Intel vs AMD

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel and AMD L3 Cache Gaming Benchmarks – Does L3 Matter for Gaming?

I have got something pretty interesting for today’s writeup. Infact I don’t think anyone has attempted to quantify this particular aspect of processors before, so we will be treading on largely uncharted territory. As with most of the unorthodox hardware content we publish, this one was sourced from DG Lee (http://www.iyd.kr/695), someone that pretty much everyone in the pc hardware community knows by now.

http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Intel-AMD-Processors-635x315.png (http://cdn3.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Intel-AMD-Processors.png)Credit @Parkoz Hardware (http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-l3-cache-gaming-benchmarks/www.parkoz.com) Level 3 cache on modern Intel and AMD CPUs boosts gaming performance by upto ~10% Before we begin I think a general recap on caches is in order. Those who want to get to the benchmarks directly can skip the first three paragraphs. Caches are probably one of the most underrated instances of memory in a computer system. A potential gamer looking to build a rig would inquire about cores, ram, gpu, even architecture but very rarely about cache. Just because it is usually not given the spot light and is condemned to the life of fine print, does not make it is any less important than the actual cores themselves. A modern commercial processor has 3 cache levels basically.
Cache level 1, Cache level 2 and Cache level 3 (there is an L4 cache too but lets not get into that just now). The short forms of these (as you will undoubtedly know) is L1, L2 and L3 caches. However, while L1 and L2 caches are dedicated per core and are somewhat closed off in nature, an L3 cache is the general pool of memory that all cores share. Every core inside the modern multi-core processor has its own L1 and L2 cache but there is only one L3 per (entire) die. In terms of speed, you are looking at an ascending order and conventionally L1 is the fastest with L2 slower and so on. However, in recent times, the sped difference between the levels has closed, as the Industry shifts to a more unified-style architecture. In some cases, the L3 cache can even be utilized by an integrated GPU (case and point: Intel). An illustration of Haswell’s die layout is attached below:http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Haswell-Labeled-635x719.jpg (http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Haswell-Labeled.jpg)






Noticia completa:
http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-l3-cache-gaming-benchmarks (http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-l3-cache-gaming-benchmarks/#ixzz3LJcqoP3I)

[Winjer]

Nota-se alguma vantagem com a cache L3, mas não muita.
Hoje em dia tanto o CPU como as memórias têm um impacto menor no desempenho de jogos.

Por acaso, uma das vantagens pouco faladas de um i7 sobre um i5, é a quantidade de cache L3.
Não é que faça muita diferença, mas ajuda.

[Jorge-Vieira]

Sim, tendo o i7 mais cache L3 ajuda sempre mais um bocadinho.

[Jorge-Vieira]

Impacto da temperatura nos CPUs Intel


If you’re looking for authoritative information on how much cooling is enough for your CPU, you’ll be hard-pressed to find an answer. While we all know that modern processors need some degree of active cooling, very little official information exists to say how different temperatures affect a CPU's performance.
Editor’s Note:
Matt Bach is the head of Puget Labs and has been part of Puget Systems, a boutique builder of gaming and workstation PCs, since the early days. This article was originally published on the Puget blog (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-Temperature-on-Intel-CPU-Performance-606/).

Older CPUs would simply fail if they started to overheat, but modern CPUs adjust their frequency based on temperature (among other things) to prevent a dramatic failure. Because of this, it stands to reason that once you reach certain temps, you will no longer be getting the maximum performance from your CPU because it will be busy protecting itself.
But what is that temperature? And do you really need a high-end liquid-cooled system to get peak performance, or is the little stock cooler that comes with most CPUs enough? In this article we will answer these questions and more.
How CPUs should be affected by temperature Modern CPUs are able to adjust their operating frequencies through a number of technologies in order to either reduce their power consumption or provide maximum power as needed. The first of these modern technologies is Turbo Boost (or Turbo Core for AMD APU/CPUs). According to the overview page for Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html), there are five factors that affect the amount of increased frequency an Intel CPU can achieve via Turbo Boost:


Type of workload
Number of active cores
Estimated current consumption
Estimated power consumption
Processor temperature

For this article, processor temperature is the main factor we are concerned about. You would expect Turbo Boost to slowly stepping back the amount of Turbo Boost as the CPU gets hotter. In actuality, an Intel CPU under heavy load will actually run at the maximum Turbo Boost allowed by the other four factors until it hits the CPU's thermal limit.
CPUs also have extremely robust thermal protection. If the CPU starts operating above the CPU's thermal limit it will begin to reduce the frequency in order to prevent catastrophic failure. Oddly, we have found that the thermal limit for both Turbo Boost and thermal protection on Intel CPUs to be right at 100 °C - which makes it very convenient to remember. In other words, until the CPU hits 100 °C you should see 100% of the CPU's available performance. Once you starting hitting 100 °C, however, the CPU will start throttling back to keep itself from overheating
How cooling actually affects Intel CPU performance We know from both experience and explicit testing that modern Intel CPUs (at the very least Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and Haswell) can run at their maximum Turbo Boost frequency all the way up to 100 °C. While there may be a tiny performance difference between a CPU running at 30 °C and one running at 95 °C, our testing has found that the difference is miniscule. In fact, even after running benchmarks dozens of times the difference is so small that it is essentially nonexistent.
What we can measure is what happens once a CPU starts to hit 100 °C. To figure this out, we took an Intel Core i7 4790 (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-4790-3-6GHz-Quad-Core-8MB-84W-10295) and cooled it with a Gelid Silent Spirit Rev. 2 (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/CPU-Cooling/Gelid-Silent-Spirit-Rev-2-9013) CPU cooler that was connected to a manual PWM fan speed controller. By running Linpack (which is a CPU benchmark widely used in the scientific community) and slowly dialing the fan speed down in careful increments, we were able to allow the CPU to overheat by incremental amounts. At each cooling increment we kept a log of the Linpack benchmark results as well as using CoreTemp to record the CPU core temperature and frequency.
Since the Intel CPU thermal limit is 100 °C, we can quantify the amount of overheating by measuring the amount of time the CPU temperature was running at > 99 °C.

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/927/images/2014-12-08-image-1.jpg


Ver toda a analise:
http://www.techspot.com/article/927-temperature-impact-cpu-performance/

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-6300 vs. Intel Core i3 4330: Budget Gaming CPU Deathmatch

<article itemprop="reviewBody"> Introduction Willing to spend around 100 euros on a processor? Choosing for AMD will get you the hexa-core FX-6300, whereas Intel has the dual-core i3-4330 on offer. Which of these two is the correct choice for an affordable gaming PC?
It's a discussion that has been ongoing for about two years now, in the comments on our online Budget Gaming PC Advice: what is the best CPU? We have been recommending an AMD FX-6300 processor during this entire period, over an almost identically priced Core i3. This recommendation is often challenged in the comments, as many feel that the Core i3 would be the better choice, despite having only a third of the cores. And with our standard processor tests only involving three games combined with a single video card, we admittedly didn't exactly have the perfect counterargument. In order to end the discussion once and for all, we spent a week testing both CPUs with eleven different games, at two quality presets each, using four different video cards. 176 test results later, we're ready to tell you which of these two CPUs is the better choice.

http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products_thumbs/164239/2/amd-fx-6300.jpg (http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/164239-2.jpg)http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products_thumbs/197362/2/intel-core-i3-4330.jpg (http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/197362-2.jpg) Completely different Like we mentioned earlier, both CPUs have a price of around 100 euros. With an average price of about 98 euros, the AMD CPU is a little cheaper than the Intel Core i3-4330, which has an average price of 121 euros. When only considering CPU prices, the Core i3-4150 would have been a better match. However, given that the 4150 (which we unfortunately did not have) only has 1 MB less cache than the 4330 and is otherwise identical, we expect these two CPUs to offer similar performance.
The FX and the i3 are completely different processors. The FX-6300 is based on the same octa-core Vishera chips as all contemporary octa-core AMD FX processors, except that two of the cores have been disabled. The CPU has a base clock frequency of 3.5 GHz with a 4.1 GHz turbo mode, and is equipped with 6 MB of L2 cache and 8 MB of L3 cache. The dual-channel memory controller officially supports speeds of up to DDR3-1866, but is obviously also capable of handling faster modules. The TDP is 95W. An important advantage of the FX processor over the Core i3 is that it is fully unlocked, which is of course beneficial to overclockers. According to Hwbot.org, many are capable of reaching clock speeds of 4.4 to 4.8 GHz using air cooling, with a lucky few even managing to surpass the 5.0 GHz barrier.
The Core i3, on the other hand, is based on a dual-core Haswell chip. Its two cores operate at 3.5 GHz, and do not support Turbo mode. HyperThreading is enabled, however, causing the host operating system to see four virtual cores. The i3 has 512 kB of L2 cache and 4 MB of L3 cache. Perhaps the most important difference is that the i3 features an integrated graphics chip, something that the FX-6300 lacks. That said, if you're going to put together a gaming PC, you'll no doubt be choosing for a discrete graphics card, which means that you won't be using the integrated GPU at all. The Core i3 has a lower TDP of 65W, in part because of the smaller process node (22 nm) and the higher efficiency of the Intel cores.

http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products_thumbs/164239/1/amd-fx-6300.jpg (http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/164239.jpg)http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products_thumbs/197362/3/intel-core-i3-4330.jpg (http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/197362-3.jpg) </article>

Ver toda a analise:
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5766/amd-fx-6300-vs-intel-core-i3-4330-budget-gaming-cpu-deathmatch

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-8350 & FX-6300 Overclocked: Real world power to performance testing (http://www.techspot.com/article/932-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300-power-performance/)




It’s very easy to be dismissive of AMD’s mainstream FX processors based on the Piledriver core. Intel has been beating AMD on every front but price for a couple of generations now, owing at least some of their success to being consistently one generation ahead in manufacturing process technology. Meanwhile, the Bulldozer microarchitecture and its descendants have had an unpleasant uphill climb. Power consumption, performance per clock, it all takes its toll. Arguably AMD doesn’t make things better for themselves by releasing the FX-9590 and FX-9370, chips with virtually no overclocking headroom and staggering 220W TDPs. And finally, FX chips still rely on the antiquated 900 series chipsets, which lack support for PCIe 3.0.
Suffice to say, there’s a laundry list.
Editor’s Note:
Guest author Dustin Sklavos is a Technical Marketing Specialist at Corsair and has been writing in the industry since 2005. This article was originally published on the Corsair blog (http://www.corsair.com/en/blog/2014/november/fx-8350_power_to_performance).

However, we took a couple of AMD’s most popular chips for a test drive and found that things aren’t anywhere near as bad as benchmarks might lead you to believe. Quite the opposite.
Sitting in our test bed today is AMD's most popular chip, the FX-8350, as well as their true mainstream champion, the $149 FX-6300. As we’ve done recently with Intel’s Haswell-E (http://www.corsair.com/en/blog/2014/october/haswell-e_power_to_performance) and Devil’s Canyon (http://www.corsair.com/en-us/blog/2014/november/haswell_power-to-perf) parts, today we’re doing a power-to-performance test to see just how much power an AMD FX-8350 and FX-6300 consume when faced with gaming and multimedia tasks.
Our testbed consists of:


CPU: AMD FX-8350 (4 GHz, turbo to 4.2 GHz, 125W TDP)
CPU: AMD FX-6300 (3.5 GHz, turbo to 4.1 GHz, 95W TDP)
CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H100i
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+
RAM: 16GB (2x8GB) Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2400 CAS11 @ DDR3-2133 CAS11
RAM: 16GB (2x8GB) Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3-2400 CAS11 @ DDR3-1866 CAS11
GPU: Sapphire Tri-X Radeon R9 290X 4GB GDDR5
SSD: Corsair Force LX 512GB SSD
PSU: Corsair AX760i 760W

The FX-8350 unfortunately doesn’t allow for memory speeds higher than 2133MHz without tweaking the BClk, so we stuck with 2133MHz when testing this chip to prevent any memory bottlenecks. The motherboard choice might seem odd, but the GA-990FXA-UD3 has a staggering number of reviews on Newegg and seems to be the weapon of choice for AMD enthusiasts on a budget. As it turns out, it’s a pretty nice board.
One of the benefits of going with an FX series CPU is that the motherboard ecosystem is very mature. While Intel’s X99 ecosystem still has a host of issues (many of them stemming from DDR4 compatibility), the 990FX is a fully known quantity. This board just works.
Our FX-8350 topped out at 4.7GHz and 1.475V on the core, and thermals were never an issue with the H100i. The FX-8350 boasts excellent heat transfer and while the heat threshold is substantially lower than on Intel’s chips, the FX-8350 just doesn’t run very hot.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-25-09.jpg
The Adobe suite in PCMark 8 is a godsend for people involved in multimedia work, and the FX-8350 acquits itself well here. The chip gets a solid boost just bumping its core clock up to its turbo clock, and power consumption doesn’t increase appreciably. In fact, overclocking all the way to 4.7GHz offers a healthy performance boost without a big increase in power demands.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-25-25.jpg
Handbrake winds up being the worst case scenario for the FX-8350 because it flat out redlines the CPU. Peak power and average power are practically the same, and consumption increases by almost 100W. I’m keen to point out that an aggressive overclock on Devil’s Canyon can raise power consumption by as much as 70W or more, to say nothing of the nearly 200W overclocking Haswell-E can gain. Render times have an extremely steady decline as clock speeds increase, though. You can pretty much just pick a point on the curve you want to hit.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-25-41.jpg

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-25-57.jpg
If the FX processors are bad gaming chips, that’s not presenting itself here. An increase of 700MHz nets maybe 1fps in BioShock Infinite, and Tomb Raider just plain doesn’t care. Power consumption does increase, but again, it’s modest.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-26-11.jpg
When we take a look at how much average power consumption increases, we can see where the inflection point on this particular FX-8350 is: 4.4GHz. After that, it starts requiring substantial increases in Vcore to hit higher clocks. Up to that point, power consumption increases are pretty modest, though even after that, only Handbrake really gets in the thick of it. If you can stay under 1.4V on the core, you’re probably doing okay.
While chips like the FX-9590 and FX-9370 and their 220W TDPs don’t paint a rosy picture for AMD, mainstream workhorses like the FX-8350 catch kind of an unfair rap. The latter is a fine performer and overclocker, and power consumption isn’t horrifically higher than Intel hardware.
AMD's mainstream star: FX-6300

So far we've come away more impressed than we expected. If power consumption isn’t a deal-breaker for you, AMD’s Vishera CPUs can provide stellar bang for the buck. Next up we’re putting the screws to AMD's true mainstream champion, the $149 FX-6300.
I should note that both the FX-8350 and now FX-6300 have responded very well to liquid cooling and never peaked higher than the mid-50s. They’ve both been fairly solid overclockers as well.
And again, we are using PCMark 8’s Adobe Suite, Handbrake, BioShock Infinite, and Tomb Raider for benchmarking and power consumption testing.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-28-25-2.png
PCMark 8 shows a mostly clear trending with an odd flatline from 4.4GHz to 4.6GHz. Peak power climbs noticeably, while the average is much more conservative. Incidentally, the PCMark 8 Adobe suite doesn’t seem to benefit meaningfully from the extra module (two integer cores) in the FX-8350; the FX-6300 posts roughly the same scores at the same clocks, but draws less power in the process.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-29-11.png
Handbrake, on the other hand, will use every last core and clock it can get its hands on. Overclocking the FX-6300 from its stock speeds all the way up to 4.8GHz introduces massive performance gains; at 4.8GHz, our benchmark takes roughly 2/3 the amount of time it takes to run at stock. Because Handbrake is the most CPU-dependent task in the suite, it also drives up power consumption considerably. Even then, power only increases about 80W for the blistering overclock.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-29-25.png

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-29-38.png
BioShock Infinite receives modest gains in performance, but Tomb Raider is flat. Once you’ve confined the bottleneck to the GPU, CPU speed becomes less relevant. At stock speeds, the FX-6300 is plenty to get the job done, and power consumption in gaming doesn’t increase appreciably as the result of overclocking.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-29-51.png
Much like the FX-8350, going past 4.4GHz required greater and greater increases in voltage on the FX-6300, but the headroom is there. I suspect on a beefier motherboard, 4.9GHz or 5GHz would’ve been attainable without hitting a heat wall. Actual power consumption only really takes off at about 4.6GHz, though, excepting the entirely CPU-bound Handbrake, which sees the largest increases in power draw.
It’s easy to go on and on about how fast and efficient modern Intel processors are, but while AMD’s Bulldozer-derived architectures do underwhelm somewhat, they’re not actually bad and certainly powerful enough for any modern task or game. At $149, the FX-6300 is an excellent alternative to Intel’s clock-locked lineup. Power consumption does increase, but it’s not as dramatic as you’ve heard, and the performance is there.
Enthusiasts looking for something to extract performance out of below the price tag of Intel’s Core i5-4670K and i5-4690K would do well to check out AMD’s FX-6300.



Noticia:
http://www.techspot.com/article/932-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300-power-performance/

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel and AMD will be betting more on semi custom designs in the coming years

The silicon industry is a huge, mostly un-steerable giant and companies like Intel have added dead weights like in-house foundries attached to them. So what happens when the going gets tough and the Industry starts seeing a shift towards mobile, energy efficiency, and perhaps most alarmingly, lower power? While Intel cannot risk undergoing a Hewlett Packard to HP transformation, it can start to focus more on the afore mentioned sectors while at the same time we see AMD penetrating its own target markets. http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Intel-AMD-Processors-635x315.png (http://cdn3.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Intel-AMD-Processors.png)
Tailored for and semi custom chip designs over mass production – Intel Don’t get me wrong, Intel and AMD’s mainstream offerings aren’t going anywhere for the forseeable future; but a paradigm shift is undoubtedly in the works. AMD’s biggest wins this past year has been the console market. Arguably one of the most important semi custom market and AMD already owns a comfortable 100% share. With chips in both next generation (or rather, current generation) consoles and another in Nintendo’s upcoming latest offering, AMD has assured itself a much needed and reliable stream of revenue amidst serious financial troubles. While this isn’t really Intel’s market, blue has been facing severe competition in the mobile sector and has mostly been giving its SoCs away on contra-revenue basis. Though Intel can afford loss leading tactics, it needs to start making some return on investment sooner or later or the sunk cost will eventually come to haunt its finances as well.
Now heres the thing, according to a recent report, the company is betting big on semi-custom designs for next year. Infact, “Diane Bryant [of Intel] told the New York Times that she expects half of the chips it sells to public clouds to use custom designs. That amounts to about nine million units annually.” To those who don’t know, public clouds refer to all the big customers of Intel, namely Google, Amazon, Alibaba etc



The face of the market has changed and now is the time of custom tailored solutions. With the R&D involved in Intel’s fabs and the sunk cost already, well sunk, blue’ fabs are at the point where they can manufacture custom solutions with almost negligible excess cost. Ofcourse, you can be sure that Intel will charge a premium on such products and its margins will be therefore significantly larger than anything the mainstream market can offer. From a business point of view, a higher margin is always the way forward. This is why we will see Intel breaking more ground in the semi custom market, while its mainstream offerings slowly but surely shift to the back burners. One thing is for sure, the needs of the market are changing and unless companies like AMD and Intel trim the fat, they risk becoming irrelevant.





Noticia:
http://wccftech.com/intel-amd-betting-semi-custom-designs-coming-years/#ixzz3MiB46BVy

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX 8320E processor review - Introduction

AMD will get you some 8-core lovin at only 139 USD We review the AMD FX 8320E processor today. It's Vishera time again, and yeah that is the codename for the Piledriver core based FX series processors from AMD. The very affordable (125 EURO / 139 USD) CPU tested today has eight physical CPU cores, it will have a base clock of 3200 MHz, and can Turbo towards 4000. And that makes the FX series a tiny multi-threaded beast. You can read our review right here at Guru3D of course. This is a more energy friendly E type FX processor. That CPU still has eight physical CPU cores but it will have a much lower base clock of 3200 MHz, but it can still Turbo towards 4000. Ah yes, released two years ago you guys will be familiar hearing the magic word 'Vishera', it is the codename for the Piledriver core based FX series processors from AMD.
The chip feature eight cores, 4.00GHz Turbo clock-rates, 8MB L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache and dual-channel DDR3 memory controllers. The FX-8320E will have thermal design power of 95W.


32nm Vishera 95W
8MB L3 Cache
4 x 2MB L2 Cache

Vishera, it sounds like a mysterious virus from a Mission Impossible movie, when you look it up really you won't find anything other then a Vishera river. The Vishera originates in the swamps near Lake Sindorskoe. It is fed primarily by snow. The Vishera freezes in November, and the ice breaks up at the end of April. Well there you have it. A Piledriver core basically the 2nd revision of AMD's Bulldozers cores which we all know from AMD's FX series processors. One Piledriver module basically has two logical AMD64 CPU cores tied together. With four Piledriver modules you thus get eight logical CPU cores. The theory behind it is simply, they should be more efficient and offer a notch more performance. Good to know is that the processors again will be unlocked at no additional cost, and that means they are quite tweakable as well.

Next page please where we'll go a little more in-depth.


http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=14082
AMD FX 8320E - 8-core processor

Ver toda a review:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-fx-8320e-processor-review,1.html

[Jorge-Vieira]

Review: AMD FX-8320E 95W (32nm Vishera)

http://img.hexus.net/ryan/images/reviews/processors/amd/fx8320e/19a.jpg
There are no major updates for AMD’s FX processor series on the horizon, meaning the shelf-life of dated 32nm Piledriver-based silicon is set to be prolonged even further. For many enthusiasts the AM3+ socket has arguably run its course, but AMD believes there is still plenty of longevity in the old beast, and it may well be right.
Since the first iteration of Piledriver was released in October 2012, the FX-8350, AMD’s FX processor series has relied on product refreshes and large price cuts to stay competitive against increasingly powerful offerings from Intel. We’ve witnessed the release of FX-9000 branded parts with out of the box Turbo frequencies as high as 5GHz, but also new FX-8000 E-series parts tailored for more energy-efficient operation within 95W thermal envelopes.
A few months ago we took a look at the fastest E-Series part, the FX-8370E (http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/74109-amd-fx-8370e-95w-32nm-vishera/), and today we are examining the more mainstream FX-8320E. The energy efficient credentials of the FX-8320E are almost a façade when comparing power consumption to Intel’s latest Haswell microarchitecture. However, the FX-8320E does demand attention for the pure fact it offers eight full processing cores for as little as £110 ($147).


<tbody>
AMD Eight-Core FX Series Processors


APU Model

CPU Cores


CPU Base Clock
(GHz)


CPU Turbo Clock
(GHz)


L2 Cache


Memory Support (MHz)


Socket


TDP (W)


Suggested Price



FX-9590

8


4.7


5.0


8MB


DDR3-2,133


AM3+


220


$229.99



FX-9370

8


4.4


4.7


8MB


DDR3-2,133


AM3+


220


$210.99



FX-8370

8


4.0


4.3


8MB


DDR3-1,866


AM3+


125


$199.99



FX-8370E

8


3.3


4.3


8MB


DDR3-1,866


AM3+


95


$199.99



FX-8350

8


4.0


4.2


8MB


DDR3-1,866


AM3+


125


$179.99



FX-8320

8


3.5


4.0


8MB


DDR3-1,866


AM3+


125


$146.99



FX-8320E

8


3.2


4.0


8MB


DDR3-1,866


AM3+


95


$146.99


</tbody>


The FX-8320E boasts an octa-core design with a 3.2GHz base clock, a 4GHz turbo frequency, 8MB of L3 cache and a 95W TDP. Geared towards budget-minded consumers AMD sees the FX-8320E as being most competitive when paired with one of its sweet-spot graphics cards, such as an R9 270X or R9 285, alongside 8GB of DDR3-1866MHz memory and a refreshed motherboard like the AM3+ MSI 970 Gaming. Using said configuration allows the barebones of a capable 1080p gaming machine to be assembled for around £400.
In a fairly cut-throat processor market where does the FX-8320E fit in exactly? On pricing alone the FX-8320E is a direct competitor to Intel’s Haswell Core i3 parts which cost between £90 and £130. At close to the £100-mark the FX-8320E is also a solid £40 cheaper than Intel’s Haswell Core i5 range which varies between £140 and £190. Such value for money still makes AMD a force to be reckoned with.
http://img.hexus.net/ryan/images/reviews/processors/amd/fx8320e/17a.jpg
One of the most apparent limitations of AMD’s FX processors has been the dated motherboard options available to system builders. Few motherboard vendors paid attention to their 970/990X/990FX range since its inception in 2011 alongside Bulldozer, expecting a new AMD chipset or socket would provide the impetus for new product launches, that impetus did not arrive.
Towards the end of last year the situation did start to change as motherboard vendors launched major refreshes of their AM3+ products. ASUS came to market with R2.0 versions of many of its FX motherboards and MSI extended its Gaming series to the AM3+ socket. Despite the age of AMD’s FX processors the platform is still relevant to current consumers.



Ver toda a review:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/78689-amd-fx-8320e-95w-32nm-vishera/

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-8320E AM3+ Processor Performance Review

AMD FX-8320E AM3+ Processor Performance Review By David Ramsey
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Product Name: AMD FX-8320E
Model Number: FD832EWMHKBOX
UPC: 730143305297
Price As Tested: $139.99 (Amazon (http://amzn.to/1xIFdkU) | Newegg (http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-2339666-10446076?url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113376)) Full Disclosure: Advanced Micro Devices supplied the product sample used in this article.

AMD released a slew of new FX-series CPUs in September, 2014, including the FX-8370, FX-8370E, and the subject of our review, the FX-8320E. This is the low end of AMD’s eight-core FX series of enthusiast CPUs, and the “E” suffix marks it as a low-power variant; nonetheless, AMD touts it as a viable CPU for a gaming system. Benchmark Reviews will run this CPU through our gauntlet of tests to see how true this is.
AMD’s FX-series CPUs were introduced with some fanfare back in October of 2011, and after being feted at AMD’s Austin, Texas facility (since sold), we tested the then-new FX-8150. As the first consumer eight-core CPU (something Intel has only just introduced with the Core i7-5960 Haswell-E processor), the 8150 was an impressive piece of engineering, although its per-core performance wasn’t anywhere near Intel’s best, or even near Intel’s lower end. You can read our evaluation of this processor here (http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831&Itemid=63).
At the time, AMD outlined their master plan: the then-current generation of FX processors was code-named Bulldozer. The improved, follow-on generation was called Piledriver, and we tested the Piledriver-based FX-8350 CPU here (http://archive.benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=962&Itemid=63). The third generation was supposed to be Steamroller, but as AMD relied increasingly on their low-power and mobile APU architecture code-named Vishera, the Steamroller plan faded away, and AMD announced that the FX series would not be upgraded to Steamroller. Benchmark Reviews tested the latest high-end FX CPU, the FX-9590, here (http://benchmarkreviews.com/21316/amd-fx-9590-am3-processor-performance-review/).
http://benchmarkreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/amd_fx-8320e_1-600x590.jpg (http://benchmarkreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/amd_fx-8320e_1.jpg)
Rather than trying to compete with Intel on pure performance, AMD is aggressively tackling the market with a bang-for-the-buck strategy, especially in the mobile market. And it’s working well for them, although it might leave desktop AMD fans a little unsatisfied. Features & Specifications
AMD’s current 8-core FX processor lineup comprises 11 different CPUs, differentiated by base and turbo frequencies, officially supported memory speed, and TDP (Thermal Design Power, or maximum power usage in watts), with lower power CPUs such as this review’s FX-8320E coming in at 95 watts, higher end CPUs such as the FX-8370 drawing up to 125 watts, with the top-end parts like the FX-9590 drawing a staggering 220 watts! AMD is a “fabless” company that depends on a separate entity, GlobalFoundries, to produce their designs. Currently GlobalFoundries still uses a 32nm process, which produces significantly larger and more power-hungry devices than the 22nm process Intel uses for its Haswell CPUs.
Here are some representative specs from AMD’s current FX CPU lineup:
<tbody>
Model
Cores
TDP
Base Freq
Turbo Freq
DDR3 Speed


FX-9590
8
220 watts
4.7gHz
5.0gHz
DDR3-2133


FX-9370
8
220 watts
4.4gHz
4.7gHz
DDR3-2133


FX-8370
8
125 watts
4.0gHz
4.3gHz
DDR3-1866


FX-8370E
8
95 watts
3.3gHz
4.3gHz
DDR3-1866


FX-8320
8
125 watts
3.5gHz
4.0gHz
DDR3-1866


FX-8320E
8
95 watts
3.2gHz
4.0gHz
DDR3-1866

</tbody>


Two things are obvious from this table: one, AMD seems to achieve the lower TDPs of the “E” series CPUs by lowering the base clocks, and two, that the FX-8320E we’re testing today represents the bottom of AMD’s eight-core FX lineup. I’ll test this CPU to see how it fares as the basis of a gaming system, comparing it with the FX-9590 as well as a comparably-priced Intel CPU, the Intel Core i3-4360.



Ver toda a review:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/#L3lpwkJbJSKUqiTW.99

[MTPS]

Boa review, apesar de poderem ter testado com mais jogos.

Mas curioso como um dual core acelerado ainda se aguenta...FX6300 vs i3...eis a questão.

[Dape_1904]

Pois!! Olha o i3 nos jogos ali a dar abadas! Ai ai! E o consumo é muuuuitoo inferior! Turtolius knows the best!

[Viriat0]

Pois!! Olha o i3 nos jogos ali a dar abadas! Ai ai! E o consumo é muuuuitoo inferior! Turtolius knows the best!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GFDfaxADRk

[MR]

Lol viriato!

[tiran]

Turtolius knows the best!



http://media.giphy.com/media/ozmcaOBoLSY2k/giphy.gif

Reported!

[MR]

Esperemos que o dx12 não te deixe de rastos tão cedo. :P

[Dape_1904]

Em principio é para reduzir o overhead no cpu, portanto é para beneficiar ainda mais o cpu.

[JayDz]

Turtolius knows the best!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/228/791/632.gif

[Dape_1904]

Tem piada que a grande batalha contra o i3, em alguns momentos torna-se caricata. Como ficou demonstrado na review que o horus publicou. Fica várias vezes demonstrado, através de reviews, videos, etc, por alguns dos próprios users que participam na batalha anti i3, que o i3 não é um mau cpu como o pintam, apesar de o afirmarem sem reservas. Mas de vez em quando as próprias pessoas que fazem parte do grupo de pessoas que afirma tal coisa, que foi uma ma compra e etc, demonstram o contrario com reviews, links e videos que publicam...

[Jorge-Vieira]

Tem piada que a grande batalha contra o i3, em alguns momentos torna-se caricata. Como ficou demonstrado na review que o horus publicou. Fica várias vezes demonstrado, através de reviews, videos, etc, por alguns dos próprios users que participam na batalha anti i3, que o i3 não é um mau cpu como o pintam, apesar de o afirmarem sem reservas. Mas de vez em quando as próprias pessoas que fazem parte do grupo de pessoas que afirma tal coisa, que foi uma ma compra e etc, demonstram o contrario com reviews, links e videos que publicam...

http://i59.tinypic.com/2w6dstu.png

[JayDz]

Tem piada que a grande batalha contra o i3, em alguns momentos torna-se caricata. Como ficou demonstrado na review que o horus publicou. Fica várias vezes demonstrado, através de reviews, videos, etc, por alguns dos próprios users que participam na batalha anti i3, que o i3 não é um mau cpu como o pintam, apesar de o afirmarem sem reservas. Mas de vez em quando as próprias pessoas que fazem parte do grupo de pessoas que afirma tal coisa, que foi uma ma compra e etc, demonstram o contrario com reviews, links e videos que publicam...
Nossa, se tu trabalhasses em qualquer empresa de hardware, ei ate tinha medo..

[Jorge-Vieira]

Core i7 4790K Processor 5.0 GHz Review - A Silicon Lottery - Introduction



The Core i7 4790K – A Silicon Lottery?

You know back in June Intel released Devils Canyon processors, the newly revised Haswell based quad -core processor was to be the hottest 'thang' for overclockers. Unfortunately the results where a bit of a mixed bag, actually the 4770K in a lot of circumstances could be tweaked higher than the 4790K which maxes out mostly in the 4600~4700 MHz range when overclocked. Back in June with Devils Canyon processor release I seriously had a goal to reach the 5 GHz marker with that processor, but whatever I tried, the sample that we retrieved from Intel absolutely maxed out in the 4700~4800 MHz range. So in the back of my head, that always was a bit of an annoyance (with an otherwise lovely product).
A little while ago in our forums somebody mentioned a website based in the 'Silicon Lottery'. The website is selling binned processors, guaranteed to work at a certain clock frequency. Though the idea is nothing new as there are parties out there that purchase a 100 processors and then make a selection, ending up with the best overclockers. So with that 5 GHz marker nagging me, I figured what the hell, Silicon lottery is offering a wide variety of 4790K processors which are binned, what is binning ?


http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=14236
Intel Core i7-4790K - Binned Silicon Lottery Devils Canyon processor.

Intel, TSMC, UMC, Global Foundries and others make wafers. With the production there are always slight variations in material quality across the wafer surface, there are local variations in how the lithography, metal vapor deposition, photo resist chemical deposition, etc. are done. If you factor in these variables then the effect can be a yield that significantly differs the final product in terms of worse versus better chips.

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=14206



Ver toda a review:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i7-4790k-processor-5-ghz-review-a-silicon-lottery,1.html

[Winjer]

Para que é que o pessoal quer um i7 4790K a 5 GHZ quando pode ter um i3 4330? *|

[Jorge-Vieira]

Para que é que o pessoal quer um i7 4790K a 5 GHZ quando pode ter um i3 4330? *|
Fodis monis :D

[JayDz]

Para que é que o pessoal quer um i7 4790K a 5 GHZ quando pode ter um i3 4330? *|
Para se ter uma experiência "cinematic" (lol)

[Dape_1904]

Tem um i7 4790k quem tem dinheiro para ele. Lá porque alguns o podem ter não quer dizer que outros também tenham de ter.

[jotinha17]

Para o dinheiro que alguns gastam nas suas trocas bem que o podiam ter, fica a dica de um cigano aka marroquino.

[Winjer]

Para o dinheiro que alguns gastam nas suas trocas bem que o podiam ter, fica a dica de um cigano aka marroquino.

Realmente.......

http://i.imgur.com/cDIFz.png

[JayDz]

Tem um i7 4790k quem tem dinheiro para ele. Lá porque alguns o podem ter não quer dizer que outros também tenham de ter.

O problema é que, o dinheiro que ja investiste nas tuas estupidas trocas já podias ter uma, mas sim eu sei, é demais para a tua cabeça ...

[Jorge-Vieira]

Tem um i7 4790k quem tem dinheiro para ele. Lá porque alguns o podem ter não quer dizer que outros também tenham de ter.

http://i62.tinypic.com/nn6ryg.jpg

[Sonas]

Pessoal vamos lá a ter mais calma nos gifs :) já todos sabemos que o turto não é muito coerente... Ignore e siga :)

[LPC]

Boas!

Eu mesmo dei-lhe á tempos uma derradeira oportunidade com o sistema AMD que eu era capaz de lhe oferecer...

Tinha ficado com um bruto sistema e ai sim iria ver o que é cinematic! :)

Cumprimentos,

LPC

[reiszink]

Até gostava de saber qual o preço de um CPU daqueles para uma pessoa "normal", visto que $350 já foi com um grande desconto por ser para o Guru3D.

[MTPS]

Até gostava de saber qual o preço de um CPU daqueles para uma pessoa "normal", visto que $350 já foi com um grande desconto por ser para o Guru3D.

No site dos gajos custa 429.9usd.

http://siliconlottery.com/collections/all

364€...Interessante...

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-8320e Review

For some time AMD seemed quite happy to leave their FX range of CPUs as they were. Focus for them was very much on their new APUs which offer multi-core CPUs with advanced built in graphics…the latest models using the same GPU tech as their high end desktop cards. Recently though we have seen the focus switch a little as AMD have refreshed the FX chips, looking to hit aggressive price points and include stand out features which have appeal to particular audiences. Today in our AMD FX-8320e Review we look at one of those products, an 8-core model priced very aggressively and offering new, lower power use.
AMD FX-8320e Review – The CPUhttp://www.hardwareheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/amd-fx-8320e-review-cpu-300x248.jpg
As we have noted many, many times before, one of the most customer focused approaches AMD have had in recent years is to stick with a socket for as long as possible and that trend continues with the latest FX CPUs such as this 8320e. They share the same heatspreader and pin layout as the previous models and for most consumers it takes little more than a BIOS update to add support for the chip to a motherboard. Flash, turn off and it will drop into many existing AM3+ boards from all of the major manufacturers. With this particular CPU we have seen numerous reports of people using them in their older 800 series chipset based motherboards, extending the life and improving the performance of those systems.
Like the high end FX processors before it, our CPU for this AMD FX-8320e Review is a true 8-core processor. Looking at the key specifications this model is a 32nm, 95w chip with 8MB of L2 and L3 cache. It has an advertised speed of 3.2GHz however like other high end processors it has the ability to tailor its speed depending on the current workload. This means we idle down lower when the processor is not in use and when under load this model is capable of hitting speeds of 4.0GHz.
So that’s the key points of the new CPU, more of the same but lower power (Older high end FX parts tended to be 100-125w).
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/amd-fx-8320e-cpuz-300x300.png

AMD FX-8320e Review – Our Motherboard – MSI 970 Gaminghttp://www.hardwareheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/amd-fx-8320e-review-970-gaming-board-300x212.jpg
The 970 Gaming uses a black PCB, mixing in various red sections to add some interest. Being part of MSIs impressive Gaming series this board as with others in the family has Military Class 4 certification which includes the use of high quality components (Super Ferite Choke, Dark Cap) to guarantee stability and long term reliability.



Ver toda a review:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/content/reviews/51771/amd-fx-8320e-review

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-8320E CPU Review: The Other 95W Vishera (http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera)

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/Rear%20CPU_678x452.jpg
http://dynamic1.anandtech.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=5367&campaignid=1090&zoneid=3&source=cpus&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anandtech.com%2Fshow%2F8864%2 Famd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anandtech.com%2Fshow%2F88 64%2Famd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera&cb=886b088fda

Back in September we reviewed the FX-8370E (http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w), a new AMD CPU based on the older Vishera/Piledriver architecture but at a lower power – 95W rather than 125W. This was achieved by a combination of a mature 32nm process, adjusting clock speeds and (potentially) some specifically binned voltage characteristics. The FX-8320E was the other lower power CPU launched that day, which AMD has now been supplying for reviews.
The Information Part of the world yearns for a new high performance processor from AMD to tackle the market. While Team Blue’s tick-tock model accounts for some of their aggressive product development, the limited success of the Bulldozer architecture put AMD on the back foot. In principle the basic design was a good idea, but the ecosystem to support it was not ready and it was almost left behind by those that focused on the platform metrics already at hand. I say almost, because AMD repositioned their high end product stack based on price to aim to compete on performance, albeit focused on the more mid-range but higher volume market segments, and AMD has not made a new high-end processor based on a new architecture in over two years.
This Vishera platform is based on the Bulldozer-based Piledriver architecture and the 32nm process, but has still produced a number of new models since first launch, including the 220W FX-9000 series coming to retail earlier in 2014 (read our review of the FX-9590 here (http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review)) and a set of new processors in September 2014. This included the 125W FX-8370, positioned at the top of the FX-8000 range with clock speed increases, and the 95W ‘E’ processors, the FX-8370E and FX-8320E.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/2%20-%20E%20processors_575px.png (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/2%20-%20E%20processors.png) These processors are similar to their non-E counterparts, the FX-8370 and FX-8320, but with a lower base frequency but the same turbo frequency. This means, in theory, they should be as quick and responsive for most day-to-day tasks as their 125W brethren, but a bit behind when it comes to the hardcore processor mechanics. While priced the same as the 125W parts, AMD is hoping that the rated TDP reduction will entice users who might not need the full power all the time.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/1%20-%20Pricing_575px.png (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/1%20-%20Pricing.png) Due to the adjustment of TDP, these processors are also more aimed at the 970 chipset. This is a chipset that uses fewer GPU lanes (one PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, one PCIe 2.0 x4 slot) and is slightly cheaper than the 990FX range. Typically the newer 990FX boards are designed to take the large 220W behemoths from the FX-9000 list, but by using a 970 the motherboard makers can focus on 125W max and hopefully save the customer some money. As a result of this target, AMD also sampled the (anecdotally) most popular 970 board, the MSI 970 Gaming, which we have prepared for a separate review.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/AMD%20FX-8320E_575px.png (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/AMD%20FX-8320E.png) With the FX-8320E, it is worth noting that the base frequency is only 300 MHz less than the full-fat CPU. Saving 30W for 300 MHz is usually a good idea for most users, as it usually indicates a better binned CPU. 30W for 300 MHz for overclocking might be par for the course, which means that the FX-8320E might have overclocking potential. On the overclocking front, the FX-8320E is ready to be overclocked with an unlocked multiplier, and we have some interesting results later in the review.
Because the following question comes up repeatedly when coming across the latest in the FX line, I will copy the answer verbatim from our previous FX-8370E review:
“Why update the FX line with more Vishera based processors? Can’t we get an update?
AMD’s reasoning for these new processors, apart from the slowly increasing yields of the higher bin parts over the past year and tweaking the overall design, is because of the motherboards available on the market. Due to the construction of some of the early motherboards intended for AMD’s non*-IGP line, these early motherboards could only support 95W or 125W maximum, let alone the 220W of the FX*9590/9370 behemoths. By releasing an 8-*thread Vishera processor with a 95W TDP, this allows these users to upgrade without spending an extra $120*$200 on a new motherboard.”
With regards the old roadmap from AMD, it still looks bleak when we consider the FX CPUs. There is no named successor to Vishera, not even on the 28nm process used for the latest Kaveri APUs:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/40%20-%20AMD%20Roadmap_575px.jpg (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/40%20-%20AMD%20Roadmap.jpg) With the Excavator branded APUs due out at some point in the future, part of me hopes that AMD will release something on the FX line kin to that, but it might have the same issue as the Piledriver/Vishera units in the sense that power consumption spirals upward moving beyond 3.5 GHz without severe binning. The 28nm process was designed more for transistor density, especially when we consider the size of the integrated graphics AMD likes to use on the APUs, so there is debate from AMD's side that if a new FX release would offer much on the CPU side, except higher costs.
AMD stated for our FX-8370E review that ‘The AMD of today is funding the AMD of tomorrow … to ensure the ongoing success of products like FX’. Products like FX. It doesn’t give me hope. With AMD’s Jim Keller being the driving force behind Zen, the pin-compatible x86/ARM processors scheduled for 2016 and as noted in a round table talk, ‘scaling from tablet to desktop’, this is the barrier on the horizon that will focus AMD. But for now, we have 95W Vishera to play with, and our sample was a beast.
The CPU, The Chipset and The DRAM Straight up, 32nm is up against the wall. Intel is on 14nm, recently releasing both Broadwell-Y (Core M) and Broadwell-U, with the latter up to 28W. This represents Intel’s second generation FinFET technology, and if we recall 32nm was back with Sandy Bridge. That being said, the longer you spend on a process node, the more optimized it can be made and the yields improved. One could argue that this reduces running costs, allowing AMD to get product into the market. The question still remains if it is the right product.

<tbody>
AMD 900 Series Chipset Comparison



990FX
990X
970


Code Name
RD990
RD980
RX980


Released
Q2 2011
Q2 2011
Q2 2011


Fab (nm)
65
65
65


IGP
No
No
No


CrossFire
x16 + x16
x8 + x8 + x8 + x8
x8 + x8
x16 + x4


SLI
x16 + x16
x16 + x8 + x8
x8 + x8 + x8 + x8
x8 + x8
No


TDP
19.6W
14W
13.6W


PCIe
Four PCIe 2.0 slots
Two PCIe 2.0 slots
One PCIe 2.0 x16 slot


HyperTransport (MHz)
2600
2600
2400

</tbody>
From the chipset perspective, AM3+ motherboards come in with either 990FX, 990X or 970 and a choice of two 900 series south bridges. The most common and talked about by far is the 990FX+SB950 combination offering two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots for both CrossFire and SLI, and if you want to splash the cash there are a couple of PLX8747 enabled motherboards that use inter-GPU PCIe 3.0 communication and afford more than two-way setups. However, no matter which way the segment is sliced, there are relatively few new motherboards on the market. Almost all are at least twelve months old, with a select few more recent. We recently reviewed the ASRock 990FX Extreme9 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review) which sits at the top of ASRock’s product stack, but they also released a 990FX Killer with an M.2 SATA slot. ASUS had the 990FX Sabertooth PCIe 3.0 model, or the ROG Crosshair V Formula-Z (http://www.asus.com/uk/Motherboards/CROSSHAIR_V_FORMULAZ/) both at the top of the ranges. MSI’s 970 Gaming has been the talk of the town in recent months, offering a poignant target from them. GIGABYTE has not released a 990FX or 970 Sniper yet, although if the market wants it be sure to let them know.
On a functionality front, the 900 series chipsets suffer from a lack of native USB 3.0, requiring controllers to implement this which can be slower than a native solution. For example the MSI 970 Gaming uses two VLI controllers to give a total of 4 USB 3.0 ports, although the performance is not the best. This typically also adds cost of the controllers to the product, which is something to avoid on a bargain model. On the plus side AMD does have six native SATA 6 Gbps ports, all suitable for RAID.
This Review So the part in play for this review is the 95W AMD FX-8320E, a quad module/eight thread part with a 3.2 GHz base clock and a 4 GHz turbo mode. Priced at $147 when launched but now available for $150, the main competition from Intel resides from the Core i3-4350 (54W, 2C/4T) at $145 of the Core i3-4370 (54W, 2C/4T) at $160. The data points we have most relevant to this at the time of writing are the FX-8150, FX-8350, Core i3-4130T, Core i3-4330 and Core i3-4360, providing more than enough entertainment.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/AMD%20FX-8350.png (http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8864/AMD%20FX-8350.png)


Ver toda a review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera

[Winjer]

The Best CPU for the Money: AMD FX vs. Intel Budget Shootout (http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/)

[LPC]

The Best CPU for the Money: AMD FX vs. Intel Budget Shootout (http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/)



Boas!
Pela escolha de material para o um sistema "budget", penso que é um artigo biased para o lado dos azuis...
Além de que na verdade e porque já tive e outros podem confirmar o que é ali dito não é totalmente verdade...

A diferença de mhz por core dos AMD para os Ivy Bridge é de 300 a 400mhz. O que quer dizer que se meter o FX a 5.0ghz o da intel equipara-o a 4.6 ou 4.7ghz.
Nos consumos mais uma vez não percebo aqueles gráficos... vi consumos de 200 a 220w (tendo em conta que ele é de 125 a 140w), é uma diferença de 60w para ai...

No geral e para um sistema médio a alto, os AMD´s são a escolha certa, os seus 8 cores vão dar geito cada vez mais pelo que o seu real valor começa a ser mais usado (e com os preços mais baixos ainda melhor!)...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

[Jorge-Vieira]

Intel S-series CPUs Power to Performance Comparison: Core i7 4790 vs. 4790S (http://www.techspot.com/article/960-intel-core-i7-4790s-power-to-performance/)



If you are in the market for a new PC, you're probably all too aware of the huge variety of different CPU models available. In a previous article (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-Core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7-Which-is-right-for-you-475/) we covered the differences between the Haswell-based desktop Intel Core i3, i5, and i7 CPUs, but it turns out that there are actually two or three different product lines within each of those brands. You might may be familiar with the "K" or "X" lines, but did you know there are also "S", and "T" lines as well? According to Intel (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html), these letter designators mean:


K/X - "Unlocked" - the highest-end desktop CPU with overclocking support
S - "Performance-optimized lifestyle," lower performance, lower power draw.
T - "Power-optimized lifestyle," lowest performance, lowest power draw.

Editor’s Note:
Matt Bach is the head of Puget Labs and has been part of Puget Systems, a boutique builder of gaming and workstation PCs, since the early days. This article was originally published on the Puget blog (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Introduction-to-Intel-S-series-Process).

In this article, we want to cover the S-series product line in particular because the specifications for S-series processors are actually very similar to that of standard Intel CPUs. To determine the advantage of S-series CPUs we will first look at the official specifications differences between a couple of S-series processors and their standard counterparts then move on to our own testing and benchmarking to determine the actual performance, power draw, and thermal differences.
Specification Differences

To compare the official specifications between S-series CPUs and their standard counterparts we took four of the latest generation Haswell CPUs. There are, of course, more models available from Intel, but we've found that the differences between S-series and their standard counterparts to actually be very consistent, so this is a good representation of the S-series as a whole.

<tbody>
Basic CPU Specifications
i7 4790
i7 4790S
i5 4690
i4 4690S


Base Freq.
3.6 GHz
3.2 GHz
3.5 GHz
3.2 GHz


Max Turbo Freq.
4 GHz
4 GHz
3.9 GHz
3.9 GHz


Cores/Threads
4/8
4/8
4/4
4/4


TDP (wattage)
84 W
65 W
84 W
65 W


Smart Cache
8 MB
8 MB
6 MB
6 MB


T case
72.72 °C
71.35 °C
72.72 °C
71.35 °C

</tbody>

This isn't a complete list of all the official specifications (you can view a complete list at Intel's Ark page (http://ark.intel.com/compare/80812,80810,80808,80806)) but it covers most of the major specifications and all of the ways in which the CPUs officially differ. According to Intel's official specifications, there are really only three differences between the two different model types.
First, the S-series CPUs have a much lower base frequency than the standard CPUs. You would think this means that they will always be slower, but we've shown in the past (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Is-CPU-Base-Frequency-Still-a-Relevant-Spec-512/) that the base frequency is somewhat of a meaningless specification due to Intel's Turbo Boost and Speedstep technologies. These technologies mean that an Intel CPU will only rarely operate at the advertised base frequency which brings into question whether this spec actually has any bearing on real-world performance.
The second difference is the lower TDP wattage on the S-series processors. Again, this is a misleading specification since according to the Intel Ark specification pages, TDP is defined as <q><cite>... the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.</cite></q>
In other words, TDP is only what the wattage of the CPU is when running at the base frequency, not the maximum frequency as determined by Turbo Boost. And since we have found that the base frequency isn't a great indicator of performance, this means that TDP is also a questionable specification. It certainly indicates that the S-series processors should run at a lower wattage, but unless you disable Turbo Boost it does not in any way guarantee it.
Finally, the last difference is the lower T case temperature on the S-series CPUs. This is related to Intel's overheating protection and basically is the thermal cutoff point where an Intel CPU will automatically lower its operating frequency to try to reduce the amount of heat the CPU is generating. More information on this is available in our Impact of Temperature on Intel CPU Performance (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-Temperature-on-Intel-CPU-Performance-606/) article. Realistically, as long as a CPU has adequate cooling this specification should never have a bearing on the performance of the CPU.
To sum up, all the official specifications really tell us is that S-series processors may be a bit slower and may run a bit cooler than their standard equivalent but it is far from conclusive. For that, we will need to perform our own testing.
Test Setup

Since Intel's specifications are not very great at showing the actual difference between the S-series and standard CPUs, we decided to compare a Core i7 4790 and a Core i7 4790S to determine the actual power draw, thermal, and performance differences between the two CPUs. For this testing, we used the following hardware:

<tbody>
Testing Hardware


Motherboard/TD]
[TD]Asus Z97-A (http://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/Motherboard/Asus-Z97-A-10347)



CPU/TD]
[TD]Intel Core i7 4790 3.6GHz 84W Quad Core (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-4790-3-6GHz-Quad-Core-8MB-84W-10295)
Intel Core i7 4790S 3.2GHz 65W Quad Core (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-4790S-3-2GHz-Quad-Core-8MB-65W-10335)



RAM/TD]
[TD]4x Kingston DDR3-1600 8GB (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/Ram/Kingston-DDR3-1600-8GB-8699)



GPU/TD]
[TD]NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/Video-Card/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-4GB-10674)



Hard Drive/TD]
[TD]Samsung 850 Pro 128GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/Hard-Drive/Samsung-850-Pro-128GB-SATA-6Gb-s-2-5inch-SSD-10491)



OS/TD]
[TD]Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/Operating-System/Windows-8-1-Pro-64-bit-OEM-9827)



PSU/TD]
[TD]Seasonic X-650 650W (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/Power-Supply/Seasonic-X-650-650W-Power-Supply-6597)



CPU Cooler
Cooler Master Hyper TX3 (http://www.pugetsystems.com//parts/CPU-Cooling/Cooler-Master-Hyper-TX3-CPU-Cooler-8456)

</tbody>
All driver and Windows updates were applied prior to testing. Coretemp was used to record both the CPU temperature and operating frequency along with a "watts up? PRO" power meter with USB logging to record the system power draw.
Real world difference between 4790 and 4790S


http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/960/images/max-system-power-draw.jpg



Toda a review:
http://www.techspot.com/article/960-intel-core-i7-4790s-power-to-performance/

[Jorge-Vieira]

Best $70 CPU for Gaming: Athlon X4 860K vs. Pentium G3258

(http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/)We received a lot of great feedback after recently updating our PC buying guide (http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/) and then building and benchmarking the systems (http://www.techspot.com/guides/1008-pc-buying-guide-benchmarks/). Our most affordable build, the Budget Box (http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page2.html), caught the attention of many readers, costing just ~$500 including a monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse.
This system only has $350 worth of core components but that buys a quad-core CPU with decent integrated graphics, 8GB of high-speed DDR3 memory, a 120GB SSD, an optical drive and a solid case/power supply combo to bring everything together.
The Budget Box is ideal for everyday computing though it will handle some lightweight gaming. For anything beyond that you'll want to invest in a dedicated GPU such as the $100 Radeon R7 260X (http://www.techspot.com/review/722-radeon-r9-270x-r7-260x/), which offered the Budget Box 355% more performance (http://www.techspot.com/guides/1008-pc-buying-guide-benchmarks/page7.html) in BioShock Infinite in our tests and allowed the game to run at 50fps on ultra quality.
Although the Budget Box is intended for general usage, if you're building a gaming system, it makes sense to drop the AMD A8-7650K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113391) ($105) for the Athlon X4 860K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113379) ($75), with the latter being not only cheaper but faster out of the box.
The Athlon X4 860K is essentially the A10-7850K without an integrated R7 (8 CUs), allowing it to be a little over 40% cheaper, not to mention almost 30% cheaper than the A8-7650K, and every cent counts toward an entry-level graphics card.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1017/images/Image_03S.jpg (http://www.techspot.com/photos/article/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/#Image_03.jpg)
While the $75 Athlon X4 860K with a dedicated GPU is a smarter choice than the A10-7850K if you're looking to game, knowing which processor to buy isn't that simple.
The only reason we picked AMD over Intel for our Budget Box is because AMD's APUs offer a much better balance of CPU and GPU performance -- it's a single chip solution that can actually handle some casual gaming. However, if you don't plan to run anything 3D-related then Intel is the way to go, as is often the case when installing a discrete GPU.
After all, for the same price as the Athlon X4 860K you could own a Pentium G3258 (http://www.techspot.com/review/849-intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-overclock/), the Anniversary Edition chip that overclocks well beyond 4GHz on air. So then, folks looking to game on a ~$500 machine have a choice to make between AMD's FM2+ platform with the quad-core 3.7GHz Athlon X4 860K or Intel's LGA 1150 platform with the dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium G3258.
We dismissed the G3258 to a certain degree when we tested it about a year ago because it's only a dual-core processor and for a bit more money (granted, 60% more), the Core i3-4160 (http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/) is a safer option thanks to HyperThreading support. Nonetheless, if you're aiming for the least expensive gaming rig possible, then the G3258 is a more feasible choice than the i3.
Both the Athlon X4 860K and Pentium G3258 are identical price-wise with supporting motherboards starting at around $40 and going up to $70 if you want the latest chipset (A88X vs. H97), and you'll be buying DDR3 memory regardless so there's no cost difference there either.
Your decision will inevitably boil down to which platform offers the best performance where you need it most. To help determine that, we've benchmarked the Athlon and Pentium with the GeForce GTX 960 (http://www.techspot.com/review/946-nvidia-geforce-gtx-960/) and Radeon R9 285 (http://www.techspot.com/review/873-amd-radeon-r9-285/) in 20 of the most popular AAA titles.
The CPUs will be tested with their stock settings and tested separately with each GPU, which will drive games at 1080p, the most popular gaming resolution. For the hell of it, we've also included maximum air-cooled overclocking results for both processors.
Test System Specs The AMD Athlon X4 860K and Intel Pentium G3258 were both benchmarked at their default operating frequencies as well as an overclocked 4.4GHz configuration. Based on our overclocked experiences with these processors using air-cooling the Pentium G3258 can easily hit 4.4GHz while that's a stretch for the Athlon X4 860K. We used the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo (http://www.techspot.com/products/cooling/cooler-master-hyper-212-evo.80890/) for cooling, which is a highly popular $35 budget air cooler.

<tbody>
AMD Kaveri System Specs​


AMD Athlon X4 860K (3.7GHz - 4.0GHz)
Asrock FM2A88M Extreme4+ (AMD A88X)
8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-2400 RAM
Crucial MX200 1TB
SilverStone Essential Series 500w
Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit


Intel Haswell System Specs


Intel Pentium G3258 (3.2GHz)
Asrock Z97 Anniversary (Intel Z97)
8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-2400 RAM
Crucial MX200 1TB
SilverStone Essential Series 500w
Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit



</tbody>


Toda a review:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/ (http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/)

[Dape_1904]

Até no low-end a Intel já limpa a AMD, enfim. Assim nem dá pica competir...

[MTPS]

Um bundle Pentium com Z97 custa bem mais que um X4 + A88X.

[Jorge-Vieira]

Quad-Core Gaming Roundup: How Much CPU Do You Really Need?

Introduction and Test Hardware http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-29/logos.jpg (http://www.pcper.com/image/view/58540?return=node%2F63308)
The PC gaming world has become divided by two distinct types of games: those that were designed and programmed specifically for the PC, and console ports. Unfortunately for PC gamers it seems that far too many titles are simply ported over (or at least optimized for consoles first) these days, and while PC users can usually enjoy higher detail levels and unlocked frame rates there is now the issue of processor core-count to consider. This may seem artificial, but in recent months quite a few games have been released that require at least a quad-core CPU to even run (without modifying the game).
One possible explanation for this is current console hardware: PS4 and Xbox One systems are based on multi-core AMD APUs (the 8-core AMD "Jaguar"). While a quad-core (or higher) processor might not be techincally required to run current games on PCs, the fact that these exist on consoles might help to explain quad-core CPU as a minimum spec. This trend could simply be the result of current x86 console hardware, as developement of console versions of games is often prioritized (and porting has become common for development of PC versions of games). So it is that popular dual-core processors like the $69 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KPRWAZQ/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20) Intel Pentium Anniversary Edition (G3258) are suddenly less viable for a future-proofed gaming build. While hacking these games might make dual-core CPUs work, and might be the only way to get such a game to even load as the CPU is checked at launch, this is obviously far from ideal.
http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-29/4790K_box.jpg (http://www.pcper.com/image/view/58479?return=node%2F63308)
Is this much CPU really necessary?
Rather than rail against this quad-core trend and question its necessity, I decided instead to see just how much of a difference the processor alone might make with some game benchmarks. This quickly escalated into more and more system configurations as I accumulated parts, eventually arriving at 36 different configurations at various price points. Yeah, I said 36. (Remember that Budget Gaming Shootout article (http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Budget-Gaming-PC-Shootout-Affordable-System-Builds-Compared) from last year? It's bigger than that!) Some of the charts that follow are really long (you've been warned), and there’s a lot of information to parse here. I wanted this to be as fair as possible, so there is a theme to the component selection. I started with three processors each (low, mid, and high price) from AMD and Intel, and then three graphics cards (again, low, mid, and high price) from AMD and NVIDIA.
Here’s the component rundown with current pricing*:
Processors tested:


AMD Athlon X4 860K - $74.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MU00IOQ/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
AMD FX 8350 - $165.9 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009O7YUF6/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)3
AMD FX 9590 (with AIO cooler) - $259.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G5QSF1Y/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
Intel Core i3-4130 - $118 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EUUKVXM/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
Intel Core i5-4440 - $184.29 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EUUIWZ6/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
Intel Core i7-4790K - $338.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KPRWAX8/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)

Graphics cards tested:


AMD Radeon R7 260X (ASUS 2GB OC) - $137.24 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NALL2TE/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
AMD Radeon R9 280 (Sapphire Dual-X) - $169.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IZXOW80/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
AMD Radeon R9 290X (MSI Lightning) - $399 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00UGF7Y3K/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (OEM) - $149.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IGHD876/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (OEM) - $235 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IYWAT5W/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (ASUS STRIX) - $519 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O4S9NY8/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20)

*These prices were current as of 6/29/15, and of course fluctuate.
Continue reading our Quad-Core Gaming Roundup: How Much CPU Do You Really Need? (http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need)
Looking over the list above I’m immediately drawn to the R9 280 at just $169.99 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IZXOW80/?tag=pcper04-20&tag=pcper04-20), a great price for a mid-range card (we'll see how well it performed). On the NVIDIA side I'll note that my choice of mid-range card might be questioned, with the GTX 960 the new $200-$220 option; I picked the 770 over the 960 simply because I already had one on hand to test. Finally, all of the AMD cards tested were overclocked retail models, such as the MSI R9 290X Lightning with a 1080 MHz core. Stock performance will be a bit lower, but these are all off-the-shelf cards and nothing was run beyond retail spec. If it was overclocked by the manufacturer, I ran it that way. Each platform was configured using default settings, with 8GB of dual-channel 1600 MHz DDR3 used for each testbench.
Making Sacrifices
http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-29/steam_games.PNG (http://www.pcper.com/image/view/58536?return=node%2F63308)
The six games used to benchmark this hardware
For game testing I made the decision to use only automated benchmarks for the sake of consistency. I wanted to eliminate the possibility of variance with the test results, as there will often be minute differences in the results with this much hardware. As a result of this there were some excellent candidates that I simply couldn't use without an automated benchmark tool. I tried to vary the mix of games to provide an uncolored look at the true potential performance of the hardware, and of the 6 games selected half use AMD's Mantle API (these were tested with DX11 as well) and at least one (Civilization: Beyond Earth) is known to be highly CPU-bound.
All tests were run at both 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 resolution, with three identical runs at each resolution for each hardware component. Drivers were current when testing began in January, and therefore out of date by current standards. This was necessary to provide a true comparison between hardware results.
http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-29/amd_driver.PNG (http://www.pcper.com/image/view/58534?return=node%2F63308)
AMD cards were tested using Catalyst Omega 14.12
http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-06-29/nv_driver.PNG (http://www.pcper.com/image/view/58535?return=node%2F63308)
NVIDIA cards were tested using GeForce Game Ready Driver 347.25
Windows 8.1 64-bit was used for all game testing, and games were loaded using identical Steam backups for each title.
Without further preamble let’s get to the test results!



Toda a analise:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

[LPC]

Boas!
Interessante artigo...

E mostra que para jogar um i5 chega e só...

Outra coisa boa, foi ver como até á gama média em termos de GPU o 860k da AMD (que é super baratuxo), consegue responder bastante bem ás investidas da Intel...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD vs. Intel: 57 processor megatest

<article itemprop="reviewBody"> Introduction That the fastest processors are currently made by Intel is not really a secret, but what is the best choice when you want to spend up to £ 50, £100 or £150? To answer that question we conducted a megatest of 57 current AMD and Intel CPUs.
From two to eight cores, 2 Ghz through to 5 GHz and a price range from less than £ 30 to over £ 900. If you are looking for a new processor the choice at the moment is ample. In the high end range the only manufacturer of choice is Intel, as is clear by the performance levels of the new i7 processors. If you do not want to spend an arm and a leg on a new CPU however you will find there is a lot of competition in the lower end of the market between AMD and Intel. Intel's biggest advantage is obviously the raw power per CPU core and power consumption, but AMD processors have a very good price/performance ratio and their biggest advantage is the integration of their Radeon graphics. If you are looking for a processor in the lower range the choice can become quite difficult, and to help making the choice a bit clearer we have tested 57 processors in all price ranges, from the Celeron to the Core i7 and the A4 to the FX processors.
Assortment On the following pages of this test we will go through all available CPU's in the mentioned price ranges. In this comparison table all specifications and test results are listed. (http://uk.hardware.info/vergelijkingstabel/producten/186932-202832-186930-205616-223623-205614-242047-210521-234272-205617-275729-210514-247232-164239-185650-241136-164236-241075-241134-192812-192811-205343-205342-219919-215798-197361-219917-232127-197362-197363-219916-219915-232128-186075-197364-215524-186074-215523-186073-186071-215522-220716-186072-186031-215521-220715-197061-196824-196823-241524-241251-240869-197358-232125-220850-197359-232126) It is also possible to click on the CPU's of your choice in our list of reviewed products and compare only these that way.
When you are shopping around for a new CPU, you will find that Intel's offering is very clear: both the extremely cheap as well as the extremely expensive models are all based on Haswell technology on socket 1150. You can still find the older generation Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge processors, but we can see no reason to consider these when you are starting a new build, and have not included those in our test. The models range from the cheapest Celeron (dual core) to Pentium (dual core and higher clock speeds) to Core i3 (dual core and hyperthreading), Core i5 (quad core and turbo) and Core i7 (quad core plus hyperthreading and turbo). Top of the range are the socket 2011 Core i7 CPU's that come in six and eight core varieties.

http://content.hwigroup.net/images/articles/Haswell-lineup.png
Easy to choose: Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7; all Haswell, all Socket 1150 AMD currently has processors in more generations and sockets on the market. There are Socket AM3+ processors that have six or eight cores but no GPU, based on the Vishera chip introduced in 2012. There are also APUs (AMD’s processors with integrated graphics) around with chips from the last three generations of processors, Trinity, Richland and Kaveri. If you are really looking you can even find processors based on technology from four generations back, Llano. Llano and Trinity are not tested in this review, we concentrate mainly on the newer Kaveri chips and have tested some of the older Richland CPUs. This because the Richland offers slightly better CPU performance than the similarly priced Kaveri, however we do prefer the Kaveri as this is based on the more modern GCN-architecture.
We are not impressed with the AMD line up, as it is quite messy. Where Intel is quite clear on what you can expect from a Core i3 or i5, AMD with their choice of A4, A6, A8 and A10 is definitely not. You can normally assume that the higher the number is, the faster the processor will be, but not in all cases. The model number after the type indication does not offer any clue about the architecture on the chip, the A4-7300 is, despite the model number, still based on the Richland architecture.

http://content.hwigroup.net/images/articles/amd-lineup.png
With three generations of current CPUs AMD's assortment is quite extensive Test We have tested all processors running Windows 8 with different kinds of software. For integrated graphics we used 3DMark and three games, and to get a view on CPU performance we ran three different tests; Cinebench, a multithreaded benchmark based on 3D rendering software, Tech Arp x264 benchmark to test how fast the CPU can render H.264 video and benchmarks based on Cyberlink PowerDirector (video editing), Adobe Photoshop (photo editing), Microsoft Excel 2013 (calculations), WinRAR (compression) and TrueCrypt (encryption). With a Radeon HD 7970 added to the systems we did a number of other game benchmarks. In the tables at the end of the article you can find all test results as well as in our comparative table. (http://uk.hardware.info/vergelijkingstabel/producten/186932-202832-186930-205616-223623-205614-242047-210521-234272-205617-275729-210514-247232-164239-185650-241136-164236-241075-241134-192812-192811-205343-205342-219919-215798-197361-219917-232127-197362-197363-219916-219915-232128-186075-197364-215524-186074-215523-186073-186071-215522-220716-186072-186031-215521-220715-197061-196824-196823-241524-241251-240869-197358-232125-220850-197359-232126)
</article>

Toda a review:
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6094/amd-vs-intel-57-processor-megatest


Uma boa review que analisa quase todos os cpus Intel e AMD que estão no mercado :thumbsup:

[LPC]

AMD vs. Intel: 57 processor megatest




Toda a review:
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6094/amd-vs-intel-57-processor-megatest


Uma boa review que analisa quase todos os cpus Intel e AMD que estão no mercado :thumbsup:

Boas!
Tive a ver e é sem dúvida um excelente comparativo e mostra o que andamos aqui a falar... até ao mid a AMD tem algo para oferecer, dai para a frente os da intel tomam conta...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

[Jorge-Vieira]

The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 vs. i3-4360, i5-4430 & AMD FX-8320E (http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/)

Early this year we compared AMD's $150 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113376) quad-core FX-8320E (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/amd-fx-8320e-32ghz-socket-am3.114314/) processor with Intel's $150 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116993) Core i3-4360 (http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/) and $185 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116895) Core i5-4430. On paper it looked like a no brainer: the FX-8320E boasts 8-threads capable of running at up to 4GHz out of the box and is fully unlocked to boot.
The Haswell-based Core i3-4360 is a dual-core processor backed by Intel's HyperThreading technology for four threads and unlike AMD's chip, the i3 is locked at 3.7GHz with no hope of being overclocked. It's a similar story with the pricier Core i5-4430, which can only clock its four cores as high as 3.2GHz and without HT support there are only four threads available.
After years of benchmarking AMD's Piledriver-based (http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/) processors, it's no secret that they aren't the most efficient. That said, we had never looked at power consumption so closely before, especially when overclocking.
We ran the FX-8320E at a reasonable overclock of 4.6GHz and even at that frequency it was for the most part slower than the Core i3-4360 when gaming and shockingly when encoding. Worse still, the overclock made the FX-8320E consume around 60% more power on average.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1087/images/2015-11-17-image.png
By the end, it became clear that wise consumers would be looking at the Core i3 and Core i5. Gamers will find the Core i3 to be the better value option, while the Core i5 is better equipped for heavier tasks like encoding.
In the nine months since we published that article, the FX-8320E is still $150 and AMD's go-to option for budget quad-core computing without integrated graphics.
Meanwhile, the landscape has shifted on Intel's side of the fence as we've recently seen the arrival of its new Skylake-based Core i3 and Pentium processors, the first of which was the Core i3-6100. At $125, the new dual-core chip comes clocked at the same 3.7GHz as the Haswell 4360/4170 models, except the i3-6100 has the advantage of being even more efficient thanks to an updated design using the 14nm process.
After being disappointed in (http://www.techspot.com/review/1041-intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake/) August (http://www.techspot.com/review/1041-intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake/) by the marginal performance between Skylake and Haswell Core i7s, we're interested in seeing how the i3-6100 stacks up against the older i3-4360, as well as the i5-4430 and the overclocked FX-8320E.
Synthetic Benchmarks Intel's specification for the Core i3-6100 calls for a maximum DDR4 memory speed of 2133MHz, so technically by using any memory faster than that you are overclocking. Moreover, the cheaper H170, Q170 and B150 motherboards are all limited to 2133MHz memory support. Therefore, in order to run faster memory users will be required to shell out for a Z170 board, which isn't going to be an option for some budget-conscious consumers.
In an effort to cover all bases we benchmarked the Core i3-6100 with both DDR4-2133 and DDR4-3000 memory on a Z170 motherboard to see what kind of difference consumers can expect to find when running different memory speeds.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1087/bench/Synthetic_01.png
Here we see a rather significant 31% boost in memory bandwidth when increasing the frequency by 41% from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-3000. Using DDR4-2133 memory the Core i3-6100 is still 8% faster than the Core i3-4360 which happens to be running DDR3-2133 memory. Once armed with DDR4-3000 memory, the Core i3-6100 is able to outpace the Core i5-4430 by a small margin.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1087/bench/Synthetic_02.png
The Skylake Core i3-6100 shows a notable improvement in L1 and L2 cache performance over the Haswell Core i3-4360. This isn't entirely surprising as we found a similar thing when comparing the Core i7-4790K to the new Core i7-6700K. The Core i3-6100 is considerably faster than the 4360 when comparing L2 cache performance and not a great deal slower than the Core i5-4430.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1087/bench/Synthetic_03.png
Using DDR4-2133 memory, the Core i3-6100 provides only a limited performance bump over the Core i3-4360 in the Cinebench R15 single and multi-threaded tests. Boosting the memory speed to 3000MHz had a minor impact on performance, though it did help the 6100 distance itself a little more from the 4360.



Toda a review:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

[Jorge-Vieira]

Best CPUs of 2015: What you should buy depending on your budget (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/)

When building a new computer or upgrading an existing system many start with the CPU as it's arguably the most critical component in a PC. Picking the right CPU can be a challenge with dozens of options not very well differentiated and priced too close to each other (we are talking $25 gaps in-between). Case in point, there are over three dozen $200+ options as of writing.
Narrowing down the potential options to a certain budget certainly helps. Then you have to decide whether you go AMD or Intel, and if you're definitely going for the latter, Intel has current offerings based on the LGA1150, LGA1151 and LGA2011-3 platforms.
After extensive testing (http://www.techspot.com/reviews/cpu/) you are familiar with, we've come up with this quick guide to bring you the best CPU choices available right now, divided into four categories: The Best Enthusiast/Value Gaming CPU, Best Extreme Desktop CPU, Best All-Round High-End CPU and Best Budget CPU. Finally, we'll digress on which is the best overall platform to invest in right now.
Best Enthusiast/Value Gaming CPU
Intel Core i5 6600K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i5-6600k.121555/) In numbers
Price: $270 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B012M8M7TY/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

TechSpot Metascore: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 87

(http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i5-6600k.121555/)
User Reviews: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 9.6

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B012M8M7TY/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

The best value gaming CPU has to be reasonably priced and avoid reaching the point of severe diminishing returns. That rules out any Core i7 processor in our book, as Core i5s do just as well in 99% of the games out there.
We don’t recommend gamers to invest in AMD FX processors either, as we've found them to inhibit gaming performance of high-end GPUs in some of the latest titles. Most recently we found horrible FX performance in Fallout 4 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html), where the FX-9590 was bested by a 4th-gen Core i3. Although we haven't published a full performance review on (the somewhat buggy) Just Cause 3 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1102-just-cause-3/), this amazing open world game also makes FX processors seriously suffer.
This leaves us tossing up between the Haswell and Skylake Core i5s. The Core i5-4690K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i5-4690k-35ghz-socket-1150.103547/) costs $240 while the i5-6600K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i5-6600k.121555/) is selling for $270, not a significant difference but enough to make us question spending more on the 6600K given it won’t really benefit gamers in any meaningful way.
There are numerous valid points for choosing either though we are going to recommend gamers invest slightly more in the 6600K for the simple reason that it's supported by Intel's latest Z170 chipset. Support for the LGA1151 socket gives users a greater upgrade path, plus the added benefit of using high speed DDR4 memory.
If you don’t plan to overclock then you can save some on the Core i5-6500 which sells for $205. Avoid the slightly cheaper Core i5-6400 because it's clocked 15% slower at 2.7GHz opposed to 3.2GHz, which doesn't justify the small savings.



Best Budget CPU
AMD A8-7650K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/amd-a8-7650k.119256/) In numbers
Price: $104 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TQIT1W0/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

TechSpot Metascore: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 83

(http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/amd-a8-7650k.119256/)
User Reviews: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 9.0

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TQIT1W0/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

For the best budget CPU we are looking for something that can do it all from productivity to gaming at a cost of $100 or less. The cheapest Core i3 processor is ~$120 leaving us to pick from Celeron and Pentium processors on the Intel side of the fence. AMD on the other hand as a few nice quad-core APUs on offer as well as their FX-6300 for just $90.
The Athlon X4 860K (http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/) is a reasonable buy at $70 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113379), but with the FX-6300 (http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/) priced just $20 higher we recommend gamers using a discrete graphics card go for the ‘6-core’ FX processor or the Intel Core i3-6100 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/) if you plan to play games first and foremost.
Having that said, for those wanting to do a little bit of everything, it's hard to go past the AMD A8-7650K quad-core APU for $100. For the price this CPU lends itself well to a multitude of tasks and this is why it is the heart and soul of ‘The Budget Box’ (http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page2.html).
The A8-7650K is powerful enough that it can get the most out of $200 discrete graphics cards and if you want to game on a limited budget, the Radeon R7 (6 CUs) is one of the best integrated graphics engines found on any CPU.
Out of the box the A8-7650K runs at 3.3GHz with a 3.8GHz boost clock speed. As a fully unlocked part, you can overclock although based on our experience it'll be hard to push past 4GHz, which isn’t bad as you can lock all four cores at this frequency for a reasonable performance bump.
This FM2+ processor is backed by a huge range of motherboards supporting various chipsets. The flagship A88X can be had for as little as $60, though most motherboards sporting this chipset are closer to $100. For something more affordable perhaps try an A58 or A68H motherboard, which are available for a little less than $50.


Best Extreme Desktop CPU (Any Price)
Intel Core i7 5960X (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5960x.106206/) In numbers
Price: $1,050 (http://www.amazon.com/dp//?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

TechSpot Metascore: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 90

(http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5960x.106206/)
User Reviews: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 9.6

(http://www.amazon.com/dp//?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

The best desktop CPU is a category that writes itself when there is no concern whatsoever about pricing. There is just one option, the ludicrously expensive Intel Core i7-5960X which is the key component of our “Extreme Machine” build (http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page6.html).
The year-old $1050 (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-5960X-Haswell-E-Processor-BX80648I75960X/dp/B00MMLXIHM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449722016&sr=8-1&keywords=Intel+Core+i7+5960X) processor comes equipped with 8 dedicated cores and a massive 20MB L3 cache. The cores operate at a 3GHz base speed, but can boost as high as 3.5GHz depending on the workload. Designed to work with up to 64GBs of DDR4-2133, the 5960X supports quad-channel memory for a bandwidth of over 50GB/s, roughly twice that of a Core i5-4690K using DDR3-2400 memory.
The 5960X is backed by the Intel X99 chipset (LGA2011-3) which supports all the latest platform features.
There is a huge range of X99 motherboards on offer with online retailers such as Newegg showing as many as 100 different models. Prices start at $190, while most are closer to $300 and some go as high as $650 (http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Motherboards-X99-WS-E-10G/dp/B00QTP1A9A/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1448569324&sr=1-1&keywords=Asrock+X99+WS-E%2F10G) for the Asrock X99 WS-E/10G (http://www.techspot.com/products/motherboards/asrock-x99-ws.106295/).



Best All-Round High-end CPU
Intel Core i7 5820K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5820k.106208/) In numbers
Price: $395 (http://www.amazon.com/dp//?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

TechSpot Metascore: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 88

(http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5820k.106208/)
User Reviews: (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/#) 9.6

(http://www.amazon.com/dp//?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20)

Unlike the Extreme CPU choice, the best all round high-end CPU has to be good at everything while maintaining a solid price to performance ratio. Obvious candidates would be the Intel Core i7-6700K, 4790K, AMD FX-9590 and the one we are going with, the Core i7-5820K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5820k.106208/), another Haswell-E part.
Intel's Skylake Core i7-6700K (http://www.techspot.com/review/1041-intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake/) is supposed to be $339 and yet finding one at that price (if at all) is impossible. Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117559) and Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Boxed-I7-6700K-Processor-BX80662I76700K/dp/B012M8LXQW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449691660&sr=8-1&keywords=Intel+Core+i7-6700K) both list it for $420 and at the time of writing Newegg is out of stock, and so are most other online retailers.
At that price the i7-6700K makes little sense as the more equipped i7-5820K costs just $375 (http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-5820K-Haswell-E-Processor-BX80648I75820K/dp/B00MMLXIKY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449691695&sr=8-1&keywords=Intel+Core+i7+5820K). The Haswell-E processor boasts an additional two cores and four threads and is also unlocked, making the 3.3GHz operating frequency somewhat irrelevant. The i7-5820K also features almost twice as much L3 cache and still supports DDR4 memory.
This makes the i7-5820K a much better CPU for demanding tasks such as video editing. Meanwhile less demanding applications and games will run just as well on the i7-5820K as they do on the i7-6700K. There are tons of high-end X99 boards available and unless you're hunting for a particular feature, you'll probably be equally satisfied with anything you pick.
For our Luxury System build (http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page5.html) we went with the relatively affordable Asrock X99 Extreme4 (http://www.techspot.com/products/motherboards/asrock-x99-extreme4.106294/) since we didn’t require anything special on the audio front (we are using a dedicated sound card) and the board offers an Ultra M.2 slot to support the uber fast Samsung SSD 950 Pro SSD (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/storage/#124281).


Best Platform When picking the best value gaming CPU or the best budget CPU, we also take the platform into account, but it isn’t the primary factor. Price and performance play key roles in our decision. Removing the CPU from the equation for a moment, we asked ourselves which platform provides the most useful features at the best price?
In the past Intel's Extreme CPUs were supported by outdated chipsets that sucked, if we are honest. The X79 was a classic example of that. The situation is considerably better with the Intel X99 that powers our two most expensive processor picks, the Core i7-5820K (http://www.techspot.com/products/processors/intel-core-i7-5820k.106208/) and the Core i7-5960X (http://www.techspot.com/review/875-intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e/), however that doesn't make it the best value platform. Among the reasons, its limited CPU support and the fact there is no upgrade path beyond the three existing Haswell-E (http://www.techspot.com/review/875-intel-core-i7-5960x-haswell-e/) processors, assuming Intel skips Broadwell-E and moves right to Skylake-E sometime next year.
The LGA1150 socket and the Z97 chipset face a similar situation and the final nail will be driven into the coffin once Skylake Core i5 and Core i7 pricing stabilizes.
Therefore we are going with the platform that powers our enthusiast/value gaming CPU choice. The LGA1151 socket is supported by a number of chipsets, but it's the Z170 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1073-intel-z170-motherboard-roundup/) that we are interested in. This chipset is the only in the 100-series to support CPU overclocking and multi-GPU configurations. There are also 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes and the potential for up to three PCIe storage devices.
Another key advantage the Z170 (http://www.techspot.com/review/1073-intel-z170-motherboard-roundup/) enjoys over its predecessor is the new DMI 3.0 interface which allows support for high-end graphics cards as well as high-speed storage devices such as the Samsung SSD 950 Pro (http://www.techspot.com/bestof/storage/#124281) without compromising on bandwidth.



Noticia:
http://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/

[Jorge-Vieira]

AMD FX-6330 Versus Core i3-6100 Benchmark Showdown – Hexa-Core Piledriver Compared Against Dual Core Skylake

Back in December 2015, AMD silently launched (http://wccftech.com/amd-fx-6330-black-edition-processor-silent-launch/)their latest FX-6330 Black Edition processor which is based on their Piledriver architecture. The processor was exclusively built for the Chinese market and is bundled with the Wraith cooler which was showcased and demonstrated (http://wccftech.com/amd-wraith-cpu-cooler-zen-bristol-ridge/)by AMD at their CES 2016 booth. Today, PConline (http://diy.pconline.com.cn/746/7469887.html)has posted a new comparison, showcasing the performance of AMD’s last gen architecture with Intel’s latest 14nm Skylake architecture.
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Black-Edition-Processor-635x423.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330_Wraith-Cooler_3-635x423.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330_Wraith-Cooler_1-635x423.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330_Wraith-Cooler_2-635x423.jpg


Image Credits: PCOnline (http://diy.pconline.com.cn/746/7469887.html) AMD’s Six Core FX-6330 Compared Against Intel’s Dual Core, Core i3-6100 Processor The comparison posted is interesting since both the Core i3 and FX CPUs are aimed at budget users. Both chips retail under the $120 US price point and offer good performance to PC builders without the need to spend a lot of cash on either the platform or the processor itself. The FX-6330 is built for the Chinese markets while the i3-6100 is available worldwide, whether it’s a good option for APAC (Asia-Pacific) based users can only be known by testing both chips through a list of performance benchmarks. First of all, let’s compare the specifications of both processors.
The specifications of the FX-6330 processor include six cores based on the 32nm SOI HKMG process. The chip is clocked at a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a boost clock of 4.2 GHz. This puts the chip a 100 MHz ahead of the 6300 which was clocked at 3.5 GHz base and 4.1 GHz boost clock. The chip comes with 6 MB of L2 cache and 8 MB of L3 cache. Being compatible with the AM3+ platform means that it will stick around with DDR3-1866 MHz DIMM as reference.
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AMD-FX-6330_10-635x357.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AMD-FX-6330_14-635x357.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AMD-FX-6330_16-635x357.jpg

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AMD-FX-6330_4-635x357.jpg

The FX-6330 maintains the 95W TDP with somewhat improved power management and has an un locked multiplier which allows overclocking support on the chip. The chip retails at $109.99 US which is around the same price as the FX-6300 and comes with the latest Wraith cooler which offers 24% more surface area, 34% higher air volume circulated to the chip and runs with a steady noise output of 39dB compared to previous gen coolers. At CES 2016, AMD told that their Wraith cooler (http://wccftech.com/amd-reveals-info-wraith-cpu-cooler/) is 10 times more quieter than the last generation of CPU coolers offered on FX processors (excluding the AIO liquid coolers) which is a step up for their reference designs and we will even get to see it with next generation Zen and Carrizo based chips coming to the AM4 platform.
Advertisements


The Intel Core i3-6100 on the other hand is a hyperthreaded dual core which is based on the 14nm Skylake CPU architecture. This chip is clocked at 3.7 GHz and doesn’t feature any Turbo Boost clock.. It comes with just 3 MB of L3 cache and a TDP of just 51W. The chip is bundled with the PCG 2015C thermal solution which is designed to handle 65W of heat dissipation load and enough to cool the chip under load scenarios. The Skylake chips are compatible with LGA 1151 socket motherboards and support DDR4 memory. The Core i3-6100 retails for price of $117 US which is $7 more than the FX processor. The processor doesn’t feature an unlocked multiplier but all board vendors have added non-K overclock (http://wccftech.com/asrock-introduces-their-sky-oc-platform-overclocking-for-non-k-skylake/) features in their LGA 1151 motherboards that allow overclocking on locked Skylake chips. The Intel platform also allows better I/O features compared to FX platforms however they do retail at slightly higher cost.
AMD FX-6330 Versus Intel Core i3-6100 – CPU Benchmarks:http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Cinebench-635x546.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_wPrime-635x545.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Winrar-635x543.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Fritz-Chess-Benchmark-635x545.jpg AMD FX-6330 Versus Intel Core i3-6100 – Game Benchmarks:http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Crysis-3-635x545.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Metro-2033-635x545.jpg Coming to the benchmarks, the FX-6330 has six cores which does give it the edge over the Core i3 in multi-threaded applications such as Fritz Chess benchmark, WinRar and Cinebench however, in some cases, the Core i3-6100 manages to fare well in a different set of multi-threaded apps. In games, the Core i3-6100 manages to outpace the FX-6330 by a slight notch. The games tested include Crysis 3 and Metro 2033 (tested at 1080p resolution). In Metro 2033, the FX chip manages to get 75 FPS with a discrete graphics card while the Core i3-6100 manages to obtain 80 FPS. In Crysis 3, the FX-6330 runs at under 30 FPS while the Core i3-6100 does 34 FPS.
AMD FX-6330 Versus Intel Core i3-6100 – Power Consumption:http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_Idle-635x545.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_CPU-Load-635x545.jpg


http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AMD-FX-6330-Vs-Core-i3-6100_System-Load-635x545.jpg Comparing power consumption, both systems consume 55W (Core i3-6100) and 56W (FX-6330) at idle mode. The total power consumption of these chips at full load stand at 105W for the Core i3-6100 and 151W for the FX-6330. Comparing load system power consumption, the AMD system does 396W while the Intel setup does 346W. We can see that the FX chips tend to get more hot and eat a lot of power. Overall, with an influx of new AM3+ motherboards (http://wccftech.com/amd-a10-7890k-apu/), the FX-6330 will be a good option for someone who wants more cores in their system while Intel’s option is better for users who want to stay updated with the latest list of features and I/O support.

<thead>
Processor Name
AMD FX-6300
AMD FX-6330
AMD FX-6350

</thead> <tbody class="row-hover">
Cores/Threads
6/6
6/6
6/6


Base Clock/Boost Clock
3.5/4.1 GHz
3.6/4.2 GHz
3.9/4.2 GHz


L2 Cache
6 MB
6 MB
6 MB


L3 Cache
8 MB
8 MB
8 MB


Unlocked Multipler
Yes
Yes
Yes


Memory Support
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1866


Platform
AM3+
AM3+
AM3+


TDP
95W
95W
125W


Price
$109.99 US
$109.99 US
$129.99 US

</tbody>







Noticia:
http://wccftech.com/amd-fx-6330-vs-intel-core-i3-6100/#ixzz3yTN0IJoD

[Jorge-Vieira]

£150 Gaming CPU: AMD FX 8370 (w/ Wraith) vs Intel Core i5-6400 (http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/150-gaming-cpu-amd-fx-8370-w-wraith-vs-intel-core-i5-6400/)


There is little doubt that the two components most integral to a gaming system are its GPU and CPU. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to opt for the fastest of both and worry not about having to optimise game settings in search of smooth frame rates. But in reality, striking a balance between GPU and CPU performance can be a tricky task, especially when the pair draw from the same cash pool. It is no secret that Intel’s latest Core i7 processors generally rule the roost when it comes to gaming performance on the CPU side. But they also demand a significant price premium over the lower-performance Intel and AMD chips that are commonly referred to as ‘good enough’ for gaming requirements. It may be smarter to invest that £100+ section of budget into a faster graphics card rather than a flagship, Core i7-level CPU. And that’s where today’s ~£150 processors hit the limelight.
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CPUs-650-2.jpg (http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CPUs-650-2.jpg)
Looking at the ~£150 CPU market reveals somewhat of a sweet-spot for gaming buyers. From AMD you get access to one of the higher-clocked FX-8xxx series 8-core ‘Vishera’ CPUs. And at this price point, Intel gives desktop users the first taste of a true quad-core ‘Skylake’ chip in the Core i5-6400.
Honing in on Intel’s Core i5-6400 and AMD’s FX 8370 CPU, which has been given a fresh lease of life thanks to an upgraded bundled CPU cooler known as ‘Wraith‘, it is clear to see the different competition approaches taken by each manufacturer at this point in the platforms’ life-cycles.
AMD opts for a large number of cores operating at an equally high frequency, albeit with sharing of certain under-the-hood resources, to overcome the shackles attached by an aging architecture and transistor process node. Conversely, Intel is counting on greater Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) brought about by its newer CPU architecture to offset the i5-6400’s low operating frequency on the chip’s four non-Hyper-Threading cores.
But as the saying goes, “there is more than one way to skin a cat“. The same logic holds true for pushing pixels in modern gaming titles. Let’s head over to the next few pages for a more in-depth CPU and platform comparison.
Processor Specifications:

<tbody>
CPU


AMD FX 8370 ‘Vishera’


Intel Core i5-6400 ‘Skylake’



Base Speed

4.0GHz


2.7GHz



Max Turbo Speed

4.3GHz

3.3GHz


Overclocking Support
Multiplier and Bus Speed adjustment
Potential BCLK adjustment
(using unofficial BIOS)


CPU Cores & Threads

8 Cores (8 Threads)


4 Cores (4 Threads)



Cache
8MB L3 + 4x2MB L2
6MB L3 + 4x256KB L2


Process (nm)
32
14


Memory Support

DDR3-1866MHz


DDR4-2133MHz



Integrated GPU
Depends on motherboard chipset
Intel HD 530 @ up to 950MHz
(disabled with Non-K OCing BIOS)


CPU Socket

AM3+


LGA1151



TDP (W)

125W


65W



Current Pricing

~£155


~£155


</tbody>


Toda a review:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/150-gaming-cpu-amd-fx-8370-w-wraith-vs-intel-core-i5-6400/

[Enzo]

Resumidamente, AMD atrás...

[tiran]

Fica cada vez mais complicado defender a opção por AMD... Lá está, só mesmo para aqueles pcs low low budget...

[reiszink]

Acaba por ser um efeito bola de neve, quanto mais quota de mercado a Intel tiver, menos interesse vai haver em aproveitar as capacidade dos CPUs AMD.

Faz-me lembrar há 16 ou 17 anos atrás a luta entre a Playstation e Saturn, a partir do momento em que a Saturn começou a ser esmagada a nível de vendas/quota de mercado, já nem os jogos saiam para ela.

[tiran]

Andamos à anos a espera do novo processador... :S

[Jorge-Vieira]

A culpa está toda do lado a AMD, demasiados anos sem lançar um CPU ou uma arquitetura capaz de ombrear com com a tecnologia Core da Intel. A propria AMD também nao se preocupa em dar um refresh aos seus produtos, os refreshes têm sido feitos pelas marcas para dotar a plataforma FX das ultimas novidades, mas por mais refreshes, não há grandes milagres com produtos com varios anos em cima.

A Intel tem uma quota de mercado esmagadora e, no meu entender, mesmo que o Zen venha um CPU à moda antiga, tipo os antigos FX, ou os Athlon ou os Opterons, a AMD vai ter uma tarefa herculea pela frente para conquistar alguma coisa, demasiado tempo sem novidades, acaba por ser esquecida e nesta altura a AMD não passa de um desenrasque para quem não pode comprar Intel ou está à espera de alguma novidade.

É mau de mais olhar para trás e ver onde estava a AMD em 2006 com liderança nos CPUs e passados 10 anos praticamente desapareceu do panorama... e assim se enterra uma empresa.

[LPC]

A culpa está toda do lado a AMD, demasiados anos sem lançar um CPU ou uma arquitetura capaz de ombrear com com a tecnologia Core da Intel. A propria AMD também nao se preocupa em dar um refresh aos seus produtos, os refreshes têm sido feitos pelas marcas para dotar a plataforma FX das ultimas novidades, mas por mais refreshes, não há grandes milagres com produtos com varios anos em cima.

A Intel tem uma quota de mercado esmagadora e, no meu entender, mesmo que o Zen venha um CPU à moda antiga, tipo os antigos FX, ou os Athlon ou os Opterons, a AMD vai ter uma tarefa herculea pela frente para conquistar alguma coisa, demasiado tempo sem novidades, acaba por ser esquecida e nesta altura a AMD não passa de um desenrasque para quem não pode comprar Intel ou está à espera de alguma novidade.

É mau de mais olhar para trás e ver onde estava a AMD em 2006 com liderança nos CPUs e passados 10 anos praticamente desapareceu do panorama... e assim se enterra uma empresa.

Boas!
Nem mais...

A grande novidade no campo dos CPU´s foi o seu "grande" cooler Wraith... (Roll Eyes....)!!!!

Dá vontade de espancar aquele conselho de administração todo...

Cumprimentos,

LPC

PS: Por esta altura o Fixer até já deve ter mudado para a Nvidia...

[Jorge-Vieira]

Nunca entendi muito bem onde a AMD queria chegar com o "Fixer", ou até se isso trouxe resultados... acho que a ultima aparição do "Fixer" foi na bronca das GTX 970... por isso se calhar mudou-se mesmo ou então foi despedido para cortar despesas :)

[Jorge-Vieira]

The AMD Athlon X4 880K Review

The last few years have been a challenge for AMD’s CPU division. The Bulldozer microarchitecture which defined their lineup for the last half decade (along with its Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator updates) proved to be a disappointment, APUs haven’t gained a foothold in key markets and key ULV processors like Mullins (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/66162-amd-mullins-beema-mobile-apus-preview.html) never critical mass. This may sound like a doomsday-style intro but there’s been a number of recently-announced elements that may help redefine AMD’s image in the eyes of potential customers.

Even though they have been facing an uphill battle AMD is in the process of rolling out several updates in an effort to refresh their desktop lineup. Motherboards have been updated with new features, additional APUs are being introduced and even the venerable Athlons are receiving a much-needed injection of adrenalin. There’s also been some news about the highly anticipated AM4 socket alongside the Bristol Ridge and Summit Ridge platforms (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/71545-amd-updates-apus-athlons-motherboards-2.html) for the Zen microarchitecture. All of these things point towards a resurgence of AMD’s product stack in their efforts to better compete against the Intel juggernaut.


http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/AMD-880K/AMD-880K-56.jpg

While I personally love covering high end processors, among the many recent announcements one really struck a chord with me: the Athlon X4 880K. So why was I so interested in what amounts to a low-end processor for the FM2+ platform? I feel AMD’s FM2+ Athlon lineup has remained relatively under-covered since its introduction even though it contains some of their most enticing price / performance SKUs. This newest addition seems like the perfect little plucky underdog that could meet the needs of budget-focused gamers who want good quad-core performance but don’t want to spend upwards of $120 for an entry-level Intel i3 6100 (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/71760-intel-skylake-i5-6500-i5-6400-i3-6100-review.html). The 880K even has an unlocked multiplier which allows for relatively easy overclocking (more on that later), something that none of Intel’s current Skylake CPUs offer unless you want to invest about $250 into an i5 6600K.

Like all other Athlons, the X4 880K utilizes a revised Steamroller core architecture (Excavator still remains exclusive to the lowly X4 845) from the most recent Godavari APUs but rolls it into a die package which doesn’t have an integrated GPU. This layout allows it to hit a significantly lower price point despite boasting frequencies that beat all other FM2+ processors. The only exception is the new A10-7890K but which costs a whopping $165. Another interesting aspect of this design is its TDP value; 95W is identical to higher-end APUs and without the iGPU I’m hoping the 880K will be able to hit its maximum Turbo frequency more often.

The aforementioned gap of $70 between the A10-7890K (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/71830-amd-details-a10-7890k-athlon-x4-880k.html) and Athlon X4 880K is an important one since it gives potential buyers two choices depending on their intended usage scenarios without leaving the FM2+ environment. If you are looking to run a dedicated graphics card, then grab the lower-priced X4 880K and put the money saved towards a better GPU. Meanwhile, if a compact form factor, optimal power consumption, light gaming and HD movie watching are key factors for you then an A10 or even A8 series APU will likely be a better choice. With both AMD and NVIDIA divesting themselves from the sub-$100 GPU market, the graphics power from an APU will easily overcome the 880K alongside a $70 dedicated graphics card.


http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/AMD-880K/AMD-880K-2.jpg

A slightly more fitting competitor for the Athlon X4 880K actually comes from the AM3 side of the fence. AMD’s FX-4300 has four cores, very similar clock speeds, an identical amount of L2 cache, costs about $15 less and is attached to a 9-series platform that many feel is more versatile than FM2+.

It should be interesting to see how these two processors line up against one another since the Vishera CPU uses an older Piledriver architecture and was launched more than three years ago. Meanwhile, the Steamroller microarchitecture has higher IPC rates, better memory optimizations and a number of other advancements that help distinguish it from its predecessor. The Godavari revision used on the X4 880K has architected primarily for APUs but its minor enhancements push Steamroller even further towards next generation designs with better TDP management through manufacturing process refinements and enhanced clock gating.


http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/AMD-880K/AMD-880K-1.jpg

Another addition worth talking about is the new cooling solution the X4 880K processor ships with. It houses a quartet of heatpipes which make contact with a pure copper base and arch upwards into a large aluminum fin array for optimal heat dispersion. Thermal dissipation is rated at 125W which means there’s some thermal headroom if you want to overclock this 95W processor. While the design is basically the same as the one used for AMD’s new Wraith cooler, it doesn’t have the illuminated shroud. It’s good to see AMD stepping up their heatsink game since the last thing anyone wants is to buy an expensive third party cooler to get reasonable temperatures on their value-oriented processor.

There’s no denying the X4 880K is an enticing little processor, one that could effectively help budget-minded gamers focus their money on a GPU upgrade. Remember, the $25 gap between it and an i3 6100 isn’t huge but when paired up with the cost disparity between DDR3 and DDR4, the savings could lead to a substantial GPU upgrade. The FM2+ platform has also been updated with USB 3.1, M.2 and other features in an effort bring its technology foundation up to today’s standards.

While AMD has obviously worked hard to breathe some new life into their lineup, I have some concerns about how buyers will react to the Athlon X4 880K. While affordability has always been on the green team’s side, there’s an understandable perception that AMD’s current processor and platform solutions are the old-timers of today’s CPU market, regardless of how many refreshes are launched. AMD hasn’t helped themselves by announcing the upcoming Alpine Ridge and Bristol Ridge platforms’ AM4 sockets won’t be forwards compatible with current processors, nor will FM2+ motherboards accept next generation CPUs / APUs. This leaves potential AMD buyers in a nebulous grey zone where they have to ask themselves whether or not to invest into a twilight platform.

Grey zone or not, our last conversations with AMD suggest these new processors are needed since comparable next generation alternatives are still far away for desktop users. If that is indeed the case, the X4 880K may be a perfect option for gamers on a tight budget.

Toda a review:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/72286-amd-athlon-x4-880k-review.html