AMD CPU gaming

[hydroshad]

I have a MSI twin frozr r9 270x, and a amd fx 4170 processor.

My budget is $250

I would like to upgrade so I can get better performance in DayZ and Arma, so should I upgrade to a:

AMD fx 8320 processor

Question: Would I see a performance boost, and if so would it be noticeable?

Thanks for any help,

 

[firefoxx04]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

 

[RCFProd]

You can optimise the FX-8320 really well AFAIK for Arma 3. It requires quite a bit of tweaking I guess but you can make it use all of the 8 cores. So yes, imo that's a good upgrade if you manage to tweak it and all that.

However if you have a 760 or 970 chipset motherboard don't get the FX-8320, get the FX-8320E for cheaper and keep it at stock speeds. Otherwise you'll meet a friend called throttling.

 

[jimmysmitty]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

Especially considering that some 970 boards don't have the VRM capacity to support the higher end FX 8000 chips.

That said, most games would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade. Upgrading your CPU might show a slight increase but upgrading your GPU, to say a R9 380X or GTX 960 would benefit you way more than a CPU upgrade.

 

[RCFProd]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

Especially considering that some 970 boards don't have the VRM capacity to support the higher end FX 8000 chips.

That said, most games would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade. Upgrading your CPU might show a slight increase but upgrading your GPU, to say a R9 380X or GTX 960 would benefit you way more than a CPU upgrade.

Not at all for Arma 3, and Dayz, which are the games he wants to be playing mostly. In this case a GPU upgrade for him is close to useless, as Arma 3 is 80% CPU and 20% Gpu. Might not even see 5 fps improvement in that game if he upgraded his GPU.

Also, if he has a poor 760/970 chipset mobo it will run just fine with an AMD FX-8320E 3.2 Ghz. Most AM3+ motherboards support 95w TDP CPU's no problem.

 

[jimmysmitty]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

Especially considering that some 970 boards don't have the VRM capacity to support the higher end FX 8000 chips.

That said, most games would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade. Upgrading your CPU might show a slight increase but upgrading your GPU, to say a R9 380X or GTX 960 would benefit you way more than a CPU upgrade.

Not at all for Arma 3, and Dayz, which are the games he wants to be playing mostly. In this case a GPU upgrade for him is close to useless, as Arma 3 is 80% CPU and 20% Gpu. Might not even see 5 fps improvement in that game if he upgraded his GPU.

Also, if he has a poor 760/970 chipset mobo it will run just fine with an AMD FX-8320E 3.2 Ghz. Most AM3+ motherboards support 95w TDP CPU's no problem.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Looks like neither are the best suggestion for Arma 3 as maxed out the difference between a FX 4100 and FX 8350 (not the same but close enough) is 5FPS.

Can't find anything for DayZ except that people say it is very inefficient at doing multithreading and is supposed to be optimized.

 

[mamasan2000]

You can optimise the FX-8320 really well AFAIK for Arma 3. It requires quite a bit of tweaking I guess but you can make it use all of the 8 cores. So yes, imo that's a good upgrade if you manage to tweak it and all that.

However if you have a 760 or 970 chipset motherboard don't get the FX-8320, get the FX-8320E for cheaper and keep it at stock speeds. Otherwise you'll meet a friend called throttling.

Arma 3 wont use more than 2 cores, ever. 1 core for main simulation and 1 for texture loading etc.
The tweaks do nothing. They are applied atomatically these days (vram, ram, corecount).

Intel is king in Arma-games.
Sadly I have AMD. The only way I can find any performance increase at all is to run client+server minimum.
This of course requires me to be the host but I do it this way to play singleplayer missions/my own missions.
Add a headless client and it helps a little too, not by much tho.
Arma 3 still won't utilize CPU fully.

GPU will do nothing. I went from GTX 760 to Radeon 290X, same FPS.

When I play the Campaign, I have roughly 60 fps but as soon as I play online, it drops to 20-25. Regardless of server, scripts and so on, whatever the devs are blaming poor performance on.
You should try the first game in the series, OFP. To this day that game struggles to push out 60 fps consistently. 100 fps in places, dips to 40 for no apparent reason. That's a 15 year old game.

 

[hydroshad]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

thanks for the tips man! and yea I will edit that in!

 

[hydroshad]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

Especially considering that some 970 boards don't have the VRM capacity to support the higher end FX 8000 chips.

That said, most games would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade. Upgrading your CPU might show a slight increase but upgrading your GPU, to say a R9 380X or GTX 960 would benefit you way more than a CPU upgrade.

Not at all for Arma 3, and Dayz, which are the games he wants to be playing mostly. In this case a GPU upgrade for him is close to useless, as Arma 3 is 80% CPU and 20% Gpu. Might not even see 5 fps improvement in that game if he upgraded his GPU.

Also, if he has a poor 760/970 chipset mobo it will run just fine with an AMD FX-8320E 3.2 Ghz. Most AM3+ motherboards support 95w TDP CPU's no problem.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Looks like neither are the best suggestion for Arma 3 as maxed out the difference between a FX 4100 and FX 8350 (not the same but close enough) is 5FPS.

Can't find anything for DayZ except that people say it is very inefficient at doing multithreading and is supposed to be optimized.

thanks for all the replies! You guys are so friendly! This is why the PC race is better! lol

 

[hydroshad]

When I play arma, it usually only uses 4 cores at most. If I am recording, 8 threads start be used (i7 4790k)

The biggest problem with Arma and DayZ is that the games are very optimized. You really need to go with the fastest single core performance. The 8320 might be the best choice for AMD because it is the highest clocked and overclocks very well.

the thing is, any Intel chip will still smoke the 8320 in single core performance. You will see a performance boost getting the AMD 8 core but you might be better off saving for a 4690 and decent H97 motherboard. This will be an even better upgrade.

I usually do not recommend Intel when people are already invest in AMD but you are wanting to play the two most optimized games, both of which run much better on Intel (because of Intel's superior IPC).

The 8320 will do everything else just fine, especially with the GPU you are using.


edit: it might be wise to state what motherboard, PSU, and CPU cooler you are using.

Especially considering that some 970 boards don't have the VRM capacity to support the higher end FX 8000 chips.

That said, most games would benefit more from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade. Upgrading your CPU might show a slight increase but upgrading your GPU, to say a R9 380X or GTX 960 would benefit you way more than a CPU upgrade.

Not at all for Arma 3, and Dayz, which are the games he wants to be playing mostly. In this case a GPU upgrade for him is close to useless, as Arma 3 is 80% CPU and 20% Gpu. Might not even see 5 fps improvement in that game if he upgraded his GPU.

Also, if he has a poor 760/970 chipset mobo it will run just fine with an AMD FX-8320E 3.2 Ghz. Most AM3+ motherboards support 95w TDP CPU's no problem.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Looks like neither are the best suggestion for Arma 3 as maxed out the difference between a FX 4100 and FX 8350 (not the same but close enough) is 5FPS.

Can't find anything for DayZ except that people say it is very inefficient at doing multithreading and is supposed to be optimized.

thanks for all the replies! You guys are so friendly! This is why the PC race is better! lol