[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]
[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]
The sad thing for AMD is that even that's not a strong selling point since most Intel processors OC even better (ie. Sandy's going to 4.5+) at a lower voltage. You've gotta pump higher voltage in Bulldozer to get the clocks high. For Intel, higher IPC + higher clock = total destruction.
SolidPandaG
The newer budget intel CPUs are fairly mediocre for overclocking. Non K CPUs like the i3s andy/ivy processors can get around 300-400mhz boost regardless of your cooling or set up. Most Bulldozer or Vishera CPUs can reach 4.5ghz on air without too much problem, and around 5ghz on water.Bulldozer needs higher voltage to reach 4.5+, unlike Intel CPU's, which naturally run cooler and are far more power efficient. Bulldozer is a fail architecture that never should've seen the light of day, that's why this turd and its successors are rumored to be killed off.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficiency-overclock-undervolt,3083-8.html
Let's compare the FX-8150 vs the i5 2500K in terms of efficiency:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-12.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-13.html
This is before OC too, where AMD is known to need more voltage to keep clocking higher as opposed to its Intel counterpart. This hardware forum is littered with disingenuity and homerism, which is fine if kept between tech savvy posters, but for those geniunely ignorant of computer parts when asking for advice, recommending a highly inferior product that's only about $30-50 cheaper than its counterpart is laughable.
But for the sake of keeping current, let's quickly look at Piledriver vs Ivy. Here's a comparison of a cheaperi5-3470 VS the FX-8350:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-i5-3470-CPU-Review/1657/18
conclusion, in the words of Hardware Secrets:
"While AMD has the lead on the USD 100 price segment, it is way behind Intel on the USD 200 price segment. Also, the company doesn't have any product to compete against the Core i7 at the high-end segment.
Costing the same and providing up to 30% performance advantage over the FX-8350, the core i5-3470 is a far better choice. We simply can't recommend the new FX-8350."
I bet those are harsh words the AMD homers don't like to hear. AMD needs to only look at itself and its inane business decisions to recognize why its CPU division is failing so hard. Charging an equivalent price to a processor that mops the floor with you in most benchmarks while running cooler and more efficiently? Pure idiocy.
From your own link: The FX processors have their clock multiplier unlocked, allowing you to overclock them by changing this parameter. With the FX-8350, which runs internally at 4 GHz multiplying a base clock of 200 MHz by 20, we could increase the clock multiplier to 22 and the base clock to 212 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,664 MHz, a 16.6% increase over the CPU default clock rate. Then we replaced the stock cooler with AMDs liquid cooling solution, and we were able to increase the CPU multiplier to 22.5 and the base clock to 213 MHz, resulting in an internal clock rate of 4,792 MHz, a 19.8% increase over the CPU default clock rate. Hardware Secrets
They got 4.8 ghz.
Now for their game benchmarks, (They won't let me post their images here). Colours are to make reading easier, they mean nothing.
Starcraft 2: 3470: 185, FX8350: 178
Far Cry 2: 3470: 133, FX8350: 131
Dirt 3: 3470: 100, FX8350: 96
BF3 (assuming single player): 3470: 86, FX8350: 87
Borderlands 2: 3470: 85,FX8350: 85
So we can safely say there is no noticeable difference in gaming, since these benchmarks were on low settings to ensure a CPU bottleneck.
Looking at cinebench which fully uses all cores, FX8350 beats 3470 by 22%
Log in to comment