Cinebench fx 83504/1/2023 A system idle power consumption of 95W at idle is a 10W drop from the FX-8150, while a load system power consumption of 213W is a 30W improvement. There is good news when it comes to power consumption though. Clearly for those interested in high-performance gaming, the FX-8350 is a sub-standard CPU. However, again the Core i5-3570K comes out the easy victor, with a minimum frame rate of 28fps at stock and up to 36fps when overclocked. In Shogun 2’s CPU test the gap isn’t as jarring, and the FX-8350’s minimum frame rate of 17fps at stock is close to its predecessor’s minimum frame rate of 18fps when overclocked to 4.8GHz. A minimum frame rate of 50fps at stock and 61fps when overclocked, while improvements over the FX-8150, are both well below the 94fps stock minimum frame rate possible with an Intel Core i5-3570K, with overclocking driving that minimum frame rate up to 111fps. In our Skyrim CPU benchmark, the FX-8350’s poor single-threaded CPU performance really shows through, as it gets comprehensively demolished by the competing Intel chips. While an improvement over the FX-8150, single-threaded performance such as that in the majority of PC games, was a real disappointment The only plus point we can really take is that the gap between AMD and Intel hasn’t grown overall the FX-8150 was 26 per cent slower at stock than the i5-2500K, and the FX-8350 maintains this gap to the i5-3570K, despite it’s £50 comparative price cut. While this is at least faster than Intel’s Nehalem based i7-920 at stock, it’s a long way behind Intel’s Core i5-3570K, which score 2,248 points at stock and 2,851 points when overclocked. The overall result is pretty bad reading for AMD, with an overall tally of 1,660 points at stock and 1,914 points when overclocked. Clearly then performance here is stymied elsewhere, either in the 990FX platform or the FX-8350’s cache structure, which remains unchanged from Bulldozer. This is obviously a little baffling, as the FX-8350’s higher frequencies and optimisations mean we should have seen an improvement here. In our final multi-tasking test we were surprised to find that the FX-8350 no faster than its predecessor, with the minor difference in the two chips scores down to per-run variance rather than any drop or rise in performance. The multi-core nature of the architecture makes the FX-8350 more competitive in our handbrake H.264 video encoding test, but a score of 2,701 points at stock and 3,164 points when overclocked is still slower than Intel’s Core i5-2500K, let alone the Ivy Bridge i5-3570K which scores 3,1160 points at stock and 4,245 when overclocked. Performance in our Media Benchmarks was some way behind that of the Intel's competing part In comparison the i5-3570K score 1862 in this test, an 82 per cent advantage in performance. In the image editing portion the FX-8350 scored just 1020 points while this is an improvement over the FX-8150’s score of 887, it’s still slower than AMD’s Phenom II X6 1100T in the same test, a CPU based on the K10 architecture. Our Media Benchmarks simulate heavy image editing, video encoding and multi-tasking workloads and the FX-8350 proved slower than the i5-3570K in all three tests, sometimes by a huge amount. This also saw the FX-8350 better the i5-3570K at stock and when overclocked, again an indication of the Piledriver architecture’s superior multi-threaded performance.īeyond such multi-threading optimised benchmarks though, the FX-8350’s performance drops off very quickly indeed. In Wprime’s 32M test the FX-8350 again demonstrated a healthy improvement over its predecessor with a time of 8.754 seconds at stock and 7.354 seconds when overclock. Overclocked to 4.8GHz the FX-8350’s score rose to 8.25 points, again out-pacing the i5-3570K, even when overclocked to 5GHz. In Cinebench the FX-8350 produced a score of 6.92 at stock a fifteen per cent increase over the performance of the FX-8150 and 0.6 points ahead of the Core i5-3570K, although still behind the stock score of both the i7-2600K and i7-3770K. There are some wins for AMD though, although unsurprisingly they’re in heavily multi-threaded environments. It is important to optimise data loads into the processor and this requires an update to the compilers generating code for the processor and an update to the Operating System Scheduler.’ Well clearly those updates haven’t materialised (we did test with the suggested hot-fixes for Windows 7 applied), because, while an undoubted improvement over the FX-8150 and its Bulldozer architecture, the FX-8350 is still uncompetitive across a whole range of benchmarks. Performance AnalysisBack when we first looked at its Bulldozer core, AMD told us that ‘ the AMD FX processor, with its radical new design, represents a new way of processing that can be limited in previously compiled applications and OSes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |