How relevant is the FX-8350?

[jett473]

So, for Christmas I got a new board and a FX-8350 because of the price for the CPU and how it compared to some i5s on benchmarks pretty well.

 

after getting it and using it, I started to understand why there is such a heavy bias towards Intel. 

 

the performance of it is just less then stellar and not at all worth what I payed for, I really could hardly see a difference from the fx-6300 and this one (even with a overclock on the 8350). I mean, yeah I've noticed somethings are a bit faster, but I'm iffy on if it's due to the CPU or the 8gbs of ram I got as well (now have a total of 16gbs.)

 

point is, I'm kinda in a shit position because a upgrade to Intel isn't going to happen for awhile. So I'm wondering how long will the fx-8350 last me? I only really do gaming, some minor music and video editing. maybe a few years or so..?

 

and whenever it does get kinda irrelevant, what's a good spot to look at for a upgrade, I was thinking something in the i7 or Xeon range so it would be a /noticeable/ increase. (I'd also prefer to stick with DDR3 ram for now, but if predictions says it'll be obsolete by the time I upgrade I'll consider it.)

 

thank you all in advance!

[sapphirethunder]

3 minutes ago, jett473 said:

So, for Christmas I got a new board and a FX-8350 because of the price for the CPU and how it compared to some i5s on benchmarks pretty well.

 

after getting it and using it, I started to understand why there is such a heavy bias towards Intel. 

 

the performance of it is just less then stellar and not at all worth what I payed for, I really could hardly see a difference from the fx-6300 and this one (even with a overclock on the 8350). I mean, yeah I've noticed somethings are a bit faster, but I'm iffy on if it's due to the CPU or the 8gbs of ram I got as well (now have a total of 16gbs.)

 

point is, I'm kinda in a shit position because a upgrade to Intel isn't going to happen for awhile. So I'm wondering how long will the fx-8350 last me? I only really do gaming, some minor music and video editing. maybe a few years or so..?

 

and whenever it does get kinda irrelevant, what's a good spot to look at for a upgrade, I was thinking something in the i7 or Xeon range so it would be a /noticeable/ increase. (I'd also prefer to stick with DDR3 ram for now, but if predictions says it'll be obsolete by the time I upgrade I'll consider it.)

 

thank you all in advance!

 

Well, FX-8350 gets the job done still for awhile.

Biggest jump in performance you would be getting from i5 6600k.

i7 and Xeon would only give noticeably better performance on heavily multi-threaded stuff.

 

On DDR3 i5 4690K is pretty much the go-to cpu.

 

 

I myself and possibly soon making a trade where I trade my mobo, FX-8350 and 8gigs of RAM + 150$/€ to i5 6600k and Z170 motherboard.

[Taswell]

its fine for games. I have a 4690k thats going into a VR/home theater pc i used to used and my 9370 is almost identical in performance(in real world tests). The 8350 is a under clocked version of my CPU so you should be good for a couple more years. 

[Cryosec]

Well, my FX-6300 (OC'd to 4.2GHz atm) still does it's job in games (The Division never goes under 40fps with an AMD 380 OC'd at 1066MHz). Two extra cores might help in future DX12 games, but if you really want to move to Intel and DDR3, i5 4690K is for you.

[jett473]

1 minute ago, sapphirethunder said:

 

Well, FX-8350 gets the job done still for awhile.

Biggest jump in performance you would be getting from i5 6600k.

i7 and Xeon would only give noticeably better performance on heavily multi-threaded stuff.

 

On DDR3 i5 4690K is pretty much the go-to cpu.

that's one of the ones I was looking at. but the price different was just too much and I caved into AMD.

 

but I got a new mouse, ram, sennhiesers, and a pod farm (mix amp&software for basic guitar recordings) along side it. So overall it was a pretty choice...just now I'm gonna have to drop another 300 or so in the future

[sapphirethunder]

1 minute ago, jett473 said:

that's one of the ones I was looking at. but the price different was just too much and I caved into AMD.

 

but I got a new mouse, ram, sennhiesers, and a pod farm (mix amp&software for basic guitar recordings) along side it. So overall it was a pretty choice...just now I'm gonna have to drop another 300 or so in the future

You might have to upgrade in 1 year, but luckily for you, the new Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Zen will be out by then, so you have a lot to choose from. You could even find a used i5 6600k for cheap then. Because there is ALWAYS some people who are jumping from cpu to next one in short time.

[jett473]

2 minutes ago, Cryosec said:

Well, my FX-6300 (OC'd to 4.2GHz atm) still does it's job in games (The Division never goes under 40fps with an AMD 380 OC'd at 1066MHz). Two extra cores might help in future DX12 games, but if you really want to move to Intel and DDR3, i5 4690K is for you.

 

3 minutes ago, ITheSpazI said:

its fine for games. I have a 4690k thats going into a VR/home theater pc i used to used and my 9370 is almost identical in performance(in real world tests). The 8350 is a under clocked version of my CPU so you should be good for a couple more years. 

I appreciate the positive and realistic feedback, guys. thanks for the help c:

[S7117]

8 minutes ago, jett473 said:

clip

Well it will last you a while. Processors in general rarely fail first before other components. 

 

As far as comparing Intel and AMD, AMD is way behind in the architecture of their processors. This means that even thought you get that processor up to high speeds with an OC you won't gain much performance because the architecture, how the chip is made with its cores, is older technology and does not necessarily benefit from the higher clock speed.

[S7117]

Just now, jett473 said:

 

I appreciate the positive and realistic feedback, guys. thanks for the help c:

In general AMD is just behind in processor architecture compared to Intel which follows Moore's law theory.(doubling the number of transistors that can be stored in a chip every other year). Their GPU market is great thought. I think AMD is trying to concentrate mainly on graphics now. Their GPU's and APU's do work better than what Intel provides as far as integrated graphics. But Intel focuses on processing power.

[S7117]

11 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

i7 and Xeon would only give noticeably better performance on heavily multi-threaded stuff.

 

Its mainly the architecture and design of the chips that sets intel apart not neccisarily the core count because the 8350 has 8 cores. those cores just dont benefit because of the "relative" bad architecture. 

[sapphirethunder]

1 minute ago, S7117 said:

Its mainly the architecture and design of the chips that sets intel apart not neccisarily the core count because the 8350 has 8 cores. those cores just dont benefit because of the "relative" bad architecture. 

Maybe I should have mentioned that I was referring to how i7 and Xeon give noticeably better performance on heavily multi-threaded stuff, when compared to respective i5. Not in comparison to FX-8350.

[S7117]

7 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

Maybe I should have mentioned that I was referring to how i7 and Xeon give noticeably better performance on heavily multi-threaded stuff, when compared to respective i5. Not in comparison to FX-8350.

Even then I'm sure an I5 K series could even out match the 8350. Considering HyperThreading, Overclocking and just overall performance and design of the chip

[sapphirethunder]

2 minutes ago, S7117 said:

Even then I'm sure an I5 K series could even out match the 8350. Considering HyperThreading, Overclocking and just overall performance and design of the chip

Yes, 4690k and 6600k out match the FX-8350 easily. Which is why I'm getting the 6600k in the first place to replace my own FX-8350.

[Nena Trinity]

That depends on the games you are trying to play...

Some games will not use more than 4, 2 or even worse only 1!

[Biggerboot]

The FX series gets flak by enthusiasts mainly because of the lack of use cases for such a chip, and just how inefficient it is. 

 

AMD really tried to pass it off as a future proofing chip, that if you had an 8 core cpu, developers were eventually going to take advantage of those cores.  If you're a gamer, there will be very few use cases where you're taking advantage of all the cpu cores.  If and when an 8 core enthusiast CPU becomes the norm, the architecture of the CPU will be past outdated - it was meant to compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

 

There's nothing necessarily wrong with having that CPU if the games you're playing aren't very CPU demanding, but you would've been just as fine on a quad core AMD 860k for half of the price or an i5 for the same price.  That's why many of us 'scoff' at the FX 8000 series.  Unless you're in media production, you're rarely using all of it's potential.

[jett473]

1 hour ago, sapphirethunder said:

Yes, 4690k and 6600k out match the FX-8350 easily. Which is why I'm getting the 6600k in the first place to replace my own FX-8350.

yeah but the 4690k by it's self costs as much as how much I got my CPU and board for, this is why I mentioned price earlier in the thread.

[jett473]

8 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

The FX series gets flak by enthusiasts mainly because of the lack of use cases for such a chip. 

 

AMD really tried to pass it off as a future proofing chip, that if you had an 8 core cpu, developers were eventually going to take advantage of those cores.  If you're a gamer, there will be very few use cases where you're taking advantage of all the cpu cores.  If and when an 8 core enthusiast CPU becomes the norm, the architecture of the CPU will be past outdated.

 

There's nothing necessarily wrong with having that CPU if the games you're playing aren't very CPU demanding, but you would've been just as fine on a quad core AMD 860k for half of the price.  That's why many of us 'scoff' at the FX 8000 series.  Unless you're in media production, you're rarely using all of it's potential.

I am in media production, I record music and am going to get into video editing in the future. 

 

But I get what you're saying. 

 

however i dunno if a 860k would beat a fx-6300 which is my old CPU, I just don't know much about the 860k is all.

[Biggerboot]

5 minutes ago, jett473 said:

I am in media production, I record music and am going to get into video editing in the future. 

 

But I get what you're saying. 

 

however i dunno if a 860k would bet a fx-6300 which is my old CPU, I just don't know much about the 860k is all.

 

They're very close to each other in terms of single threaded performance, because they essentially run on the same architecture.  The FX-6300 adds another two cores into the equation - which again, is useful if you're doing more than just gaming.  At least it can be justified at the price.

[Nena Trinity]

3 hours ago, Biggerboot said:

The FX series gets flak by enthusiasts mainly because of the lack of use cases for such a chip, and just how inefficient it is. 

 

AMD really tried to pass it off as a future proofing chip, that if you had an 8 core cpu, developers were eventually going to take advantage of those cores.  If you're a gamer, there will be very few use cases where you're taking advantage of all the cpu cores.  If and when an 8 core enthusiast CPU becomes the norm, the architecture of the CPU will be past outdated - it was meant to compete with Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

 

There's nothing necessarily wrong with having that CPU if the games you're playing aren't very CPU demanding, but you would've been just as fine on a quad core AMD 860k for half of the price or an i5 for the same price.  That's why many of us 'scoff' at the FX 8000 series.  Unless you're in media production, you're rarely using all of it's potential.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the FM2+ Athlons is not better than the FX-6300...

 

Edit:

 

[Biggerboot]

2 hours ago, Nena360 said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but the FM2+ Athlons is not better than the FX-6300...

 

Ok, you're technically right, but what's the better value here?  It's going to still be the 860k, unless you'll find more cases where you need 6 cores.  The video even states at the end that there's not a considerable difference in terms of game experience. 

 

I said they were 'about the same', given the single threaded performance of both chips.  The 6300 in that video was getting a few frames more probably because of having more cache and a slightly higher turbo clock speed.  

 

In my opinion, at $70 (1/3 less the price), you're getting a better value - it's a good chip if you just want to play the newest games at low settings, and probably a better value than intel's pentium/celeron line.  I wouldn't want to pair either CPU with more than a 750 ti anyway.