How is the FX 8350 for games?

[Dabombinable]

O really.

 1. Per core performance of the fx 8350 is better than my core 2 duo E8500 OC @ 3.8Ghz - which in itself only has troubles with games that are optimized for more than 2 cores

 2. My friend's computer has one, and everything is faster on it than my i5 4440, which itself is a good CPU

 3. I always do my research, and don't make comments unless I've been able to make comparisons myself

 4. It can be overclocked without having to spend more on a model that does

[Faa]

there you go, to all of you freaking nublets in denial there you have it...haswell nearly DOUBLE the AMD FX in single-threaded performance...that's how good intel went at mastering this sh!t...TWICE THE PERFORMANCE, litteraly...now how could you even argue over this? the FX should be a 65$ CPU that comes with a free motherboard and a couple games to be a viable option for god sakes!!

 

And a free Disneyland ticket lol.

 

You have never played arma or dayz or anything even closely related to arma? you can have a 5000€ pc and if you play on a bad server that renders peoples positions or the map or vehicles bad, you're going to have bad fps. Its a long known fact that the arma games are pretty much the only game where fps is server side aswell. 

The i5 was singleplayer, i played that mission myself, the other one was not the same mission. Im not an amd fanboy, im not an intel fanboy and i dont hate anyone of them however saying bullshit is where it ends for me. 

I have a xeon as you can see in my sig and i never said i have an i5. I said that the scene which you showed with the i5 benchmark is a mission i have played myself and is a scene where i with an intel processor do not get more than 25fps. Im not getting proven, if you call yourself proving my arguments wrong when you clearly have not played arma single or multiplayer in your lifetime. Im not talking about teksyndicate other than my first post, techyescitys reliability is still questionable, as you even mentioned yourself and even the most intel biased website, cpuboss.com, says that the 8350 has a better alround performance when it comes down to benchmarks executed on the cpu, like cinebench or passmark, and still your "reliable source techyescity" says that the 8350 performs worse in rendering which is heavily dependent on the cpus alround performance as tested in programms like cinebench.

 

Ill give you a benchmark of the arma 3 singleplayer mission tomorrow. 

 

Now i want you to buy arma 3, test out different servers and look at your fps. Theres a reason why server have HighFPS in their name since arma II and dayz.

 

Also you need to fix your benchmark, it kinda doesnt show up.

Now we need to play Arma to determine how awful AMD's single core performance is being the issue of poor performance in Arma? Arma is CPU bound and relies on single core performance. Games are only CPU or GPU bound, not server CPU bound you were making up.

Hows CPU boss actually saying the 8350 is a better allrounder? 8.6 for 4670k & 8.0 8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Besides CPU boss is complete bullshit, site is there just for traffic. Single core performance is only 20% better than the 8350 while multithreaded performance on the 4670K is better >.>

 

 1. Per core performance of the fx 8350 is better than my core 2 duo cpu-which in itself only has troubles with games that are optimized for more than 2 cores

 2. My friend's computer has one, and everything is faster on it than my i5 4440, which itself is a good CPU

 3. I always do my research, and don't make comments unless I've been able to make comparisons myself

Can you link your research then? If not, your post will be classified as troll.

[SoftenButterCream]

Stop using synthetic benchmarks. Sythetic benchmarks arent near real world performance. And not everyone plays fucking MMOs.

[-iSynthesis]

And a free Disneyland ticket lol.

 

Now we need to play Arma to determine how awful AMD's single core performance is being the issue of poor performance in Arma? Arma is CPU bound and relies on single core performance. Games are only CPU or GPU bound, not server CPU bound you were making up.

Hows CPU boss actually saying the 8350 is a better allrounder? 8.6 for 4670k & 8.0 8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Besides CPU boss is complete bullshit, site is there just for traffic. Single core performance is only 20% better than the 8350 while multithreaded performance on the 4670K is better >.>

 

Can you link your research then? If not, your post will be classified as troll.

I want an explanation of you why ARMA 3 servers have HIGH FPS in their name, other games like counter strike, battlefield, call of duty dont. Probably because server performance doesnt affect client fps. 

CPU boss is saying the 8350 has better score in cpu benchmarks executed on all cores. 

While i do 100% agree that cpuboss is bs, they are very intel biased as well as gpuboss is nvidia biased however they are still showing AMD outperforming the i5 in tasks using every single core of your cpu. Tech yes city showed the i5 beating the 8350 in premiere pro which uses every single core of your cpu. From your statement, or rather techyescitys statement, premiere pro would have to be intel optimised, as well as winrar unzipping. 

On another note: who are you to classifie a conversation as troll? Debates is what we do in german classes right now. In those you cant "link" your arguments either and have to convince people that your argument is the right one. I know this isnt a debate as it is held in school but not everyone has the time and effort to link every single bit of research they do for a forum post. 

[Dabombinable]

And a free Disneyland ticket lol.

 

Now we need to play Arma to determine how awful AMD's single core performance is being the issue of poor performance in Arma? Arma is CPU bound and relies on single core performance. Games are only CPU or GPU bound, not server CPU bound you were making up.

Hows CPU boss actually saying the 8350 is a better allrounder? 8.6 for 4670k & 8.0 8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Besides CPU boss is complete bullshit, site is there just for traffic. Single core performance is only 20% better than the 8350 while multithreaded performance on the 4670K is better >.>

 

Can you link your research then? If not, your post will be classified as troll.

I compare and contrast the specifications, features and price of each CPU before I buy. And as I said I don't comment unless I can make comparisons myself. Ergo I have actually used one and been able to compare it to my i5 4440 and my Core 2 Duo. And for single core performance self tests, I set the CPU to run on a single core in the bios, and use the computer for a week before I decide whether it was faster or not (playing games -I've got loads- [minecraft is a good one for single cores], watching movies, youtubing, web browsing etc). This give me a real world indicator as to which performs best.

Edit: In regards to GPU bottlenecking, I have run my GTX 970 with overclock on said friend's computer, and with my Core 2 Duo  (except for when the core 2 duo hit 100% usage)- and I noticed no difference in performance at all (and don't forget, there is no point in actually having the fps going above a monitors refresh rate).

[Faa]

CPU boss is saying the 8350 has better score in cpu benchmarks executed on all cores. 

 

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

 

Core i5 4670K

8.6

 

FX 8350

8.0

[SoftenButterCream]

.6 difference... Wow...

[Faa]

.6 difference... Wow...

I'm not using CPUboss as a source to back my stuff up. Their shit is irrelevant. He said for the 2nd time the 8350 got a higher overall score on CPUboss.

[SoftenButterCream]

I'm not using CPUboss as a source to back my stuff up. Their shit is irrelevant. He said for the 2nd time the 8350 got a higher overall score on CPUboss.

You do have a point

[Dabombinable]

I use real world performance as an indicator of what to buy, and yet people still persist on using easily biased benchmarks.

[SoftenButterCream]

I use real world performance as an indicator of what to buy, and yet people still persist on using easily biased benchmarks.

This is also true. People seem to rely too much on benchmarks and dont take into account that real world usage isnt always the same. But who cares if you bought intel or amd. As your as your happy, its all good

[harrynowl]

 1. Per core performance of the fx 8350 is better than my core 2 duo E8500 OC @ 3.8Ghz - which in itself only has troubles with games that are optimized for more than 2 cores

 2. My friend's computer has one, and everything is faster on it than my i5 4440, which itself is a good CPU

 3. I always do my research, and don't make comments unless I've been able to make comparisons myself

 4. It can be overclocked without having to spend more on a model that does

lol

 

amd quad @ 5.1ghz:

 

mighty harpertown relic @ 4.4ghz:

 

 

Does that i5 system have an SSD, given that most basic OS tasks are single threaded Intel is snappier.

 

Well given I've owned about 10 AMD chips from the last 5 years and about 10 Intel from the same time period, I guess I don't either

 

Yea but you'll drop more on a 990FX board and a decent cooler though... getting anything worthwhile out of a 8 core on a 4+2 phase VRM isn't gonna happen

[SoftenButterCream]

lol

amd quad @ 5.1ghz:

mighty harpertown relic @ 4.4ghz:

Theres always the gigabyte ud3p with 8+2 phase for 74

Does that i5 system have an SSD, given that most basic OS tasks are single threaded Intel is snappier.

Well given I've owned about 10 AMD chips from the last 5 years and about 10 Intel from the same time period, I guess I don't either

Yea but you'll drop more on a 990FX board and a decent cooler though... getting anything worthwhile out of a 8 core on a 4+2 phase VRM isn't gonna happen

You can always get a 970 ud3p for 8+2 phase for 74

[Dabombinable]

Yes it does, and I used it as part of my comparison with the core 2 (60GB SSD, 1TB HDD). My friend's computer is a bit more expensive though. raid 0 250GB SSDs and 4 2TB HDD.

[harrynowl]

You can always get a 970 ud3p for 8+2 phase for 74

True. Although my experience with the board was worse than my M5A97 EVO R2.0 when I was benchmarking a bunch of FX/K10h chips a few months ago.

 

LLC options were just terrible and the UEFI was a bit buggy

[SkilledRebuilds]

I use real world performance as an indicator of what to buy

 

Same here..not just what to buy, but how things should play out... as an example... You can take this with a grain of salt, I don't care, I've seen it for myself and so have others... As these were MY findings, I obviously do not have a Webpage Source...

 

 

TL:DR - Mates 280x GPU has relative 65-75% performance of my 290's stock clocked performance, yet can ONLY use equivalent of 30% of my 290's power in his game... ie: Limited by something

(remember, I should be limited too if it's the game and not the CPU)

If I can get the best performance out of my 290, with no limitation, why can't he with his 280x..?

 

We both have it installed on a Samsung 840 series, mine is Pro, his Evo...

Both maxed out on Details with World of Tanks <-- I know I know..single threaded game and whatnot... KEEP reading.

I have a i5 4690 and a 290x

I get minimums of 60fps+ or higher, and average 90-100fps, not limited at all....IMO

 

My mate has a FX6300 and a 280x, the 280x is NO SLOUCH (60-75%+ the power of MY 290)...Regardless of the GPU performance, he is CPU (IPC) limited to never exceeding 1/3 of MY framerate while having 65-75% comparable 290 power available to his GPU (by comparison) @ 30-35fps average (compared to my constant average 90-100fps), he rises to 55-60fps for a few seconds in lower detailed scenes, quickly drops to his 30-35fps average again, yet his capable performance of his GPU should have him at 50-60fps or higher, his CPU is holding him back.

 

/I know World of tanks is not multithreaded greatly, but we BOTH are using it, if I can get good performance, he should too.

 

 

Formatted in bold and underlines for EMPHASIS of the point.

I'm not saying AMD CPU's don't have their use cases, and I know I only am explaining one game.. still, take it with a grain of salt or sugar...

 

Offtopic - Speaking of the WORLD OF .......

[SoftenButterCream]

True. Although my experience with the board was worse than my M5A97 EVO R2.0 when I was benchmarking a bunch of FX/K10h chips a few months ago.

LLC options were just terrible and the UEFI was a bit buggy

Haha gigabyte is able to provide a cheap 8+2 board with crappy bios.

[harrynowl]

Haha gigabyte is able to provide a cheap 8+2 board with crappy bios.

90% sure it's a doubled powerphase anyway rather than native 8+2,

 

@ what about the i5 4440 system? on a fully equal test bench an fx 8x is not going to be faster than an i5 in "everything".

[Dabombinable]

I didn't say at all that the FX 8350 faster. Read everything that is said before you go off on a tangent. One of the points made by me was that its single core performance was better than that of a core 2 duo e8500 OC @ 3.8GHz, with the Core 2 duo still being fast at everything not optimized for more than 2 cores. Therefore even though it doesn't have the same performance PER core as an i5 4440 (and remember I actually proved this for myself by using them for a week on a single core), it will still be a solid performer. Loads of people think that single core performance is more important than overall performance when its not. What is important is that people choose from experience, not by using biased reviews and what fanboys say, to buy what suits them best. and an FX 8350 will be perfect for games if someone is unable to buy more expensive CPU's that in all reality don't offer that much more. Don't forget that there will come a time where programs designed to run off a single CPU core will become more scarce, just look at the amount of computers these days that actually come with a multiple core CPU, or the games that recommend a multi core CPU. Its about the future, and if you think about it with a CPU that has strong multiple core performance, a computer will be fine for quite a while, plus there is the fact that just like your older processors the FX series can all be overclocked quite high. Don't get me wrong Intel makes good CPU's, and one of the reasons I use an i5 is the tdp, but you do not need to go overkill for games at all as most of them still aren't as CPU intensive as they are GPU intensive.

 

The bottomline (and the answer to the question that was asked, not all of this Intel VS AMD rubbish) is that the FX 8350 is perfect for gaming, with good performance, and a low cost that will allow a more expensive graphics card to be bought.

[harrynowl]

I didn't say at all that the FX 8350 faster.

 

One of the points made by me was that its single core performance was better than that of a core 2 duo e8500 OC @ 3.8GHz

 

, with the Core 2 duo still being fast at everything not optimized for more than 2 cores. Therefore even though it doesn't have the same performance PER core as an i5 4440 (and remember I actually proved this for myself by using them for a week on a single core), it will still be a solid performer.

 

Loads of people think that single core performance is more important than overall performance when its not.

 

What is important is that people choose from experience, not by using biased reviews and what fanboys say, to buy what suits them best.

 

an FX 8350 will be perfect for games if someone is unable to buy more expensive CPU's that in all reality don't offer that much more.

 

Don't forget that there will come a time where programs designed to run off a single CPU core will become more scarce, just look at the amount of computers these days that actually come with a multiple core CPU, or the games that recommend a multi core CPU.

 

Its about the future, and if you think about it with a CPU that has strong multiple core performance, a computer will be fine for quite a while

 

plus there is the fact that just like your older processors the FX series can all be overclocked quite high.

 

Don't get me wrong Intel makes good CPU's, and one of the reasons I use an i5 is the tdp,

 

but you do not need to go overkill for games at all as most of them still aren't as CPU intensive as they are GPU intensive.

 

The bottomline (and the answer to the question that was asked, not all of this Intel VS AMD rubbish) is that the FX 8350 is perfect for gaming, with good performance, and a low cost that will allow a more expensive graphics card to be bought.

 

 

Please read my reply, this isn't some fanboy nonsense I'm about to throw at you:

I didn't say at all that the FX 8350 faster.

well, that's the impression I've got from reading this

2. My friend's computer has one [read:fx8350], and everything is faster on it than my i5 4440, which itself is a good CPU

One of the points made by me was that its single core performance was better than that of a core 2 duo e8500 OC @ 3.8GHz

 

Well given that I've tested a lot of these chips at all kinds of clock speeds... here's one of my samples in single core:

Loads of people think that single core performance is more important than overall performance when its not.

And loads more think decent multithreaded performance is a substitute for weak single core performance, likewise- it is not. We need a balance.

 

And regarding your 2 core part, I agree. I very rarely recommend a G3258 over an i3 or 860K solution because it's honestly not that good an experience in lots of games. Again I've tested these CPUs myself.

 

 

an FX 8350 will be perfect for games if someone is unable to buy more expensive CPU's that in all reality don't offer that much more.

 

If you're on a budget for a CPU 8350 isn't the one you'd buy anyway 6300 or 8320 perhaps, that said- you said 8350 so lets work with that.

 

i5: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117302&cm_re=4460-_-19-117-302-_-Product

FX: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284&cm_re=fx8350-_-19-113-284-_-Product

 

10$ saving between i5 and 8350

 

OK... so lets talk the rest of the platform, motherboards etc

 

i5 board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128672&cm_re=b85_motherboard-_-13-128-672-_-Product

 

fx board: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131873&cm_re=m5a97-_-13-131-873-_-Product

 

So as you can see that $10 difference is now a $30 difference in Intels favour.

 

So... FX stock cooler is a bit loud, I got a few of the buggers lying around here, but it works. So I'm not going to add that cost.

 

Its about the future, and if you think about it with a CPU that has strong multiple core performance, a computer will be fine for quite a while

Well given Intel's ever increasing IPC lead I've found in multithreaded workloads an i5 is 10% slower than an FX at the same clock... so that's not gonna work out. The main thread in a game is core#0 (hypothetically) if core#0 is a slow pile of poo the game wont run well. 8350 is already long in the tooth (2012), so in the future it's just going to be irrelevant by the time 8 thread apps are commonplace (Which they may never be, some tasks just can't be effectively parallelised/multithreaded.

 

plus there is the fact that just like your older processors the FX series can all be overclocked quite high.

True, it'll cost you though. The board I linked was for stock operation only, and didn't include a cooler.

 

To get the best overclocking performance on each platform, here's what you gotta buy:

 

AMD OC:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ Newegg)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Seidon 240M 86.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($74.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($119.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $350.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-09 04:10 EST-0500

 

Intel OC:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($239.99 @ Newegg)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($102.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $372.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-09 04:12 EST-0500

 

$20 difference, i5 offers more all round performance.

 

but you do not need to go overkill for games at all as most of them still aren't as CPU intensive as they are GPU intensive.

In this case. An 8350 is overkill as it will perform the same as an i3, FX6300, 860k and a potato chip.

 

 

The bottomline (and the answer to the question that was asked, not all of this Intel VS AMD rubbish) is that the FX 8350 is perfect for gaming, with good performance, and a low cost that will allow a more expensive graphics card to be bought.

In a lot of popular games that lots of people play the 8350 will tank to 30 (or below) FPS quite often... not too perfect to me! Sure there are some games it'll do well in, but so will the cheaper 6 core offering so 8350 makes no sense.

 

And we've established there's no real cost saving between i5 and FX.

 

There are just no scenarios in *gaming* where an 8350 is a wise buy... I'm no fanboy, I've not provided fabricated benchmarks or any of that nonsense. I've had multiple FX CPUs in my home, they work well enough- but from a buyers perspective aren't worth it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

snip!

well said i fully support this post...it's a good summary harry.

[-iSynthesis]

 

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

 

Core i5 4670K

8.6

 

FX 8350

8.0

 

 

Honestly dont know what is so hard to understand about Performance of all cores and you come along telling the single core performance when im talking about passmark and cinebench r15.

 

Btw. Im uploading a benchmark of the arma 3 mission atm. He gets a good 10-20fps more than i do. So GPU is probably not relevant in this scene (Talking about the guy with the i5 and 780.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Wow...this is still going....

[rentaspoon]

True. Although my experience with the board was worse than my M5A97 EVO R2.0 when I was benchmarking a bunch of FX/K10h chips a few months ago.

LLC options were just terrible and the UEFI was a bit buggy

MSI 970 GAMING? Although admittedly I'm getting pissed off with mine now

Well given that I've tested a lot of these chips at all kinds of clock speeds..

I support this thread

{style_image_url}/attachicon.gif PassmarkScore.PNG

Honestly dont know what is so hard to understand about Performance of all cores and you come along telling the single core performance when im talking about passmark and cinebench r15.

Maybe he was pointing out multi thread performance on a synthetic benchmark doesn't relate to real performance on an average PC user?

[-iSynthesis]

MSI 970 GAMING? Although admittedly I'm getting pissed off with mine now

I support this thread

Maybe he was pointing out multi thread performance on a synthetic benchmark doesn't relate to real performance on an average PC user?

Yes  but my point with the passmark and cinebench score is that they may be synthetic benchmarks and dont translate into realworld scenarios like gaming, they do translate into programms using all cores of the cpu such as rendering applications like premiere pro however.