FX-8350?

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

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

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-unity-test-gpu.html

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/dying-light-test-gpu.html

 

You can clearly see the i3-4330 kick the butt of even an FX-9590 in those very recently released AAA titles...AMD FX is bad CPU for gaming, intel has better options at every price range except for the athlon 860K in the sub 80$ CPU is IMHO the best option.

 

You have to look into sandy-bridge core i3 chips to find an intel CPU that is worse than the FX in games, and even then it's still close.

 

In regards to gaming you can always only be as fast as your fastest processing core...and the AMD FX cores even at 5.0ghz are still somewhat slow by today's standard.

That's why even in games that uses all the threads from the FX such a ACU for example as shown above, even a lower end core i3 performs better.

[Fulgrim]

-snip-

You decide to use 2 games which are badly optimized to showcase hardware performance? LOL

[i_build_nanosuits]

You decide to use 2 games which are badly optimized to showcase hardware performance? LOL

ok yeah go check benchmarks use google and then come back and tell me: WELL LOOKS LIKE ALL THE GAMES OUT THERE ARE BADLY OPTIMISED...

 

here, go to this page and read @Faceman post it should give you a good reality check, fanboy:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/248450-need-picking-a-cpu-for-my-build/

 

And BTW...i owned an FX i know what they can do in games, proof?

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

[Fulgrim]

ok yeah go check benchmarks use google and then come back and tell me: WELL LOOKS LIKE ALL THE GAMES OUT THERE ARE BADLY OPTIMISED...

 

here, go to this page and read @Faceman post it should give you a good reality check, fanboy:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/248450-need-picking-a-cpu-for-my-build/

I'd rather refer you to one of my previous posts.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'd rather refer you to one of my previous posts.

ok trust what you want re-read both my previous post have been edited after you've quoted them as i said i PERSONALY OWNED AN FX CPU I DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON YOUTUBE SHIT ASS VIDEOS I HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE ON THEM I OWNED ONE FOR 4 MONTHS LAST YEAR WITH A GTX780 I KNOW HOW BAD THEY SUCK IN GAMES OKAY!!!!

 

Your Phenom II is a better chip than the AMD FX when it comes to gaming, believe it or not.

[Fulgrim]

ok trust what you want re-read both my previous post have been edited after you've quoted them as i said i PERSONALY OWNED AN FX CPU I DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON YOUTUBE SHIT ASS VIDEOS I HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE ON THEM I OWNED ONE FOR 4 MONTHS LAST YEAR WITH A GTX780 I KNOW HOW BAD THEY SUCK IN GAMES OKAY!!!!

Stop relying on Cinebench. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Stop relying on Cinebench. 

i don't, as i said i owned a freaking FX-8320 that was running at 4.6ghz daily i was using an HD7950 GPU at first and the parts where a good match in most games i was GPU bound and then i switched to a GTX780 which is a much stronger part when it comes to gaming and the CPU was my limiting factor in MOST games...often showing minimum FPS around 35 to 40FPS in many AAA titles...

 

Here's a quote i fully agree with, that's exactly what i've observed playing a multitude of games from my library on an overclocked AMD FX processor:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html

To put it nicely, the FX-8370 is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370 simply limits the card's potential.

[Fulgrim]

-snip-

Are small dips to ~40fps that bad, when you're getting 60+fps on average?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Are small dips to ~40fps that bad, when you're getting 60+fps on average?

yes! it sure is WTF, why would you buy a 500$ GPU that can hold 70FPS consistently in just about any games on maximum settings if you pair it with a CPU that gets very bad framedips all the time and huge frametime variance across the board in just about any games?!

[Fulgrim]

yes! it sure is WTF, why would you buy a 500$ GPU that can hold 70FPS consistently in just about any games on maximum settings if you pair it with a CPU that gets very bad framedips all the time and huge frametime variance across the board in just about any games?! it just don't make sense...

You seem to be overplaying things a bit. And such bad framedips would only occur in badly optimized game titles. *glares at Ubisoft*  What you've also got to factor, is that newer titles are using more cores, and do it better than older titles. 

 

 

Also, one thing i forgot to notice - @OP there is no PSU mentioned? What PSU you got? Or did you forget to factor that into the build? Also, i've heard the Samsung SSD's don't like AMD that much, you could grab a Crucial MX100 for practically the same performance, at a slightly lower cost. Also, why Windows 7, and not Windows 8?

[i_build_nanosuits]

You seem to be overplaying things a bit. And such bad framedips would only occur in badly optimized game titles. *glares at Ubisoft*  What you've also got to factor, is that newer titles are using more cores, and do it better than older titles.

Keep ignoring the facts, keep thinking it's the game's fault all you want...but the thing is, a core i3-4150 outperform an overclocked FX-8350 in about 9/10 games just check benchmarks use google and educate yourself you won't find a single benchmark in which an AMD FX can perform better than a core i5-44XX CPU which ends up being even cheaper once you factor in the board and cpu cooler to overclock the FX...that's all i have to say i won't reply no more, do your research and stop trusting the few biaised youtube sources that says ''well, look the AMD FX isn't THAT BAD..'' cause yeah, it's not THAT BAD, but there are a lot better options out there right now for gamers.

[Fulgrim]

Keep ignoring the facts, keep thinking it's the game's fault all you want...but the thing is, a core i3-4150 outperform an overclocked FX-8350 in about 9/10 games just check benchmarks use google and educate yourself you won't find a single benchmark in which an AMD FX can perform better than a core i5-44XX CPU which ends up being even cheaper once you factor in the board and cpu cooler to overclock the FX...that's all i have to say i won't reply no more, do your research and stop trusting the few biaised youtube sources that says ''well, look the AMD FX isn't THAT BAD..'' cause yeah, it's not THAT BAD, but there are a lot better options out there right now for gamers.

You seem to be dismissing what i've been saying. Older single threaded  DirectX 9 games, or poorly optimized ones will undoubtedly run better on Intel. Check out this video for some newer titles being benchmarked. 

 

 

The point i'm trying to get across, is the likes of the FX 8350, or FX 9590 is still a viable choice, as it is powerful enough to run games at playable framed, providing it's paired with a half decent gpu. But what also has to be factored in, is if you plan on streaming/encoding in the future, whilst you game. In that scenario, from a price point the FX is superior.

[i_build_nanosuits]

The point i'm trying to get across, is the likes of the FX 8350, or FX 9590 is still a viable choice, as it is powerful enough to run games at playable framed, providing it's paired with a half decent gpu. But what also has to be factored in, is if you plan on streaming/encoding in the future, whilst you game. In that scenario, from a price point the FX is superior.

No, because the intel haswell have what is called an IGP (integrated graphics processor) and you can use intel quicksync to do the H264 encoding on the IGPu and this will have absolutely NO IMPACT on your gaming performance, so it will STILL be much better at gaming and streaming than an AMD FX...and again as i said something like an i5-4460 and an H97 motherboard will end up costing less than an FX-8350 with proper motherboard and cooling solution.

 

The AMD FX-8320 i something i recommend from time to time for BUDGET WORKSTATION, not gaming rig.

[zappian]

@Fulgrim

God damn it.
 
First thing :

calling people in the discussion the "F" word ( ends int ot) is not the best way to go about

in a debate.
 
Secondly:
Proof , you know what people use to conduct debates.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2
---

---

---

[david cassar]

You seem to be dismissing what i've been saying. Older single threaded  DirectX 9 games, or poorly optimized ones will undoubtedly run better on Intel. Check out this video for some newer titles being benchmarked. 

 

 

The point i'm trying to get across, is the likes of the FX 8350, or FX 9590 is still a viable choice, as it is powerful enough to run games at playable framed, providing it's paired with a half decent gpu. But what also has to be factored in, is if you plan on streaming/encoding in the future, whilst you game. In that scenario, from a price point the FX is superior.

That video shows single player games which means that the video is more or less redundant (since they are gpu dependent and not cpu dependent, you could thrown an i3 and it would probably perform the same aswell)

case in point : http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/X/313593/original/cpu-scaling.png

. Also the fx 9590 is easily the worst processor in terms of value. 

Considering the price of a good motherboard and a liquid cooler which is needed for the fx 9590 to function properly, an i7 would become as cheap and actually outperform it in all cases while consuming much less power.

i7: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/R7XfFT

fx 9590 : http://pcpartpicker.com/p/P94gnQ

Also not to mention that even overclocked to 5 ghz the amd fx series is still slower than haswell in terms of single threaded performance and this is shown in the fact that an fx 9590 loses to an i5 in gaming :

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/assassin_1920n.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/fc3_1920n.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/skyrim_1920n.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/wd_1920n.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/devil/charts/def/mp3_1920n.png

 

[Lotus]

Why would you purposely gimp yourself in gaming? Sure the FX-8350 plays some games well, but why would you accept that when you can get an i5-4460 + h97 motherboard and play ALL games well for less cost? WHY? Why purposely gimp yourself? I don't get it. You're paying more money (because the motherboards are slightly more expensive and then you need at least something like a 212 evo) for a gaming experience that isn't as good in some games. It doesn't make sense. I don't understand how you could argue in favor of the FX-8350 in gaming when there are cheaper options that play every game well while the FX-8350 cannot.

[Fulgrim]

-snip-

 

You seem to have a nack for ignoring most of what someone has said/typed.

 

I am not disputing the single core performance, i even admitted that Intel is better. However, in newer titles which are being optimized better, and can use multiple threads, the gap is closing in. Also, the 9590 comes with a liquid cooler by default. As for the power usage, unless you're maxing out your rig, with the likes of a bitcoin miner, then the cost is negligible for the extra power draw. I.e, for about 3 - 4 hours gaming a day, you'll end up spending at most an extra ~£15 over the course of a year.

But trying to game at a reasonable framerate, either the likes of an i5 4690k or the FX 8350 is a viable option. In the long run, you'd need to replace either by the time they both will have the same amount of longevity in regards to gaming performance.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

i own both 8350 and 4770k and in most games the performance between the two are pretty much the same. besides benchmarks and old crappy games they perform very close and the 4770k is twice as much $$$.

 

people always talk about a 4460 doing better but i've seen many people with that cpu complaining about bottlenecking,if a 4770k is close to a 8350 i doubt a 4460 is better.

[david cassar]

Snipity

I actually didn't ignore what you said. I more or less corrected you. You linked a video which is redundant as it used benchmarks which are completely GPU dependant and you also said that the fx 9590 is viable when it really isn't.

[helloimtom-]

FX-8350. It really holds its own in most games, my buddy has one. He hasn't had any issues with it, as far as I know. And P.S. when people tell you an i3 can out-preform it, they're lying.

[zappian]

FX-8350. It really holds its own in most games, my buddy has one. He hasn't had any issues with it, as far as I know. And P.S. when people tell you an i3 can out-preform it, they're lying.

 

Oh really.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

[Fulgrim]

I actually didn't ignore what you said. I more or less corrected you. You linked a video which is redundant as it used benchmarks which are completely GPU dependant and you also said that the fx 9590 is viable when it really isn't.

From a price point perspective, yes it is. (It's like £150 cheaper for an FX9590 rig over an i7 4790k rig where i live) Also, you did not correct me at all, simple ignored what i put and just mentioned the single core performance difference which was already mentioned, and is well known.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i own both 8350 and 4770k and in most games the performance between the two are pretty much the same. besides benchmarks and old crappy games they perform very close and the 4770k is twice as much $$$.

 

people always talk about a 4460 doing better but i've seen many people with that cpu complaining about bottlenecking,if a 4770k is close to a 8350 i doubt a 4460 is better.

wo wo wo...what games have you played to came to those conclusions mate?

[zappian]

-sniperino-

 

BF4 and BF4 accessories.

[Lotus]

i own both 8350 and 4770k and in most games the performance between the two are pretty much the same. besides benchmarks and old crappy games they perform very close and the 4770k is twice as much $$$.

 

people always talk about a 4460 doing better but i've seen many people with that cpu complaining about bottlenecking,if a 4770k is close to a 8350 i doubt a 4460 is better.

Your conjecture is based upon false suppositions. The i5-4460 does not bottleneck any game, even with SLI 980s at 4k resolution. The only time an i5-4460 becomes the limiting factor is when you're trying to push 144fps in demanding games.