How is the FX 8350 for games?

[Revel]

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.

 

I second this part of the post. My FX 6300 never gets me anywhere.

[Mush Brain]

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

But intel do destroy AMD, and the cost is not worth it to go AMD, take it from someone with a Sandy i5 that wrecks their own 8320.

And you just said it yourself, the 780 is bottlenecked, thanks to the slow FX CPU.

[SoftenButterCream]

But intel do destroy AMD, and the cost is not worth it to go AMD, take it from someone with a Sandy i5 that wrecks their own 8320.

And you just said it yourself, the 780 is bottlenecked, thanks to the slow FX CPU.

Yes, they do destroy AMD in certain games. But i don't really notice anything since FX runs good on Valve engine games which is what i usually play. They usually add up to the same price anyways, so it depends on the buyer. I personally don't care as long as it gets the job done 

[Mush Brain]

Yes, they do destroy AMD in certain games. But i don't really notice anything since FX runs good on Valve engine games which is what i usually play. They usually add up to the same price anyways, so it depends on the buyer. I personally don't care as long as it gets the job done 

Glad you are happy with your CPU

[SoftenButterCream]

Glad you are happy with your CPU

Yea, sad thing is I stopped doing threaded workloads lmfao. So i built another monster PC. A Xeon, and the single core apps on it make a difference compared to a FX haha 

[harrynowl]

Platform cost considered, there's no point in buying an FX8 series purely for gaming.

[Solkia]

 

Sheesh why do these threads alwys turn out like that

 

Get what ever fits your budget.

[SoftenButterCream]

Platform cost considered, there's no point in buying an FX8 series purely for gaming.

Exactly, it depends on your other workloads as well, if i were too only game, i'd get a console. unless its strictly MMO gaming

[sgloux3470]

It used to be cheaper to do an AMD build, because many AM2+ mobos were able to support AM3+.  I'm running my FX 8320 on a MSI 890FXA-GD65 for example. (Going to upgrade that soon though.)

 

Also the i3 is priced more competitively than it used to be.

[-iSynthesis]

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Any source that that video has been proven wrong? What the hell are fabricated benchmarks? Also arma 3 results were from a friend of mine. Not logan

[SoftenButterCream]

It used to be cheaper to do an AMD build, because many AM2+ mobos were able to support AM3+.  I'm running my FX 8320 on a MSI 890FXA-GD65 for example. (Going to upgrade that soon though.)

 

Also the i3 is priced more competitively than it used to be.

Yes, but a i3 can't stream well, or do editing videos well but it doesn't mean it sucks. I love both Intel and AMD. I have both. But i believe both exist in the market for a reason. 

[SoftenButterCream]

Any source that that video has been proven wrong? What the hell are fabricated benchmarks? Also arma 3 results were from a friend of mine. Not logan

What are the frames per sec from your friends FX?

[-iSynthesis]

 

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.

 

And now some games that people actually play, like all the valve games, tripple a titles like battlefield or far cry, tomb raider, crysis and things are more interesting. Flight simulator seriously?

[-iSynthesis]

What are the frames per sec from your friends FX?

As said, depending on the server 30-60 in arma 3 wasteland. Generally the same or a bit lower than my xeon.

[SoftenButterCream]

As said, depending on the server 30-60 in arma 3 wasteland. Generally the same or a bit lower than my xeon.

That's not bad tbh. On my FX chip i get about 50 - 80 for battlefield 64 person server

[Faa]

Any source that that video has been proven wrong? What the hell are fabricated benchmarks? Also arma 3 results were from a friend of mine. Not logan

 

You think Logan his results are legit

 

And now some games that people actually play, like all the valve games, tripple a titles like battlefield or far cry, tomb raider, crysis and things are more interesting. Flight simulator seriously?

Like people aren't playing Starcraft 2? Flight simulator is another example of a singlethreaded game which 99,99999% games out there are.

 

As said, depending on the server 30-60 in arma 3 wasteland. Generally the same or a bit lower than my xeon.

Aye but that's done on an offline server watching the ground. You never will maintain 20-30 fps with a 9590.

That's 70% for a lower price. 

[-iSynthesis]

 

You think Logan his results are legit

 

Like people aren't playing Starcraft 2? Flight simulator is another example of a singlethreaded game which 99,99999% games out there are.

 

Aye but that's done on an offline server watching the ground. You never will maintain 20-30 fps with a 9590.

That's 70% for a lower price. 

 

Firstly,

Secondly, more and more games are taking advantage of 4+ cores; the majority of games beeing released use multiple cores, even freaking CoD : AW

Third, it was on an online server with 32 players, shooting guns, flying helicopters and driving vehicles. Stop posting pics of random people doing benchmarks that are incorrect, ive seen the numbers myself.

Also that graph is fucking weird. You wont see anyone out there getting 166fps avg in arma 3, its impossible. Maybe on 600x800, even more so a minimum of 158. You are going into google and taking the first picture and posting it here. Also, was that arma 3 benchmark singleplayer or multiplayer or what? My MAX in singleplayer was 35fps with a xeon so 166fps is retarded, if multiplayer my max was about 80 and that was on a very good server, so still, 166 fps are ridicouless

[Faa]

Stop posting pics of random people doing benchmarks that are incorrect, ive seen the numbers myself.

Post them then. So far you're just speculating that's all. 2 sources already confirming a difference of up to 100%. Tech yes city/Hardwarepal.

 

[Faceman]

Firstly, dont call me a retard thank you.

Secondly, more and more games are taking advantage of 4+ cores; the majority of games beeing released use multiple cores, even freaking CoD : AW

Third, it was on an online server with 32 players, shooting guns, flying helicopters and driving vehicles. Stop posting pics of random people doing benchmarks that are incorrect, ive seen the numbers myself.

Also that graph is fucking weird. You wont see anyone out there getting 166fps avg in arma 3, its impossible. Maybe on 600x800, even more so a minimum of 158. You are going into google and taking the first picture and posting it here. Also, was that arma 3 benchmark singleplayer or multiplayer or what? My MAX in singleplayer was 35fps with a xeon so 166fps is retarded, if multiplayer my max was about 80 and that was on a very good server, so still, 166 fps are ridicouless

Logan's results are complete and utter BS.  He once showed an APU beating out a 4770k when both paired with a GTX 780.  Tek Syndicate can be ignored because their results are falsified.

 

It is a single player ARMA3 benchmark at medium graphcs settings.  When there was a free weekend for ARMA3, I tried it on my friend's FX8, it ran TERRIBLE on single player.  Lets see your friend's results, because I don't believe you.

 

There is only ONE, a grand total of ONE(1) game that benefits from more cores compared to strong cores, and that is Dragon Age Inquisition.  Just because a game can use more cores, doesn't mean it always benefits from more cores.

 

CoD:AW and Far Cry 4 which people say "don't run on 2 cores" is wrong.  The developers put a check in to see if you have more than 2 cores, if you have 2 or fewer cores, you fail the check and the game closes.  The games do run on 2 cores, you just have to apply a .DLL and viola! you're running both games on a Pentium G3258 that performs just as well as the other CPUs.

[SoftenButterCream]

Logan's results are complete and utter BS.  He once showed an APU beating out a 4770k when both paired with a GTX 780.  Tek Syndicate can be ignored because their results are falsified.

 

It is a single player ARMA3 benchmark at medium graphcs settings.

 

There is only ONE, a grand total of ONE(1) game that benefits from more cores compared to strong cores, and that is Dragon Age Inquisition.  Just because a game can use more cores, doesn't mean it always benefits from more cores.

 

CoD:AW and Far Cry 4 which people say "don't run on 2 cores" is wrong.  The developers put a check in to see if you have more than 2 cores, if you have 2 or fewer cores, you fail the check and the game closes.  The games do run on 2 cores, you just have to apply a .DLL and viola! you're running both games on a Pentium G3258 that performs just as well as the other CPUs.

Tek Syndicate is kinda of AMD bias haha. But he uses real world scenarios so...

[-iSynthesis]

Logan's results are complete and utter BS.  He once showed an APU beating out a 4770k when both paired with a GTX 780.  Tek Syndicate can be ignored because their results are falsified.

 

It is a single player ARMA3 benchmark at medium graphcs settings.  When there was a free weekend for ARMA3, I tried it on my friend's FX8, it ran TERRIBLE on single player.  Lets see your friend's results, because I don't believe you.

 

There is only ONE, a grand total of ONE(1) game that benefits from more cores compared to strong cores, and that is Dragon Age Inquisition.  Just because a game can use more cores, doesn't mean it always benefits from more cores.

 

CoD:AW and Far Cry 4 which people say "don't run on 2 cores" is wrong.  The developers put a check in to see if you have more than 2 cores, if you have 2 or fewer cores, you fail the check and the game closes.  The games do run on 2 cores, you just have to apply a .DLL and viola! you're running both games on a Pentium G3258 that performs just as well as the other CPUs.

There are several games benefitting from 4+ cores, bf4, cod aw, crysis 3 just to name a few. I cant talk about single player numbers and i dont know if the benchmark was just playing single player, if yes those numbers are outrageos but as said those numbers were on a 32 player wasteland server.

[-iSynthesis]

Post them then. So far you're just speculating that's all. 2 sources already confirming a difference of up to 100%. Tech yes city/Hardwarepal.

Numbers of hardwarepal, if actually singleplayer arma 3, are complete utter bullshit. You will not get any CPU running the game at 160+fps. I dont know who techyescity is, but his synthetic benchmarks arent really trustable either, since hes showing the 8350 getting outperformed by the i5 although in both cinebench

 

(i5 about 550points in r15, 8350 600+) and passmark (i5 about 7700 and 8350 about 9100) the 8350 beats the i5 by a good bit. ( http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php )

[Faceman]

There are several games benefitting from 4+ cores, bf4, cod aw, crysis 3 just to name a few. I cant talk about single player numbers and i dont know if the benchmark was just playing single player, if yes those numbers are outrageos but as said those numbers were on a 32 player wasteland server.

Get this through your head:  Just because a game can use more cores, does not mean it benefits from more cores.  The only game that actually benefits from more cores over stronger cores is Dragon Age Inquisition.  Thats it.  That is the only game where an FX8 performs better than an i5.

 

I want to see the video/screenshots of your friend playing ARMA3 on his FX getting 60fps on a multiplayer 32 man server, because I don't believe you.  The only thing I can think of is his graphics are at the lowest possible, visibility is set to next to nothing, which is terrible for this game.  I know what I got during the free weekend playing online with my i5-4670k @ 4.2, 4.5, and 4.7Ghz because the game is so CPU bound, that overclocking showed such an improvement at each notch up.  It is a hard game to run even on my i5.

I could post you a ton of videos from Youtube of people playing online, or single player with FX processors and getting horrible FPS.  Then you can read the comments of all of those videos of the people clamoring about why it performs so bad with their FX8s and GTX780s.

 

You need to watch the TechYesCity video, because based on what you're saying, you haven't watched it.  He never tests Cinebench.  He tests Premier Pro6 and WinRar, not Cinebench.

 

The Hardwarepal benchmark is with medium graphics setting and 1600 overall visibility.

[-iSynthesis]

Get this through your head:  Just because a game can use more cores, does not mean it benefits from more cores.  The only game that actually benefits from more cores over stronger cores is Dragon Age Inquisition.  Thats it.  That is the only game where an FX8 performs better than an i5.

 

I want to see the video/screenshots of your friend playing ARMA3 on his FX getting 60fps on a multiplayer 32 man server, because I don't believe you.  The only thing I can think of is his graphics are at the lowest possible, visibility is set to next to nothing, which is terrible for this game.  I know what I got during the free weekend playing online with my i5-4670k @ 4.2, 4.5, and 4.7Ghz because the game is so CPU bound, that overclocking showed such an improvement at each notch up.  It is a hard game to run even on my i5.

I could post you a ton of videos from Youtube of people playing online, or single player with FX processors and getting horrible FPS.  Then you can read the comments of all of those videos of the people clamoring about why it performs so bad with their FX8s and GTX780s.

 

You need to watch the TechYesCity video, because based on what you're saying, you haven't watched it.  He never tests Cinebench.  He tests Premier Pro6 and WinRar, and in both those tests, he does show the FX8 outperforming the i5, which it should because those are highly repetitive and parallel tasks, this is where having more cores is a real benefit.

 

The Hardwarepal benchmark is with medium graphics setting and 1600 overall visibility.

Graphics do not affect performance in arma 3 multiplayer in any way. As said, it depends on the server but theres nothign stopping you getting 60fps on a good altis life server with an fx chip. In singleplayer i rarely get more than 25fps so thats not a fx only thing, the game isnt coded very well. I know he doesnt test cinebench however it is a compute test executet on the cpu just as premier does so it does not make any sense. He shows that the i5 beats the fx in those applications, lower is better you have to remember that when watching the graphs (about minute 18). And is that Arma 3 benchmark that cpu benchmark inbuilt into the game or actual singleplayer? If its singleplayer i can tell you that it is not possible to run the game at such fps.

[Revel]

 

This guy is on a wasteland server and he says he's getting around 40 fps in town and 50-80 out of town. He's got an AMD FX 8350 & R9 280x