[tomek@vz]

Deca...ccc...pokušat ću zadnji put:

Autor Eladio

amd proc + aftermarket hladnjak ( u mom slucaju) = jeftinije za cca 200kn od bilo koje I5 kombinacije koju sam razmatrao

Na FX 6350 ili FX8320/50 - što je jedino što sam razmišljao uzimati nebih stavljao ništa ispod Scythe Ninje ili Mugena. U rangu cijene ispod 400kn to su jedini hladnjaci čijim sam karaktersitikama zvuka zadovoljan (čitaj lager se ne čuje, ne stvaraju turbulenciju u radu i na 5V su doslovce bešumni kad staviš uho na njega).

Autor Hawker

Jesi siguran?
U HTPC koristim A8 5500 sa stock hladnjakom i besuman je.
Koliko se god trudio ne cujem ga,cujem jedino HDD.

Poimanje zvuka je subjektivno a ja sam po tom pitanju dosta zahtjevan hebiga. Slažem strojeve i normalnom radu u idle-u AMD hladnjak je glasniji od hladnjaka na jednom Pentiumu/I3/i5 procu. Ne kažem da para uši - samo da je glasniji.

P.S:- kod mene se ni HDD ne čuje

Autor Karlo666

Pa gle mjerio sam kada je moj 4770K na stock cooleru.
Bilo je oko 38dB al pazi idle,znalo se popet do 45dB u full loadu.

Sad je s H105 oko 33dB.

Previše ako si mjerio kako se treba mjerit:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article687-page1.html

Autor Eladio

a i da nije bilo jeftinije, da su cijene tu negdje , sta bi ti uzeo ja znam, ali evo ja bi opet uzeo FXa

Ti shvaćaš da je ovo definicija fanboya? Ja recimo nebih. Uvijek kupujem ono što se u tom trenu mi najviše isplati kupiti. Dal bio AMD, Intel il nešto treće - ne pere ti to mene baš previše osobno. Nijedna od te dvije firme me ne plaća pa zašto da ja plaćam nečiji inferiorniji (za moje potrebe) proizvod/platformu?

Autor Manuel Calavera

?

Izvor tomshardware. Dakle ne petar ili marko sa foruma. FX 4300 sada imaš od 600kn, a najjeftinije i3-ice su skoro 1000 kn. Pa FX 6300 ga tek pojede (osim eventualno u igrama). Prije naravno 4300 nije imao smisla jer je praktično koštao isto kao 6300

Kupio si i3-icu jer si jednostavno htjeo intela. Ovo sve ostalo je samo racionalizacija (slabe) kupovine

Jok Kao što sam napisao malo iznad - mene nije briga što mi je ispod haube ako je to u tom trenutku bolje/isplativije za mene. Tomshardware sam prestao pratiti negdje...uf zbilja je to bilo davno kad se ispostavilo da favoriziraju neke stvari (tad to nije bio AMD) A kad si već spomenuo testove:

However, these advantages are all very questionable. The new Steamroller microarchitecture ensures but a small performance growth which is negated by the reduced clock rates of the new APU models. As a result, senior Richland-based APUs are even faster than the new Kaveri in terms of x86 performance.
The potentially fast graphics core is limited by the low memory bandwidth. The A10-7850K has a third more shader processors than the A10-6800K but its actual gaming performance is only 10% higher. It goes without saying that the Kaveri’s integrated graphics is superior to any other, yet it still cannot ensure a playable frame rate in any game at the Full-HD resolution even with low visual quality settings. It must be granted, though, that the A10-7850K delivers a high enough frame rate at 1920x1080 in a number of popular games including some online ones.
As for HSA, the related hUMA and hQ technologies look highly promising but it'll take a lot of time until they become practically applicable. With the current implementation of heterogeneous computing the Kaveri series aren’t any faster than their Intel competitors. The OpenCL support is but rarely implemented in modern applications. Besides, Intel’s APUs benefit from it just like AMD’s, so this doesn’t change the overall picture.

For all that, AMD prices the A10-7850K very high, pitting it against junior Core i5 models which are actually much faster except when we use the integrated graphics. That’s why the A10-7850K seems only to be interesting for users of compact entry-level gaming configurations.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._15.html#sect0

AMD has clearly left the market of top-performance x86 processors for the PC. The company has many plans concerning hybrid processors, energy-efficient microarchitectures for mobile devices, and ARM-based CPUs, but there are no conventional x86 CPUs for enthusiasts among them. We have to put up with the lack of alternatives. But before discontinuing its FX series AMD released the FX-9370 and FX-9590 models with increased clock rates, which emphasizes the key idea of the Bulldozer concept: a lot of relatively simple processing cores working at a high clock rate.

The FX-9370 and FX-9590 are not perfect due to the specifics of their microarchitecture, semiconductor die design and manufacturing process but we want to give them credit for delivering high performance in heavy multithreaded applications. Thanks to their high clock rates and eight (nearly full-featured) x86 cores, they are optimal for such jobs. If you use professional content authoring and processing suites for your work, you will find the FX-9370 and FX-9590 to be comparable to Intel’s senior Haswell-based products such as the Core i7-4770K and Core i5-4670K.

So we might recommend them for workstations if it were not for the fact that the FX-9370 and FX-9590 have no other advantages. Like their junior cousins, they are slow in applications which cannot use all of their x86 cores. They fall behind Intel’s CPUs at single-threaded loads. It means that AMD’s flagship CPUs are slow at everyday tasks such as office applications and popular 3D games.

Besides that, the FX-9370 и FX-9590 need many times as much power as their Intel opponents. You have to pay more for electricity and also need a better cooling solution. The overclocking potential is low as these CPUs are in fact pre-overclocked by the manufacturer to their very limit.

Summing everything up, the FX-9370 and FX-9590 lose to Intel’s top-end Haswell-based CPUs in their consumer properties and can hardly be interesting even for AMD’s loyal fans. AMD products can usually be used to build rather fast and cheap computers, but the senior Vishera-based CPUs are too expensive for that. They don’t offer anything that you don’t find in their more affordable FX series cousins except for the higher clock rates which don’t matter much in terms of practical performance. Moreover, all other FX series CPUs are Black Edition, so each of the less expensive 8-core AMD CPUs can be easily overclocked to about the same level as the FX-9370 or FX-9590.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_9.html#sect0

According to our tests, the new 6000 series is a mere 6-7% faster than the corresponding 5000 series APUs on average. The maximum advantage of the Richland over the Trinity design can be observed at multithreaded loads. It amounts to 9-10% only. The new A10, A8 and A6 APU models do not change anything in the market positioning of the Socket FM2 platform, so this is all just a cosmetic facelift.

When it comes to x86 computing performance, the quad-core A10 and A8 series models can be viewed as competitors to the Core i3 series, but only at multithreaded loads. At single-threaded loads, the A10 and A8 slow down and fit in between the Core i3 and the Pentium. The dual-core A6 series, in its turn, looks absolutely uncompetitive against LGA1155 CPUs that cost the same money.

The support for OpenCL-based heterogeneous computing touted by AMD doesn’t change anything. As we’ve made sure in our tests, Intel CPUs are as compatible with OpenCL as their Richland and Trinity counterparts, so they ensure the same performance boost in applications which can use graphics cores for general computing purposes. So even in the most favorable situations for hybrid processors, the senior models of the AMD A10 series cannot match the speed of Intel’s junior quad-core CPUs but offer the same performance as Core i3 processors with HD Graphics 4000.

Summing everything up, we can say that the Richland-based APUs, like their predecessors, are not good for mainstream computers.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._10.html#sect0

The six-core Vishera modification, FX-6300, seems to make a pretty weak overall impression at first glance. One of the four dual-core modules in this processor is disabled that is why its peak performance is relatively low compared with Intel’s quad-core processors even under multi-threaded load. This is quite logical, because two contemporary AMD cores are pretty much as fast as one Intel core: this is exactly what we saw throughout our today’s test session. However, the first impression is not always the right one, and it immediately disappears once you check out the price list. AMD priced their FX-6300 in such a way that it becomes a direct competitor to Core i3, instead of Core i5. And this strategic move offers Vishera new possibilities: they can be considered a really interesting alternative to Intel’s dual-core processors. Moreover, in this case FX-6300 even has a few trumps up its sleeve. For example, it can be overclocked unlike Core i3 processors.

However, the youngest memory of the new Vishera family, FX-4300 processor, turned out a total disappointment. Here AMD has obviously got carried away when chopping off its functionality: they not only disabled half of its cores, but also took away half of the L3 cache memory. As a result, FX-4300 is not any faster than FX-4170 with Bulldozer microarchitecture and is just a little more energy-efficient than the latter. So, the quad-core Vishera processor is noticeably slower than Intel Core i3, but at the same time it is priced very close to FX-6300. So, it looks like this particular processor model won’t be of any interest even to the loyal AMD fans, who will most likely prefer to go with a similarly priced A10-5800K with an integrated graphics core and higher clock frequencies.

That said, the appeal of AMD processors with Vishera design is not really in the advantages of the Piledriver microarchitecture, but in their low prices. In this respect, the two models in the middle of the line-up, FX-8320 and FX-6300, look best of all. These are the processors we would recommend checking out, if you are not discouraged by higher power bills. And please keep in mind that AMD processors perform best in multi-threaded tasks, but they are not as universal as Intel products. Therefore, Socket AM3+ platform probably won’t be a good choice for everyday use, and will best fit into an inexpensive workstation system.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._10.html#sect0

In the end, AMD's FX-8320E is an affordable quad-core processor that overclocks decently, but even if you pushed it to 5GHz it would struggle to match the slightly pricier Core i5-4430 and even the Core i3-4360 at times. Then after you take the power consumption figures into account, arguments for the FX-8320E begin to seem rather indefensible.
Free performance isn't exactly free if it comes at the expense of drawing more power and needing a more efficient cooler, so the humble Core i3-4360 makes more sense than the FX-8320E for budget users. There may be some great reasons to buy the FX-8320E, but we don't think it's the chip you want if you're after the best overall performance for the price.
Separately, we were surprised by how well the dual-core i3-4360 performed against the quad-core i5-4430. Although it runs 500-700MHz faster and has Hyper-Threading, we thought there would be a larger gap in our application tests as the i5-4430 actually has four cores. Given the price difference, we would also suggest the i3-4360 over the i5-4430.

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-b...cpu/page7.html

When we first tested Kaveri in January, we concluded that it was ideal for gamers who wanted to build a budget machine without a pricey graphics card. The same is true today for the A10-7800 as it dusted the Core i3 when measuring integrated graphics performance but fell behind significantly after installing a discrete GPU.
Looking back at the application tests, the A10-7800 was on average just 1% faster than the A8-7600, while it was 19% slower than the Core i3-4130. The only applications that favored the A10-7800 over the Core i3-4130 were 7-Zip and Photoshop, while the processors delivered similar performance in After Effects.
Likewise, the HandBrake and TMPGEnc Video Master Works encoding results showed the A10-7800 to be just 1% faster than the A8-7600 and 22% slower than the Core i3-4130, and while the A10-7800's integrated graphics results were only 13% faster than the A8-7600's, it delivered at least twice the Core i3-4130's performance.
The thing is, if you can spare $90 to $120 for a Radeon R7 250 or GeForce GTX 750, then Intel's Core i3 is a better investment. The Core i3 is not only much faster for gaming when paired with a discrete graphics card but it also offers better application performance for the most part and it costs 20% less than the A10-7800.
When using a mid-range GPU for gaming, the A10-7800K was on average 28% slower than the Core i3-4130 yet it consumes 60% more power on average. Due to time constraints, we only tested the A10-7800 in 65w mode, though we didn't expect to see anything different from the A8-7600's 45w and 65w settings.
The A10-7800 is an ideal solution for low budget gamers who can't afford a Core i3 with a discrete graphics card, offering the R7 GPU at the cheapest price possible.

http://www.techspot.com/review/856-a...eri/page8.html

Ima još hrpa testova sa identičnim rezultatima - al nećemo ovaj thread produljivati - tko želi - zna koristiti google.

Za kraj par RL gaming testića:

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-g...rks/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/979-b...rks/page5.html