At the point when AMD was tossing around the specs of its first bulldozer chips we as a whole sat up and paid heed. All things considered, it was AMD's first new CPU innovation upgrade for a flat out age, and what it was anticipating doing with the new bulldozer microarchitecture looked really darned progressive.
Tragically for AMD however, its top chip could scarcely keep pace with the second level of Intel's Sandy Extension CPUs. At that point it discharged the 22nm Ivy Span kick the bucket therapist and things got much more hopeless for the Texan chip organization.
Purchase AMD FX-8350 at Amazon for $156.95
In any case, as we've seen in the course of the most recent couple of months, those AMD Bulldozer chips still have something to offer. Perhaps not the top-end eight-center FX-8150, but rather the colossal worth and overclocking abilities of the six-center FX-6200 made it an enticing prospect for anybody on a spending hoping to assemble a gaming rig.
Worth is center to this course of action, and having the capacity to assemble a better than average AMD CPU/mobo combo for not exactly a Center i5 setup implies that you get a decent piece of money to spend on your illustrations card. Truth be told, it's the contrast between having the capacity to get a HD 7950 or a HD 7870. Furthermore, we know which we'd rather have murmuring ceaselessly in our machine.
Presently, with the Piledriver redesign to the Bulldozer engineering, we have the most recent FX chips hitting the business sector under yet another codename: Vishera. Could the overhauled design close the hole on the Intel Ivy Span opponents, and give its CPU run an execution shot in the arm to match its worth qualifications?
Beat up
Strap in, I'm going to discuss engineering here. The first Bulldozer outline was a really radical movement as far as the change from the Stars design found in Phenom. It made Bulldozer modules with a couple of "centers" in every, sharing some lower usage silicon, for example, level-2 store, get and translate segments, while the more indispensable, time-touchy parts, for example, the whole number pipelines and level-1 reserve were a piece of every 'center'.
In genuine utilize however, this sharing of key parts implied that while multi-strung execution was enhanced, having such a large number of more strings of handling accessible implied the single-strung execution was slower even than the Phenom chips that went before it. That additionally implied gaming execution was down the pecking request, and the contending Intel chips left AMD trailing in their aggregate wake.
To attempt to change this, AMD has gone and done somewhat light rebuilding of the Bulldozer modules by means of this Piledriver redesign. We've seen the main execution of this new outline in the as of late discharged Trinity desktop chips, however this is the first occasion when we've seen it in a committed desktop plan.
Basically this isn't a noteworthy update - only a couple of genuine specialist satisfying changes, for example, better branch expectation, better equipment prefetching and enhanced planning. There are some other in the engine improvements, however with everything taken into account it's generally low-level stuff.
For the genuine design changes we must sit tight for the entry of the Steamroller overhaul some time one year from now. That is set to give the individual "centers" more devoted equipment to make them more like the conventional center configuration. Steamroller bends over the unravel motors in a module, and ought to make for enhanced single-strung execution.
Additional, additional
This isn't to imply that the new Piledriver plan doesn't include any additional execution for your money. Actually, this top-end FX chip is getting straight down to business at 4GHz out of the container. Eight AMD centers running at 4GHz - not very shabby.
Tragically however, the single-strung execution hasn't increase fundamentally, so don't get excessively amped up for gathering any additional gaming execution from this new chip.
The multi-strung execution doesn't see a colossal change either - in both fragments then we're taking a gander at around 15 for each penny additional handling rate. On the multi-threading side however, that slight return isn't as a lot of an issue on account of the amazing appearing of the first design.
When you consider that the new FX processors will be turning out at around the same kind of cost as the Bulldozer chips, that is not an awful cut of additional pace. What's more, with the fearlessly quad-center i5 3570K coming in around £20 more costly than this eight-string, quad-module FX-8350, will get a considerable piece more CPU execution straight out of the container.
Toss any multi-strung application at the two opponent processors and the AMD chip will soon demonstrate its strength in that field. With the i5 getting around the same kind of figures in Cinebench as the old FX-8150, the new Piledriver chip is somewhat more than 15 for each penny faster. That execution crevice gets significantly greater when you throw the HD encoding benchmark of X264 v4.0 at the pair with the FX-8350 getting just about 25 for each penny preferable results over the Intel i5.
Truth be told, on the off chance that you take the FX-8350's multi-strung execution in seclusion, it's all of a sudden getting somewhat near the execution of the comparably eight-strung god-like Center i7 3770K. In Cinebench the AMD chip is just somewhat more than 5 for every penny slower, and in X264 there's not exactly a solitary for every penny contrast between them. It's amazing that AMD has figured out how to close the execution hole this much in the multi-threading stakes.
With such a variety of present day efficiency programs truly exploiting the additional strings on offer in today's processors, there would be next to no arrival on the additional £100 you'd spend on the 3770K versus the FX-8350.
Tragically for AMD, we can't take the multi-strung execution of our chips in detachment. Single-strung ability still means a considerable measure, not slightest in gaming. What's more, in gaming the Intel CPUs still give significantly more - in our tests we were taking a gander at an additional 10-15 for every penny.
Benchmarks
As should be obvious from the benchmark comes about, the i7-3770K is still the top desktop chip on essentially all tallies, yet at £100 more than the most recent FX-8350 you're paying through the eye for that additional execution.
Contrasted and the correspondingly evaluated Center i5, the FX-8350 looks more great, capably beating it in any multi-strung test you give it. Truth be told it's entirely near the eight strings of the top Ivy Span CPU in those multi-strung measurements. In gaming terms however the Intel chips still hold a solid lead in crude CPU execution terms.
CPU rendering execution (single-string)
Cinebench R11.5: List score: higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 1.07
AMD FX-8150: 0.92
Intel Center i7 3770K: 1.63
Intel Center i5 3570K: 1.58
CPU rendering execution (multi-string)
Cinebench: R11.5 List score: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 6.71
AMD FX-8150: 5.71
Intel Center i7 3770K: 7.14
Intel Center i5 3570K: 5.70
CPU encoding execution
X264 v4.0: Outlines Every Second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 41
AMD FX-8150: 35
Intel Center i7 3770K: 41
Intel Center i5 3570K: 33
CPU gaming execution
Batman: Air conditioning: Casings every second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 114
AMD FX-8150: 126
Intel Center i7 3770K: 177
Intel Center i5 3570K: 164
CPU gaming execution
Shogun 2: CPU Outlines Every Second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 25
AMD FX-8150: 22
Intel Center i7 3770K: 35
Intel Center i5 3570K: 34
Overclocking execution
Max OC: GHz: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 4.7
AMD FX-8150: 4.6
Intel Center i7 3770K: 4.7
Intel Center i5 3570K: 4.7
With money obviously being no article to any of us PC gaming sorts, we would dependably go for an Intel CPU to prop up the best representation card accessible. However, in the event that you don't have the unlimited pay of a PC tech journo (hack) then esteem for cash is completely key.
The reality remains that an AMD stage is less expensive than an Intel one, and that gives you more cash to spend on your GPU. With a superior GPU, the gaming execution picks up accumulated by the Intel CPU design turn out to be for all intents and purposes unessential. Your representation card is most in charge of your gaming background, so it bodes well to drop the most money on that.
Unleashed
Like the K Arrangement Intel chips, the whole FX extent is opened, so overclocking is unquestionably on the menu. All things considered, inasmuch as you have a respectable, OC-accommodating motherboard backing it up.
We struggled a touch of experiencing the BIOS of our Asus RoG board, however with the Windows-based AMD Overdrive programming we could hit 4.7GHz steadily. We could boot by means of BIOS overclocking, however once we began focusing on the chip it in the long run fell over.
With the AMD programming however, it remained joyfully numbercrunching endlessly. It's not exactly the 1GHz+ pace support you can escape Intel's engineering, however it gives you some noteworthy execution picks up. Running at 4.7GHz the FX 8350 is altogether quicker in multi-strung applications than even the i7 3770K at stock paces. Obviously, the Intel chip can likewise be overclocked, however it gives you some thought of how focused these AMD chips can be.
In a vacuum then, the Intel chips remain the main CPUs you'd need in your machines. They are the best at gaming, and the second-level quad-center chips stay focused with AMD's best in multi-strung applications. Be that as it may, this Piledriver redesign has shut the crevice a bit, and as far as stage worth in general, the AMD setup simply has the edge. Spend the distinction in CPU cost on a superior illustrations card and the execution contrast in recreations amongst AMD and Intel chips will in a split second dissolve away.
Like the Bulldozer discharge however, the top-level FX chip is most likely not the one that we'd truly prescribe. The £20 distinction in cost is immaterial, and wont have a gigantic effect in what GPU you go for.
The hex-center FX-6300, then again, could be a substantially more tempting prospect. On the off chance that evaluating takes after the past era then you're taking a gander at around a £70 contrast, and that could make for that knock up to a HD 7950. The hex-center chip will likewise overclock joyfully, so regardless you'll get not too bad multi-strung execution - effectively as proficient as the i5, for significantly less money.
An equally valued AMD hex-center machine then would improve for a gaming PC than an i5 3570K apparatus with a weaker GPU. We require AMD to be aggressive to keep the PC market dynamic, and keep Intel genuine.
These new Piledriver chips ought to have the capacity to do that, particularly at the quality end of the business sector. What's more, if that pushes Intel to improve chips - perhaps a standard six-center desktop CPU - then that is got the chance to be useful for everybody as well.
https://amdgalery.blogspot.co.id/
Tragically for AMD however, its top chip could scarcely keep pace with the second level of Intel's Sandy Extension CPUs. At that point it discharged the 22nm Ivy Span kick the bucket therapist and things got much more hopeless for the Texan chip organization.
Purchase AMD FX-8350 at Amazon for $156.95
In any case, as we've seen in the course of the most recent couple of months, those AMD Bulldozer chips still have something to offer. Perhaps not the top-end eight-center FX-8150, but rather the colossal worth and overclocking abilities of the six-center FX-6200 made it an enticing prospect for anybody on a spending hoping to assemble a gaming rig.
Worth is center to this course of action, and having the capacity to assemble a better than average AMD CPU/mobo combo for not exactly a Center i5 setup implies that you get a decent piece of money to spend on your illustrations card. Truth be told, it's the contrast between having the capacity to get a HD 7950 or a HD 7870. Furthermore, we know which we'd rather have murmuring ceaselessly in our machine.
Presently, with the Piledriver redesign to the Bulldozer engineering, we have the most recent FX chips hitting the business sector under yet another codename: Vishera. Could the overhauled design close the hole on the Intel Ivy Span opponents, and give its CPU run an execution shot in the arm to match its worth qualifications?
Beat up
Strap in, I'm going to discuss engineering here. The first Bulldozer outline was a really radical movement as far as the change from the Stars design found in Phenom. It made Bulldozer modules with a couple of "centers" in every, sharing some lower usage silicon, for example, level-2 store, get and translate segments, while the more indispensable, time-touchy parts, for example, the whole number pipelines and level-1 reserve were a piece of every 'center'.
In genuine utilize however, this sharing of key parts implied that while multi-strung execution was enhanced, having such a large number of more strings of handling accessible implied the single-strung execution was slower even than the Phenom chips that went before it. That additionally implied gaming execution was down the pecking request, and the contending Intel chips left AMD trailing in their aggregate wake.
To attempt to change this, AMD has gone and done somewhat light rebuilding of the Bulldozer modules by means of this Piledriver redesign. We've seen the main execution of this new outline in the as of late discharged Trinity desktop chips, however this is the first occasion when we've seen it in a committed desktop plan.
Basically this isn't a noteworthy update - only a couple of genuine specialist satisfying changes, for example, better branch expectation, better equipment prefetching and enhanced planning. There are some other in the engine improvements, however with everything taken into account it's generally low-level stuff.
For the genuine design changes we must sit tight for the entry of the Steamroller overhaul some time one year from now. That is set to give the individual "centers" more devoted equipment to make them more like the conventional center configuration. Steamroller bends over the unravel motors in a module, and ought to make for enhanced single-strung execution.
Additional, additional
This isn't to imply that the new Piledriver plan doesn't include any additional execution for your money. Actually, this top-end FX chip is getting straight down to business at 4GHz out of the container. Eight AMD centers running at 4GHz - not very shabby.
Tragically however, the single-strung execution hasn't increase fundamentally, so don't get excessively amped up for gathering any additional gaming execution from this new chip.
The multi-strung execution doesn't see a colossal change either - in both fragments then we're taking a gander at around 15 for each penny additional handling rate. On the multi-threading side however, that slight return isn't as a lot of an issue on account of the amazing appearing of the first design.
When you consider that the new FX processors will be turning out at around the same kind of cost as the Bulldozer chips, that is not an awful cut of additional pace. What's more, with the fearlessly quad-center i5 3570K coming in around £20 more costly than this eight-string, quad-module FX-8350, will get a considerable piece more CPU execution straight out of the container.
Toss any multi-strung application at the two opponent processors and the AMD chip will soon demonstrate its strength in that field. With the i5 getting around the same kind of figures in Cinebench as the old FX-8150, the new Piledriver chip is somewhat more than 15 for each penny faster. That execution crevice gets significantly greater when you throw the HD encoding benchmark of X264 v4.0 at the pair with the FX-8350 getting just about 25 for each penny preferable results over the Intel i5.
Truth be told, on the off chance that you take the FX-8350's multi-strung execution in seclusion, it's all of a sudden getting somewhat near the execution of the comparably eight-strung god-like Center i7 3770K. In Cinebench the AMD chip is just somewhat more than 5 for every penny slower, and in X264 there's not exactly a solitary for every penny contrast between them. It's amazing that AMD has figured out how to close the execution hole this much in the multi-threading stakes.
With such a variety of present day efficiency programs truly exploiting the additional strings on offer in today's processors, there would be next to no arrival on the additional £100 you'd spend on the 3770K versus the FX-8350.
Tragically for AMD, we can't take the multi-strung execution of our chips in detachment. Single-strung ability still means a considerable measure, not slightest in gaming. What's more, in gaming the Intel CPUs still give significantly more - in our tests we were taking a gander at an additional 10-15 for every penny.
Benchmarks
As should be obvious from the benchmark comes about, the i7-3770K is still the top desktop chip on essentially all tallies, yet at £100 more than the most recent FX-8350 you're paying through the eye for that additional execution.
Contrasted and the correspondingly evaluated Center i5, the FX-8350 looks more great, capably beating it in any multi-strung test you give it. Truth be told it's entirely near the eight strings of the top Ivy Span CPU in those multi-strung measurements. In gaming terms however the Intel chips still hold a solid lead in crude CPU execution terms.
CPU rendering execution (single-string)
Cinebench R11.5: List score: higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 1.07
AMD FX-8150: 0.92
Intel Center i7 3770K: 1.63
Intel Center i5 3570K: 1.58
CPU rendering execution (multi-string)
Cinebench: R11.5 List score: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 6.71
AMD FX-8150: 5.71
Intel Center i7 3770K: 7.14
Intel Center i5 3570K: 5.70
CPU encoding execution
X264 v4.0: Outlines Every Second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 41
AMD FX-8150: 35
Intel Center i7 3770K: 41
Intel Center i5 3570K: 33
CPU gaming execution
Batman: Air conditioning: Casings every second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 114
AMD FX-8150: 126
Intel Center i7 3770K: 177
Intel Center i5 3570K: 164
CPU gaming execution
Shogun 2: CPU Outlines Every Second: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 25
AMD FX-8150: 22
Intel Center i7 3770K: 35
Intel Center i5 3570K: 34
Overclocking execution
Max OC: GHz: Higher is better
AMD FX-8350: 4.7
AMD FX-8150: 4.6
Intel Center i7 3770K: 4.7
Intel Center i5 3570K: 4.7
With money obviously being no article to any of us PC gaming sorts, we would dependably go for an Intel CPU to prop up the best representation card accessible. However, in the event that you don't have the unlimited pay of a PC tech journo (hack) then esteem for cash is completely key.
The reality remains that an AMD stage is less expensive than an Intel one, and that gives you more cash to spend on your GPU. With a superior GPU, the gaming execution picks up accumulated by the Intel CPU design turn out to be for all intents and purposes unessential. Your representation card is most in charge of your gaming background, so it bodes well to drop the most money on that.
Unleashed
Like the K Arrangement Intel chips, the whole FX extent is opened, so overclocking is unquestionably on the menu. All things considered, inasmuch as you have a respectable, OC-accommodating motherboard backing it up.
We struggled a touch of experiencing the BIOS of our Asus RoG board, however with the Windows-based AMD Overdrive programming we could hit 4.7GHz steadily. We could boot by means of BIOS overclocking, however once we began focusing on the chip it in the long run fell over.
With the AMD programming however, it remained joyfully numbercrunching endlessly. It's not exactly the 1GHz+ pace support you can escape Intel's engineering, however it gives you some noteworthy execution picks up. Running at 4.7GHz the FX 8350 is altogether quicker in multi-strung applications than even the i7 3770K at stock paces. Obviously, the Intel chip can likewise be overclocked, however it gives you some thought of how focused these AMD chips can be.
In a vacuum then, the Intel chips remain the main CPUs you'd need in your machines. They are the best at gaming, and the second-level quad-center chips stay focused with AMD's best in multi-strung applications. Be that as it may, this Piledriver redesign has shut the crevice a bit, and as far as stage worth in general, the AMD setup simply has the edge. Spend the distinction in CPU cost on a superior illustrations card and the execution contrast in recreations amongst AMD and Intel chips will in a split second dissolve away.
Like the Bulldozer discharge however, the top-level FX chip is most likely not the one that we'd truly prescribe. The £20 distinction in cost is immaterial, and wont have a gigantic effect in what GPU you go for.
The hex-center FX-6300, then again, could be a substantially more tempting prospect. On the off chance that evaluating takes after the past era then you're taking a gander at around a £70 contrast, and that could make for that knock up to a HD 7950. The hex-center chip will likewise overclock joyfully, so regardless you'll get not too bad multi-strung execution - effectively as proficient as the i5, for significantly less money.
An equally valued AMD hex-center machine then would improve for a gaming PC than an i5 3570K apparatus with a weaker GPU. We require AMD to be aggressive to keep the PC market dynamic, and keep Intel genuine.
These new Piledriver chips ought to have the capacity to do that, particularly at the quality end of the business sector. What's more, if that pushes Intel to improve chips - perhaps a standard six-center desktop CPU - then that is got the chance to be useful for everybody as well.
https://amdgalery.blogspot.co.id/
0 comments:
Post a Comment