AMD back in gear, Centurion FX

[galego]

Yeah... good luck with that.

I already have a space heater in my office.

From the table given before. Vishera @ 5.1 stock fan: 59--61 ºC. I suppose that Centurion would run cooler than an overclocked chip.

The extreme intel series, which is targeting the centurion, are not running much more cooler than that: 70--80 ºC.

 

[galego]

Idle
FX-8350: 95 W
i7-3960x: 179 W

Load
FX-8350: 213 W
i7-3960x: 289 W

The i7-3970x is not tested but its TDP is greater than i7-3960x

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One can only conclude that you are trolling.....

Yes, I disagree with you, so obviously the only explanation is that I'm trolling.

At any rate, I'll wait to see if this thing actually materializes before passing judgment on it, but I'm highly skeptical.

Idle
FX-8350: 95 W
i7-3960x: 179 W

Load
FX-8350: 213 W
i7-3960x: 289 W

The i7-3970x is not tested but its TDP is greater than i7-3960x

The i7-3960X also kicks the snot out of the FX-8350 in every conceivable way.

Heck, that same review shows the FX-8350 being equalled or outperformed by my now-five-year-old i7-920. Impressive.

 

[guskline]

Here is the Anandtech benchmark link of the FX8350 vs I7-920
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=47

Here is the comparison of the FX 8350 vs the I7-3960X
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=443

 

[Abwx]

Heck, that same review shows the FX-8350 being equalled or outperformed by my now-five-year-old i7-920. Impressive.

Actualy that is wishfull thoughts...

Look at a more consistent review and see where your i920000 fits..

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

 

[moonbogg]

Here is the Anandtech benchmark link of the FX8350 vs I7-920
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=47

Here is the comparison of the FX 8350 vs the I7-3960X
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=443

Whoa. Imagine if the clockspeeds were the same...

 

[Enigmoid]

Idle
FX-8350: 95 W
i7-3960x: 179 W

Load
FX-8350: 213 W
i7-3960x: 289 W

The i7-3970x is not tested but its TDP is greater than i7-3960x

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

Idle is heavily dependant on motherboard. The FX is using one of the more power efficient boards available for it. (They don't say what LGA 2011 mobo was used).

 

[MustangSVT]

I also want AMD to make a comeback, but will these "fanboy" battles ever end? it's getting pretty ridiculous.

 

[OS]

it will never end, it's like chevy vs ford

 

[Dadofamunky]

Whoa. Imagine if the clockspeeds were the same...

I haven't been around as much lately and that's the first time I've seen the benchmarking feature on AT's site. That is incredible. Nope, I think I'm doin' OK with my 2600K...

 

[SPBHM]

Idle
FX-8350: 95 W
i7-3960x: 179 W

Load
FX-8350: 213 W
i7-3960x: 289 W

The i7-3970x is not tested but its TDP is greater than i7-3960x

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

from the other review posted here:

idle:
3960x = 55w
8350 = 67w

peak while encoding:
3960x = 179w
8350 = 196w

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/4

 

[Exophase]

Idle
FX-8350: 95 W
i7-3960x: 179 W

Load
FX-8350: 213 W
i7-3960x: 289 W

The i7-3970x is not tested but its TDP is greater than i7-3960x

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

This has already been pointed out but I'm really curious so I hope you don't mind me asking.. How exactly did you interpret this huge > 80W difference in idle power consumption?

Looking at the data it raises a big red flag for me that the 3930K tested has a much lower idle figure (47W) despite being the same chip under a different binning.

 

[ShintaiDK]

From the table given before. Vishera @ 5.1 stock fan: 59--61 ºC. I suppose that Centurion would run cooler than an overclocked chip.

The extreme intel series, which is targeting the centurion, are not running much more cooler than that: 70--80 ºC.

You dont seem to understand the temperatures, or how its measured. Or when AMD chips either throttle or simply shut down compared to Intel chips.

Also the FX8350 draws 140W+ as IDC perfectly showed. Not to mention MSI, Asrock etc complains about the chip running out of spec for users and being throttled by the VRMs.

Just like all developers praise PS4. Nobody praised PS3, right?

 

[Abwx]

Also the FX8350 draws 140W+ as IDC perfectly showed.

Measured at the AC power cord , thus including all possible
losses even the ones that are not due to the CPU.

To measure a CPU consumption you ll have to measure
current and voltage at the output of the VRMs directly
so the term "perfectly" is all but adequate but we are
used to your agenda.

 

[Idontcare]

Your estimation is based on your chip not in tests with
a sizeable statistical sampling.

Where would your chip be positioned in this list ?.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvsxWM_f24kDdEQ4eGhrdzV2aU94QVBZV2R6LXdIY3c&output=html

I've seen what passes for "arm-chair engineering know-how" in enthusiast forums and a list of purported OC'ing stats from anonymous people with unknown educational background or working experience is no substitute either.

Please understand, I am perfectly OK with you walking around thinking a 5GHz piledriver chip running Prime95 will consume less than 200W. But also understand that I find such a notion to be patently absurd given the data I have collected with the chips in a controlled setting.

At stock, FX-8350 4GHz w/turbo disabled, running on an optimized undervoltage (1.268V, measured) cooled by an NH-D14 (max temp 30C) the power consumption at the wall is 276W for Prime95 LargeFFT.

Pushing that up to 4.8GHz, requiring 1.560V for stability (measured), resulted in 55C temperatures and power usage at the wall climbed nearly 200W to 470W.

Now I don't care how much of that 276W consumption at 4GHz you attribute to the FX-8350 itself, be it 140W or 10W...but the 200W increase in power consumption that comes when increasing clockspeed from 4GHz to 4.8GHz is pretty much coming from the CPU...unless you seriously think the mobo itself is dissipating +200W.

Now for some numbers, these are all for the same hardware on all systems (same PSU, same kill-a-watt, same ram, ssd, OS setup, vid-card, etc) excepting for the CPU and mobo. The mobo for the Intel is ASUS ROG MIVE-Z, the mobo for AMD is ASUS ROG CVFZ (equivalent class and capability premium mobos, expected to consume the same power as the other during a CPU-centric test like Prime95).

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz = 276W (at wall)

FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz = 470W (at wall)

i7-2600K @ 4.8GHz = 251W (at wall)

i7-3770K @ 4.8GHz = 224W (at wall)

Factor in power losses however and wherever you like, but you aren't going to convince me piledriver is going to use less than 200W at 5GHz.

 

[MisterMac]

I've seen what passes for "arm-chair engineering know-how" in enthusiast forums and a list of purported OC'ing stats from anonymous people with unknown educational background or working experience is no substitute either.

Please understand, I am perfectly OK with you walking around thinking a 5GHz piledriver chip running Prime95 will consume less than 200W. But also understand that I find such a notion to be patently absurd given the data I have collected with the chips in a controlled setting.

At stock, FX-8350 4GHz w/turbo disabled, running on an optimized undervoltage (1.268V, measured) cooled by an NH-D14 (max temp 30C) the power consumption at the wall is 276W for Prime95 LargeFFT.

Pushing that up to 4.8GHz, requiring 1.560V for stability (measured), resulted in 55C temperatures and power usage at the wall climbed nearly 200W to 470W.

Now I don't care how much of that 276W consumption at 4GHz you attribute to the FX-8350 itself, be it 140W or 10W...but the 200W increase in power consumption that comes when increasing clockspeed from 4GHz to 4.8GHz is pretty much coming from the CPU...unless you seriously think the mobo itself is dissipating +200W.

Now for some numbers, these are all for the same hardware on all systems (same PSU, same kill-a-watt, same ram, ssd, OS setup, vid-card, etc) excepting for the CPU and mobo. The mobo for the Intel is ASUS ROG MIVE-Z, the mobo for AMD is ASUS ROG CVFZ (equivalent class and capability premium mobos, expected to consume the same power as the other during a CPU-centric test like Prime95).

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz = 276W (at wall)

FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz = 470W (at wall)

i7-2600K @ 4.8GHz = 251W (at wall)

i7-3770K @ 4.8GHz = 224W (at wall)

Factor in power losses however and wherever you like, but you aren't going to convince me piledriver is going to use less than 200W at 5GHz.

They only need to convince themselves IDC.

That's how it works ^^

 

[galego]

Idle is heavily dependant on motherboard. The FX is using one of the more power efficient boards available for it. (They don't say what LGA 2011 mobo was used).

No, the FX is using an asus crosshair v formula, which is one of the more power hungry AM3+ mobos

Read also the footnote explaining that some of the Intel chips had about 20W extra benefit from using a more efficient form-factor mobo than the AMD chips.

 

[galego]

from the other review posted here:

idle:
3960x = 55w
8350 = 67w

peak while encoding:
3960x = 179w
8350 = 196w

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/4

There is another thread where I did an analysis of the techreport review. Among other evident tricks, they selected the more power hungry mobos for AMD chips and the more power efficient mobos for the intel chips.

My analysis focused in the i7-3770k and the MSI mobo used, but you can almost translate what I showed then to the so-called "Super Energy-Efficient LGA 2011" Intel mobo used for the intel 3960x.

 

[galego]

This has already been pointed out but I'm really curious so I hope you don't mind me asking.. How exactly did you interpret this huge > 80W difference in idle power consumption?

Looking at the data it raises a big red flag for me that the 3930K tested has a much lower idle figure (47W) despite being the same chip under a different binning.

Not the same chip. The extreme has more cache and a slightly higher clock.

 

[galego]

I've seen what passes for "arm-chair engineering know-how" in enthusiast forums and a list of purported OC'ing stats from anonymous people with unknown educational background or working experience is no substitute either.

Please understand, I am perfectly OK with you walking around thinking a 5GHz piledriver chip running Prime95 will consume less than 200W. But also understand that I find such a notion to be patently absurd given the data I have collected with the chips in a controlled setting.

At stock, FX-8350 4GHz w/turbo disabled, running on an optimized undervoltage (1.268V, measured) cooled by an NH-D14 (max temp 30C) the power consumption at the wall is 276W for Prime95 LargeFFT.

Pushing that up to 4.8GHz, requiring 1.560V for stability (measured), resulted in 55C temperatures and power usage at the wall climbed nearly 200W to 470W.

Now I don't care how much of that 276W consumption at 4GHz you attribute to the FX-8350 itself, be it 140W or 10W...but the 200W increase in power consumption that comes when increasing clockspeed from 4GHz to 4.8GHz is pretty much coming from the CPU...unless you seriously think the mobo itself is dissipating +200W.

Now for some numbers, these are all for the same hardware on all systems (same PSU, same kill-a-watt, same ram, ssd, OS setup, vid-card, etc) excepting for the CPU and mobo. The mobo for the Intel is ASUS ROG MIVE-Z, the mobo for AMD is ASUS ROG CVFZ (equivalent class and capability premium mobos, expected to consume the same power as the other during a CPU-centric test like Prime95).

FX-8350 @ 4.0GHz = 276W (at wall)

FX-8350 @ 4.8GHz = 470W (at wall)

i7-2600K @ 4.8GHz = 251W (at wall)

i7-3770K @ 4.8GHz = 224W (at wall)

Factor in power losses however and wherever you like, but you aren't going to convince me piledriver is going to use less than 200W at 5GHz.

There are several issues with your interpretation that the 200 W increase is due to the CPU alone, but let us ignore this and focus on data. From the same review cited before (they used Prime95 as well):

FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz = 213 W (at wall)

FX-8350 @ 4.8 GHz = 364 W (at wall)

i7-2600K @ 5.0 GHz = 313 W (at wall)

i7-3770K @ 4.8 GHz = 244 W (at wall)

Your 200 W are reduced to 151 W and the consumptions for the i7 are increased, reducing the gap.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actualy that is wishfull thoughts...

I didn't post that review, someone else did. I just commented on what that review shows for performance benchmarks.

If you're saying I can't take the performance numbers seriously, then why should I take the power consumption numbers from the same article seriously?

Here is the Anandtech benchmark link of the FX8350 vs I7-920
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=47

Okay, so AMD's 6-month old flagship product beats my 54-month old middle-of-the-line Intel chip.

Except for, trivial stuff like, single-threaded performance. But nobody cares about that.

Honestly, what does it say about AMD that they can't make a chip today that even remotely tempts me to upgrade my five-year-old platform?

 

[Enigmoid]

No, the FX is using an asus crosshair v formula, which is one of the more power hungry AM3+ mobos

Read also the footnote explaining that some of the Intel chips had about 20W extra benefit from using a more efficient form-factor mobo than the AMD chips.

The LGA 1155 is using the mini-ATX mobo, NOT the LGA 2011 chips.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5714/...ond-wind-for-asus-gigabyte-msi-and-biostar/17

You don't base all your conclusions off one review. Look at a few and take the average.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

From the same review cited before (they used Prime95 as well)...

I simply don't buy the power figures at idle in that review. They are not consistent with the reviews from any other site I have ever seen. And obviously, since they are measuring at the wall and the CPU is idle, most of those watts are coming from other devices by definition. They simply aren't meaningful.

At any rate, if you do want to accept their power numbers, then you also have to accept the performance numbers on the preceding pages, which show the i7-3770K utterly embarrassing the FX-8350 despite using less power under load.

 

[SPBHM]

There is another thread where I did an analysis of the techreport review. Among other evident tricks, they selected the more power hungry mobos for AMD chips and the more power efficient mobos for the intel chips.

My analysis focused in the i7-3770k and the MSI mobo used, but you can almost translate what I showed then to the so-called "Super Energy-Efficient LGA 2011" Intel mobo used for the intel 3960x.

another source showing the 130w TDP 3960x using less power (Interesting, the 125w TDP CPU from AMD uses the same power as teh 150w TDP CPU from intel.)

and since the 8350 takes longer to complete things:

 

[Chiropteran]

Someone should do a reality check chart on power usage, comparing the power usage by a computer to the power used by air conditioner, washer/dryer, dishwasher, plasma tv, etc.

These peak numbers are cute and all, but irrelevant for most users most of the time. Yeah I get it, if you want to run prime95 all the time then it might be important to you. Or maybe you could make the argument that people who run prime95 all the time obviously don't care about the environment or electricity waste, so what is an extra 100W?

It's a catch-22. Power usage is only remotely relevant if you run your CPU at 100% load 24/7, but if you are running your CPU at 100% load 24/7 you have already proven that you don't care about power usage. I may own 2 FX-8120 CPU, but I can confidently say that with my usage patterns I have used less electricity with these two computers than any single i5 CPU of any generation would use if it was running prime95 24/7 during the same time frame.

Your usage pattern has a huge impact on power, your CPU choice has a relatively minor impact. Reviews should make this more clear, I think a lot of clueless newbies are looking at the peak power usage charts and thinking that they actually use that much power when they are browsing the web. Highly deceptive, IMO.