AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor

Kieran_23

Prominent
Apr 3, 2017
31
0
530
Is my processer good for gaming or is the Intel Core i5-6400 6 MB Skylake Quad-Core 2.7 GHz better for gaming like minecraft league of legends and first person shooters like mw1 mw2 mw3 and
black ops 1 2 and 3
 
Solution
1) If you own the FX-8350 then remember switching to Intel (or AMD Ryzen) would mean a new motherboard, possibly system memory (DDR4 not DDR3), reinstall Windows and software etc.

2) Not sure what GPU you have either. That may be the better place to put your money if you have a weak GPU.

3) What's your gaming experience like now anyway?
If you have a good experience (i.e. High, 60FPS or so) would spending a lot of money make things better?

4) RESOLUTION has an affect on frame rate as well. The CPU is less likely to be a bottleneck at higher resolutions. You still need the CPU to be fast enough to NOT be a bottleneck (so no running 4K on a dual-core Pentium) but if you can get about 60FPS at 2560x1440 with a good graphics card then...
If you already own the FX-8350, honestly it's good enough for those games. I run my FX-8320 locked at 4GHz with turbo off and it's plenty good enough for Guild Wars 2, Planetside 2, Elite Dangerous, World of Warcraft, and Torchlight II.

If you're into things like video encoding and compiling software, the i5 6400 is a downgrade from the FX-8350, as demonstrated in that video.

So, if you already own an FX-8350 and you're looking to upgrade, you're best bet is to get an i7 or a Zen or at the very least, a higher clocked i5 than the laughably low clocked for a 2017 desktop cpu i5 6400.
 
1) If you own the FX-8350 then remember switching to Intel (or AMD Ryzen) would mean a new motherboard, possibly system memory (DDR4 not DDR3), reinstall Windows and software etc.

2) Not sure what GPU you have either. That may be the better place to put your money if you have a weak GPU.

3) What's your gaming experience like now anyway?
If you have a good experience (i.e. High, 60FPS or so) would spending a lot of money make things better?

4) RESOLUTION has an affect on frame rate as well. The CPU is less likely to be a bottleneck at higher resolutions. You still need the CPU to be fast enough to NOT be a bottleneck (so no running 4K on a dual-core Pentium) but if you can get about 60FPS at 2560x1440 with a good graphics card then upgrading the CPU likely won't be worth the money.

5) An i7-7700K for example can increase the FPS over the FX-8350 by over 60% in some games but it varies so much it's hard to give advice. Certainly I'd start with the graphics card first.

6) Feel free to look up benchmarks for different games. For example: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

That's about the WORST CASE scenario for a slower CPU. Older game architecture that benefits more from faster cores than more of them.

But, look at THIS game: http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html

I doubt that's 100% accurate, but note that it at least shows no difference between the FX-8350 and good Intel CPU's. So for this game at least there's not much benefit to upgrading.

*So it varies.
(I'd show some online SHOOTERS but the benchmarks never seem to be very accurate. I think many are single player or may not be doing large client maps because there's a HUGE difference between people's results)
 
Solution


That would be my conclusion too based on the games listed. As for more DEMANDING games then you would be best to wait and build a higher-end system to truly justify the upgrade to future proof a bit more.

If I was building I'd go with an R5-1600 Ryzen CPU + 3200MHz (2x8GB) DDR4 etc.
+ GTX1070 or better

I'd also wait until Vega and Volta GPU's roll out.

Intel may have some new CPU's too, but as it stands now I think the 6-core, R5-1600 is the best balance of value.