8350 more 'futureproof' than 4670k ?

[MadManMarsBar]

Hi guys , im just looking for some opinions about the 8350 , i know alot of people wall say get the 4670k for gaming but what about when Game DEVS start using more cores for games ?

[Xelithium]

It might perform equal or a little better if they truly utilize the CPU to it's maximum potential.

[Emperor_Piehead]

The only thing that would make it future proof would be the use of AM3 which has been used forever by Amd.

[ExDreamer]

If multicore support is the future,then it would be 8350 but if single threaded performance still important in gaming ,then 4670k

[Xelithium]

If multicore support is the future,then it would be 8350 but if single threaded performance still important in gaming ,then 4670k

Any less than 8 cores, even 6 cores. Then the 4670k will wipe the floor with it.

 

With correct optimizations the FX 8350 can be very powerful. But the best way to go today is 4670k. Better feature sets on the motherboards are another reason to go Intel.

[Overl0rd]

Hi guys , im just looking for some opinions about the 8350 , i know alot of people wall say get the 4670k for gaming but what about when Game DEVS start using more cores for games ?

I'd still go for the 4670K.

[MadManMarsBar]

I'd still go for the 4670K.

im gonna go with the 8350 anyway , i do more editing/rendering videos than i do gaming i just wanted to see what people thought :P

[Guest GRRigger]

yep, perfectly awesome for future. it wont bottleneck, and most games will use more than 4 cores if available. definitly goes for console ports. and i am sure there will be wayyy more ports, cus its so easy now.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-alpha-gpu-and-cpu-benchmarks/

[TechFan@ic]

Here is my answer : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/44647-4670k-vs-amd-fx-8350/page-3#entry588178

I would recommend neither personally, I'd say get an FX 8320 & put what you saved into a more powerful graphics cards.
An 8320 can be overclocked very easily beyond 4.5Ghz from its stock clock of 3.5Ghz, but it's $40 less expensive than the 8350 and significantly less expensive ($80) than a 4670K.
Having 8 cores has benefits in streaming gameplay, video encoding, rendering, editing & file compression.
This also means that you will benefit the most from any optimizations for the next-gen console engines, platforms and games, this is not up for debate game developers have consistently been saying this over the past three to six months and I believe that I have been following and covering this topic in-depth and more frequently than anyone else on the forum.
My coverage: #1 #2 #3

Even without these console optimizations kicking in yet, there are games that are already showing better support for the AMD 8 cores CPUs, games like Crysis 3 & Far Cry 3 .

 

 

[IzzuddinFX]

im gonna go with the 8350 anyway , i do more editing/rendering videos than i do gaming i just wanted to see what people thought :P

I agree with you, the Piledriver architecture is design to perform well in super heavy multi-tasking. IMO, why would you buy more expensive processor while the 8350 is faster.

[Bingbing10]

I'm still stuck in this same decision I've been stuck like it for about 4 months ( but I'm waiting for new amd gpu anyway )

[KneesWeak]

maybe

[sabot]

More cores could be useful, but I think cpu's will improve and both will be more work to use than upgrade.

[Humbug]

The only worry with the fx-8350/8320 is the big question mark regarding future upgrade path on AM3+. Then again buying a new motherboard in 3 years may not be a big deal to you.

[Cryptonite]

Hi guys , im just looking for some opinions about the 8350 , i know alot of people wall say get the 4670k for gaming but what about when Game DEVS start using more cores for games ?

To be honest, if I had to upgrade today because my rig fried or something, I'd go with the 8320 it's essentially the same CPU as the 8350, just at a lower clock speed and it still manages around 4.5 GHz + when overclocking it. The price difference is something amazing compared to the performance difference. it's exactly as TechFan@ic said.

 

And trust me, I love performance more than a manufacturer since like I always say, I'm cheap and therefore try to get the best performing machines for the lowest cost possible whenever I can.

 

Here is my answer : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/44647-4670k-vs-amd-fx-8350/page-3#entry588178

I would recommend neither personally, I'd say get an FX 8320 & put what you saved into a more powerful graphics cards.

An 8320 can be overclocked very easily beyond 4.5Ghz from its stock clock of 3.5Ghz, but it's $40 less expensive than the 8350 and significantly less expensive ($80) than a 4670K.

Having 8 cores has benefits in streaming gameplay, video encoding, rendering, editing & file compression.

This also means that you will benefit the most from any optimizations for the next-gen console engines, platforms and games, this is not up for debate game developers have consistently been saying this over the past three to six months and I believe that I have been following and covering this topic in-depth and more frequently than anyone else on the forum.

My coverage: #1 #2 #3

Even without these console optimizations kicking in yet, there are games that are already showing better support for the AMD 8 cores CPUs, games like Crysis 3 & Far Cry 3 .

 

 

[MsTrMind]

Depends on what you are doing.

Since games are still heavily GPU based, having 8 cores won't give you an extra benefit...

The 4670k gives you a bunch more single core performance.

 

It is not because consoles are comming that every game will be optimized for 8 cores... The cpu's from a console are maybe about 90% less powerfull then the cpu from a pc...

[Kuzma]

Any less than 8 cores, even 6 cores. Then the 4670k will wipe the floor with it.

 

With correct optimizations the FX 8350 can be very powerful. But the best way to go today is 4670k. Better feature sets on the motherboards are another reason to go Intel.

Depends on what you are doing.

Since games are still heavily GPU based, having 8 cores won't give you an extra benefit...

The 4670k gives you a bunch more single core performance.

 

It is not because consoles are comming that every game will be optimized for 8 cores... The cpu's from a console are maybe about 90% less powerfull then the cpu from a pc...

>_> @MsTrMind Please read my thread (in my signature) about console optimsations & @Xelethium the 8350 will wipe the floor with the 4670k in a multi-threaded application :/ 

[MsTrMind]

>_> @MsTrMind Please read my thread (in my signature) about console optimsations & @Xelethium the 8350 will wipe the floor with the 4670k in a multi-threaded application :/ 

I have actually read it, but as you said it is based on false information. Having 8 cores won't make any difference in the next 2-3 years. 

And even if it does become a huge thing, what do you expect? 8 cores vs 4 cores, and the 8 cores having double the fps in games? How long do you think it takes to write a COMPLETELY NEW multithreaded game engine?

 

Since you are a programmer yourself, you know how difficult it is to create a good and rock stable multithreaded piece of software. But I seriously doubt if you ever have written something like this. Even my teacher of "Multimedia and Game Development" doesn't really believe in heavily threadded games, just because of the power that a desktop-cpu houses. 

[Kuzma]

I have actually read it, but as you said it is based on false information. Having 8 cores won't make any difference in the next 2-3 years. 

And even if it does become a huge thing, what do you expect? 8 cores vs 4 cores, and the 8 cores having double the fps in games? How long do you think it takes to write a COMPLETELY NEW multithreaded game engine?

 

Since you are a programmer yourself, you know how difficult it is to create a good and rock stable multithreaded piece of software. But I seriously doubt if you ever have written something like this. Even my teacher of "Multimedia and Game Development" doesn't really believe in heavily threadded games, just because of the power that a desktop-cpu houses. 

I personally don't think engines should need to be heavily threaded but because of hardware limitations they have no choice but to make the games heavily threaded unless they don't want their games to run well; and no one is going to buy a game that doesn't run well.

 

CPUs don't make that much of a difference to gaming anyway; just the 8350 IS more future proof than the 4670k because things are only going to get more and more threaded over time as we get more cores and I'm willing to bet a large portion of programmers still don't see the point in multi-threading applications until it's needed but personally I'd rather spend 4 times as long multi-threading everything and knowing it's optimised to run on all hardware and will most likely still do so into the future then know I'll have to be bringing out nightly builds optimising it a little more each time.

[Frix]

im gonna go with the 8350 anyway , i do more editing/rendering videos than i do gaming i just wanted to see what people thought :P

8350 is best for editing and rendering, good choice.

[MsTrMind]

I personally don't think engines should need to be heavily threaded but because of hardware limitations they have no choice but to make the games heavily threaded unless they don't want their games to run well; and no one is going to buy a game that doesn't run well.

 

CPUs don't make that much of a difference to gaming anyway; just the 8350 IS more future proof than the 4670k because things are only going to get more and more threaded over time as we get more cores and I'm willing to bet a large portion of programmers still don't see the point in multi-threading applications until it's needed but personally I'd rather spend 4 times as long multi-threading everything and knowing it's optimised to run on all hardware and will most likely still do so into the future then know I'll have to be bringing out nightly builds optimising it a little more each time.

You are getting waaaay of topic. The TS asked if the 4670k vs the fx8350 would make a big difference in gaming, with the new consoles comming.

The short answer is: *dramatic sound* No. *end dramatic sound*

There will be a difference in gaming, but in 99% of the other application, the single thread performance of a decent Intel CPU will wipe the floor with the 8350.

 

My opinion on the fx8350 (I spend a LONG time deciding on buying this one, or the 4670k), if you can really benefit from the multiple cores, so you are doing stuff like rendering and editing, running virtual machines, ... you should get this one. Else you should get a 4670, or if you are in to overclocking a 4670k.

 

Note: If you are getting the 8350, you should think about this:

get a GOOD aftermarket cooler, the 8350 is even at stock speeds not being cooled enough by the stock cooler. If you want to overclock a little, get a 240 rad all in one liquidcooler.

get a good motherboard, not like the el-cheapo's, 990fx with decent VRM's.

 

You should not choose for the 8350 because of the 'lower' price point of the chip.

[Xelithium]

>_> @MsTrMind Please read my thread (in my signature) about console optimsations & @Xelethium the 8350 will wipe the floor with the 4670k in a multi-threaded application :/ 

If ALL the cores are being used it will be slightly better. That's the problem with the CPU. If less than 8 cores are being used it's pretty bad. In heavy multi-threaded applications it barely beats the 4670k.

 

Here is my answer : http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/44647-4670k-vs-amd-fx-8350/page-3#entry588178

I would recommend neither personally, I'd say get an FX 8320 & put what you saved into a more powerful graphics cards.

An 8320 can be overclocked very easily beyond 4.5Ghz from its stock clock of 3.5Ghz, but it's $40 less expensive than the 8350 and significantly less expensive ($80) than a 4670K.

Having 8 cores has benefits in streaming gameplay, video encoding, rendering, editing & file compression.

This also means that you will benefit the most from any optimizations for the next-gen console engines, platforms and games, this is not up for debate game developers have consistently been saying this over the past three to six months and I believe that I have been following and covering this topic in-depth and more frequently than anyone else on the forum.

My coverage: #1 #2 #3

Even without these console optimizations kicking in yet, there are games that are already showing better support for the AMD 8 cores CPUs, games like Crysis 3 & Far Cry 3 .

 

 

Why is a 3570k AT STOCK beating the 8350 at 4.7Ghz?

[TechFan@ic]

If ALL the cores are being used it will be slightly better. That's the problem with the CPU. If less than 8 cores are being used it's pretty bad. In heavy multi-threaded applications it barely beats the 4670k.

 

Why is a 3570k AT STOCK beating the 8350 at 4.7Ghz?

It depends on the level of vegetation, in higher vegetation environments the 8350 is faster, in-doors the 3570K is faster.

That's because vegetation in the game is multi-threaded.

This was covered by pcgameshardware.de

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

[Xelithium]

It depends on the level of vegetation, in higher vegetation environments the 8350 is faster, in-doors the 3570K is faster.

That's because vegetation in the game is multi-threaded.

This was covered by pcgameshardware.de

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

Are you kidding me? 720p benchmark?

 

Really? Who the hell plays @ 720p.

[Kuzma]

If ALL the cores are being used it will be slightly better. That's the problem with the CPU. If less than 8 cores are being used it's pretty bad. In heavy multi-threaded applications it barely beats the 4670k.

 

Why is a 3570k AT STOCK beating the 8350 at 4.7Ghz?

 

._. barely? Please refer to this:

 

That's your barely? okay ^_^ I'd like to see your destroys.

 

 

You are getting waaaay of topic. The TS asked if the 4670k vs the fx8350 would make a big difference in gaming, with the new consoles comming.

The short answer is: *dramatic sound* No. *end dramatic sound*

There will be a difference in gaming, but in 99% of the other application, the single thread performance of a decent Intel CPU will wipe the floor with the 8350.

 

My opinion on the fx8350 (I spend a LONG time deciding on buying this one, or the 4670k), if you can really benefit from the multiple cores, so you are doing stuff like rendering and editing, running virtual machines, ... you should get this one. Else you should get a 4670, or if you are in to overclocking a 4670k.

 

Note: If you are getting the 8350, you should think about this:

get a GOOD aftermarket cooler, the 8350 is even at stock speeds not being cooled enough by the stock cooler. If you want to overclock a little, get a 240 rad all in one liquidcooler.

get a good motherboard, not like the el-cheapo's, 990fx with decent VRM's.

 

You should not choose for the 8350 because of the 'lower' price point of the chip.

Refer to the title; futureproof notice how the OP set the title of the thread to "8350 more futureproof than the 4670k" . The stock cooler is fine O.o it's better than what Intel's stock cooler is like. 8 cores will be more futureproof than 4 always... just because we're going to end up reaching the quantum effect with transistors doing nothing but getting smaller and we'll either put in more cores to allow more power because we always need more processing power or we'll have to find something else; until that something else is found I'm a firm believer that we're going to end up with more threads and more threaded applications.