Is FX-8350 sufficient for gaming? I made a video myself so you can be sure.

[Morgan MLGman]

The problem is that Intel offers up much better performance compared to FX chips today. It doesn't even need to be all that expensive. The i5 2500k can sometimes beat the crap out of games. Not to mention FX cpu's are very crappy when it comes to emulation at times.

For the same price you can get an i3. It won't allow upgrades anyway cause your H81/B85 chipset is not worth using with a 4690k/4790k for example so you need a motherboard change anyway just as with the FX, am I wrong here?

 

[Nena Trinity]

The FX-8350 is a great CPU no doubt even if it starts to age and time has actually only improved it by more modern games!

 

And we all know how awesome DX12 is right? It makes the CPU better even a i5 gets better but FX gets a bit more boost than i5 does...

[SImoHayha]

For the same price you can get an i3. It won't allow upgrades anyway cause your H81/B85 chipset is not worth using with a 4690k/4790k for example so you need a motherboard change anyway just as with the FX, am I wrong here?

 

No it's different. FX chips when you try to upgrade except the E series. use more power and require stronger motherboards( Especially when overclocking) which equals into more expensive ones in order to properly use them and not have them thermal throttle. Intel on the other hand you can nab a cheap motherboard because Intel uses way less power to power said CPU, also you can upgrade from an i3 to an i5 or even an i7 with certain H81/B85 motherboards am pretty sure you can do it for all of them, just need a bios update. It doesn't matter if you nab the 4690k or 4790k, you don't need an unlocked intel processor to have more performance. Even the cheapest i5 will do and give greater performance compared to the FX CPU's.

[Sauron]

How would an i3 perform better in the games I put in my video? Have you watched it? Do you think the i3 would give more FPS?

In several of these games my CPU usage hits nearly 100%, if it hits nearly 100% on an overclocked to 4,5 , 8 cored FX it would max out an i3 easily, or am I wrong with anything here?

 

You see, unfortunately the bulldozer/piledriver architectures suffer from an extremely long pipeline and therefore a significantly lower ipc compared to sandy bridge and later cpus from intel. It's very similar to the problems the pentium 4 had, and the reason why amd was dominating in those years.

 

Now, unfortunately most (not all, but the vast majority) games do not make use of more than 4 cpu threads. This means half the cores in the FX remain unused, halving its theoretical peak performance. The cores in an i3 are almost twice as fast as the ones in an 8320, even when overclocked; furthermore, the i3 can dedicate all of its performance to 2, 3 or 4 threads, meaning it's utilized at 100% where only 50% of the fx comes in to play. If in raw peak performance we can think of the i3 as about 60% as powerful as an 8320, you can see how it will be better than half the 8320. Again, this is not in ALL games - but in a lot of them. That does not mean you'll get a bad experience with an 8320, but if you don't use it for anything else you might as well get the i3.

[Shakaza]

Also, with this build you can overclock this FX to 4.2 gHz easily even on the stock cooler.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($136.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($69.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $206.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 15:58 EDT-0400

For the same price you can get:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($140.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($58.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $199.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 16:00 EDT-0400

There's no guarantee it would be able to overclock to 4.2 GHz, and even if it did, it's not going to perform much better than the FX-8350, which the i3-4360 is about equivalent to. And it's not a fair comparison either because the motherboard only has 4+1 phases. When I had my FX-6100, it would throttle on a 3+1 phase motherboard from the 6-core turbo speed of 3.6 GHz down to 3.3 or even lower, and you think you're going to overclock? Please. And that's where everything in your argument falls apart. You'll have to, at the least, get a better motherboard, and there's no guarantee that one will have a $30.00 discount, and that price difference would allow you to bring the CPU up to an i5-4460 or similar, which crushes the FX-8320 or FX-8350 in most games.

[Sauron]

For the same price you can get an i3. It won't allow upgrades anyway cause your H81/B85 chipset is not worth using with a 4690k/4790k for example so you need a motherboard change anyway just as with the FX, am I wrong here?

 

 

Yes, because a b85 motherboard is perfectly capable of making the most out of something like a xeon 1231v3 - which singlehandedly beats pretty much any fx chip, with the exception (maybe) of the 9590 is certain tasks, and the 9590 doesn't really make any sense.

[Clyne]

Stock cooler is enough to overclock an FX-8320 to 4,2 gHz easily and any chipset 970 or better motherboard should allow this kind of OC.

haha nope

i needed to downvolt to get acceptable temps when i got the 4.0/4.1GHZ. 

[Morgan MLGman]

@Ramamataz
Well I paid equivalent to 185 US $ for an 8350 and a 970 chipset full atx motherboard with 8+2 VRM phase power, @4,5 ghz my CPU reaches 45-46 degrees after 30 minutes of AIDA64.
For this money I could've gotten an i3 and a crappy motherboard... Not even the top i3, a slightly worse one.

@Sauron
Well this seams reasonable. The i3 would bottleneck my GTX 970 in top games like The Witcher 3 as you see from the CPU usage in the video, doesn't seem reasonable to choose it for the same money though...
 

 

haha nope

i needed to downvolt to get acceptable temps when i got the 4.0/4.1GHZ. 

 

haha nope

i needed to downvolt to get acceptable temps when i got the 4.0/4.1GHZ. 

My buddy got his to 4,3 on stock cooling stable ^^

[Clyne]

Actually, yes they are... Just look around.

 

If you present @Dabobminable or @Majestic or @Faceman with any of these arguments you will be ignored, flamed, dismissed and attempted ridiculed. Just trying to say you can play a game on them makes the mentioned members froth.

 

And yes there is a lot of intel favorism here, not in the case of FX though, that is justified, but in other areas the intel fanboy army DOES go out of control with their rampant idiocy. (looking at you G3258 lovers)

FX is just fine to use, but their are other choices better for your money.

Sure if you bought a FX, then your mistake. 

FX is still good for encoding, file compression, heavy rendering for their price points.

Sure Xeon E3 1231 V3 will be better, but FX are still good for those tasks at their price point. But gaming isn't one of them. 

[Clyne]

@Ramamataz

Well I paid equivalent to 185 US $ for an 8350 and a 970 chipset full atx motherboard with 8+2 VRM phase power, @4,5 ghz my CPU reaches 45-46 degrees after 30 minutes of AIDA64.

For this money I could've gotten an i3 and a crappy motherboard... Not even the top i3, a slightly worse one.

@Sauron

Well this seams reasonable. The i3 would bottleneck my GTX 970 in top games like The Witcher 3 as you see from the CPU usage in the video, doesn't seem reasonable to choose it for the same money though...

 

 

 

My buddy got his to 4,3 on stock cooling stable ^^

Ambient temps, airflow, motherboard, and cooling are a factor when overclocking. 

[Nena Trinity]

ok, daddy is tired of you..so i'll grab the bull by the horn and ride you ok.

We DON'T say an overclocked FX chip can't play games decently, especially when talking about MODERN GPU DEMANDING GAMES such as witcher 3 or Battlefield's game for example...what we as an informed group think is that this dinausor of a chip^pull around 250W from the wall once overclocked to 4.5ghz like you did...and if you use 1920x1200 resolution with ultra details and 8xMSAA or 4xMSAA depending what is available yes you max out your GPU in such scenarios and i'm glad you do and it's all good for you...but what about THE OTHER GAMES?! you know...everything that was made prior to 2013 and that is a winny bit CPU intensive? or all those MMO's, RTS and RPG and other indie games the AMD FX really struggle to play? planetside 2? arma3? Dayz? hitman absolution? etc...what about those type of games that are CPU intensive as oposed to well optimised modern GPU intensive games?!

Also, you don't need an i5-4690K to beat an AMD FX in games...just an i5-4460 and a cheap board that support it...no need for aftermarket cooling or overclocking ready motherboard with this, it will pull 90W from the wall and output less than half the heat of an overclocked FX, it's also cheaper...here's the proof, after that HOW CAN YOU RECOMMEND THE OLD FX FOR A DEDICATED GAMING PC?!

Basic AMD FX OC ready kit vs basic locked i5:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($163.98 @ OutletPC)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.89 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.89 @ OutletPC)

Total: $263.76

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 15:42 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($176.88 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($59.88 @ OutletPC)

Total: $236.76

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 15:43 EDT-0400

I'm defying you to find A SINGLE GAMING BENCHMARK in which the AMD FX-8350 clearly outperform an i5-4460...GO AHEAD...you won't find one...but the opposite is VERY easy to do because JUST ABOUT ANY CORE I5 CPU from SANDY-BRIDGE and up CONSISTENTLY outperform the AMD FX-8350 in JUST ABOUT ANY GAMES OUT THERE.

THE AMD FX WHETER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION FOR GAMING ANYMORE, it still is because AMD can't provide anything better...but the i5 perform better, cost less, consume much less energy and output less heat while not requiring an expensive motherboard or aftermarket cooling and come on a modern platform with an upgrade path and modern features such as PCIe3.0 namely.

DONE.

PLEASE LOCK THREAD

Planetside 2 is playable on FX but the other 3 is a bit worse.

 

Edit: Also I seen people play Hitman on the Athlon X4 860K...

[Shakaza]

My buddy got his to 4,3 on stock cooling stable ^^

First of all, that's anecdotal evidence, which is not sufficient proof. When overclocking capability is almost solely determined by the silicon lottery, one person's CPU is not evidence enough.

 

Second, what temperatures did he get? AMD's temp. sensors are kind of faulty, so he may have unintentionally heated the CPU higher than its rated specifications.

[Sauron]

@Sauron

Well this seams reasonable. The i3 would bottleneck my GTX 970 in top games like The Witcher 3 as you see from the CPU usage in the video, doesn't seem reasonable to choose it for the same money though...

 

Depends on what you want. TW3 is one game, and while there are a few more that use multiple cores well, a lot of people will want to play games that don't. There are also extreme cases; for example, I used to play a LOT of starcraft 2 (now not nearly as much since I reached diamond) and that is a game that will pick two of your cores, hammer them to hell and ignore the others. In that case a pentium k would probably beat even my core i7, but an fx cpu would do terrible.

[Shakaza]

Well I paid equivalent to 185 US $ for an 8350 and a 970 chipset full atx motherboard with 8+2 VRM phase power, @4,5 ghz my CPU reaches 45-46 degrees after 30 minutes of AIDA64.

For this money I could've gotten an i3 and a crappy motherboard... Not even the top i3, a slightly worse one.

Yes, you got lucky by getting a good deal. That's fantastic, and is in no way the norm. Also, why didn't you factor in the cost of the CPU cooler in as well, since it had to have cost something sometime?

[Morgan MLGman]

First of all, that's anecdotal evidence, which is not sufficient proof. When overclocking capability is almost solely determined by the silicon lottery, one person's CPU is not evidence enough.

 

Second, what temperatures did he get? AMD's temp. sensors are kind of faulty, so he may have unintentionally heated the CPU higher than its rated specifications.

Meh why is that? If an FX-8350 is capable of maintaining 4.2 turbo boost speed with stock being 4.0 on a stock cooler then an fx-8320 is capable of doing the same

[Mew]

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($176.88 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($59.88 @ OutletPC)

Total: $236.76

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 15:43 EDT-0400

 

 

 

Should use this ^ build instead of this V.

 

For the same price you can get:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($140.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($58.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $199.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 16:00 EDT-0400

 

 

You're just cherry picking your arguments at this point. 

[SImoHayha]

Meh why is that? If an FX-8350 is capable of maintaining 4.2 turbo boost speed with stock being 4.0 on a stock cooler then an fx-8320 is capable of doing the same

Silicon Lottery every CPU overclock differently. For example my FX can overclock to 4.3 with the help of an aftermarket cooler and an additional fan. With an increase to the voltage to 1.26. Trying to go any higher then that will give me a blue screen of death. But I know someone that can get 4.5 Ghz with an aftermarket cooler with stock voltage. So mileage will vary from CPU to CPU.

[i_build_nanosuits]

@i_build_nanosuits

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($136.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($69.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $206.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-08-29 15:58 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

you know as well as i do that this cheap ass 4 phase asrock motherboard with not even VRM heatsinks can't sustain an overclocked 4 modules AMD FX chip and the stock cooler is complete garbage and will throttle the CPU under extensive load EVEN AT STOCK frequencies (i know, i tried this already, no way in hell you can overclock an FX-8320 to 4.5ghz on a cheap ass 4+1 asrock board with the stock heatsink...i had the Gigabyte 970A-UD3P which is a strong 8 phase board with an hyper 212 evo and EVEN that couldn't sustain 4.5ghz overclocks outside of gaming and i had a VERY good FX-8320...AMD bin them heavily these days and most of them FX-8320 can't even it 4.4ghz stable with even the best board and good cooling anyways)

Stop sticking to ''you can get an i3 for the price of an FX-8 and overclocking gear'' cause i proved you wrong the i5-4460 and i5-4590 are what compete with the FX-83XX and they flat-out beat it especially when gaming is concerned.

What you own is a premium AMD kit that cost more than the typical intel locked core i5 kit...your combo does just fine for modern GPU intensive games, but will bend to his knees as soon as you trow any CPU intensive AAA titles at it.

If you keep arguying this, you're a troll.

 

@i_build_nanosuits

Still, look at how these games run in the video (you probably didn't bother watching it).

Owned one, overclocked one, played MANY games on it (much more than you did actualy). conclusion: This CPU is fine with a mid-range GPU, avoid if you play ANY MMO's or RTS or just about any games that require any kind of CPU processing horsepower.

<Here a quick video for you WATCH IT it shoes how your CPU play dying light

[Shakaza]

Meh why is that? If an FX-8350 is capable of maintaining 4.2 turbo boost speed with stock being 4.0 on a stock cooler then an fx-8320 is capable of doing the same

Because the FX-8320 is lower-binned. If a CPU can't meet the expectations of a higher-end CPU, then it is put in the lower bracket. And by lower-binned, I mean that it can't reach the same clock speed as the FX-8350 at the same voltage. It means that it will probably need a higher voltage to reach the same clock speed. And besides, I don't really want to use the stock cooler for such a high-power CPU. Even if it provides sufficient cooling, it's going to be pretty hot and loud with little overclocking headroom, and not everyone has headphones to use. Even if you weren't overclocking, it'd overall be better to use an aftermarket CPU that will allow it to run cooler and actually have some overclocking capability.

[Morgan MLGman]

you know as well as i do that this cheap ass 4 phase asrock motherboard with not even VRM heatsinks can't sustain an overclocked 4 modules AMD FX chip and the stock cooler is complete garbage and will trottle the CPU under extensive load EVEN AT STOCK frequencies (i know, i tried this already, no way in hell you can overclock an FX-8320 to 4.5ghz on a cheap ass 4+1 asrock board with the stock heatsink...i had the Gigabyte 970A-UD3P which is a strong 8 phase board with an hyper 212 evo and EVEN that couldnt sustain 4.5ghz overclocks outside of gaming and i had a VERY good FX-8320...AMD bin them heavily these days and most of them can't even it 4.4ghz with even the best board and good cooling nowadays)

Then am I just lucky to get basically 4.5 gHz with adding only 0.05 V to the stock voltage? One "+" button press only to the voltage in BIOS.

[Shakaza]

Then am I just lucky to get basically 4.5 gHz with adding only 0.05 V to the stock voltage? One "+" button press only to the voltage in BIOS.

Yes, EXTREMELY lucky.

[Morgan MLGman]

Yes, EXTREMELY lucky.

CPU-Z reports 1.360 V.

[Shakaza]

CPU-Z reports 1.360 V. -snippity-

What is your point, exactly? What are you trying to demonstrate here?

[Morgan MLGman]

What is your point, exactly? What are you trying to demonstrate here?

Irrelevant, it just seems unlikely that I am able to manage good overclocks on a cheap-ass old motherboard from 2011-2012, my good buddy had 4.3ghz with  8320 on a stock cooler (it was loud but it was enough) for two years and everyone else couldn't and thrashes these cpus ;-;

[SImoHayha]

CPU-Z reports 1.360 V.W

WAtcha trying to prove mate lol?