Is it time to stop discouraging use of the FX-8350?

[Sauron]

I'm not forgetting the i5 smashes the FX-8350 in older games. But you can't tell me it's not interesting to see basically every new release looking great on the FX-8350.

 

It's simply expected that new releases would use more cores. Tell me, do you see a skylake cpu in those graphs? Or any overclocked cpu from intel? because both would beat the 8350. Just look at where the 9590 sits at 5ghz

[Majestic]

 

See the 8350 lacking in all tests.

 

 

Games are well threaded now, I almost always see workloads split well across the 8 threads of my E3-1231 when I turn on the RTSS display in newer games. A 5960x has 8 independent cores and has an enormous amount of L3 cache.

 

Not that well threaded. And your 4C/8T are much easier to saturate than 8C/16T.

[Sauron]

I think it has been worth it the whole time, and this just adds on to that. Glad to see that more people are seeing that more cores is becoming a giant advantage.

 

... a "giant" advantage? Something tells me we're not looking at the same charts... because in the ones I'm looking at, quad core i7s from 4 years ago destroy it.

[Gas_Mask_]

... a "giant" advantage? Something tells me we're not looking at the same charts... because in the ones I'm looking at, quad core i7s from 4 years ago destroy it.

BECOMING. It isn't right now, but when games fully take advantage I think we will really see big improvement on AMD cpus.

[Majestic]

You know what it IS time for though? Stop re-opening this discussion.

 

And those talking about 8350 becoming more relevant in the future, and think DX12 will save it.

See the pcperlink above. i3 beats it in ashes heavy test.

 

You can rationalize all you want, show me benchmarks of it trading blows in it's best-case scenario's. That still doesn't remotely make it an interesting option. It's old, uses lots of power and has a poor line-up of motherboards. It also does really poorly in single-threaded games and has no real future in DX12.

 

EDIT: upgrading from a 6300 to a 8350 also makes little sense since games don't scale that well from 6 to 8 cores. Making the 6300 usually score similar to the 8350, or close to. And most 6300 budgetbuilds have boards that don't support the 8350 in terms of thermals.

 

Done /thread.

[TechGod]

No. Only encourage Zen.

 

#ZenHypeTrain

[SteveGrabowski0]

It's simply expected that new releases would use more cores. Tell me, do you see a skylake cpu in those graphs? Or any overclocked cpu from intel? because both would beat the 8350. Just look at where the 9590 sits at 5ghz

 

It's not expected by everyone, I can't count how many times I see people here say the i7 is a complete waste. I wish they would do overclocked cpus (they only use oc cpus for the gpu benchmarks). I'm not trying to say the FX-8350 is better than a 4690k. But I always see people here telling others to throw away their 8350 for an i5 or to not upgrade their 6300 to an 8350 and to go out and buy an i5+board. These results make it look like the FX-8350 can be a viable alternative to a locked i5.

[Majestic]

These results make it look like the FX-8350 can be a viable alternative to a locked i5.

 

Which you take at face value because they support your argument. That's confirmation bias.

Those results make no sense, evident by the 5960X scoring massive leads where it simply can't.

[ForsakenLive]

Why would we encourage it?

People look for value, which means components that perform well and are cheap.

 

A FX 8350 gets good value when OC'd. On the AM3+ platform, there are lots of cheap motherboards that aren't even safe to OC with (my 760G chipset Asus board did bite the dust due to no VRM cooling at all). So you are looking at a $70+ board to be able to fully take advantage of the CPU (which is what many decent chipset 970 board go for).

Right at this point, you are looking at $160-170 CPU, and a $70 board. So even with a combo deal the price is between $220-240.

This is without looking at cooling options at all, where at least $20 more should be added, which leads to a $240-260+ final price.

 

A i5 4460 performs better than the FX CPU across most tasks, games and applications, even if it's OC'd. Paired with a H97 board (you can even go H81 if it's an updated revision or you have a way to update it yourself, thus shaving around $20 off). Combos usually go for $230.

 

In conclusion, you could go for the older FX eight core, that if you manage to get a decent OC on (remember you might need even a beefier, more expensive cooler), and get in some certain workloads a better performance. But for most workloads (specially games) the i5 4460 performs better, even after OC on the FX chip. The Intel CPU also uses less power and it's much easier to keep on safe temperatures, the platform is more modern and has more features.

[SteveGrabowski0]

 

 

See the 8350 lacking in all tests.

 

You're going to shoot down my point about new games by showing older games?

[SteveGrabowski0]

Not that well threaded. And your 4C/8T are much easier to saturate than 8C/16T.

 

Because you say so? GameGPU.ru was the source that prompted Digital Foundry to expose the huge DX11 overhead in AMD GPUs and how they performed badly in cpu bound situations in comparison to Nvidia, so there is at least one time they have been shown to be a very credible source.

[Majestic]

You're going to shoot down my point about new games by showing older games?

 

Those are not old games, and you use The Witcher yourself..

 

 

Because you say so? 

 

Yes, because it doesn't make any sense.

[Godlygamer23]

You're going to shoot down my point about new games by showing older games?

GTA V is not that old. It takes advantage of multiple CPU cores as well.

[SteveGrabowski0]

You know what it IS time for though? Stop re-opening this discussion.

 

And those talking about 8350 becoming more relevant in the future, and think DX12 will save it.

See the pcperlink above. i3 beats it in ashes heavy test.

 

You can rationalize all you want, show me benchmarks of it trading blows in it's best-case scenario's. That still doesn't remotely make it an interesting option. It's old, uses lots of power and has a poor line-up of motherboards. It also does really poorly in single-threaded games and has no real future in DX12.

 

EDIT: upgrading from a 6300 to a 8350 also makes little sense since games don't scale that well from 6 to 8 cores. Making the 6300 usually score similar to the 8350, or close to. And most 6300 budgetbuilds have boards that don't support the 8350 in terms of thermals.

 

Done /thread.

 

It's time to stop reopening this discussion because you're an expert who says an i7-5960x can't beat an i7-4770k just because?

[Majestic]

It's time to stop reopening this discussion because you're an expert who says an i7-5960x can't beat an i7-4770k just because?

 

No I specified which scenario; games. Since they're known for scaling poorly past 4 threads, 6 at best. How is a 3ghz 8C/16T going to beat a 4.2ghz 4C/8T with only 4-6 threads being used? It can't.

 

Multithreaded software the 5960X throws down hard.

[SteveGrabowski0]

 

Those are not old games, and you use The Witcher yourself..

 

 

 

Yes, because it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

I used new DLC for the Witcher 3. And who are you to decide what makes sense? I'll trust benchmarks of a reputable site over your arguing like it's a religious conviction.

[TheCaptain53]

I don't think it's a reason to consider an FX-8350 as opposed to an i5, because it is a poor choice, but more rather than people who already own that chip will be able to use it in a wide variety of applications more effectively. I still wouldn't recommend the FX-8350 because it is an ancient architecture.

The benchmarks you've linked is all the more reason to opt for an i7-4790/6700K or even the i7-5820K, if heavy multi-threaded support becomes commonplace in video games, then those CPUs will really be able to stretch their legs.

Maybe the death of the i5? I'm not sure.

[Dabombinable]

I used new DLC for the Witcher 3. And who are you to decide what makes sense? I'll trust benchmarks of a reputable site over your arguing like it's a religious conviction.

Lol, becnhmarks you chose because they support your statements, not just all of the other benchmarks that say otherwise.

[Majestic]

I used new DLC for the Witcher 3. And who are you to decide what makes sense? I'll trust benchmarks of a reputable site over your arguing like it's a religious conviction.

 

It's not disingenuous rambling, it's common sense. You need reputable sites to tell you a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole?

[SteveGrabowski0]

Lol, becnhmarks you chose because they support your statements, not just all of the other benchmarks that say otherwise.

 

No, benchmarks I chose because they were new games.

[SteveGrabowski0]

It's not disingenuous rambling, it's common sense. You need reputable sites to tell you a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole?

 

Your alleged common sense is bullshit if it's being refuted by actual stats.

[Godlygamer23]

Please quit the pointless arguing.

[FellTheSky]

the reason why i dont recommend it to anyone is simple.

How often do you buy a cpu ? probably once every 3  or 4 years.... there are people still rocking on the i7 920. So yeah, the i5 cost more than the 8350, but you get your moneys worth over its life span.

And what you get, its the certainty that every single game you play is not going to be bottlenecked by the CPU. Wanna play arma 3? go ahead, old MMO's? They run best on intel, F2P games? mostly single threaded.

Unless you play only a handful of games, then the AMD cpu's are ok (like some of my friends that only play CSGO and dota/league)

[SteveGrabowski0]

I don't think it's a reason to consider an FX-8350 as opposed to an i5, because it is a poor choice, but more rather than people who already own that chip will be able to use it in a wide variety of applications more effectively. I still wouldn't recommend the FX-8350 because it is an ancient architecture.

The benchmarks you've linked is all the more reason to opt for an i7-4790/6700K or even the i7-5820K, if heavy multi-threaded support becomes commonplace in video games, then those CPUs will really be able to stretch their legs.

Maybe the death of the i5? I'm not sure.

 

I do think these results show an FX-8350 could be reasonable in budget builds if this very recent trend continues. It's funny how often people recommend against i7s and enthusiast cpus like the 5820k here as if all debate should start and end at the 4460/4690k for gaming.

[Dabombinable]

No, benchmarks I chose because they were new games.

Go look at other websites that also use new games.