Worth getting an AMD 8 core?

[M4XvPA1N]

With most games utilizing cores for graphics, I thought to get a multi-core cpu. Right now I am running an AMD FX-4170 at 4.2GHz. The one drawback my friend told me was that the 8 core was good since it obviously has 8 cores, but the clock per core is low, so despite having 8 of them they are kind of weak. Then I though well if I got the 6300 with 6 cores I would get 2 more cores and they wouldn't be as weak as the 8 in the 8350. I am wondering if it would be worth my money future-proofing with an 8 core, or getting more for the money with the 6 core. I am not going to OC. Thanks.

[Darell3]

Well, i would go for 8core for future proofing. But i guess its what you want.

[M4XvPA1N]

Well, i would go for 8core for future proofing. But i guess its what you want.

Or I could just get a radiator like an Kraken X60 and OC the hell out of it.

[GamerDude]

Upgrade your FX4170 only when it cannot handle games to your satisfaction......but if you want to go FX8350, I sure as heck am not going to talk you out of it.;) I have the FX8350 @4.45ghz on an Asus Crosshair V Formula board it it handles ALL the games I've thrown at it with ease, sure, it may not match an i5/i7 at equal clockspeed, but framerate is more than playable so I have no cause to complain. It helps that I have 2x GTX670 in SLi, so basically every game I've played on this system run crazy well....other than a couple of games with stutter, namely Bioshock Infinte, but I put that to a GPU driver issue rather than CPU.

[IPCharger]

If you are talking about the 8150, then yeah the 6300 is better.

[M4XvPA1N]

Upgrade your FX4170 only when it cannot handle games to your satisfaction......but if you want to go FX8350, I sure as heck am not going to talk you out of it.;) I have the FX8350 @4.45ghz on an Asus Crosshair V Formula board it it handles ALL the games I've thrown at it with ease, sure, it may not match an i5/i7 at equal clockspeed, but framerate is more than playable so I have no cause to complain. It helps that I have 2x GTX670 in SLi, so basically every game I've played on this system run crazy well....other than a couple of games with stutter, namely Bioshock Infinte, but I put that to a GPU driver issue rather than CPU.

First, dude 2x 670's should run anything LOL. Second, I have no idea how to OC and I won't bother, plus I am only using a CM Hyper 212 Evo cooler. Third, did you know that you get better fps with the 8350 than an i7 while livestreaming?

[M4XvPA1N]

If you are talking about the 8150, then yeah the 6300 is better.

I mentioned the 8350. No point in getting the 8150 lol.

[IPCharger]

If you are talking about the 8150, then yeah the 6300 is better.

Oh didn't see that. The 8350 has the same cores as the 6300, only difference is that is has 8 instead of 6, so they are not weaker.

[Lemonsquare]

Short answer: no. I recommend going with an i5 3470 considering that you don't plan on overclocking, and it will outperform even an 8350 that has been overclocked. It's also roughly the same price, or $5 cheaper from what I'm seeing now... You'll end up spending a little bit more on the different platform, yes, but the performance increase will be there. You're not future-proofing simply by getting an octacore CPU, especially a relatively poor one at that - modern games and applications barely take advantage of quad core CPUs as it is. Another thing to consider is the difference in power efficiency between the i5 3470's 77W vs. the 8350's 125W max TDP, which also equates to higher thermals on AMD's end. Also, with Haswell around the corner, you could wait and get an even more power efficient i5 and improved performance for probably not much more, or I would guess that LGA 1155 boards will decrease in price with the release of 1150, so you could wait for that too if that would work better. I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

[GamerDude]

Upgrade your FX4170 only when it cannot handle games to your satisfaction......but if you want to go FX8350, I sure as heck am not going to talk you out of it.;) I have the FX8350 @4.45ghz on an Asus Crosshair V Formula board it it handles ALL the games I've thrown at it with ease, sure, it may not match an i5/i7 at equal clockspeed, but framerate is more than playable so I have no cause to complain. It helps that I have 2x GTX670 in SLi, so basically every game I've played on this system run crazy well....other than a couple of games with stutter, namely Bioshock Infinte, but I put that to a GPU driver issue rather than CPU.

While I do use this system for gaming, I do do some BR ripping with it as well.....ripping BR into HD H264 1080P MP4 format, and the CPU, with the GTX670 of course, does it pretty nicely. The reason whty I'd stated the 2x GTX670's is to let you know that, if there were a bottleneck, it'd be the CPU. and it hasn't let me down. The CPU + GPU combo enable me to slice thru every game I've play on that system, and this includes Metro 2033 @1080P, Very High specs + DoF, 4xMSAA + Advanced PhysX enabled, and still net >50fps average.

[Mentalguy]

I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

The 8350 can keep up with the 3570k in alot of tasks. in any modern game that can use multiple cores, the 8350 shines

[m0n5t3r]

Well for gaming, a AMD FX 8150 or the 8350 is a perfect choice.

It's cheap, the platform is cheaper, it performs within margin of error (about 2%) of the Intel Core i5 3570k in games, and in some scenarios better.

[Lemonsquare]

I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

I smell something' date=' and it seems to be coming from this fanboy. The 8350 can keep up with the 3570k in alot of tasks. in any modern game that can use multiple cores, the 8350 shines [/quote']

Let me clarify: The 8350 isn't necessarily a poor processor on its own, but relatively speaking, it's a disappointment being AMD's current high-end enthusiast offering. I don't doubt that it's better than any i3 out there, but not any i5 and certainly no i7 (Ivy Bridge, that is, which should go without saying since the FX 8350 (Vishera) is AMD's current enthusiast offering. Of course there are some conflicting reports, but from what I've seen the i5 3570k has been consistently better, especially since games don't take advantage of eight cores, and the i5's single threaded performance is great. OP wasn't interested in overclocking which is why I suggested the cheaper-than-8350 i5 3470. The platform for Intel is certainly more expensive.

I am always open to respectful, civil discourse. I certainly don't appreciate you insulting me, Mentalguy, and I'm certainly no 'fanboy.' I always do my best to be objective with the information that I have.

[GamerDude]

Well, the problem with recommending an i5 to the OP right now is the expense involved. He'd have to not only foot the bill for a new CPU, he'd have to get a new mobo as well. As of now, since his mobo does the FX4170, let's assume it can run the FX8350....so, this upgrade path is cheaper (at least, it certainly is in my neck of the woods). I ask you, have you tried this CPU yourself? I have Intel builds up the wazoo, and last year, when I was in the mood to build a new system, I decided on an FX build, and have gone from an FX4100 to an FX8120 to my present FX8350. Seriously, the FX8350 is a pretty solid CPU, I game and rip vids with it and it's been doing a bang up job.

There's been a lot of info about frame lagging on AMD GPU's on the net, but as a user of AMD GPU's, I see very little of this issue. Hence, I try not to go with what is posted on the net.....not saying I don't believe it, I do, just that I don't much of it. Certainly newer games do have this frame lagging, but I see with the GTX670 in SLi as well. My point is, if you have tried it out yourself, it gives you a perspective on what is on the net, and what you actually experienced. I have a top one of the top end Intel CPU in my main rig, and this FX8350 in my 2nd rig, and honestly, when it comes to gaming, both do very well.

[Lemonsquare]

You're right, GamerDude, it's my fault I didn't make the connection between his current CPU being on AM3+ and the 8350 being compatible. In that case, I would absolutely recommend an 8350, or if you don't mind waiting a bit of time, wait for Vishera 2.0. I also haven't run either CPU myself (I currently run an i7 920), so you're right about that too, I don't have any personal experience with either architecture, socket, chipset, or CPU and so on. Sorry about that. All of that being said, in reply to OP, I don't think you'll be future-proofing by any means, but you will see a nice performance increase.

[GamerDude]

You're right' date=' GamerDude, it's my fault I didn't make the connection between his current CPU being on AM3+ and the 8350 being compatible. In that case, I would absolutely recommend an 8350, or if you don't mind waiting a bit of time, wait for Vishera 2.0. I also haven't run either CPU myself (I currently run an i7 920), so you're right about that too, I don't have any personal experience with either architecture, socket, chipset, or CPU and so on. Sorry about that. All of that being said, in reply to OP, I don't think you'll be future-proofing by any means, but you will see a nice performance increase.[/quote']All is good, I'm not here to kick dirt in anyone's face, and I do appreciate your being quite amicable and receptive to the point of view of others. I have an Intel 3960X @4.5ghz, the 3970X wasn't out at the time I was building my main rig, and for my AMD build, I wanted the best AMD can offer, so it's the FX8350. AMD is working on releasing a 5ghz PD, but that's nutz as it'd be quite expensive from what I'd gathered. An FX8350/8320 + a 970/990 chipset mobo would be very good indeed. as it can be OC'ed to 4.4ghz or higher. Seriously, a Vishera @4ghz or higher is a pretty capable CPU. But I must qualify what I'd said, the Vishera is a great CPU for gaming, but I do know Planetside 2 is very, very hard on the CPU....so, for those intending to play that game, best to do some research.

[TechFan@ic]

At this moment in time I can't recommend any intel CPUs until Haswell is released.

As for the OP, I personally would recommend waiting for Steamroller due late in 2013, you will get a much bigger performance boost from Steamroller, roughly 30% more for an equivalent quad core at the same clock speeds as your FX 4170.

Steamroller was confirmed to be compatible with AM3+ .

[Mentalguy]

I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

I smell something' date=' and it seems to be coming from this fanboy. The 8350 can keep up with the 3570k in alot of tasks. in any modern game that can use multiple cores, the 8350 shines [/quote']

Let me clarify: The 8350 isn't necessarily a poor processor on its own, but relatively speaking, it's a disappointment being AMD's current high-end enthusiast offering. I don't doubt that it's better than any i3 out there, but not any i5 and certainly no i7 (Ivy Bridge, that is, which should go without saying since the FX 8350 (Vishera) is AMD's current enthusiast offering. Of course there are some conflicting reports, but from what I've seen the i5 3570k has been consistently better, especially since games don't take advantage of eight cores, and the i5's single threaded performance is great. OP wasn't interested in overclocking which is why I suggested the cheaper-than-8350 i5 3470. The platform for Intel is certainly more expensive.

I am always open to respectful, civil discourse. I certainly don't appreciate you insulting me, Mentalguy, and I'm certainly no 'fanboy.' I always do my best to be objective with the information that I have.

sorry bout that, i was tired and cranky, gonna edit it

[christoi]

What will you be using the system for?

For multithreaded applications that can actually make use of the extra cores, it'll definitely be a nice upgrade over a 4170. Per-core performance will also see an improvement too, the architecture and performance per clock is the same between all Vishera CPU's (sort of at least, the 4-cores suffer a bit with limited L3 cache). Since you aren't overclocking, the lower-binned 8320 should also suffice too.

If it's for lightly-threaded applications however (which includes gaming), I personally wouldn't bother upgrading at this point. Single-threaded performance gains are present over bulldozer, but they aren't going to be that large in comparison. Especially with gaming where you are more GPU-bottlenecked, you'll probably be better off upgrading that first. It's probably better to leave it as it is for now, as said there probably will be better options that'll surface in the next couple of months.

[Andster29]

At this moment in time I can't recommend any intel CPUs until Haswell is released.

As for the OP, I personally would recommend waiting for Steamroller due late in 2013, you will get a much bigger performance boost from Steamroller, roughly 30% more for an equivalent quad core at the same clock speeds as your FX 4170.

Steamroller was confirmed to be compatible with AM3+ .

From what I've seen, Steamroller is a server chip and not a pc chip. Is this true?

[M4XvPA1N]

Upgrade your FX4170 only when it cannot handle games to your satisfaction......but if you want to go FX8350, I sure as heck am not going to talk you out of it.;) I have the FX8350 @4.45ghz on an Asus Crosshair V Formula board it it handles ALL the games I've thrown at it with ease, sure, it may not match an i5/i7 at equal clockspeed, but framerate is more than playable so I have no cause to complain. It helps that I have 2x GTX670 in SLi, so basically every game I've played on this system run crazy well....other than a couple of games with stutter, namely Bioshock Infinte, but I put that to a GPU driver issue rather than CPU.

Wow well now we know you have a boss system. Even a 680 has a tough time running Metro 2033 maxed out.

[M4XvPA1N]

Short answer: no. I recommend going with an i5 3470 considering that you don't plan on overclocking, and it will outperform even an 8350 that has been overclocked. It's also roughly the same price, or $5 cheaper from what I'm seeing now... You'll end up spending a little bit more on the different platform, yes, but the performance increase will be there. You're not future-proofing simply by getting an octacore CPU, especially a relatively poor one at that - modern games and applications barely take advantage of quad core CPUs as it is. Another thing to consider is the difference in power efficiency between the i5 3470's 77W vs. the 8350's 125W max TDP, which also equates to higher thermals on AMD's end. Also, with Haswell around the corner, you could wait and get an even more power efficient i5 and improved performance for probably not much more, or I would guess that LGA 1155 boards will decrease in price with the release of 1150, so you could wait for that too if that would work better. I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

First, I am not a money machine. Sure I'll order an i5 3570K right no a long with a Asus Maximus right now lol.

[M4XvPA1N]

What will you be using the system for?

For multithreaded applications that can actually make use of the extra cores, it'll definitely be a nice upgrade over a 4170. Per-core performance will also see an improvement too, the architecture and performance per clock is the same between all Vishera CPU's (sort of at least, the 4-cores suffer a bit with limited L3 cache). Since you aren't overclocking, the lower-binned 8320 should also suffice too.

If it's for lightly-threaded applications however (which includes gaming), I personally wouldn't bother upgrading at this point. Single-threaded performance gains are present over bulldozer, but they aren't going to be that large in comparison. Especially with gaming where you are more GPU-bottlenecked, you'll probably be better off upgrading that first. It's probably better to leave it as it is for now, as said there probably will be better options that'll surface in the next couple of months.

Gaming, editing/ rendering. Don't have the money to go intel otherwise trust me I would.

[TechFan@ic]

At this moment in time I can't recommend any intel CPUs until Haswell is released.

As for the OP, I personally would recommend waiting for Steamroller due late in 2013, you will get a much bigger performance boost from Steamroller, roughly 30% more for an equivalent quad core at the same clock speeds as your FX 4170.

Steamroller was confirmed to be compatible with AM3+ .

Steamroller is a core architecture that will be implemented in APUs, desktop CPUs & server CPUs.

Just like the current Piledriver & Bulldozer before it.

[Lemonsquare]

Short answer: no. I recommend going with an i5 3470 considering that you don't plan on overclocking, and it will outperform even an 8350 that has been overclocked. It's also roughly the same price, or $5 cheaper from what I'm seeing now... You'll end up spending a little bit more on the different platform, yes, but the performance increase will be there. You're not future-proofing simply by getting an octacore CPU, especially a relatively poor one at that - modern games and applications barely take advantage of quad core CPUs as it is. Another thing to consider is the difference in power efficiency between the i5 3470's 77W vs. the 8350's 125W max TDP, which also equates to higher thermals on AMD's end. Also, with Haswell around the corner, you could wait and get an even more power efficient i5 and improved performance for probably not much more, or I would guess that LGA 1155 boards will decrease in price with the release of 1150, so you could wait for that too if that would work better. I really don't see any reason to recommend the 8350 for any reason at all right now.

The i5 3470 I mentioned is cheaper than an 8350, but the new platform will be a significant expense, you're right, and that wouldn't be cost effective, so you should stay with AMD. Personally, I would wait until Vishera 2.0, which is due for a June release. Good luck.