AMD FX8350

[TERAFLOP]

Well, that is very interesting.  My experience with the i3 (ivy bridge) was that in imovie (Yes I had OSX on it) it would constantly freeze and I would have to wait long periods of time for it to stop freezing during video editing with 100% cpu usage.  While on my 4670k I can edit videos, (in movie maker, not imovie) perfectly smooth and can render images flawlessly. I am surprised at how well the i3 performs according to the links and articles you are showing, I would still use the 8350 in my personal system but yes, I now see your point that purley for gaming. The i3 does win, thanks for showing me this. 

Not entirely true.

 

http://www.techspot....ance/page6.html

 

 

[Faa]

Every amd thread is filled with this spam...

Do you prefer to see this list of BS?

- Futureproof

- all new upcoming games optimized for 8 cores

- Overclocking great

- Tiny bit slower per core performance

- Best performance/price (multithreaded performance/price wise is BS)

- 8350 better than 3930K/4770K

- 6300 better than 4670K

- 4300 better than i3

- 50 watt higher power consumption

- Easier to cool (60° max core temp yeah right)

- i3's not ready for next-gen games not futureproof like 8320

 

 

Not entirely true.

All of these benchmarks just used a 680 or a single 780 and a i3 isn't a bottleneck for them. I3's can push them to 99% and at that point a better CPU can't make the difference. Here's a test Crysis 3 with 2 780's averaging between 50/50%-70/70% with 2 cores only enabled:

The clockspeeds are bugged and the vcore as well, no way a 780 would make 83° at 500MHz, and left from the vcore are the gpu loads. We don't see it dipping below 50%/50% equals a single 780@99%. Nobody would have a i3 and a 780 or even two, there's no difference between the i3 and 8320/8350 in every modern game because they all would use midrange gpu's which would turn out that you're mainly gpu bound.

How come you haven't realized this? Only assigned 2 cores to Crysis3.exe and there was no bottleneck at all for a single 780 and still took a hefty advantage of a 2nd 780, whats your next point?

No.

[m.pcplayer]

"Next gen" consoles use 6 cores max for games.  Two are locked to the OS and only 6 are even available for the game developer to use. Consoles have a 1.6ghz and a 1.7ghz AMD MOBILE chip, with garbage cache and they aren't equal to a desktop chip clock for clock. 

 

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04/02/how-infamous-second-son-used-the-ps4s-8-4-5-gb-of-ram-cpu-and-gpu-compute-to-make-our-jaws-drop/

 

Watchdog's? If you actually think Watchdog's is going to require a Haswell I7? I have some scrap steel to sell you in the middle of Paris. The game runs on an Xbox 360/PS3. Thief said the same thing (that you needed an I7). This is BS marketing and if you believe it, you are really naive. A DirectX 11.x game can't even use threads/cores right. The I7 recommendation is literally impossible, especially paired with the low GPU in the recommendation (which makes it even more laughable). The next COD? Also said I7. People found out that I7 was a I7-920 from 2008 at 2.8ghz. A 4770k is literally double that CPU.

 

Ivy I3 > 8350 in Thief.

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/

 

Ivy I3>8350 in Elder Scrolls Online.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-performance,3789-8.html

 

 

 

If you play MMO's, Rust, Day-Z, want to do Wii U emulation? Don't touch AMD. If all you play are console port shooters and single player games? AMD is fine and should be for a long time. An I5 K can double the FPS in an MMO or indie game where core utilization sucks. The 8350 can get close to an I5 in GPU bound games where CPU doesn't matter and Mantle games. 

 

Make the choice based on what you play. 8320 or I5. Spend the rest on GPU. When the benchmarks come out for Watch Dog's? These people will just move to the next game, just like they did from Thief, Battlefield 4 etc. I5 will play all games well now and in the future. 8320/50 will play them well in the future, but can struggle on some now. It is really that simple. I7 and up? Overkill for gaming.

 

Why would AMD be no good for DayZ? That is one game i will be playing along with H1Z1.

 

Main reason i was choosing AMD was the price with saved cash going to GPU.

[TechFan@ic]

Why would AMD be no good for DayZ? That is one game i will be playing along with H1Z1.

 

Main reason i was choosing AMD was the price with saved cash going to GPU.

The AMD chip is rock solid m.pcplayer. I myself benchmarked both an i7 2600 and an FX 8320 in 4 different games and they performed exactly the same.

Both were overclocked mind you 4.4/4.6.

I can also tell you that Crysis 3 video is absolutely ridiculous. I did test Crysis 3 with 1 core disabled on my i7 2600 and I lost roughly 14 FPS. Performance went down from 48 to 34 in welcome to the jungle.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The FX is a much better chip for modern games, the core i5 and core i3 are seing 90 to 95% usage already in crysis 3 or BF4 multiplayer...how well does those chip will run BF5 for example?

The FX 8 core chip has much more raw computation power, it's all in the way that the game exploit the CPU that the difference lies...in modern games that rock 5, 6 or even 8 core of the FX the performances are very good, and the next gen games will ALL use 6 to 8 threads and this is before then end of this year when the games developped for the PS4/XBone will start to hit the market.

[Faa]

Why would AMD be no good for DayZ? That is one game i will be playing along with H1Z1.

 

Main reason i was choosing AMD was the price with saved cash going to GPU.

No.. Dayz is a game thats lightthreaded that mainly relies on single core performance. You'd see twice as much fps with Intel so avoid AMD.

[i_build_nanosuits]

No.. Dayz is a game thats lightthreaded that mainly relies on single core performance. You'd see twice as much fps with Intel so avoid AMD.

Dayz is based on real virtuality game engine and use 2 heavy-threads along with two ''trash'' threads...it should run about the same on the intel vs the AMD, we are talking

about 80 to 100FPS on highest settings provided that the GPU is not the weakest link...so you need at least GTX 780 and 120hz monitor to feel the difference between both platforms.

Also while being a ''recent'' game, Dayz is in a no way a ''modern'' or ''next gen'' game, the real virtuality engine as been around for years now with no major update to support

mutli-core CPU's, Real Virtuality 3.0 engine is used in Dayz.

[ShadowCaptain]

 My experience with the i3 (ivy bridge) was that in imovie (Yes I had OSX on it) it would constantly freeze and I would have to wait long periods of time for it to stop freezing during video editing with 100% cpu usage.  

 

That could be partly because OSX was never intented to be run on an i3. Apple macs only use i5 and i7s. Its possible that the particular architecture of the i3 was not catered for in the OS. Also hackintosh machines never really seem to run as awell as a standard mac does, unless you are useing very specific or very powerful hardware.

 

Just a thought anyway

 

I think the i3 4130 is one of the  most under valued CPUs out there, with the i5 4440 up to 4570k being second if you have the cash. I have nothing against AMD but I never really see a gain to getting their CPUs. differnet story with AMD graphics cards though, they always seem to do a good job there, but CPU performance is never the best from my experiance and reading benchmarks

[Faa]

Dayz is based on real virtuality game engine and use 2 heavy-threads along with two ''trash'' threads...it should run about the same on the intel vs the AMD, we are talking

about 80 to 100FPS on highest settings provided that the GPU is not the weakest link...so you need at least GTX 780 and 120hz monitor to feel the difference between both platforms.

Also while being a ''recent'' game, Dayz is in a no way a ''modern'' or ''next gen'' game, the real virtuality engine as been around for years now with no major update to support

mutli-core CPU's, Real Virtuality 3.0 engine is used in Dayz.

Dayz just has one big major thread and a 2nd thats smaller and a bunch of minor threads with a few of them being trashthreads that can be moved to the core thats handling the main threads without an impact on your performance.

Dayz runs crap with lots of situations of 30 fps etc where AMD would hardly sit at 15 fps. Most of my friends play that game and they'd laugh with your 80-100 fps claim.

[Linus_torvalds]

is this linustechtips or amdtechtips forum? 

 

so many AMD fans.

for the love of god shut up. stop sayng that AMD fx 8350 beats i7 

 

see this?

AMD FX 8350 overclocked 4.72 GHZ lol  cpu score= 24861 GPU score for GTX 660 Ti overclocked 1099 MHZ = 27337

INTEL i7 3770 overclocked 4.3 GHZ        cpu score= 29202 GPU score for GTX 660  overclocked    1080 MHZ = 28117 

 

as you know GTX 660 ti is better then GTX 660 non ti so shut up amd fans. and do not suggest anyone to buy AMD fx CPU it's very very bad choice. for CPU there is no option if you want good cpu buy intel. AMD makes shit not cpu 

AMD cpu can not use your graphics card. you buy GTX 780 and you get GTX 770 if you have AMD cpu

 

 

also its memory controller sucks 

 

here is AMD A10 7850k with 2400 MHZ ram

 

here is my i7 3770 with 2133 MHZ ram oc to 2252 MHZ

 

 

and here is FX 8320 with 1600 MHZ ram

 

 

AMD CPU=shit

[i_build_nanosuits]

Dayz just has one big major thread and a 2nd thats smaller and a bunch of minor threads with a few of them being trashthreads that can be moved to the core thats handling the main threads without an impact on your performance.

Dayz runs crap with lots of situations of 30 fps etc where AMD would hardly sit at 15 fps. Most of my friends play that game and they'd laugh with your 80-100 fps claim.

doesn't change anything if the game run like crap on both platforms then it means it's a bad game...baldy otpimised old tech game with new heavy elements that should not be there...

this is one of the last generation of these heavy cpu bound single-threaded games...those are fading away, future is to modern games, multi-threaded, with much more advanced physics and

visual effects to be processed by the CPU.

[i_build_nanosuits]

is this linustechtips or amdtechtips forum? 

 

so many AMD fans.

for the love of god shut up. stop sayng that AMD fx 8350 beats i7

Nobody ever stated that an FX 8 core beats a core i7, the core i7 is the master of all chips, but comes with a very salty 300$+ price tag.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The truth is that you can't stand the fact that an AMD FX cpu perform just as good if not better than a core i5 in modern games, so you are constantly linking OLD benchmarks

of OLD TECH games based on age OLD GAME ENGINES...nothing relevant to current or future PC gaming, you are recommanding the core i5 to people in 2014 to justify your bad buy,

you can't stand the fact that your brand new 250$ core i5 is on the way to being obsolete my friend, that's the reality.

[Linus_torvalds]

i_build_nanosuits

you have FX 8320 OCed to 4.6 GHZ and GTX 780 OC

show us your 3D mark vantage screen. do not change settings just start VANTAGE and bench it. then show us the results of your GPU and CPU

 

i guess your GTX 780 works as it is GTX 770 because your CPU is BOTTLENECKING it!!!!!!

[i_build_nanosuits]

i_build_nanosuits

you have FX 8320 OCed to 4.6 GHZ and GTX 780 OC

show us your 3D mark vantage screen. do not change settings just start VANTAGE and bench it. then show us the results of your GPU and CPU

 

i guess your GTX 780 works as it is GTX 770 because your CPU is BOTTLENECKING it!!!!!!

I have no bottleneck in any games or benchmarks that i've tried as of today, i'm at work now (on a 6 core hyperthreaded xeon CPU + nvidia quadro K5000 graphics card) i could run

vantage on this machine but for my gaming rig you will have to wait a few hours...

Now, i know i will get a CPU bottleneck in any games that use only 2 or 3 threads (massive unotpimised online MMO's...etc.) i'm very well aware of that...but in the long run in modern games

and multi-threaded games the FX CPU is an awesome performer and it will prove it to you in reviews of future games i can guarantee you that.

[nokturrduk84]

The truth is that you can't stand the fact that an AMD FX cpu perform just as good if not better than a core i5 in modern games, so you are constantly linking OLD benchmarks

of OLD TECH games based on age OLD GAME ENGINES...nothing relevant to current or future PC gaming, you are recommanding the core i5 to people in 2014 to justify your bad buy,

you can't stand the fact that your brand new 250$ core i5 is on the way to being obsolete my friend, that's the reality.

Are you blind? We just provided the real benchmarks screenshots where your AMD is beaten & spanked badly by Intel even if it got better GPU & RAM & it's bottlenecking the other parts. Even if you get for ex. 60 fps in a game it doesn't mean your CPU isn't bottlenecking your GPU, cause with Intel you would reach more than 60. How can you still say that AMD is better choice? You are such a big fanboy & AMD shill...

[Faa]

i guess your GTX 780 works as it is GTX 770 because your CPU is BOTTLENECKING it!!!!!!

True. If your cpu bottlenecks a single card setup, you won't gain advantage of a 2nd card or a better gpu. He bottlenecks his 780 by a huge amount which would turn out that he'd have identical fps with a gtx 760@99%

Also his gpu doesnt get above 50% load

[Linus_torvalds]

I have no bottleneck in any games or benchmarks that i've tried as of today,

You can not know that. If you had ivy/haswell i5 or sandy/ivy/haswell i7 you would have waaay better performance.

 

i showed you that FX 8320 OCed to 4.72 GHZ is slower then i7 3770 4.3 GHZ and even on 4.72 GHZ it bottlenecked GTX 660 ti

 

So show us that vantage screen when you get home. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

You can not know that. If you had ivy/haswell i5 or sandy/ivy/haswell i7 you would have waaay better performance.

 

i showed you that FX 8320 OCed to 4.72 GHZ is slower then i7 3770 4.3 GHZ and even on 4.72 GHZ it bottlenecked GTX 660 ti

 

So show us that vantage screen when you get home.

I will, and yes i can look at GPU usage to see it being used at 99% in EVERY modern games (BF4, CRYSIS3, MAX PAYNE3, TOMB RAIDER, HITMAN, FARCRY3 ETC...)

I'm not noob, or dumb...i've been doing this for years, check my profile if you don't trust me.

[Faa]

I will, and yes i can look at GPU usage to see it being used at 99% in EVERY modern games (BF4, CRYSIS3, MAX PAYNE3, TOMB RAIDER, HITMAN, FARCRY3 ETC...)

I'm not noob, or dumb...i've been doing this for years, check my profile if you don't trust me.

No it's not, Ive linked your BF4 performance earlier.

Here is it again:

I've used the same settings somewhere at 0:41 you see my settings

@mate_mate91 Isn't his cpu bottlenecking his 780 complety? 70 fps average when I'm getting 150 fps average. 50% load instead of 99% like he claims?

[i_build_nanosuits]

50% load instead of 99% like he claims?

THIS IS FAN SPEED NOT GPU LOAD I TOLD YOU 20 times already and i told you via PM that if you post my video once more and state false facts about i was to report you, i'm reporting you RIGHT NOW.

[nokturrduk84]

@i_build_nanosuits stop leading people in a wrong way & spreading all that BS & misinformation, cause there are lots of people who are new to tech & you can allure them to make a mistake by buying a bad CPU.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i'm done i won't answer no more, to much time wasted already , think what you want guys i don't care, the future will prove me right and it will begin on may 27th with the launch and reviews of Watch dogs on PC.

[alpenwasser]

Yeah, this isn't going anywhere where things should be going...

Locked.