Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: FX 8350 vs Ryzen 7 2700X - The last fight! Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-01-2019 09:27 AM
Kaltenbrunner so the bulldozer vs the ryzen 2700x? or was bullodzer before ? Either way the ryzen is great
05-24-2019 09:25 PM
cssorkinman R 7 2700 at default cpu speeds /cl14 3200 ram = 2960 pps in POV ray 3.7 - 5ghz FX 8 core is about 1900 - 16 core 5 ghz FX would score about 30% better on that bench than the R7 2700. It would pull about 600 watts vs 65 for the 2700 tho
05-23-2019 07:42 PM
ShrimpBrime That's exactly my point. The battle isn't just in the raw figures such as gaming FPS or benchmark scores.

Athlon 6400+ spanks out memory latency. My 3700K was one of the Intel chips I was able to get close with, but even at 5Ghz, just couldn't hack it.

My Athlon 220GE also stock can't hit 54ns latency.... it's more like 95ns (that's what I has installed atm)

You can still purchase FX chips with more recent binning. 69 bucks for an FX-8350 right now https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=FX+pro...rder=BESTMATCH

Probably clock better than the older early release chips.
05-23-2019 07:21 PM
cssorkinman
Quote: Originally Posted by ShrimpBrime View Post
You fellas need to put all the information together in order to make good arguments FX vs Zen.

I mean we are leaving out the actual reasons behind processing and the improvement on which developers seek, surely to processor more and faster, but also while using less energy.

Fact of the matter is, people that come in here and try to put 4770K against Ryzen and FX up against 9900K Intels are just going way to far outside the box to actually come to any real conclusion on any end result being a benchmark, game or other.
And also kinda crazy to pit an FX against even a Ryzen processor. It's not even close to a fair fight.

The word/terms we often see during chat often leave out efficiency. A FX losses all the battles just in lack of efficiency vs more modern processors. Doesn't matter in the end result Intel 4770Ks and AMD FX processors can't hold a candle to a Ryzen processor. It simply lacks the efficiency to do so.
H/T on the Ivy bridge cpu's didn't scale very well in Cinebench scoring. R 11.5 for example the physical cores at stock speed on a 3770k would produce about 1.58 points, the logical cores- .4! H/T was flat awful compared to the FX core.
Someone on the anandtech with a different example but same Idea.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...#post-37307387

Barrel used 8350 clockspeeds vs 2700x - I used a theoretical 16 core 9590 vs 2700 it would be darn close in CB R15 which is probably a surprise to most. ( opteron 6380 performance seems to bear this out) I'd have to test it , but I think the same 16 core FX would clobber the R7 in POV ray 3.7 to the tune of 3900 to 3000.

As for power consumption, that's a tough battle for FX to win against any cpu out there. One thing I'd point out though is that the my 8370-e would match my 4790K when both were clocked at 4.9 ghz , that was the point of convergence for power usage. It was slightly above my Devil' canyon voltage wall and just below that particular FX's . Work done at those clocks favored the DC heavily obviously.
05-23-2019 06:21 PM
ShrimpBrime
Quote: Originally Posted by B4rr3L Rid3R View Post
not really, there is no memory bandwidth and CB uses HT / SMT very welll, even if you double the score of 8350 it wouldn't match the 2700X.

The problem is that games ( DX12/Vulkan) doesn't use HT/SMT for the graphic engine but they do use integer cores as FX has. So it is better than R5 1500 (2400G) and i7 7700 for smooth DX12 and Vulkan gaming
.
Quote: Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post
The funny thing is bulldozer cores have an advantage over Ryzen's SMT ( and H/T of the time). Give an FX 9590 16 cores and it would run right with the R7's in benches that use all threads (scaling assumptions made of course - CB R15 as an example FX running 9590 speeds - 811 vs R 7 2700 1640 - 101.375 per core vs 102.5 per core ) Give that 16 core FX DDR4 and Ryzen might be in trouble.


Interesting article from BD era offers some insight in to core scaling of the BD arc vs Gulftown. Once the 6 core Gulftown has to use H/T - it loses ground quick.
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...AR-BULLSCALI82
You fellas need to put all the information together in order to make good arguments FX vs Zen.

I mean we are leaving out the actual reasons behind processing and the improvement on which developers seek, surely to processor more and faster, but also while using less energy.

Fact of the matter is, people that come in here and try to put 4770K against Ryzen and FX up against 9900K Intels are just going way to far outside the box to actually come to any real conclusion on any end result being a benchmark, game or other.
And also kinda crazy to pit an FX against even a Ryzen processor. It's not even close to a fair fight.

The word/terms we often see during chat often leave out efficiency. A FX losses all the battles just in lack of efficiency vs more modern processors. Doesn't matter in the end result Intel 4770Ks and AMD FX processors can't hold a candle to a Ryzen processor. It simply lacks the efficiency to do so.
05-23-2019 03:52 PM
B4rr3L Rid3R
Quote: Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post
The funny thing is bulldozer cores have an advantage over Ryzen's SMT ( and H/T of the time). Give an FX 9590 16 cores and it would run right with the R7's in benches that use all threads (scaling assumptions made of course - CB R15 as an example FX running 9590 speeds - 811 vs R 7 2700 1640 - 101.375 per core vs 102.5 per core ) Give that 16 core FX DDR4 and Ryzen might be in trouble.


Interesting article from BD era offers some insight in to core scaling of the BD arc vs Gulftown. Once the 6 core Gulftown has to use H/T - it loses ground quick.
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...AR-BULLSCALI82
not really, there is no memory bandwidth and CB uses HT / SMT very welll, even if you double the score of 8350 it wouldn't match the 2700X.

The problem is that games ( DX12/Vulkan) doesn't use HT/SMT for the graphic engine but they do use integer cores as FX has. So it is better than R5 1500 (2400G) and i7 7700 for smooth DX12 and Vulkan gaming
.
05-20-2019 09:01 PM
CravinR1 I miss my i7 3770K, FX 8350 and 8320 and even 6300. I do feel Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 3 2200G and my 2x Ryzen 7 1700x were worthy upgrades for $0 out of pocket after selling the first systems for better components on the second group.
05-20-2019 04:33 PM
cssorkinman The funny thing is bulldozer cores have an advantage over Ryzen's SMT ( and H/T of the time). Give an FX 9590 16 cores and it would run right with the R7's in benches that use all threads (scaling assumptions made of course - CB R15 as an example FX running 9590 speeds - 811 vs R 7 2700 1640 - 101.375 per core vs 102.5 per core ) Give that 16 core FX DDR4 and Ryzen might be in trouble.


Interesting article from BD era offers some insight in to core scaling of the BD arc vs Gulftown. Once the 6 core Gulftown has to use H/T - it loses ground quick.
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...AR-BULLSCALI82
05-20-2019 10:21 AM
miklkit
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
Handbrake uses AVX instructions

FX-8350 wasn't a true octocore , there was a lawsuit about it since it's more of a quadcore with CMT (there's only one floating point unit per module)

That frivolous lawsuit was thrown out of court. You should know this.
05-19-2019 03:03 PM
B4rr3L Rid3R
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
Handbrake uses AVX instructions

FX-8350 wasn't a true octocore , there was a lawsuit about it since it's more of a quadcore with CMT (there's only one floating point unit per module)
FX stiil have AVX but half the power + half the threads.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off