What would you recommend FX cpus for?

[Faceman]

The only thing I'd suggest is the removal of the Battlefield 4 multiplayer graphs. While it has been my observation that Intel CPUs outperform AMD's CPUs in BF4 multiplayer (even when comparing an i3 to an FX-6300/8320), that particular source doesn't seem too reliable. The CPU scaling is very bizarre and it almost seems like they made the numbers up. For one thing their R9 290 is performing just barely better than my GTX 760 when it should be getting a good 40-50% higher fps.

 

Secondly, BF4 isn't badly enough CPU-bound that it runs substantially better on an i7 than an i5, unless you're running a multiGPU setup at like >144 fps... seeing changes like that at sub 60 fps just doesn't seem realistic.

Admittedly, I think it is a problem with AMD GPU.  Because when you look at the same graph, but using a GTX780 instead, the numbers are much different.  I am going to keep it, because the point of that long post is not to entirely discredit FX CPUs.  The main point is to say why buy a processor that only performs well in 4 out of 5 games, when you could pay the same and get one that works well in 5 out of 5 games.  I do make it a point to emphasis that in certain scenarios, the FX CPU tanks.  In some scenarios, the FX CPU works well enough, but in those areas where it tanks, why would you want to submit yourself to that.  Just buy the CPU that works on all games without issue.  That BF4 multiplayer result is a potential scenario where if paired with a high end AMD GPU, there is a potential for some problems.

[Faceman]

We all play different games, I never said to get a FX and play the same games I play. 

 

We also have different style of playing , I play at 60 Fps due to the computer being hooked to a Plasma Tv and I never had issues running games at there full potential besides Far cry 4.

 

Far cry 4 was a great game but it had it dips when driving or flying around and I know that's due to the horrible single core performance of the FX.

I know, and I said, I'm not picking on you, just using what you said as an example, because I hear it over and over again from other FX users.

 

"It works fine in the games I like, so it will work in the games you like."  That is a terrible way to rationalize recommending the FX CPU.  Thats all, not picking on you personally, its just something I see many blind FX users saying over and over.

[zappian]

I know, and I said, I'm not picking on you, just using what you said as an example, because I hear it over and over again from other FX users.

 

"It works fine in the games I like, so it will work in the games you like."  That is a terrible way to rationalize recommending the FX CPU.  Thats all, not picking on you personally, its just something I see many blind FX users saying over and over.

 

It works fine on the games he played but if we wants to use an emulator or play a very poorly threaded game like arma 2 or AC iv the FX wont work.

 

And the i3 will much better , and it keeps up in multithreaded games.

 

When i started this thread i said FX cpus are NOT for gaming.

[Faceman]

It works fine on the games he played but if we wants to use an emulator or play a very poorly threaded game like arma 2 or AC iv the FX wont work.

 

And the i3 will much better , and it keeps up in multithreaded games.

 

When i started this thread i said FX cpus are NOT for gaming.

Ya, Zap, we know.

 

This is why I dislike this argument so much, one person's usage is so different from someone else's.

 

Why buy a CPU that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can buy a CPU that plays 5 out of 5 games.

[Hieb]

I think Raptr has something like that to record.

 

I will have to install it and see.

 

Even just recording your screen with a phone or something would be fine, and that would ensure whatever recording program you use doesn't interfere with framerate. As long as framerate is easily visible

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

oh gosshhhh...okay, try ANY of the assassin's creed games, latest hitman game, watchgogs...any MMO's or RTS, ARMA 3 (TERRIBLE), most indie games...there's a lot of games that can bring an FX to it's knees man, you probably just don't happen to play them.

acu and watchdogs im at 60+fps..also any ubisoft game is a poorly optimized peice of dog poo, its a shit console port with worse graphics than battlefield 4. arma is on a crap game engine and gets terrible performance on any cpu compared to other games. and i have several mmos that work just fine . civilization beyond earth works great too but i see many people saying fx8 cant play that lol.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Ya, Zap, we know.

 

This is why I dislike this argument so much, one person's usage is so different from someone else's.

 

Why buy a CPU that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can buy a CPU that plays 5 out of 5 games.

this is the most idiotic thing ever said. the fx8 can play ANY pc game ever made.  you always say this "4 out of 5" crap and we both know that shits not true..stop spreading lies.

[zappian]

this is the most idiotic thing ever said. the fx8 can play ANY pc game ever made.  you always say this "4 out of 5" crap and we both know that shits not true..stop spreading lies.

 

 

Try to run shadow of the colussus for the pcxs2 on the 8350 or arma 3.

[Hieb]

Ubisoft games are actually pretty CPU agnostic lately... they're just TERRIBLY optimized on the graphics side. An i3 or an FX 8350 will play most current Ubisoft games above 60 fps without issues, but a GTX 980 will still struggle to put 60 fps at max settings even though it doesn't look much better than something like BF4 which pulls 120 fps on a 980 lol

[Faceman]

I never say in my long post that it won't play the game.  I say it won't play the game well.  Understand the distinction. 

[Aniallation]

 

Try to run shadow of the colussus for the pcxs2

PCSX2 is not a game.

[zappian]

PCSX2 is not a game.

AFAIK it runs games , and i mentioned arma3 as well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Good to know... literally have not found one single test on YouTube of BF4 64p multiplayer that reflects this. All of them, even with high end GPUs, drop below 60 fps. I seen one where a guy had an FX-8350 overclocked and a GTX 780 on Golmud Railway TDM and he was dropping to like 45 fps at times .__. maybe his CPU was throttling lol

videos i shot myself with my fx using shadowplay:

 

theres plenty more to see on my youtube videos if youre intereted...

https://www.youtube.com/user/YansaG/videos

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

 

Try to run shadow of the colussus for the pcxs2 on the 8350 or arma 3.

lol so you try to find the most demanding ps2 game to run on an emulator? oh and yes i can run any ps2 game even god of war  or grand turismo 4.

 

but heres the thing..no one cares to play shadow of colussus or most any ps2 game now a days. if i do its to play ff10. on pscx2 i can play most games at 3x-4x resolution just fine.

 

arma 3 runs like ass period. even the best set ups dont get what they should for a game like that.

[Hieb]

Thanks, those results are a lot better than every FX video I've come across... I wonder why some people got such bad results o__0

From the third one's graph it seems the 8320/8350 has more delayed frames, as i see it pretty frequently spiking as high as 24-30ms (not counting in menus since it always does that at menus or during killcam). I get spikes up to about 26ms max (usually around 20ms) but that's generally one or two every 15 seconds or so.

 

Overall that looks really solid though. One delayed frame every 3-5 sec isn't a big deal. Thanks for sharing that.

 

Now it's gonna bug me why so many FX tests show results that are so much worse lol.

This guy's results are disgustingly bad... his CPU must have been throttling or something:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBmFLkIUgI

[xvantok]

For replacing central heating in houses!

Or to replace lighters!

[zappian]

lol so you try to find the most demanding ps2 game to run on an emulator? oh and yes i can run any ps2 game even god of war  or grand turismo 4.

 

but heres the thing..no one cares to play shadow of colussus or most any ps2 game now a days. if i do its to play ff10. on pscx2 i can play most games at 3x-4x resolution just fine.

 

arma 3 runs like ass period. even the best set ups dont get what they should for a game like that.

 

Arma 3 runs like butter on my i3.

 

Not my fault you dont have STP to run that game.

[Clyne]

Random CPU that you may regret buying. 

[Aniallation]

AFAIK it runs games , and i mentioned arma3 as well.

It itself is not a game it is an emulator. Also it only uses 3 threads. I did not quote the ARMA 3 part for a reason because I don't have anything to argue against for that, ARMA in itself is a very CPU demanding title.

 

You really have nothing better to do then loiter on this forum do you?

[zappian]

It itself is not a game it is an emulator. Also it only uses 3 threads. I did not quote the ARMA 3 part for a reason because I don't have anything to argue against for that, ARMA in itself is a very CPU demanding title.

 

You really have nothing better to do then loiter on this forum do you?

 

Im studying for finals and i can quickly alt tab between that and browsing the forums.

 

If i try to game i will lose long periods of time.

 

This is a nice break to studying ,since gaming takes much more time than replying posts here.

[Aniallation]

Im studying for finals and i can quickly alt tab between that and browsing the forums.

 

If i try to game i will lose long periods of time.

 

This is a nice break to studying ,since gaming takes much more time than replying posts here.

idk man.... it takes quite a bit of time in a day to post 260 times.....

[zappian]

idk man.... it takes quite a bit of time in a day to post 260 times.....

 

Not really honestly , i can multitask quite well.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Thanks, those results are a lot better than every FX video I've come across... I wonder why some people got such bad results o__0

From the third one's graph it seems the 8320/8350 has more delayed frames, as i see it pretty frequently spiking as high as 24-30ms (not counting in menus since it always does that at menus or during killcam). I get spikes up to about 26ms max (usually around 20ms) but that's generally one or two every 15 seconds or so.

 

Overall that looks really solid though. One delayed frame every 3-5 sec isn't a big deal. Thanks for sharing that.

 

Now it's gonna bug me why so many FX tests show results that are so much worse lol.

This guy's results are disgustingly bad... his CPU must have been throttling or something:

most people are too noobish to go into thier bios and disable cool and quiet. cool and quiet is there to throttle the cpu down to 1.5ghz if the cpu is getting too hot, which with a stock cooler (most people use) it will constantly throttle all the time. most of these benches are done the same way either stock cooler or cool and quiet enabled or both.

 

also that video is at 4 ghz stock, we all know these fx chips are extreme overclockers,there's a big difference in performance from 4 ghz to 4.5...and much more at 4.7 and up.

[Aniallation]

Not really honestly , i can multitask quite well.

I know, I'm just not for the post farming that plenty of people do on here which just involve shitposting somewhat-relevant one-sentence answers to a bunch of topics that don't provide any relative help.

 

A lot of my time spent when I'm on here is on PCPP doing research into parts for people.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Arma 3 runs like butter on my i3.

 

Not my fault you dont have STP to run that game.

it's also not your fault that  i don't give a crap to play arma 3..thats what battlefield 4 is there for.