amd fx 8350 or i5 for gaming

[matt1738]

some people say this is a no brainer but i am not sure. my knowledge of cpus is not as good as my knowledge of gpus and i think personally my cpu is holding me back.
i have a AMD FX6350 six core and although it has six cores it lacks everything else really and is getting old. so i was wondering if i should get an i5 which loses 2 cores of my original 6350 or get a amd fx 8350 or 9570 which have 8 cores.(i know core are not everything but i was just wandering).

my specs
78lmt-usb3 mobo
500 wat psu
zotac gtx 960 2gb gddr5
amd fx 6350 six core 3.9ghz
1tb hdd

i can play games like gta and cod at 60fps high settings but get lag drops in cpu bound parts and i want to be able to keep the settings high. this is why i believe it to be the cpu.

which one: 8350 or i5
thanks

 

[Karsten75]

Geez, like this question hasn't been asked (and answered) like a million times on this very forum already.

 

[Chicken-Select]

If you've got the money for the i5 and a new motherboard to go with it then the i5 will certainly be better. But if you're strapped for cash then the 8350 will be an upgrade but not by THAT much. Perhaps save your pennies and wait for AMD or Intel to launch a new CPU line up and upgrade your graphics card because your 960 will bottle neck your i5 a little. The 960 is a nice card on a budget but in games like GTA 5 which is pretty demanding at higher settings the 960 just doesn't cut it.

 

[gran172]

Your cpu isn't bottlenecking your gpu, so it's not "holding you back". An I5 would be a better upgrade choice than the 8350, the 9570 isn't a good option imho.

 

[krit2]

First up: There is no FX-9570, there is FX-9370 & 9590. (95'90' not '70')
The 9xxx series of FX is never recommened becuase it runs pretty darn hot and tdp of 220W which is ridiculous. I would prefer an i5 over FX Series in anyday. Think of it this way, the latest of AMD is being released in 2012 while the i5-6xxx is released 2015. Choose AMD if want a dead platform?
If u switched to the i5 u will require a new mobo. Which will cost u more than going with 8350. But 8350 is not a huge performance gain over FX-6xxx cpu.

 

[matt1738]

Your cpu isn't bottlenecking your gpu, so it's not "holding you back". An I5 would be a better upgrade choice than the 8350, the 9570 isn't a good option imho.

thanks

 

[Ecky]

I would be careful of making statements about things with no data, gran172. OP, to find out if you're CPU bottlenecked, you should run a resource monitor (such as GPU-Z) and keep an eye on your GPU utilization. If it's below 100% when your framerate tanks, your CPU is the culprit, and it would not surprise me to hear that an FX-6350 would be causing dipped framerates in any modern games.

@OP, an FX-83xx would probably not be an upgrade. Most games only well utilize 1-3 threads, and so moving from 6 to 8 threads would very likely not help. However, due to AMD's module design, if you have a game that fully utilizes 4 threads on your FX-6350, because core pairs share resources, two of your cores would have reduced throughput (two AMD cores on the same module perform around 1.6x-1.7x better than a single core in floating-point intense tasks like gaming, not 2x better as on Intel CPUs), and in this way an 8-core CPU can actually be an upgrade over a 6-, due to the first 4 cores not needing to share resources instead of just the first 3.

Still, I'm willing to bet that (if you are in-fact CPU bound), it's due to single-threaded performance, and an Intel CPU delivers 50-75% better per-core performance, and as such, can deliver far greater framerates in games that are single-core-performance bound.

Here is an example of a modern DX12 game - bear in mind that DX12 is supposed to be the saving grace of AMD, because it helps alleviate single-thread bottlenecks and more evenly distribute the load over all of the cores. Yet, even with that...

 

[gran172]

I would be careful of making statements about things with no data, gran172. OP, to find out if you're CPU bottlenecked, you should run a resource monitor (such as GPU-Z) and keep an eye on your GPU utilization. If it's below 100% when your framerate tanks, your CPU is the culprit, and it would not surprise me to hear that an FX-6350 would be causing dipped framerates in any modern games.

@OP, an FX-83xx would probably not be an upgrade. Most games only well utilize 1-3 threads, and so moving from 6 to 8 threads would very likely not help. However, due to AMD's module design, if you have a game that fully utilizes 4 threads on your FX-6350, because core pairs share resources, two of your cores would have reduced throughput (two AMD cores on the same module perform around 1.6x-1.7x better than a single core in floating-point intense tasks like gaming, not 2x better as on Intel CPUs), and in this way an 8-core CPU can actually be an upgrade over a 6-, due to the first 4 cores not needing to share resources instead of just the first 3.

Still, I'm willing to bet that (if you are in-fact CPU bound), it's due to single-threaded performance, and an Intel CPU delivers 50-75% better per-core performance, and as such, can deliver far greater framerates in games that are single-core-performance bound.

Here is an example of a modern DX12 game - bear in mind that DX12 is supposed to be the saving grace of AMD, because it helps alleviate single-thread bottlenecks and more evenly distribute the load over all of the cores. Yet, even with that...

Obviously an I5 or even a 6th gen I3 would be perform way better than a 6300, but i doubt it's a bottleneck. Bottlenecking a 960? Probably not. A 980Ti in SLI? For sure

 

[Ecky]

CPU bottlenecks exist regardless of GPU. It doesn't matter if OP were using integrated graphics - CPU usage is relatively constant regardless of graphical settings and resolution. If a CPU can't deliver 60FPS in a game with a GTX980Ti, it won't with a GTX960 either, or vice versa.

One simply must have enough CPU grunt to deliver the desired framerates in a game. A better GPU will allow for higher resolutions and better graphical settings, but CPUs set the upper bound in framerate.

 

[gonf]

LOL am just "trolling" here.

whats with the benchmark anyways?
980Ti in SLI? each of that card is like 630usd so you are looking at 1260usd. if he have this kinda money for the gpu. i don't think anyone would be asking the question of i5 or FX8350.
lets be honest here. how many of the i3/i5 or fx users uses even 1 980ti?

by the way. if you ask me. the first thing i'll do on your setup is to make sure it not Software problem. so uninstall your old video driver than reinstall the most update video driver. 2nd thing i'll upgrade is your HDD. get a SSD and install your os and games that you play in it. don't think your CPU is bottlenecks on a 960GTX (even it is. it won't be by much). I'm making a very bull statement telling you that LOL and yes without and "benchmark" data LOL.

LOL

here if you want some data. just go do it yourself. play with the setting.

*make sure is 1 gpu not sli*

i5-6600k with 960gtx "fire strike" 7735 (that would be someone with the best score)
FX6350 with 960gtx "fire strike" 7131 (that would be someone with the best scroe)

7 ish % by score. so is that worth it? i don't know it hard to tell. and thats only a "score" which doesn't tell you much. (maybe 2fps different depend on the game)

http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.239906506.858786832.1459019004#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1603/1010/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD FX-6350&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.239906506.858786832.1459019004#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/2006/1010/12162?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel Core i5-6600K&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

 

[Ecky]

You seem to have missed my 2nd comment:

CPU bottlenecks exist regardless of GPU. It doesn't matter if OP were using integrated graphics - CPU usage is relatively constant regardless of graphical settings and resolution. If a CPU can't deliver 60FPS in a game with a GTX980Ti, it won't with a GTX960 either, or vice versa.

One simply must have enough CPU grunt to deliver the desired framerates in a game. A better GPU will allow for higher resolutions and better graphical settings, but CPUs set the upper bound in framerate.

3dmark is very CPU-lite by design - it is, after all, a GPU benchmark, and it would not do to have a CPU muddle any comparison. As such, it is an excellent example of where a CPU will not limit a GPU in any meaningful way. Not all games are 3dmark, and not all games will be able to achieve high framerates on an FX CPU, regardless of what video card or cards one uses.

Do you think the FX CPU will be able to deliver better framerates with a slower video card?