ASUS GeForce RTX 2080 STRIX OC 8G review
Crucial BX500 480 GB SSD review
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti DUKE review
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING OC 8G review
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
Asus GeForce RTX 2080 Ti RoG Strix review
GeForce RTX 2080 Founders review
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders review
HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 32GB 2933 MHz review
Nvidia Turing GeForce 2080 (Ti) architecture review
AMD FX 8320E processor review
Posted by: on: 12/23/2014 10:19 AM [
40 comment(s) ]
We review the AMD FX 8320E processor today. It's Vishera time again, and yeah that is the codename for the Piledriver core based FX series processors from AMD. The very affordable (125 EURO / 139 USD) CPU tested today has eight physical CPU cores, it will have a base clock of 3200 MHz, and can Turbo towards 4000. And that makes the FX series a tiny multi-threaded beast. You can read our review right here at Guru3D of course.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 660
Senior Member
Posts: 660
Posted on: 12/23/2014 02:29 PM
Very nice review...and just one more that illustrates the real luster of the current AMD FX series--its price moves it into direct competition with Intel's i5's, and the FX cpus walk all over the i5's in performance for the same money--more or less. It's simple: if you're on an i5-sized cpu budget you cannot do better than an AMD FX cpu at this point in time. (If the i7's had all been stripped out of these tables--which price pretty much dictates be done, anyway--the FX cpus would have dominated the performance results & the i5 would have looked very weak.)
AMD needs to step up its FX game, however, as--even as good as the FX cpus are--they're getting very long in the tooth. The 9000-FX series I can't recommend to anyone because of the ridiculous voltages they require, the *required* water-cooling, etc. Even with all of that they are scarcely faster than the FX-8000 series which are much more sensible and a far, far better buy. Anyone looking for an i5-priced cpu for his gaming rig need look no further than FX 8000 series (and below.) My FX-6300, for instance, more than two years old, runs all six cores @ an air-cooled ~4.5GHz at stock voltage and stock fan. > two years ago when I bought it it cost me $133 shipped to my door--it's the best AMD cpu I've ever had and I've owned nothing but AMD (at home) since 1999. The MSI board is great because it is socket AM3+ (and therefore amazingly compatible with a wide range of AMD cpus) & it's also afull UEFI board (as is the new 970 Gaming version of the G46-970a.)
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...
)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
Very nice review...and just one more that illustrates the real luster of the current AMD FX series--its price moves it into direct competition with Intel's i5's, and the FX cpus walk all over the i5's in performance for the same money--more or less. It's simple: if you're on an i5-sized cpu budget you cannot do better than an AMD FX cpu at this point in time. (If the i7's had all been stripped out of these tables--which price pretty much dictates be done, anyway--the FX cpus would have dominated the performance results & the i5 would have looked very weak.)
AMD needs to step up its FX game, however, as--even as good as the FX cpus are--they're getting very long in the tooth. The 9000-FX series I can't recommend to anyone because of the ridiculous voltages they require, the *required* water-cooling, etc. Even with all of that they are scarcely faster than the FX-8000 series which are much more sensible and a far, far better buy. Anyone looking for an i5-priced cpu for his gaming rig need look no further than FX 8000 series (and below.) My FX-6300, for instance, more than two years old, runs all six cores @ an air-cooled ~4.5GHz at stock voltage and stock fan. > two years ago when I bought it it cost me $133 shipped to my door--it's the best AMD cpu I've ever had and I've owned nothing but AMD (at home) since 1999. The MSI board is great because it is socket AM3+ (and therefore amazingly compatible with a wide range of AMD cpus) & it's also afull UEFI board (as is the new 970 Gaming version of the G46-970a.)
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...
)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
Aoyagi
Member
Posts: 79
Member
Posts: 79
Posted on: 12/23/2014 03:11 PM
Vishera's successor when? If they really keep working on that until 2016 even or later, I'll
......well, I'll be waiting for longer than I'd like :/
Vishera's successor when? If they really keep working on that until 2016 even or later, I'll
......well, I'll be waiting for longer than I'd like :/
V3RT3X79
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Posted on: 12/23/2014 03:16 PM
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 9664
Senior Member
Posts: 9664
Posted on: 12/23/2014 03:38 PM
Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.
amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k
Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 7362
Senior Member
Posts: 7362
Posted on: 12/23/2014 03:57 PM
At least it is cheap.
If I buy new system for same money I paid over 3 years ago, I'll get from intel 10% performance boost.
I kind of disagree about 8core being useful today, 4Cores are getting around just fine. 6cores may be sweet spot for next 2 years.
But maybe I would take 6core carrizo if it came to desktop and was not held back by TDP limit.
At least it is cheap.
If I buy new system for same money I paid over 3 years ago, I'll get from intel 10% performance boost.
I kind of disagree about 8core being useful today, 4Cores are getting around just fine. 6cores may be sweet spot for next 2 years.
But maybe I would take 6core carrizo if it came to desktop and was not held back by TDP limit.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Posted on: 12/23/2014 04:34 PM
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
At this rate AMD should jump straight to Excavator. Steamroller is already too old. But the problem is chipset compatibility. While AMD is certainly convenient trying to maintain compatibility with older chipsets, it holds them back and is a pain for motherboard developers, since BIOS updates will be required for new architectures. For example, to operate my FX6300, I'm using an AM3 board (not an AM3+) with a beta BIOS on an 890FX chipset. I don't think I'll be able to upgrade my CPU to steamroller or excavator.
On another note - PCIe 3.0 is utterly pointless. There is no performance gain whatsoever. The only reason you MIGHT want to consider it is with 3x SLi/Crossfire, where the 3rd GPU often runs at 4x. I would much rater see the proliferation of chipsets that can handle 4 full-sized PCIe slots at 16x at affordable prices than PCIe 3.0.
Anyway, if I had a reason to upgrade I would get this CPU. It's roughly the same power efficiency as my 6300 but another 2 cores - not bad.
AMD would have had significantly better ratings if they pulled this off the first time around when releasing PD.
AMD, though, drastically needs to "modernize" the FX line:
1) Use the Steam-roller (Vishera's too old!) core at a smaller FAB process! ASAP.
2) Market a new core-logic chipset with USB 3.x capability & supporting PCIe 3.x (My MSI G46-970a board at home, while excellent and 99.9% trouble free, supports only two 3rd-party USB 3.x ports and only PCIex2.x and lower PCIe bus support. (That's not bad at all, actually--but it hurts AMD on the marketing side of the fence--bunches of people buy nothing except numbers...
)
AMD is already making Steamroller-core cpus in its APU products; and already supports
USB 3.x/PCIex3 in them, too--so it's difficult to imagine what the problem is in shipping these products. AMD has got to get back to basics in understanding that if you want to sell a thing to the public you have to sell them what they want to buy as opposed to what is more convenient to you. I hope AMD will make all the right moves in the coming year.
At this rate AMD should jump straight to Excavator. Steamroller is already too old. But the problem is chipset compatibility. While AMD is certainly convenient trying to maintain compatibility with older chipsets, it holds them back and is a pain for motherboard developers, since BIOS updates will be required for new architectures. For example, to operate my FX6300, I'm using an AM3 board (not an AM3+) with a beta BIOS on an 890FX chipset. I don't think I'll be able to upgrade my CPU to steamroller or excavator.
On another note - PCIe 3.0 is utterly pointless. There is no performance gain whatsoever. The only reason you MIGHT want to consider it is with 3x SLi/Crossfire, where the 3rd GPU often runs at 4x. I would much rater see the proliferation of chipsets that can handle 4 full-sized PCIe slots at 16x at affordable prices than PCIe 3.0.
Anyway, if I had a reason to upgrade I would get this CPU. It's roughly the same power efficiency as my 6300 but another 2 cores - not bad.
AMD would have had significantly better ratings if they pulled this off the first time around when releasing PD.
Prince Valiant
Senior Member
Posts: 628
Senior Member
Posts: 628
Posted on: 12/23/2014 05:03 PM
Minor typo in the last paragraph:
for a couple od fays and really
Thanks for the review; for the price performance isn't too bad.
Minor typo in the last paragraph:
for a couple od fays and really
Thanks for the review; for the price performance isn't too bad.
Dch48
Senior Member
Posts: 1823
Senior Member
Posts: 1823
Posted on: 12/23/2014 05:21 PM
No AMD processor is intended to compete with an i7 although even my FX 6300 will outdo the older i7 920. They do however, compete with many of the i5's, especially in multi-core performance. This new chip looks extremely good at it's price point.
Talking about Motherboards and chipsets, my 6300 is doing just fine on a 780 chipset board with a stock BIOS.
As someone who will never overclock anything, that part of the argument is irrelevant to me.
No AMD processor is intended to compete with an i7 although even my FX 6300 will outdo the older i7 920. They do however, compete with many of the i5's, especially in multi-core performance. This new chip looks extremely good at it's price point.
Talking about Motherboards and chipsets, my 6300 is doing just fine on a 780 chipset board with a stock BIOS.
As someone who will never overclock anything, that part of the argument is irrelevant to me.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Posted on: 12/23/2014 05:34 PM
No AMD processor is intended to compete with an i7 although even my FX 6300 will outdo the older i7 920. They do however, compete with many of the i5's, especially in multi-core performance. This new chip looks extremely good at it's price point.
Talking about Motherboards and chipsets, my 6300 is doing just fine on a 780 chipset board with a stock BIOS.
As someone who will never overclock anything, that part of the argument is irrelevant to me.
You may be losing some power management features on a 780 chipset, especially with stock BIOS. But hey you're lucky to have one of the very few 700 series boards compatible with the FX series.
Out of curiosity, why not overclock? I got to 4.4GHz on air with many power-saving features enabled on my FX-6300. I could probably get to 4.6 or 4.7 if i disable all power-saving features and maybe 4.9 if I do liquid cooling, but I don't need that extra performance and I'd rather not rack up my idle power usage for a few extra hundred MHz.
No AMD processor is intended to compete with an i7 although even my FX 6300 will outdo the older i7 920. They do however, compete with many of the i5's, especially in multi-core performance. This new chip looks extremely good at it's price point.
Talking about Motherboards and chipsets, my 6300 is doing just fine on a 780 chipset board with a stock BIOS.
As someone who will never overclock anything, that part of the argument is irrelevant to me.
You may be losing some power management features on a 780 chipset, especially with stock BIOS. But hey you're lucky to have one of the very few 700 series boards compatible with the FX series.
Out of curiosity, why not overclock? I got to 4.4GHz on air with many power-saving features enabled on my FX-6300. I could probably get to 4.6 or 4.7 if i disable all power-saving features and maybe 4.9 if I do liquid cooling, but I don't need that extra performance and I'd rather not rack up my idle power usage for a few extra hundred MHz.
sdamaged99
Senior Member
Posts: 2011
Senior Member
Posts: 2011
Posted on: 12/23/2014 05:54 PM
Love the review, but the blue coloured bars all seem to blend into one colour for me and are very difficult to differentiate
Any change of using different colours than just blue?
Love the review, but the blue coloured bars all seem to blend into one colour for me and are very difficult to differentiate
Any change of using different colours than just blue?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33284
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33284
Posted on: 12/23/2014 06:16 PM
Love the review, but the blue coloured bars all seem to blend into one colour for me and are very difficult to differentiate
Any change of using different colours than just blue?
The dGPU ones eh ? yeah I will change that in future reviews.
Love the review, but the blue coloured bars all seem to blend into one colour for me and are very difficult to differentiate
Any change of using different colours than just blue?
The dGPU ones eh ? yeah I will change that in future reviews.
Hari_Seldon
Member
Posts: 31
Member
Posts: 31
Posted on: 12/23/2014 07:35 PM
At this rate AMD should jump straight to Excavator. Steamroller is already too old. But the problem is chipset compatibility. While AMD is certainly convenient trying to maintain compatibility with older chipsets, it holds them back and is a pain for motherboard developers, since BIOS updates will be required for new architectures. For example, to operate my FX6300, I'm using an AM3 board (not an AM3+) with a beta BIOS on an 890FX chipset. I don't think I'll be able to upgrade my CPU to steamroller or excavator.
On another note - PCIe 3.0 is utterly pointless. There is no performance gain whatsoever. The only reason you MIGHT want to consider it is with 3x SLi/Crossfire, where the 3rd GPU often runs at 4x. I would much rater see the proliferation of chipsets that can handle 4 full-sized PCIe slots at 16x at affordable prices than PCIe 3.0.
Anyway, if I had a reason to upgrade I would get this CPU. It's roughly the same power efficiency as my 6300 but another 2 cores - not bad.
AMD would have had significantly better ratings if they pulled this off the first time around when releasing PD.
There are a few games that can take advantage of faster bus, but, in general, the difference is small.
At this rate AMD should jump straight to Excavator. Steamroller is already too old. But the problem is chipset compatibility. While AMD is certainly convenient trying to maintain compatibility with older chipsets, it holds them back and is a pain for motherboard developers, since BIOS updates will be required for new architectures. For example, to operate my FX6300, I'm using an AM3 board (not an AM3+) with a beta BIOS on an 890FX chipset. I don't think I'll be able to upgrade my CPU to steamroller or excavator.
On another note - PCIe 3.0 is utterly pointless. There is no performance gain whatsoever. The only reason you MIGHT want to consider it is with 3x SLi/Crossfire, where the 3rd GPU often runs at 4x. I would much rater see the proliferation of chipsets that can handle 4 full-sized PCIe slots at 16x at affordable prices than PCIe 3.0.
Anyway, if I had a reason to upgrade I would get this CPU. It's roughly the same power efficiency as my 6300 but another 2 cores - not bad.
AMD would have had significantly better ratings if they pulled this off the first time around when releasing PD.
There are a few games that can take advantage of faster bus, but, in general, the difference is small.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Posted on: 12/23/2014 07:41 PM
There are a few games that can take advantage of faster bus, but, in general, the difference is small.
Ah interesting - I stand corrected. Last time I checked this, the GTX 980 wasn't involved. Nvidia must've done something different to really take advantage of the extra bandwidth for this generation, because IIRC the GTX 780Ti doesn't saturate the 2.0 bandwidth.
There are a few games that can take advantage of faster bus, but, in general, the difference is small.
Ah interesting - I stand corrected. Last time I checked this, the GTX 980 wasn't involved. Nvidia must've done something different to really take advantage of the extra bandwidth for this generation, because IIRC the GTX 780Ti doesn't saturate the 2.0 bandwidth.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 20550
Senior Member
Posts: 20550
Posted on: 12/23/2014 07:44 PM
The performance is as expected. For those wanting the most value for their money, it is the best option, especially if you're not into overclocking. Obviously, the Intel loyalists are going to try to talk down this processor (just scroll up to see proof) but for the average user it's performance is just fine. Personally, I'd rather have an 8-core processor for $140 than a quad-core for $225+....but that's just me.
Now, what I don't get is why AMD is still pushing Vishera. I can't imagine that consumers are lining up to buy 2-year old processors.
The performance is as expected. For those wanting the most value for their money, it is the best option, especially if you're not into overclocking. Obviously, the Intel loyalists are going to try to talk down this processor (just scroll up to see proof) but for the average user it's performance is just fine. Personally, I'd rather have an 8-core processor for $140 than a quad-core for $225+....but that's just me.
Now, what I don't get is why AMD is still pushing Vishera. I can't imagine that consumers are lining up to buy 2-year old processors.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Posted on: 12/23/2014 07:49 PM
They got nothing new to put out except decent apus. They gotta make money somehow. Although most if not all the people interested prob has vishera anyway.
They got nothing new to put out except decent apus. They gotta make money somehow. Although most if not all the people interested prob has vishera anyway.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 20550
Senior Member
Posts: 20550
Posted on: 12/23/2014 07:53 PM
They got Steamroller.... Though it's nothing really amazing itself, it's still better than Piledriver.
They got nothing new to put out except decent apus. They gotta make money somehow. Although most if not all the people interested prob has vishera anyway.
They got Steamroller.... Though it's nothing really amazing itself, it's still better than Piledriver.
shymi
Senior Member
Posts: 148
Senior Member
Posts: 148
Posted on: 12/23/2014 08:26 PM
Agreed. BTW, weren't they working on a totally new architecture?
They got nothing new to put out except decent apus. They gotta make money somehow. Although most if not all the people interested prob has vishera anyway.
Agreed. BTW, weren't they working on a totally new architecture?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Senior Member
Posts: 3163
Posted on: 12/23/2014 08:29 PM
Yes, I heard they are doing a new one from scratch. AMD's new CEO seems promising.
Agreed. BTW, weren't they working on a totally new architecture?
Yes, I heard they are doing a new one from scratch. AMD's new CEO seems promising.
KissSh0t
Senior Member
Posts: 5998
Senior Member
Posts: 5998
Posted on: 12/23/2014 09:50 PM
I can grab this CPU for $185.
Still more interested in the FX-6300 though...
I can grab this CPU for $185.
Still more interested in the FX-6300 though...
Casecutter
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Posted on: 12/23/2014 11:48 PM
I have two High-School juniors (twins) that love to game, and though I could get them into nice higher end gaming builds, let’s face it I wouldn’t see myself dropping the kind of money for i5 or i7 machines, as I can’t see setting them up with GPU like 290/980, when they are 1080p.
The thing here is if you don’t see yourself running top enthusiast GPU’s why outlay cash for i7 and some OC Z97 mobo, when you’re at best going to be budgeted to hold mainstream graphics. While this review is great, it leaves out the range of one’s total budget. When you take these findings and plug a real budget around the rest of the parts the whole premise of such reviews start to unravel. You have to look at the final build as a whole.
I’ve built two systems for guys they go to school with and game with. They both looked to hold to around $500, but one had a usable Win7 COA the other didn’t. I started with the FX6300 and 970 mobo’s, which together is $135 (Micro Center bundle), one went 270X ($140), while I just finished the other a week or so ago got a 280 ($160). Both CPU’s got OC’d to 4.2Ghz with tower coolers. I don’t see anyone working from a i3/i5 builds that can deliver a machine which provides near the gaming prowess within such budget constraints. And yes I’m collecting parts over a 2-3 week period, working every deal and rebate to hold to the best total budget. The first kid started wanting an i5/770 that he could OC. When I presented him a price work-up on a i5-3570K, Z87, GTX 770, more PSU… etc. it was quickly topping $900.
I have two High-School juniors (twins) that love to game, and though I could get them into nice higher end gaming builds, let’s face it I wouldn’t see myself dropping the kind of money for i5 or i7 machines, as I can’t see setting them up with GPU like 290/980, when they are 1080p.
The thing here is if you don’t see yourself running top enthusiast GPU’s why outlay cash for i7 and some OC Z97 mobo, when you’re at best going to be budgeted to hold mainstream graphics. While this review is great, it leaves out the range of one’s total budget. When you take these findings and plug a real budget around the rest of the parts the whole premise of such reviews start to unravel. You have to look at the final build as a whole.
I’ve built two systems for guys they go to school with and game with. They both looked to hold to around $500, but one had a usable Win7 COA the other didn’t. I started with the FX6300 and 970 mobo’s, which together is $135 (Micro Center bundle), one went 270X ($140), while I just finished the other a week or so ago got a 280 ($160). Both CPU’s got OC’d to 4.2Ghz with tower coolers. I don’t see anyone working from a i3/i5 builds that can deliver a machine which provides near the gaming prowess within such budget constraints. And yes I’m collecting parts over a 2-3 week period, working every deal and rebate to hold to the best total budget. The first kid started wanting an i5/770 that he could OC. When I presented him a price work-up on a i5-3570K, Z87, GTX 770, more PSU… etc. it was quickly topping $900.
Terradorvite
Member
Posts: 45
Member
Posts: 45
Posted on: 12/23/2014 11:58 PM
Pretty much, my old 8320 clocked at 4.6 is on par with maybe 2600k. Low budget yeah, id say it is only disappointing when playing HOTS on a 4vs4 maxed food supply. Worse when too much creep owns the map.
Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.
Pretty much, my old 8320 clocked at 4.6 is on par with maybe 2600k. Low budget yeah, id say it is only disappointing when playing HOTS on a 4vs4 maxed food supply. Worse when too much creep owns the map.
sykozis
Member
Posts: 20550
Member
Posts: 20550
Posted on: 12/24/2014 12:02 AM
You're not going to be building a mid-range gaming system using Intel for $500.... You'll be lucky to get an entry-level gaming system at that price. I go through that yearly with a friend of mine.
Every gamer has a budget, and there's components to fit every budget. Having a bias as far as hardware manufacturers makes budget building a lot harder.
You're not going to be building a mid-range gaming system using Intel for $500.... You'll be lucky to get an entry-level gaming system at that price. I go through that yearly with a friend of mine.
Every gamer has a budget, and there's components to fit every budget. Having a bias as far as hardware manufacturers makes budget building a lot harder.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Posted on: 12/24/2014 01:58 AM
Tbh I don't think amd conquered socket 1366 yet, especially with both overclocked.
Pretty much, my old 8320 clocked at 4.6 is on par with maybe 2600k. Low budget yeah, id say it is only disappointing when playing HOTS on a 4vs4 maxed food supply. Worse when too much creep owns the map.
Tbh I don't think amd conquered socket 1366 yet, especially with both overclocked.
Valken
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Senior Member
Posts: 1355
Posted on: 12/24/2014 02:18 AM
Nice review but I wish there were game tests showing multi-core/multi-thread support such as Metro, Crysis 2/3 and Battlefield 3/4 to show the impact of multiple core vs IPC.
We know Intel rocks per IPC in UE (single threaded) games but what about those game engines that support more cores?
Nice review but I wish there were game tests showing multi-core/multi-thread support such as Metro, Crysis 2/3 and Battlefield 3/4 to show the impact of multiple core vs IPC.
We know Intel rocks per IPC in UE (single threaded) games but what about those game engines that support more cores?
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 25216
Nice review, but why are you using P95 to measure power draw?