# amd fx 8350 disscussion



## niz04 (Nov 25, 2012)

does amd fx 8350 released in india if it is released what is the price in kolkata . i see in some places 8350 comes with water cooling inside the box does it cost little more than a normal heatsink inside the box and one think does 8350 is good for gaming and multitasking at this price


----------



## Thetrueblueviking (Nov 25, 2012)

You ll be better off with an i5 3570k or a i5 2500k for gaming.
If you do intensive "multi-tasking", than probably the FX 8150 or the FX 8350 would suit u better.


----------



## topgear (Nov 26, 2012)

FX 8350 should be available starting form December and the pre-order price of 14-15k is way too much for the kind of performance it offers ( except some mult tasking apps ) - Intel core i5 2500k/3570k is a much better all around performer with similar price tag.


----------



## niz04 (Nov 26, 2012)

my budget is 13k max what should i get


----------



## Skud (Nov 26, 2012)

PrimeABGB has listed the CPu at 12.5k. Confirm whether it is actually available.


----------



## Thetrueblueviking (Nov 27, 2012)

niz04 said:


> my budget is 13k max what should i get



If you don't do extensive multi-tasking, get the i5 3570k or the 2500k hands down.


----------



## niz04 (Nov 27, 2012)

what is the cost difference of 3570k and 8350 ... i do multitasking and gaming and suggest a best gpu under 12 k


----------



## sukesh1090 (Nov 28, 2012)

Actually the price for 8350 is around 10k and at that price it is a steal but in india it costs around 13k which is more than i5 2500k and also takes that VFM title back from it.so if you can get this processor around 10k then buy it put the extra money on gfx card but if you are getting it at 12-13k then go for i5.


----------



## Thetrueblueviking (Nov 28, 2012)

10k ?
I am not sure about that.
In US, on a handful of sites, the cost is 200$ with sale = 11k.
Average price ~215$. On newegg price is 220$.


The 3570k or the 2500k also come for ~ 220$.
So even outside India, the 3570k and 2500k are better buys for gamers.


----------



## d6bmg (Nov 28, 2012)

Skud said:


> PrimeABGB has listed the CPu at 12.5k. Confirm whether it is actually available.



@12.5K it is a better choice than 2500K because of performance, and better choice then 3570K because of ultra-high price of 3570K


----------



## Thetrueblueviking (Nov 28, 2012)

d6bmg said:


> @12.5K it is a better choice than 2500K because of performance, and better choice then 3570K because of ultra-high price of 3570K



But what if ones primary concern is gaming ?
Still you d opt for 8350 ?


----------



## topgear (Nov 28, 2012)

for gaming core i5 3570K FTW ! but Op needs multitasking and gaming both and he is also opting for a 12k GPU.

@ OP - add 1.-1.5k to your GPU budget and get a HD7850 2GB.


----------



## niz04 (Nov 28, 2012)

can i get any best gpu under 13k ... and i am little bit confuse which processor to buy i am going to play game at 1600x900 in ultra setting and multitask something like browsing internet while gaming and hearing music please suggest best cpu ...... and what 3570k cost locally in kolkata .... i hear that amd 8350 comes with a liquid cooler

whcih should be more future proof because i think i cant upgrade my pc for 7 to 8 yrs. i known no cpu can be that much future proof this much please suggest best one.. i think 8350 will more future proof


----------



## Thetrueblueviking (Nov 28, 2012)

What u mentioned is not serious multi tasking. You don't need a 8 core processor just for listening to songs alongside browsing the net(given u are not browsing 10s of tabs) and gaming. The 3570k can very well handle that. 

7-8 years is way too long.
Go for the 3570k as it out performs the 8350 in your area of needs. Add a Z77 mobo and at a later stage OC it to ~4.5 ghz. Add a GTX 660 or a 7850 to it. This config should last u atleast a good 3 years.


----------



## d6bmg (Nov 28, 2012)

Thetrueblueviking said:


> But what if ones primary concern is gaming ?
> Still you d opt for 8350 ?



Yes. No game can utilize more than 4 cores, and as far as I know, it won't require more than 4 core in next few years. Actually they don't need to.
8150/8350 over 2500K/3570K because of *Indian price*.



topgear said:


> for gaming core i5 3570K FTW !



Ok, so you suggest everyone to spend 2K more only to get 2-3 more fps in some of the (say, all) games?
Bad idea. Those extra 2K could be spend on better GPU which will matter most in the end in case of gaming.


----------



## CarlonSamuels (Nov 28, 2012)

Dont start comparing the prices right now 
All prices listed on primeabg and bitfang are preorder prices
Piledriver processors should arrive in Christmas time
And prices should stabilize in January so right now 3570(non k) should be good enough


----------



## topgear (Nov 29, 2012)

d6bmg said:


> Yes. No game can utilize more than 4 cores, and as far as I know, it won't require more than 4 core in next few years. Actually they don't need to.
> 8150/8350 over 2500K/3570K because of *Indian price*.
> 
> Ok, so you suggest everyone to spend 2K more only to get 2-3 more fps in some of the (say, all) games?
> Bad idea. Those extra 2K could be spend on better GPU which will matter most in the end in case of gaming.



no - I'm not suggesting everyone to get a core i 3570K cpu for their gaming rig but the fact is most of the gamers, system builders, enthusiasts  are using either core i5 3570k or i7 3770k on the gaming rigs ( even you are using a SB/IB chip ) and they are not very wrong - for the people who want top notch gaming performance should stick with Intel, there should not be any kind of  spending one components saved money on some other type attitude - I'm talking about the very best performer here ( that's why the FTW! word ) not some VFM thing - if one can afford just go for it.


----------



## niz04 (Nov 29, 2012)

what is the cost of 3570k in kolkata. and suggest a gpu under 13k


----------



## rock2702 (Nov 29, 2012)

Should be around 13.5k.Gigabyte 7850 is the best gpu that falls under 13k.


----------



## niz04 (Nov 29, 2012)

that means after bargain I can buy 7850 in 13k


----------



## Sparx75 (Nov 29, 2012)

Im also waiting on FX 8350. I currently have a i5 LGA 1156 750 and my motherboard is causing problems. So since all LGA 1156 socket motherboards have been discontinued, I got no choice but to upgrade both Motherboard and Processor.
I could go for an i5 2500 or 3570, but I wonder how long Intel will continue the 1155 socket. Hearing that soon it'll be replaced by the 1150 socket.
AMD on the other hand will continue the AMD 3+ socket atleast until Steam Roller.
Im only thinking about the future because I don't see myself upgrading anytime soon in the future, but only if motherboard dies again.
Main tasks are gaming, multi tasking, video editting and encoding etc. I got a decent card in nvidia 250 GTS. Might upgrade that next year. What do you guys suggest?.


----------



## vickybat (Nov 29, 2012)

^^ That's really bad mate. Infact that i5 750 is still a very powerful cpu and you don't need to upgrade but are forced to do so because of the motherboard.
I'm still using that cpu and its going great with no lags whatsoever in all apps. Video encoding performance is also great and i'm using handbrake.

Still i would suggest to hunt for a cheap 1156 mobo for now locally and try to get one. 

See here -*link
*
Then when haswell launches, you can directly sell of the 1156 board + i5 750 processor and go for a haswell combo. That microarchitecture is highly promising and i'm currently writing an article on it.

Recently i sold my dp55wb mobo for 1.5k locally. Btw, where are you from?


----------



## Sparx75 (Nov 30, 2012)

vickybat said:


> ^^ That's really bad mate. Infact that i5 750 is still a very powerful cpu and you don't need to upgrade but are forced to do so because of the motherboard.
> I'm still using that cpu and its going great with no lags whatsoever in all apps. Video encoding performance is also great and i'm using handbrake.
> 
> Still i would suggest to hunt for a cheap 1156 mobo for now locally and try to get one.
> ...



Haha well I tried most of the local stores, including MD Computers, the local store of the site you just linked me to.
And Im from Kolkata. You?


----------



## topgear (Nov 30, 2012)

it's the problem with many sellers not updating their websites. Anyway, did you try ebay or any other online shps ?


----------



## niz04 (Nov 30, 2012)

can someone check price of 7850 in kolkata


----------



## Sparx75 (Nov 30, 2012)

topgear said:


> it's the problem with many sellers not updating their websites. Anyway, did you try ebay or any other online shps ?



Yeah I did try ebay infact. Overpriced though. Over 7-8k. Might as well get the upgrade to 8350.



vickybat said:


> ^^ That's really bad mate. Infact that i5 750 is still a very powerful cpu and you don't need to upgrade but are forced to do so because of the motherboard.
> I'm still using that cpu and its going great with no lags whatsoever in all apps. Video encoding performance is also great and i'm using handbrake.
> 
> Still i would suggest to hunt for a cheap 1156 mobo for now locally and try to get one.
> ...



Thanks for your help. My private messages don't seem to be sending. Maybe its because Im a new member. Can you pm me other ways to contact you? Thanks.


----------



## Ahmar (Nov 30, 2012)

The 8350:- AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz Eight-Core Processor


----------



## CyberKID (Nov 30, 2012)

Looking towards the launch of the FX 8350. I'll be upgrading my ancient rig. Initially planned to go with a i7 3770K, but, the price is one big hurdle. Heard about the AMD launching FX 8350 and expecting it between 11-13K. Did some online research comparing the Intel and the AMD processors and in most tests the 8350 lags too behind the i7 3770K and also the i5 3570K. Though my inclination is towards the intel i7 3770K as @ 20K, it offers a pretty decent price performance ratio, still looking forward to the FX8350 release as its price may be a deal maker or breaker.


----------



## niz04 (Dec 1, 2012)

it means 8350 is vfm offer


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 1, 2012)

Yes, seems to be as per the initial reviews and feedback. Since AMD has targeted it at intel's i5 3570, you can't expect too much performance to surpass the i7 3770K.
Here's a comparitive analysis between Intel i5 3570K and the AMD's FX 8350 and the i7 3770K and the FX 8350.


----------



## niz04 (Dec 1, 2012)

ok then I am going to buy 8350 but I am still confused about gpu ... which gpu should I get in 13k in kolkata


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 1, 2012)

cilus has recently bought an FX-8350 from Vedant Computers, Kolkata - *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/show-off/45694-post-your-latest-purchase-563.html#post1795160
As for the GPU, as people have already pointed you towards, I'll say a 7850.
I hope this attachment based on the Graphics Card Hierarchy from Tom's Hardware might just help you decide. As for the prices, you can check it out yourself.
View attachment discrete_graphics_heirarchy.pdf


----------



## niz04 (Dec 2, 2012)

really i can get 7850 in 13.5k in kolkata locally


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 2, 2012)

From anandtech's link we can make out that there is a tie between 8350 and i5 3570k.but only thing i can't make out is why it is having so much bad performance in games when it has good scores in others.looks like either os or games needs some fix regarding PD.btw this shouldn't effect any one's choice of buying PD because most of the monitors which  people are using have refresh rate of 60HZ so a FPS above 60FPS your screen will start to flicker and i am sure that 8350 atleast can produce 60FPS.

here is phoronix benchmarks of 8350 and 3770k on ubuntu 12.10.
AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks
in this 8350 is going head to head with 3770k and even performing better in some of them when overclocked to 4.60GHz.though it shows a bad performance in 1 benchmark which the reviewer thinks should be fixed with compiler. looks like ubuntu was able to do those tweaks which windows failed to do.
here is another article about compiler in 8350/trinity
AMD Piledriver/Trinity A10-5800K Compiler Tuning


----------



## vickybat (Dec 2, 2012)

^^ 8350 lags 3770k in outright computation and 3d benchmarks. Its ipc is nowhere near intel and it shows.
Check out the fluid dynamics, molecular dynamics benchmarks like dolyfyn and lammps. They are scientific in nature with complex operations.
Same with the FFTE bench which has complex operations.
Even in most video encoding apps and 3d modelling, i see intel hardware strong. And don't forget 3770k can be overclocked and delivers phenomenal performance.

Intel's branch prediction logic is extremely strong ,efficient and totally in a different level than amd. So are its execution units resulting in higher ipc. I plan to discuss all these in the most simplest manner in my upcoming article on haswell microarchitecture. 

But piledriver competes very good and that too at a much lower pricepoint and that's its USP, not outright performance. Its a good multitasker at the price because intel cpu's cost a lot for the performance they offer and its only due to lack of serious competition.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 2, 2012)

Wait until the Windows 8 Power and Scheduling pack update to be released which will bring strong performance enhancement in all the Multi-Core CPU.

Recently I was testing my FX 8150 with couple of tweaks, couple of them are discovered by Me. One thing I have noticed is Core Parking feature in WIndows. There are certain apps available for it which can switch on/off Core Parking on the fly from the Windows without the need of restarting. Apart from them, I also used AMD Overdrive and Fusion Utility for applying different Performance Modes and they have a noticeable performance effect over Bulldozer's performance.

I will be performing more tests and will write an article about BD performance tuning, without even touching the BIOS, shortly. in AIDA 64 Extreme 2.7 suit, my 8150 @ 4.2 GHz was ahead of i7 3960X in CPU Hash and AES benchmarks.

Vicky, Sukesh was pointing out the performance in Linux, not in Windows and if you remember, 8150 at his stock speed was almost same as i7 2600K in Linux. This is because of the optimized scheduling by Linux than WIndows. Ya, 3770K can be overclocked but don't forget it is also 8K costlier than the PD 8 Cores and you need to spend good amount of money for a Cooler to overclocking it.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 2, 2012)

@vickybat,
no offence bro but whatever strong Intel is it should have been shown in those benchmarks and in that linux benchmark 8350 looses to 3770k only in 2 or 3 tests and perform equally or better in others.even if it performs equally it is winner because of the price difference between them.if i am not wrong and if suppose linux was the main os of major population then intel might had hard time going with AMD.they might have won the battle but still the difference would have been less than 5%.in microsoft money talks over innovation but thats not the case in linux.


----------



## Skud (Dec 2, 2012)

vickybat said:


> *But piledriver competes very good and that too at a much lower pricepoint* and that's its USP, not outright performance. Its a good multitasker at the price because intel cpu's cost a lot for the performance they offer and its only due to lack of serious competition.




This. Majority of our purchases are based on price-performance ratio, rather than outright performance, unless you are on an unlimited budget.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 2, 2012)

But the thing AMD should work out is the FPU performance where Intel does have a good amount of upper edge. The Bulldozer FPU is powerful than Phenom design but they are still not enough powerful to match per Core FPU design of the Intel and even their own Phenom II line up. Another two thing AMD should work out is the Cache Latency and Branch Prediction. The performance of the Branch Prediction unit in the module based design of Bulldozer architecture is actually worse than Phenom II lineup, atleast in WINDOWS environment.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 2, 2012)

^^
though the single core performance is not as good as intel ones,the lower performance than phenom may be due to the sharing of the resources.so it basically as told before is not a complete single core it is about 75-80% of it.even cache latency one of the major problem.AMD has to improve its internal memory controller.it performs like centuries old controller.they never bothered to improve it.i don't know why.and some other problems as you told may be due to WINDOWS problem.one thing is sure it is a very capable piece of hardware but weaken by WINDOWS.
 btw bro the processor you bought is it 8150 or 8350???


----------



## vickybat (Dec 3, 2012)

sukesh1090 said:


> @vickybat,
> no offence bro but whatever strong Intel is it should have been shown in those benchmarks and in that linux benchmark 8350 looses to 3770k only in 2 or 3 tests and perform equally or better in others.even if it performs equally it is winner because of the price difference between them.if i am not wrong and if suppose linux was the main os of major population then intel might had hard time going with AMD.they might have won the battle but still the difference would have been less than 5%.in microsoft money talks over innovation but thats not the case in linux.



Out of 24 benchmarks , 3770k(stock) was ahead in 17 benchmarks and 8350 (stock) was ahead in the rest i.e 7 benches and those consisted of a linux kernel compilation (a difference of 4 secs), GraphicsMagick ( won by a margin in sharpen but lost significantly in blur and resize), C-ray( linux raytracing benchmark) it won by 10 secs but majority of ray tracing is done under windows and cinebench is an example which is widely used. Its optimized for intel compiler. The only bench that 8350 did well was john the ripper blowfish benchmark and traditionally, amd cpu's do well in this test.

Then we have parallel zip file compression where 8350 has less than a sec lead. Then the x264 encoder again with a marginal lead by piledriver. 
Finally one of 4 NAS benchmarks favours piledriver ( computational benchmark written in fortran).


Now come to 3770k. In the rest 17 benchmarks its ahead and in some, it has a big margin. Come to 3d rendering bench (TTSIOD). It has a lead of 15 frames.
Another complex test called FFTE saw amd perform poorly. Not even in contention. In the database search benchmark, 8350 @ 4.6ghz just failed to beat a 3770k in stock!.

Coming to scientific tests like himmono (poisson pressure calculation), amd is simply blown away by the sheer computational ability akin to the efficient IU and FPU of intel.
Same goes for the other two fluid dynamics benchmarks. Even in other encoding benchmarks like opus and ffmpeg ,3770k was ahead at stock.

So there you have it. Its not like piledriver performs great under linux but does a fairly good job. Besides, its not completely due to scheduling. Amd has been optimizing their compiler for benches like john the ripper. Intel does that for apps under windows which matters more from a productive point of view ( leaving the server market aside as its completely different). You can clearly see that intel too does well under linux and overall is a superior performer (17 against 7) and overall is a superior processor when price is no bar. And know this, overclocking the 3770k to even 4.2ghz  (from 3.5ghz), the performance jump is significant coz it responds to clocks better due to an *efficient pipeline design* with better solution against hazards (will get into details later). *Scheduling has very little to do here.*


That said and done, i would still suggest the fx 8350 to a budget buyer who wants a piece of everything at a pricepoint be windows or linux. Its a better buy than 3570k due to its better multitasking ability at similar or even cheaper pricepoint. But for a guy who does 3d rendering and all the productive stuff with no budget restrictions, there is simply no alternative to the 3770k again be it windows or linux.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 3, 2012)

> for a guy who does 3d rendering and all the productive stuff with no budget restrictions, there is simply no alternative to the 3770k again be it windows or linux



3960X is more appropriate there


----------



## vickybat (Dec 3, 2012)

^^ Hey yeah, i forgot that one.  That's in a whole new level though when it comes to sheer computation multitasking.

*P.S -* Guys i'm a bit off these days with a lot of personal problems to deal with and that's why i'm unable to share that article which i'm preparing. Will try my best to complete within a week.
Cilus will review it and maybe i need a bit of help from him because of his very good knowledge on computer science. Although i have an electronics background, he has been the driving force pushing me always to explore the beautiful world of computer science and learn some powerful concepts. I really owe him big time.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 3, 2012)

The bad news for now is that AMD does not have plan to launch FX 6300 in India any time sooner. I don't know for what reason, they are planning to send a shipment of FX 6100 from US and only PileDriver planning to be launched is FX 8350. 
Last Friday, me and Sumon had a chat with Mr. Subir Mahapatra (Regional Manager, Eastern India and Bangladesh, AMD) regarding this and we convinced him about FX 6300 launch in here as currently there is no strong Multi-Core CPU available at sub 10K price point. We have also sent him a mail explaining the need of a Sub 10K 6 Core CPU along with different review links where FX 6300 is recommended over i3 3220. Lets hope our effort works.

Just need one suggestion from you guys: Should we start a pole in our forum supporting the launch of FX 6300 in India? It might help to strengthen our claim.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 3, 2012)

start off one..am gonna start at the other place...


----------



## topgear (Dec 3, 2012)

Cilus said:


> The bad news for now is that AMD does not have plan to launch FX 6300 in India any time sooner. I don't know for what reason, they are planning to send a shipment of FX 6100 from US and only PileDriver planning to be launched is FX 8350.
> Last Friday, me and Sumon had a chat with Mr. Subir Mahapatra (Regional Manager, Eastern India and Bangladesh, AMD) regarding this and we convinced him about FX 6300 launch in here as currently there is no strong Multi-Core CPU available at sub 10K price point. We have also sent him a mail explaining the need of a Sub 10K 6 Core CPU along with different review links where FX 6300 is recommended over i3 3220. Lets hope our effort works.
> 
> Just need one suggestion from you guys: Should we start a pole in our forum supporting the launch of FX 6300 in India? It might help to strengthen our claim.



you guys are doing some great job ( best wishes and kudos to your efforts ) and it will not only help us, but it will also help AMD to gain the CPU market share and about a poll I think we better start one Asap.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 3, 2012)

> That said and done, i would still suggest the fx 8350 to a budget buyer who wants a piece of everything at a price point be windows or Linux. Its a better buy than 3570k due to its better multitasking ability at similar or even cheaper price point. But for a guy who does 3d rendering and all the productive stuff with no budget restrictions, there is simply no alternative to the 3770k again be it windows or linux.


this, i never even AMD never wanted it to beat 3770k. my point was if it can compete with 3770k then it surely can compete with 3570k at lower prices.

btw 6300 costs 140$ i.e., 8k. so it doesn't have any competition at that price range,it is a clear winner and FX 4300 should compete with i3. actually i3 has two competitors one is fx4300 and other 5800k.


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 3, 2012)

^ I agree with you. AMD NEVER wanted to compete with the 3770K with their FX-8350. It's merely targeted at the less costly 3570K, and also the FX-8350 performs somewhat above the 3570K, with a lower price point than the former.

@Cilus, @sumonpathak: All the best for your efforts for bringing the AMD FX 6300 here in India. I hope AMD agrees and launches the FX-6300 here in India anytime soon. Keep up the good work.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 3, 2012)

Cilus said:


> The bad news for now is that AMD does not have plan to launch FX 6300 in India any time sooner. I don't know for what reason, they are planning to send a shipment of FX 6100 from US and only PileDriver planning to be launched is FX 8350.
> Last Friday, me and Sumon had a chat with Mr. Subir Mahapatra (Regional Manager, Eastern India and Bangladesh, AMD) regarding this and we convinced him about FX 6300 launch in here as currently there is no strong Multi-Core CPU available at sub 10K price point. We have also sent him a mail explaining the need of a Sub 10K 6 Core CPU along with different review links where FX 6300 is recommended over i3 3220. Lets hope our effort works.
> 
> Just need one suggestion from you guys: Should we start a pole in our forum supporting the launch of FX 6300 in India? It might help to strengthen our claim.



This is a brilliant idea and fx6300 is really needed due to lack of good sub-10k cpu's. i3 3220 is crappy considering its lack of multitasking ability, reduced instruction set support and costs a bomb being only a dual core cpu. FX6300 will really come to rescue here and easily recommended over a 3220. All sandybridge, ivybridge quadcores are more than 10k and a lot of buyers who cannot afford a 10k processor are forced to buy i3 3220. The market for dual cores lie below 5k range and not above that. Besides 6300 is a huge improvement of bulldozer based fx6100 and has a good performance improvement which is noticeable. It has better ipc, runs cooler and consumes much less power translating to better performance/watt.

I'm in and will fully support bringing fx6300 to india. Its actually the default choice for a 7-8k processor.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 3, 2012)

Then I am creating a Poll for it. Please do vote.


----------



## Myth (Dec 3, 2012)

As usual, nicely put vickybat 

At that price, a multi core like fx6300 would do really well. And intel does need some competition in that price range.
Plus, if the fx4300 OCs to 5ghz, fx6300 might do better.
My vote for the fx6300.



> AMD does manage to pull away with some very specific wins when compared to similarly priced Intel parts. Performance in the latest x264 benchmark as well as heavily threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests show AMD with the clear multithreaded performance advantage. Other heavily threaded integer workloads also do quite well on Vishera. The only part that didn't readily beat its Intel alternative was AMD's six-core FX-6300, the rest did extremely well in our heavily threaded tests



Source : AnandTech - The Vishera Review: AMD FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300 Tested

Is this why amd is reluctant to launch fx6300 in India ?


----------



## prudhivisekhar (Dec 3, 2012)

AMD FX 8350 is now available in flipkart for Rs 12911


----------



## Cilus (Dec 3, 2012)

It is available at Kolkata @ 12.6K including tax. Check Vedant Computer


----------



## d6bmg (Dec 3, 2012)

Cilus said:


> The bad news for now is that AMD does not have plan to launch FX 6300 in India any time sooner. I don't know for what reason, they are planning to send a shipment of FX 6100 from US and only PileDriver planning to be launched is FX 8350.
> Last Friday, me and Sumon had a chat with Mr. Subir Mahapatra (Regional Manager, Eastern India and Bangladesh, AMD) regarding this and we convinced him about FX 6300 launch in here as currently there is no strong Multi-Core CPU available at sub 10K price point.



Actually they have a point. Not many FX6100s was sold in India from the time of its launch because of 'comparatively low' performance.
Regardless of the result of poll, if you guys think the general point of view of normal or avvrage customers they will prefer I5s or even I3s over FX4xxx and FX6xxx series because of the saying which goes like this "new AMD bulldozer processors are bad". And most of them won't even understand the architecture difference between bulldozer and piledriver.
And above all, enthusiast consists of very small percentage of total users/customers.



prudhivisekhar said:


> AMD FX 8350 is now available in flipkart for Rs 12911



Good price considering the fact that it also includes free shipping.


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 3, 2012)

Thanks, @prudhivisekhar. BTW, the trinity's are also now available on FK. A4-5300


----------



## thetechfreak (Dec 3, 2012)

@d6bmg a fx 6300 in turbo mode is faster than an i3 in newer multi threaded games. have a look at some multi threaded benches here AnandTech - Bench - CPU


----------



## niz04 (Dec 3, 2012)

fx 8350 is durable like intel because. my pc is switched on for like 3 to 6 days


----------



## Myth (Dec 3, 2012)

niz04 said:


> fx 8350 is durable like intel because. my pc is switched on for like 3 to 6 days



Erm...so all intel procs are durable while fx8350 is the only durable proc from amd ? Quite unfair I must say


----------



## kg11sgbg (Dec 3, 2012)

Cilus said:


> Then I am creating a Poll for it. Please do vote.



Go ahead Friend! Thumbs UP to you and Sumon for your enduring efforts.

I am ready to cast...


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 3, 2012)

> d6bmg
> Actually they have a point. Not many FX6100s was sold in India from the time of its launch because of 'comparatively low' performance.
> Regardless of the result of poll, if you guys think the general point of view of normal or avvrage customers they will prefer I5s or even I3s over FX4xxx and FX6xxx series because of the saying which goes like this "new AMD bulldozer processors are bad". And most of them won't even understand the architecture difference between bulldozer and piledriver.
> And above all, enthusiast consists of very small percentage of total users/customers.


people don't buy PD not because bulldozer is bad because their seller tells them that AMD is bad it tends to heat up.neither they know about bulldozer's failure nor about bulldozer.


> niz04
> fx 8350 is durable like intel because. my pc is switched on for like 3 to 6 days


^^

@cilus,
Bro can you check what is the lowest vcore your 8350 runs stable.because AMD's processor tends to have unnecessarily very high stock voltages.thanks.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 3, 2012)

That was the problem with the Phenom II processors, not with BD or Piledriver.

My Sabertooth + FX 8150 combination: the stock VCore voltage is 1.26V. If you use a high Turbo speed, in my case 4.3 GHz for 6 Cores and in Windows high performance power profile, 4.3GHz for all the 8 cores, it dynamically changes between 1.426V to 1.3V.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 3, 2012)

^^
oh thanks for the info bro.


----------



## topgear (Dec 4, 2012)

prudhivisekhar said:


> AMD FX 8350 is now available in flipkart for Rs 12911





Cilus said:


> It is available at Kolkata @ 12.6K including tax. Check Vedant Computer



100 bucks less at Delta Peripherals.


----------



## niz04 (Dec 5, 2012)

can i go for 8350 or 3570k or wait for new haswell


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 5, 2012)

IMO, The FX-8350 as compared with the i5 3570K seems to be superior in most benchmarks as we can find on various sites. You can go in for the FX-8350, given that you're opting in for atleast an HD 7xxx based Graphics Card, as AFAIK, both the processor as well as the chipsets supporting the piledrivers don't have an onboard graphics solution (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm quashing my plan to go the FX-8350 way and will look forward to i7 3770K, although, I'll have to spend almost that much for the i7 3770K in which I can get the FX-8350 and an HD 7770, but, still, I'm betting upon the Intel HD 4000.

I'll suggest, go with the FX-8350 if you're palnning a dedicated graphics card, else (if you're not planning a dedicated graphics card for now) settle with the i5 3570K, but, IMO, waiting for the Haswell will be a very long wait as it's expected to be out in mid 2013, and it'll take a while for the prices to settle down.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 5, 2012)

^^
yes 8350 is a better choice over 3570k.but 3570 has an inbuilt graphics chip but the problem is it is almost equal to nothing in case of gaming.so there is no meaning in using it for gaming.
@niz04,
my bet 8350 over 3570k.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 5, 2012)

^^ Its not completely a better choice. At stock...yes its a better choice. But once you overclock i5 3570k, it unleashes like a beast. Clock increments result to immense performance boost because of ivy's stronger pipeline. Now you'll say 8350 can be overclocked. But an overclocked 8350 does not scale as good as 3570k. A 3570k at 4ghz is deadly to be honest.

Tomshardware has done a $1000 system build marathon with a 8350 + gtx 670 and had compared them to their earlier build comprising of i5 3570k + gtx 670.
When both are overclocked, 3570k offers some solid performance in all applications. Besides 8350 consumes more than 150w than 3570k and overclocking both of these increases this gap to 200w and more.

Check it here:

System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 Enthusiast PC : FX-8350 Brings AMD Back To The Table




Spoiler



On average, the FX-8350 and Core i5-3570K do pretty well at their stock settings, the Intel-based box about 10% quicker. This will likely change as we fold more heavily-threaded tests into the Marathon, starting this quarter. Naturally, you'll want to look closest at the benchmarks that matter to you specifically when you evaluate performance, since each architecture excels in a different way.When it comes to overclocking though, Intel extends its lead with significantly lower power consumption and much better performance. If we were measuring efficiency, that'd be a home run. Yes, Xigmatek's Loki is insufficient for overclocking the 125 W FX-8350. But let's be realistic. If we wanted to squeeze better performance out of AMD's chip, we'd need to spend more money on cooling, and power consumption would rise even faster as higher voltages paved the way for more aggressive clock rates. *It'd be a great experiment, and we might even play around with it in the future, but it's clear that Intel's Core i5-3570K remains the better choice for overclockers in this price range.*


----------



## Skud (Dec 5, 2012)

In India, there's some 3-4k price difference between a 8350 & a 3570k. That money can be utilized for some other things (better GPU for example), which will make the Piledriver based solution much better allround performer.

And I really doubt I am going to save 4k on power bills very quickly with a 3570k.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 5, 2012)

^^this...paying 4K+ for that level of performance is not worth it.
also the initial platform setup cost is lower on AMD system than an Intel one.


----------



## vkl (Dec 5, 2012)

In case of i5 3570k the CPU+a good mobo combination would be in excess of 25k whereas in case of fx8350 good motherboards could be found starting from 6k to higher 
making the fx combination around 5-7k cheaper.
Both are quite capable CPUs and both have there advantages in some areas over other.Fx8350 is simply much more recommendable than fx8150 was when it launched.
Also gaming performance has improved quite a bit with fx8350.
Picking any of the 2 platform would depend upon workload requirements,the budget.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 5, 2012)

exactly, for us most of the Indians along with performance price also takes a prime importance.the question is ,is it worth spending 4k more on i5 3570 for a bit of improved performance in some fields?


----------



## Skud (Dec 5, 2012)

Frankly, I would prefer the 8350 over i5 anyday.

Frankly, I would prefer the 8350 over i5 anyday.


----------



## avinandan012 (Dec 5, 2012)

@Cilus if you are writing to Regional Manager again tell him about doing a campaign about this



sukesh1090 said:


> people don't buy PD not because bulldozer is bad because their *seller tells them that AMD is bad it tends to heat up*.neither they know about bulldozer's failure nor about bulldozer.



i don't know where the new shopkeeper heard this they always lure way new customers who want to go for AMD citing this reason.


Spoiler



as if intel cpus will run without heat sink


----------



## Myth (Dec 5, 2012)

avinandan012 said:


> i don't know where the new shopkeeper heard this they always lure way new customers who want to go for AMD citing this reason.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Probably there is a bigger profit margin selling intel procs.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 5, 2012)

vkl said:


> In case of i5 3570k the CPU+a good mobo combination would be in excess of 25k whereas in case of fx8350 good motherboards could be found starting from 6k to higher
> making the fx combination around 5-7k cheaper.
> Both are quite capable CPUs and both have there advantages in some areas over other.Fx8350 is simply much more recommendable than fx8150 was when it launched.
> Also gaming performance has improved quite a bit with fx8350.
> Picking any of the 2 platform would depend upon workload requirements,the budget.



The difference is more or less around 4k like skud said.

3570k + board

INTEL PROCESSOR CORE i5 3570K 3RD GEN

MSI Z77MA-G45 Motherboard | Motherboard | Flipkart.com

8350 + board

AMD FX 8350 | Processor | Flipkart.com

Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 Motherboard | Motherboard | Flipkart.com

So there you have it. At stock, multithreaded task favour 8350 . Overclocking is a complete different scenario though where i5 really surges past or perform similarly.
*Why is a topic of different discussion which i promise we'll soon be having.*
And power consumption of piledriver is also very high on load while overclocking makes things worse.

This might not be a deal breaker for everybody, but efficiency matters in the long run.The world is going green in all fields and people should know how important it is to save power. This is what drives performance/watt .This is also another area threatening AMD's survival. 
Intel's expertise in fabrication and newer architectures will see tdp drop below 60w for the highest end processor and all the way down to 10w. How much power can amd save in its next iteration has to be seen. Even gpu's are getting efficient.

A difference of 150-200w is just too much according to me.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 5, 2012)

Buddy, there is a high chance that the sample of FX-8350 Tomshardware used is not the best one as Sumon overclocked mine @ 4.6 GHz with almost no analyze of the things required for good overclocking. I have reached 4 GHz stable with my FX-8150 with the stock cooler and perform gaming for more than two hours and you have seen how cool the CPU runs. They have also admitted that they have not used a good cooler, required for 8350 and the chip was not fully stable in overclocking.


----------



## Skud (Dec 5, 2012)

Efficiency wise Intel is far ahead, but then again, you will need a really long time to actually cover that extra 4k. Money matters.  And average desktop user will rarely stress the CPU to the level to actually bring out that 150-200W difference, and that too for any significant period of time.

Frankly, unlike performance and temperature, power consumption is more theoretical IMO. And with the power saving options available these days, hardly an issue for regular usage.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 5, 2012)

Skud said:


> Efficiency wise Intel is far ahead, but then again, you will need a really long time to actually cover that extra 4k. Money matters.  And average desktop user will rarely stress the CPU to the level to actually bring out that 150-200W difference, and that too for any significant period of time.
> 
> Frankly, unlike performance and temperature, power consumption is more theoretical IMO. And with the power saving options available these days, hardly an issue for regular usage.


power consumption is indeed theoretical..but since the "issue" is so hyped people will fall for it.
if my own observations hold any value then lemme tell a story..i ran the FX 8150 for whole one month...Overclocked(which as myths suggested takes the power output to close to a nuclear sub) but my electricity bill stayed the same.
Go figure..


----------



## Skud (Dec 5, 2012)

Same here, in my experience electricity bill surges only when Govt. increases tariff.


----------



## vkl (Dec 6, 2012)

vickybat said:


> The difference is more or less around 4k like skud said.
> 
> 3570k + board
> 
> ...



5-7k in cases of some higher priced boards Z77 boards.Anyway even 4-5k can change things if budget is a constraint.

Yes,in case of overclocking in most applications i5 3570k would have higher dividends.
Both platforms have their pluses in some areas over other.
Now if we take applications like video encoding,encryption which can use all the cores the fx8350 would be much faster at stock than i5 3570k.
And these applications would gain from overclocking because they can use all 8 cores.

For intensive visualization again overclocking or no overclocking,fx8350 is a better choice simply because of more cores and IOMMU support.

In case of 3D rendering it is quite close between fx8350 and i5 3570k.
In final rendering of models in applications like 3DSMAX,Maya,Revit fx8350 generally fx8350 should be better because these are heavily threaded but it is not the case always.
With overclocking i5 3570k would be quite fast.Again in ray-tracing fx8350 has the advantage.
With 5k saved one can also get a better graphic card which in some cases can translate into moving from hd7870 to hd7950.In such case not only there would be huge improvement in gaming but also a good level of improvement would be seen in compute like in case of OpenCL based 3D rendering.
In situations like this rendering through hd7950 alone would be faster than the combinations of fx8350/i5 3570k+hd7950.
Viewport renderings would be lot faster with a GPU having better compute.
Another thing to consider is,though in most of the 3D modelling applications final render and test render would use full cores upto maximum utilisation there are lot of other functions which are lightly-threaded like previewing the model in viewport and considerable amount of time is spent there are well.Here the single-threaded performance comes into play.

Now applications like Euler3d which are used for CFD analysis the 8 core fx is considerably slower because this application is memory bandwidth limited which is significantly better in case of intel 2nd gen and 3rd gen processors.Now if we move to an application like Ansys which is also used for numerical analysis and fluid dynamics simulation the fx8350 should be lot faster.
An fx8150 is around 10% or more faster than i7 2600k in ansys.Applications like Abaqus which are used for elemental analysis gains a lot from GPU acceleration which means a combination with better GPU would seal the case.
As far as power consumption is concerned at stock the difference would be around 100Watts at load.But that won't matter much.Ivy is lot more power efficient but still it won't be a factor for selection in many cases.

So while selecting the platform the things that would matter are one's requirements,how much he/she can spend,overclocking,applications used etc.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 6, 2012)

I don't agree with the term "theoretical" here and its always not about money. Power is a precious thing and its not about saving ones electricity bills.
Its about thinking for the entire planet than thinking about yourselves. Its part of a very big discussion that isn't ideal for the situation here.

Peak power draw happens when cpu is at 100% load. Most multithreaded apps like handbrake stress all the cpu cores to 100% and i've seen it coz i use it. I guess people will buy 8350 taking its performance into account in those scenarios. Even if we forget power consumption for a moment, what about outright performance?

From what i see, overclocked performance isn't that good too. Let's say even if it reaches, 4.6ghz with a good cooler, how much performance increment we can see? 

*i.imgur.com/WkO0V.png

The chart speaks everything. But if people are willing to save 4k, then can go for the cheaper platform. But what about those who are seeking outright performance?
Power consumption will be an icing on the cake for them.



vkl said:


> For intensive visualization again overclocking or no overclocking,fx8350 is a better choice simply because of more cores and IOMMU support.
> 
> In case of 3D rendering it is quite close between fx8350 and i5 3570k.
> In final rendering of models in applications like 3DSMAX,Maya,Revit fx8350 generally fx8350 should be better because these are heavily threaded but it is not the case always.
> ...



Can you please give some links to support your claims? I agree with the virtualization part though and i5 k processors lacking iommu.
Talking about the fluidic dynamic simulations and benches involving complex calculations, i don't see amd being any match with intel.
Several linux benchmarks like dolyfyn and lammps ( fluid and molecular dynamics) perform brilliantly on intel architecture while poorly in amd. Why is that? Could you give some similar 
windows benchmark to confirm what you said? The key here is MPI ( message passing interface) which is a code in fortran or c which is written to assist parallel computing. Amd made 8 cores but failed to harness them in a software point of view.  You said rightly about encryption but what about performance at similar clocks? 

And can you also give links to support that rendering claim because i believe intel still has the edge here and the gap widens when overclocked.
Its not about utilizing more cores but to see how capable those cores really are.

Anyways, i need to see the performance of 8350 over 3570k in 3d rendering (maya in particular and not synthetic like 3dsmax), fluid dynamics and all.

Btw check the following:

 *www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-8.html

 *www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-10.html

 *www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-12.html

Now the clock differences at stock are big between 3570k and 8350. What will happen when both are clocked similarly lets say at 4.5ghz?
I doubt the fx can hold up and tomshardware meant the same in their article.

Performance gains of i5 in overclocking are significant than the fx overall and i guess even in those multithreaded scenarios. IPC again comes to play here and its not about scheduling.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 6, 2012)

^^ For overclocking a 3570K to 4.5 GHz, you really need a very good cooler, add another 4K to 5K in your budget as IV bridge does have some issues with overclocking. On the other hand you can go to 4.3 GHz with the stock cooler with AMD and a 2K cooler like Hyper 212 Evo can easily handle a stable 4.6 GHz overclock in case of FX-8350. Vicky, you can't compare speed of Intel and AMD and ask them to run at same speed. Their approach for gaining performance is different; AMD uses more cores and shorter pipelines along with higher speed. They increase the performance by performing relatively low amount of task in every clock Cycle and running at higher speed. On the other hand, Intel uses deeper Pipeline to execute more tasks in single clock cycle rather than running them at higher speed.


----------



## avinandan012 (Dec 6, 2012)

Myth said:


> Probably there is a bigger profit margin selling intel procs.



it is possible if shopkeepers make profit by % . Then higher the per unit price higher the profit.


----------



## vkl (Dec 6, 2012)

vickybat said:


> Can you please give some links to support your claims? I agree with the virtualization part though and i5 k processors lacking iommu.
> Talking about the fluidic dynamic simulations and benches involving complex calculations, i don't see amd being any match with intel.
> Several linux benchmarks like dolyfyn and lammps ( fluid and molecular dynamics) perform brilliantly on intel architecture while poorly in amd. Why is that? Could you give some similar
> windows benchmark to confirm what you said? The key here is MPI ( message passing interface) which is a code in fortran or c which is written to assist parallel computing. Amd made 8 cores but failed to harness them in a software point of view.  You said rightly about encryption but what about performance at similar clocks?
> ...



As far as final rendering or test renders is concerned,check the Benchmark Results: Content Creation:tomshardware.
In most of the tests fx8350 is ahead of i5 3570k.The point is even if IPC wise fx8350 is quite low and per core performance is also quite lower than that of i5 3570k,when a task like rendering is able to exploit all 8 cores efficiently fx8350 could be faster.As said earlier but that is not the case what happens always.In most of the applications final render does use all cores to max.

As for complex calculations like molecular dynamics and others is concerned many applications do well on ivy/sandy i5/i7 than on fx 8 cores.Examples are Euler3D(fluid dynamics simulation),mathematica 8(technical computing).In Dolphin and LAMMPS fx are not that good.
But there are also applications  where fx does quite well.
Do check out NAS parallel benches here:NAS parallel benchmarks v3.3
NAS parallel benchmarks v3.3 more benches.
NAS parallel benchmarks also has MPI implementation in full from versions 2.3 onwards.FX handily beats i5s here and competes well with i7 3770k.

You can also see John the Ripper benches where fx8350 beats the i7 3770k.It is a good number crunching test and does have MPI implementation. 

MyriMatch(protein analysis) 
*i.imgur.com/MyYSU.gif?1            
As far as Ansys is concerned it scales well with the cores,though there are no benches available for the fx but still check this:Ansys fx8150,i7 2600k:CFD-online forums


I never said overclocking i5 3570k won't do anything,in fact I have always maintained overclocking i5 2500/3570k would give more dividends in _most_ of the applications than overclocking fx8150/8350 as for the current situation of softwares.
But when it comes to things like encryption,video encoding fx8350 would have the lead.
As mentioned earlier there can also be situations when one benefits from a better dGPU in case of a constrained budget. 
So it's always better to select according to requirements and budget.


----------



## topgear (Dec 6, 2012)

Not pointing to anypne - just sharing my thoughts and some questions :

can't say if power consumption is theoretical or not but on every benchmark/review out there with a proper power consumption measuring device AMD cpus always shows they consumes more power.

core i5 3570K @ 14k + a Z77 mobo around ~7.7k + Hyper 212 Evo @ 2.2k
FX - 8350 @ 12.5k + a good mobo with vrm heatsink @ ~6.8k + Hyper 212 Evo @ 2.2k

now AMD cpus comes with good cooler which is sufficient for 4Ghz speed and FX-8350 is a 4 Ghz cpu - though I've no idea but to Oc this to say around ~4.5 Ghz we need an after market cooler ? and at 4.5 Ghz speed which one will win ? at at 4.5 Ghz if Intel cpu consumes less power one can build his ri with a much less powerful PSU - say cx430v2 instead of cx500v2 which should shave off some cost and minimizes the platform costs.


----------



## Skud (Dec 6, 2012)

Problem is that most of us budget the PSU keeping the GPU and future expansions in mind, so chances of using a less powerful SMPS just because of an Intel CPU is more or less minimal. The money saved on the CPU will have a more direct effect on the choice of other hardware.

Also, OCing the i5/i7 on stock cooler should be avoided in Indian condition IMO, forget about running it OCed for any significant length of time. I think we already have a dedicated thread in this topic. Again those 5+ GHz OC figures may give you some bragging rights, but an end user will mostly run their CPU at around 4.2/4.3 GHz for daily use. At this speed, AMD's stock cooler is probably sufficient but you need an aftermarket cooler for i5/i7. This again will increase the cost of the Intel system.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 6, 2012)

Also that Z77 mobo at around 7.7k will meltdown even before it reaches 4.2-4.3...reasons we all know and am too tired to type out all that stuff again


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 6, 2012)

Anyways, I don't think anyone could just ignore this - Having an Onboard graphics always helps, in case somewhere someday, you have your GFX card gone kaput, and you don't have a spare one, that day you can make use of the onboard graphics.
Consider this: 
*Case-1:* You're going in for an AMD system; you bought the processor (FX-8350) for 12.5K, then you bought a motherboard for 6.5K and then you'll have to buy a graphics card say an HD 6670 for say ~5K (The total comes up to *24K*)
*Case-2:* You're opting an Intel i5 3570K based system; the i5 3570K will set you back by 14.5K (Delta Peripherals), then you get a motherboard say for 7.5K and an aftermarket CPU cooler say CM Hyper TX3 EVO for 1.5K the total is *23.5K* (You still have the option to upgrade the graphics card at a later point of time.)
For an average user who won't overclock the processor, there's no point going with an unlocked processor, I think the i5 3570 is also available for 12.5K.


----------



## Skud (Dec 6, 2012)

Comparing HD6670 to Intel's IGP? 

You can pick any low-end graphics card for 1.5k. AMD combo will come to around 20k.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 6, 2012)

:facedesk:
:faceconcrete:


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 6, 2012)

Skud said:


> Comparing HD6670 to Intel's IGP?
> 
> You can pick any low-end graphics card for 1.5k. AMD combo will come to around 20k.



where's the comparision? I can't see any.


----------



## Skud (Dec 6, 2012)

Why are you picking HD6670 for the AMD rig, when you are utilizing Intel's IGP? A simple 1.5k card will do the job. That's still a handsome savings over the Intel rig you mentioned.


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 6, 2012)

ok. replace the 6670 with some 5450 or 6450 or gt 210, etc for ~1.7-2K you'll be able to bring it down to 20-21K.
My point was not suggesting either. My point was that with the intel rig, you have the option to upgrade the graphics later as you'll have the IGP as against the AMD. Also, in case, your graphics card goes bad, it won't make your system unusable till the time your graphics card in for RMA. Please read the first line of my post carefully.


----------



## Skud (Dec 6, 2012)

That's one advantage, but the price difference of 8350 & 3570k will let you have a backup graphics card, if you think that's important.


----------



## d6bmg (Dec 6, 2012)

Skud said:


> That's one advantage, but the price difference of 8350 & 3570k will let you have a backup graphics card, if you think that's important.



Most of the people using 3570K use discrete graphics card. If someone is buying 3570K to use HD4000, it would be advisable for him to perform a brain treatment.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 6, 2012)

^^well...i guess any smart Intel buyer would do that 
because..well....its better...ya know..being blue and stuff

/sarcasm_mode_off


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 6, 2012)

Sorry. Got carried away. The point was not that someone leaving the Graphics Card as a part of a rig consisting of a 14K processor. The thing was of having a workable option in case of a problem with graphics card. and still that was my personal thinking.


----------



## sumonpathak (Dec 6, 2012)

Why would anyone buying a 14K proccy would leave the GPU upgrade for later? Doesnt make sense logically..also this as an argument against Fx doesn't really stand.

Also i dont think any person on the forums was targeted there...


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 6, 2012)

@cyberkid,
HD4000 is equal to nothing in gaming performance.you may think all the time that you have back up but when the times when you will have to jump from a discrete to HD4000 then you will feel its wrath.btw if i remember it correctly then those delta peripherals prices are excluding taxes.i may be wrong.
btw AMD could have continued giving those comparitively good on board graphic chips in their mobos rather than throwing it of the window.

power consumption only matters to those pople who run their computer 24X7 under full load but if you are running your computer at full load for hardly 2-3hrs a day then you will save negligible amount of power.if the world is going in that much "go Green" way then every house out there should have CFLs and none of the shops should sell 0,100 watt bulbs.street lights glowing even in the morning.using electric guisers,etc.,we waste hell lot of power everyday for useless things and then we try to save 0.1 or even 0.01% of that in computers.whats the use of it?


----------



## CyberKID (Dec 6, 2012)

^ I don't know why for us computing never moves up above gaming. Everyone knows that IGP is good for nothing gaming. Why do people give utmost importance to gaming? There are hundreds of things a computer can still do apart from gaming.
I've been living up with a P4 since August 2005, and till quite a few months back my onboard GMA 900 was giving good performance to play casual games like NFS most wanted with highest settings with just 1.5GB of DDR RAM.
Regarding the Delta Peripherals prices, it is clearly described on the page itself that all the prices are inclusive of Tamil Nadu VAT


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

sukesh1090 said:


> @cyberkid,
> *HD4000 is equal to nothing in gaming performance*.you may think all the time that you have back up but when the times when you will have to jump from a discrete to HD4000 then you will feel its wrath.btw if i remember it correctly then those delta peripherals prices are excluding taxes.i may be wrong.
> btw AMD could have continued giving those comparitively good on board graphic chips in their mobos rather than throwing it of the window.
> 
> power consumption only matters to those pople who run their computer 24X7 under full load but if you are running your computer at full load for hardly 2-3hrs a day then you will save negligible amount of power.if the world is going in that much "go Green" way then every house out there should have CFLs and none of the shops should sell 0,100 watt bulbs.street lights glowing even in the morning.using electric guisers,etc.,we waste hell lot of power everyday for useless things and then we try to save 0.1 or even 0.01% of that in computers.whats the use of it?



Do you even know what hd4000 is? Do you know how much it differs from hd 3000?

Performance of hd4000 sometimes touches llano a8. It supports direct compute 5 and gives playable framerates in all  titles.
Talk about the bold part what you said, care to check the following:

 AnandTech - The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review
 AnandTech - The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review
 AnandTech - The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review
 AnandTech - The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review
 AnandTech - The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review

Are those unplayable framerates? Besides those crappy onboard gpu that amd used to give in its motherboards are no match for hd 4000. Again misleading info.
The next iteration of intel hd that's gonna come with haswell will have dx11.1, full compute performance with direct compute ( hd4000 has this) , opencl 1.2 , opengl 4.0 (gaming) and a newer and more powerful version of quicksync.

This is gonna also assist the cpu in opencl accelerated apps without the need of a discrete gpu. It also draws very few similarities from intel's larabee architecture ( broadwell will be a full redesign and might have dedicated vector processor like larabee for compute). You know how *xeon phi* performs right? It has already been implemented in a supercomputer and will be commercially available very soon.

Mate don't post stuff without giving them a second thought.

Looking at your mockery towards environment, i really feel sad. Although it has no meaning in the context of this thread, you don't understand the significance.
In my house, we use cfl's only and i guess lots of members here do the same. The electric geysers you talk about now come with 5 star rating that save considerable amount of power than previous iterations. In short, each and every industry is doing their part and so is the cpu industry. If power consumption was negligible, why the heck would reviewers even include them to their tests? Think this in a broader way and don't relate this in a personal context.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

vickybat said:


> Do you even know what hd4000 is? Do you know how much it differs from hd 3000?
> 
> *Performance of hd4000 sometimes touches llano a8.* *It supports direct compute 5 and gives playable framerates in all non dx11 titles coz it does not support dx11.*
> 
> ...



Performance of FX8350 also sometimes touches i7 3770k and even higher while being much cheaper which the HD4000 is not (I am taking the IGP in isolation) as compared to Llano IGP. By that logic, there's absolutely nothing wrong in AMD's CPU performance. And the links you have given below, as far as I can see in none of the games the hd4000 can touch the llano IGP, which was more than an year old. Even in an anemic game like Minecraft the HD4000 was more than 3 times slower. Intel graphics progression is worse than AMD's CPU progression. Even compute performance of HD4000 is highly inconsistent.

And HD4000 does support DX11 & OpenCL, wrong info. Check the very Anandtech review you have posted.




> The next iteration of intel hd that's gonna come with haswell will have dx11.1, full compute performance with direct compute ( hd4000 has this) , opencl 1.2 and opengl 4.0 (gaming).
> 
> This is gonna also assist the cpu in opencl accelerated apps without the need of a discrete gpu. It also draws very few similarities from intel's larabee architecture ( broadwell will be a full redesign and might have dedicated vector processor like larabee for compute). You know how *xeon phi* performs right? It has already been implemented in a supercomputer and will be commercially available very soon.




Even Llano APUs have been used in HPC solutions, you are talking about specialized solutions here, which doesn't count in general users' context. And regarding OpenCL, well, even AMD is already doing it for quite sometime without discrete GPU, nothing new.




> Mate don't post stuff without giving them a second thought.
> 
> Looking at your mockery towards environment, i really feel sad. Although it has no meaning in the context of this thread, you don't understand the significance.
> In my house, we use cfl's only and i guess lots of members here do the same. The electric geysers you talk about now come with 5 star rating that save considerable amount of power than previous iterations. In short, each and every industry is doing their part and so is the cpu industry. If power consumption was negligible, why the heck would reviewers even include them to their tests? Think this in a broader way and don't relate this in a personal context.




There's nothing wrong with going green, point here is AMD is not "red" like the way it has been painted. Reviewers generally give the worst case scenario of power consumption, they never compare power consumption simulating application loads that majority of the users will use in their PCs, say a browser, word processor, games, photo editing software etc. You know what, most of us don't really use our PCs to run Furmark or Prime95.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

Skud said:


> Performance of FX8350 also sometimes touches i7 3770k and even higher while being much cheaper which the HD4000 is not (I am taking the IGP in isolation) as compared to Llano IGP. By that logic, there's absolutely nothing wrong in AMD's CPU performance. And the links you have given below, as far as I can see in none of the games the hd4000 can touch the llano IGP, which was more than an year old. Even in an anemic game like Minecraft the HD4000 was more than 3 times slower. Intel graphics progression is worse than AMD's CPU progression. Even compute performance of HD4000 is highly inconsistent.
> 
> And HD4000 does support DX11 & OpenCL, wrong info. Check the very Anandtech review you have posted.



Yup got the dx11 part wrong. Post edited.

Now coming to the point. How can you compare a CPU with a GPU in non compute tasks like gaming? There we see difference in frames and anything above 30 for a highend title at low settings is playable. The results contradict the person's statement in bold which i had quoted. Notice the word unplayable?

Besides, rendering frames per second and doing compute tasks are completely different aspects.  A slow cpu is slow with respect to work done in unit time. Rendering a few lesser frames makes a gpu relatively slower and until and unless it delivers unplayable or subpar gameplay experience, it cannot be ruled out. I don't see a 3870k igp excelling brilliantly in gaming but does so in opencl tasks owing to its vliw5 architecture.

I won't comment on haswell's igp yet but whether or not that's a significant step up, only time will tell. But talking about hpc, intel's larabee elements are massively significant and if implemented in igp ( haswell has some but broadwell will use it full scale), it has the potential to challenge amd's GCN in hpc apps which is more vital here than gaming.




Skud said:


> There's nothing wrong with going green, point here is AMD is not "red" like the way it has been painted. And reviewers never compare power consumption simulating application loads that majority of the users will use in their PCs, say a browser, word processor, games, photo editing software etc. You know what, most of us don't really use our PCs to run Furmark or Prime95.



Nobody's painting AMD red. We are not talking about prime95 or furmark here either. And no, majority of users buying a 3770k,3570k or 8350 don't use the occasional browser, word processor all the time. Atleast not me. Even while we play games like crysis , battlefield, we stress the cpu to load levels and power consumption is not negligible here. I play for hours in a long stretch.

While encoding in handbrake fotr large 6gb + rips, my cpu takes more than half an hour(  sometimes even more) with all my cpu cores operating at 100% with max temperatures. You have a database client like oracle running in your background and it uses cpu resources most of the time. I'm not talking about people who use occasional browser and wordprocessor stuff. Watching a 1080p movie with post processing filters too puts a bit of load to the cpu which directly affects power consumption. There are so many other aspects to think off. The powerconsumption tests used by reviewers use general productivity , content creation and gaming apps ( real world and not synthetic) to test load power. No furmark or prime95 come even to the picture.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

vickybat said:


> Yup got the dx11 part wrong. Post edited.
> 
> Now coming to the point. How can you compare a CPU with a GPU in non compute tasks like gaming? There we see difference in frames and anything above 30 for a highend title at low settings is playable. The results contradict the person's statement in bold which i had quoted. Notice the word unplayable?
> 
> ...




I had gamed at 13x7 with 880G IGP (yeah, even Crysis) and hadn't found them to be as crappy as you have posted earlier. If playability is all you are concerned about then even such an older gen IGP is sufficient at low res and low settings. HD4000 is nothing groundbreaking ( I am not even talking about how costly it is) and pales in comparison to AMD's APU (even the older Llano). So goes for performance in OpenCL apps. Trinity is already ahead, and given the compute performance of current GCN based cards, next-gen APUs can only improve.




> Nobody's painting AMD red. We are not talking about prime95 or furmark here either. And no, majority of users buying a 3770k,3570k or 8350 don't use the occasional browser, word processor all the time. Atleast not me. Even while we play games like crysis , battlefield, we stress the cpu to load levels and power consumption is not negligible here. I play for hours in a long stretch.
> 
> While encoding in handbrake fotr large 6gb + rips, my cpu takes more than half an hour(  sometimes even more) with all my cpu cores operating at 100% with max temperatures. You have a database client like oracle running in your background and it uses cpu resources most of the time. I'm not talking about people who use occasional browser and wordprocessor stuff. Watching a 1080p movie with post processing filters too puts a bit of load to the cpu which directly affects power consumption. There are so many other aspects to think off. The powerconsumption tests used by reviewers use general productivity , content creation and gaming apps ( real world and not synthetic) to test load power. No furmark or prime95 come even to the picture.




No single power consumption test give results over a significant period of time, as I have already posted, they are mostly worst case scenarios. The best I have seen is Toms' reviews where they measure power consumption across their whole benchmark run, instead of a single run of a particular application where the goal is to stress the CPU/GPU at its fullest. And unlike you, I have rarely seen games utilizing 100% load across all the cores of the CPU throughout its runtime, yeah even with Crysis. Video encoding/3D rendering can stress your CPU to fullest, but then again, as the FX8350 will complete the task before a i5 3570k, the higher power consumption will be negated to some extent.

Point is money matters. Unless you are running applications which can stress the CPU all its core at full load for a significant portion of 24 hours (taking it granted you are running it 24x7), you will take a long time to actually cover the additional cost. And what that additional amount can fetch you during that time in terms of investment, savings etc. is a different topic altogether. If the companies were so serious about environmental issues, they shouldn't have charged a premium for energy efficient components.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

Skud said:


> I had gamed at 13x7 with 880G IGP (yeah, even Crysis) and hadn't found them to be as crappy as you have posted earlier. If playability is all you are concerned about then even such an older gen IGP is sufficient at low res and low settings. HD4000 is nothing groundbreaking ( I am not even talking about how costly it is) and pales in comparison to AMD's APU (even the older Llano). So goes for performance in OpenCL apps. Trinity is already ahead, and given the compute performance of current GCN based cards, next-gen APUs can only improve.



I can say the same thing about hd4000. Crysis warhead gives 30+ fps in 1366x768 medium settings. Is that unplayable? Anyway before posting generalized comments, i want you to just go through xeon phi's architecture and what dedicated vector processors can do for opencl acceleration. I would say its a  direct threat to amd's gcn implementation in its firepro gpu's. Just saying trinity is ahead, gcn will be ahead won't contribute anything to this discussion. 

Anyway this discussion is for another topic which will soon be put up in a different thread so lets not crap this one.




Skud said:


> No single power consumption test give results over a significant period of time, as I have already posted, they are mostly worst case scenarios. The best I have seen is Toms' reviews where they measure power consumption across their whole benchmark run, instead of a single run of a particular application where the goal is to stress the CPU/GPU at its fullest. And unlike you, I have rarely seen games utilizing 100% load across all the cores of the CPU throughout its runtime, yeah even with Crysis. Video encoding/3D rendering can stress your CPU to fullest, but then again, a*s the FX8350 will complete the task before a i5 3570k,* the higher power consumption will be negated to some extent.



That bold part is highly debatable. I think you did not get what the following pic shows:

*i.imgur.com/Up6Hz.png

Are you saying 3570k is weak in 3d rendering? Show me a real world 3d application like maya where 8350 is beating a 3570k considerably??
How about overclocked performance? Don't bring price factor here. Do you see the performance gains 3570k has in the above slide?

What about the power consumptions at those clocks? If 8350 can't negate performance deficit, how do you except to negate power consumption?

Do you know how much power 8350 consumes at 4.5ghz?



Skud said:


> Point is money matters. Unless you are running applications which can stress the CPU all its core at full load, and that too for a significant portion of 24 hours (taking it granted you are running it 24x7), you will take a long time to actually cover the additional cost. And what that additional amount can fetch you during that time in terms of investment, savings etc. is a different topic altogether. If the companies were so serious about environmental issues, they shouldn't have charged a premium for energy efficient components.



Sure money matters but not by sacrificing other factors. I want a cpu in my system which does everything, gives blistering performance when overclocked and does so by consuming 1/3 of the power than its competition which does not excel in any of these. In short, this is performance per watt and has significant importance in every industry including cpu and gpu. In case of kepler vs gcn, i can say gcn comes very close in power consumption and delivers better performance to negate that.

But that's not the case with piledriver.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

vickybat said:


> Sure money matters but not by sacrificing other factors. I want a cpu in my system which does everything, gives blistering performance when overclocked and does so by consuming 1/3 of the power than its competition which does not excel in any of these. In short, this is performance per watt and has significant importance in every industry including cpu and gpu. In case of kepler vs gcn, i can say gcn comes very close in power consumption and delivers better performance to negate that.
> 
> But that's not the case with piledriver.




And there's performance per rupee too, and not everybody required *blistering performance* and not everybody can afford that blistering performance. No point arguing over that, for you power matters, for others its money.

And just like you say 30 fps at a low/medium settings is acceptable (I know numerous guys at this very forum itself who will disagree to that), waiting for an extra couple of minutes to get the job done (or less work done in unit time as said by you) is also acceptable to many.


----------



## Cilus (Dec 7, 2012)

What is the point of discussing Larabee and Xeon Phi architecture here? Xeon _phi might be superior  or equal to GCN in compute tasks but it is not made for any kind of Gaming task. So what is the point? And regarding IGP progress, I don't expect anything ground breaking from Hashwell's IGP, looking at the progress of their IGP performance. Whether games are playable or not, I will go for the one which offers me better performance at lower price. Even Llano IGP is far faster than HD 4000 and Trinity IGP simply crush it. Now for getting HD 4000, you need to spend around 11K minimum whereas for Llano or Trinity, I think by paying 7K, you will get a Quad Core CPU equivalent to Intel 3rd Gen and 2nd Gen i3 and a GPU like HD 6570.
Similarly if you buy a FX 6300 around 8K and a 4K graphics card like HD 6670 DDR3, the total package will deliver far better gaming performance than a i5 3470 with its HD 4000 at the same price point.


----------



## rijinpk1 (Dec 7, 2012)

Cilus said:


> Now for getting HD 4000, you need to spend around 11K minimum whereas for Llano or Trinity, I think by paying 7K, you will get a Quad Core CPU equivalent to Intel 3rd Gen and 2nd Gen i3 and a GPU like HD 6570.
> Similarly if you buy a FX 6300 around 8K and a 4K graphics card like HD 6670 DDR3, the total package will deliver far better gaming performance than a i5 3470 with its HD 4000 at the same price point.



i5 3470 has only HD 2500 graphics. The only i5 processor which has HD 4000 is i5 3570k as of now.



Cilus said:


> Now for getting HD 4000, you need to spend around 11K minimum whereas for Llano or Trinity, I think by paying 7K, you will get a Quad Core CPU equivalent to Intel 3rd Gen and 2nd Gen i3 and a GPU like HD 6570.
> Similarly if you buy a FX 6300 around 8K and a 4K graphics card like HD 6670 DDR3, the total package will deliver far better gaming performance than a i5 3470 with its HD 4000 at the same price point.



i5 3470 has only HD 2500 graphics. The only i5 processor which has HD 4000 is i5 3570k as of now.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

Skud said:


> And there's performance per rupee too, and not everybody required *blistering performance* and not everybody can afford that blistering performance. No point arguing over that, for you power matters, for others its money.
> 
> And just like you say 30 fps at a low/medium settings is acceptable (I know numerous guys at this very forum itself who will disagree to that), waiting for an extra couple of minutes to get the job done (or less work done in unit time as said by you) is also acceptable to many.



Btw 8350 doesn't have any igp so technically it will give zero fps. What's the point of arguing over this? And trinity does not even fit here coz of its abysmal cpu performance. Talking about pure computing performance here and besides 3570k has opencl acceleration support out of the box without the need of a discrete gpu which the 8350 completely lacks. You did not comment anything about the performance chart which i was waiting for. The discussion ends here because overclocking performance ( not values) of 3570k is superior as shown above. Not to forget, much lower power consumption.

Besides, i won't suggest anyone a piledriver based 8350 with a 5-6k motherboard and tell them to overclock considering the notoriety of 125w cpu's.
People who do this , save money foolishly here ( no personal offense to anyone as its a generalized comment). So for a balanced config, you have to invest in atleast a 9-10k motherboard with
8350 to better harness the cpu.

But then, you have better options. The guy below is not dumb to make a comment:



Spoiler



On average, the FX-8350 and Core i5-3570K do pretty well at their stock settings, the Intel-based box about 10% quicker. This will likely change as we fold more heavily-threaded tests into the Marathon, starting this quarter. Naturally, you'll want to look closest at the benchmarks that matter to you specifically when you evaluate performance, since each architecture excels in a different way.

*When it comes to overclocking though, Intel extends its lead with significantly lower power consumption and much better performance.* If we were measuring efficiency, that'd be a home run. Yes, Xigmatek's Loki is insufficient for overclocking the 125 W FX-8350. But let's be realistic. If we wanted to squeeze better performance out of AMD's chip, we'd need to spend more money on cooling, and power consumption would rise even faster as higher voltages paved the way for more aggressive clock rates. It'd be a great experiment, and we might even play around with it in the future, *but it's clear that Intel's Core i5-3570K remains the better choice for overclockers in this price range*.



The bold parts say everything that one needs to know and comprehend in short. Nothing more.

One thing that goes in piledriver's favour is its support for newer instruction sets that ivybridge lacks. That's one advantage i cannot deny and future apps with fma support will benefit 8350 than 3570k. Until haswell, intel is in a disadvantage here but not an immediate one coz those apps are quite a while away.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

And surely you have missed this, from that same review:-



> Since we ordered the parts for this build, some prices are up and others are down. Fortunately, the current $1,009 price tag is very close to the $1,000 target. *Keep in mind that the previous configuration went $57 over budget*, and the graphics card alone is down $50 since last quarter.




That extra $48 will actually fetch the Gigabyte 7970 OC over the 670, and those graphs will look more equal in length.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

Skud said:


> And surely you have missed this, from that same review:-
> 
> That extra $48 will actually fetch the Gigabyte 7970 OC over the 670, and those graphs will look more equal in length.



A person with a $1000 budget won't mind spending $48 extra for a 7970oc which i agree is arguably better than a 680 too. It won't break his/her bank.

Perhaps you did not notice those graphs properly. There are two bars , green one depicting application performance while blue one is gaming performance. Changing 670 with a 7970 will change the blue bar but not the green one. So your point does not hold true here.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

I guess right from the beginning the bone of contention here is how the savings of the CPU can help you get more elsewhere. Toms have kept the bars separate, mix them up, and we will get to know the overall performance of the systems, rather than separate Games/Apps performance. And that's how people use their systems, as a complete package, instead of individual components. If you throw in some compute tests, the Radeon 7970's lead over the 670 will ensure more or less two equally capable system, but quite different in their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## vickybat (Dec 7, 2012)

Skud said:


> I guess right from the beginning the bone of contention here is how the savings of the CPU can help you get more elsewhere. Toms have kept the bars separate, mix them up, and we will get to know the overall performance of the systems, rather than separate Games/Apps performance. And that's how people use their systems, as a complete package, instead of individual components. If you throw in some compute tests, the Radeon 7970's lead over the 670 will ensure more or less two equally capable system, but quite different in their strengths and weaknesses.



I don't agree. Bars are separate. Why the heck we need to mix them up?
Gaming performance is a separate entity coz it mixes a gpu.
Opencl performance is not even in question here because this is a cpu test. Dragging opencl will make it gpu dependent. Why even anybody forcefully want to pair 670 with 3570k and 7970 with 8350 to test compute strength and make the 3570k look inferior? Doesn't make any sense.

Anybody who wants compute will pair the 7970/7950/7870/7850/7770/7750 with 3570k rather than a 8350. And you know why.

The bottomline about the choice of cpu is clear. There is no other bone of contention.
And i guess this is also getting reflected in the respective sales figures.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

vickybat said:


> I don't agree. Bars are separate. Why the heck we need to mix them up?
> Gaming performance is a separate entity coz it mixes a gpu.
> *Opencl performance is not even in question here because this is a cpu test. Dragging opencl will make it gpu dependent. *Why even anybody forcefully want to pair 670 with 3570k and 7970 with 8350 to test compute strength and make the 3570k look inferior? Doesn't make any sense.
> 
> ...




They are talking about $1000 PCs and comparing their overall performances, and it seems CPU test to you.  Pairing 670 with 3570k and 7970 with 8350 is to keep the budget equal for both the systems and that absolutely makes sense. Doesn't really matter if you think otherwise as you are always on an unlimited budget. IIRC, OP has a budget of around 13k and that 3570k doesn't even fit the bill.

Going by sales figures, I remember the initial months of the 680 when the 7970 far outpaced it in sales figure while being generally slower. Lesser sales didn't necessarily make the 680 a less than capable solution.


----------



## sukesh1090 (Dec 7, 2012)

@vickybat,
i don't know commenting on HD4000 makes any sense now but yes i have read and seen HD4000 benchmarks because i am not insane i won't spend 16k on a processor to play a game at low settings that too selective games giving 30 FPS at 1080p.i better spend on 8k trinity and get 2X FPS.it makes me more sense if your intention is gaming.wtf most of the people out their who use desktops for gaming or atleast gaming comes in one of the top priority.if you have doubt in that then please do me a favour and check pc buying thread and you will see most of them listing gaming as one of the most top priority.so we motly spend 1000$s on a pc either for gaming or video editing or those animation or photoshop stuffs which mostly work better if you give more graphical horse power than processing power.so it boils down to GPU so HD4000 doesn't make any sense at that high price segment and yeah even trinity doesn't make any ense and even it doesn't need to because its price justifies it.so you want to do those mostly GPU taxing works then save 4k and get a better gfx card and enjoy better performance or if you don't have that much money then again 8350 looks better choice because you have less money so you save 4k.
about using cfl lamps common bro its not personal and you know india and every point i told there holds good.now lets take the gas guisar coming with 5 stars but still tell me can it beat 50 stars solar energy but still people prefer guisar over solar .why?
you are talking about saving 100W with IB and there guisar takes 2KW.so think about it tell me how we are going in go green way.

@cyberkid,
buddy if you don't want to game then you don't need i5 or 8350 you can do the job with low end pentium dual core or i3 or trinity.as you itself told you are doing job with that 5 year old computer.now tell me if you think of upgrading what will the reason on the top of the list?
gaming.isn't it?then why bother to argue that we don't spend that much money for gaming.


----------



## Skud (Dec 7, 2012)

@niz04:

I am locking the thread before things turn ugly. If you are going to purchase a complete system, feel free to make a separate thread quoting your budget and using the template in the proper section. If CPU/Mobo & GPU are your only concern, you have already got enough feedback to make a decision.


----------



## quan chi (Mar 30, 2013)

Sorry to bump an old thread but guys anybody using the 8350 can tell me whats the impact on the electricity bill.I mean in india how much extra we have to pay if we are using it instead of intel.


----------



## sumonpathak (Mar 30, 2013)

i jumped from E7500 to FX 8350 for my oldest rig..and i use it for 24/7 folding....bill difference is not astronomical or even high..


----------



## quan chi (Mar 30, 2013)

Thanks for the reply.Then i take it max difference will be around 20 to 30 Rs not more than that.


----------



## sumonpathak (Mar 30, 2013)

ya....dont worry about it.


----------

