AMD Piledriver FX-8350 thoughts?

[SHiFT]

Question in the title. What do you guys think of this CPU? Is it a bit future-proof (1-2 years) also, is it good for gaming at big resoultions with the newest game if its perhaps combined with a 780 Ti?

[CoolBeans]

Either save your money and get a 8320 or spend a couple extra dollars and get a 4690K

[SHiFT]

Either save your money and get a 8320 or spend a couple extra dollars and get a 4690K

So its not a good CPU at all?

[Aniallation]

So its not a good CPU at all?

It's sort of the in-the-middle CPU. It's not exactly worth the price when you can get the same thing for cheaper (8320)

[CoolBeans]

So its not a good CPU at all?

 

I didn't say that, it just isn't good for the money. An 8320 is the 8350 clocked lower and lower binned

[Fulgrim]

It's a good cpu in that it will run any game out in the next 2 years, but it lacks in single core performance vs Intel. Single threaded game engines (usually MMORPG's, indie games and stuff like World Of Tanks) will run, but nowhere near as good as an Intel chip. 

[SHiFT]

I didn't say that, it just isn't good for the money. An 8320 is the 8350 clocked lower and lower binned

AMD FX-8320 8 Core CPU Overclocked to 4.4GHz. That would be better?

[Aniallation]

It's a good cpu in that it will run any game out in the next 2 years, but it lacks in single core performance vs Intel. Single threaded game engines (usually MMORPG's, indie games and stuff like World Of Tanks) will run, but nowhere near as good as an Intel chip. 

 

Generally single threaded game engines don't demand that much single core performance, so it'll likely not be as noticeable of a difference as you think. As far as big time game engines like FrostBite they're using more and more cores every day, which is why I feel the 8-core FX's are a better choice then i5's for the few years to come

[CoolBeans]

AMD FX-8320 8 Core CPU Overclocked to 4.4GHz. That would be better?

 

If you can get it to 4.4GHZ I guess, but what is your budget for the build a AMD 8 core and a 780ti isn't very balanced 

[Aniallation]

AMD FX-8320 8 Core CPU Overclocked to 4.4GHz. That would be better?

If it's cheaper then yes. The 8320 is the same as the 8350, however it will get lower overclocks. It'll still be okay but don't expect anything extreme. You'll still likely hit thermal limits before stability limits on a lot of the 8320 chips though

[SHiFT]

If it's cheaper then yes. The 8320 is the same as the 8350, however it will get lower overclocks. It'll still be okay but don't expect anything extreme. You'll still likely hit thermal limits before stability limits on a lot of the 8320 chips though

Im just looking for alternatives. My system that I want to get would have in i7-4790K with Inno3D's GTX 780 HerculeZ Ultra DHS. I am just looking at some other systems.

[Faceman]

Buy an i5-4690k + GTX 780, non-Ti.

[Enderman]

If you can afford an i5 4690k, get the i5 because it will perform better.

If you can't afford the i5, get an 8320 and a good CPU cooler to overclock it.

[Aniallation]

Buy an i5-4690k + GTX 780, non-Ti.

or 290

[SHiFT]

or 290

I want to get a system that will last a few year(s) as I wont be able to upgrade anytime soon, hence I get a very high end GTX 780 and the 4790K.

[Aniallation]

I want to get a system that will last a few year(s) as I wont be able to upgrade anytime soon, hence I get a very high end GTX 780 and the 4790K.

Even the Inno3D 780 will start to fall behind the basic 290/290X cards in newer games that take a lot of VRAM and/or if you upgrade to 1440p down the road. Not to mention it's a lot more expensive

[SHiFT]

Even the Inno3D 780 will start to fall behind the basic 290/290X cards in newer games that take a lot of VRAM and/or if you upgrade to 1440p down the road. Not to mention it's a lot more expensive

Your signature tells me that you really dont want me to buy an NVIDIA product, do you?

 

If I was to get a 290X out of these, which do you recommend?

 

Powercolor Radeon R9 290X PCS+ OC 4096MB

 

Asus Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC 4096MB

 

Gigabyte Radeon R9 290X OC WindForce 4096MB

[Aniallation]

Your signature tells me that you really dont want me to buy an NVIDIA product, do you?

 

If I was to get a 290X out of these, which do you recommend?

 

Powercolor Radeon R9 290X PCS+ OC 4096MB

 

Asus Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC 4096MB

 

Gigabyte Radeon R9 290X OC WindForce 4096MB

 

As far as video cards I'm equally balanced between NVIDIA and AMD, it's just Intel that I don't advocate for their ridiculous prices for i5 compared to 8-core FX. For futureproofing at the high-end single GPU level I'd go for an AMD card, but there are situations where I'd pick NVIDIA.

 

If you don't care about aesthetics (cause people call it an ugly card, I don't see how it's ugly but whatever) then get the HIS IceQ X2. Otherwise get the Sapphire Vapor-X.

[SHiFT]

As far as video cards I'm equally balanced between NVIDIA and AMD, it's just Intel that I don't advocate for their ridiculous prices for i5 compared to 8-core FX. For futureproofing at the high-end single GPU level I'd go for an AMD card, but there are situations where I'd pick NVIDIA.

 

If you don't care about aesthetics (cause people call it an ugly card, I don't see how it's ugly but whatever) then get the HIS IceQ X2. Otherwise get the Sapphire Vapor-X.

Which do you recommend from the above 3 cards? I'd go for the Gigabyte one, no doubt.

[Sintezza]

FX8350 is basicly a good cpu, if you do more things besides gaming.

Like video editing / rendering, encoding, virtualization and such.

 

But for pure gaming, i would say just grab the 4690K

[Faceman]

Your signature tells me that you really dont want me to buy an NVIDIA product, do you?

Honestly, the R9 290 is a very compelling option when compared against the 780.

 

Lets get the negative out of the way first, it runs hot, but it is designed to run hot.  People say that the AMD cards don't have the same features as Nvidia, truth is, they do, they just arent as developed as Nvidia's.  Both Nvidia and AMD have driver issues, but AMD has it a little worse than Nvidia.

 

     Positives of why you should get an R9 290 over a 780.  First of all, the price.  You can get an R9 290 brand new for $320 after rebate.  If you really wanted to, you could even water cool that bad boy for ~$140 using an H55 and Kraken G10 and it will still be less expensive than a 780.  Another positive is the 4GB of VRAM.  If you are ever going to play at higher than 1080p resolutions, get the R9 290, it scales SO much better at higher resolutions than the 780.  I own a 780 with only 3GB of VRAM, and I am kind of debating if I want to sell it off now before the new wave of cards come out.  If I ever decide to go 1440p or Ultra 4k, 3GB of VRAM won't cut it.  So in terms of future proofing, the R9 290 might be a better option.  Don't forget that it comes with 3 free games, that you get to choose from a decent selection.  The performance of an R9 290 is only ~5-10% less than a 780, making it the best high end GPU in my opinion because of its price to performance offering.

 

     For CPU, stay away from AMD.  The FX is an ancient processor with horrible single core performance.  It doesn't run all of the games properly and it bottlenecks high end cards.  You don't need an i7, an i5 is plenty for gaming.  Games are not going to start utilizing more than 4 cores.  It doesn't make sense for game developers to design games for more than 4 cores when the vast majority of consumers only have 2-4 core processors.  If you are really concerned, go for the i7, but it will be wasted money if all you do is gaming.

[Aniallation]

For CPU, stay away from AMD.  The FX is an ancient processor with horrible single core performance.  It doesn't run all of the games properly and it bottlenecks high end cards.  You don't need an i7, an i5 is plenty for gaming.  Games are not going to start utilizing more than 4 cores.  It doesn't make sense for game developers to design games for more than 4 cores when the vast majority of consumers only have 2-4 core processors.  If you are really concerned, go for the i7, but it will be wasted money if all you do is gaming.

 

Why does everybody say this? More games are becoming just console ports, and even PC-based game engines are using more cores. BF3 already took advantage of six cores, and with the 8 cores in consoles it'll only be a matter of time

[Aniallation]

Which do you recommend from the above 3 cards? I'd go for the Gigabyte one, no doubt.

Powercolor. I've had problems with Windforce X3 cards lately.

[Sintezza]

Why does everybody say this? More games are becoming just console ports, and even PC-based game engines are using more cores. BF3 already took advantage of six cores, and with the 8 cores in consoles it'll only be a matter of time

 

Because they just want to defence theire i5 purchase lol

If you are an hardcore gamer for Watchdogs, and you just want the best, then an 4770K 4790K is totaly worth it.

[Faceman]

Why does everybody say this? More games are becoming just console ports, and even PC-based game engines are using more cores. BF3 already took advantage of six cores, and with the 8 cores in consoles it'll only be a matter of time

No, no no.  Just because task manager shows all cores in use, doesn't mean the game is benefiting from extra cores.  If that were really the case, the FX would be stomping the i5, but its not.  Its the other way around.  The FX processor was designed as a server processor back in 2009.  Its ancient.  The single core performance is bad, which a lot of programs and games still rely on.  Also, the minimum FPS, which is the most important FPS measurement is affected more by the strong single core performance.  If you ever play MMOs, RTS, Diablo, ARMA, DayZ, Skyrim, Starcraft, Indies, etc.. they won't run as well as on an Intel processor.  In order to get an FX processor to match the STOCK performance of an i5, it has to be overclocked to 5.0Ghz, which is very rare, and in order to accomplish, you have to buy an expensive motherboard with lots of power phases, after that purchase, it will cost the same as an i5.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CcjvdC

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....dC/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($180.00) <-- microcenter or price match with staples.com or frys.com

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($25.98 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($75.66 @ Newegg) <-- Have seen as low as $60.

Total: $281.64

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hbxTpg

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....pg/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($130.00) <-- To be fair I used the Microcenter price here also.

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($25.98 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($116.90 @ Newegg)

Total: $272.88

 

Lets not forget that the FX bottlenecks high end GPUs.

 

FIRESTRIKE:

 

Achievements for the overclocked score:

 

"

Brawn

Your GPU is ready to rumble, but your CPU doesn't want to play."  <-- Directly from Firestrike.  Was an 8320 @ 4.8Ghz paired with a heavily overclocked R9 290X.  The score was 9,000 even. 

 

An i5-4670k @ 3.4Ghz with the same GPU, at the same overclock scores 11,000.

 

CINEBENCH:

 

Same 8320 overclocked to 4.8Ghz and an R9 290X doesn't even hit 100fps.  The exact fps was 98.  The stock i5 + R9 290X does 118fps.