AMD's FX-8350 processor reviewed - The Tech Report

Recently, we have experienced some difficult times, management changes, layoffs and brain drain are decreasing, because many familiar faces have fled to green pastures. These situations are carried out in the context of increasing financial losses and thorny questions about the company’s future and direction.

Much of the turmoil can be traced back to a major, decisive event: the difficult and disappointing birth of a new CPU microarchitecture called Bulldozer. As technicians, we may have overestimated the role of technology in these issues. Nevertheless, Bulldozer is regarded by many as AMD's next great hope, and it is the first brand new x86 CPU architecture in ten years. When the FX processor not only cannot catch up with Intel's competition, but also cannot beat AMD's own predecessors in terms of performance and energy efficiency, some nasty consequences are inevitable.

Once the first chips came out, AMD's engineering task became clear: to improve the Bulldozer microarchitecture as much as possible. In addition to the FX processor, the company also announced a plan that includes a series of updates to its CPU cores in the next few years and promises to improve performance and efficiency. The first of these incremental updates is called "Piledriver" (Piledriver), this is a modest update, the update was first released on the market last spring.

. Now, about a year after the first FX chips came out, the improved FX processor based on the piledriver makes its debut more or less as planned. In other words, considering all aspects, this is a very positive signal.

The question now is whether it is enough. Are these CPUs enough to make room for the market in the fierce competition? You may be surprised by the answer.

The chip that caught our attention today is codenamed Vishera, and it is the direct successor to the silicon that powers the previous generation of FX processors (called Orochi). Vishera and Orochi share almost everything-both are manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 32nm SOI manufacturing process, both have 8MB of L3 cache, and are basically eight-core CPUs. The biggest difference is the transition from the core of the bulldozer to the core of the pile driver, or more precisely, the transition from the bulldozer module to the pile driver module. These "modules" are the basic structure in AMD's latest architecture. They contain two "tightly coupled" integer cores that share certain resources, including the front end, L2 cache and floating point unit. Therefore, AMD counts the four-module FX processor as an eight-core CPU, and we cannot completely object to this label.

Products Show

Module

Cache size

(Nano)

Transistor

(million)

Area

(Square millimeter)

We introduced the enhancements of the pile driver module in more detail

, But the point is very simple. The pile driver includes fine adjustments to each part of the module to improve instruction throughput. Variations range from the front end of the CPU to the core, to the cache subsystem, and none of the changes can increase throughput by more than 1%. Overall, the income may be only about 6% or even lower, so we have not seen huge progress. Nevertheless, the pile driver also includes other modifications. FPU supports the three-operand version of the fusion multiplication and addition instruction, which is a key part of the AVX specification, and Intel’s upcoming Haswell chip will also support it. This change puts AMD and Intel on the same page. (At least until now, the support for Bulldozer's FMA4 instructions is retained.) More importantly, Piledriver has been optimized to achieve higher clock speeds at lower voltages. This adjustment is for mobile Trinity chips. Brought a good return. As you can see, it also benefits desktop FX processors.

Clock speed

bridge

speed

The new FX chip lineup is detailed above. Today’s headline news is FX-8350, which is only one of the four new Vishera-based parts AMD has provided us. FX-8350 has the same power envelope (125W) and Turbo peak (4.2GHz) as the chip FX-8150 it replaces. The most significant difference is the basic clock. The nasal bleeding induction frequency of FX-8350 is 4GHz, which is higher than 3.6GHz of its predecessor.

The higher base frequency of the FX-8350 should improve performance, especially in multi-threaded workloads. However, if you are like me, you are looking at the 200MHz gap between the basic and Turbo peak clock speeds and wonder why it is not bigger. After all, the overall idea of ​​these dynamic clocking schemes is to take advantage of the extra thermal margin provided when not all cores are busy. Vishera can turn off the power of inactive modules, leaving more space for modules that are still active. In this way, generally there may be higher voltages and frequencies within the same thermal envelope. There is a gap of 500MHz between the basic clock and the peak clock of FX-8320. Why doesn't FX-8350 provide a similar increase in peak clock frequency?

Our best guess is that few of these chips can withstand frequencies above 4.2GHz well and consistently at a low enough voltage to allow AMD to mass-produce products with higher Turbo peaks. If so, it would be a shame, because the low performance in light-threaded workloads can be said to be the biggest weakness of the CPU architecture. Higher Turbo frequency can play a great role in solving this problem.

In other words, the price of FX-8350 is quite good. The price of 195 dollars positions it among several Intel Ivy Bridge-based products, the Core i5-3470 is priced at 185 dollars, and the Core i5-3570K is priced at 225 dollars. Both are true quad-core, four-thread processors. Of these two, only the i5-3570K's multiplier has been unlocked for easy overclocking, and all FX components have been unlocked. On the other hand, the Intel processor’s rated peak power is 77W, which is much lower than the 125W TDP of the FX-8350.

Speaking of smaller power envelopes, these two low-end FX models take advantage of the power enhancement features of the pile driver by reducing it to a more moderate 95W. The chips they replaced FX-6200 and FX-4170 were both 125W parts. The new model even sacrificed some clock speed to achieve the goal. For example, the FX-6300 has a clock frequency of 3.5/4.1GHz, while the earlier FX-6200 has a clock frequency of 3.8/4.1GHz. AMD told us that it expects the performance of these two parts to be similar, because the increase in performance per clock of the stub driver should make up for some of the differences.

The lowest-end FX processor FX-4300 almost completely overlaps with our A10-5800K desktop Trinity

Earlier this month. Both are priced at $ 122. The Turbo peak of 5800K is increased by 200MHz, the maximum power consumption is increased by 5 watts, and graphics functions are integrated. The FX-4300 has the 4MB L3 cache that Trinity lacks. Again, the A-series APU integrates PCIe connections and plugs into its own brand new slot, while the new FX series uses the same Socket AM3+ infrastructure as the previous model, so they are actually for different platforms.

We ran each test at least three times and reported the median score produced.

The configuration of the test system is as follows:

Feihong II X4 980

Feihong II X6 1100T

AMD FX-4170

AMD FX-6200

AMD

FX-8150

FX-8350

Core i3-3225

core

i5-2400

Core i5-2500K

i7-2600K

Core i5-3470

Core i5-3570K

Core i7-3770K

Core i7-3820

Version

DDR3 SDRAM

revenge

driver

iRST 11.1.0.1006

RSTe 3.0.0.3020

SB950 / ALC889 and

Realtek 6.0.1.6602 driver

Z77/ALC898 and 

X79 / ALC892 and

AMD A10-5800K

Core i5-760

Core i7-875K

P7P55D-E Pro

A75 / ALC889 and

P55 / VIA VT1828S and

Microsoft driver

They all share the following common elements:

(Only AMD system: KB2646060, KB2645594 patch)

Thanks to Corsair, XFX, Kingston, MSI, Asus, Gigabyte, Intel and AMD for helping us equip our test bench with some of the best hardware. Of course, I would also like to thank Intel and AMD for the processors.

We used the following versions of the test application:

Other notes about our testing methods:

The tests and methods we use are usually publicly available and repeatable. If you have questions about our approach, please click our

Talk to us about them.

These comprehensive tests are designed to measure specific properties of the system, and ultimately may not be able to track all the connections with actual application performance. However, they can still inspire people.

One of the alleged adjustments of the batch driver is an improved hardware prefetcher, which can fill the L2 cache by checking access patterns and predicting which data is needed next. Any changes made by AMD in this regard will not be shown in our Stream results, where FX-8350 matches FX-8150 almost exactly. Many Intel chips extract more bandwidth from the same dual-channel DDR3 memory configuration. Core i7-3820 and 3960X have four channels, and the transmission rate has almost doubled.

The test is multi-threaded, so it can capture the bandwidth of all caches on all cores at the same time. The different test block sizes allow us to move from L1 and L2 caches to L3 and main memory.

Although the FX-8350 has a higher cache throughput than the FX-8150, we can attribute the difference to the 8350's higher base clock frequency. We may see the impact of the larger L1 cache TLB of the piledriver on the 32KB block size, but it is difficult to determine.

SiSoft has a good choice

The incubation period test tool is suitable for those interested. We use "random in page" access mode to reduce the prefetcher's impact on our measurements. We have reported results in terms of CPU cycles, and this is how the tool returns results. As with latency measurements in the past, the problem with converting these results to a billionth of a second is that we don’t always know the clock speed of the CPU, it depends on the Turbo response. In any case, knowing the delay of the clock cycle helps to understand, for example, the difference between a bulldozer and a pile driver. Let's imagine.

On a per-cycle basis, the piledriver's memory subsystem seems to be faster than Bulldozer's. In fact, the FX-8350's buffer is slower at every step of the ladder.

There is no proper SPEC rate test in our kit yet (yet!), but I want to quickly check some comprehensive calculation benchmarks to understand the comparison between different architectures before proceeding with more diverse and powerful applications based on Work load. These simple tests in AIDA64 are well multithreaded and use the latest instructions, including Bulldozer's XOP in the CPU Hash test and FPU in the Julia test and FMA4 in the Mandel test.

The FX-8350 ranks among the best in the CPU hash test, which is not surprising considering the relatively powerful performance of AMD processors in this integer-based benchmark. The fractal test with higher FPU intensity is completely different, with chips based on Sandy and Ivy Bridge topping the list. Although in theory, Vishera's four FPUs should be able to have the same number of peak FLOPS per clock as any Sandy or Ivy quad-core, but even with the advantage of higher clock speeds, the throughput of the FX-8350 will be lower. Much. With FMA instructions and a 4GHz base clock, at least the four FPUs of the FX-8350 can outperform the six older FPUs on the Phenom II X6 1100T, a feat that FX-8150 cannot replicate.

The workload of this test is based on the commands extracted directly in the x264 benchmark, using x264 to encode the video, as you will see later. This encoding job is a two-pass process. The first step is light multithreading, which will give us the opportunity to understand the power consumption when using mechanisms such as Turbo and core power gating. The second pass is more extensive multithreading.

We have tested all CPUs with default configurations, including a discrete Radeon card. We also popped up discrete cards to understand the power consumption of A10, Core i3 and A8-3850.

The original graph above gives us a good understanding of several things, including the huge gap between the maximum power consumption of AMD and Intel solutions in the same price range.

Please note that the Core i5-3570K actually consumes the same power in the light-threaded phase of the first thread of the encoding process and the multi-threaded heavy-load phase of the second thread. Presumably, this means that the CPU makes full use of its specified power range in both stages. FX-8150 is not far from ideal. FX-8350 consumes much more power in the second stage than the first stage. This shows that FX-8350 has a relatively conservative 4.2GHz Turbo frequency, leaving a certain amount of cooling space for the desktop.

FX-8350 is a very large chip with a lot of room for heat dissipation, so these results are not surprising. Since FX-8150, the basic parameters have not changed. The test system is based on the closest competitor Core i5-3470. Compared with our FX-8350 test bench, the power consumption at idle is reduced by more than 20W, and the power consumption under load is reduced by more than 100W.

We can quantify the efficiency by looking at the power (in kilojoules) used during the entire test period (when the chip is busy and idle). In this way, FX-8350 is an improvement to FX-8150 because it completes the work and enters the idle state faster.

Perhaps our best measure of CPU power efficiency is task energy: the energy consumed when encoding video. This measure rewards the CPU to complete the work as soon as possible, but does not consider the power consumption when idle.

Although the 125W processor may not necessarily be considered energy efficient, the FX-8350 requires less energy than any AMD processor before it. Compared with the Bulldozer-based FX-8150, this is a pretty solid advancement, especially because Vishera is just adjusting silicon based on the same basic architecture and the same 32nm SOI wafer manufacturing process.

Again, Intel's competition is much more efficient overall, not only the 22nm Ivy Bridge components, but also 32nm Sandy Bridge chips.

For game testing, we are using a testing method for latency. If you are not familiar with our work, you may want to check our recent work

The article, here is a part of the data, and a good explanation of our method.

As can be seen from the figure, FX-8350 has been improved on the basis of FX-8510 and Phenom II X6. More frames were generated during the test run, and fewer and shorter delays were generated during its run. Peak. (For frame time graphs of all tested CPUs, please go to

)

Although the average FPS of the FX-8350 is the highest among all AMD processors we have tested, the Phenom II X4 980 is still far ahead in the latency-centric indicator (99th percentile frame time). Either way, the FX-8350 is one of AMD's fastest gaming chips, but compared to recent Intel processors, you can easily see the problem with this statement. Even the low-end Pentium G2120 is faster in this regard

testing scenarios.

We suspect that the trouble with the Bulldozer architecture in gaming comes down to the relatively low per-thread performance in light-threaded workloads. In many games, a single branch control thread tends to become a performance limiter. The frame waiting time of FX-8150 rises in the last 5% or so of frames, which is difficult to achieve. The FX-8350 hasn't really changed this dynamic—the last 5% peak is still there—but its frame time is much shorter. This improvement is enough to make the FX-8350 slightly ahead of the Phenom II X6 1100T in the last few percentage points. That is progress. Unfortunately, AMD has a long way to go to catch up with Intel’s current processors.

Before anyone panics in this delay-sensitive game test, we all hope to base our analysis on reality by considering the time spent on truly long wait time frames. Once this is done, some practical issues regarding the performance of the FX-8350 will disappear. Almost no processor takes any time to process frames longer than 50 milliseconds, which is what we usually call the "bad" threshold. This means that you are using most of these CPUs (including FX-8350) to view reasonably smooth animations. In fact, we have to cross the regular next stop, which is 33 milliseconds or 30 FPS, and reduce it to 16.7 milliseconds (equivalent to 60 FPS) in order to see meaningful differences between CPUs.

When we traverse the cityscape of Arkham, the game engine must often broadcast live in new areas, and this arduous task is partially limited by the CPU. You can see peaks in all frame time graphs that occur at semi-regular intervals, and you will notice that peaks tend to be shorter on faster processors.

The FPS average is consistent with our 99th percentile frame time indicator: in a difficult test full of deceleration, the FX-8350 beat the champion of the green team Phenom II X4 980. The result of the 99th percentile illustrates this point: FX-8350 delivered 99% of the frames in 25 milliseconds in this test, which is equivalent to 40 FPS.

The waiting time curve of the FX-8350 also looks pretty good, with a smooth and not too large slope upward in the last few percent of the frame.

There were occasional spikes throughout the test, which meant that all CPUs took a little time to exceed our 50 millisecond threshold, but the FX-8350 only consumed 70 milliseconds on long-latency frames during our entire 90-second test period. time. This was only a short-lived failure, and it was less than half of the time it took FX-8150 to exceed the same threshold. Nevertheless, competing solutions such as Core i5-3470 and i5-3570K have almost eliminated these obstacles.

This is a game that runs well on almost all the CPUs we tested, with one notable exception: the Pentium G2120, the only processor in this group with only two physical cores

Two logical threads. The rest have at least four threads through hyperthreading.

FX-8350 performs well in this well-threaded game engine, especially in the indicator we pay more attention to latency. In fact, the FX-8350 took the least CPU time, exceeding our ultra-strict threshold of 16.7 milliseconds.

Note the peak at the beginning of the test run; it occurs on each CPU. You can feel knots while playing. Obviously, the game is loading some data for the area we are going to enter. Faster CPUs tend to reduce the size of the peak.

This is more signs of life in the AMD camp. The FX-8350 is on par with Intel's competitor Core i5-3470 in terms of average FPS, while the 99th percentile frame time of the FX-8350 is only longer.

The difference in the delay curve from FX-8150 to FX-8350 illustrates AMD's progress. The FX-8150 struggled for about a quarter of the frame, with latency rising to close to 20 milliseconds, while the FX-8350 did not reach 20 milliseconds until the last 4% or so of the frame was rendered. Once it reaches the last 1% or so of a truly solid frame, the FX-8350 can rival Intel's competitors.

As can be seen from the figure, a large spike at the beginning of the test run affects the faster CPUs spending more than the 50 millisecond threshold almost all the time. Compared with competing Intel products, we spent about 50% of the time we waited for a frame to complete on the FX-8350.

Many readers over the years suggested that some kind of real-time multitasking test would be a good benchmark for multi-core CPUs. Facts have proved that this goal is difficult to achieve, but we believe that delay-oriented game testing methods can help us achieve this goal. All we do is play some

, And use the same settings as our previous game test for a 60-second tour on Whiterun. In the background, we use Windows Live Movie Maker to convert the video from MPEG2 to H.264. This is our quality

Experience when coding.

Well, I think this is good news or bad news. On the positive side, in this test scenario, the FX-8350 outperforms any previous AMD CPUs and runs fairly smoothly

Experience in encoding video in the background. On the downside, compared with Intel's quad-core competing products, the eight-core FX-8350 does not provide an excellent multitasking experience. Even the Core i5-760, which has two generations of history, is faster.

It will run the benchmark test in two ways, one is to use the graphics card to draw everything on the screen like in the game, and the other is to use it completely in software without worrying about rendering (as pure CPU performance test).

Either way, the FX-8350 can be as real as we have seen in other game tests: absolutely speaking, it is quite fast, can easily improve the performance of previous AMD chips, and has a long The road to catch up to Sandy Bridge, let alone the Ivy.

Another continuing request from readers is to add some kind of code compilation benchmark. With the help of our local developer Bruno Ferreira, we finally completed this test. Qtbench tests the time required to compile the QT SDK using the GCC compiler. This is Bruno's note on how to put it together:

QT SDK 2010.05-Windows, compiled through the MinGW port of GCC 4.4.0 attached.

Even when the Linux version obviously works and supports multi-threaded compilation, due to the trouble of some batch files, the Windows version must be cracked to achieve the same function.

After obtaining effective multithreaded compilation (configurable number of simultaneous jobs), it is time to reduce compilation time from 45m+ to a manageable level. This requires a rigorous cracking of the makefile in order to simplify the build into a more streamlined version, which is best still able to be compiled before the hell freezes.

Then, in order to make the test more flexible on the path it is on, some modifications are needed. This leads to more Makefile processing (poor thing).

The number of jobs scheduled by the Qtbench script is configurable, and the compiler performs some multi-threading by itself, so we conducted some calibration tests to determine the optimal number of jobs per CPU.

TrueCrypt supports acceleration through Intel's AES-NI instructions, so, especially on CPUs that support those instructions, the encoding of the AES algorithm should be particularly fast. We also include the results of another algorithm Twofish, which cannot be accelerated by dedicated instructions.

what. Now that we have surpassed the game test, we will be in a more friendly position for FX-8350. These eight integer cores can play an important role in most of the above tests. Therefore, the FX-8350 is not only matched with the Core i5-3570K, but also with the more expensive Core i7-3770K. SunSpider is the only exception to this trend, probably because not all elements in it are extensively multithreaded.

Deal with increasingly popular image processing tasks: combine multiple images to create wide panoramas. This task may require a lot of memory and may require a lot of calculations, so Panorama Factory has a wide range of multi-threaded 64-bit versions. I asked it to add four pictures (8 megapixels each) to the glorious panorama of the interior of the damage laboratory.

In the past, we have aggregated the time spent on all the different elements of the panorama creation wizard and reported that number as well as

. However, this is very data intensive, and the process is often controlled by a long operation (stitching). Therefore, we just decided to report stitch time, which saves us a lot of work, but is still at the core of the problem.

picCOLOR was created by Dr. Reinert HGMüller (

. This is not Photoshop; the image analysis function of picCOLOR can be used for scientific applications such as particle flow analysis. Dr. Müller has provided a new revision of our program for a period of time, and optimized picCOLOR to optimize new advances in CPU technology, including SSE extensions, multi-core and hyper-threading. Many of its functions are multi-threaded.

At our request, Dr. Müller graciously agreed to reset his picCOLOR benchmark to include some practical use cases. As a result, we now have four tests that use picCOLOR for image analysis: particle image velocimetry, real-time object tracking, barcode search, and label recognition and rotation. For the sake of brevity, we provide an overall score for those real-world tests.

This benchmark tests one of the most popular H.264 video encoders, the open source x264. The result is divided into two parts, and the encoder traverses the video file twice. I choose to report them separately because it is usually the way to report the results in the public database of the benchmark results.

In this test, we used Windows Live Movie Maker to convert a 30-minute TV program recorded in 720p .wtv format on the Windows 7 Media Center system into a 320×240 WMV format video format suitable for mobile devices.

In each of the above tests, FX-8350 continues to show higher performance than FX-8150, but these image-centric applications are more challenging. Only in the second pass of the x264 test, the FX-8350 can match or surpass its closest competitor Intel.

Since LuxMark uses OpenCL, we can also use it to test the performance of GPU and CPU, and even compare the performance of different processor types. Since OpenCL code is inherently parallel and relies on a real-time compiler, it should adapt well to new instructions. For example, Intel and AMD provide OpenCL integrated client drivers on x86 processors, and they both claim to support AVX. The AMD APP driver even supports the unique commands FMA4 and XOP for bulldozers and pile drivers.

We will start with the CPU-only results. These results come from the AMD APP driver for OpenCL, as it tends to be faster on Intel and AMD CPUs.

Now, we will understand the performance of Radeon HD 7950 when driven by each CPU.

Finally, we can combine the computing power of CPU and GPU to see if we can use both processor types at the same time to solve the same problem, thereby improving performance.

When asked to solve the problem completely by AMD APP ICD, FX-8350 definitely outperformed Core i5-3570K. Only the most recent Intel CPUs with hyperthreading and four (or more) cores are faster. However, Radeon is clearly more proficient in this task than any CPU, and like most processors, FX-8350 is best to provide only Radeon data instead of trying to calculate.

The Cinebench benchmark test is based on Maxon's Cinema 4D rendering engine. It is multi-threaded and comes with 64-bit executable files. The test runs only on a single thread, and then runs as many threads as the CPU core (or threads in a CPU with multiple hardware threads per core).

Facts have proved that the FX-8150 is not inferior in these rendering applications, and the FX-8350's generous benefits on its predecessor products make it top the list, comparable to the Hyper-Threading Intel quad-core.

MyriMatch is suitable for proteomics or

. You can read more about it

.

Euler3D solves the problem of simulating fluid dynamics. Like MyriMatch, it tends to take up a lot of memory bandwidth. You can read more about it

The performance in these two scientific computing workloads used to be very closely tracked together (believe it or not), and seems to be mainly limited by memory bandwidth. Over time, the performance results of these two workloads vary depending on the CPU architecture.

All AMD FX processors are unlocked, so in theory, overclocking them is as easy as increasing the multiplier. I usually prefer to use the BIOS (errors, firmware) to overclock the CPU instead of using the various Windows programs there. However, recently, I like the simplicity and speed of AMD's Overdrive utility and its ability to control Turbo Core behavior very precisely. Therefore, when I need to overclock the FX-8350, I decided to use Overdrive. I'm not sure this is the correct choice, but this is what I use.

When overclocking the CPU to 125W, you will need proper heat dissipation. AMD recommends the large FX water cooler we used before

, But I am very lazy, I think the Thermaltake Frio OCK already installed on the CPU should be enough. After all, the size of the radiator is as large as the size of the water cooler, and the rated power consumption of the radiator is up to 240W. In addition, I assure you that there is a lot of space (more than an inch of gap) between the CPU fan and the video card, even though the space in the image above does not seem to be large. It turns out that Frio OCK keeps the CPU temperature in the mid range of 50°C even at full tilt, so I think it does its job well enough.

The trouble is, I did not get the result I hoped. As always, I recorded my attempts under various settings and copied my notes below. I tested the stability using the multi-threaded Prime95 torture test. Please note that I have adopted a very simple method, only increasing the voltage of the CPU itself, without increasing the VRM or any other voltage. Perhaps this is the reason why my attempt was made like this:

4.8GHz, 1.475V-restart

4.7GHz, 1.4875V-locked

4.6GHz, 1.525V-multithreading error

4.6GHz, 1.5375V-about 55C temperature error

4.6GHZ, 1.5375V, turbo fan-stable at a temperature of about 53.5C, finally locked

4.6GHZ, 1.5375V, manual fan, 100% duty cycle at 50°C-locked

4.6GHZ, 1.55V, manual fan, 100% duty cycle at 50°C-crash, temperature ~54.6C

4.4GHz, 1.55V-OK

4.5GHz, 1.55V-normal, ~57C, 305W

4.5GHz, 1.475V-error

4.5GHz, 1.525V-error

4.5GHz, 1.5375V-OK, ~56C

At the end of this process, I could only squeeze 500MHz from the FX-8350 with a voltage of 1.5375V, which was a notch lower than the maximum voltage exposed in the Overdrive utility. AMD told the reviewers to expect a frequency close to 5GHz, so obviously I failed, or the specific chip is not very cooperative.

I disabled Turbo Core in my initial overclocking attempt, but once a stable base clock is established, I can get higher speeds by creating a Turbo Core profile, which can reach 4.8GHz at 1.55V . This is how our pair of benchmarks run on the overclocked FX-8350.

Some other considerations. First of all, please remember that we measured the peak power consumption of the 196W clock FX-8350 system under x264 encoding. The peak value of the overclocking and overvoltage configuration tested above is about 262W, which is much higher than the normal configuration. As you might imagine, when dealing with this kind of heat, our Frio OCK was thrown out like Joe Biden in the vice president debate.

Second, I hope to include

Test to see how the FX-8350's gaming performance can be improved by a higher clock frequency, but when I tested it, our overclocking configuration was not completely stable. The game did not crash, but our characters run around from time to time. (Here, I tried my best to refuse to make another Biden reference.) We must spend more time on the FX-8350 to find the best overclocking configuration.

As you may have collected, FX-8350 can easily improve its Bulldozer-based precursor products, and this product is neither a chip reduction nor a new architecture.

The final verdict of FX-8350 is not difficult to render, but it does contain several moving parts. As usual, our value dispersion map will help us solve key issues. I created a few of them for your viewing pleasure. The first shows the overall performance (geometric average) of our entire CPU test suite, except for the comprehensive benchmark on page 3. Our game testing is part of this overall performance indicator. The second scatter chart itself isolates the game performance, and we convert the 99th percentile frame time result centered on the delay to FPS for easy reading. In both graphs, the best value will be near the upper left corner where the price is low and the performance is high.

The overall performance dispersion provides some good news for AMD fans: FX-8350 beats Core i5-3470 and 3570K in our beautiful multi-threaded test suite. Therefore, FX-8350 will provide you with a higher cost performance than Core i5-3570K, and at least comparable to our favorite Intel Core i5-3470.

However, jumping to the game scatter chart, the screen will change dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the AMD desktop processor with the highest gaming performance so far, eventually overthrowing the ancient Phenom II X4980. However, the gaming performance of the FX-8350 almost exactly matches the Core i3-3225 (priced at $134) Ivy Bridge based on the processor. At the same time, Core i5-3470 provides excellent gaming performance with less money than FX-8350. FX-8350 is not exactly

Used in video games-in our tests, its performance is generally acceptable. But compared with competitors, it is relatively weak.

Of course, this strange difference between the two performance screens is not limited to games. The FX-8350 is also important in image processing applications, SunSpider, and in the less extensive multi-threaded part of our video encoding tests. Many of these situations rely on one or more threads, and in this case, the FX-8350 is affected compared to recent Intel chips. Nevertheless, the contrast between FX-8350 and Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips is not as strong as the old FX processors. The IPC gain of the piling machine and the 4GHz base clock have made our objections stand out.

Another major consideration is power consumption. In fact, the FX-8350 is not even the same type of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processor in this area. There is a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 components and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference between the wall sockets under load of two similarly configured systems is more than 100W. This gap is large enough to force potential buyers to think deeply about the types of power supplies, chassis and CPU coolers required for his construction. It is certainly possible to save cheaper components for the Core i5 system.

This is probably why AMD provided some incentives to buy the FX-8350, including a very generous $195 price tag and an unlocked multiplier. If you are willing to tolerate more heat and noise from the system, if you are not particularly worried about occasional failures or slower speeds during the game, then, if what you really want is to bring maximum multithreading performance to your dollars... …Then, FX-8350 may just be your next CPU. I cannot say that I will go there in person. Over time, I became too picky about heat and noise, and gaming performance is very important to me.

Nevertheless, with the FX-8350, AMD has once again adopted a formula that has been loved by PC enthusiasts time and time again: at the best price below $200, the performance per dollar is higher than others. This is progress that we can recognize.

I don't know how you can perform OC operation on the FX 8350, but I have successfully operated the 1.350vw/full 8-core 8350 (1244 batch) to 4.8GHz. And it runs at 4.70GHz w/1.40vw/8 core and 277amHz bus speed. When using H100 water cooler, the temperature will never exceed 59C.

1.5 + v? That's a big voltage, no need, thank you. I ran extensive Prime95 and Intel Burn tests for at least 1 hour, and there were no errors under these settings.

Your mileage may always vary when overclocking.

I want to see this test redone in WINDOWS 8! The optimization of Win 8 can make better use of AMD modules (supposedly).

This one! Yes! Sparta!

(Number of comments, um, 300)

I just retired a four-year-old i7-940 from the office, and I am considering bringing a home to upgrade my old Core2 box (I decided not to do this because it is impossible to track 1366 motherboards in mATX these days).

Since the i7-940 is comparable to the old i7-875K used in these benchmarks in most respects, it really makes you should not play games on AMD. Their best efforts today still cannot keep up with an obsolete processor that has been outdated for four years. To make matters worse, the 940 is not even the fastest Intel chip in 2008, it is more cost-effective than the 965.

Year 2008? My years passed quickly...

I don't even think Nehalem is too old-it is still only a step higher than the 2500k in the current desktop, and it can be done quickly with just a few screws.

In fact, the fact is that the CPU is no longer important in the game field. Everything has to do with the GPU.

This has been this way since the Core 2 era.

the reason is simple. The game largely depends on single-threaded performance, and single-threaded performance is mainly related to clock speed. Since Core 2, the clock speed has not improved much.

I think you need to play some games... Given its overclocking limit, it would be fast enough without Core 2.

This assertion was once correct, but even now the frame-time graph of TR is true. Average frame rate? of course. Smooth frame rate? It is unlikely to bleed.

What are you smoking? On Core 2 / Athlon 64 era processors, no game is "unplayable". Of course, the epenis score will be lower, but if these chips drive a good GPU, they can still provide a smooth gaming experience.

Newer CPUs produce higher FPS scores (peak), which is why their average FPS scores are higher.

However, the CPU has very little impact on the minimum FPS score (which is actually important) because it all depends on your GPU.

the reason is simple. Most games are single-threaded, while "multi-threaded" games are dual-threaded, which means that a quad-core or higher chip is not helpful at all. This is why the CPU architecture of multithreaded applications is lagging behind (Bulldozer/Pilediver). Clockspeed/IPC is still king here. Since Nehalem, there hasn't been much progress here.

Starting from BF3. Try to use Athlon64 or Core 2 to keep the frame time below 16.7ms. No, I'm not talking about benchmarks run by TR.

In fact, the whole reason why I consider the i7-940 home console as a "free" upgrade is because my Q9550 can no longer crack current games, and Q9550 represents the high-end product of the Core2 series.

At first, I wanted to know if it was GTX460, so I inserted 7950 into the test box, but no, the game still couldn't run due to the drop in frame rate. The GTX460 is hardly a modern graphics card, but I run most games at 720p resolution because I sit 10 feet away from the screen, which is enough.

It sounds like a configuration problem or the monitor refresh rate is too low.

The Q9550 + 460 combination cannot be "unplayable" in a 1280×720 modern game (most games only use two threads).

Since the GPU itself is limited by the CPU, the 7950 does not help at 1280x720p resolution. If you throw a 1920×1080 or 1920×1200 game at a healthy AA/AF dose, you will only see an improvement of more than 460.

If you try to run the game at a resolution of 2560×1600, I will find that this is a problem.

To be honest, I just used the parts purchased from The Bargain Basement to build a computer for my girlfriend. C2Q Q9550, 4 GB DDR2-1066, my old Radeon HD 4850... It plays most modern games at 1920×1080 on high settings. Not "highest", but high. Can't say that I am very upset.

Did not knock on the old parts, but at the same time, there are "bleeding edge" games that benefit from Sandy/Ivy's higher clock and higher IPC, so that nothing else (AMD or Intel) can provide the same level of gaming performance .

BS. The HD 4850 is too slow to play Borderlands at a high setting of 1600×1200. It is too slow to play Metro 2033 near any high pitch. Fall into a Crysis under high settings. Etc., etc. I usually don't go that far, but I would say this: In this case, your point of view is wrong.

I kind of like Flip.

Yes, my C2Q [i

Quite a lot-single-threaded performance is not there yet, and you can't reliably overclock high enough 65nm and 45nm parts to make up for the difference. This is the only reason why I run 2500k and pass Q9550.

Yes, games still need good single-threaded IPC.

Of course, some games make full use of multiple cores, but in general, if the running cores are slow, they will always be limited by the core engine functions. This is highlighted when running a multi-core program in the perfmon.exe window – four cores are used, but only one core is fixed at 100% – all other programs running on other cores are obviously [

It is usually the rendering engine that puts the most stress on the cores, because only one core can provide data to the GPU at a time.

It may not happen, but I want to know if AMD/Intel/ARM is working on asymmetric multi-core processors:

Suppose there is a 9-core processor with 8 fewer cores (for example, the cores in the new Silvermont Atom architecture), and a single main core, which represents the best single-threaded IPC possible, for example, the clock frequency is 5GHz ivy bridge module.

I bet that in today's software market, even high-threaded things are always bottlenecked by a kernel, which will do well.

According to this kind of thinking, until you meet the generation of your game definition, no CPU has been produced. Don't get me wrong, I like 60 uninterrupted continuous delivery of frames per second, as many as the next man. It's "unplayable" is...completely wrong. She and I played Borderlands 2 on the same machine (though, of course, she is currently running at 1280×1024 on a 17-inch CRT monitor).

I am not saying that this is the best. But I am arguing that it is "not playable". You can play games like people with limited budgets who use Pentium G870 or Athlon II X4 to build gaming systems. Some of my friends have built systems using Radeon HD 5770 1 GB + Athlon II X4, and given their market segments, these systems perform very well in running most modern games. Similarly, not [i

I have a TV game box equipped with Phenon II X4 3.4 and 1360×768 GTX 560 Ti. Almost every game runs at 60 fps. Crysis 2 certainly requires object details to be removed from Ultra, because of its ridiculous subdivision.

But I have played some games and they run better on a 4.3 GHz Core i5 on a desktop. Hard reset may get into trouble due to the physical effects of many actions. Of course, you can reduce the physical configuration by a notch. Moreover, SupCom FA's massively multiplayer game is very heavy because the simulation thread is located on one core.

I think Krogoth is stuck in 2007.

No, it's more like developers are using ~2005-2006 hardware as title encoding titles.

No, they are not. You appear as if all developers are posting the same nonsense, but that is not the case. Some developers broke the boundaries, and then other developers launched games that were not demanding.

[URL

42 watts of medium power, 136 watts of load

That's the 94 watt delta, it seems to match the 100 watt TDP.

It makes sense if they use tools that only load the CPU and not the RAM

It seems that the legitimacy is 100%.

TR power

64 watt midpoint, 196 watt load (x264)

That's 132 watts of electricity used. My guess is that ram and IO are under pressure and account for additional wattage, but 32 watts? ! ? ! ? What could be wrong on the TR stool? ! ?

Techpowerup only measures power from the 8-pin ATX connector of the PSU, while TR measures [i

Check the graph again. Techpowerup did it all.

Complete system and 8-pin power load.

The figures I quoted are for full power loads.

A CPU of only 136 watts is wrong and expensive.

AMD cannot sell 100 TDP parts that use actual 140 watts of power. (And they didn't)

Still a bit fishy. I can't see the source of 32w in the TR test.

Can't there be so many ddr3 under load, and should the SSD be the smallest?

Maybe it should be South Bridge, because they tested the video conversion and should put pressure on the I/O controller.

Raise the player. What is the maximum temperature of the chip? I thought I had read about 70 or 72 degrees Celsius, but in [url = http://products.amd.com/zh-CN/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx? id = 809 & f1 = AMD + FX + 8-Core + Black + version & f2 = & f3 = & f4 = 1024 & f5 = AM3% 2b & f6 = & f7 = 32nm & f8 = 125 + W & f9 = 5200 & f10 = False & f11 = False & f12 = True

This is still not enough to attract any Intel customers.

Why is this so? It is worse than any quad-core intel.

Their performance is about 30% lower than Intel, and if the performance remains unchanged, the power consumption is about 50% lower.

cinema

Fax-8350 6.94 $ 195

i7-3770k 7.54 $ 329

A 30% increase in speed means that i7's score should be higher than 9. It is obviously much slower.

Unless you compare it with the LGA2011 6-core CPU that costs $1,000?

If you actually look at the Intel CPU that costs around $230, then the i5-3570k (6.03) is indeed beneficial to AMD.

Therefore, you can get higher performance for less money for fx-8350.

50% at full load is correct.

However, AMD can hardly switch to 22nm Trigate "soon".

The price of a 1100 ton is 150 dollars... and at 4GHz, I get 7.xx in cinebench

No, but at least some customers can be retained.

I have to say that I have always felt that benchmarks are seriously overweight for multithreading performance. Or, in other words, this does not mean that multi-threaded performance is not important: single-threaded performance is seriously insufficient. I have an X4 955 at home and an i5-2500 at work. Even if I overclock the X4-955 to X4-980 speed, the difference in the single-threaded solution is huge. Using Autodesk Revit, interaction with building models becomes smoother on i5-2500*. All geometric figures displayed on the screen are processed by the CPU, not by the GPU, except for very specific content. Therefore, the CPU is very different in the responsiveness of the model. And they are all single-threaded. There are about 8 multithreading functions in Revit. This is not because Autodesk is lazy, but because most of these things are single-threaded in nature. I think this is the case with most software.

I don't know how to adjust, unless I find a really valuable set of single-threaded benchmarks and use it as another "button" in the final scatter chart.

Does anyone have any suggestions for some single-threaded benchmarks?

Scott, it is worth your time to contact Autodesk to see if they can provide recommended benchmarks for any software?

Edit: This is a list of multithreading in Revit:

[URL

Interesting observation. I would describe it like this: some people usually multitask. It is not always decisive, but it cannot be ignored. For example, I often run videos on one monitor (live streaming of Netflix or C-span, etc.), while certain web pages (such as the homepage of NYTimes or YahooNews (this is pig) are automatically refreshed on another monitor) display , And then I can even analyze chess (3 cores) and perform other operations on the main display. I never want to go back to dual-core, wait. Therefore, it is very interesting to me to rely on "multitasking" testing in some way.

Edit: In light of jesend's comment below, I changed the first word from "great" to "fun"

I want to know whether the multitasking workbench will essentially defeat the purpose of trying to achieve the clearest single-threaded performance.

I don't understand what you mean.

Whether you are looking at multi-threaded testing or single-threaded testing, the gap between X4-955 and i5-2500 is almost the same. They have the same number of cores. Yes, X4 is much slower. You will get this result when comparing AMD processors from April 2009 to Intel processors from January 2011 for the same market point. So?

Your complaint about niche workload performance has nothing to do with whether TR's benchmark suite represents overall performance. Unless [url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_%28complexity%29

I don't want to make this personal. If my post is an attempt to insert Revit into the benchmark suite in particular, I can assure you that this is not my agenda-Revit is just for me, and when it comes to benchmarks, I asked the crowd for suggestions. If you disagree that single-threaded performance is important, then I hope you will just state your views this way, instead of trying to harm me personally by suggesting that I only want to test my own software. TR uses LuxMark and MyriMatch and other such workbenches. The number of users they represent is statistically insignificant, but they can still effectively illustrate how the CPU responds to different types of loads. Many of TR’s benchmark suites may be used by less than 1 in 2000 computer users, so this may not be the deciding factor.

In order to represent my situation, the staff of TR and other sites have obviously begun to focus on multi-threaded benchmarks. Nowadays, even video games are often multi-threaded. Very good, very good and understandable, as I said, I don't want to imply in any way that multi-threaded workloads are not important, they are very important. I suggest that the single-threaded load is under-represented. It would be great if it can be resolved in the benchmark suite and broken down in the final scatter plot.

Assuming you disagree with me on this point, I feel a little safe, but I don’t know if you disagree, because you think I want TR to run my own personal benchmark (which is not the case), or because you think the thread The load is not important.

Some single-threaded/light-threaded benchmarks are listed. For example x.264 pass 1 and Sunspider. In essence, it can only be single threaded or threaded. Of course 3770k will win, but the cost is much higher, and 8350 crush is where there are more threads in step 2. The main focus of these 8 core CPUs is thread-intensive workloads, but other threads are also possible, so I find multi-threaded benchmarks important. Of course, this is only one application, other applications may be different, but in the future, there will be more and more threads, and single-threaded applications are fast enough on the current CPU, which is usually not a big problem.

The 8350's win rate is less than 7%, which is much lower than the 3770K's victory over the 8350 in other high-thread applications (such as Euler or picColor).

Even if it is multi-threaded in the future, the 3770K can match the 8350's 8+ threads, and it will be faster on 7 threads or less. This advantage increases to more than 50% in 4 threads.

[Quote

", if you want to take some time, please try to upgrade the 650 MB file from one version of Revit to another version-I have been busy for 1-1/2 hours now and occupy about 8 GB on the i5-2500 The RAM machine, still trembling. It's all on one thread. I don't know how long the FX 8350 will take."

Are you sure that the workload is limited by the processor? It sounds like memory/io limits me.

To be sure, I haven't touched memory or disk, but it's not 100% sure. I have 24 GB of RAM, no page file (so I assume this means no disk space) and SSD. The memory usage for this process is approximately 8 GB. I opened the task manager, the task manager is always fixed at 25% (that is, single-processor core), and occasionally peaks occur when I do other things. But this is a good question.

Given that AMD is about to disappear from the world, this conclusion seems to be trying to find a way to recognize CPU. I understand the reason why you feel the need, but mistakenly stated that in all key areas, there is a reason to waste so much power and heat, while performance is not. It is meaningless.

AMD needs to realize that the world was not 5-10 years ago. We want our chips to consume power. People who buy high-performance chips now most want to play games, because almost any chip can bring more benefits to most consumers. Even today, the multitasking of most software is limited to four cores.

For most people, there is no convincing argument for bulldozers or their pile driver family. AMD should abandon the entire production line, cancel Intel's use after Netburst, and restore its old architecture as soon as possible while optimizing the Pentium M style.

Not that this can replace the complete TR test, but HardOCP did a limited benchmark test, in which the FX-8150, 8350 and i7 2600K and 3770K clocks all reached 4Ghz. The interesting results show what is the actual IPC advantage of the pile driver compared to the bulldozer: [url

On page 1 of the comment, there is the following slide:

I don't know how accurate the picture is, but there is a stupid question: if they give up the L3 cache, is there not enough space for another 2 modules (4 cores) and another L2 cache to serve them? Or if they do, there is not enough space for the core?

edit

I just suddenly realized the red color in the FX logo, it means the heat from the CPU.

I assume you are talking about being able to install two or more dual-core modules in the same 315mm2 area in exchange for L3, and the answer may be no. Maybe there will be a module. More than 315 square millimeters, yes, two modules or more will be applicable.

Your proposition is viral marketing, here is the HFR result, from time to time

And use actual software and games made by real men instead of Intel’s fools....

Goodness I predicted fast, let's weigh it.

That guy is a troll hunter and has revealed his real ugly face

In front of this thread

Hey, idiot. I’m going to take TR’s reviews more seriously than some random French websites you dug... Do you need to spend a whole day looking for reviews that put your beloved AMD in the best condition?

Stop caring too much about the "truth" like a neutral person. I have seen that your release history has passed, and your despair to support AMD at all costs is becoming more and more annoying. This is your memory journey: [URL

Calm down, the troll will kill...

If you think that intel 6C / 12T is enough to fight 16C opteron, then you are worse...

As for Intel Xeon, we all know why they look "better" under windows, only suckers

Still talking and talking like talking.

You sound like a troll much bigger than Chuckula. And all the insults...? Not very elegant

Bigger, no, I think your record is better than mine.

Get there, even though there seems to be more water in your wine.

these days...

As for the insult, I hope you are smart enough

The timing of this situation...

Burn him to death! So we can prove whether he is a witch

In this case, I don't think the suction cup will float.

Sampling... …. ………………. …

Yes, I am definitely not floating. Therefore, I may not be a small stone, a church, or wood.

[b

Browse on the page...These graphics are under the memory stick....

No need to understand French, the numbers speak for themselves.

What is the difference between the red bar and the green bar?

The red bar is the application, the green bar is the game, which is obvious

Because there is a name on the left

The two upper bars labeled "moyenne" (mean) are averages,

Red represents "moyenne applis", represents green; green represents

A "moyenne jeux" is the average of the game.

For applications, the average proportion of games is 7.7%, which is 13.5%.

This is a comparison performed at a fixed 4Ghz frequency, so the comparison is performed clock by clock.

Why all the hostility? …….. The HardOCP article and your link complement each other, and they both show that the new AMD adjustments have made the previous generation of products obtain considerable benefits.

hardOCP also mentioned that the load of the new kernel is 15 watts less than the previous generation, which is also good.

I have both AMD and Intel platforms, and it is likely that I will replace the old three-core CPU with one of these CPUs. When the price adjusts to a stable post-launch level, I want to get 6xxx within a month or so...I can even choose 8xxx.

The hostility you are talking about comes from an early exchange in this thread,

At the bottom of the page.

The guys insulted me and spread my false information, so I let him taste his own spell in this book.

Chuckula’s AMDZone comment is unnecessary, but I think the relationship between the two of you is a bit too much-not only here, but here.

Can't we all get along?

Okay, I found it... Thanks.

Go to page 4 and 5

I agree that 2/3 is the correct rule of thumb.

10% of the clock comes from 5% of the architecture.

Check the TR number, it seems 15% correct.

Awesome guy, the way to get in there and overclock the chip. Don't worry about CPU overclocking again next time, most other websites seem to reach 5GHz frequency when underwater 1.45-1.5v, which is ridiculous.

Ridiculous comment.

Let me be clear: Do you think the review is absurd because of the limited overclocking?

From my point of view, Scott wrote an interesting balanced review that focused on the performance characteristics of PD and BD and their competitive advantages.

Your name is misleading-it should say "6cores" or "12threads"

Lol! I nord my coffee on that cup of coffee.... Very nice

The anger made him confused...This is a trouble.

You are still angry because your previous signal was forbidden.

They have important value in understanding the heat dissipation requirements of new chips. Although they do not reach 5GHz, the distance is close enough, so the difference is not big.

Talking about the topic...If AMD chooses more hyper-threading design, it will not be so difficult to execute on a single thread, and the concept of modules is retained. Example: A module has 2 cores, but one of the cores has a hard wire connected to the second core (matching core) such as fma, and it also has a smart enough decoder to issue two operations to the main core when needed , So as to maintain high performance on a single thread, but automatically balance under full thread load. This will require each module to use one but very fat decoder (currently single and very fat, but not what I think), alu/fma sharing (now only on fma).

Is the roller a steam roller with 2 decoders per module?

Yes, with the help of Steamroller, AMD is migrating each module to two decoders.

My cost formula is as follows: my 970 AM3+ motherboard and old power supply can easily handle 8350, while the old $100 phenom II is still ok, but if in some new situations, I need higher What about the CPU speed? Like 50%, CPU throughput has increased by 60%. In my case, an 8350 can do it.

So if I finally want to increase the power, and considering the 8350's power supply cost over time, it will look like this:

If I get an 8350 plug-in and burn an extra 80 or 100 watts when maximizing the cpu (compared to using new parts to build a more energy-efficient device) for example 4 hours a week, it will cost 6 per week An additional or close to $5 electricity cost per year. Or worse: I need to double or triple the usage time of max-cpu, or even 12 hours/hour per week, which will cost 10-15 USD/year extra compared to Intel rigs Electricity bill.

However, this is an embedded upgrade.

Therefore, at some point, when the price is right, the rig will eventually have one.

I really want to see a series of power consumption figures at different clock frequencies. The technical papers I read about the resonant clock grid in the piledriver architecture seem to cover up the shortcomings of the resonant clock grid in overclocking.

Basically, AMD uses inductors on its chip to create an oscillator that consumes less power than a typical clock distribution network. They use certain elements of a typical clock distribution network to set the exact frequency at which the oscillator operates. The problem is, if your oscillator is designed for 3 GHz and you are running at 4 GHz, the power savings from the clock grid is very small.

If you have time Scott, I would be very interested in seeing the relationship between frequency and power consumption when the voltage remains constant. In a typical chip, this relationship should be linear, but this may not be the case for pile drivers. I am curious whether AMD chooses to run at the best power consumption frequency, or whether users can increase or decrease the clock frequency on this chip to achieve higher efficiency.

Since capacitors are inherent in the clock net itself (ie fixed), I think they are using multi-tap inductors to adjust the circuit. Just provide multiple drivers at different positions of the inductor, and then switch them in/out as needed to adjust the resonance frequency.

It’s like an old school [url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

If I remember correctly, the inductors have some tapping points, but they are actually AC grounded (large capacitance).

I’m not sure if I can move effectively [i

This is a brief introduction to the resonant clock grid (1 pages):

Thanks for the link. Something interesting.

Foreign exchange is competitive, that is, it is good enough in most cases.

But Jesus, that power attracted. In some cases, power is doubled and performance is increased by half. terrible

Give it a positive spin... Look at it this way: winter heating costs will fall.

What if you don't live in a cold country? Cooling costs will rise.

To use liquid cooling, pass the wires through the wall, and put the radiator outside. Or, pump heat into a hot water storage tank and use water to make coffee. Guide internal engineers and find innovative solutions.

Edit: Typo

If you want to clearly understand the electricity bill, you must pay attention to the purpose and use of the cpu.

For Deep Fritz chess analysis (for example, see X-bit Labs review), I clearly know what the performance of the 8350 is and can compare it for my own needs: chess analysis. (8350 is very close to i7 3770 at this point; see X position on page 4)

5 hours of chess analysis every week * additional consumption of 90 watts * 16 cents / kWh = about 5 US dollars in additional electricity bills per year.

Therefore, the electricity bill for a year is $5. It doesn't matter whether the exact number is $3.89 or $7.40, the conclusion is the same: For Am3+ drilling rigs that require higher speeds than its old x3 or Athlon II x4, a very cost-effective embedded upgrade.

This is an interesting way of observation. In terms of money, increased power consumption is not a factor. Compared to some of the other disadvantages of having such a hot-running CPU, $5 per year is insignificant. In the hot summer or when used as a bedroom computer, the increase in heat and related noise will be a huge burden.

good idea. My office has always been air-conditioned low-flow vents. Even with only 3 monitors, my office will get warmer, and on warm days, my equipment is idle. However, even reducing the total power to 100 watts will not change much. but. . . I tend to seldom play chess analysis in the hot summer. In any case, this is a cold thing.

So, should I buy some AMD stocks? How much can it be reduced?

Well, it will not be negative. Therefore, the answer is obviously zero.

Now this is the response I want to see

"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct-[i

Value is not important, just follow the chart patterns and ride trends.

The "price action" strategy would be something like this: According to their stock price, check whether it has reached the hypothetical "lowest price" twice. This may indicate that it "does not want to go lower", this is the time you should invest, and [i

Damn

I read what you wrote before, and you are right. Investing in price behavior is not an investment in the vast majority of people, but a gambling. Unless you have solid evidence/analysis/premonition that a company can improve its fundamentals and/or add value to its shareholders, or at least increase its book value, it will beat the market with price-based securities in the short term. V