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

[i_build_nanosuits]

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 you are, and you're lucky to own an expensive motherboard that won't have it's voltage regulation modules overheating even at stock voltages and frequencies...to get that you need AT LEAST the kit i,ve linked previously, anything cheaper WILL NOT have the results you've got from your kit...it's again also more expensive, more outdated with no upgrade paths and consume as much energy as an high end modern GPU under load once overclocked. i think you start to understand now...so what about an i5-4460 on a cheap B85 or H97 board sounds now? this outperform even the FX-9590 in 99.5% of the games out there out of the box, no need for overclocking, expensive motherboard, PSU, Fans, CPU heatsinks etc.

[Nena Trinity]

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.

 

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

That game is a horrible example when you cannot play it with a i7 and two R9 290Xs...

 

I saw a Youtuber try that and it did not end well at all so conclusion is that the game is terrible!

[i_build_nanosuits]

That game is a horrible example when you cannot play it with a i7 and two R9 290Xs...

here is DYING LIGHT running on MY MACHINE:

I show my SETTINGS at the beginning, you where saying?! 95FPS average...isnt that good enough? yeah ok ENOUGH NOW PLEASE MOD LOCK THREAD BEFORE IT GOES OUT OF HAND IM DRUNK AND I WILL NOT HESITATE TO LINK REPUTABLE SOURCE BENCHMARK'S FROM NOW ON!!!

[Nena Trinity]

here is DYING LIGHT running on MY MACHINE:

I show my SETTINGS at the beginning, you where saying?!

You have a Nvidia card...

Anything from AMD malfunction in that game!

[i_build_nanosuits]

You have a Nvidia card...

Anything from AMD malfunction in that game!

PREVIOUS video i shown was FX-8350 with GTX 970...you're clueless...the AMD FX CHIP in that case was the cullprit IT'S OBVIOUS NOW MOVE ON TROLL.

NOW, before you say it...i have an overclocked i7...yes, here is i5-4460 with GTX970:

60FPS is better than 40FPS in case you didn't know.

[Shakaza]

You have a Nvidia card...

Anything from AMD malfunction in that game!

Then there's no point in comparing processors in that game if you're using an AMD card, which isn't a problem since both the benchmarks @i_build_nanosuits posted used nVIDIA cards and clearly showed the difference between the two CPUs. It's a non-issue.

[Nena Trinity]

PREVIOUS video i shown was FX-8350 with GTX 970...you're clueless...the AMD FX CHIP in that case was the cullprit IT'S OBVIOUS NOW MOVE ON TROLL.

Reported for being a paid troll!

 

Then there's no point in comparing processors in that game if you're using an AMD card, which isn't a problem since both the benchmarks @i_build_nanosuits posted used nVIDIA cards and clearly showed the difference between the two CPUs. It's a non-issue.

No that game is anti-AMD it does not work with anything AMD have made...

 

PREVIOUS video i shown was FX-8350 with GTX 970...you're clueless...the AMD FX CHIP in that case was the cullprit IT'S OBVIOUS NOW MOVE ON TROLL.

NOW, before you say it...i have an overclocked i7...yes, here is i5-4460 with GTX970:

60FPS is better than 40FPS in case you didn't know.

Still uses Intel+Nvidia which the game was MADE FOR ON PURPOSE!

[i_build_nanosuits]

Then there's no point in comparing processors in that game if you're using an AMD card, which isn't a problem since both the benchmarks @i_build_nanosuits posted used nVIDIA cards and clearly showed the difference between the two CPUs. It's a non-issue.

Correct!

i would not blame AMD's poor DX11 driver support for this AMD FX dinausor underperforming chip, these are two completely different topics.

Reported for being a paid troll!

i guess that if that is your best argument now, i won!

[Nena Trinity]

Correct!

i would not blame AMD's poor DX11 driver support for this AMD FX dinausor underperforming chip, these are two completely different topics.

i guess that if that is your best argument now, i won!

No I won you insulted first haha!

[Morgan MLGman]

@i_build_nanosuits Wasn't a Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 always one of these cheaper motherboards?

Anyway, you mentioned that a FX chip would fail in an AAA cpu intensive title, how is that? I mean assuming that modern AAA titles use all 8 threads of this CPU, it's raw performance is relatively good, if a game was so CPU-intensive that an overclocked 8350 was not enough for it, how would a 4460 perform? It's weaker in terms of overall performance (multi-threaded) isn't it? For example I'd like to see the usage of the 4460 in TW3 in Novigrad in spots that even my FX was at about 95% at times

[Prysin]

Try parralellizing 1000 AI's on a field. Witcher 3 is a single player game, and lots of events are scripted enough to predict behaviour.

RTS, MMO games or less predictable games require IPC. Even in DX12, and this is where the FX series are just not well-equipped.

 

In the Ashes DX12 benchmark the 8370 lost to an i3, and that benchmark scaled well up to 6 cores.

funny thing is, nobody seems to care about Ashes being "alpha stage" for CPU side... but as soon as we discuss AMD vs Nvidia in DX 12 everyone and their mom just rages on about it being alpha...

 

Things can change in Ashes, even on CPU side....

 

That being said...

ever played GW2? I have... i had just as bad lags during 3 way clashes in SMC 100vs100vs100..... yeah, that is A LOT of players, seriously though... FX or my current i7, no matter which, the lags is realz no matter what...

I play with people who have OCd 4690ks or old phenoms... everyone suffers in that game...

WoW runs off just about anything, so no need to mention that....

Wildstar didnt seem to struggle on my FX when i tested it.

 

I wish i had tested Blade and Soul and some other Asian MMOs as they are often more densly populated...

 

Anyway... MMORPG on FX is quite doable. More often then not, its your internet connection/router that is to blame in MMORPGs... People never seem to realize that those two things matter... as if having 100MB/s up down fiber matters if your router is some cheap $25 shit....

[Shakaza]

No that game is anti-AMD it does not work with anything AMD have made...

Prove it. I have no reason to believe you unless you provide some concrete evidence, as in something in the code that stops AMD's CPUs and graphics cards from performing well.

[Nena Trinity]

Prove it. I have no reason to believe you unless you provide some concrete evidence, as in something in the code that stops AMD's CPUs and graphics cards from performing well.

Like you even could read that code... Also the game is filled with Nvidia tech and the game is only optimized to use X amount of cores...

[Shakaza]

Like you even could read that code... Also the game is filled with Nvidia tech and the game is only optimized to use X amount of cores...

Then why should anyone believe you? Why should you believe you? You are making connections where there aren't any. I don't know exactly why AMD GPUs perform badly in that game, but I do know why the CPUs do: they suck.

[Nena Trinity]

Then why should anyone believe you? Why should you believe you? You are making connections where there aren't any. I don't know exactly why AMD GPUs perform badly in that game, but I do know why the CPUs do: they suck.

The CPUs cannot use all the treads clearly and from the looks of it I guess it does not even use 6 and DX9 can use up to 6...

 

On the other side of things IF I had the game on Steam I could have tested it on Linux in OpenGL and probably gotten way better results!

[Morgan MLGman]

Then why should anyone believe you? Why should you believe you? You are making connections where there aren't any. I don't know exactly why AMD GPUs perform badly in that game, but I do know why the CPUs do: they suck.

GPUS: It technically might be cause Nvidia works with a wider variety of game developers and generally their DX11 drivers are better than AMDs

CPUs: They don't suck, here's an example: if you have this 200$ budget and want to render videos whatever that's very heavy on the CPU and the more cores the better, the FX would be the way to go. They might have different uses, however in games (as proven my video) they do quite well besides some MMOs and older games

Not justifying what Nena said, I'm just saying what could be the reason.

[Shakaza]

The CPUs cannot use all the treads clearly and from the looks of it I guess it does not even use 6 and DX9 can use up to 6...

 

On the other side of things IF I had the game on Steam I could have tested it on Linux in OpenGL and probably gotten way better results!

The problem with FX CPUs usually is that they cannot make enough draw calls on a single thread, and DX11 allows only one CPU thread to give draw calls to a graphics card or cards at a time. That's where the bottleneck is, and it doesn't matter if the rest of the CPU is being used or not because the lack of ability to give sufficient draw calls causes low framerates and stuttering.

[Prysin]

The problem with FX CPUs usually is that they cannot make enough draw calls on a single thread, and DX11 allows only one CPU thread to give draw calls to a graphics card or cards at a time. That's where the bottleneck is, and it doesn't matter if the rest of the CPU is being used or not because the lack of ability to give sufficient draw calls causes low framerates and stuttering.

that and their threads are fucked up... They got different performance depending on which thread you choose... in the case of my FX 8320, some threads would score much higher in Cinebench then the others, for no bloody reason at all.

[Shakaza]

CPUs: They don't suck, here's an example: if you have this 200$ budget and want to render videos whatever that's very heavy on the CPU and the more cores the better, the FX would be the way to go. They might have different uses, however in games (as proven my video) they do quite well besides some MMOs and older games

Sorry, the CPUs suck in gaming. And while they might perform sufficiently in many games, you can get a superior i5 for the money that will allow the user to get a better experience. Why would you settle for anything less for the best if the second-best option costs the same or more?

 

Oh, and I'm pretty much done here. I'm tired of arguing about this.

[Dabombinable]

So as the topic name states, is the AMD FX-8350 CPU enough for gaming?

I have found many people on this forum bashing AMD CPUs very hard, some of them recommend buying i3's instead since within the price of a FX-8320 you can get an i3-4430 according to pcpartpicker.com.

Why is that? Are AMD's really that bad? Many people suggesting that clearly had no idea of how these CPUs perform in real life, so in order to try to convince them that they're not that bad in games I put screenshots of several games with the same hardware monitor using Afterburner.

There are places in these games when my FX-8350 overclocked to 4,5gHz reached over 90% of usage, considering it's raw performance is on par with i5-4690k imagine how it would run on an i3-4430.

I'm not saying that the FX-8320/50 are the best choices for everyone, I'm just trying to show that these CPUs are definitely a choice for the money not only for video rendering etc etc but also for everyday usage. I agree that i5-4690k for example is a better CPU, no doubt.

They claimed screenshots are not reliable. I agreed, decided to make a gameplay video especially for them, featuring several games to be as reliable as possible.

For example in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt I picked the most CPU intensive location there is in this entire game. Novigrad.

Note: This is my first video, I'm a complete noob in terms of video editing, but that's not important, the content is what's important here. Also don't even look at my shitty skill in these games, it's irrelevant.

In the GPU row in hardware monitor there's: Temperature, GPU Load, Fan Speed, and core clock, below GPU memory frequency and VRAM usage.

Also, my resolution is 1920x1200, it's around 10% more vertical screen space and 11% more pixels than in standard 1920x1080.

I overclocked my GTX970 only slightly to get better performance but not too far to make the results as reliable as possible.

Software used: For FPS & hardware counter - MSI Afterburner. For recording of the video, Nvidia ShadowPlay.

The recording itself could take a few frames per second, but it doesn't matter.

Specs:

Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster T240HD 1920x1200p

CPU: AMD FX-8350 @4,5gHz 1.360V

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3

RAM: 2x 8GB HyperX Fury DDR3 1866mHz CL10

GPU: MSI GTX 970 4GB Gaming 100 ME Limited Edition @1410mHz core clock

SSD: Samsung 850EVO 120GB

HDDs: 2x Western Digital Blue 1TB 7200RPM

CPU Cooler: SilentiumPC Grandis XE1236v2

PSU: Chieftec CFT-600-14CS 600W

Case: Zalman GS1000 Full Tower Case

OS: Windows 10 Professional 64 bit

Games tested in order of testing:

- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

- Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

- Assassins' Creed: Unity

- Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

- Call of Duty: Ghosts

- Tomb Raider

- Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2

Tell me what do you guys think, give me your opinions about both the performance of this CPU and about how reliable is my video, perhaps I can improve something to make the result more valid as possible.

There are a few stutters of video in here, but they're due to me editing, compressing and uploading the video poorly and in crappy software (Windows Movie Maker and Handbrake), as I mentioned I'm not familiar with this stuff so be considerate.

The stutters are not there in the original video, for those who doubt it I can try to upload it for download, but it's around 500-600mb and my internet is crap (less than 1mbit/s up)

but it is possible if really necessary.

P.S. I apologize if there are many grammar/spelling mistakes in my post, I'm from Poland, not a native speaker.

@ I promised to make a video so I can prove to you how the performance really is, hope you see it's not as bad as you thought it would be =)

I can't actually see the GPU usage as part of the top of the video appears to be cut off.

[Morgan MLGman]

Sorry, the CPUs suck in gaming. And while they might perform sufficiently in many games, you can get a superior i5 for the money that will allow the user to get a better experience. Why would you settle for anything less for the best if the second-best option costs the same or more?

Well it all depends what you're using it for, in terms of gaming only, I play two types of games: Either AAA titles like The Witcher 3, the (upcoming) CoD Black Ops 3 (got the beta as shown in the vid) etc etc.

OR League of Legends & CS:GO, FX performs great in these, got no issues whatsoever and when paired with my GTX 970 it's awesome.

Also I'm about to move to my another apartment where my internet connection is several times better than my current one, going to stream these games there as well, that is why I picked the FX. That and the price I got it for along with the mobo. Couldn't get anything better for my needs, an i3 would fail at streaming the witcher 3, you know that

[Morgan MLGman]

I can't actually see the GPU usage as part of the top of the video appears to be cut off.

I'm sorry I'm bad at this stuff, if you look closely it's at 98-99% all the time though. make it fullscreen and you should be able to see it. The WItcher 3 part is the worst in that scenario, just skip it, everyone knows that TW3 runs relatively good on FX chips.

I need to improve my skills in video editing if I want to do a split screen with my flatmate's 4690k comparison ;-;

[Shakaza]

that and their threads are fucked up... They got different performance depending on which thread you choose... in the case of my FX 8320, some threads would score much higher in Cinebench then the others, for no bloody reason at all.

I REALLY want to see that for myself, honestly. I don't understand how that's possible. How big is the difference? Is it bigger than the margin of error?

[Dabombinable]

I'm sorry I'm bad at this stuff, if you look closely it's at 98-99% all the time though. make it fullscreen and you should be able to see it. The WItcher 3 part is the worst in that scenario, just skip it, everyone knows that TW3 runs relatively good on FX chips.

I need to improve my skills in video editing if I want to do a split screen with my flatmate's 4690k comparison ;-;

I viewed it at full screen-and its very hard to read.

[Morgan MLGman]

I viewed it at full screen-and its very hard to read.

Well even if you see just part of the number it's relatively easy to see 99 and 98%, anyway TW3 and Black Ops 3 Beta are the worst, the rest of the games seems easier to read.

TW3 runs just fine on it and as you could see around average 100 FPS with maxed out settings in black ops 3 the CPU isn't an issue as well

I promise I'll try to do better with the next video coming in the future though