dugdiamond
New member
1090T's are still cheap - just saying 
h34r:
h34r:
AMD Vishera FX8350 Piledriver Review
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
- Status
DragonClaw
New member
Guys, if I wanted to buy a six-core processor on the am3+ socket, should I get the FX-6300, or the 6100? The 6300 is not a million miles ahead, it's going to be more expensive at launch and its memory read/write speeds are terrible, so it looks kinda pointless to me. I know an old P2 X6 would be the best option, but I'm struggling to find it.
jamesriley94
New member
DragonClaw
New member
Video rendering and compiling maps. I know I won't see a much of a difference between a quad-core and six-core processor in terms of gaming, if this is what you thought I'd be using it for. So, 6100 or 6300?
jamesriley94
New member
For the price I'd probably say just get the 6100.
neoguyver1
New member
Well if a high ghz 8 core cpu can't beat a quad ...nuff said. I personally like the idea of a budget cpu that performs really well I even bought a 965be for a budget build a few weeks ago.
I would like amd to sort out the mess that is lets face it cores sharing this,that and the other is pants.
(the above is so technical i had to put it in layman's terms)
I would like amd to sort out the mess that is lets face it cores sharing this,that and the other is pants.
(the above is so technical i had to put it in layman's terms)
refillable
New member
Well, my long comment got deleted. Not sure why...
It could be you keeping it and reading it, and start considering. And delete it because such post/reply would be nice to be not in the forums, but to keep it.
Or it was deleted for other reasons...
Haven't been checking this forum for quite a long time but, but since then, that post didn't get any replies before it gets deleted. As far as I know. Now, I am not sure if this site is credible or not (in the CPU section). Although I'll still trust the GPU and other sections like cooling and cases.
It could be you keeping it and reading it, and start considering. And delete it because such post/reply would be nice to be not in the forums, but to keep it.
Or it was deleted for other reasons...
Haven't been checking this forum for quite a long time but, but since then, that post didn't get any replies before it gets deleted. As far as I know. Now, I am not sure if this site is credible or not (in the CPU section). Although I'll still trust the GPU and other sections like cooling and cases.
jamesriley94
New member
This site is completely credible.
I remember your post - for a first post on the forums I felt it was a little bit out of order...
The AMDs are still way behind Intel's for core/core performance.
Whether it wins in one of two specific benchmarks does not make it a better processor. I'd far sooner still have a 3570k then an 8 core Piledriver, just because overall performance in day to day tasks which only use 1 or 2 cores anyway will be better.
Maybe build a little rep up with posts before coming on here and slating reviews...
refillable
New member
Yes, that's what I thought earlier, that this site is completely credible. But since I gave out a critic that I backed up with facts and later it was deleted, it makes me think that this site is not that credible anymore (especially in the CPU section).
I think there is no need for me to build up reputation in this site. I followed computer hardware sites since a quite a long time ago. Plus, I have been a user of tom's hardware and techpowerup for a quite a long time and somewhere in tom's hardware, I've got a gold badge (that shows that I know about computers).
Whether that I haven't rep up or not, My points is backed up with facts which means that my points are all true. So you shouldn't be telling 'for a first post on the forums I felt it was a little bit out of order'. The way that you suppose to judge posts as 'Out of order post' depends on the content, not that I've rep up or not.
Yet, your points doesn't go answer my post well. Yes, AMD is behind in core to core performance. But that's not my point. Yes, daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but that doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores. This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97).
Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering.
And (yes I am literally repeating and shortening that post now), I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things. It doesn't even conclude the positive things. And... some conclusions were not to the point. I wished that I have the copy of that post, so I can repost it. But sadly not, I just felt like I wasted time writing that. Because it got deleted. Again I am not sure why, but I hope for good reasons. I hope that everybody can see it.
Whether that I'm writing that as an insult or a slate of reviews, my goal or my purpose was to make a critic, or literally, to make this site a better site. So you shouldn't give any hate.
Oh yes, why didn't you answer that time?
EDIT: To back up my answer, Look at this. Both Tom's hardware and Techpowerup shows a pretty positive conclusion. Different from this. And their points are the same as mine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-17.html
I think there is no need for me to build up reputation in this site. I followed computer hardware sites since a quite a long time ago. Plus, I have been a user of tom's hardware and techpowerup for a quite a long time and somewhere in tom's hardware, I've got a gold badge (that shows that I know about computers).
Whether that I haven't rep up or not, My points is backed up with facts which means that my points are all true. So you shouldn't be telling 'for a first post on the forums I felt it was a little bit out of order'. The way that you suppose to judge posts as 'Out of order post' depends on the content, not that I've rep up or not.
Yet, your points doesn't go answer my post well. Yes, AMD is behind in core to core performance. But that's not my point. Yes, daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but that doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores. This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97).
Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering.
And (yes I am literally repeating and shortening that post now), I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things. It doesn't even conclude the positive things. And... some conclusions were not to the point. I wished that I have the copy of that post, so I can repost it. But sadly not, I just felt like I wasted time writing that. Because it got deleted. Again I am not sure why, but I hope for good reasons. I hope that everybody can see it.
Whether that I'm writing that as an insult or a slate of reviews, my goal or my purpose was to make a critic, or literally, to make this site a better site. So you shouldn't give any hate.
Oh yes, why didn't you answer that time?
EDIT: To back up my answer, Look at this. Both Tom's hardware and Techpowerup shows a pretty positive conclusion. Different from this. And their points are the same as mine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-17.html
Last edited:
jamesriley94
New member
I'm unsure on your points...
I don't really know why the review sites you've linked give it a good conclusion, considering it doesn't beat the Intel chips in any tests?
Which rendering test are you talking about? I've never seen that...
It's not about having a massive post count that makes it out of order - it's the fact that your first post was one that came on purely to discredit the site. At least post an introduction or something somewhere before coming on and slating the site.
I personally don't even think the chip should have got a Bronze award here - unless that was only really based on being better than the Bulldozer (which wasn't exactly hard)
I don't really know why the review sites you've linked give it a good conclusion, considering it doesn't beat the Intel chips in any tests?
Which rendering test are you talking about? I've never seen that...
It's not about having a massive post count that makes it out of order - it's the fact that your first post was one that came on purely to discredit the site. At least post an introduction or something somewhere before coming on and slating the site.
I personally don't even think the chip should have got a Bronze award here - unless that was only really based on being better than the Bulldozer (which wasn't exactly hard)
refillable
New member
Still unsure of my points? Here I repeat my main one.
Daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks and 3570k will be better for them. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores (or more). This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97) Shown in the bechmark.
Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering. I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things, but not the good ones which is rendering.
Yes, introduction is something better to do. But, I introduced my self in that post too. The reason why I sign up because I want to critic the site, not to give it a hate and not discredit or something. My language skills are not excellent at all, so you guys might see it as a hateful comment, but that's not what it's supposed to be. I want it to be a critic.
Funny you didn't know which benchmark I referred too. It was from here. Specifically Page 6. Here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_vishera_fx8350_piledriver_review/6
No, you don't understand. Read the conclusion on the pages I referred you. Don't just see the benchmark and start fighting over me as I said 'shows a pretty positive conclusion' Read this:
You should know why that they give a little bit of a positive conclusion...
Daily task that uses 1 or 2 core will be better on a 3570k, but doesn't mean that all people do daily tasks and 3570k will be better for them. Some people are doing rendering and they use all 8 cores (or more). This way, they'll benefit from the 8 cores, plus the price (£250 for a 8350 and a M5A97) Shown in the bechmark.
Winning in one or two specific benchmarks (that shows rendering capabilities) does shows it is a better processor for rendering. I only don't agree with the way that the review states only the bad things, but not the good ones which is rendering.
Yes, introduction is something better to do. But, I introduced my self in that post too. The reason why I sign up because I want to critic the site, not to give it a hate and not discredit or something. My language skills are not excellent at all, so you guys might see it as a hateful comment, but that's not what it's supposed to be. I want it to be a critic.
Funny you didn't know which benchmark I referred too. It was from here. Specifically Page 6. Here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_vishera_fx8350_piledriver_review/6
No, you don't understand. Read the conclusion on the pages I referred you. Don't just see the benchmark and start fighting over me as I said 'shows a pretty positive conclusion' Read this:
You should know why that they give a little bit of a positive conclusion...
jamesriley94
New member
Yeah, I saw that page...
Not sure why you'd use that though since it shows, and states that the 2600k 'whips' it...
Nowadays you can get a 2600k and a decent motherboard for close to £250, so you're then best off doing that...?
You do come across as sounding very aggressive....
Not sure why you'd use that though since it shows, and states that the 2600k 'whips' it...
Nowadays you can get a 2600k and a decent motherboard for close to £250, so you're then best off doing that...?
You do come across as sounding very aggressive....
refillable
New member
£250 for 2600k plus a decent motherboard? Pure BS. Look At this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-359-IN
Trying to say that my '£250' a BS? Here you go:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-462-AS
Only a ~0.4 (6.93 vs 7.38) stock vs stock doesn't mean it 'whips it' at all. He also said that a ~0.5 (6.39 (from 3570k vs 6.93) is a 'little bit better'.
No, I am not aggressive. I may look aggressive and you may guess so, but all my comments was actually backed up with facts. So, I'm trying to defend facts. I may do it aggressively because my language is not good.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-359-IN
Trying to say that my '£250' a BS? Here you go:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-462-AS
Only a ~0.4 (6.93 vs 7.38) stock vs stock doesn't mean it 'whips it' at all. He also said that a ~0.5 (6.39 (from 3570k vs 6.93) is a 'little bit better'.
No, I am not aggressive. I may look aggressive and you may guess so, but all my comments was actually backed up with facts. So, I'm trying to defend facts. I may do it aggressively because my language is not good.
jamesriley94
New member
Google shopping says you can get a 2600k for £192 (although I probably wouldn't want to buy from a seller offering that price) Then with an MSI G45, I'd still rather have the Intel option any day.
And no - I never questioned your prices at all....
Whichever was you look at it, Intel still wins on one level or another. I don't think anyone would go out to buy a rig for the one and only purpose of rendering and choose an AMD for it.
And no - I never questioned your prices at all....
Whichever was you look at it, Intel still wins on one level or another. I don't think anyone would go out to buy a rig for the one and only purpose of rendering and choose an AMD for it.
refillable
New member
Your i7-2600k/Z77(you need to OC) will cost more than £300
I didn't say that you question my pricing, but I want to stop you from doing that in the next post.
That's my point. With £250 you could only get a 8350 and a 3570k plus a supporting Mobo. But, when we look at 8350's rendering capabilities (all 8 cores), the 8350 wins. The 3570k may be better for daily task, but doesn't mean it's better and all categories.
Your thinking is very wrong. People would buy a 8350 for rendering certainly. Go look at the benchmarks. I mean, what stops you? Pricing? No. Power Consumption? Umm... No when electricity is cheap (and you put your computer mostly idle). Overclockability? No. Memory Bandwitdh? No Mate! It doesn't matter. Per Core (single core/threaded) performance? Doesn't matter at all!
And Yes, that's my point. The review didn't state the positiveness of the processor. All negative and I say, they need to fix them. I don't think this is a problem at all.
I didn't say that you question my pricing, but I want to stop you from doing that in the next post.
That's my point. With £250 you could only get a 8350 and a 3570k plus a supporting Mobo. But, when we look at 8350's rendering capabilities (all 8 cores), the 8350 wins. The 3570k may be better for daily task, but doesn't mean it's better and all categories.
Your thinking is very wrong. People would buy a 8350 for rendering certainly. Go look at the benchmarks. I mean, what stops you? Pricing? No. Power Consumption? Umm... No when electricity is cheap (and you put your computer mostly idle). Overclockability? No. Memory Bandwitdh? No Mate! It doesn't matter. Per Core (single core/threaded) performance? Doesn't matter at all!
And Yes, that's my point. The review didn't state the positiveness of the processor. All negative and I say, they need to fix them. I don't think this is a problem at all.
Jeremy1998
New member
*couch cough*
I am a person who has built both an AMD, and an Intel system. I originally chose AMD for the 8 cores... I mean, how can 8 cores be bad at rendering?! So I spent $2000 on building a top of the line AMD rig. And I rendered on it... And it was stupidly slow at rendering. I mean STUPID slow. I have an Intel Core i5 laptop, that is a couple years old. My $2000 AMD system barely rendered faster than an old laptop.
Due to this, I went out and built a $4000 Intel system. And it can beat the absolute $*** out of anything. I will tell anyone to go with Intel from the start. It can beat an equivalently priced AMD system at everything.
I am a person who has built both an AMD, and an Intel system. I originally chose AMD for the 8 cores... I mean, how can 8 cores be bad at rendering?! So I spent $2000 on building a top of the line AMD rig. And I rendered on it... And it was stupidly slow at rendering. I mean STUPID slow. I have an Intel Core i5 laptop, that is a couple years old. My $2000 AMD system barely rendered faster than an old laptop.
Due to this, I went out and built a $4000 Intel system. And it can beat the absolute $*** out of anything. I will tell anyone to go with Intel from the start. It can beat an equivalently priced AMD system at everything.
+1 Without James' level headed approach this would have easily turned into a flaming match. Cudos to you James!
refillable
New member
No. That's not a good post at all. You don't bring benchmark here and I won't easily believe you. PovRay and Cinebench benchmark (in this review) could counter your statements too. It shows that 8350 is better than 3570k and 8150 being better than 2500k. And, I am sure you lied about that i5 Laptop, because it is just too unrealistic and you say that out without benchmarks.
You are literally just saying things without a real objective evidence. And, you guys are repeating yourself (with that) for a quite a few times. Which makes me repeating myself for a few time too.
'+1 Without James' level headed approach this would have easily turned into a flaming match. Kudos to you James!'
Nice joke. No, I didn't flame and James didn't do/post anything which can drop down my argument. I can answer all his posts with ease.
You are literally just saying things without a real objective evidence. And, you guys are repeating yourself (with that) for a quite a few times. Which makes me repeating myself for a few time too.
'+1 Without James' level headed approach this would have easily turned into a flaming match. Kudos to you James!'
Nice joke. No, I didn't flame and James didn't do/post anything which can drop down my argument. I can answer all his posts with ease.
Last edited:
jamesriley94
New member
Right,
You're saying the 8350 (8 core processor) is better than the 3570k (4 core processor) at rendering... Ok?
The 3570k is quite a lot better at day to day tasks, infact - pretty much everything except rendering, including gaming than the 8350.
The i7 ranges from Intel (3770k, 2700k, 2600k) give better rendering performance, and better performance in day to day tasks than the 8350, albeit, they are a little more expensive, but IMO you get a far better processor - it runs cooler, less power consumptious, overclocks better...
Your argument is based on the rendering capabilities alone of one processor against another processor. I can't see anyone building a computer for the one and only purpose of rendering, not using it for any day to day tasks whatsoever and putting in the 8350. It beats the 3570k marginally in rendering, yet the 3570k beats the 8350 at everything else, and by quite a long way. If you're rendering, most people would realise that to do a good job rendering, you need to be spending a fair amount on a processor and get a 3770k or a 3930k.
If someone is lacking in money and needs a machine to do rendering on, I can't see anyone thinking - let's spend £600 on a machine for the sole purpose of rendering. They'd buy a machine that may be a tiny bit worse at rendering, but a lot better at everything else - such as the 3570k, or realise they need to spend more on an i7 to get better rendering results.
I think this argument has gone on too long. It feels like you're only here to try and start an argument, whether you blame it on your language or not, it still comes across incredibly disrespectful to the site, and to Tom.
If you want to go out and buy a rendering machine with an 8350, do it. Nobody here is stopping you.
But I think I can speak for most of the users on this site in saying I'd want to spend a little more and get an i7 and see a lot better performance.
You're saying the 8350 (8 core processor) is better than the 3570k (4 core processor) at rendering... Ok?
The 3570k is quite a lot better at day to day tasks, infact - pretty much everything except rendering, including gaming than the 8350.
The i7 ranges from Intel (3770k, 2700k, 2600k) give better rendering performance, and better performance in day to day tasks than the 8350, albeit, they are a little more expensive, but IMO you get a far better processor - it runs cooler, less power consumptious, overclocks better...
Your argument is based on the rendering capabilities alone of one processor against another processor. I can't see anyone building a computer for the one and only purpose of rendering, not using it for any day to day tasks whatsoever and putting in the 8350. It beats the 3570k marginally in rendering, yet the 3570k beats the 8350 at everything else, and by quite a long way. If you're rendering, most people would realise that to do a good job rendering, you need to be spending a fair amount on a processor and get a 3770k or a 3930k.
If someone is lacking in money and needs a machine to do rendering on, I can't see anyone thinking - let's spend £600 on a machine for the sole purpose of rendering. They'd buy a machine that may be a tiny bit worse at rendering, but a lot better at everything else - such as the 3570k, or realise they need to spend more on an i7 to get better rendering results.
I think this argument has gone on too long. It feels like you're only here to try and start an argument, whether you blame it on your language or not, it still comes across incredibly disrespectful to the site, and to Tom.
If you want to go out and buy a rendering machine with an 8350, do it. Nobody here is stopping you.
But I think I can speak for most of the users on this site in saying I'd want to spend a little more and get an i7 and see a lot better performance.
refillable
New member
Hey listen here, the more post you give out, the more unclear that your points are. No I don't want to start a long argument at first, but I want you guys to point out the mistakes in this reviews. The fact is, no one including you, have been giving a right response why my points are wrong. I argue because all your points can be argued, mainly because it doesn't answer my points right.
I am solely talking about two things. Rendering and Price. Look here:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-359-IN
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM
Tell me, how can a £70 difference be 'a little bit more'? Then, see the benchmarks, are the i7 processors 'that' better? Not really. Ivy Bridge doesn't run cooler than 8350.
Yes, i7 would be generally a better processors than the 8350. But, I need you guys to point out, that when you render and you have a budget of £250, 8350 is a better option than the i5s. i7 is going to be out of budget. I want the review to point this out, not only the negative things only.
You mean daily tasks like Microsoft Office? Windows Explorer? Browsing the internet? (No gaming!). You don't need a good processor for those jobs and the 1 core 8350's performance is totally enough for the job. Also, if you are only doing rendering, why should you worry about the performance in other areas? And no, you have to know that not all people can 'spend a bit more (£70)'.
As I told you before (and I've repeat myself like ten times till now) I don't want to start an argument here, but I only want to point out the wrong things. It's actually you who starts the argument, why are you saying wrong things? And I mean disrespectful? In what way? I am pointing out the mistakes that could make the review better, not offending or something like that (although you might interpret it so because of my language skills).
Thank you. I think I should stop here because you want me to. Next time you shouldn't judge newbies. Newbies in here doesn't mean he/she's a newbie in the computer world. Oh yes...
I am solely talking about two things. Rendering and Price. Look here:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-359-IN
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM
Tell me, how can a £70 difference be 'a little bit more'? Then, see the benchmarks, are the i7 processors 'that' better? Not really. Ivy Bridge doesn't run cooler than 8350.
Yes, i7 would be generally a better processors than the 8350. But, I need you guys to point out, that when you render and you have a budget of £250, 8350 is a better option than the i5s. i7 is going to be out of budget. I want the review to point this out, not only the negative things only.
You mean daily tasks like Microsoft Office? Windows Explorer? Browsing the internet? (No gaming!). You don't need a good processor for those jobs and the 1 core 8350's performance is totally enough for the job. Also, if you are only doing rendering, why should you worry about the performance in other areas? And no, you have to know that not all people can 'spend a bit more (£70)'.
As I told you before (and I've repeat myself like ten times till now) I don't want to start an argument here, but I only want to point out the wrong things. It's actually you who starts the argument, why are you saying wrong things? And I mean disrespectful? In what way? I am pointing out the mistakes that could make the review better, not offending or something like that (although you might interpret it so because of my language skills).
Thank you. I think I should stop here because you want me to. Next time you shouldn't judge newbies. Newbies in here doesn't mean he/she's a newbie in the computer world. Oh yes...
- Status
