, using some sort of information to make a guess about what it is, and picking that. In that light, it would have been really handy to tell what the real CFLAGS in use ended up being.
                Sure, gcc can't optimise well for these processors, but I understood his post to imply that the benchmarks were optimised for one or the other. In this particular case, they were optimised exactly for the processor they were running on, only the AMD processor (by virtue of being a completely new architecture) cannot be optimised as well atm.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
                  Show me your numbers... Right now....


                  Don't spread bullshit.

                  Power here in New York is much more expensive than it is in the rest of the USA.
                  The CPU uses what? 48W more power?
                  Using the PC 8 hours a day...

                  48 * 8 = 384Whr more power per day

                  30 days a month...
                  384Whr * 30 days = 11.52kWh per month

                  Cost per kWh here in New York...
                  (https://www.nationalgridus.com/niaga...our_charge.asp)
                  57 dollars for 1000kWh (1MWh).... and that's assuming I use it during the worst time of day.

                  Extra electrical cost to use the AMD CPU rather than the Intel CPU per month...
                  11.52kWh / 1000kWh = x/$56.63
                  X=$0.65

                  Whoopie, we saved 65 cents a month.


                  Price difference between CPUs...
                  AMD FX-8350 = $220 (NewEgg.com)
                  Intel 3770K = $320 (NewEgg.com)
                  Difference = $100

                  How many months is it going to take to pay for the CPU price difference?
                  $100 / $0.65 = 153 months

                  How many years is that?
                  12.75 years

                  But wait, there's more... Intel motherboards are generally more expensive than AMD boards as well.
                  Maybe an extra 50 dollars more. So we need to add another 6 years onto that....

                  Of course, I love advanced fab chips, but when companies like Intel intentionally make their chips and motherboards overpriced by so much, any kind of power savings goes flying out the window instantly.
                  now calculate again with the german price : 0,25euro per 1kw.

                  11.52kWh per month=138,24kWh per year

                  138,24*0,25=34,56

                  now your price difference: 150dollar is ~ 120 euro

                  now 120euro/34,56euro= 3,47222222222 years.

                  in fact if you use your super new PC 3,5 years the intel one is cheaper.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by phred14 View Post
                    These (parent and grandparent post) are some of the more significant posts I've read. Intel is capable of excellent technical work as they have proven many times, and are currently proving with the entire Banias - through - Ivy Bridge line. But they also have a strong marketing division that frequently seems to work at odds with directions that chip-head users present here might like. It is important to realize that from a corporate decision making point of view, it appears that at Intel, marketing trumps technical design.

                    Hence not that long ago we got the "Oooh, Fast!" NetBurst designs, and the "clone proof" IA64 designs. Because the Core-X line has been hammering AMD to the edge of existence, we're now seeing "revenue maximizing" stunts like disabling on-chip features unless you've paid extra. Kick AMD all you like, but if they're gone Intel has proven multiple times that, absent meaningful competition, they wander way off-target and we the customers lose. I don't know if ARM will provide proper competition for Intel in the future, at least partly because Microsoft has managed to lock down ARM-based hardware to be Windows-only, preventing it from growing into a true general-purpose platform.
                    don't know what to do with your words as a feedback to my words: "unlocked cpu+virtualization+ECC non-reg ram."

                    my words mean if you want a pc with ALL virtualization funktions +unlocked CPU+ECC RAM you need to buy AMD because intel just don't sell products like this.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Threading Monster

                      Looking at the results here and elsewhere I conclude AMD has a multithreading monster on it's hands. Single thread not so great but improved over BD.

                      I had hoped that Bulldozer would be the One, and I think this CPU is about 90% of the One.

                      Keep in mind that this arch was from word go targeting server & HPC workloads, and not spotty faced overclocking boys shooting at 3D monsters.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X