How is the FX 8350 for games?

[SkilledRebuilds]

Just because a game can use more cores, doesn't mean it always benefits from more cores.

 

 

THIS - LOTS (not all) of "Multicore" games are still loading up one or two cores at 70-95% and leaving the other two (or more) at bare minimum under 10-20%

There are exceptions of course, but ^This^ is still the norm...even these days and these newly released games.

[Faceman]

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.

Show us him getting 60fps+ online multipler.  Use whatever server you like.  All you're saying is "my friend this" I can go on Youtube and show you 10 videos from people with similar system specs getting less than 60fps online, and single player.  Wait, is your friend Logan?

 

"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"

You said this a few posts ago. 

 

The ARMA3 results he is getting are probably single player. I don't think there is an in-game built in benchmark.  But how is 80fps unattainable?

 

This conversation is over until you can produce evidence of your friend getting a consistent 60fps+ in ARMA3 multiplayer.

[Faceman]

In that video above the guy says he is on a server with "a few people"  He also says that the server automatically changes the graphics settings to the optimal level, one of the settings changes is objects, which is a part of visibility.  He is getting that high of FPS because he is in the middle of nowhere with one other person around, doing nothing.  When he gets into cities he drops to 45, and he doesn't say anything about when he is in a firefight.

 

Oh, he also mentions all the goodness that comes with throttling motherboards and CPUs on AMD's side.  Good stuff.

[-iSynthesis]

Show us him getting 60fps+ online multipler. Use whatever server you like. All you're saying is "my friend this" I can go on Youtube and show you 10 videos from people with similar system specs getting less than 60fps online, and single player. Wait, is your friend Logan?

You said this a few posts ago.

The ARMA3 results he is getting are probably single player. I don't think there is an in-game built in benchmark. But how is 80fps unattainable?

This conversation is over until you can produce evidence of your friend getting a consistent 60fps+ in ARMA3 multiplayer.

The numbers of techpal are showing 166fps AS max in the i7. No Diskussion, not doable. Go ahead and play the singleplayer and youll See what i mean. It would most likely take about half a year until i Gould show you bis fps since se onlysee US once or twice a year in a LAN.

This benchmark is about right from the numbers i am getting.http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2u421z6&s=6#.VIR_Gr01iBY

[Guest]

What a discussion.

Ehhh....

@LinusTech

[SoftenButterCream]

@LinusTech I think its time to close the thread linus lol

 

@Slick 

[Mush Brain]

image quality maxed out with 2 EVGA GTX 480 SSC's on air and a i5 2500k.

 

 

 

Even with a 7990 the FX cannot keep up with the 2500k and a lowly pair of GTX 480's in single thread games, but then again, most of us with sense know the FX is terrible at multi GPU.

 

 

7990 Devil 13 (2x 7970's, roughly a 7970 is 1.9x faster than a stock GTX 480) and AMD FX 8 core.

 

 

 

 

The i5 simply decimates the FX with multi GPU setups, the FX is clearly bottlenecking the 7990 by a huge margin.

 

 

 

[SoftenButterCream]

 

image quality maxed out with 2 EVGA GTX 480 SSC's on air and a i5 2500k.

 

 

 

 

Even with a 7990 the FX cannot keep up with the 2500k and a lowly pair of GTX 480's in single thread games, but then again, most of us with sense know the FX is terrible at multi GPU.

 

 

7990 Devil 13 (2x 7970's, roughly a 7970 is 1.9x faster than a stock GTX 480) and AMD FX 8 core.

 

 

 

 

 

The i5 simply decimates the FX with multi GPU setups, the FX is clearly bottlenecking the 7990 by a huge margi

Eh, FX is good for high school students though haha. But they really gotta get their fucking IPC up. Hopefully Zen is good.

[Faceman]

Eh, FX is good for high school students though haha. But they really gotta get their fucking IPC up. Hopefully Zen is good.

Everyone is hoping Zen will be good.  They just can't wait this long between product releases.

[SoftenButterCream]

Everyone is hoping Zen will be good.  They just can't wait this long between product releases.

Hopefully it sets a straight road for AMD. Might provoke Intel to dish out even more performance for the same price. We can only hope and dream.

[Faceman]

Hopefully it sets a straight road for AMD. Might provoke Intel to dish out even more performance for the same price. We can only hope and dream.

Competitive breeds innovation and progress.

[QuadNine]

To answer your initial question, the FX 8350 is fine for gaming in general. Intel CPUs perform better in single threaded tasks like gaming, but AMD CPUs are very capable and certainly won't wreck your experience as some Intel fanboys might want you to think.

I think the AMD FX 8320 would be worth considering, as you could get it with a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO for the same price as an FX 8350 and OC it to achieve the same performance.

 

I would really love to see this, please post us some benchmarks

The truth in that is comparing and 8350 to an i7, obviously no competition, that is why there is such a gain

[SkilledRebuilds]

It CAN and WILL wreck your experience when you pay for a computer with hard earned money & are not budget limited,..but you get the FX CPU and put more money into the rest of the machine....

 

And then in a range of games,..limited/dropping a lot to 30-35fps for no reason at all but the CPU being shithouse when you expect a lot better for the money/system.

Not everyone plays AAA games, or totally optimized titles... The Wreck is absolutely Real & Forcing higher GPU load with more detail does not make the framedrops go away...

 

Sometimes I wonder if the people who say it's fine don't play these singlethreaded nature games because they KNOW it's shit and can't admit it.

[Faceman]

It CAN and WILL wreck your experience when you pay for a computer with hard earned money & are not budget limited,..but you get the FX CPU and put more money into the rest of the machine....

 

And then in a range of games,..limited/dropping a lot to 30-35fps for no reason at all but the CPU being shithouse when you expect a lot better for the money/system.

Not everyone plays AAA games, or totally optimized titles... The Wreck is absolutely Real & Forcing higher GPU load with more detail does not make the framedrops go away...

 

Sometimes I wonder if the people who say it's fine don't play these singlethreaded nature games because they KNOW it's shit and can't admit it.

Thats exactly the reason.  To them, those games don't exist, and why should they?  They can't run them the way they would expect.

[SoftenButterCream]

Thats exactly the reason.  To them, those games don't exist, and why should they?  They can't run them the way they would expect.

I don't see the reason why people shouldn't go intel.. in fact 

Intel:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GsMrWZ

 

Amd:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hGgjLk

 

Edit: 50 bucks off the Intel build w/o the noctua. But i hate the stock so that was for Lols

 

Edit 2: The intel build is almost the same as mine, but when i was ordering i had good black friday savings. So I got a 970 and Xeon and SSD as well. About 1000 better than linus build 

[Faceman]

I don't see the reason why people shouldn't go intel.. in fact 

Intel:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GsMrWZ

 

Amd:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hGgjLk

 

Edit: 50 bucks off the Intel build w/o the noctua. But i hate the stock so that was for Lols

All you need to compare is just the processor, motherboard, and cooling(for AMD).

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($168.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- There are even $10 less expensive motherboards, if you don't want USB 3.0

Total: $214.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-07 13:31 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

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

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($104.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($28.99 @ Micro Center)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $208.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-07 13:33 EST-0500

 

Its basically the same price!  The FX build used to be $10 more expensive, but holiday dropped it from $130 to $110.  Also, no matter how highly overclocked the FX is, it still falls behind a stock i5 in gaming, and will bottleneck high end GPUs.  People always point to AMD being less expensive than Intel, when yes, the actual processor is less expensive, but the extras that are necessary to properly run an FX end up making it cost the same as Intel.

[SoftenButterCream]

All you need to compare is just the processor, motherboard, and cooling(for AMD).

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($168.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- There are even $10 less expensive motherboards, if you don't want USB 3.0

Total: $214.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-07 13:31 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

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

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($104.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($28.99 @ Micro Center)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $208.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-07 13:33 EST-0500

 

Its basically the same price!  The FX build used to be $10 more expensive, but holiday dropped it from $130 to $110.  Also, no matter how highly overclocked the FX is, it still falls behind a stock i5 in gaming, and will bottleneck high end GPUs.  People always point to AMD being less expensive than Intel, when yes, the actual processor is less expensive, but the extras that are necessary to properly run an FX end up making it cost the same as Intel.

I just added the whole build to show that AMD isn't cheaper than Intel

[Faceman]

I just added the whole build to show that AMD isn't cheaper than Intel

The builds you made didn't make sense as a comparison.  You used different components. All you need to show is the CPU, motherboard and cooling.

[Faa]

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 )

How's the max multithreaded performance any relevant for Arma 3 that's only taking advantage of 2-3 cores? Get your logic right seriously, just get a freaking idea how threads & processes work. 

 

 

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.

8350 at 5.4GHz bottlenecking 7970 average fps around 25 fps

4670K at 4GHz with FPS capped to 60 fps averaging at 50 fps;

There you go. If graphics don't affect performance in Arma 3 then it's the CPU that's affecting performance which you're agreeing now the 4670K will do better. Stop being a fanboy for a second, could you? You're not helping anyone out with your misinformation.

[harrynowl]

 

How's the max multithreaded performance any relevant for Arma 3 that's only taking advantage of 2-3 cores? Get your logic right seriously, just get a freaking idea how threads & processes work. 

 

 

8350 at 5.4GHz bottlenecking 7970 average fps around 25 fps

<snip>

4670K at 4GHz with FPS capped to 60 fps averaging at 50 fps;

<snip>

There you go. If graphics don't affect performance in Arma 3 then it's the CPU that's affecting performance which you're agreeing now the 4670K will do better. Stop being a fanboy for a second, could you? You're not helping anyone out with your misinformation.

 

I think the 8350 was running @4ghz in the video from the slide he put up, didn't watch the full video though. either way buying an 8350 to play arma is basically stupid.

[sgloux3470]

@Mush Brain

Why would you compare CPU's by using different GPU's?  Especially when you're dealing with quad crossfire vs SLI in a game that may very well have negative scaling past two gpu?  Or just different levels of drive optimization in general.

 

I tried to run my own benchmark for it, but RE5 doesn't want to launch because of GFWL in its death throes.

 

 

I think there should only be 4 categorizations for gaming performance.

 

-Below 30 FPS

-30 FPS stable

-60 FPS stable

-120 FPS stable.

 

That's all any gamer should care about.  For people who want to play at 30 or 60 FPS, an FX will not hold them back.  If you're buying dual high end GPu's you should be playing at a resolution that actually requires them and in those cases an FX will not hold you back. If you want to play games at 120FPS, an FX could potentially hold you back. (But the type of games that you want to run at 120 FPS i.e Dota 2 and Counterstrike will easily do so with an FX.) Arma 3 is the exception (because it heavily relies on hyperthreading, which doesn't work on AMD and has nothing to do with the performance of the chip) not the norm, and most games are highly playable.  Right now 4th gen intel is price competitive with AMD and outperforms it in CPU restricted games.  3rd gen intel, which was out when Vishera came out, was not so competitive.  The most competitive processor was the 3570K and the 3770K, both of which were significantly more expensive.  Also, plenty of AM2 boards were updated through BIOS to support AM3+ processors, so for those us with Phenom II's it was a no brainer to go with FX.  Especially when performance in games was near identical http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu and still is in most titles.

 

 

 

Who cares if Intel nets you 300 FPS and AMD nets you 200?  How does that matter?  If your cards are matched to your resolution, you won't even hit those kinds of framerates.  It's just a pointless pissing contest.  A bottleneck is when the GPU isn't utilized when it needs to be, not when you're already well past even the highest refresh rate monitors and are trying to measure your penis size.

 

 

OP already decided.  No point in continuing to have the "AMD vs Intel" debate.  

[Faa]

Who cares if Intel nets you 300 FPS and AMD nets you 200?  How does that matter?  If your cards are matched to your resolution, you won't even hit those kinds of framerates.  It's just a pointless pissing contest.  A bottleneck is when the GPU isn't utilized when it needs to be, not when you're already well past even the highest refresh rate monitors and are trying to measure your penis size.

Who cares about 8 cores when games only take advantage of 2-4 cores? Same thing as buying two keyboards when you only use one >.> Justify that freaking expensive cost of a 8350 before it should be in a gaming rig instead of hiding how awful its price/performance is. Question here is which is better so your opinions are pretty much meaningless.

 

 

For people who want to play at 30 or 60 FPS, an FX will not hold them back.  

Lies, mmo's aren't playable on AMD.

 

 

The most competitive processor was the 3570K and the 3770K, both of which were significantly more expensive.  

Rofl

8350: 200$

3570K: 220$

Tell me again which was significantly more expensive for its gaming performance. What do you need to hit 5GHz? A 150$ motherboard and a H100i idling at 50 dBa?

 

 

Also, plenty of AM2 boards were updated through BIOS to support AM3+ processors, so for those us with Phenom II's it was a no brainer to go with FX. 

Have you considered applying for a job at AMD as salesman? Phenom 2 > FX. Nobrainer lol, upgrading for a loss of 10-20% IPC and some extra cores for taskmanager sex appeal.

 

 

OP already decided.  No point in continuing to have the "AMD vs Intel" debate.  

Your post came down to; Intel is useless for gaming.

[sgloux3470]

 

 

Lies, mmo's aren't playable on AMD.

 

 

Rofl

8350: 200$

3570K: 220$

Tell me again which was significantly more expensive for its gaming performance. What do you need to hit 5GHz? A 150$ motherboard and a H100i idling at 50 dBa?

 

 

Have you considered applying for a job at AMD as salesman? Phenom 2 > FX. Nobrainer lol, upgrading for a loss of 10-20% IPC and some extra cores for taskmanager sex appeal.

 

 

Your post came down to; Intel is useless for gaming.

 

 

 

I haven't had issues playing WoW or FFXIV.

 

The 3570K was not $220.  It's still not $220.

http://www.amazon.ca/Intel-3570K-3-4GHz-Processor-Cache/dp/B007SZ0E1K

 

I had a phenom II 965 and noticed significant performance gains upgrading to an FX 8350.  

Some examples:

 

 

I'm not saying Intel isn't better than AMD, I'm saying that AMD is good enough for most people outside of a handful of games.  I own roughly 700 games on PC, and I can honestly say that only the Arma games leave me with a sour taste in my mouth because of performance.  

[Faceman]

You must not raid in WoW or FF.

Some of your statements are just rediculous, too many to count. You need to measure your GPU load in games you play, you're in for a surprise.

The i5-4690k can be had for as little as $180, but more commonly for $200.

Why would you want "good enough for some games" when you can have "excellent for all games" for the same price! A locked i5 is the same price as an FX8 and it performs excellent in all games, gives you an upgrade path unlike AMD, and won't bottleneck high end GPUs.

Look at those Sandy Bridge and Clarkdale i3s (which are not good) outperforming the FX in both those games! That should tell you all you need to know about the FX.

Bottom line, the FX should not be recommended at all for gaming outside of obscure places in the world where Intel is prohibitively more expensive than AMD.

[Faa]

I haven't had issues playing WoW or FFXIV.

You did. 

Camera wasn't even zoomed out fully, not many people were there and it's sitting at 18 fps.

Sits at twice the frames.

 

The 3570K was not $220.  It's still not $220.

Nope, linking some CA prices who usually exceed the MSRP isn't a valid point at all. In the USA it was 200$, so was the 8350. Saying it again; don't hide the 8350's terrible price/performance. Thank you.

 

 

I had a phenom II 965 and noticed significant performance gains upgrading to an FX 8350.  

Some examples:

Exactly what I've been saying; a 8350 is a 4300 in terms of gaming performance with 4 additional cores that might be useful once a year orso or to be a wannabe 5960x owner. Why pay twice as much when a 4300 does the same thing? Why pay 5 times more for a 5960x when a 4670K does better?

Noticing how crappy that AMD dual core performs against a i3? Same story in any 4-threaded game between the 4670K/8350.

 

 

I'm not saying Intel isn't better than AMD, I'm saying that AMD is good enough for most people outside of a handful of games.  I own roughly 700 games on PC, and I can honestly say that only the Arma games leave me with a sour taste in my mouth because of performance.  

I could spray personal experience on the net as well, saying that my 8350 at 5GHz wasn't a playable experience in 500 games. Personal experience just means nothing, I still see people lying about things like "I have 70 fps with my 7870 in BF4/Crysis 3 at max settings" or you making up that WoW plays without issues. When am I getting some valid arguments that justifies the 8350's cost over a 4300?