Really confused about 8350 VS 4690K

[cheeze_tartz]

So every tech website like tom's hardware, hardware canucks, etc, the 4690K beats the crap out of the 8350 looking at benchmarks.. Now if i watch a youtube video on the 8350 vs the i5, playing games at real time (like Crysis, GTA), they almost have the exact same FPS. (except dota 2, LoL, etc.). So i'm really confused. I know the i5 has better performance per core, but the 8350 seems to perform similar.

[Comessy]

What website did you see a benchmark where they are the same? I don't believe that. And don't say game debate

[mrswagbhinav]

What kind of competition is this haha the 4690K destroys the 8350 no matter what

[cheeze_tartz]

What website did you see a benchmark where they are the same? I don't believe that. And don't say game debate

No, on benchmark charts, the 4690K wrecks the 8350.

[cheeze_tartz]

What kind of competition is this haha the 4690K destroys the 8350 no matter what

Don't really know dude, those youtube videos are pretty convincing.

[Adreyu]

So every tech website like tom's hardware, hardware canucks, etc, the 4690K beats the crap out of the 8350 looking at benchmarks.. Now if i watch a youtube video on the 8350 vs the i5, playing games at real time (like Crysis, GTA), they almost have the exact same FPS. (except dota 2, LoL, etc.). So i'm really confused. I know the i5 has better performance per core, but the 8350 seems to perform similar.

the more demanding the game gets on single core performance and the higher end your graphics card is the 8350 will start to fail in terms of performance because it is an old architecture and it cant keep up with more demanding titles, software, benchmarks like the speed of a new intel chip can. Its a bottleneck that grows in severity every year its not replaced. hopeful zen architecture will be good.

[Stanvard]

4690k beats the pants off an 8350 any day.

[TheGeeker]

[Guest Kloaked]

It performs similar, but it gets worse minimal framerates overall than Intel's chips in comparison. There's also the matter of which application is being used too. The reason Intel > AMD is because for nearly every instance, the Intel chip will beat AMD's flagship chips. In some applications they will be on a level playing field more or less.

[Adreyu]

the more i look at this picture the more perplexed i get

[TheGeeker]

the more i look at this picture the more perplexed i get

Lol. exactly 

[cheeze_tartz]

It performs similar, but it gets worse minimal framerates overall than Intel's chips in comparison. There's also the matter of which application is being used too. The reason Intel > AMD is because for nearly every instance, the Intel chip will beat AMD's flagship chips. In some applications they will be on a level playing field more or less.

thank you, a legit reasoning.

[cheeze_tartz]

the more demanding the game gets on single core performance and the higher end your graphics card is the 8350 will start to fail in terms of performance because it is an old architecture and it cant keep up with more demanding titles, software, benchmarks like the speed of a new intel chip can. Its a bottleneck that grows in severity every year its not replaced. hopeful zen architecture will be good.

Will an overclocked 8350 (4.5-4.7ghz) bottleneck a 970

[Adreyu]

Will an overclocked 8350 (4.5-4.7ghz) bottleneck a 970

it will reduce the bottleneck for sure, but as shown in this video: 

mhz are not always equal even when one speed is seemingly higher. 

[GzeroD]

Will an overclocked 8350 (4.5-4.7ghz) bottleneck a 970

In a game that requires a very strong single thread; yes by quite a bit (mostly during hectic parts where fps is most required). Usually not so much that it is an issue; but there are getting to be more and more games with parts/effects that bring the 8350 to a crawl.

[cheeze_tartz]

Is there a reason you want to get an 8350? If you want to save some money, get an i5-4440. $170, but still much better than an 8350 in today's games.

No reason, I would actually go with intel, but the youtube videos show the CPU's playing games in real time, and the 8350 performs really similar.

[Guest Kloaked]

OP, if you're trying to decide if the 8350 is an upgrade for your 4690k, don't even give it a second thought. It'll be a downgrade.

[cheeze_tartz]

OP, if you're trying to decide if the 8350 is an upgrade for your 4690k, don't even give it a second thought. It'll be a downgrade.

I don't even have these CPU's.

[Aniallation]

Depends on the GPU too, obviously with something like a 750 Ti, both CPUs will be pretty much equal cause neither of them really have to do anything to keep up with the GPU.

[michaelk12]

Intel will never give you worse results. Why play 4/5 games pretty good when you can play 5/5 games great? Low-mid range cards will see insignificant bottlenecks, but when you get higher than a GTX 960, or a R9 280x, that is when you usually see the bottlenecks happening. You don't need a 4690K to beat the FX8, an i5 4440 will still beat it in everything but rendering.

[Guest Kloaked]

I don't even have these CPU's.

 

I misread your signature, then.  One of those moments since read the title then your signature, thinking the CPU you were inquiring about was what you owned.

 

But to add to that (I'm not gonna pull the benchmarks up), some benchmarks report that even Haswell i3's will outrun 8350's in instances like Thief.

[cheeze_tartz]

ill just stick with intel.... Screw AMD.

[SteveGrabowski0]

So every tech website like tom's hardware, hardware canucks, etc, the 4690K beats the crap out of the 8350 looking at benchmarks.. Now if i watch a youtube video on the 8350 vs the i5, playing games at real time (like Crysis, GTA), they almost have the exact same FPS. (except dota 2, LoL, etc.). So i'm really confused. I know the i5 has better performance per core, but the 8350 seems to perform similar.

 

The FX 8350 really excels in Crysis 3 thanks to it being really well parallelized, but not many other games do well with an FX-8350. Ask @i_build_nanosuits, he said his FX-8350 couldn't feed his GTX 780 well at all, and that it made a huge difference when he upgraded to an i7-4770k.

[incarnate]

pay very close attention to the resolution that those benchmarks are being run in. if the i5 and 8350 had similar performance it was likely due to them running at very high resolution (even 4k) if that is the case then ya, they will perform similarly with a single gpu at 4k. the problem is that lower resolutions with high end graphics cards put a lot of strain on a cpu with more draw calls. the 8350 has a harder time keeping up with this and as such has a lower maximum framerate that it can support. at lower resolutions, this limit will be reached before the gpu's limit thus creating a cpu bottleneck.

 

long and short of it all is pay very close attention to resolutions and hardware used in cpu benchmarks. if they are running at high resolutions with a single graphics card, then take that with a grain of salt. especially if you plan on playing at a lower resolution.

[Briggsy]

So every tech website like tom's hardware, hardware canucks, etc, the 4690K beats the crap out of the 8350 looking at benchmarks.. Now if i watch a youtube video on the 8350 vs the i5, playing games at real time (like Crysis, GTA), they almost have the exact same FPS. (except dota 2, LoL, etc.). So i'm really confused. I know the i5 has better performance per core, but the 8350 seems to perform similar.

 

think of it this way:

 

an Intel core performs at (for arguments sake) 100% strength. Without hyperthreading, a single thread has access to all of an Intel core's resources. If you add hyperthreading, you can split the workload between 2 threads however you like on the core. If one thread is demanding and the other thread is not, the demanding thread takes up more resources. if you are only running a single thread, than 100% of that core is accessible, even with hyper-threading enabled.

 

With AMD Bulldozer, you have 2 cores packed into a module, and each core is (for arguments sake) 50% strength of an intel core. If you only have a single thread running, you are only using up to 50% of that module. if you have 2 threads running, the workload is split 50/50, even if one thread is demanding and the other thread is not. Essentially, with AMD bulldozer, you have pseudo-hyperthreading, but there is no dynamic scaling of resources between two threads. If you have two threads running on a single Module that are equally demanding, then a bulldozer Module will really shine.