How is the FX 8350 for games?

[rentaspoon]

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.

Like this?

Admittedly there are times its beaten http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4790k-i5-4690k_6.html

[D3MON]

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

[SkilledRebuilds]

 

That does not happen for myself, my mums NOR my mates PC.

Your a lucky one. and that is great it works well for you... you can be happy for sure...

 

My point still stands, in the post I made where his GPU is over half as power as mine, yet only sees 1/3 of its performance in game. He's limited heaps, he should be getting 60fps+ but is at 30-40fps. I've gone over his machine, there is nothing that should be causing it.

[-iSynthesis]

Like this? Admittedly there are times its beaten http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4790k-i5-4690k_6.html

More like this

Or this

Or this

[rentaspoon]

More like this

-sucker punched-

Haha well played sir, I was just hitting your specific example which bears no resemblance to the synthetics.

I feel they should burn in hell since there are real life benchmarks for 7 zip and stuff (they're comes a point in a man's life were we must all compress our mass porn stash into a zip file)

[-iSynthesis]

-sucker punched-

Haha well played sir, I was just hitting your specific example which bears no resemblance to the synthetics.

I feel they should burn in hell since there are real life benchmarks for 7 zip and stuff (they're comes a point in a man's life were we must all compress our mass porn stash into a zip file)

Well Cinebench is basicly a benchmark for c4d so its kind of synthetic but resembles real world performance aswell. 

And i kind of didnt find any benchmark for premiere other than the one you posted so im going to assume that intel somehow does better in premiere pro, whyever that would be.

[harrynowl]

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

Thank God you snipped that...

I think I'll just bookmark that post for future threads

[harrynowl]

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

I support this thread

Not used it myself and it uses NIKOS caps in the VRM which would steer me away from it a little. But good alternative.

And thread.. Or post?

[D3MON]

Not used it myself and it uses NIKOS caps in the VRM which would steer me away from it a little. But good alternative.

And thread.. Or post?

used one for months (and blew it, my fault 1.3v through the chipset when 1.1 is standard), got another replacement now and just before it arrived i bought another for the missus pc (fx8120) got me a 790 cinebench at 4.9ghz and could possibly break 800 if i can get it to bench at 5ghz but im too chicken. world of tanks, arma 3, frostbite engined games, minecraft, chrome, all multi threaded. world of tanks you sometimes have to disable core 0.

 

[vitor_cut]

For God sake here see for every game and make your opinion, i dont know any source more respectable than ANANDTECH

 

FAN BOYS BURN IN HELL !!!!!

 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1107

[Faceman]

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This becomes even greater the higher you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5(which is more realistic being as most FX8 users don't OC to 4.7Ghz).  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E_(kWh/day) = P_(W) × t_(h/day) / 1000_(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost_($/day) = E_(kWh/day) × Cost_(cent/kWh) / 100_(cent/$)

 

-Source

[rentaspoon]

Not used it myself and it uses NIKOS caps in the VRM which would steer me away from it a little. But good alternative.

And thread.. Or post?

Post

I've had no issues with the board apart from the fan profiles not sticking at start up but that might be user error, I was running at 4.6 but the PC was locking up but that turned out to be Avast causing issues tho and can't remember the bios settings now

@Faceman power doesn't worry me that much, the very little difference it would make by going power efficient wouldn't help me, I couldn't buy my son school shoes and that's me cutting out going to the pub for a month to make up the difference. - I know this sounds bit backwards but I always find it funny when people argue with this so I thought I'd voice my opinion, the money I save then won't help me now, I mean no offence by it BTW

[Faa]

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.

 

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.

 

Are you an idiot or what?

 

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.

 

 

More like this

 

Or this

 

Or this

 

If we're linking theoretical max performance, lets include AVX2 extensions;

Shave that 30% off for HT's gain, i5 is better. In most (read most) multithreaded workloads the 4670K is better.

 

For God sake here see for every game and make your opinion, i dont know any source more respectable than ANANDTECH

 

FAN BOYS BURN IN HELL !!!!!

 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1107

Everyone here is aware of you being an AMD fanboy, no point calling people who are giving honest advice a fanboy. 

[Opcode]

4690k + R9 280x is a reasonable route. That setup alone should easily handle any game on the market @ 1080p. I personally would stick the 'K' SKU myself. They hold market value longer and if he ever needs the extra performance he doesn't need to go out and buy another CPU. In which case there won't be a faster CPU until 2016 unless you hop on the 2011 enthusiast bandwagon. 4690k + Z97 + R9 280x would be my choice.

[-iSynthesis]

Are you an idiot or what?

 

Why are you linking bf3 performance to a post where i stated that all core performance of the 8350 is better than the 4 cores of the i5???

 

Also, why call me an idiot if you post the cpu boss score if im talking about PASSMARK AND CINEBENCH R15 PERFORMANCE. Get that in your head man. I said even CPUBOSS.com shows that the 8350 has higher all core performance in cinebench and passmark and you keep posting the score that cpu boss gives, calculated from many factors like Single core performance, value or overclocking or whatever? It makes 0 sense and is in no way related to the context, and you call me an idiot lol.

Also:

• "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.

CoC

[Faa]

Why are you linking bf3 performance to a post where i stated that all core performance of the 8350 is better than the 4 cores of the i5???

 

Also, why call me an idiot if you post the cpu boss score if im talking about PASSMARK AND CINEBENCH R15 PERFORMANCE. Get that in your head man. I said even CPUBOSS.com shows that the 8350 has higher all core performance in cinebench and passmark and you keep posting the score that cpu boss gives, calculated from many factors like Single core performance, value or overclocking or whatever? It makes 0 sense and is in no way related to the context, and you call me an idiot lol.

Also:

• "Don't be a dick" - Wil Wheaton.

CoC

This

 

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.

 

isn't matching this at all. An AMD fanboy backpedaling isn't something thats new.

If singlethreaded performance isn't related to "benchmarks executed on the CPU" then I'm not sure about you anymore.

And you're still wrong about the 8350's overall multithreaded performance being better, it's not. In 500000 benchmarks it wins probably 10 out of it and they're synthetic which is extremely easier to multithreaded or pop some extreme levels of parallelism in there than a real world application. Cinebench is nicely threaded with amazing parallelism but when you're 3D modeling you are hardly taking full advantage of a shitload of cores.

Youve gotten a side by side AMD vs Intel Arma 3 comparison and you still want to drop some home-made benchmarks.

If we're talking about the CoC, this applies for you;

* Not allowed to advertise

* Making non-constructive posts for the purpose of causing unrest.  This includes posting LMGTFY links. -> You were spraying misinformation on purpose here just to sell him a 8350. We both know you are wrong and only being interested in doing your job selling in this case.

* Encourage responsible use of our forums and discourage activities which disrupt our community and reduce the value of our services to our visitors. -> Nobody will visit this forum with your typical AMD lies.

* Trolling

* Harassment and Profanities -> Not allowed to brainwash people here and ripping them off 

* Pornography/Sexually Offensive Materials -> No need to make other people have a fap on AMD CPU's

 

[-iSynthesis]

This

 

 

isn't matching this at all. An AMD fanboy backpedaling isn't something thats new.

And you're still wrong about the 8350's overall multithreaded performance being better, it's not. In 500000 benchmarks it wins probably 10 out of it and they're synthetic which is extremely easier to multithreaded or pop some extreme levels of parallelism in there than a real world application. Cinebench is nicely threaded with amazing parallelism but when you're 3D modeling you are hardly taking full advantage of a shitload of cores.

Youve gotten a side by side AMD vs Intel Arma 3 comparison and you still want to drop some home-made benchmarks.

If we're talking about the CoC, this applies for you;

* Not allowed to advertise

* Making non-constructive posts for the purpose of causing unrest.  This includes posting LMGTFY links. -> You were spraying misinformation on purpose here just to sell him a 8350. We both know you are wrong and only being interested in doing your job selling in this case.

* Encourage responsible use of our forums and discourage activities which disrupt our community and reduce the value of our services to our visitors. -> Nobody will visit this forum with your typical AMD lies.

* Trolling

* Harassment and Profanities -> Not allowed to brainwash people here and ripping them off 

* Pornography/Sexually Offensive Materials -> No need to make other people have a fap on AMD CPU's

 

The side by side comparison was with different gpus on a different mission -> absolutly not a comparison that says anything. 

Cinebench is from the makers of c4d, a 3d modelling programm. It uses the same "engine" so it would only make sense that the scaling is the same. Also C4D does use up to 16 cores i believe, so you are taking advantage of "a shitload of cores".

The original ops questions are already answered. Also, i dont really work for amd nor am i a fanboy of amd or whatever. I own a xeon, im happy with it and i dont think i could've made a better purchase, i even said the i5 would do better in the tasks he was using it for and that he should go for it, seeing that as amd advertisement is quite ignorant. 

In what sense am i trolling? Also, my purpose of arguing is not to "causing unrest", but arguing with you about wether or not the 8350 is worth it, not specificly in OPs task uses which were already answered and i even told him to buy the i5 because it will do better. 

Im not brainwashing anybody, just stating my opinion based of benchmarks and tests of people

Gotta admit to the last point though :-(

Also i wrote this "says that the 8350 has a better alround performance when it comes down to benchmarks executed on the cpu". Interpreting that as alround cpuboss score is ridicouless since i specificly talked about benchmarks that are executed on the cpu, the entire cpu not only 4 cores of it or whatever. 

[Faa]

The side by side comparison was with different gpus on a different mission -> absolutly not a comparison that says anything. 

GPU doesn't matter since the 7970 was already being bottlenecked so it won't gain a thing.

Just like you see here, no gain from a 290x which is supposed to be 10% better than the 780. GPU comparisons are ONLY relevant when they're at full load.

[Dabombinable]

Can everyone please remember what the question was, and base their reply off that. The FX 8350 is ok for games, it wont win any medals but it shouldn't have any problems playing them. (I'd actually do another comparrison in a seperate post for the FX8350/i5 4440/OC core 2 duo e8500 with 1/2/3/4 and all cores for a full comparison if I still had access to the FX 8350. If it made people feel better I'd even add a OC'd P4 630 for single core comparison [no HT]).

[-iSynthesis]

Can everyone please remember what the question was, and base their reply off that. The FX 8350 is ok for games, it wont win any medals but it shouldn't have any problems playing them. (I'd actually do another comparrison in a seperate post for the FX8350/i5 4440/OC core 2 duo e8500 with 1/2/3/4 and all cores for a full comparison if I still had access to the FX 8350. If it made people feel better I'd even add a OC'd P4 630 for single core comparison [no HT]).

The question has been answered on the first few pages already^^

[vitor_cut]

Are you an idiot or what?

 

 

 

If we're linking theoretical max performance, lets include AVX2 extensions;

Shave that 30% off for HT's gain, i5 is better. In most (read most) multithreaded workloads the 4670K is better.

 

Everyone here is aware of you being an AMD fanboy, no point calling people who are giving honest advice a fanboy. 

 

please coment the benchmarks in the anandtech site.

 

and be awere that i have already recomended intel cpus in LTT foruns several times, always depend on the specific situation of the OP,

but i wont denie that i have a personal preference over AMD but i'm not STUPIDLY blind towards a brand, at the point of make my self an idiot .

[mariohead123]

In tf2 my fps went up by 100 when going from the 8350 @ 5.1ghz to the 5820K at stock (3.3ghz).

Is that really legit? That doesn't sound real.

[Faa]

please coment the benchmarks in the anandtech site.

 

and be awere that i have already recomended intel cpus in LTT foruns several times, always depend on the specific situation of the OP,

but i wont denie that i have a personal preference over AMD but i'm not STUPIDLY blind towards a brand, at the point of make my self an idiot .

Feel free to comment on;

[SoftenButterCream]

This is a never ending debate, so why dont we just call it a day and be happy with what we have?

[thebennyboy]

This is a never ending debate, so why dont we just call it a day and be happy with what we have?

 

"Debate" lol, more like a flame war.