Stock AMD FX - 8350 vs Stock Intel i7 3770K

Printable View

10-23-2012, 11:59 PM
PcCI2iminal

Stock AMD FX - 8350 vs Stock Intel i7 3770K

Eight cores is still too many for most applications but anyway there are a good number of heavy threaded programs that use Vishera just fine

FX 8350 8core at 4GHz
i7 3770K 4C8T at 3.5GHz
TridentX 2666 at 1866MHz Cl9 9-9-28 1T
HD6970 DirectCU 890/1375MHz CAT 12.9
Win 7 ultimate 64bit patched
no TURBO for both

Benchmarks
Cinebench R11.5
Wprime 1024m
Futuremak 3D11 - Performance
POV RAY 3.7 RC6

its portuguese
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RoYcl0j2ME

thats it and thx for watching
10-24-2012, 02:34 AM
Smalltimer

Very interesting...
10-24-2012, 02:39 AM
Zeus

Very nice to see them side by side and the Vishera is actually quite a bit closer to the 3770K as i though in multithreaded benches. Thanks for showing man! :up:

Running them at the same frequency will offset Intel by quite a margin i'm afraid.
10-24-2012, 02:45 AM
Smalltimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

Running them at the same frequency will offset Intel by quite a margin i'm afraid.

Good point.
Is the 3770 a good clocker?
10-24-2012, 04:26 AM
charged3800z24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

Very nice to see them side by side and the Vishera is actually quite a bit closer to the 3770K as i though in multithreaded benches. Thanks for showing man! :up:

Running them at the same frequency will offset Intel by quite a margin i'm afraid.

Yes, but, the chips have different designs. AMD was going for frequency with the FX chips. Intel was not. I still believe AMD was hoping for higher then 4ghz stock.
10-24-2012, 04:26 AM
Zeus

I reckon both will top out around 5G or short of that mark for a good sample. Average for 3770K is ~4.8G. Stable that is.
10-24-2012, 10:01 AM
aGeoM

Boas

Only one word... Perfeito.

Fica bem.
10-26-2012, 09:14 AM
omninmo

good job with the comparison! :D

So resta dar os parabéns ;)
10-26-2012, 11:27 AM
hersounds

nice nice video very useless!
10-26-2012, 12:41 PM
Movieman

I still think it's not "right" to call the AMD a 8 core..It's a quad by any realistic defination that I can think of.
AMD has just taken each core and split it into two parts.
I have no issue with that as they've just chosen a different way to do things but it is a quad not an octo core IMHO
10-26-2012, 01:16 PM
informal

Hey MM :D. Yeah I agree but better definition is quasi-8 core :P. It still has 8 integer cores,but it has "only" 4 dual threaded FP "cores" (I put "" since they are not cores per se but co-processors). Anyway I do agree the terminology they used is not the best one,they should have used the term "8 Threaded processor" without mentioning the cores. Strictly speaking it does have 8 cores since integer core is what counts,it just bite them in the back since it competes against intel's 8 threaded and 4 threaded cpus...
10-26-2012, 01:19 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Hey MM :D. Yeah I agree but better definition is quasi-8 core :P. It still has 8 integer cores,but it has "only" 4 dual threaded FP "cores" (I put "" since they are not cores per se but co-processors). Anyway I do agree the terminology they used is not the best one,they should have used the term "8 Threaded processor" without mentioning the cores. Strictly speaking it does have 8 cores since integer core is what counts,it just bite them in the back since it competes against intel's 8 threaded and 4 threaded cpus...

My logic was based on one simple fact: You can't take any one of the 8 cores and run an app on it..You need two and that answered all my questions.
Yes, would have been smarter to call it a 8 threaded cpu..That we agree on.
10-26-2012, 01:29 PM
informal

I don't see why you can't run an app on one of the cores? You mean since they share the frontend and fp unit? In that sense the cores are inseparable and that's just a design decision(to save on die area and power). And yeah 8 threaded CPU would be just fine although people would find a way to complain about that too I guess :).
10-26-2012, 01:36 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I don't see why you can't run an app on one of the cores? You mean since they share the frontend and fp unit? In that sense the cores are inseparable and that's just a design decision(to save on die area and power). And yeah 8 threaded CPU would be just fine although people would find a way to complain about that too I guess :).

Go try to run SuperPi on just one core and then you'll understand my thinking on this.
Can't be done as one core isn't a complete core for lack of a better way of saying it..
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues at all with what they did, just in what they called it..I think it was misleading and a mistake on AMD's part.
I came "this" close to saying that when I was sitting in the conference room at AMD with 24 other "journalists" back on August 31, 2011 but since I was an invited guest and not 100% sure yet I shut my mouth and just listened. Should have followed my instincts but again, wasn't 100% sure that day.
10-26-2012, 01:50 PM
informal

I can tell you that you are wrong ;) ,you can run Superpi or any other app on any of the 8 cores ;). Anyone with Bulldozer can verify this for you ;). They can choose the affinity and select say the core 0 only for superpi.It will finish the task with no problem. And no, each integer core really is fully independent and can run completely independent workloads from other cores. The only thing "special" with Bulldozer is that it has a shared FP coprocessor which interlieaves threads every 2 cycles between 2 cores. But each core can run any single threaded workload with no problems .
10-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I can tell you that you are wrong ;) ,you can run Superpi or any other app on any of the 8 cores ;). Anyone with Bulldozer can verify this for you ;). They can choose the affinity and select say the core 0 only for superpi.It will finish the task with no problem. And no, each integer core really is fully independent and can run completely independent workloads from other cores. The only thing "special" with Bulldozer is that it has a shared FP coprocessor which interlieaves threads every 2 cycles between 2 cores. But each core can run any single threaded workload with no problems .

Then something has changed since the rollout of BD because you couldn't do that at that time.
IF your right, and I do beleive you then please accept my apologies..:bows:
10-26-2012, 02:14 PM
informal

No need to apologize Dave,I've sent you a PM with good analogy hope you like it :).
10-26-2012, 02:15 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

No need to apologize Dave,I've sent you a PM with good analogy hope you like it :).

Read it and it makes sense..Muchas gracias senor
10-26-2012, 06:57 PM
demonkevy666

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I still think it's not "right" to call the AMD a 8 core..It's a quad by any realistic defination that I can think of.
AMD has just taken each core and split it into two parts.
I have no issue with that as they've just chosen a different way to do things but it is a quad not an octo core IMHO

:/ then an anything with hyper thread isn't a quad core or dual core. it's a hybrid core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Hey MM :D. Yeah I agree but better definition is quasi-8 core :P. It still has 8 integer cores,but it has "only" 4 dual threaded FP "cores" (I put "" since they are not cores per se but co-processors). Anyway I do agree the terminology they used is not the best one,they should have used the term "8 Threaded processor" without mentioning the cores. Strictly speaking it does have 8 cores since integer core is what counts,it just bite them in the back since it competes against intel's 8 threaded and 4 threaded cpus...

only in single thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

My logic was based on one simple fact: You can't take any one of the 8 cores and run an app on it..You need two and that answered all my questions.
Yes, would have been smarter to call it a 8 threaded cpu..That we agree on.

My single thread speed suffered when two cores are running in FX with different programs. See example below

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I don't see why you can't run an app on one of the cores? You mean since they share the frontend and fp unit? In that sense the cores are inseparable and that's just a design decision(to save on die area and power). And yeah 8 threaded CPU would be just fine although people would find a way to complain about that too I guess :).

I actually tested this they all score the same no matter what affinity 0-7 you set. Only scores less if the one in the module has a different written physical register file

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Go try to run SuperPi on just one core and then you'll understand my thinking on this.
Can't be done as one core isn't a complete core for lack of a better way of saying it..
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues at all with what they did, just in what they called it..I think it was misleading and a mistake on AMD's part.
I came "this" close to saying that when I was sitting in the conference room at AMD with 24 other "journalists" back on August 31, 2011 but since I was an invited guest and not 100% sure yet I shut my mouth and just listened. Should have followed my instincts but again, wasn't 100% sure that day.

superPI is even slower on the Fx8350 then the FX 8150. :|

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I can tell you that you are wrong ;) ,you can run Superpi or any other app on any of the 8 cores ;). Anyone with Bulldozer can verify this for you ;). They can choose the affinity and select say the core 0 only for superpi.It will finish the task with no problem. And no, each integer core really is fully independent and can run completely independent workloads from other cores. The only thing "special" with Bulldozer is that it has a shared FP coprocessor which interlieaves threads every 2 cycles between 2 cores. But each core can run any single threaded workload with no problems .

it's not just inter leaved the front end is slowed down by split work loads and different physical register files. again below

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Then something has changed since the rollout of BD because you couldn't do that at that time.
IF your right, and I do beleive you then please accept my apologies..:bows:

just so you know I did do what you said up their run another program on the other core with in the module and this is the problem/solution for your "not an eight core"

http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/w...notan8core.jpg

notice the suffered speed red box

normal single thread speed is 0.74-0.76 when it can use the full front end.

split front end 0.58.