How is the FX 8350 for games?

[Faceman]

@FizzyFantom

 

These people are not experts.  They are people who started Youtube channels and garnered a following.

 

TekSyndicate?  Cmon.  Its the only, ONLY source on the web claiming an FX outperforms Intel, you can discard that result.  They have a video showing an APU paired with a 780 against an i7-4770k with the same 780.  Guess the result... they show the APU beating the i7 by a massive margin.  Discard TekSyndicate.

 

JayzTwoCents is a hack and doesn't know what he is doing, there are lots of videos of his that are terrible and he doesn't have a great understanding of the tests he is doing.  Some things are good, some are bad, but he is very hit or miss. Also he isn't testing those extremely CPU bound games like I mentioned.  BF4 is incredible CPU bound though, and he fails to show GPU loads.  He is experiencing a bottleneck, but it might not be visible because he is playing on 60Hz, he could also be using Mantle.  Not all games use Mantle.

 

TechofTomorrow is and has always been largely biased towards AMD.  Just a video of him talking, no benchmarks, no GPU load, no games that really benefit from strong single core performance.

 

Bottom line, in some games, AMD is crippling, and in order for it to perform decent, it needs to be overclocked, which makes it cost the same as a locked i5, and no matter how overclocked the FX is, it doesn't make up for it's decade old architecture and abysmal single core performance.  The VAST majority of games are GPU bound, but in those titles that do require strong cores, the AMD falls flat on its face.  This forum is littered with people who used to own FX and switched to Intel and warn others of the mistake they made.  You never see anyone switch from Intel to AMD.

[Twirlz]

Hate to spoil your theory, but a Phenom actually has a lot better single core performance than an FX, so for those specific games that are CPU bound, it will run MUCH better on a Phenom than FX.

 

Define "MUCH better" please. A benchmark or two will suffice.

[MF Patrick]

Hate to spoil your theory, but a Phenom actually has a lot better single core performance than an FX, so for those specific games that are CPU bound, it will run MUCH better on a Phenom than FX.

 

 

^2 man grouping result in Guild Wars2.  Raiding = not going to get acceptable frame rates.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-dcTn-3g5I

 

ARMA3 BF4 Results.  There is no FPS counter, but you can see how badly this processor performs.

 

DayZ Online Results:  This is online with the guy running up a hill doing nothing, only getting 28fps.  As soon as he gets in a firefight or enters a town, boom, down to the 10s.

 

Standalone(not online) results

Oh c'mon. You know that almost every single one of these benchmarks are shit.

First of all, they might be using Fraps to record. And everyone knows that Fraps is shit. Second, I could bet my balls that these guys are using only 1 HDD for this entire operation.

Something that makes you drop frames ( mainly in open world games ). Not only you lose framerate in game but also your footage is going to look like shit.

Also, we have to check if they have good enough HDDs to record in 1080p.

There are 2 videos that could be considered. The one filmed with a camera ( which I didn't watch for more than 20 seconds because of its terrible quality and because of the duration ) and the one from DayZ Standalone because it's recorded with a decent recording software.

Well, no, not even the one from DayZ because the guy is using only 1 HDD to record things. And I can tell because he is dropping 10-15 Frames. Something that doesn't happen using 2 HDDs ( one for the game and one where you dump the footage ) with Action! Mirillis.

And I can tell because I use these softwares a lot and I don't drop any frames with my 5 years old CPU.

So these benchmarks are kind of useless because made by people that don't know how to record their gameplay.

Now, I know that the Intel counterparts are better in gaming but the FX series is good enough and if you plan on creating content and you are on a budget, the FX 8320 is the CPU to get.

 

Also, I used the 8350 with my GTX 470 and I was getting better results than I get with my Phenom II 955.

I played only Stalker Call Of Pripyat with Misery 2.1 and Deus Ex Human Revolution Director's Cut ( terrible optimization compared to the original ).

But in Stalker I gained 15 FPS and in DE:HR DC the game was running butter smooth while my CPU drops frames.

 

So I don't buy your argument.

[Faceman]

@Twirlz

 

snip, couldn't quote you with "@"

Go on MMO hut and ask for a good CPU, no one is going to recommend you an FX because of its crappy single core performance.  I play a new MMO called ArcheAge, its a fairly demanding game based off CryEngine, but its still an MMO that has lots of players on the screen at once, I'm talking 50 people is small, 100 people is average and 200 people is an open world raid, which happens multiple times daily, its an integral part of the game.  The performance is so bad on FX that when people are forming groups, they list their computer specs because when it gets hairy, those with FX processors can't keep up.  Same goes for high end guilding, validation of Intel processors is required because the game runs so poorly on FX.  The same goes for any other MMO when you are raiding or have lots of players on the screen.  Performance tanks with the FX processors.

 

As far as recording, they could be using Shadowplay.  You do make a fair point, but based on all of the feedback from members on this forum and my friend who tries to play DayZ, Arma, MMOs on his FX processor, he doesn't get good performance because of the old architecture of FX processors.

 

P.S. @Faa Do you have a link to that one chart, I think the bars are in green with a white backdrop of single core performance of many processors, I can't seem to find it, and I forget which program is being used.

[Mush Brain]

Shit.

[i_build_nanosuits]

P.S. @Faa Do you have a link to that one chart, I think the bars are in green with a white backdrop of single core performance of many processors, I can't seem to find it, and I forget which program is being used.

just link LTT cinebench R15 single-threaded...this proves it all...here it is:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

 

there you go...as you can see at number 48 even the core 2 duo E8500 which is a CPU from 2008 if i'm not mistaken still got better per core performance than an AMD FX overclocked...it sucks.

OMG when you think about it E8500 at 4.6ghz has more performance per core than a 5.35GHZ FX clocked by priller...this is something.

[Faa]

I have a Phenom II X4 955 and I get more than 15-20FPS in the majority of those games. That means that a CPU like the 8350 gets at least 50% more FPS than I get.

Really? Where's that 50% coming from? Like @Faceman said; the Phenom x2 is better in nearly all games and the FX has still lower IPC than conroe dating from 2005.

 

WoW and GW2 = I never go below 60 FPS.

Planetside 2 is fairly stable at 60. It has some random drops but nothing too bad.

DayZ is everything but stable but most of the time I have 60FPS. It drops down to 40 sometimes but it's playable.

ARMA 2 runs without any problems.

ARMA 3, 35 FPS in single player. 25 in a full alterlife server.

So that 15-20 FPS story is false.

Prove it or you lied. No proof? You lied. Your PC isn't a gaming machine anymore, more like a storage PC.

 

To answer the OP, the FX 8350 is fine when it comes to gaming but you can get a lot better with a few extra euros.

If you are not a streamer/video editor on budget, the 8350 is not the right CPU for you.

Just go with the 4690k and you'll get better performance in gaming.

4690K is better for streaming, secondly the 8350 isn't fine whenever you take gaming performance/price in consideration. It's the cpu that's #1 in being the worst value for gaming.

 

 

 

I never accused you of being an Intel fanboy, and I'm certainly not an AMD fanboy (though I doubt you'll believe me).

If you're not an AMD fanboy you wouldn't be linking fabricated benchmarks which is against the CoC, yes Teksyndicate is pure rigging. Only ignorant people with lack of sense would believe him.

 

I accept that Intel outperforms AMD CPUs in heavy single threaded loads, which generally helps in gaming, but your comments on AMD CPUs are coming close to scaremongering.

And most multithreaded workloads and always better for gaming. More singlethreaded performance means only one core is stronger? As most people spray around 8350's multithreaded being better, multi just means two or more. Basically in two threaded applications AMD is better right?

Every core is physically/performance wise equal. In a 4 threaded application something like a 4690K will be up to twice as fast as that's the difference in singlethreaded performance. 

 

You examples of benchmarks show how AMD performs, but you don't show how an Intel CPU performs in the same tests, proving nothing other than that AMD performs like this in these situations.

I'm simply stating that buying an AMD CPU won't cripple your PC in gaming in the way that some people like to suggest. It seems that industry experts also agree with me:

Lol, Logan an industry expert. Rofl. Really? He's the first and last guy in the history that ever showed a difference of 400% between AMD & Intel (Arma 2/Far Cry 3 results). 

Jay is dropping his opinions in his video's just like you are doing now, recommends the 8350 for a CPU of 200$ because it's the best BANG for your BUCK when it wasn't any cheaper than the i5. Give me a good reason why we should take him serious when he yells 200$ is cheaper than 200$?

Tech of tomorrow, theyre only capable of unboxing and running a game far from what I would call industry experts. What about linking a video who's results are matching what other sources provided?

 

OP, I definitely recommend you get an Intel CPU if you can fit it inside your budget, but if you buy an AMD FX CPU it certainly won't cripple your gaming experience. Best of luck with whatever you choose 

Doesn't make a lot of sense to recommend him Intel now after you dropped fabricated benchmarks.

[FizzyFantom]

 

-snip-

 

So we have both proven that it is possible to fabricate and cherry-pick benchmarks to show whichever side you want to be better. I already said that I recommend Intel CPUs for gaming, they are better in single threaded performance, but I've personally never had any issues with AMD FX chips. Admittedly I haven't tested them out with WoW or many MMOs, but I've found they run fine in CS:GO and LoL (amongst other games) at 1080p60.

 

I wasn't looking to get into a giant fight or try to spread misinformation, simply to make a case for AMD CPUs in cheaper builds. If you can afford an Intel CPU (for your purposes) then you should always go for that, but in my experience FX chips don't cripple your gaming experience as badly as some suggest.

[Faa]

So we have both proven that it is possible to fabricate and cherry-pick benchmarks to show whichever side you want to be better.

 

It's only Teksyndicate who has been doing that. Any other source disagreed with them.

 

I wasn't looking to get into a giant fight or try to spread misinformation, simply to make a case for AMD CPUs in cheaper builds. If you can afford an Intel CPU (for your purposes) then you should always go for that, but in my experience FX chips don't cripple your gaming experience as badly as some suggest.

Oh please can we quit moaning about AMD is cheaper? It's not.

[jakjakattack]

Oh please can we quit moaning about AMD is cheaper? It's not.

 

Except it is. I got an 8320 for 100 bucks on black friday whereas the cheapest 4 core intel was $180. Add in a bit for a more expensive motherboard for the intel and that was about a 100 dollar savings for me. And I could not have spent any more than I did so amd was a life saver.

 

I am not a fan boy, but what you just said is wrong.

 

Regards,

Jackson

[Faceman]

Except it is. I got an 8320 for 100 bucks on black friday whereas the cheapest 4 core intel was $180. Add in a bit for a more expensive motherboard for the intel and that was about a 100 dollar savings for me. And I could not have spent any more than I did so amd was a life saver.

 

I am not a fan boy, but what you just said is wrong.

 

Regards,

Jackson

There is no denying that the processor of AMD is cheaper than that of Intel.  The overall package that is required for FX is the same as Intel though.

 

Because FX processors are so old and power hungry, they require motherboards with sufficient VRM phase design, 8+2 is ideal, but 6+2 is acceptable, just don't go thinking you can overclock to great speeds though.  Also, for the FX to even be competitive, it needs to be overclocked, which needs more expensive cooling.  All of this adds up to more than a locked i5, and even then, it still bottlenecks high end GPUs.

[-iSynthesis]

Want to live-stream and/or edit videos? -> 8350. 8350 is a fantastic value for streaming, itll outperform even some of the i7s.

Want to mainly play mmos or csgo or whatever the case may be -> i5. The 8350 wont do terrible in mmos and that an 8350 gets 15-20fps is absolute bullshit. My friend has one paired with a 7970ghz edition and gets around the same fps in arma 3 or a bit less (1-5fps less). 

 

In your case, go for an i5, it will outperform the 8350 is pretty much every game that you mentioned, however dont say the 8350 is complete shit when it comes to single or dual threaded games. The single thread score of the 8350 of my friend was about 2/3 of mine (in cinebench) which still isnt horrible. (he has 90cb and i have 145).

[Faa]

Except it is. I got an 8320 for 100 bucks on black friday whereas the cheapest 4 core intel was $180. Add in a bit for a more expensive motherboard for the intel and that was about a 100 dollar savings for me. And I could not have spent any more than I did so amd was a life saver.

 

I am not a fan boy, but what you just said is wrong.

 

Regards,

Jackson

I got a 4670K for 100 bucks as well on black saturday, your point?

 

 

Except it is. I got an 8320 for 100 bucks on black friday whereas the cheapest 4 core intel was $180. Add in a bit for a more expensive motherboard for the intel and that was about a 100 dollar savings for me. And I could not have spent any more than I did so amd was a life saver.

Lol wha? Cheapest board that meets the VRM requirements for a 8xxx is around 70 which is 30$ more than what would work with any Intel CPU. Cheapest overclocking boards are 100$ where as with Intel you can get Z97's for 70$. 

 

 

I am not a fan boy, but what you just said is wrong.

Only fanboys buy AMD. Any healthy person would buy Intel.

[Faceman]

Want to live-stream and/or edit videos? -> 8350. 8350 is a fantastic value for streaming, itll outperform even some of the i7s.

Want to mainly play mmos or csgo or whatever the case may be -> i5. The 8350 wont do terrible in mmos and that an 8350 gets 15-20fps is absolute bullshit. My friend has one paired with a 7970ghz edition and gets around the same fps in arma 3 if not a few more (30-60fps). 

 

In your case, go for an i5, it will outperform the 8350 is pretty much every game that you mentioned, however dont say the 8350 is complete shit when it comes to single or dual threaded games. The single thread score of the 8350 of my friend was about 2/3 of mine (in cinebench) which still isnt horrible. (he has 90cb and i have 145).

i5 does just fine for live streaming and video editing, basically performs on par with the FX8.  The FX8 does not outperform an i7.  Fantasy land you live in.

 

The FX8 IS terrible in MMOs.  If you want to do anything more than just grouping and dungeons, then an FX8 will tank your performance when there any many people around you.  Look at those videos I posted above.  In ArcheAge, a very new MMO, it is not uncommon for people to shout out their system specs when looking for groups or raids because the game has so many players on screen at once that those with FX processors cannot keep up.  This is a massive world with lots of open raids, events, and PvP with upwards of 200 players on screen.  My guild even requires an Intel or Phenom processor if you want to join.

 

Is that ARMA3 result single player?  Yea, it is.  Because online is incredibly taxing.  I tried it during the free weekend with my i5-4670k.  I first played it at 4.2Ghz, and later cranked it up all the way to 4.7Ghz because the game is very hard to run, and incredibly CPU bound.  Single player was tough, multiplayer was even worse.

 

You need to watch this video, start to finish:

[typographie]

Brother of a friend of mine asked me to build him a pc, I could keep it in his budget of 800 euro by getting an AMD FX 8350, without a custom cooler.

With that I could have enough money left over for a R9 290, he is planning to buy a 120 hz monitor in the future, would he be able to pull constant 120+ fps?

The games he plays are CS:GO, Cod and LOL.

I told him Intel was better but that AMD isn't bad either.

 

The FX-8350 isn't such a bad CPU if you're sticking with a 60 FPS cap. But once you start heading for 120 FPS and you need every frame the GPU can render, the difference between CPUs shows a lot more often. If it's possible to go with an i5, even if it means saving for a bit longer, I think it would be wise to do so.

[sgloux3470]

I've been running an FX 8350 in my system (an upgrade from an old phenom II when I built the machine a few years ago.) for about a year now.

 

I'm running it with a pair of ASUS DirectCu II  Top R9 270X cards I bought last year, at the slightly factory OC'd stockspeeds of 1120 MHz core and 1400 MHz memory.  

 

The FX 8350 is running stock clocks. 4.0 GHz with 4.2 GHz turbo.

 

These discussions are always very silly.  You can compare benchmarks all day but here's my experience with the CPU: It works fine.  Yes, your minimum framerate and maximum framerate may be weaker than Intel more often than not. But nothing that will stop you from playing with solid framerates in just about any game.

 

I'm running at 1080p on a 144Hz monitor.

 

 

 Metro 2033 Redux with Very high settings but with SSAA turned off: 57.2 FPS Average.

Sniper Elite III on Ultra w/ 4xSSAA: 46.9 FPS Average. (Without SSAA, this game runs like butter.)

Total War Rome II Elite Settings Preset: 52.0 FPS Average.

Bioshock Infinite Benchmark Utiility Ultra w/ Ambient Occlusion: 83.5 FPS Average.

Tomb Raider Ultra Settings w/FXAA and TressFX enabled: 93.3 FPS Average

 

 

Games like Arma run like shit on any hardware.  Will an extra 10 FPS on an intel system help in those games?  Yes, I think those games are certainly more playable on Intel hardware.  But they're so few and far between, and the $230 I spent on my 8350 has been more worthwhile than the $400-500 I was looking at spending to upgrade my system to intel at the time.  Most games are CPU agnostic, and if theyre not the difference is tiny.  The only games I've seen massively favour Intel are Skyrim and Starcraft 2.  

 

Also I've played both WoW and FFXIV and had no issues with super low framerates.  In WoW I lowered my view distance slightly and my FPS never drops below 60, but I also haven't done any large raids yet since I'm new to the game so YMMV.  

[FizzyFantom]

You need to watch this video, start to finish:

I did watch this video from start to finish and it was very interesting, thanks for linking

I saw in this video where the AMD CPU fell down and I readily admit that, but I also saw where it did absolutely fine. The creator even said rather often that the AMD CPU performed "just fine" (or similar). This is why I tend to agree with @typographie and @sgloux3470 , FX CPUs are fine for gaming, but do fall down in heavy single threaded performance.

 

Only fanboys buy AMD. Any healthy person would buy Intel.

This isn't a constructive point, don't just hurl insults at people.

[-iSynthesis]

i5 does just fine for live streaming and video editing, basically performs on par with the FX8.  The FX8 does not outperform an i7.  Fantasy land you live in.

 

The FX8 IS terrible in MMOs.  If you want to do anything more than just grouping and dungeons, then an FX8 will tank your performance when there any many people around you.  Look at those videos I posted above.  In ArcheAge, a very new MMO, it is not uncommon for people to shout out their system specs when looking for groups or raids because the game has so many players on screen at once that those with FX processors cannot keep up.  This is a massive world with lots of open raids, events, and PvP with upwards of 200 players on screen.  My guild even requires an Intel or Phenom processor if you want to join.

 

Is that ARMA3 result single player?  Yea, it is.  Because online is incredibly taxing.  I tried it during the free weekend with my i5-4670k.  I first played it at 4.2Ghz, and later cranked it up all the way to 4.7Ghz because the game is very hard to run, and incredibly CPU bound.  Single player was tough, multiplayer was even worse.

 

You need to watch this video, start to finish:

 

An i5 does NOT perform on par with an 8350 in streaming, The ARMA 3 result is on a Wasteland server.

 

Multiplayer heavily depends on the server you play on. I can get 60-90FPS on some servers but if theres a lot of people on them i dont even get 30.

[jakjakattack]

I got a 4670K for 100 bucks as well on black saturday, your point?

 

 

Lol wha? Cheapest board that meets the VRM requirements for a 8xxx is around 70 which is 30$ more than what would work with any Intel CPU. Cheapest overclocking boards are 100$ where as with Intel you can get Z97's for 70$. 

 

 

 

Only fanboys buy AMD. Any healthy person would buy Intel.

 

 

I am calling bullcrap on that 4670k story.

 

Except I got my board for $50 and it can overclock.

 

I am not a fanboy just a person on a budget.

[Guest]

Update:

 

We decided on an i5 4690K with custom cooler with a R9 280X

[Faa]

I am calling bullcrap on that 4670k story.

 

Except I got my board for $50 and it can overclock.

 

I am not a fanboy just a person on a budget.

Yeah you got your board for 50$ that can overclock with a stock cooler. List us what you got including which board/cooler and lets put it in a price:performance ratio against a locked i5 4430/H81 board.

 

 

An i5 does NOT perform on par with an 8350 in streaming, The ARMA 3 result is on a Wasteland server.+

 

Multiplayer heavily depends on the server you play on. I can get 60-90FPS on some servers but if theres a lot of people on them i dont even get 30.

O god, that video has been proven wrong to hell, you're not allowed to link fabricated benchmarks. Show me another source that confirms their results. Arma 3 results weren't even included. 8350's can't stream just like the guy from tech yes city showed. That multithreaded performance split over so many threads is far from a good choice for streaming, their multithreaded performance is on par or slightly better than 4690K's.

 

[SoftenButterCream]

Stop fighting on every fucking intel or amd cou thread damn. But most of the forums are intel fanboys no doubt about it. But amd and intel builds add up to the same cost, so basically choose amd if you do multithreaded workloads, and choose intel if you mostly do single threaded workloads. Its that simple. But i personally think since game developers are using more cores now, that amd fx series can get moderate frame rates. I personally prefer intel and the fm2+ series cpu from amd because i need better single core performance since i stopped using threaded workloads.

[jakjakattack]

Yeah you got your board for 50$ that can overclock with a stock cooler. List us what you got including which board/cooler and lets put it in a price:performance ratio against a locked i5 4430/H81 board.

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Jakjakattack/saved/d76KHx I got the cpu for $100 and the motherboard for 50 on black friday. It was about $50 cheaper than a 4 core intel system including the cooler. And everything was the lowest price I had ever seen it. The 290 was 200 so don't say I could have downgraded that.

[Faa]

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Jakjakattack/saved/d76KHx I got the cpu for $100 and the motherboard for 50 on black friday. It was about $50 cheaper than a 4 core intel system including the cooler. And everything was the lowest price I had ever seen it. The 290 was 200 so don't say I could have downgraded that.

Thats 250$ without mail rebates.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($182.06 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: ECS H81H3-I/HDMI (V1.0) Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($35.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $218.04

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-06 12:55 EST-0500

A 8350 having 22 fps and a stock i5 56 fps.

Your 8320's price/performance; 22 fps/250$ -> 0.088 price/performance ratio

A i5's price/performance; 56 fps/220$ -> 0.25 price/performance ratio

That's a difference of 184%. You get up to twice as much performance at a lower price.

Basically you paid 150$ for a CPU that performs just like a FX 4300 and you're calling it a great value. I might as well call a 5960x a great value if you deserve any credits.

[SoftenButterCream]

Synthetic benchmarks means nothing compared to real world scenarios. And the gpu is 780. Which is bottlenecked obviously. So that benchmark is invalid.