FX 8350 vs i5 4690K

[boboman342]

The minimum fps is what really puts cpu's like yours behind. Maybe wait for zen or w/e and buy a gsync/freesync monitor in the mean time? It seems as if you are satisfied with your cpu for now.

[Ophidio]

 

Gaming on FX Processors

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA, GTA V, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally and sometimes lower priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable* unless you are fine with massive, recurring, constant, and noticeable FPS drops when the action starts. 

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid etc..

 

And of course there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel because the games just run on anything.  Tomb Raider, Bioshock, CoD:Ghosts, and many more.

 

For the a lot of games, the FX will be sufficient.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money?  Why play 4 out of 5 games  at an acceptable level, when you could play 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths while paying the same amount of money.

 

Minimum FPS is the most important FPS measurement.  Bad minimums mean less fluidity in gameplay.  Sometimes I see FX owners saying, "I hit 60fps just fine".  While you might be capable of hitting 60fps on FX, the minimums are going to be lower, and that results in a noticeable detachment from immersion which is what constant 60+fps feels like.  An Intel processor is often the difference between a fluid experience and a stuttery one.  With Intel, your minimums are much higher, meaning a more fluid and immersive game play experience. 

 

*Everyone has a different definition of what unplayable is, so don't over analyze and exaggerate my wording.  What is unplayable to me, might not be unplayable to you, but what we can all agree on is that no one likes FPS drops that makes your game hitch, stutter, or freeze, and you shouldn't be ok with those side effects because an Intel processor won't give you those unwanted side effects nearly as often as you get them with FX processors.

 

No where in there does it say anything about an i3 beating an 8350. An i3 could beat a FX 4300 and a 6300 but the games where Intel really shines are games that I don't play. With your logic an i3 nearly beats a 4690k which on average gets 10fps higher than my 8350. Besides, nothing you are saying is useful. You're just trying to prove a point that Intel is better than AMD which I agree it is. But 10fps is not worth $350 which was the initial question so please stop with your useless banter unless you actually feel like providing information that proves that $350 is worth upgrading all around from my current system. 

[Zach TOm]

No where in there does it say anything about an i3 beating an 8350. An i3 could beat a FX 4300 and a 6300 but the games where Intel really shines are games that I don't play. With your logic an i3 nearly beats a 4690k which on average gets 10fps higher than my 8350. Besides, nothing you are saying is useful. You're just trying to prove a point that Intel is better than AMD which I agree it is. But 10fps is not worth $350 which was the initial question so please stop with your useless banter unless you actually feel like providing information that proves that $350 is worth upgrading all around from my current system. 

FX Vs. i3 

 

You will see below that even the Intel i3 which costs considerably less, is outperforming the FX6/8/9s in many games, and the locked i5, which costs the same, is running away with it.  There have also been a lot of new, modern, multi-threaded games that take advantage of all threads available, but are still performing poorly on the FX platform because of the poor per-core performance. 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.pcper.com...You-Really-Need

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://www.techspot....-cpu/page6.html

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

https://translate.go...v-test-gpu.html

https://translate.go...l/art57842.html

http://benchmarkrevi...ance-review/14/

http://cpu.userbench...320E/2877vs2985

 

 

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"When AMD first released CPUs for their AM3+ platform we at OC3D were not overly impressed, behind the hype of AMD's "Bulldozer" architecture was some very power hungry, hot running and under-performing CPUs. When AMD's second generation of FX CPUs, Piledriver, was released AMD had lessened a lot of these issues, but many of those flaws still remained."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"My benchmarks show that the Core i3-4360 is faster than the FX-8320E in virtually every test on a per-core basis, you’re probably never going to see this differential unless you spend quite a lot of time in benchmark-land. Benchmark-land is fun, kind of like taking your car to the drag strip to see what it will do. But, like your quarter-mile time, it often doesn’t have that much correlation with real-world performance."

 

"In the end, AMD's FX-8320E is an affordable quad-core processor that overclocks decently, but even if you pushed it to 5GHz it would struggle to match the slightly pricier Core i5-4430 and even the Core i3-4360 at times. Then after you take the power consumption figures into account, arguments for the FX-8320E begin to seem rather indefensible."

 

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

There you go, check the links

[Ophidio]

The minimum fps is what really puts cpu's like yours behind. Maybe wait for zen or w/e and buy a gsync/freesync monitor in the mean time? It seems as if you are satisfied with your cpu for now.

Yeah I understand the whole minimum thing, but then again I'm not the kind of gamer that has to play everything maxed out you know? I adjust my settings to get the best gaming experience I can with the hardware I have so that when I play I never have large dips. Yeah it'd be nice to play at a little higher settings but the main question "is $350 worth it to upgrade" hasn't been proven. Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it and I will definitely be upgrading around the time Zen is released but I'm definitely getting a 970 and the monitor upgrade is probably the way I will go as well since I've been wanting a bigger better monitor for a while as while. Thank you.

[Demonking]

In what games? I can understand CPU intensive games but I don't play those kinds of games. The games that I play an 8350 destroys an i3. 

If that's the case why are you thinking about switching if you don't play CPU bound games just get a better GPU instead.

[Ophidio]

If that's the case why are you thinking about switching if you don't play CPU bound games just get a better GPU instead.

I was considering it just to get a better all around CPU but I'm just going to get a better GPU until I build an all new system completely. 

[alanz25]

i look at the title and was prepared to storm in as an intel fanboy and destroy the fx 8350 with holy fire from the hands of gaben himself. but if you are just trying to upgrade, its not worth it.

[runit3]

I was considering it just to get a better all around CPU but I'm just going to get a better GPU until I build an all new system completely. 

If you're planning on getting a 970 an i5 is unnecessary. If anything just OC your FX. Once you're in 390X/980Ti territory there is more to talk about in the sub 1440p bracket. Unless you're playing at 144Hz the FX won't bottleneck it in most games, and even if it does it doesn't sound like you'd care much

 

Save your money, if all you do is game and normal day-to-day tasks there is no advantage for coming over to the X99 side of life.

[Ophidio]

If you're planning on getting a 970 an i5 is unnecessary. If anything just OC your FX. Once you're in 390X/980Ti territory there is more to talk about in the sub 1440p bracket. Unless you're playing at 144Hz the FX won't bottleneck it in most games, and even if it does it doesn't sound like you'd care much

 

Save your money, if all you do is game and normal day-to-day tasks there is no advantage for coming over to the X99 side of life.

The only reason I plan on doing an X99 build later this year is this coming fall I will be starting school and ill be studying mostly into Videography and Editing and such. And Honestly I don't care that much right now, I know it may bottleneck some but I still get a great gaming experience and I can run every game that's out so yeah

 

Actually I should have said one of the main reasons, the other reason is like said before I want a pc i don't have to upgrade for a while. 

 

i look at the title and was prepared to storm in as an intel fanboy and destroy the fx 8350 with holy fire from the hands of gaben himself. but if you are just trying to upgrade, its not worth it.

lol don't worry I know that Intel is better in most conceivable ways if not all ways and if I had the knowledge I do now I would have built my PC differently. 

[jjohnthedon1]

Once u PC the 4690k to 4.5ish it's gona blow the fx out of the water !

Less stutter and way better minimum fps