Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Hypothetical Question - FX-4300 vs. Phenom II X4 Clock for Clock
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hypothetical Question - FX-4300 vs. Phenom II X4 Clock for Clock - Page 8

post #71 of 131
It's clear that the Phenom is better clock for clock, core for core.


The only benefit of more than 4 cores is that that's more cores for non-gaming tasks like running the OS or other background tasks. That way, you have 4 cores devoted to gaming, and 2 more free for anything else that might crop up while gaming. But usually with an SSD, there isn't too much difference.

For example, I don't encode or play videogames at the same time. If I task switch to say a browser while running a game, the game isn't going to be using all the resources it could, so it's a non issue. with an SSD, task switching is instant and seamless almost regardless of core count. So really there is no major difference between 4 cores and 6 cores (or even 8 cores) if you're not running tons of background programs....programs you're most likely not using. it all comes down to resource management.

I could have a 1 million core processor....guess what, when I'm gaming.....that's all I'm doing at the time either way.

Phenom II is superior to FX hands down. If you shrunk a Phenom from 45nm to 32nm the energy savings would be about the same between them, and the Phenom would overclock just as well too...which would mean an even bigger performance increase with overclocking than with FX.

FX is primarily a production cost cutting design, that's all. This is because AMD has been struggling to remain profitable. they've bled soo much money, they technically haven't made any profit since 2010, except when they made the xbox and playstation. But that doesn't exactly increase overall profitability. If only one department profits for example, and there's 10 other departments, they all eat into those profits. It's the difference between having a 1 billion dollar company that makes 100K a year in profit.....or 1 billion a year in profit....less profit over all is just less profit overall.

So while AMD may be selling us sub $200 processors, their production costs are actually very low......and with the lack of research and development costs, their returns are even higher from sales.

So in essence, AMD has cheaped out to increase profits. Let's not forget, it took AMD 5 whole years just to double the performance of its processors. moore's law dictates this should happen every 18 months.....and it could very well have.....but AMD is more focused on staying afloat, which means a lot of cost saving measures and cut backs. This is why AMD is more than happy to release CPU's with massive energy requirements and subpar performance to watt ratio's......because rather than invest in R&D, they'd rather pass that cost on to the consumer.
Edited by AMDATI - 4/22/14 at 7:55am
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Reply
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 131
Phenom had reached its limit. Even if they shrunk it, I don't think it would have scaled that much more.
The problem with the whole BD/PD arch is that it just did not perform like AMD had hoped/theorized and that current software doesn't take full advantage of their design yet. So the arch was rushed to production and scavenged as much as it could.
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melcar View Post

Phenom had reached its limit. Even if they shrunk it, I don't think it would have scaled that much more.
The problem with the whole BD/PD arch is that it just did not perform like AMD had hoped/theorized and that current software doesn't take full advantage of their design yet. So the arch was rushed to production and scavenged as much as it could.
I agree. Are you using a 4+1 vrm mobo?
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 131
BD/PD performs just as AMD expected. It was made to clock high and compete with the first gen i7's. It does both.
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Phenom II is superior to FX hands down. If you shrunk a Phenom from 45nm to 32nm the energy savings would be about the same between them, and the Phenom would overclock just as well too...which would mean an even bigger performance increase with overclocking than with FX.
Not true. We know it's not true. The FM1-based Athlons were Stars cores on a 32nm process, and didn't even have the L3 cache as a possible impediment to overclocking. They don't overclock any better than 45nm Phenom II's did at the end of their production run.

If what you were claiming was true, then AMD would have simply continued to produce Phenom II chips at higher clock rates.
Quote:
FX is primarily a production cost cutting design, that's all.
You're contradicting yourself here. If they were only interested in cutting costs and a die-shrink of the Stars core could have continued to scale upwards in clock speed, then why would AMD have invested any R&D funding into developing and improving the Bulldozer core design? You do know that BD had been in development for several years before it saw the light of day, don't you? There would have been no point in that if they could have made Phenom II's on 32nm that could clock higher and overclock well.
Quote:
and with the lack of research and development costs, their returns are even higher from sales.
You're right. AMD's engineers did all of the work that went into developing Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller, Jaguar and now Kabini and didn't make the company pay a dime for all of their hard work. AMD's not spent anything on R&D since they released Phenom II. They're developing Excavator for free, too.
Quote:
Let's not forget, it took AMD 5 whole years just to double the performance of its processors. moore's law dictates this should happen every 18 months.....and it could very well have.....
How much has the performance of Intel processors increased in the last five years? Not much more than AMD's. There are tons of people on this very site still using Nehalem-based Intel chips from 2008-09 and doing very CPU-intensive tasks on them. Moore's Law was bogus from the very beginning and is totally deprecated now.
Quote:
This is why AMD is more than happy to release CPU's with massive energy requirements and subpar performance to watt ratio's......because rather than invest in R&D, they'd rather pass that cost on to the consumer.
AMD doesn't have access to the best fabs in the world. They belong to Intel. If AMD had access to 22nm fabs, they'd make their desktop CPU's on that process, and they'd have much lower power consumption. But they don't. They have shown, however, that they can make an efficient APU, even with having to use inferior production facilities. We've seen that with Jaguar and Kabini.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

It's clear that the Phenom is better clock for clock, core for core.


The only benefit of more than 4 cores is that that's more cores for non-gaming tasks like running the OS or other background tasks. That way, you have 4 cores devoted to gaming, and 2 more free for anything else that might crop up while gaming. But usually with an SSD, there isn't too much difference.

For example, I don't encode or play videogames at the same time. If I task switch to say a browser while running a game, the game isn't going to be using all the resources it could, so it's a non issue. with an SSD, task switching is instant and seamless almost regardless of core count. So really there is no major difference between 4 cores and 6 cores (or even 8 cores) if you're not running tons of background programs....programs you're most likely not using. it all comes down to resource management.

I could have a 1 million core processor....guess what, when I'm gaming.....that's all I'm doing at the time either way.

Phenom II is superior to FX hands down. If you shrunk a Phenom from 45nm to 32nm the energy savings would be about the same between them, and the Phenom would overclock just as well too...which would mean an even bigger performance increase with overclocking than with FX.

FX is primarily a production cost cutting design, that's all. This is because AMD has been struggling to remain profitable. they've bled soo much money, they technically haven't made any profit since 2010, except when they made the xbox and playstation. But that doesn't exactly increase overall profitability. If only one department profits for example, and there's 10 other departments, they all eat into those profits. It's the difference between having a 1 billion dollar company that makes 100K a year in profit.....or 1 billion a year in profit....less profit over all is just less profit overall.

So while AMD may be selling us sub $200 processors, their production costs are actually very low......and with the lack of research and development costs, their returns are even higher from sales.

So in essence, AMD has cheaped out to increase profits. Let's not forget, it took AMD 5 whole years just to double the performance of its processors. moore's law dictates this should happen every 18 months.....and it could very well have.....but AMD is more focused on staying afloat, which means a lot of cost saving measures and cut backs. This is why AMD is more than happy to release CPU's with massive energy requirements and subpar performance to watt ratio's......because rather than invest in R&D, they'd rather pass that cost on to the consumer.


Moore's law is transistor count doubling in roughly 18 months. Not double the performance. Has Intel doubled their performance in the last 18 months? The answer is no. Not even close.
post #77 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason387 View Post

I agree. Are you using a 4+1 vrm mobo?

According to Asus it's 4+2. Allows me to clock as high as I need/want, though I plan to change boards come summer just for fun.
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melcar View Post

According to Asus it's 4+2. Allows me to clock as high as I need/want, though I plan to change boards come summer just for fun.
How far have you overclocked the CPU on it before throttling kicks in?
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
post #79 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason387 View Post

How far have you overclocked the CPU on it before throttling kicks in?

The most I have pushed is 4.5GHz, but I need 1.52v (load) for that. Temps get out of control (85*C socket, 73*C core, 30*C case), but no throttling. Haven't bothered testing much over that.
I just leave it at 4.2GHz since that seems the most efficient when it comes to volts and temps.
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 7 1700 AX370-Gamin K7 Nitro+ RX480 Corsair LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA 750 G2 Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
post #80 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melcar View Post

The most I have pushed is 4.5GHz, but I need 1.52v (load) for that. Temps get out of control (85*C socket, 73*C core, 30*C case), but no throttling. Haven't bothered testing much over that.
I just leave it at 4.2GHz since that seems the most efficient when it comes to volts and temps.
Thanks. I'll be getting the FX 8350 soon. Hope my mobo keeps up.
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
Jay
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8350 4.4Ghz at 1.36v GA 78LMT USB3 Rev 5.0 Sapphire R9 285 OC 16GB Kingston Savage Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Western Digital 500GB Seagate Barracuda Noctua NH-D15S Windows 8.1 
MonitorPowerMouseMouse Pad
Asus MG279Q Fressync OCZ ZS 650 Watt PSU Dragonwar ELE-G9 Dragonwar 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Hypothetical Question - FX-4300 vs. Phenom II X4 Clock for Clock