Results 1 to 10 of 117

Thread: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,653

    Default AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    Phoronix: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

    AMD today is lifting the lid on their Piledriver-based 2012 FX "Vishera" processors. Just weeks after the "Bulldozer 2" Trinity APUs were launched, the new high-end AMD FX CPUs are being rolled out. Being benchmarked at Phoronix today under Linux is the new AMD FX-8350 processor.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18051

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,615

    Default

    It's nice for amd that there are at least some results better than intel's quad cores. It is easy to guess which benchmarks use much more commands for the integer function units compared to the floating point ones. Maybe cray could be analyzed in that way. Basically amd can only shine in fully multithreaded benchmarks and preferred without fpu code (because there are only 4 fpus but 8 for integer). I miss a bit povray, thats a fully single threaded benchmark, similar to cinebench in single threaded mode.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Yet more trash from AMD.

    Jesus christ, step it up or go home.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Yet more trash
    How much exactly do you know about CPU design?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Why are the AMDs doing so badly in floating point arithmetics? It's not like Intel has 8 FPUs and 4 integer cores...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.
    TDP = Thermal Design Power

    TDP is an indicator on how much sustained thermal power you have to get rid of for stable operation, not a figure for maximum power consumption. Maximum power consumption may well exceed the TDP for short periods of time.
    Last edited by SavageX; 10-23-2012 at 02:57 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.
    I guess you might not be too smart, if you do not understand that the power measured is referred to the total system and not just the cpu itself..

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.
    I don't think you're understanding what you're reading.
    Peak power is worthless for anything other than determining what power supply to buy...
    You cannot use peak power to make comments about how much power the PC uses over *ANY* period of time.
    TDP, by definition is the expected amount of power the CPU uses over a period of time.


    Legitreviews says that the average load power of a PC with the 8350 is 219 watts compared to 163 watts of the Intel chip while running CPU benchmarks..
    Which is exactly what the TDP difference between the chips predicts.. Running games, the difference is even less.
    Source link here...
    http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/13/

    You know it takes a *LOT* of power to turn over a car engine but that doesn't mean you drive your car with your starter running 24/7. Peak power is an almost worthless measurement, especially for a CPU that can ramp up and down within time frames as small as 1/1000000 of a second.
    Last edited by Sidicas; 10-23-2012 at 09:03 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by necro-lover View Post
    heise.de: AMD's FX-8350 125Watt TDP pure fake number 168 watts measured

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...i-1734298.html

    AMD is just try to fool us.
    The values claimed in that website cannot be evaluated because they do not provide any relevant information.

    What did they measure and how? Did they measure current and next calculated power from assuming constant 12V?

    What PSU they used? Some PSU use one 12V rail to power both CPU and GPU.

    What form factor they used? I have seen comparisons where the AMD was run on a micro-ATX mobo, whereas the Intel used mini-ITX (about 20W extra on the AMD side were due to the different form factor).

    What motherboard they used? The same FX-chip can consume up to 20W more by switching from an Asus to a MSI micro-ATX AM3+ motherboard



    And so on. You cannot compare AMD Intel power consumption without those details.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •