Wednesday, 24 October 2012


Well I have perused a number of sites benchmarking the new AMD FX-8350 Piledriver and I have to admit that firstly the results are even MORE confusing than that of its predecessor, the AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer chip.

I have checked out, or dashed through would be more accurate, those at Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, Hexus and a few others.

Even more confusing than the results are the statements made by the testers and even their conclusions?!

I have suspected for sometime that there are too may CPU testers out there simply running a series of programs errr ... programmed by others and therefore not understanding the CPU core entirely nor the software and the algorithms employed. This can sometimes show up in statements they make that, on the face of it, do not match the overall numbers.

I think from now on I am going to totally ignore what these suites state in the benchmarks results, they are far too inconsistent for my liking and are causing people to make utter idiots of themselves. See the following, lol.


One well known site states that the SINGLE THREADED (that is one core and in all honesty a MOOT POINT and pretty pointless today to harp on about - sorry but true) IS STILL DIRE based on one benchmark.


Well hang on a minute as the latest Piledriver based FX-8350 beats the 8 threaded Intel Core i7 in several tests?


Here is another point, if a benchmark is doing badly on a particular CPU core, and lets so its on of these suites like SiSoft's Sandra or Cinebench then that pretty much renders the benchmark unfit for purpose and badly programmed!

You cannot have it both ways, either that ir you have to change your benchmarking and ONLY USE real world programs and games. SIMPLEZZZ!!

If the core performance was as dire as suggested in the FX-8350 and the Intel's so bloody brilliant like everyone one of them harps on about then even with the TWO extra threads, oh no wait a minute you all keep insisting they are only FOUR ANYWAY, would in no way allow it to beat the i7s by any stretch.

Especially as you keep on harping on about how you change everything so that the benchmarks are CPU bound?! Can you smell the stuff you are shovelling? Or is it a case that you are trying to rush the benchmarks online so fast to get hits, and therefore cash from advertising, that you write these things without going over the numbers?

On one lot of testing I was like 'OHHH YEAH NOW I WANT TO BUILD A RIG QUICK SHARP!' while on another I was then thinking 'OH NO THAT IS CRAP. I WILL WAIT FOR STEAMROLLER?!'

Then I started thinking 'NO HANG ON A BLOODY MINUTE HERE!!' LMAO!

Then another said it only matched the Phenom II cores, K10.5, when a couple of others said the it was faster and this was also said about Trinity, AMD's laptop intended APUs with four cores and a graphics chip built in. No wait! TWO CORES and a Graphics chip built in?! LMAO.

Steamroller is the code name for the next generation of AMD's cores. though some have stated April 2013 or around that date it has been a year since the Bulldozer FX-8150 and as much as I would like it to be April I think a year, so next October, is far more likely.

Here is my two penneth, it does reasonably OK for an 8 core, it does BLOODY FANTASTIC as a FOUR CORE?!

Now as I have since seen the AMD FX-8350 for £165 on and the FX-8150 launched at around £240 i think that is not all that bad. My only problem with the chip at all is though they improved the power consumption it could have been a little better.

My only gripe is that I would like to see the next motherboards out, to improve things a little further and ready, or better suited, to the Steamroller AMD CPUs when they are eventually launched... a 1090FX motherboard, 990FX currently, and possibly even combined with a new socket so AM4 or AM3++, lol.

If I purchase one I just hope I get lucky with the silicon, or maybe this time round they might have released a slightly improved one by then, like they was going to do with the rumoured release of an AMD FX-8170 which did not materialise.

AMD FX-8370 anyone? Now that WOULD be cool! Well lets hope that is literal too?!

Drop the single threaded harping on too for the love of god, I was doing Access to Computing to get into my BSc Applied Computing and Pentium II's were the latest thing and even then I was talking of a motherboard with TWO sockets and XEONS! That was 1996 for the love of God and 3D Studio MAX already used as many cores as you could throw at it.

There is no PROBLEM with coding programs to run concurrently, it has been about for over ten years and as anyone would tell you in computing ... well that is an EON!!

If coders state there is a problem well... I know what I would say to that but they would not like it. Let us just say that they need time to get... their heads around it but others have long since done that.

As I stated previously four cores has been the norm for sometime now. I cannot see it being that long before games, no MOST games, launched will run on 3 minimum but 4 or even 5 cores. As Windows works best with at least two and something else might be running too.

For an eternity I have seen the statements to others asking advice 'oh you do not need this and do not need that, that is too much for what you want' and EVERY SINGLE TIME they have regretted going smaller and cheaper. though I dare say some times there will be people that do not.

I read about people buying the FX-4100 and FX-6100 and despite wanting AMD to do well I could not help but think, why would you do that? Especially as even the 8 core was struggling, I would have looked for a cheap Phenom 2 X6 1100T myself if I could not get the FX-8150 or FX-8120.

But maybe that is just me?


No comments:

Post a Comment