FX-8350?

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

@WaitForMeImOnDialUp

 

Good port:

 

 

Im out before this turns into a flamestorm.

metal gear solid (a game that is beatin in one hour) is also a piss poor port.

 

with a 8350 and dual 280x's i avg 30-45fps on that piece of turd a game,guess what? with a 4770k i have the EXACT SAME FPS! all maxed settings.

 

look at this scrrenshot, all maxed settings 30-45 fps with a overclocked 4770k (4.2ghz) and dual 280xs. look the 4770k is only pushing my 280x's  to an avg of 80% each, the exacr same 80% and same fps my 8350 got in that game.

 

 

how can you say that's a good port??!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveGrabowski]

i5-4690k and Xeon E3-1241v3 are the two best chips you can get under $270.

[Zgypt118]

So all and all, if I want something that will last and will be able to upgrade more, I should go with the i5 and the 8350 is great but it doesn't too much of an upgrade path

[Icecube26]

if u have 270 dollars to spend on a cpu  purely for gaming... get an i5... dont buy dual core stuff like i3 or 3258 or something like that...because cores > threads and OC... btw... amd plays plays games just fine...if u OC it ... personal experience

[Mao_Zedong]

metal gear solid (a game that is beatin in one hour) is also a piss poor port.

 

with a 8350 and dual 280x's i avg 30-45fps on that piece of turd a game,guess what? with a 4770k i have the EXACT SAME FPS! all maxed settings.

 

look at this scrrenshot, all maxed settings 30-45 fps with a overclocked 4770k (4.2ghz) and dual 280xs. look the 4770k is only pushing my 280x's  to an avg of 80% each, the exacr same 80% and same fps my 8350 got in that game.

 

 

how can you say that's a good port??!!!

 

he didn't... it was a joke...

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

oh well im a retard then lol...i waste too much $$$ on pc parts and games just to get a shitty console port.

[Zgypt118]

We all agree ground zeros is a shit port to PC?

[TorqueS]

if u have 270 dollars to spend on a cpu  purely for gaming... get an i5... dont buy dual core stuff like i3 or 3258 or something like that...because cores > threads and OC... btw... amd plays plays games just fine...if u OC it ... personal experience

I agree with you on that...I got no problems playing games on the FX. I didn't like ARMA III so f**k that game with its crappy optimization and coding....just because FX doesn't run it doesn't matter it's a bad CPU...

Other than that...perfectly fine.

 

 

But now you have the locked i5 option that will be smoother overall.

If you want to OC(if not for performance necesarily, but to get used to the process and stuff) an FX8 might make sense...but then again you have ASRock's B85 Killer or H97 Performance with non-Z OC...which basically enables you to OC K CPUs even if the board doesn't have a Z chipset...

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

So all and all, if I want something that will last and will be able to upgrade more, I should go with the i5 and the 8350 is great but it doesn't too much of an upgrade path

 

go for the i5, getting a 8350 right now is a poor choice over intels..i was only arguing that some games are piss poor on either cpu...but all around the i5 is better.

[Tim Drake]

OH GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

[connorpiper]

Price low to high

 

i3-4150, i5-4460, i5-4690K

 

One of those would be a better choice.

Pair with Z97 motherboard. (For future upgrades, and OC on the K)

[WastedEmu]

I have been using the FX-8350 on my main gaming machine, and I can say that in some games, my G3258 outperforms it. It's a good processor for what i use it for, which is mainly BF4, but for more cpu intensive games (I play KSP occasionally too) my G3258 out performs it by like 20fps.

 

If I were to upgrade now, I'd for sure go with the 4690k or 4790k especially since there's no real competition from AMD in the form of newer processors. But it works for me paired with my R9 290 to handle all the games i'm throwing at it with at least 60fps (with the excpetion of KSP), So when it comes time for me to upgrade a year or two down the line, I'll be getting an intel 5000 or whatever series is available on sale at the time, paird with DDR4 when those prices drop as well

[Zgypt118]

So with http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gag1sniperz97a i5-4690k is fine, the 8350 is good for some games, but for others its not and i5 has a better upgrade path

[zappian]

We all agree ground zeros is a shit port to PC?

 

Suuure.

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/top-10-pc-optimized-games-of-2014/

 

[sgloux3470]

I haven't been in the pc world for long, but I do see people really slapping around AMD or hating on companies that honestly don't seem to bad. Now I heard that AMD is fine till a certain point, in terms of gaming, you should stay to AMD till you are going to play high intensity titles like star citizen or bf4. And the overkill about PSU is soo true, i watched two people start putting links to statistics to prove their point.

 

Honestly, the GPU for the forseeable future is by far the most important component for gaming.

 

CPU is becoming less and less relevant.  DX12 it won't matter much if you have a dual core or a quad core, and unlike DX11 will allow for developers to more easily optimize for multiple threads anyway. (Boosting AMD performance when not GPU bound)

At higher resolutions same deal, if you're GPU limited the CPU doesn't matter, and if you're not GPU limited you're an idiot who bought a very high end GPU to power 1080p because you wanted the biggest and baddest GPU even though you aren't actually giving it any work to do.

 

That said, unless you find an 8350 for sub $200 (in the $150-180 range) then an i5 just makes a ton more sense right now.  The 8350 is still a kickass processor, but it's been around two years now already and you're better off getting something newer so you don't have to upgrade again in ~2 years.

[Geldar]

I'm not an AMD or Intel fan boy, i just buy what is a good buy for the hard earned $$$ that i get. 

 

TBH at this point in time you would be better off with the i5 4690k if u can afford it. 

[Faa]

CPU is becoming less and less relevant.  

True, since we only have Intel as a viable option these days.

[jamesbondlq]

Nice well that shows it can realy hold its own yet what can you upgrade it to? What GPU do you have and also what about a game like dragon age that strains all rigs?

 

i'm runing an evga gtx 970.i'm assumeing i can upgrade it more since i'm useing a asrock 990fx extreme9 mobo. i got shit like titan fall, dragon age orgins, sc2, d3, got the hardline bata, and a ton of stuff on steam runs all my stuff no problem.

[Zgypt118]

So to close up, ima get the i5 4690k over the fx 8350 because you can upgrade a lot more in the intel chain

[SkilledRebuilds]

So to close up, ima get the i5 4690k over the fx 8350 because you can upgrade a lot more in the intel chain

 

Even if you don't plan to upgrade later on, it's a great choice.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The AMD FX-83XX CPU's really shine in multi-threaded apps such as video encoding, transcoding, compression, editing, 3d rendering...things of that nature...that's where something like an FX-8320 for around 120$ COULD make sense in SOME cases.

But when it comes to gaming the AMD FX really show it's weaknesses with very low minimum FPS, in many games those CPU's (even with a substantial overclock) won't be able to push more than 30 to 35FPS to the GPU...so pairing such a CPU with an high-end graphics card that can easily sustain 60-65FPS on highest settings in games is just a waste of money...even a low end intel haswell core i3 outperform an FX-9590 in gaming 9 times out of 10.

 

/thread

[Fulgrim]

It's amusing seeing all the Intel fanfaggotry going on here.

If you are simply gaming, and don't plan on doing anything like live streaming, or recording/encoding gameplay, then the i5 4690k is the best bang for your buck.

But as to the people saying an i3, or the G3258 outperforms anything AMD has? Do one. If you play newer titles which use 2 or more threads, an FX chip will do fine. DirectX 9 titles generally are better on Intel chips, since they use 1, or 2 cores/threads at most. DirectX11 titles use at least 2. And as far as longevity comes into it - by the time DirectX 12 is fully implemented by game developers, we'll be onto 12 core cpu's, and another 2 or 3 generations ahead in regards to CPU's. 

 

If you bother doing your research, the likes of the FX8350 & FX 9590 keep up with Intel's high end i7's in titles like Battlefield 4, and are slightly better if you fancy livestreaming whilst playing such an intensive game. 

 

tl;dr For pure gaming, get an i5 4690k. For multitasking (streaming etc) then it's a toss up between i7 4790k & FX 9590. Depends on if you fancy overclocking or not.

[SkilledRebuilds]

It's amusing seeing all the Intel fanfaggotry going on here.

If you are simply gaming, and don't plan on doing anything like live streaming, or recording/encoding gameplay, then the i5 4690k is the best bang for your buck.

But as to the people saying an i3, or the G3258 outperforms anything AMD has? Do one. If you play newer titles which use 2 or more threads, an FX chip will do fine. DirectX 9 titles generally are better on Intel chips, since they use 1, or 2 cores/threads at most. DirectX11 titles use at least 2. And as far as longevity comes into it - by the time DirectX 12 is fully implemented by game developers, we'll be onto 12 core cpu's, and another 2 or 3 generations ahead in regards to CPU's. 

 

If you bother doing your research, the likes of the FX8350 & FX 9590 keep up with Intel's high end i7's in titles like Battlefield 4, and are slightly better if you fancy livestreaming whilst playing such an intensive game. 

 

tl;dr For pure gaming, get an i5 4690k. For multitasking (streaming etc) then it's a toss up between i7 4790k & FX 9590. Depends on if you fancy overclocking or not.

Intel faggotry (from your perspective), the truth hurts.

 

There is no toss up, i7 for streaming, i5 for gaming...

 

Oh.. you like low minimums...? and using your high-end GPU in a non-efficient manner...?

That's fine.. you can play BF4... the one game that makes FX appear equal.

 

Will people never come to grips with reality?

It's amusing that people STILL recommend AMD CPU's for Gaming.

 

AT ALL!

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-5#entry3621417

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-5#entry3621417

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-5#entry3621417

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-5#entry3621417

AT ALL!

[i_build_nanosuits]

It's amusing seeing all the Intel fanfaggotry going on here.

If you are simply gaming, and don't plan on doing anything like live streaming, or recording/encoding gameplay, then the i5 4690k is the best bang for your buck.

But as to the people saying an i3, or the G3258 outperforms anything AMD has? Do one. If you play newer titles which use 2 or more threads, an FX chip will do fine. DirectX 9 titles generally are better on Intel chips, since they use 1, or 2 cores/threads at most. DirectX11 titles use at least 2. And as far as longevity comes into it - by the time DirectX 12 is fully implemented by game developers, we'll be onto 12 core cpu's, and another 2 or 3 generations ahead in regards to CPU's. 

 

If you bother doing your research, the likes of the FX8350 & FX 9590 keep up with Intel's high end i7's in titles like Battlefield 4, and are slightly better if you fancy livestreaming whilst playing such an intensive game. 

 

tl;dr For pure gaming, get an i5 4690k. For multitasking (streaming etc) then it's a toss up between i7 4790k & FX 9590. Depends on if you fancy overclocking or not.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

[Fulgrim]

-snip-

A decent FX chip (8320 or higher) is still a viable option, especially on a limited budget.  Also, i can throw about other benchmarks done, and you'll see a different gap in performance. 

 

(Last vid is comparing a much more expensive Intel 6core vs AMD's 8core)

 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285199-harrynowls-ultimate-cpu-showdown-wip/

 

-snip-

Cinebench is not the only defining program to showcase the performance difference. I'm more interested in real world benchmarks, i.e gaming.