Still cannot outclass the i5. Sigh!
The review starts by saying the part is priced against i3 CPUs, and then fails to include an i3 in the benchmarks?
I still came away thinking that these E CPUs are a niche product for people with existing motherboards that can't take a full fat FX CPU. The FX8350 still seems the best of the AMD parts here.
OilSheikh
Still cannot outclass the i5. Sigh!
the i5 also outclassed one of the i7's in gaming; its a quality processor. For £30 less this is still a decent CPU from the benchmarks. for 1080p gaming, that £30 would be better off in a GPU.
Bit silly putting the 5960x up there but not the similarly priced i3.
Yup bit confused with this as you start out with saying the price is inline with the i3 range so why not include the i3 part within the test guys? We all know by now that what Company A thinks their product competes with from Company B is invalid so please just go by price!
Also the fact that the motherboard looks to be taking an extra 19w at idle means the power consumption benchmark is irrelevant, you're saying it should be similar to the 8730e but it should still be slightly lower than this based on the clocks no? so there is a difference in power usage, really should just exclude this as the motherboard has tainted those results.
With regards to the gaming section I would suggest you look at the difference as a whole as it would show it differently, for instance vs the i5 its £40 you said so I just had a quick google and you can get the GTX 770 for £250 and the GTX 780TI for £290, thats £40 of a quick google so comparing those two cards, i5 + 770 vs FX 8320e + 780TI how does it fair in the gameplay area? It probably does better therefore it is a better buy than the i5 surprisingly.
Hoping the next AMD architecture rectifies the issues with initial bulldozer design so they can finally be back on top :D.
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed in the spread of reviewed chips as well. The Core i5-4570 seem to be about £150 online atm. Hardly a fair comparison for a £110 chip, that's a one third premium!
Looks like a cracking chip, should be the top of anyone's list building a budget gaming rig.
DanceswithUnix
The FX8350 still seems the best of the AMD parts here.
Surely that should be FX8370? The £17 extra (according to Scan) seems money well spent for the prospect of a little more top end.
Re: the article, it's maybe a daft thing to ask, but I've got to wonder if the lower TDP of the “E” parts makes them a better prospect for overclocking than the full-fat versions. Going on the benchmarks in the article, someone looking for a new rig would be a twit if they didn't go i5, unless they were really constrained by price - the poor old AMD parts seem to be slower, yet consume more power.
That said, my overclocked AMD setup seems to run fine, so maybe I'm not missing the performance I don't have. ;)
crossy
Surely that should be FX8370? The £17 extra (according to Scan) seems money well spent for the prospect of a little more top end.
They didn't bench the 8370 though, just the sluggish E version. But yes, if I was building a machine now, I would be considering the 8370.
Back in the days of paper magazines (do you still get those? :D ) one of them used to get PC building companies to send in a machine which was available to buy at a price point. So eg shootout of machines under £500. That was interesting, as it showed the effects on benchmarks of moving £30 off the CPU and onto the GPU and generally getting the balance right.
I was considering buying one of these 8 core chips to upgrade my system and I was not impressed by the reviews. Seems like AMD are squeezing the last out of the AM3+ socket and not pushing forward like Intel is. I have been very much a AMD guy for years and I am seriously considering spending more for a Intel chip that will outperform anything AMD will bring to the table. In doesn't matter if they throw more cores and GHZ at it, if the architecture is not good then it's a waste of time. AMD remind me of Jeremy Clarkson……. more power and speed instead of brains (only the Top Gear fans will get that)
jimbouk
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed in the spread of reviewed chips as well. The Core i5-4570 seem to be about £150 online atm. Hardly a fair comparison for a £110 chip, that's a one third premium!
If someone cares about a 40 quid difference then they really need to be calculating their electricity costs over the life of the computer. A more expensive chip may be well worth it if it's not sucking as much juice as a hungry cheaper one. This does assume that the computer isn't paid for out of pocket money and the electricity out of Mum's household budget. ;-)
I'm still waiting for an affordable 6 / 8 core Intel chip, maybe next year :P
DarkflameZM
I'm still waiting for an affordable 6 / 8 core Intel chip, maybe next year :P
Intel producing something people want at a price they want to pay? Never, its not their business plan.
deejayburnout
I was considering buying one of these 8 core chips to upgrade my system and I was not impressed by the reviews. Seems like AMD are squeezing the last out of the AM3+ socket and not pushing forward like Intel is. I have been very much a AMD guy for years and I am seriously considering spending more for a Intel chip that will outperform anything AMD will bring to the table. In doesn't matter if they throw more cores and GHZ at it, if the architecture is not good then it's a waste of time. AMD remind me of Jeremy Clarkson……. more power and speed instead of brains (only the Top Gear fans will get that)
You should still consider it, but just steer well clear of the “E” versions. It is a decent upgrade for the money if you already have a motherboard that can take it.
Compare your 965BE against a FX8350:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/102?vs=697Why those two? Because decent benchmarks are really hard to find, and it is pretty close to the 8370 which only has a slight bump to turbo frequencies.
OilSheikh
Still cannot outclass the i5. Sigh!
How many i5 CPUs can you find retailing at £110? :rolleyes:
devBunny
If someone cares about a 40 quid difference then they really need to be calculating their electricity costs over the life of the computer. A more expensive chip may be well worth it if it's not sucking as much juice as a hungry cheaper one.
But in the case of the reviewed chips, it doesn't come anywhere near 40 quid. Difference at idle (most of computer use) is precisely 0. The time spent at full load over the lifetime of a desktop computer is nowhere near enough to make back a 40 quid outlay.
The power savings makes the FX8320E a better fit for the £40 to £50 AMD 970 and 760G based motherboards though.
Having said that the E series chips appear to be a new revision - it makes me wonder whether ALL of the newer FX chips are this revision??
What grates me the most here is that AMD expects us customers to bear with them while they get their act together and release a new architecture. But, as soon as AMD go to 2xnm, they'll drop support for AM3+ in the blink of an eye (possibly in the guise of DDR4 support).
Nothing surprising here. Intel's x86 stupid licensing model will never allow for any meaningful competition. This is why I have my fingers crossed for ARM powered desktops to enter the market. Ideally in the form of mediatek SoCs. American-free processing power. That's the dream
Hicks12
Yup bit confused with this as you start out with saying the price is inline with the i3 range so why not include the i3 part within the test guys? We all know by now that what Company A thinks their product competes with from Company B is invalid so please just go by price!
Also the fact that the motherboard looks to be taking an extra 19w at idle means the power consumption benchmark is irrelevant, you're saying it should be similar to the 8730e but it should still be slightly lower than this based on the clocks no? so there is a difference in power usage, really should just exclude this as the motherboard has tainted those results.
With regards to the gaming section I would suggest you look at the difference as a whole as it would show it differently, for instance vs the i5 its £40 you said so I just had a quick google and you can get the GTX 770 for £250 and the GTX 780TI for £290, thats £40 of a quick google so comparing those two cards, i5 + 770 vs FX 8320e + 780TI how does it fair in the gameplay area? It probably does better therefore it is a better buy than the i5 surprisingly.
Hoping the next AMD architecture rectifies the issues with initial bulldozer design so they can finally be back on top :D.
Might not be everyone cup of tea, but you can pick up a 2nd hand r9 290 from ebay for 150 quid and spend the rest on a good cpu.