AMD Vishera - 8 real cores or 4 real/4 virtual?

[Roger]

Can anyone out there confirm that Vishera is a full 8 core cpu? What I have dug up suggests that it is, however I know Interlagos only has 1 fpu per 2 integer units, so it may not be best for something as floating point heavy as AM. If it has 8 FPUs on it, then it may be worth looking at for a budget renderbox. If the most I am going to get with a dual processor Interlagos system is 16 FPUs anyway, it may make better sense from a financial standpoint to get 2 motherboards, 2 Vishera cpus and say 32gb RAM total. So I would be looking at maybe $800 istead of $1500, the only downside being that I would have 2 separate systems instead of one. Thoughts?

[robcat2075]

What i read on the enthusiast boards is that the 8350 has only 4 FPUs for the 8 cores

[Roger]

Ok, if that's the case I'd almost be better off going with 4 core Xeons, at least I get the full 8 floating point units then.

Hard call to make, though. 2 16 core opteron processors cost about the same, as long as they are within 10 percent of the speed of the xeon cores, I'm getting a full 16 FPUs that way (with a dual processor box). Anyone out there have an Interlagos (Opteron 6200 series) system?

[robcat2075]

My advice on a render box is wait until you have some substantial body of animation that needs to get rendered, when you get to the point that overnight rendering is not keeping up with what you are putting out.

 

I don't' know if the Opterons are good strategy or not. They run quite a bit slower than the consumer level CPUs

[Roger]

My advice on a render box is wait until you have some substantial body of animation that needs to get rendered, when you get to the point that overnight rendering is not keeping up with what you are putting out.

 

I don't' know if the Opterons are good strategy or not. They run quite a bit slower than the consumer level CPUs

 

Yeah, you're right. No sense getting something before I absolutely need it.

[Fuchur]

Since the arichtecture is that different it really is hard to say.

From the cinebenches benchmarks(since it is a test for 3d rendering i pressume it is the closest to AMs renderspeed we can get)i have seen 8350s are performing very well in these senarios. (Slightly slower than the best intels but really slightly and being much cheaper)

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozess...350-vishera/18/

 

But since u can wait u should wait for the new intel and amds which will come out.

 

Maybe that will change the game again.opterons and server cpus in general are more and more optimist to lower the power consumption and not for more and more speed. They have more cores but with significantly lower clock speed.

 

This is a chart which gives a quite nice performance vs price info:

PassMark AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core

 

SiSoftSandra-Benchmark. Have a look at floating-point vs integer. For floating point operations multimedia, AMDs FX 8350 is even faster than the fastest Intel here while less fast than Intel in integer-calculations:

Tom's Hardware AMD FX 8350 Benchmark SiSoftSandra

 

AMDs FX 8350 is overal (with Photoshop it is faster, with AfterEffects it is less fast) equal or a little less fast, but nothing to be worried about:

Tom's Hardware AMD FX 8350 Benchmark with Adobe Photoshop CS6, Premiere CS 6 and AfterEffects CS 6

 

It is as I said many times before on this forum:

AMD is better for people on budget. It is fast, even so it is not the fastest CPU around but it costs less money. (not only the CPU is less expensive (about 120 Euros at my store*) but the platform itself too. RAM is the same, but if you have that Intel-CPU, you may want to go to faster clockspeeds with RAM too, which would cost significantly more too***)

If you are willing to pay more, the fastest Intel-CPUs are a better choice. (at least for not multi-threaded applications and at an equal level for multi-threaded once)

Both systems are fast enough to run A:M smoothly. Intels may perform a little better with A:M itself (I doubt it is noticeable in most situations, since A:M can be run on really old computers too) but on renderings with all cores I would suggest an AMD-CPU.

 

It is just not worth it paying that kind of money for litterally 5% faster rendering times if you ask me...

The backside of the coin is, that AMDs consume more power... but lets be practical there: If you have a bulb in your home running while using an intel cpu and you switch the bulb off when running the AMD cpu, AMD would win this battle too...

Yes Intels are less power hungry, but we are talking about a few watts here... that may be important for laptops, but not for workstations...

 

* Intel Core i7-3770K Box, LGA1155 > 297,66 Euros, AMD FX-8350 Prozessor, Boxed, Sockel AM3+ > 177,55 Euros

** AMD-Board: ASRock 990FX Extreme3, AM3+, ATX > 93,52 Euros (best price with best chipset = AMD 990FX), ASRock Fatal1ty Z77 Performance, Sockel 1155, ATX > 115,27 Euros (best price with best (new) chipset = Z77. Actually there are MUCH higher priced chipsets for Intels for around 300 Euros and above, but I doubt that they are needed at all for Sandybridge-CPUs... Ivys may run with them better, but I resisted from using these, because it would just not be fair to compare something at that pricelevel when we are comparing prices)

*** Fastest RAM (which is reasonable... you can go faster, but I doubt it will help anymore) for Intel: 16GB-Kit Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066U CL9-11-10-30 > 219,49 Euro, for AMD: 16GB-Kit Corsair Dominator PC3-12800U CL10 > 127,85 Euro

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Infos of *, **, *** take here: 30.05.2013, hardwareversand.de

 

The other parts are the same for Intels and for AMDs, so I will not calculate with them. It can be that you can save a little on smaller power supplies, but I doubt that. I would never go too low with that one anyway, since with a bad power supply, everything else is worthless... so for both CPUs I would not go under 550W power supplies (depending on your graphiccard you may need more).

 

All together:

AMD: 177,55 Euro + 93,52 Euro + 127,85 Euros = 398,92 Euros

Intel: 297,66 Euro + 93,52 Euro + 219,49 Euros = 632,42 Euros

 

Intel is 233,60 Euro more expensive here with a price of around 400 Euros that would mean it is about 1,5x of the price of AMDs while not performing 50% better but maybe 5-10% (if at all) for multithreaded stuff.

I tried to be fair while putting these together. Anyway since I know AMD-CPUs better I may have used not the best stuff for Intel (I did not use the best things for AMD neighter, just to mention it).

I'd say that while Euros are not Dollars, the differences between the parts should not differ much (based on percent).

 

See u

*Fuchur*