FX 8350 vs i5 4690k

[wiktor1800]

After doing a lot more research, and more games seem to be getting 8 cores/8 threads, and people say that soon enough games will start utilizing these as a standard thanks to the newer gen consoles. Is is true? If it is, then is the 8350 a better option thanks to more cores/threads?

 

The more I look into this, the more confused I get  :wacko:  :wacko:

[i_build_nanosuits]

After doing a lot more research, and more games seem to be getting 8 cores/8 threads, and people say that soon enough games will start utilizing these as a standard thanks to the newer gen consoles. Is is true? If it is, then is the 8350 a better option thanks to more cores/threads?

 

The more I look into this, the more confused I get  :wacko:  :wacko:

no, AMD FX cores are too slow and games will always run one or two main heavier threads even if games do goes more and more multi-threaded a core i5 cores are so much stronger and faster it will always be a better choice regardless of optimisation for multi-core CPU's. If you would want to be covered on both fields you'd have to shoot for an hyper-threaded xeon E3 or a core i7 CPU which i guess would be out of budget and you'd have to cut elsewhere on the build which is not a good idea so just go with a core i5 as it will be plenty to run all the games for a while even those that does make good use of more cpu cores (just look at battlefield 4 or crysis 3 for example, those games do make good use of more cpu cores and in those games the core i5 still performs a lot better than an 8 core FX chip.)

[wiktor1800]

no, AMD FX cores are too slow and games will always run one or two main heavier threads even if games do goes more and more multi-threaded a core i5 cores are so much stronger and faster it will always be a better choice regardless of optimisation for multi-core CPU's. If you would want to be covered on both fields you'd have to shoot for an hyper-threaded xeon E3 or a core i7 CPU which i guess would be out of budget and you'd have to cut elsewhere on the build which is not a good idea so just go with a core i5 as it will be plenty to run all the games for a while even those that does make good use of more cpu cores (just look at battlefield 4 or crysis 3 for example, those games do make good use of more cpu cores and in those games the core i5 still performs a lot better than an 8 core FX chip.)

But isn't that issue meant to be fixed with the new DX12 API? I heard that they managed to spread the workload out over all of the cores almost perfectly evenly? Or am I just talking a load of pickles?

[vm'N]

After doing a lot more research, and more games seem to be getting 8 cores/8 threads, and people say that soon enough games will start utilizing these as a standard thanks to the newer gen consoles. Is is true? If it is, then is the 8350 a better option thanks to more cores/threads?

 

The more I look into this, the more confused I get  :wacko:  :wacko:

There is a difference between a regular PC and a console, which have a great influence on the games performance.

A console is a RTOS (real time operative system), which have a few benefits for embedded systems.

A huge factor in this, is the amount of control the developer have on a RTOS machine. He will know exactly how long an instruction will take to execute, as there are no other additional software to interfere and his software have dedicated resources.

This have a huge influence, as the developer now can have much tighter timings.

The developer can therefore take things like thread-switching into account, when developing the software.

The console also have a fixed hardware set. This means that the software can be optimized much better, than a regular PC.

A regular PC have to add additional layers, to cover for a bigger hardware support. Which gives the PC developers less access to the hardware, and he will have a hard time optimizing, without losing support for other hardware.

Developers can focus on one system to develop for. This gives the opportunity for a much greater utilization of the hardware.

The software will be tailored with the hardware.

An example of this would be the much better utilization of the consoles APU (8 core jaguar).

Console games have a much better multi-threading capability than a PC version. To do proper multi-threading, you will need alot of low-level control.

Having control of the resources you have, is deadly important for multi-threading.

For a regular PC, the developer cannot have tight timings. As he cannot ensure that his instruction will be executed, because some other software might interfere and will stall the thread.

He cannot do low-level utilization, as he cannot ensure the same level of control as a console.

The game will also not have dedicated resources on a regular PC. Its resources are giving dynamically by the operative system.

For the regular usages, dynamic resource allocation is much better for a regular PC (as it is better for unpredictable things), but not good for the individual software.

Multi-threading quickly also becomes a issue for gaming on a regular PC, as the developer sadly cannot offer the same amount of multi-threading due to the lower multi-threading capability the regular PC have, because of less control of the resources.

 

But isn't that issue meant to be fixed with the new DX12 API? I heard that they managed to spread the workload out over all of the cores almost perfectly evenly? Or am I just talking a load of pickles?

Mantle introduced a multi-threading render process, where DX11 is a single one. This was a issue with DX11.

However, this is not a magical fix, that will bring perfect multi-threading capability to the regular PC. It wont. It will provide better utilization, but not anything like an embedded system, with embedded software.

[wiktor1800]

There is a difference between a regular PC and a console, which have a great influence on the games performance.

A console is a RTOS (real time operative system), which have a few benefits for embedded systems.

A huge factor in this, is the amount of control the developer have on a RTOS machine. He will know exactly how long an instruction will take to execute, as there are no other additional software to interfere and his software have dedicated resources.

This have a huge influence, as the developer now can have much tighter timings.

The developer can therefore take things like thread-switching into account, when developing the software.

The console also have a fixed hardware set. This means that the software can be optimized much better, than a regular PC.

A regular PC have to add additional layers, to cover for a bigger hardware support. Which gives the PC developers less access to the hardware, and he will have a hard time optimizing, without losing support for other hardware.

Developers can focus on one system to develop for. This gives the opportunity for a much greater utilization of the hardware.

The software will be tailored with the hardware.

An example of this would be the much better utilization of the consoles APU (8 core jaguar).

Console games have a much better multi-threading capability than a PC version. To do proper multi-threading, you will need alot of low-level control.

Having control of the resources you have, is deadly important for multi-threading.

For a regular PC, the developer cannot have tight timings. As he cannot ensure that his instruction will be executed, because some other software might interfere and will stall the thread.

He cannot do low-level utilization, as he cannot ensure the same level of control as a console.

The game will also not have dedicated resources on a regular PC. Its resources are giving dynamically by the operative system.

For the regular usages, dynamic resource allocation is much better for a regular PC (as it is better for unpredictable things), but not good for the individual software.

Multi-threading quickly also becomes a issue for gaming on a regular PC, as the developer sadly cannot offer the same amount of multi-threading due to the lower multi-threading capability the regular PC have, because of less control of the resources.

 

Mantle introduced a multi-threading render process, where DX11 is a single one. This was a issue with DX11.

However, this is not a magical fix, that will bring perfect multi-threading capability to the regular PC. It wont. It will provide better utilization, but not anything like an embedded system, with embedded software.

But considering most games just support 4 cores max, with the new advances in consoles, doesnt that mean that new Pc games should start to support 8 cores sooner or later? And if so - is the 8350 a better option for the long run?

[vm'N]

But considering most games just support 4 cores max, with the new advances in consoles, doesnt that mean that new Pc games should start to support 8 cores sooner or later? And if so - is the 8350 a better option for the long run?

Well, first of all. The console have 2 core dedicated for the OS (So the OS and the game will not interfere with eachother). This gives the game developer 6 threads to work with.

Then considering the lack of control, I do believe game developers decrease the amount of cores used, to limited confliction.

I will recommend the core I5 4690k over the FX 8350, even in the long run for gaming.

The core I5 4690k will have a much more balanced single-core/multi-core performance.

[rentaspoon]

But considering most games just support 4 cores max, with the new advances in consoles, doesnt that mean that new Pc games should start to support 8 cores sooner or later? And if so - is the 8350 a better option for the long run?

If your really trying to scrimp on money get a 8350 and a MSI 970 Gaming, I'm happy with mine and they are as crap as people say.

Otherwise go Intel as you seemed set on that and there are more Intel boys on the forum to help you out anyway.

As for 8 cores, yeah I think games might go this way (this argument was around when it was single/dual cores vs dual/quad cores) but your betting on something you can't guarantee and it could be another 4 years for all you know.