How is the FX 8350 for games?

[arnavvr]

BTW Jay is the same guy who "upgraded" from a 3770K to a 4790K.

 

Logan said that a 8350 handily beat a i7-3820

[SoftenButterCream]

"Debate" lol, more like a flame war.

Its a nicer way to say it lol

[h3ll0]

@FizzyFantom

 

These people are not experts.  They are people who started Youtube channels and garnered a following.

 

TekSyndicate?  Cmon.  Its the only, ONLY source on the web claiming an FX outperforms Intel, you can discard that result.  They have a video showing an APU paired with a 780 against an i7-4770k with the same 780.  Guess the result... they show the APU beating the i7 by a massive margin.  Discard TekSyndicate.

 

JayzTwoCents is a hack and doesn't know what he is doing, there are lots of videos of his that are terrible and he doesn't have a great understanding of the tests he is doing.  Some things are good, some are bad, but he is very hit or miss. Also he isn't testing those extremely CPU bound games like I mentioned.  BF4 is incredible CPU bound though, and he fails to show GPU loads.  He is experiencing a bottleneck, but it might not be visible because he is playing on 60Hz, he could also be using Mantle.  Not all games use Mantle.

 

TechofTomorrow is and has always been largely biased towards AMD.  Just a video of him talking, no benchmarks, no GPU load, no games that really benefit from strong single core performance.

 

Bottom line, in some games, AMD is crippling, and in order for it to perform decent, it needs to be overclocked, which makes it cost the same as a locked i5, and no matter how overclocked the FX is, it doesn't make up for it's decade old architecture and abysmal single core performance.  The VAST majority of games are GPU bound, but in those titles that do require strong cores, the AMD falls flat on its face.  This forum is littered with people who used to own FX and switched to Intel and warn others of the mistake they made.  You never see anyone switch from Intel to AMD.

The intel fanboyism is strong with this one.........

 

 

Most benchmarks comparing the two are cherry picked towards intel, these are games at settings people are going to play at.

[Faceman]

The intel fanboyism is strong with this one.........

It is impossible to be an Intel fanboy in this situation.  You can only be an AMD fanboy to ignore all of the evidence that FX is the inferior option for gaming.

[h3ll0]

It is impossible to be an Intel fanboy in this situation.  You can only be an AMD fanboy to ignore all of the evidence that FX is the inferior option for gaming.

Look at all the evidence that I posted that AMD is not as bad as you think and that intel only wins in any noticable way in *certain situations*. If the game is properly threaded the fx 8350 performs just as good as intel. 

[Faceman]

Look at all the evidence that I posted that AMD is not as bad as you think and that intel only wins in any noticable way in *certain situations*. If the game is properly threaded the fx 8350 performs just as good as intel. 

Where is this evidence that you have posted?  I'm not seeing it.

 

Why would you buy a processor that costs the same/more for only 4/5 games?  Wouldn't you want to be able to play every game without issue?  That allows you to add high end GPUs without bottlenecking, and affords you the option of an upgrade path?

[Dabombinable]

Where is this evidence that you have posted?  I'm not seeing it.

 

Why would you buy a processor that costs the same/more for only 4/5 games?  Wouldn't you want to be able to play every game without issue?  That allows you to add high end GPUs without bottlenecking, and affords you the option of an upgrade path?

The point is, if a game is able to make use of ALL the threads on an FX, it will perform well. Not just 1 or 2, ALL.

[Faceman]

The point is, if a game is able to make use of ALL the threads on an FX, it will perform well. Not just 1 or 2, ALL.

There are very few games that do that, and even then, the FX still doesn't perform as well as the i5, which costs less!  Stop arguing this, its pointless.  Nothing you say will change that a locked i5 is less expensive and a better option for gaming.

[Dabombinable]

There are very few games that do that, and even then, the FX still doesn't perform as well as the i5, which costs less!  Stop arguing this, its pointless.  Nothing you say will change that a locked i5 is less expensive and a better option for gaming.

And of course the comparisons are completly unfair as they are against newer cpus that are fabricated differently.

[Faa]

Look at all the evidence that I posted that AMD is not as bad as you think and that intel only wins in any noticable way in *certain situations*. If the game is properly threaded the fx 8350 performs just as good as intel. 

One of your video's is saying the 8350 is 4 times faster than the 3570K when the other 3 are saying the Intel is faster with a GPU bottleneck kicking way too early in, might as well reconsider your logic. Those GPU usages were still near ~80% on AMD and 99% on Intel in Linus his video's, what about testing those CPU's with the GPU usage below 50% so we're nowhere close to get a GPU bottleneck? Intel is up to twice as fast but not if the GPU bottleneck kicks in and AMD is near to that point, when the GPU is the limit no CPU can make a difference.

[Faceman]

And of course the comparisons are completly unfair as they are against newer cpus that are fabricated differently.

Dude.. the i5-2500k still stomps on any AMD FX in all games and it was released in 2011.

 

There are two options for CPUs, AMD and Intel.  The only thing offered from AMD for "high end" gaming is the FX series, of course it will be compared to whatever Intel has most recently released because one company is actually innovating on a yearly cycle. 

 

Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous

[Dabombinable]

Dude.. the i5-2500k still stomps on any AMD FX in all games.

 

There are two options for CPUs, AMD and Intel.  The only thing offered from AMD for "high end" gaming is the FX series, of course it will be compared to whatever Intel has most recently released because one company is actually innovating on a yearly cycle. 

 

Your arguments are absolutely ridiculous

Do you even speak from experience at all in regards to the FX series? Remember that I have used the FX 8350 before playing the same games that I played with an i5 4440 (crysis 3, BF3 & 4, the witcher 2, skyrim (vanilla) are some examples), and found that it did just fine.

[Faceman]

Do you even speak from experience at all in regards to the FX series? Remember that I have used the FX 8350 before playing the same games that I played with an i5 4440 (crysis 3, BF3 & 4, the witcher 2, skyrim (vanilla) are some examples), and found that it did just fine.

Of course, I have a friend who has an FX8 and he is unable to play some of the games I play, and in some of the games he does play, he is unsatisfied with his performance.  He has a 780Ti, a more powerful GPU than mine.

 

Those games you mentioned, for the most part, are games that will run very similar on an FX8 and an i5.  Play ARMA3, Play DayZ, Play Skyrim with lots of mods, Play MMOs, Play Civilization V, etc.. there are many games that will fall short when played on an FX compared to a locked i5.  Again, why buy a processor that costs more, and only be able to play 4/5 games?

[i_build_nanosuits]

OMG...this thread has been going on for like 2 weeks now and we havnt had a conclusion yet?!

this is the conclusion: the FX is old and inneficient, theres a lot of games that runs pretty bad on it and its not gonna do any better with future games...and nowadays one can get an i5-4460 and an h97 board for pretty cheap and that combo stomps an overclocked fx in just about any games and will do so while using half the power and wont even require an overclock...so yeah, if you are looking at a chip stricktly for gaming...the fx is obviously a very bad choice, i know it, you know it, amd know it...but yet they keep offering them because they dont have anything better to offer...and that wont make them any more relevant.

[OCing Noob]

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/zc2QBm
Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/zc2QBm/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€162.03 @ Hardwareversand)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€32.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z87-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€118.83 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (€80.49 @ Hardwareversand)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (€53.74 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card  (€286.92 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case  (€54.94 @ Home of Hardware DE)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  (€56.94 @ Home of Hardware DE)
Total: €846.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-17 05:48 CET+0100

 

i'll suggest this in future you just need to upgrade your CPU or ram if you want and with this motherboard you can put a Bordwell(up coming 5th gen CPU) on it if you want.

[Dabombinable]

OMG...this thread has been going on for like 2 weeks now and we havnt had a conclusion yet?!

this is the conclusion: the FX is old and inneficient, theres a lot of games that runs pretty bad on it and its not gonna do any better with future games...and nowadays one can get an i5-4460 and an h97 board for pretty cheap and that combo stomps an overclocked fx in just about any games and will do so while using half the power and wont even require an overclock...so yeah, if you are looking at a chip stricktly for gaming...the fx is obviously a very bad choice, i know it, you know it, amd know it...but yet they keep offering them because they dont have anything better to offer...and that wont make them any more relevant.

I have to agree on the in-efficient part when it comes to older CPUs, my core 2 needs to be bumped up to just over 1.3 volts to hit 4.2GHz, and I've seen the newer Intel K series match the same clock on less than the core 2's stock voltage.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I have to agree on the in-efficient part when it comes to older CPUs, my core 2 needs to be bumped up to just over 1.3 volts to hit 4.2GHz, and I've seen the newer Intel K series match the same clock on less than the core 2's stock voltage.

The FX is a 32nm beast of a chip that can pull just shy of 280W from the wall if you overclock it properly...and you need a good motherboard for overclocking and you NEED to do overclocking to get acceptable framerates in modern games..

Look at this...the cooler doesn't seem too hot but look at this poor motherboard the vrm's and the cpu socket are piping hot:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-4.html

[Dabombinable]

The FX is a 32nm beast of a chip that can pull just shy of 280W from the wall if you overclock it properly...and you need a good motherboard for overclocking and you NEED to do overclocking to get acceptable framerates in modern games..

Look at this...the cooler doesn't seem too hot but look at this poor motherboard the vrm's and the cpu socket are piping hot:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-4.html

Looking at the chart, I'd have to agree that the sweet spot is about 3.8GHz, though even compared to my core 2 its inefficient, it hits 3.8GHz (from 3.16GHz) with only a small increase in power consumption due to it operating at a higher voltage than is needed.