Why is there a constant flame war on this thread?

[Dabombinable]

I only have $400 right now (i7 costs $415 + $100 motherboard) is it worth it to switch to i5?

It depends on what your aiming at. An i5 4440 is all you realistically need to play games at the moment and more than likely for the next few years, and you could easily pick up a decent motherboard with the left over money (what ever you get-make sure it uses all of the rises for that specification-you don't want a massive overhang and therefore loads of flex around the edges.)

[PlayModeOn]

No, wait until you can get the 4790k. 

 

Do you by any chance have a Microcenter near you? 

There isn't one in Australia.

[Faceman]

You're by far the most prolific, serial anti-AMD extremist in the forum.

 

Do you realise how daft you sound when you say the dual core I3's outperforms the FX 8350?

Do you know how uninformed you sound saying this stuff?  Its like the logic and reasoning centers of your brain aren't working.

 

I am not anti-AMD.  I am anti recommending the wrong tool for the job.  I recommend AMD GPUs every single day.  I even recommend the FX processor if the situation calls for it.  For gaming, it does NOT.

We have a guy in this very thread complaining about people like you saying the FX is fine when you have nothing to back up your claims.  Nothing.  We have asked for it many times, and you haven't produced a single source.  He is not happy with his performance. He has an FX8 and a high end GPU, the FX is the problem.  He is one of many who have owned FXs, and made the switch and all of their problems mysteriously vanished.

 

Want some evidence of an i3 outperforming an FX8?

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games?

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

You have no idea of how computing works, because according to you, adding more GPUs will improve minimum framerates when you are already bottlenecking a single high end GPU.  You are also the one who said just because a GPU isn't running at 99% with Vsync off it's not bottlenecked. 

 

[Faceman]

I'm not always sure about the 'need' of an expensive mobo for high powered cpus. I'm going to be testing this theory myself as soon as I have my X5450 and its liquid cooler, but I have seen instances of a P5K VM hitting 1.4-1.5V on its non-cooled 3+1 phase vrm, and the systems were completely stable. If it all pans out I will more than likely have the Xeon using a similar amount of power to an FX 8350 on 3+1 phase, which most people won't go near if they have an FX 8350 at stock speeds or OCd.

 

Edit: this is about overall cost of the mobo btw, its kind of hard to compare prices of a $1000 cpu to a sub $200 one.

*Edit2: I will also be testing the 'GPU' bottleneck theory once I have an active northbridge cooler, playing Destiny 2 at high settings and with the CPU underclocked to 2.6GHz still causes the northbridge to over heat (I know this because the game starts stuttering all of a sudden, my wifi and usb3.0 cards stop working, and my northbridge is way too hot to touch).

 

*after first like

For the FX CPUs, you NEED at least 6+2 VRM phase design if you want to avoid throttling at stock.  If you want to overclock, you need 8+2.  There are people on this forum daily complaining about throttling or their PC shutting off because of temperatures.  This is a daily occurrence. 

 

I can't comment on the VRMs with the Xeon because I have no experience with that.  What I do have experience with is the throngs of people who come to this forum experiencing problems with VRM throttling.

[PlayModeOn]

What temps does the FX-8350 starts throttling? Yesterday I noticed my FX-8350's stock cooler starts to speed up, slow down, speed up and slow down again and again within a few seconds, is that a sign of throttling?

I live in Australia so it was hot here (summer).

[vlkn´]

[tobin4]

I myself have an FX 8350, and I will admit that its not the best CPU for gaming. But it is one hell of an over clock if you cool it well. And it will do what you need it to do, and at a good price. If I had enough money when I built my PC, I would have gone with an i7, but I didn't and I am quite satisfied with my choice.

Just my honest opinion

[Fate]

 

Damn, I knew my i3 3110m was a freaking beast. I'm going to pair it with a Titan Z for my new eGPU enclosure. 

[PlayModeOn]

EDIT:

[Fate]

And he got banned lol

R.I.P vlkn'

Lol he's not banned, he just changed that to his member title.

[PlayModeOn]

Lol he's not banned, he just changed that to his member title.

Yea I just noticed that lol

[vlkn´]

Yea I just noticed that lol

gotcha! :,D

[i_build_nanosuits]

holy fack what a shit storm!! this thread should have been called ''Why don't we start a constant flame war with this thread?''

interesting read though :huh:

i'm done arguying this in 2015...no more...everybody should buy himself a brand spanking new core i7 CPU this year and enjoy all the games at there fullest with a cold one!..that's what i plan to do this year!

have a good one pals!

[Dabombinable]

holy fack what a shit storm!! this thread should have been called ''Why don't we start a constant flame war with this thread?''

interesting read though :huh:

i'm done arguying this in 2015...no more...everybody should buy himself a brand spanking new core i7 CPU this year and enjoy all the games at there fullest with a cold one!..that's what i plan to do this year!

have a good one pals!

I read today that this decade is reckoned to be the last for silicon cpus. Which is why I want to wait until 2020 for an upgrade just to be sure, that and I'm hoping to get another computer operating for 20+ years (My AMD DX-40 still works on a good day with all of its original hardware intact and fully functional-plus if I can get an SSD of any kind working with it and a passive AT psu., I have a truly silent computer)

[Opcode]

Still saying "a single software thread only scales well on a single hardware thread." Nothing changes.

You're right, nothing changes. You're still wrong.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

What temps does the FX-8350 starts throttling? Yesterday I noticed my FX-8350's stock cooler starts to speed up, slow down, speed up and slow down again and again within a few seconds, is that a sign of throttling?

I live in Australia so it was hot here (summer).

 

62c is the recommended max although i believe it starts throttling around 70c.

 

one good way to tell is open cpuz and run a test. if its throttling you'll see your speed drop from 4ghz on all cores to 1.4 ghz.

 

also, are you running your 8350 at stock?

[PlayModeOn]

62c is the recommended max although i believe it starts throttling around 70c.

 

one good way to tell is open cpuz and run a test. if its throttling you'll see your speed drop from 4ghz on all cores to 1.4 ghz.

 

also, are you running your 8350 at stock?

Yes stock speed and I checked the BIOS to check the temps and it does reach 65 degrees Celsius at idle (sitting in the BIOS).

I blame the stock cooler.

 

EDIT: I set the motherboard to run fans at max speed so I cannot make it any more cooler. It was just a hot day yesterday but today it is very cool so no problems so far.

But the fans are still noisy running at 6000RPM.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Yes stock speed and I checked the BIOS to check the temps and it does reach 65 degrees Celsius at idle (sitting in the BIOS).

I blame the stock cooler.

 

EDIT: I set the motherboard to run fans at max speed so I cannot make it any more cooler. It was just a hot day yesterday but today it is very cool so no problems so far.

But the fans are still noisy running at 6000RPM.

yeah the stock heatsinks suck. mine would heavily throttle my cpu under any real load at stock settings.

 

what i did while i had it was....

 

manually set at 4.2ghz (better temps at 4 flat)

set voltage at 1.35 (auto will jump up too high raising alot of heat)

disable cool and quite (this stopped throttling)

disable turbo (normally runs at 4.19 anyways..so 4.2 flat is actually better and cooler this way)

disable c1e

disable svm

 

for me this helped keep it a few degrees cooler and stopped throttling

 

but then again..i didnt have a 290 either..those bad boys are hot like lava.

[PlayModeOn]

yeah the stock heatsinks suck. mine would heavily throttle my cpu under any real load at stock settings.

 

what i did while i had it was....

 

manually set at 4.2ghz (better temps at 4 flat)

set voltage at 1.35 (auto will jump up too high raising alot of heat)

disable cool and quite (this stopped throttling)

disable turbo (normally runs at 4.19 anyways..so 4.2 flat is actually better and cooler this way)

disable c1e

disable svm

 

for me this helped keep it a few degrees cooler and stopped throttling

 

but then again..i didnt have a 290 either..those bad boys are hot like lava.

No, I got the Sapphie R9 290 Vapor-X, it doesn't go beyond 80 degrees Celsius. The highest I seen is only 74 in a hot day and it is factory overclocked. It is one of the longest cards ever exist at 305mm.  It is a beast..

 

 

However I need a new PSU first before I can overclock it to be safe.

[colonel_mortis]

It seems that this thread has descended pretty deeply into a flame war. I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but it has gone far enough.

Thread Locked.