Is FX-8350 sufficient for gaming? I made a video myself so you can be sure.

[Morgan MLGman]

So as the topic name states, is the AMD FX-8350 CPU enough for gaming?
I have found many people on this forum bashing AMD CPUs very hard, some of them recommend buying i3's instead since within the price of a FX-8320 you can get an i3-4430 according to pcpartpicker.com.
Why is that? Are AMD's really that bad? Many people suggesting that clearly had no idea of how these CPUs perform in real life, so in order to try to convince them that they're not that bad in games I put screenshots of several games with the same hardware monitor using Afterburner.
There are places in these games when my FX-8350 overclocked to 4,5gHz reached over 90% of usage, considering it's raw performance is on par with i5-4690k imagine how it would run on an i3-4430.
I'm not saying that the FX-8320/50 are the best choices for everyone, I'm just trying to show that these CPUs are definitely a choice for the money not only for video rendering etc etc but also for everyday usage. I agree that i5-4690k for example is a better CPU, no doubt.
They claimed screenshots are not reliable. I agreed, decided to make a gameplay video especially for them, featuring several games to be as reliable as possible.
For example in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt I picked the most CPU intensive location there is in this entire game. Novigrad.

Note: This is my first video, I'm a complete noob in terms of video editing, but that's not important, the content is what's important here. Also don't even look at my shitty skill in these games, it's irrelevant.
In the GPU row in hardware monitor there's: Temperature, GPU Load, Fan Speed, and core clock, below GPU memory frequency and VRAM usage.

Also, my resolution is 1920x1200, it's around 10% more vertical screen space and 11% more pixels than in standard 1920x1080.

I overclocked my GTX970 only slightly to get better performance but not too far to make the results as reliable as possible.
Software used: For FPS & hardware counter - MSI Afterburner. For recording of the video, Nvidia ShadowPlay.
The recording itself could take a few frames per second, but it doesn't matter.

Specs:
Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster T240HD 1920x1200p
CPU: AMD FX-8350 @4,5gHz 1.360V
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3
RAM: 2x 8GB HyperX Fury DDR3 1866mHz CL10
GPU: MSI GTX 970 4GB Gaming 100 ME Limited Edition @1410mHz core clock
SSD: Samsung 850EVO 120GB
HDDs: 2x Western Digital Blue 1TB 7200RPM
CPU Cooler: SilentiumPC Grandis XE1236v2
PSU: Chieftec CFT-600-14CS 600W
Case: Zalman GS1000 Full Tower Case
OS: Windows 10 Professional 64 bit

Games tested in order of testing:
- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- Call of Duty: Black Ops 3
- Assassins' Creed: Unity
- Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor
- Call of Duty: Ghosts
- Tomb Raider
- Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2

Tell me what do you guys think, give me your opinions about both the performance of this CPU and about how reliable is my video, perhaps I can improve something to make the result more valid as possible.

There are a few stutters of video in here, but they're due to me editing, compressing and uploading the video poorly and in crappy software (Windows Movie Maker and Handbrake), as I mentioned I'm not familiar with this stuff so be considerate.
The stutters are not there in the original video, for those who doubt it I can try to upload it for download, but it's around 500-600mb and my internet is crap (less than 1mbit/s up)
but it is possible if really necessary.

P.S. I apologize if there are many grammar/spelling mistakes in my post, I'm from Poland, not a native speaker.

@ I promised to make a video so I can prove to you how the performance really is, hope you see it's not as bad as you thought it would be =)

[OAcesync]

So as the topic name states, is the AMD FX-8350 CPU enough for gaming?

I have found many people on this forum bashing AMD CPUs very hard, some of them recommend buying i3's instead since within the price of a FX-8320 you can get an i3-4430 according to pcpartpicker.com.

Why is that? Are AMD's really that bad? Many people suggesting that clearly had no idea of how these CPUs perform in real life, so in order to try to convince them that they're not that bad in games I put screenshots of several games with the same hardware monitor using Afterburner.

There are places in these games when my FX-8350 overclocked to 4,5gHz reached over 90% of usage, considering it's raw performance is on par with i5-4690k imagine how it would run on an i3-4430.

They claimed screenshots are not reliable. I agreed, decided to make a gameplay video especially for them, featuring several games to be as reliable as possible.

For example in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt I picked the most CPU intensive location there is in this entire game. Novigrad.

Note: This is my first video, I'm a complete noob in terms of video editing, but that's not important, the content is what's important here. Also don't even look at my shitty skill in these games, it's irrelevant.

In the GPU row in hardware monitor there's: Temperature, GPU Load, Fan Speed, and core clock, below GPU memory frequency and VRAM usage.

I overclocked my GTX970 only slightly to get better performance but not too far to make the results as reliable as possible.

Software used: For FPS & hardware counter - MSI Afterburner. For recording of the video itself, Nvidia ShadowPlay.

The recording itself could take a few frames per second, but it doesn't matter.

Specs:

Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster T240HD 1920x1200p

CPU: AMD FX-8350 @4,5gHz 1.360V

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3

RAM: 2x 8GB HyperX Fury DDR3 1866mHz CL10

GPU: MSI GTX 970 4GB Gaming 100 ME Limited Edition @1410mHz core clock

SSD: Samsung 850EVO 120GB

HDDs: 2x Western Digital Blue 1TB 7200RPM

CPU Cooler: SilentiumPC Grandis XE1236v2

PSU: Chieftec CFT-600-14CS 600W

Case: Zalman GS1000 Full Tower Case

OS: Windows 10 Professional 64 bit

Games tested in order of testing:

- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

- Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

- Assassins' Creed: Unity

- Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

- Call of Duty: Ghosts

- Tomb Raider

- Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2

Tell me what do you guys think, give me your opinions about both the performance of this CPU and about how reliable is my video, perhaps I can improve something to make the result more valid as possible.

There are a few stutters of video in here, but they're due to me editing, compressing and uploading the video poorly and in crappy software (Windows Movie Maker and Handbrake), as I mentioned I'm not familiar with this stuff so be considerate.

The stutters are not there in the original video, for those who doubt it I can try to upload it for download, but it's around 500-600mb and my internet is crap (less than 1mbit/s up)

but it is possible if really necessary.

@ I promised to make a video so I can prove to you how the performance really is, hope you see it's not as bad as you thought it would be =)

This thread pretty much wraps up why Intel is generally a better recommended choice for gaming: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/401217-more-updated-fx-vs-intel-for-gaming/

[minibois]

I just want to say that comparing the price of the CPU alone is not fair, as the motherboard and cooling might be more expensive for an OC'ed 8350 compared to the i3.. (or even i5 4440)

[Agent181]

its a good cpu but you should only get it if you get it for dirt cheap cause its better to get an i5 

[Morgan MLGman]

I just want to say that comparing the price of the CPU alone is not fair, as the motherboard and cooling might be more expensive for an OC'ed 8350 compared to the i3.. (or even i5 4440)

Stock cooler is enough to overclock an FX-8320 to 4,2 gHz easily and any chipset 970 or better motherboard should allow this kind of OC.

[Godlygamer23]

The 8350 is at 4.5GHz. An i3 is locked and stuck at what 3.3ish GHz? Users who favor Intel aren't arguing the 8350 is inherently insufficient for games, but rather that an i3 will perform better in most games because of the better single threaded performance. Most games are limited to 1-4 threads right now. Since your CPU is overclocked, that presents an unfair advantage that users won't be able to experience necessarily.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Godlygamer23

[Majestic]

"Good enough" does not imply "best option".

 

This is just post-purchase rationalization all over again. Like most AMD FX pundits. Sorry if i'm generalising, but it's pretty much a fact at this point.

 

It's also not cheaper on system level. So it consumes twice as much power, has half the IPC in CPU-heavy games. Isn't suited for DX12 in terms of longevity and it isn't cheaper.

 

That's why an i5 is a better choice. /thread.

 

 

Stock cooler is enough to overclock an FX-8320 to 4,2 gHz easily and any chipset 970 or better motherboard should allow this kind of OC.

 

Also bullshit. Seen countless posts of people having their AMD 8 core throttle on cheap 970 boards.

[Morgan MLGman]

This thread pretty much wraps up why Intel is generally a better recommended choice for gaming: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/401217-more-updated-fx-vs-intel-for-gaming/

I'm not saying AMDs are better. I'm saying that taking an 8 cored CPU in favor of a dual core i3 can be a better choice for the same money.

 

The 8350 is at 4.7GHz. An i3 is locked and stuck at what 3.3ish GHz? Users who favor Intel aren't arguing the 8350 is inherently insufficient for games, but rather that an i3 will perform better in most games because of the better single threaded performance. Most games are limited to 1-4 threads right now. Since your CPU is overclocked, that presents an unfair advantage that users won't be able to experience necessarily.

My FX-8350 is at 4,5. And in any AAA title it's better than the i3 cause these titles support multithreading.

 

 

"Good enough" does not imply "best option".

 

This is just post-purchase rationalization all over again. Like most AMD FX pundits. Sorry if i'm generalising, but it's pretty much a fact at this point.

I bought it cause I wanted to, I wasn't even considering an Intel. I'm just trying to show people that an i3 would not be enough in some cases here cause if my 8 cored overclocked FX gets 90-95% usage spikes in some of these games the i3-4430 would basically cause FPS drops when it would hit 100%. No doubt overall the FX is a more powerful CPU.

Of course both CPUs have their uses, this forum simply seems way too Intelfanboyish, maybe it's cause Intel sponsors Linus? No idea. I would not recommend this CPU for anyone being able to afford a decent i5 - just so you know.

[OAcesync]

Stock cooler is enough to overclock an FX-8320 to 4,2 gHz easily and any chipset 970 or better motherboard should allow this kind of OC.

970 Mobos generally have poor VRM cooling so you'd definitely want a 990 for a 8 core CPU and AMD stock coolers are notoriously loud compared to Intel

[Majestic]

 this forum simply seems way too Intelfanboyish, maybe it's cause Intel sponsors Linus? No idea.

 

Oh you projecting muppet. Your argument, if you ever had any, just fell flat on the floor.

 

Also, you think you're the first one who went through all this trouble to prove this forum that their FX 8 cores is borderline mediocre compared to a cheap intel dualcore in terms of gaming? 

 

Literally lost count of how many people already made these posts. And they never lead to anything because you're too biased to even argue your project.

[Godlygamer23]

I'm not saying AMDs are better. I'm saying that taking an 8 cored CPU in favor of a dual core i3 can be a better choice for the same money.

 

My FX-8350 is at 4,5. And in any AAA title it's better than the i3 cause these titles support multithreading.

It would be more realistic to test it at stock speeds because the end user would at least be able to experience that.

[Blebekblebek]

meh....

 

I don't understand why people are so hard to understand.

 

when you build a computer, CPU is not the only important things you need

Their CPU indeed cheap, but not their motherboard

 

You can pair cheapest combination from intel part and it will run just fine

try to pair 8350 (or any 125w tdp) with 760/770/785G board, you will have headache.

[Nacho Marco Segui]

I have the 970 with an i3 4160,and this cpu is very capable.Sometimes i see 70-75 usage,but thats all.0 stuttering,and with a rly cheap and quiet cooler,i have it at 56 degrees max

[iHardware Shelden]

I'll stick with my Q6600 till Motorola comes back to making desktop Processors

[Morgan MLGman]

970 Mobos generally have poor VRM cooling so you'd definitely want a 990 for a 8 core CPU and AMD stock coolers are notoriously loud compared to Intel

@Blebekblebek Look at my mobo, I listed it, Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3. It's a very cheap one, it overclocks great. That's no proof. Also, if you overclock an unlocked i5 on Intel's stock cooler it's just as loud, that's also no proof.

 

 

It would be more realistic to test it at stock speeds because the end user would at least be able to experience that.

Thanks for the advice, that's the kind of feedback I would like to receive. As I mentioned I have never done anything like that, that's indeed a good idea.

 

 

Oh you projecting muppet. Your argument, if you ever had any, just fell flat on the floor.

 

Also, you think you're the first one who went through all this trouble to prove this forum that their FX 8 cores is borderline mediocre compared to a cheap intel dualcore in terms of gaming? 

 

Literally lost count of how many people already made these posts. And they never lead to anything because you're too biased to even argue your project.

What I meant is: if you see Intel CPUs everywhere cause you watch Linus's and he says they're great (which most of them are) you automatically might grow fond of them more than the others.

Anyway, did you even bother reading my post or watching the video and the FPS there? Is this a performance you'd expect from a CPU that's equivalent in price to an i3?

I will make a comparison to my flatmate's i5-4690k @4,2 and his GTX 970 so you'll see how much of a difference his i5 will make. Doubt it'll be big or even noticeable.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Why would you buy inferior - dead platform.

 

Just wait until they drop below 100$ when zen comes, then its ok deal.

[Blebekblebek]

970 wasn't classified as "cheap" mobo

their *70 line up is for high end solution, just like previous 770, while 990 series was dedicated for enthusiast just like 790 series.

[Godlygamer23]

Thanks for the advice, that's the kind of feedback I would like to receive. As I mentioned I have never done anything like that, that's indeed a good idea.

I criticized Linus for something similar. He overclocked the 8350 higher than the 3570K and put the 8350 at an unfair advantage rather than putting them at the same frequency or just leaving them at stock. His logic was that most users would be able to hit those frequencies if they overclocked. The problem with that concept is it leaves other users in the dark in both overclocking and also cooling. Not everyone can afford to overclock their CPUs.

 

FYI, I do run an Intel CPU in my build, but I do not favor AMD or Intel. In fact, my server is using an AMD APU.

[Morgan MLGman]

Why would you buy inferior - dead platform.

 

Just wait until they drop below 100$ when zen comes, then its ok deal.

That's another thing:

People recommend i3's with H81 or B85 chipset motherboards instead of the 8320 and a 970 chipset motherboard and claim that the AM3+ is dead and there's no upgrade path.

It's true you can't upgrade the CPU without changing the mobo in AM3+ case. However would you really buy an i5-4690k or an i7-4790k with a H81/B85 motherboard? No sane person would...

[Manny Calavera]

That's another thing:

People recommend i3's with H81 or B85 chipset motherboards instead of the 8320 and a 970 chipset motherboard and claim that the AM3+ is dead and there's no upgrade path.

It's true you can't upgrade the CPU without changing the mobo in AM3+ case. However would you really buy an i5-4690k or an i7-4790k with a H81/B85 motherboard? No sane person would...

exactly, you would buy a xeon.

or used i7 locked or not, 4.0 ghz is sweet..

 

duh.

[Morgan MLGman]

970 wasn't classified as "cheap" mobo

their *70 line up is for high end solution, just like previous 770, while 990 series was dedicated for enthusiast just like 790 series.

Check its price, it doesn't matter what it's classified as, it's cheap.

 

 

I criticized Linus for something similar. He overclocked the 8350 higher than the 3570K and put the 8350 at an unfair advantage rather than putting them at the same frequency or just leaving them at stock. His logic was that most users would be able to hit those frequencies if they overclocked. The problem with that concept is it leaves other users in the dark in both overclocking and also cooling. Not everyone can afford to overclock their CPUs.

 

FYI, I do run an Intel CPU in my build, but I do not favor AMD or Intel. In fact, my server is using an AMD APU.

I agree, I should have done it at stock. I most likely will do a comparison to my buddy's 4690k cause he has the same GPU I do, so I'll put both CPUs at stock.

However, the 8350 has the advantage here either way since it's 4 ghz stock  and 4,2 ghz turbo. It's not a high overclock from 4,2 to 4,5, it does make a difference, it's not huge though =)

[Morgan MLGman]

exactly, you would buy a xeon.

or used i7.

 

duh.

 

Really? Would you? Considering that you'd change your PC in 3 years for instance would you upgrade the CPU only to an already old CPU which won't be much cheaper or just buy a newer platform? Technically LGA1150 is also a dead socket now that skylake is out.

[Godlygamer23]

However, the 8350 has the advantage here either way since it's 4 ghz stock  and 4,2 ghz turbo.

It does have lower IPC though. Perhaps you would be willing to run tests with them at stock speeds and at the same speeds?

[Blebekblebek]

 i5-4690k or an i7-4790k with a H81/B85 motherboard? No sane person would...

you probably will surprised with the results

 

because I would, in fact... I am still recommend people to do that instead wasting their money for something they will never use, because I know most people definitely will never use Dual GPU in their system, let alone overclock it.

[Morgan MLGman]

It does have lower IPC though. Perhaps you would be willing to run tests with them at stock speeds and at the same speeds?

You mean to first test the 4690k and the 8350 at stock speeds with turbo boosts on, then clock them both at, say 4.0 for example??