AMD - Piledriver chitchat

[MrNeil]

cclonline have one on sale now


http://www.cclonline.com/category/40...acturer-1-AMD/

[Biscuit]

cclonline have one on sale now


http://www.cclonline.com/category/40...acturer-1-AMD/

Good price for the 8320 but no 8350?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

cclonline have one on sale now


http://www.cclonline.com/category/40...acturer-1-AMD/

Good to see a lack of profiteering from CCL:

http://www.cclonline.com/product/934...e-CPU/CPU0154/

Their FX8320 prices are in line with the AMD RRP.

[Biscuit]

Scan are selling them at £142 at the moment though
Ebuyer dont seem to have them at all!
Aria is @ £137

Seems the launch prices havent settled yet?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its a joke and the worst loosers are AMD. A £130 FX8320 would be a good alternative to a Core i5 ,but at their current prices,they make them less enticing.

[Biscuit]

Perhaps the prices are high because people are actually buying them though?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It could be,but then you it would be more likely people would buy them if cheaper. Even the FX6300 should be around £95 to £100 AFAIK. Scan has them at £112,which is a lot in a budget build,ie,the difference between a 500GB and 1TB hard drive for example.

[Biscuit]

It could be,but then you it would be more likely people would buy them if cheaper. Even the FX6300 should be around £95 to £100 AFAIK. Scan has them at £112,which is a lot in a budget build,ie,the difference between a 500GB and 1TB hard drive for example.

But what i am saying is that perhaps people are buying them, so the stores are milking the costs for higher profit. If they are selling above the RRP then hell, why not keep doing it?!

[Dottorrent]

It's been shown that the Piledriver chips are better overall than the Bulldozer chips. However, even the most basic Intel core chips can out-perform the FX 4 core chips but the FX series is overall better value and is backwards compatible with AM3 and AM3+ boards.

[Terbinator]

It's been shown that the Piledriver chips are better overall than the Bulldozer chips. However, even the most basic Intel core chips can out-perform the FX 4 core chips but the FX series is overall better value and is backwards compatible with AM3 and AM3+ boards.

Nope.

[KeyboardDemon]

However, even the most basic Intel core chips can out-perform the FX 4 core chips

I wish I could have found a comparison on Anandtech with the G440 as it's the most basic Intel CPU in their current line up of desktop CPUs (otherwise I would have looked for an Atom), instead here's a comparison of the FX4300 CPU Vs the G620 Pentium, I think you'll find that the not quite most basic Intel CPU only outperformed the FX4300 in two or three of the tests. The i3 was a more competitive processor though, but this is not the most basic processor in the Intel range, here's the results for that comparison.

[Dottorrent]

I wish I could have found a comparison on Anandtech with the G440 as it's the most basic Intel CPU in their current line up of desktop CPUs (otherwise I would have looked for an Atom), instead here's a comparison of the FX4300 CPU Vs the G620 Pentium, I think you'll find that the not quite most basic Intel CPU only outperformed the FX4300 in two or three of the tests. The i3 was a more competitive processor though, but this is not the most basic processor in the Intel range, here's the results for that comparison.

Hence the word Core. I did not say Pentium, Celeron or atom, I said Core as in the Core i3. Nothing more.

[watercooled]

Comparing against the most basic Intel CPUs, they don't even come close in remotely relevant tests. Comparing against a CPU in a similar price range, i3, the FX wins at pretty much everything except some single-threaded benchmarks and games.

[Terbinator]

Shamefully retracted.

[KeyboardDemon]

Hence the word Core. I did not say Pentium, Celeron or atom, I said Core as in the Core i3. Nothing more.

And I included comparisons to show (nearly) most basic and most basic Core CPUs and FX4300 held its own each time.

[scaryjim]

tbf, he said the most basic intel core chip, so you should probably be looking at something like the i3 2100. And then maybe compare it to an FX4300 (since the anandtech bench doesn't have the FX4170 in ). Like this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=289

Spoilers - the FX4300 wins a lot more tests than the i3 2100

Of course, the 4300 is a newer CPU than the 2100, so we could be even fairer and compare it to the i3 3220 (although this really doesn't qualify as the most basic core chip, IMNSHO. as the sandy bridge i3s are still widely available), which possibly gives Intel a slight edge. Then again, you can't currently buy either of those chips from Scan, so why not get an A10-5700, which *is* in stock, is cheaper than either of those, performs almost as well in most situations, and has the equivalent of a £50 discrete graphics card on the same silicon. I know where my money would be going.