FX-8350 up to the gaming task?

[alucardxva]

I've read a few forums here an there about the fx-8350 being an out-dated cpu since 2011.. I don't see how when most those games are not actually using the 8 core to its full potential. I have a feeling that the 8 cores will begin to shine since PS4 an XBOX 1 both have custom 8 cores in them... So in theory developers should be optimizing games to take advantage of all the cores...

This is just a topic of discussion would like to hear peoples opinion on this.. an if you have hard fact's supporting your statement by all means share'em.

I also read some where the the i5 will still beat the fx-8350 even when games are made for 8 cores... don't see how, but it was just from some forum site, could have been a troll... but like i said if you got the facts to back it up.. hit me in the face with it lol

 

[paitjsu sadff]

Two very trusty benchmarks :

Tom's hardware testing (total time out of 35 tests featuring both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications)
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-36-Total-Time,3179.html

PassMark CPU benchmarks, also feature a lot of tests including intger math, prime numbers, floating points math, physics, encryption, compression, extended instructions (SSE), sorting, single-thread performance etc. results are uploaded daily to a database from real users :
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

A lot of reviewers on the net are biased on that subject and love to throw in badly optimised single-threaded old games or games that uses old engines and they run test on low-resolution to highlight the slighlty better single-thread performance of the intel CPU's but in the real world those CPU's a perfectly fine to run any modern games on maximum settings with a high-end GPU and will continue to do even better as the real next gen games will hit the market.

 

[NiCoM]

i5 will beat the 8350 in gaming till the end of both processors life.
Even though the PS4 and XBone both have a 8-core, i don't really see games doing extremely better on them, especially since Mantle already took that step, and DirectX is going to do the same.

Though the 8350 is a valid pick if you stream, edit videos, use other heavy programs or multitasking.

Really depends on usage, gaming pc i would recommend the i5.

(im talking about the 4670/4670K/3570K mostly)

Hope this helps!

 

[paitjsu sadff]

i5 will beat the 8350 in gaming till the end of both processors life.
Even though the PS4 and XBone both have a 8-core, i don't really see games doing extremely better on them, especially since Mantle already took that step, and DirectX is going to do the same.

This is where i disagree, as the next gen games will use more threads (up to 6 heavy threads) i think the FX 8 core CPU's will get better and better results over time while the core i5 will stay where it's at.

Though the 8350 is a valid pick if you stream, edit videos, use other heavy programs or multitasking.

This is admitting that the raw power of FX is superior if utilised correctly...not currently the case in some games and those are the games picked by intel reviewers all over the internet.

 

[JOOK-D]

The 4 cores of an i5 will usually outperform an FX even in games where 8 cores are utilised. The i5 also performs better when less than 8 cores are utilised. You can't go wrong with it. As for an i7, AMD can't really compete.

For purely gaming, intel is the better pick unless you're on a very restricted budget (even then you can usually get a 4570 and a B series motherboard for around the same as an FX and a decent motherboard).

 

[paitjsu sadff]

The 4 cores of an i5 will usually outperform an FX even in games where 8 cores are utilised. The i5 also performs better when less than 8 cores are utilised. You can't go wrong with it. As for an i7, AMD can't really compete.

For purely gaming, intel is the better pick unless you're on a very restricted budget (even then you can usually get a 4570 and a B series motherboard for around the same as an FX and a decent motherboard).

no games really ''utilise'' or ''require'' 6 or 8 core/threads ATM, some games do ''take advantage'' of up to 8 threads but they are mainly games that run's 3 heavy threads and spread the rest of the load to other available cores...this is the reason the core i5 still performs to this day as good as the FX 8 core CPU's and even better in many titles, but as the next gen games will hit the market it can be assumed that manyu of those games will run 6 to 8 heavy threads and this will make the FX 8 core shine above the core i5...but for today's games and old games yes the core i5 is the better performer so far.

Now this is a kit that will allow for high overclocking the motherboard is of very good quality with 8+2 power phase and will allow for the FX-8320 get just as good performance as the 8350 but at better price since both CPU's are the exact same chip only clocked slower, can you build an intel platform with aftermarket cooling on the CPU that will allow for overclocking and a motherboard as good as the one featured in this build?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($149.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $364.94
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-15 07:34 EDT-0400)

 

[CooLWoLF]

FX8320/8350 need to be overclocked to reach their potential. This is where their value lies. Otherwise, go with an i5/i7.

An overclocked FX83xx chip will serve you very well and last for awhile, as long as you keep up with GPU upgrades as well.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

FX8320/8350 need to be overclocked to reach their potential. This is where their value lies. Otherwise, go with an i5/i7.

An overclocked FX83xx chip will serve you very well and last for awhile, as long as you keep up with GPU upgrades as well.

i agree about the importance of an up to date and well performing GPU's but from my experience even at stock boost clock of 3.7 ghz my FX-8320 keep up with my GPU (GTX780 OC) in pretty much any games really...except maybe skyrim of other old games that use only 1 or 2 heavy threads...but BF4, crysis 3, max payne 3 etc theres no problem really even at stock speed...but of course overclocking is free so why not do it..

 

[CooLWoLF]

I would like to add that my current rig is one the favorite setups I have built to date. You can't go wrong IMO with an 8350.

The only gripe I have is the amount of heat it throws off, but then again I am overclocked to 4.8ghz, plus the R9 290 is like its own personal heater!

 

[paitjsu sadff]

I would like to add that my current rig is one the favorite setups I have built to date. You can't go wrong IMO with an 8350.

The only gripe I have is the amount of heat it throws off, but then again I am overclocked to 4.8ghz, plus the R9 290 is like its own personal heater!

the excessive heat must come from your GPU cause i'm using a GTX 780 (reputed run cooler than the r9 290) and using the hyper 212 cooler my temps are very good (47c max while playing BF4 for hours) at 4.4ghz and honestly i don't feel any excessive heat coming out of my machine at any point and my graphics card and ram are all overclocked...my PSU is the thing that gets the hottest but it is a cheap unit that is not even bronze certified...

 

[CooLWoLF]

I would like to add that my current rig is one the favorite setups I have built to date. You can't go wrong IMO with an 8350.

The only gripe I have is the amount of heat it throws off, but then again I am overclocked to 4.8ghz, plus the R9 290 is like its own personal heater!

the excessive heat must come from your GPU cause i'm using a GTX 780 (reputed run cooler than the r9 290) and using the hyper 212 cooler my temps are very good (47c max while playing BF4 for hours) at 4.4ghz and honestly i don't feel any excessive heat coming out of my machine at any point and my graphics card and ram are all overclocked...my PSU is the thing that gets the hottest but it is a cheap unit that is not even bronze certified...

Oh, it definitely is mostly the GPU. The MSI non-reference R9 290 vents the hot air right into the case. My CPU radiator is sucking in hot air, so I am seeing temps 10C+ higher then when I was running a 7850 gpu. I have been messing around with different fan configurations, but it doesn't help much.

 

[JOOK-D]

The 4 cores of an i5 will usually outperform an FX even in games where 8 cores are utilised. The i5 also performs better when less than 8 cores are utilised. You can't go wrong with it. As for an i7, AMD can't really compete.

For purely gaming, intel is the better pick unless you're on a very restricted budget (even then you can usually get a 4570 and a B series motherboard for around the same as an FX and a decent motherboard).

no games really ''utilise'' or ''require'' 6 or 8 core/threads ATM, some games do ''take advantage'' of up to 8 threads but they are mainly games that run's 3 heavy threads and spread the rest of the load to other available cores...this is the reason the core i5 still performs to this day as good as the FX 8 core CPU's and even better in many titles, but as the next gen games will hit the market it can be assumed that manyu of those games will run 6 to 8 heavy threads and this will make the FX 8 core shine above the core i5...but for today's games and old games yes the core i5 is the better performer so far.

Now this is a kit that will allow for high overclocking the motherboard is of very good quality with 8+2 power phase and will allow for the FX-8320 get just as good performance as the 8350 but at better price since both CPU's are the exact same chip only clocked slower, can you build an intel platform with aftermarket cooling on the CPU that will allow for overclocking and a motherboard as good as the one featured in this build?

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($149.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $364.94
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-15 07:34 EDT-0400)

I'm waiting for the day when these "6 to 8 heavy threads" arise. No current CPU will perform well, except for the hexacore or upcoming octacore extreme intel CPUs. I don't see how it can be assumed that these new games will bring numerous heavy threads.

As of now, and the near future at the very least, intel is better. If these games that spawn these magic heavy threads suddenly appear we'll all need to upgrade. It will also be an awfully developed game, and will hardly sell.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

I'm waiting for the day when these "6 to 8 heavy threads" arise. No current CPU will perform well, except for the hexacore or upcoming octacore extreme intel CPUs. I don't see how it can be assumed that these new games will bring numerous heavy threads.

As of now, and the near future at the very least, intel is better. If these games that spawn these magic heavy threads suddenly appear we'll all need to upgrade. It will also be an awfully developed game, and will hardly sell.

No, those ''magic'' games will be widely sold games developped for mainstream console market...consoles that features 8 core AMD Jaguar CPU's...CPU's that can handle 8 somewhat heavy threads at the same time...while still being slower then FX 8 core cpu's...but i'm sure you are aware of that already, you just don't want to confront the reality of it.

I'm not saying that core i5 CPU will die overnight, they are still beasts and single-thread performance is through the roof, i'm just saying that overtime the FX 8 core CPU's will provide better and better performance in upcoming games...that's it.

 

[JOOK-D]

I'm waiting for the day when these "6 to 8 heavy threads" arise. No current CPU will perform well, except for the hexacore or upcoming octacore extreme intel CPUs. I don't see how it can be assumed that these new games will bring numerous heavy threads.

As of now, and the near future at the very least, intel is better. If these games that spawn these magic heavy threads suddenly appear we'll all need to upgrade. It will also be an awfully developed game, and will hardly sell.

No, those ''magic'' games will be widely sold games developped for mainstream console market...consoles that features 8 core AMD Jaguar CPU's...CPU's that can handle 8 somewhat heavy threads at the same time...while still being slower then FX 8 core cpu's...but i'm sure you are aware of that already, you just don't want to confront the reality of it.

I'm not saying that core i5 CPU will die overnight, they are still beasts and single-thread performance is through the roof, i'm just saying that overtime the FX 8 core CPU's will provide better and better performance in upcoming games...that's it.

We'll see.

So the slow console threads can handle these heavy threads you're saying will exist? Cool, no CPU should have any problems. You almost sound like a crazy doomsayer "you just don't want to confront the reality of it.".

I believe in the consoles 2 threads handle the OS though? Could be off.

In any case, multithreading will take a long time to be adopted, if it ever is. In the time being, an i5 will perform better than an FX and will continue to do so. As is the case with games still being released today. This "next-generation" future you're speaking of keeps getting pushed back. I've spoken with others who said the same thing, when BF4 was released. Sure it can handle 8 threads but the i5's still performed better. I've had this conversation with you MANY times paitjsu sadff, and it's a shame I'm having to repeat the same things over and over.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

and i keep repeating you that the i5 performs better in BF4 (wich is not even true, in multiplayers BF4 benchmarks the FX-8350 is superior to even the 4570 BTW) because BF4 ''take advantage'' of up to 8 cores but in the real world it uses 3 heavy threads and split the rest of the load to other cores, like crysis 3 and other games do ATM...in that regard it's not a ''real next gen game'' as this game like many other modern games was developped to run also on Xbox 360 and PS3 as well as new generation consoles...when they will left the ps3 and xbox 360 behind as a thing of the past and move forward this is where the next gen games will get launched.

 

[JOOK-D]

and i keep repeating you that the i5 performs better in BF4 (wich is not even true, in multiplayers BF4 benchmarks the FX-8350 is superior to even the 4570 BTW) because BF4 ''take advantage'' of up to 8 cores but in the real world it uses 3 heavy threads and split the rest of the load to other cores, like crysis 3 and other games do ATM...in that regard it's not a ''real next gen game'' as this game like many other modern games was developped to run also on Xbox 360 and PS3 as well as new generation consoles...when they will left the ps3 and xbox 360 behind as a thing of the past and move forward this is where the next gen games will get launched.

And I'll say again, you'll be waiting a while for that "next-gen". The definition of next-gen is not "multithreaded".
Can you show me the benchmarks where the FX is superior to the 4570?

 

[paitjsu sadff]

And I'll say again, you'll be waiting a while for that "next-gen". The definition of next-gen is not "multithreaded".
Can you show me the benchmarks where the FX is superior to the 4570?

Yes, right there my man:
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

 

[JOOK-D]

And I'll say again, you'll be waiting a while for that "next-gen". The definition of next-gen is not "multithreaded".
Can you show me the benchmarks where the FX is superior to the 4570?

Yes, right there my man:
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Is this a multiplayer benchmark? I'm struggling to find where it says that.

Here's another single player benchmark.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

Is this a multiplayer benchmark? I'm struggling to find where it says that.

It is said on the website Gamegpu.ru (the very reputable site where those benches comes from) that those are the multiplayer benchmarks test that was done on the beta version of battlefield 4 multiplayer on the map siege of shagai 64 players conquest large.

 

[vmN]

We dont trust any russian site with their propoganda (jk)

 

[JOOK-D]

Is this a multiplayer benchmark? I'm struggling to find where it says that.

It is said on the website Gamegpu.ru (the very reputable site where those benches comes from) that those are the multiplayer benchmarks test that was done on the beta version of battlefield 4 multiplayer on the map siege of shagai 64 players conquest large.

Beta? :/

Here are some other beta MP benchmarks.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

We dont trust any russian site with their propoganda (jk)

:lol: haha, anyway we are not to declare a winner here today on this, as i see some benchmarks ranking the core i5 higher then FX 8 core and the next website right after puts the 8 core just under the i7 4770 for BF4...

Anyway it is really difficult (unless you know 63 friends ready to test with you and do the same thing over and over again online while you test from CPU to CPU) it is impossible to declare a real winner on mutliplayer matchups unless the CPU's in question are very far appart in term of their respective performance...

What we can conclude though is that from the single player benchmark that was posted earlier any CPU all the way down to even an AMD a10 APU are sufficient to run BF4 on high settings in single player, as they all performs within margin of error from each other...

 

[8350rocks]

I can tell you this much, as a game designer I have been more heavily involved in things lately and have not had a great deal of time to answer such threads...

However, we are currently developing a game on CryEngine as a MMO, and we have found that CryEngine optimized for current/future (as well as we can predict) hardware, especially with the changes coming in the near future on many fronts, will actually benefit from MO4R COR3Z.

As it sits right now, test builds run 6-7 cores on AMD processors heavily, and quad core intel rigs run over 90% utilization on D3D, Mantle will change that some, but we anticipate in our specific case it will likely make a difference of roughly 5-8%.

Additionally, we have some guys working on RTS titles and unsurprisingly, their game is going to be EXTREMELY CPU bound...with all the calculations running their engine actually runs 9 threads.

All this being considered...weigh your options.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

I can tell you this much, as a game designer I have been more heavily involved in things lately and have not had a great deal of time to answer such threads...

However, we are currently developing a game on CryEngine as a MMO, and we have found that CryEngine optimized for current/future (as well as we can predict) hardware, especially with the changes coming in the near future on many fronts, will actually benefit from MO4R COR3Z.

As it sits right now, test builds run 6-7 cores on AMD processors heavily, and quad core intel rigs run over 90% utilization on D3D, Mantle will change that some, but we anticipate in our specific case it will likely make a difference of roughly 5-8%.

Additionally, we have some guys working on RTS titles and unsurprisingly, their game is going to be EXTREMELY CPU bound...with all the calculations running their engine actually runs 9 threads.

All this being considered...weigh your options.

That's good to know and i'm pretty sure nobody here is even surprised by those revelations, it's just the way it is, that's the path the gaming industry choosed to go the day sony and microsoft signed contracts with AMD and decided to go with 8 core jaguar CPU in both mainstream machines.

 

[JOOK-D]

I can tell you this much, as a game designer I have been more heavily involved in things lately and have not had a great deal of time to answer such threads...

However, we are currently developing a game on CryEngine as a MMO, and we have found that CryEngine optimized for current/future (as well as we can predict) hardware, especially with the changes coming in the near future on many fronts, will actually benefit from MO4R COR3Z.

As it sits right now, test builds run 6-7 cores on AMD processors heavily, and quad core intel rigs run over 90% utilization on D3D, Mantle will change that some, but we anticipate in our specific case it will likely make a difference of roughly 5-8%.

Additionally, we have some guys working on RTS titles and unsurprisingly, their game is going to be EXTREMELY CPU bound...with all the calculations running their engine actually runs 9 threads.

All this being considered...weigh your options.

Interesting.

I'm guessing you can't reveal how far those are in development, or possibly a release either though?

I still stick by the fact that the i5 is still better currently. And if 6-7 threads are heavy on the FX's then how much utilisation is that? Can't be too far off 90% like the i5's?