Over at Techgage one of the writers recently updated their system, due to budget constraints they needed to stay in the $600-700 range all told which of course indicates an AMD build. They chose the $138 FX-8320E for their processor, along with a pair of GTX 760s, the ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2.0, 8GB of DDR3-1866 and with storage, power, cooling and case they managed to keep within the ir budget. The question remain is if it is powerful enough for reasonable gaming duties such as Borderlands 2. Read on to see if the recommendation is to go with AMD or the i3-4330 and a low end H97 board.
"Released this past fall, AMD’s FX-8320E processor promises to deliver a lot of processing power for those on a budget. It sports eight cores, and as a Black Edition, its overclocking capabilities are unrestricted. But is that enough to make this the best go-to budget processor, especially for gamers?"
Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- A10-7800 CPU Review @ Hardware Secrets
- AMD A8-7650k Kaveri @ eTeknix
- A10-6800K vs. Core i3-4150 CPU Review @ Hardware Secrets
Weird, rambly blog post. He
Weird, rambly blog post. He replaced an old 3.2ghz AMD quad core CPU with a nex-gen 3.2 GHz octacore, and was surprised the new didn’t perform radically different… on single threaded benchmarks. Gasp! But wait, it did a lot better on benchmarks utilizing the extra cores! He needed to set up a test for that conclusion?
The disappointment comes from
The disappointment comes from not being aware of the fact that AMD have actually regressed since K10 architecture in terms of instructions per second for a core. Intel has made great progress at the same time.
In addition the 8 cores are not really independent cores but there are only one floating point unit per 2 integer units. That means that for many workloads the eight core works more like a 4 core. That can also be a disappointment when coming from a true 4 core processor and expecting something like double performance.
The 8320E overclocked nicely from 3200 MHz to 4600MHz – making it on par with higher priced AMD processors – still it is disappointing because of the low IPS.
It’s instructions per clock,
It’s instructions per clock, IPC, as literally billions of instructions can be executed per second, best case amortization for the highest theoretical instructions executed per second. IPC can vary also depending on speculative execution and pipeline efficiency, as well as code optimizations. IPS can vary greatly depending on many more possible asynchronous software events, as can IPC to a lesser degree depending more on the cache size, and execution pipeline depth, reorder buffer size, and other CPU core hardware execution resources.
Of course some benchmark software compiled on Intel compilers tends to favor “genuine Intel” over any competing x86 microarchitecture. One needs to read up on various Antutu and other benchmark shenanigans. For sure the IPC metric is more accurate to a degree, with the proper hand optimized assembly code to take advantage of optimizations and to guard against occurrences like compiler optimizations flags not set, and other nefarious means to game the system.
You are right, instructions
You are right, instructions per clock (or cycle) would have been the correct term. Instructions per second = IPC * cycles per second. If AMD have succeeded in bringing the cycles per second (MHz of processor) slightly up since K10, it will not do much good when IPC is regressing. And when all comparisons are made against Intel’s success in boosting the IPC count in their processors.
It’s GHz, and has been for
It’s GHz, and has been for some time, and its very hard to judge based on theoretical maximum IPC, as different workloads perform differently, depending on the algorithms used in a CPUs microarchitecture too achieve the IPC. The amount of code optimization plays a great role in insuring the best IPC outcomes, and if a game engine developer does not take advantage of the proper code optimization/compiler options to target a specific microarchitecture, then that code will not run well on the CPUs cores. The recent improvement in AMD cores with respect to the newer DX12 optimizations shows that the software sure had some catching up to do relative to AMDs cores, and Intel’s IPC advantage, as it is, will probably continue even with Zen’s arrival, but AMDs more HSA aware hardware, and HSA’s ability to perform more GPGPU on the GPU core, among other HSA types of performance improvements will be to Intel’s disadvantage. Certainly UMA(Unified memory addressing) is an advantage compered to moving billions of bytes of memory too and from any non unified memory pools between CPU’s and GPUs, passing an 8 byte pointer can be done in one memory cycle, compared to having to move billions of bytes in millions of memory cycles. Game physics on the GPU is just getting off of the ground, and for sure all the GPUs parallel resources dwarfs the parallel resources of even the highest multicore CPUs.
Single core IPC will become
Single core IPC will become even less of a factor now that Mantle/Vulkan, and DX12 are taking advantage of more processing core/threads parallelism. If AMD’s new Zen Microarchitecture can take advantage of SMT and better cache, reorder, and more execution ports/pipelines to service the processor threads, that IPC count will go up for any remaining code that can not be executed in parallel. Most gaming code does benefit from parallel resources, just look at GPU code, so with the right graphics APIs and gaming engine support, now coming online to support Mantle/Vulkan, and DX12, expect that single core metric to not be as big of an issue going forward.
Jeremy do your articles
Jeremy do your articles actually contain anything other than you reporting other sites stuff? You make no original content, reviews or anything, I don’t see the point in you…..
If the site does not produce
If the site does not produce something everyday for its readers, it will lose many of them. For that reason it makes sense to produce some filler articles to have something to offer even when there are no original articles. Think of it more like a portal to tech news around the web. Frequent visits to the site keeps also advertisers happy.
and I don’t see the point in
and I don't see the point in you…..
Jeremy did a review
Jeremy did a review once:
https://pcper.com/reviews/Displays/Thats-not-monitor-monitor-Meet-Dell-UltraSharp-U3011-Review
I do see the point in
I do see the point in it…it’s called news and it saved me from searching the net for it.
I don’t see the point in anonymous posts.
under DX12 it will perform
under DX12 it will perform radically better than under current API. It is probably best value CPU for that.
OEM spec FX 8310 is faster
OEM spec FX 8310 is faster base clock (3.4), faster “turbo” (4.3), same 95w TDP, and cheaper (IF you are gonna go aftermarket cooling anyway, since no fan included). Tiger Direct has $129 currently, offered it at $99 twice in the last few weeks.
pcper will release anything
pcper will release anything anti-amd nowadays. cool
this is not “Anit-AMD” this
this is not “Anit-AMD” this is looking at the ever so sad fact that Intel’s only true x86 competition is using a 4 year old architecture that was horribly flawed from the get-go, and as a clear attempt to tread water they have been tweaking and trying and streamlining all to make a not so great CORE “more betterer”. In that same time, intel has shrunk to 22nm, THEN to 14nm, invented a new “M” product line, gotten so efficient they are approaching cold-to-the-touch CPUs (not yet but getting there), and they flooded the market with a true challenger to ARM, and they even turned their black-sheep, the ATOM, from a joke into a serious CPU.
A lot of us want to buy only AMD CPUs, but there is just no good argument left at this point. They are SOOOOOOO far behind the competition the only real reason to buy AMD-FX is emotional, for the cost, as the linkd-to article said, it’s sad when AMD’s 8 core flagship has less going for it than intels basic 2 core cheap unit, AND they are almost exactly the same price.
It’s sad, I’m sad. I think I’m gona eat some cake.
Intel has not invented any
Intel has not invented any radically new microarchitecture in quite a while, Intel has mostly been milking its market share position and out spending the competition getting/maintaining its fab process node lead. Intel has spent about 7 billion dollars in contra revenue trying to buy its way into the mobile/tablet market, a 7 billion that could very well have been spent producing a more RISC like microarchitecture to compete with the ARM market, that incidentally even though most of the ARM SOC SKUs are fabbed on a larger processor node, the ARM SOCs are more efficient than Intel’s CISC base product even with Intel’s process node lead.
Intel has struggled with its x86 ATOM line of SKUs to even achieve parity in power usage, relative to the more efficient RISC designs of the ARM based market leaders like Apple, and others. Intel’s graphics for its Tablet SKUs is much too expensive relative to its performance compared to the PowerVR, or Nvidia offerings, and when the K12 based AMD custom ARM based variants begin arriving, possibly offering SMT, and with AMDs graphics and AMD’s HSA capabilities, it will be a whole new ballgame. AMD will not have to struggle with getting AMD’s x86 into the lowest power envelope, as AMD will have its custom ARM microarchitecture for the job of low power using, high performing custom ARM based APUs, to give Apple some real competition in the Tablet market. Intel is now stuck with trying to break the laws of physics in getting its CISC x86 designs to compete with the RISC designs now that Intel’s fab process node lead is shrinking.
What Intel processor are you
What Intel processor are you talking about? I see the i5-4590S going for the exact price as the AMD FX-8370, and the i5 is a quad core, definitely not low end, part.
you are absolutely right! It
you are absolutely right! It has been a while since I checked the cpu prices and yes, you can get a nice 4 core i5 for the same price as a FX-8370, the 4590S is more expensive but there are plenty of excellent i5’s in the price-range. I apologize for my mistake.
We were all in the dark
We were all in the dark before DX11 does not allow true multicore CPU/ GPU functionality, it is all over the web. DX12 for the first time ever will allow this functionality , so you can be sure AMD performance will make a significant difference her.
So, he selected a MB capable
So, he selected a MB capable of powering the power hungriest, fastest clocked FX processor on the planet… then he selected and installed the absolutely slowest clocked, low power version in the current FX lineup. Then he is surprised and disappointed that this frankly idiotic muddle of parts doesn’t perform as well as he hoped.
His conclusion? There is no point in upgrading any AMD system, and everyone who needs a new system should run out and buy Intel.
My conclusion? If you are out of touch by a few years on your hardware knowledge, post your prospective build specs on a knowledgeable forum for comment before pulling the trigger.
True – any money spent on new
True – any money spent on new AMD setup is waste and doesn’t make any sense when you could buy lower end i5 with non overclockign mobo.
Or, IF you are on a budget
Or, IF you are on a budget and IF using your pc for most types of gaming is your focus… You could take the extra money you wasted buying the I5’s excess CPU capacity that sits idle 90% of the time and use it to buy a better GPU that actually does something for gaming.
I know that you know better, but isn’t it weird how many people build a machine with an I5/I7 CPU, and then put something like a 750ti video card in it? Because that is “what they could afford?” Poor GPU is busting a gut, and the CPU is struggling to stay awake.
Kinda funny. That is the boat
Kinda funny. That is the boat I am in. I received a new i7 4790K, RAM and a mobo. Old system was a C2Q era Xeon with DDR2 and I had bought a 750Ti to keep it chugging along. Now I need to invest in something higher end.
Maybe you did not notice that
Maybe you did not notice that he overclocked the processor from 3200MHz to 4600MHz – making it essentially on par with its power hungry brethren. And as power hungry as well.
The conclusion would have been the same with any AM3+ processor.
Yeah, I don’t really
Yeah, I don’t really understand the 8320E choice with the regular 8320 being about the same price. This “tech review” seems like a troll. I don’t really understand the AMD bashing either. Without AMD intel is free to charge whatever it chooses for a premium processor, especially in the 200-300 price range. I could be off on this, but I can’t help but think intel people should be thankful AMD exists to keep some competition in the mid price range CPU market.
8320 or 8320E who cares ?
8320 or 8320E who cares ? Both are power hungry junk.
TDP difference between the
TDP difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs mentioned in the article is 41 watts. Gaming 20 hours a week would cost me about 14¢ extra for AMD. That is assuming you are running the processor flat out at 100%, which of course you aren’t…
That’s not that relevant for
That’s not that relevant for most desktop gamers. People buy PSUs that are way over rated for their rig, and then complain about power usage in reviews.
When overclocked, the 8320E
When overclocked, the 8320E is as good as the regular 8320. And that is what he did.
I agree with you about AMD’s function to keep Intel’s pricing more reasonable. On the other had, Intel probably likes the current situation: having some nominal competition keeps the antitrust charges at bay. Still Intel can make great profits and subsidy its phone and tablet processors against the ARM competition. Intel could smoke AMD out of the x86 business, but it would be really stupid: having a monopoly attracts regulators.
Hey Jeremy, I got this great
Hey Jeremy, I got this great idea for an article!
I “upgrade” my last generation, enthusiast level video card, say an Nvidia 780… but, I “upgrade” to the slowest current generation card, say the GTX 960. Then I’ll do some elaborate sounding bench tests to “discover” what everyone with a brain already knows just from glancing at the specs.
Next, I will act disappointed that my upgrade results are poor. Clearly Nvidia has made no progress with their new cards! Shouldn’t their slowest new card beat the pants off an enthusiast card from last generation?
Finally, I will conclude that: anyone with an older Nvidia card shouldn’t waste their money upgrading to a GTX 9xx series card, and anyone building a new system should run out and buy AMD.
Sounds good, huh?
You also seemed to miss the
You also seemed to miss the fact that he overclocked the 8320E from 3200MHz to 4600MHz – making it essentially on par with the higher clocked alternatives. The conclusion of the article would not have been very different with any of the current AM3+ processors.
Why not? There are a huge
Why not? There are a huge amount of new PC builders who would do exactly that because the price is good and the number is higher.
It’s not worth buying
It’s not worth buying anything AMD if one is in the US and has a microcenter nearby. I recently picked up a 4690K for my old man and it only cost $199. Completely destroys any AMD offering at that price, while using less power, which directly leads to a lower chance of catastrophic motherboard failure.
My RMA department has seen scores of AMD processor / motherboard combos come back with both a failed CPU and failed voltage regulation on the board, even top end AMD boards from well known manufacturers struggle to consistently feed clean power to truly idiotic processors like the 9370 and 9590. It doesn’t help that even at 5ghz the performance on these chips can’t match even midrange intel units.
That’s a good anecdote, but
That’s a good anecdote, but doesn’t really prove anything.
Even the manufacturers
Even the manufacturers specification differences prove enough. The highest end AMD processor ships with a staggering 220W TDP. For a fake 8-core processor that behaves more like a hyperthreaded 4-core processor. Take this against intel’s highest end consumer offering, which is a true 8-core unit, and unequivacably faster than the AMD offering, coming in at 140W TDP.
This means the AMD board needs higher quality voltage regulation, and the power hardware is going to be stressed harder, it also means the AMD processor needs more exotic cooling, at 220W TDP, standard air coolers like the venerable hyper 212 become essentially useless. This isn’t an anecdote, it’s basic engineering reality. AMD can’t hang with Intel at the moment with regard to the CPU game. It’s sad, it’s unfortunate, and I wish things were different, but they aren’t, and I shudder every time I see an order for an AMD machine processed, even on the low end. There are absolutely no compelling reasons to pick any currently existing AMD processor over an intel. I’d suggest swallowing some reality and dealing with that.
For sure nothing competes
For sure nothing competes with Intel’s current crop of Ultrabook weak SKUs like Intel’s previous quad core offerings on sale at microcenter/other retailers. I always get Quad core i7 laptops, and Blender’s rendering can keep all the processor cores/threads pegged at 100% for hours doing that ray tracing rendering. Those Last year’s i7 laptop models are a real bargain, and they come with discrete GPUs. I just laugh at all of the ultrabooks overpriced loads of crap, and get a last year’s model, new quad core i7 for around the same price, including discrete GPU. Those deals wont last forever, and for sure I always get a discrete GPU for the graphics work, Intel’s low SPs/tessellation/other execution unit counts on its GPU may be enough for light gaming, but for graphics work the more SP/CU/tessellation/whatever units on AMD’s, or Nvidia’s, GPUs are better for gaming and graphics work also!
well for anyone who has zero
well for anyone who has zero interest in mmo’s, rts’s and online gaming in general, or have no problem playiing on lowest settings this is a awesome buy, but for those of us who want to push at least 25fps in raids, online multilayer,rts’s this is the worst product out there, even their own previous gen phenoms outperform these parts in those areas like crazy.
I went from fx 8120 @4,7ghz to fx 8350 @5,2ghz to g3258 @4,7ghz and finally to my i7 860 @4,0ghz and guess what every time it was a big upgrade,except for fx 8120 to fx 8350(was hoping for better performance in mmo’s didn’t happen), going to pentium was immense eye opening moment, every game suddenly maxed out my gpu usage and even thing like crysis 3 found the higher ipc more likable than mar cores, not to mention this old i7 i got outperforms those amd cpu in every game aswell, not to mention the ic difference even in things like cinebench i get a lot better results with this ancient i7@4,0ghz than i ever did with my fx 8350@5,2ghz(even testing it on 5,4ghz it wasn’t a contest, reviewers should also test cpu’s using mmo’s, no other game can bring a cpu to it’s knees like mmo’s