Remarkable Review of the FX-8350 (found buried in another thread)

When it comes to any similar discussion I trust to LinX based benchmark with fixed problem size to 9992, while they are using same settings for memory. Game based benches are far off any normal results...

Results of CPU cannot be divided from results of memory and mainboard as well.

I have to mention two things - AMD has far better memory controllers than Intel in means of overclocking and tightening of memory latencies, but Intel usually has better performance on single cpu core...

On the other hand AMD produces CPUs balanced with GPUs, while Intel is not even dreaming about such HW performance on graphics...

 

That guy again. He's full of bs.

 

Stop with the jokes please.

 

Please do not make unsubstantiated claims like this because, well, it just does not work they way you claim it does. (Unless, of course, you are running your computer on 100% load 24/7 then, you are unique or running a server farm.)

 

It works just like that though.

 

Henceforth, substantiated:






P.S.- I did my math based on 8-hours a day of near full load. You can cut the time down in half and it still wouldn't change the conclusion much.

 

First of all, one of the completely undisputed facts is that Intel's memory controller is light years ahead of AMD's implementation (currently).

Second, I guess Intel's graphics dreams do come true:

 

I did not say that the FX series used less power. But, you make it sound, from the way I am reading it, like you would pay $40 a month in electricity if you had an I7 and $100 to $120 a month if you had an FX. That is the way I am reading it.

 

Not far off. Under load the fx 8350 consumes twice the power, in idle it's 50% more. It all adds up. 180w for a cpu is outrageous imo.

 

Not even close. uke2: Look, I do not have a problem with differing opinions or even being wrong, but, that is not even close at all. At worst, you might spend $20, maybe $30 more a year.

Or, explain to me than why, with an overclocked FX 8350, my power bill averages around $35 to $40 a month? Power consumption is highly exaggarated to say the least.

 

I wasn't talking about flat numbers, I was talking about percentages. Running a 8350 is something like 70% more expensive. That's before overclocking. After overclocking it's even worse.

 

This power consumption talk is a bunch of way over exaggerated BS. We all know the FX chips use a lot more power than Intel's current offerings, but the fact of the matter is it only adds up to chump change over the course of a year. I forgot the exact statistic on it, but it was something like between $20 - $30 more a year in electricity at the most. Big whoop

 

Take N.Y. for example. At their $0.2 per kwh, an FX-8350 would cost you $44 more a year to run assuming you run it close to load for 4 hours a day. For that amount you could have easily made up the difference in price between it and the i7-4770k over the course of a an upgrade cycle; the difference becomes even more drastic if you use your system under near load for longer. If you average the three-four year upgrade periods of the people on this forum (which are higher than average), then the savings would have been $176 for four years. These are not insignificant savings.

Furthermore, most people leave their systems on these days and don't bother shutting down. Assuming the systems are idle for the other 20 hours a day (I'm being favorable to AMD here btw), over the course of a year there would be $33.5 higher cost to run the AMD system on idle over the Intel system. Times this by four as well and you end up with $134 in additional energy costs.

Combined, the AMD chip costs $310 more to run over the period of four years using very reasonable estimates than the Intel chip. Even if you don't agree and half all the estimates, you still end up paying more than the Intel chip's difference.

The major OEM's figured this much as well, which is why among the major OEM's I quickly checked, I only spotted a single model that ships with an AMD FX processor (HP FX-8120).

The difference is even larger in other place in the world. For example, in Germany the cost per KwH is $0.338, over 50% higher.

 

My problem isn't the higher TDP. My problem is the high TDP comes with average performance. I wouldn't mind if it ate more power if it was the best cpu on the market. And yeah, over a couple of years it adds up. They end up costing more than Intel cpus.

 

I love these discussions of power consumption. We have no issue with graphics cards drawing upwards of 300watts.....but we worry about a few watts difference in a processor.

$44/12 = ~$3.67/month

Money is tight for me due to being slow at work....but even I wouldn't notice an increase of $3.67 on my power bill....lol My A/C adds almost $100 a month to my power bill.

 

You're completely missing the point.

Most people like to point out the price difference (around $140) between the i7-4770k and the FX-8350 as being a point in the FX-8350's favor. However, when you actually account for the usage costs of both CPU's, the i7-4770k comes out to be cheaper, or at the very least equal to, the FX-8350 in final end user costs while offering vastly superior performance and features.

But you are 100% right about GPU's as well, energy costs should start to be taken into account when judging final costs vs. performance. I'm actually going to fire off a PM to Hilbert about just such a metric.

 

i7 4770K is $350 on Newegg
FX8350 is $200 on Newegg

That's $150 price difference.

If you upgrade every 2nd or 3rd generation, as is common of enthusiasts, AMD is cheaper overall.

 

2 years: $145 - FX-8350's real cost: $345 - Difference with i7-4770k: -$10
3 years: $222.5 - FX-8350's real cost: $422.5- Difference with i7-4770k: +$67.5

See what I'm getting at, and these are very reasonable estimates. Even if you half my estimates, you still end up after three years paying $311.5 for the FX-8350 vs. $350 for the much more powerful and feature rich i7-4770k, that's a mere $40 difference that I doubt anyone wouldn't go for.

 

where are you getting these numbers from? if you're claiming them as power cost estimates, that would put the FX series processors on part with my AC unit for power consumption.... which would be a huge stretch....

 

$0.2 per Kwh (N.Y state prices and a near average from most first world countries), 4 hours a day load usage and 20 hours fully idle (which is being more generous to AMD), 23w idle power difference and 74w load power difference taken from these graphs (Techreport):