An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !

[SkilledRebuilds]

Knew the outcome of this thread by the title..

 

Stated it early on..

This will happen no matter who proves what..

People love to argue/determine their right in any way they can, even if right, someone will make a post that the first person can't ignore replying to.

 

Thread is pointless.

Even if you had a great comparison guide, over many CPU's and Many Games, people will find or make up something to enrage/encourage more of this discussion to the point of....endless debate with no resolve.

[Tacitus]

[jnmbhj]

Hope your meaning to be funny...

 

Cos not really.. it's more like $30-50  or something like that over the whole year....

This has been calculated before, but I'm not going to do it here, you can google it.

 

 

That has nothing to do with what I said, and I already know that.

I was referencing the fact that it is NOT dearer to get the intel i5 platform over the 8350 platform. (CPU/Mobo combo)

People keep stating it is.

 

Due to you needing a DECENT motherboard for the 8350 power delivery (esp if planning to OC) and the other fact you don't need to spend as much on the Intel mobo, negating the higher Intel CPU cost, being within a small amount of dollars between their costs for each CPU/Mobo combination.

Its more like $15 per year at 4h per day at 100% load. (aka heavy rendering) Games like Battlefield 4 doesn't even use 100%. In fact I have just tested and it only uses ~65%

[WinNut]

Good god, may Gaben have mercy on us all.

 

Whether right or wrong, it is in human nature to defend our point-of-view despite other people's offerings in terms of opinions. Throwing a giant shit war over the performance of an 8350 is like putting the MC of an R68A into parallel with all eight handbrakes applied. It's going to go nowhere.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Its more like $15 per year at 4h per day at 100% load. (aka heavy rendering) Games like Battlefield 4 doesn't even use 100%. In fact I have just tested and it only uses ~65%

Well fine then lol, my point was it's cheap as fuck, not the $150 I got told by someone else here.

[I/O]

Thread is pointless.

Even if you had a great comparison guide, over many CPU's and Many Games, people will find or make up something to enrage/encourage more of this discussion to the point of....endless debate with no resolve.

The point of the thread was to show that the FX CPU runs Crysis 3 just fine. Some people in another thread today were trying to claim that the FX 8350 was a terrible bottleneck for Crysis 3 which is not the case at all as it runs with the top end intel CPUs and costs less than half the price. Also these are the same people that try and use the ridiculous energy savings argument that is also a complete fabrication of the truth.

[vlkn´]

Here you go:

 

We have a contract where we can´t change the power provider:

 

So, enjoy

Everyday use amd 8350 (5 hours)= 105euro, 179,9Euro overclocked

 

24h usage: 503.8Euro, 860,9Euro overclocked

 

-

 

Intel i7 3770k (5 hours)=69Euro

24h usage:331Euro

[Fate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

 

The 8350 is clearly not the better choice over a locked i5 for gaming, but people cannot stand to believe they've made a bad purchase decision.

 

I don't blame them; it sucks to purchase something and to find out there's better options out there, but I don't like how people try to justify their purchases to no end. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

The point of the thread was to show that the FX CPU runs Crysis 3 just fine. Some people in another thread today were trying to claim that the FX 8350 was a terrible bottleneck for Crysis 3 which is not the case at all as it runs with the top end intel CPUs and costs less than half the price. Also these are the same people that try and use the ridiculous energy savings argument that is also a complete fabrication of the truth.

Ahhh I see.. I knew about the energy being BS, but have not played Crysis3 with an FX yet so I couldn't comment on that.

[IdeaStormer]

Chances of buying FX before thread, 0%

Chances of buying FX after thread, 0%

 

[WinNut]

This thread is really pointless. 

 

@I/O, I want you to try something. Get the keys to a car, put the transmission into neutral, and set the handbrake as far as it will go. Now try pushing the car. See how it's not going anywhere? The car is the thread, the handbrake is our human nature, and the force of you pushing is your attempts to sway us toward your side.

[I/O]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

 

The 8350 is clearly not the better choice over a locked i5 for gaming, but people cannot stand to believe they've made a bad purchase decision.

 

I don't blame them; it sucks to purchase something and to find out there's better options out there, but I don't like how people try to justify their purchases to no end. 

They only time Intel is the clear better choice is when running high end dual cards setups and or trying to maintain 120fps + on the minimum.

[Briggsy]

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Intel were still producing 1st Gen Core i5/i7 CPU's, people would be bashing Intel much harder. now granted, Intel have not really improved much since 2nd Gen Sandy Bridge, But Intel at least upgrade their chipsets to support newer standards, like PCI-E 3.0 for example. (not counting FM2+ chipsets, they obviously do)

 

There's a difference between bashing something, and telling it like it is. I agree that some people take it a step too far and make it personal, or even spout nonsense. An FX8350 is actually an amazing CPU for the money, and is stronger in AAA gaming now than when the FX 8xxx architecture launched because of newer games using more threads... and when DX12 games finally launch in a year or two the cpu overhead will shrink, making per core performance less of a thing. Still though, Its hard to defend a product that isn't pushing any boundaries or breaking new ground.

[Fate]

They only time Intel is the clear better choice is when running high end dual cards setups and or trying to maintain 120fps + on the minimum.

You can read the 8350 vs 4690k on the CPU subforum if you want, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you. It's pointless because you have your opinion and it's not going to change. 

[I/O]

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Intel were still producing 1st Gen Core i5/i7 CPU's, people would be bashing Intel much harder. now granted, Intel have not really improved much since 2nd Gen Sandy Bridge, But Intel at least upgrade their chipsets to support newer standards, like PCI-E 3.0 for example. (not counting FM2+ chipsets, they obviously do)

 

There's a difference between bashing something, and telling it like it is. I agree that some people take it a step too far and make it personal, or even spout nonsense. An FX8350 is actually an amazing CPU for the money, and is stronger in AAA gaming now than when the FX 8xxx architecture launched because of newer games using more threads... and when DX12 games finally launch in a year or two the cpu overhead will shrink, making per core performance less of a thing. Still though, Its hard to defend a product that isn't pushing any boundaries or breaking new ground.

To be fair PCI-E 3.0 does absolutely nothing for performance other than being capable of supplying more power through the PCI-E lane.

[Najuno]

It´s always the same trolls that start these threads and people fight about the controversy of their opinions while the trolls sit back and enjoy their time with popcorn...

 

This ain´t even the CPU sub forum...

 

EDIT: Vote for close.

[I/O]

You can read the 8350 vs 4690k on the CPU subforum if you want, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you. It's pointless because you have your opinion and it's not going to change. 

The point of this thread was to stop the bullshit being propagated that an FX CPU sucks at running Crysis 3.

[I/O]

It´s always the same trolls that start these threads and people fight about the controversy of their opinions while the trolls sit back and enjoy their time with popcorn...

 

This ain´t even the CPU sub forum...

 

EDIT: Vote for close.

You are the troll man. The point of this thread was to prove that an FX CPU can run Crysis 3 just fine cause some fanboy's tried to claim it can't in another thread today.

[Suika]

Hey guys, since I happen to own an FX-8350 and a GTX 780, I'm in a great spot to weigh in on the situation.

 

The FX-8350, or basically every FX chip, sucks for high end gaming. Overclocking does not help, the minuscule amount of power you gain from a 5GHz clock rate is not worth draining the life on your CPU. If you argue that it doesn't ever bottleneck, or only "some" games bottleneck, you're dumb. You shouldn't buy a PC component for one game that you're going to play a couple times, I think that's seriously stupid. That Crysis 3 benchmark? I played Crysis 3 for a week because I got it for free. I haven't played it in almost a year now. That argument is stupid. If you want benchmarks, here you go;

 

 

 

Did you see that massive bottleneck? Because I see it often.

 

I have the pleasure of seeing a bottleneck in every CPU intensive game, or games just not optimized to run on eight cores. I know because I never get to see my 780 at 100%. Yes, I can see some really awesome detail and frame rates, but my GPU isn't at 100%, so I can be seeing lots more, but can't.

 

However, the FX-8320 is a pretty good budget option. If you only want an R9 270X, then you could get away with owning an 8320. If you want anything better, you better go Intel, because you'll see bottlenecks.

[Fate]

The point of this thread was to stop the bullshit being propagated that an FX CPU sucks at running Crysis 3.

Then make that the point of the thread.

Make the title, "FX doesn't perform bad in Crysis 3!" instead of an unrelated title. Crysis 3 isn't the only game in the world.

[Majestic]

Please stop it the FX CPU are a fine value for money option and they run games just fine as depicted here when some people today tried to hate on FX claiming that it is "So terrible" at running Crysis 3 even though it runs it just fine.

 

 

This post is terrible. You wouldn't know what a well-constructed argument is even if it hit you in the face. 

No point in replying or refuting it either. I know the truth, therefor i know all you can muster is subjective BS like your opening 'argument'.

 

Only interesting AMD CPU is the 860K and in some situations their APU-line (though that's slipping). Because Intel doesn't have a feasible chip at that pricerange. The rest of their products, and especially the FX-line, get outclassed on every point.

Why do I care? Because I hate giving bad advice, and so should you. Stop is unintelligent apologetic behaviour and look at what is best for others instead of yourself.

[Clyne]

I just don't like that FX cpus. The reason is because it's outdated, using 32nm, on a dead socket, dosn't have new features that you get on a Z97 board or something. But the performance is fine for me on my 8320(3.5GHZ) with my R9 270X(1120, 5600).

[Suika]

-snip-

Did you seriously avoid my post to call another user a troll?

 

I think you've confused who the troll is.

[Majestic]

-snip-

Ad Hominem detected.

 

I somewhat agree with @Suika though for a midrange/budget option like pairing a 270(X), you could just go with a i3-4130 instead and save on both the cooling and powerusage.

It also gives you the oppertunity to make a smaller form factor build like itx.

 

This argument has been done to death. Only people still having this discussion are ill-informed or in severe denial.

[harrynowl]

Well the example you gave of Crysis 3 is a GPU bound game anyway that uses the cores.