First, some music.
Temps
Here is an 8120 at 4.3ghz, vs 8350 at 4.3ghz after 15 minutes of prime. This is with exactly the same bios settings and cooling(H60 with 2 Bgears Blasters)
8120:
8350:
8350 comes out swinging with a 9C reduction at the same voltage and clocks. Nice work AMD! 4.3ghz was the max i could get out of an 8120 with my H60, with the 8350 i can get 4.6ghz and I will show a few benchmarks with it at 4.6ghz.
Gaming
These were all done with a single MSI 6870 hawk GPU. The point of these tests is not to show which is faster(the rendering tests will show that), but rather to show that none of these CPU's bottleneck a 6870 card.
8120:
8350:
No real difference. 8350 comes out slightly on top but within an error margin. I call it a tie.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
Same story. The $200 GPU bottlenecks all three $200 cpu's.
FSXmark is a third party benchmark used to determine performance of a PC in the CPU dependant Flight Simulator X. This game favors intel above all else, but here are the results from all three CPU's in FSXmark:
8120:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6126, 300000, 13, 30, 20.420
8350:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7909, 300000, 16, 36, 26.363
8350@4.6ghz:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
8248, 300000, 18, 38, 27.493
The 8350 comes out with a +20% lead at the same clock! This game loves IPC, so the improvements made seem to show that. At 4.6ghz the 8350 comes out 1.34 times faster than the 8120@4.3ghz! Keep in ind, with an nvidia card you are likely to see even higher frame rates (FSX doesn't like ATI).
Media Creation
Reaper is an free Digital Audio Workstation that supports VST's and other plugins, and uses little system resources. For this test, I took every track from Children of Bodom's third album (Follow the Reaper) and placed them into their own track. Then I rendered all 9 tracks out to a wav file. This simulates a few guitars, bass, vocals, and a mic'd drumkit(without me having to do all that crap!)
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
The 8350 shows a 1% improvement clock for clock in this benchmark I have no idea why that is. At 4.6ghz though, it produces an 8% difference in this benchmark. Again, not bad!
Sony Vegas 11 is an editing program with a focus on short production times and smooth workflow. The 64 bit version can use up to 16 threads, so it's taylor made for piledriver. In this test I rendered a completed project of mine out through an XDCAM codec. The bitrate was 35mbps, 1080P@24fps. The source footage was a mix of 720@60fps and 1080@30fps, all shot with a Gopro Hero 2.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
The 8350 shows a 5% improvement at the same clocks, which is right inline with the estimated IPC improvments. Since piledriver is so much cooler, I was able to overclock to 4.6ghz, giving the 8350 a 10% improvment over the 8120!
Now the mack daddy of these benchmarks. In this test, I took a 15 second 1080P 30FPS clip, and used an plugin called twixtor to slow it down to 6%, making the 15 second clip 4 minutes long. Twixtor uses all kinds of magic and various buffs to effectively estimate where pixels should be in between two frames of video, and generate an artifical frame between them. It basically makes your 30FPS camera into a 300FPS camera. It is a huge resource hog, and in these tests my CPU's where showing 100% usage for hours.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
Yes, those are HOURS. The FX-8120@4.3ghz took 50minutes longer to render than the 8350 at the same clocks, and when the 8350 was at 4.6ghz, that lead jumps to a FULL HOUR of time saved! No question, Twixtor loves AMD!
With lower temps, better IPC, and hours of time saved when rendering large projects, Piledriver is a no brainer upgrade from Bulldozer. Add to this, the fact that the 8320 clocks just as high as an 8350, and you've got a solid $170 upgrade for your system.
Edited by Gundamnitpete - 10/28/12 at 10:43am
Temps
Here is an 8120 at 4.3ghz, vs 8350 at 4.3ghz after 15 minutes of prime. This is with exactly the same bios settings and cooling(H60 with 2 Bgears Blasters)
8120:
8350:8350 comes out swinging with a 9C reduction at the same voltage and clocks. Nice work AMD! 4.3ghz was the max i could get out of an 8120 with my H60, with the 8350 i can get 4.6ghz and I will show a few benchmarks with it at 4.6ghz.
Gaming
These were all done with a single MSI 6870 hawk GPU. The point of these tests is not to show which is faster(the rendering tests will show that), but rather to show that none of these CPU's bottleneck a 6870 card.
8120:
8350:
No real difference. 8350 comes out slightly on top but within an error margin. I call it a tie.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
Same story. The $200 GPU bottlenecks all three $200 cpu's.
FSXmark is a third party benchmark used to determine performance of a PC in the CPU dependant Flight Simulator X. This game favors intel above all else, but here are the results from all three CPU's in FSXmark:
8120:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6126, 300000, 13, 30, 20.420
8350:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7909, 300000, 16, 36, 26.363
8350@4.6ghz:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
8248, 300000, 18, 38, 27.493
The 8350 comes out with a +20% lead at the same clock! This game loves IPC, so the improvements made seem to show that. At 4.6ghz the 8350 comes out 1.34 times faster than the 8120@4.3ghz! Keep in ind, with an nvidia card you are likely to see even higher frame rates (FSX doesn't like ATI).
Media Creation
Reaper is an free Digital Audio Workstation that supports VST's and other plugins, and uses little system resources. For this test, I took every track from Children of Bodom's third album (Follow the Reaper) and placed them into their own track. Then I rendered all 9 tracks out to a wav file. This simulates a few guitars, bass, vocals, and a mic'd drumkit(without me having to do all that crap!)
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
The 8350 shows a 1% improvement clock for clock in this benchmark I have no idea why that is. At 4.6ghz though, it produces an 8% difference in this benchmark. Again, not bad!
Sony Vegas 11 is an editing program with a focus on short production times and smooth workflow. The 64 bit version can use up to 16 threads, so it's taylor made for piledriver. In this test I rendered a completed project of mine out through an XDCAM codec. The bitrate was 35mbps, 1080P@24fps. The source footage was a mix of 720@60fps and 1080@30fps, all shot with a Gopro Hero 2.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
The 8350 shows a 5% improvement at the same clocks, which is right inline with the estimated IPC improvments. Since piledriver is so much cooler, I was able to overclock to 4.6ghz, giving the 8350 a 10% improvment over the 8120!
Now the mack daddy of these benchmarks. In this test, I took a 15 second 1080P 30FPS clip, and used an plugin called twixtor to slow it down to 6%, making the 15 second clip 4 minutes long. Twixtor uses all kinds of magic and various buffs to effectively estimate where pixels should be in between two frames of video, and generate an artifical frame between them. It basically makes your 30FPS camera into a 300FPS camera. It is a huge resource hog, and in these tests my CPU's where showing 100% usage for hours.
8120:
8350:
8350@4.6ghz:
Yes, those are HOURS. The FX-8120@4.3ghz took 50minutes longer to render than the 8350 at the same clocks, and when the 8350 was at 4.6ghz, that lead jumps to a FULL HOUR of time saved! No question, Twixtor loves AMD!
With lower temps, better IPC, and hours of time saved when rendering large projects, Piledriver is a no brainer upgrade from Bulldozer. Add to this, the fact that the 8320 clocks just as high as an 8350, and you've got a solid $170 upgrade for your system.
Edited by Gundamnitpete - 10/28/12 at 10:43am
PINGAS!
(10 items) |
|
PINGAS!
(10 items) |
