Is the AMD FX 8350 any good for gaming?

[Dat_PC_gamer]

Hey! I am confused between these two CPU's:
AMD FX 8350
Intel i5 4670k
I am going to have:
8 gb of ddr3 1600 Mhz RAM
AMD R9 290 Graphic card.
Will the cpu or gpu bottleneck?
I don't care about the extra power that the AMD CPU takes. Also, the AMD FX 8350 has more L2 and L3 Cache.
All input is appreciated.

 

[Dat_PC_gamer]

The 4670k would currently be the better choice, however the FX 8350 might perform better in future due to increased multithreading. Here's my draft for the difference between them:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These benchmarks are very controversial, since most other benchmarks show the i5 winning 9 times out of 10. It's interesting though.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have almost caught up in performance for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

I've looked up other people who were having trouble in deciding between these 2 CPU's and this is the same copy paste answer. My question is, will it bottleneck with the GPU I am going to use(R9 290) or is there any other CPU for around the same price which will be perfectly paired with my GPU.

That's pretty funny, it's my draft haha.
An i5 4670k will not bottleneck your GPU. An FX 8350 may do so in single-threaded (generally older) games, and some newer ones since it's single-core performance is not up to par. But it also seems that games are getting increasigly multithreaded. I'd honestly choose a Xeon 1230v3 (essentially an i7 4770) and get a B or H series motherboard. You get the benefits of intels single-core performance and then you also get hyperthreading for when multithreading takes off.

Nonononono. Do NOT get a Xeon CPU for gaming. Those are workstation server CPUs. That's generally why most Xeon boards have two physical CPUs. They're not meant for gaming, so you won't benefit from them and will get worse performance on games than if you had an i7.

E3's are workstation CPUs. They perform exactly the same as an i7 at the same clockspeed, minus a few features that the huge majority of users dont use. They also come with many instruction sets that are missing from k series intel CPUs.

But I'd be using the CPU mainly for gaming.

It's marketed as a workstation CPU. It performs exactly the same as an i7 of the same clockspeed, regardless of the task, whether that be gaming or video editing or whatever you want to do.

But you just said that Xeon isn't for gaming!

 

[JOOK-D]

Here's the thing. The 8350 is INTENDED to be overclocked. And its so easy on a decent motherboard. A novice could do it with a simple guide. (I can provide a link). You're almost guaranteed to hit 4.5ghz on air. Higher with water cooling. And you don't need a fancy setup either. I hit 4.7ghz with a simple H80i clone (an FX branded cooler from Asetek). With an H100i, you could hit roughly 5ghz.

But with that said, if you're not overclocking, then get the 4670k. Because that is definitely better than a stock 8350.

Alright. I had considered the FX 8350 because it has more l1, l2 and l3 cache with higher clock speed.

You cannot compare clockspeed directly between CPU brands since there are many other variables that come into play. A 3.4Ghz CPU from intel may outperform an AMD FX at 4.2GHz at single-threaded tasks. I believe the modules on the FX CPUs also share L3 cache anyway.

 

[JOOK-D]

The 4670k would currently be the better choice, however the FX 8350 might perform better in future due to increased multithreading. Here's my draft for the difference between them:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These benchmarks are very controversial, since most other benchmarks show the i5 winning 9 times out of 10. It's interesting though.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have almost caught up in performance for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

I've looked up other people who were having trouble in deciding between these 2 CPU's and this is the same copy paste answer. My question is, will it bottleneck with the GPU I am going to use(R9 290) or is there any other CPU for around the same price which will be perfectly paired with my GPU.

That's pretty funny, it's my draft haha.
An i5 4670k will not bottleneck your GPU. An FX 8350 may do so in single-threaded (generally older) games, and some newer ones since it's single-core performance is not up to par. But it also seems that games are getting increasigly multithreaded. I'd honestly choose a Xeon 1230v3 (essentially an i7 4770) and get a B or H series motherboard. You get the benefits of intels single-core performance and then you also get hyperthreading for when multithreading takes off.

Nonononono. Do NOT get a Xeon CPU for gaming. Those are workstation server CPUs. That's generally why most Xeon boards have two physical CPUs. They're not meant for gaming, so you won't benefit from them and will get worse performance on games than if you had an i7.

E3's are workstation CPUs. They perform exactly the same as an i7 at the same clockspeed, minus a few features that the huge majority of users dont use. They also come with many instruction sets that are missing from k series intel CPUs.

But I'd be using the CPU mainly for gaming.

It's marketed as a workstation CPU. It performs exactly the same as an i7 of the same clockspeed, regardless of the task, whether that be gaming or video editing or whatever you want to do.

But you just said that Xeon isn't for gaming!

I never said that. Someone else did.

 

[Dat_PC_gamer]

Here's the thing. The 8350 is INTENDED to be overclocked. And its so easy on a decent motherboard. A novice could do it with a simple guide. (I can provide a link). You're almost guaranteed to hit 4.5ghz on air. Higher with water cooling. And you don't need a fancy setup either. I hit 4.7ghz with a simple H80i clone (an FX branded cooler from Asetek). With an H100i, you could hit roughly 5ghz.

But with that said, if you're not overclocking, then get the 4670k. Because that is definitely better than a stock 8350.

Alright. I had considered the FX 8350 because it has more l1, l2 and l3 cache with higher clock speed.

You cannot compare clockspeed directly between CPU brands since there are many other variables that come into play. A 3.4Ghz CPU from intel may outperform an AMD FX at 4.2GHz at single-threaded tasks. I believe the modules on the FX CPUs also share L3 cache anyway.

Oh.

 

[JOOK-D]

The 4670k would currently be the better choice, however the FX 8350 might perform better in future due to increased multithreading. Here's my draft for the difference between them:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These benchmarks are very controversial, since most other benchmarks show the i5 winning 9 times out of 10. It's interesting though.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have almost caught up in performance for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

I've looked up other people who were having trouble in deciding between these 2 CPU's and this is the same copy paste answer. My question is, will it bottleneck with the GPU I am going to use(R9 290) or is there any other CPU for around the same price which will be perfectly paired with my GPU.

That's pretty funny, it's my draft haha.
An i5 4670k will not bottleneck your GPU. An FX 8350 may do so in single-threaded (generally older) games, and some newer ones since it's single-core performance is not up to par. But it also seems that games are getting increasigly multithreaded. I'd honestly choose a Xeon 1230v3 (essentially an i7 4770) and get a B or H series motherboard. You get the benefits of intels single-core performance and then you also get hyperthreading for when multithreading takes off.

Nonononono. Do NOT get a Xeon CPU for gaming. Those are workstation server CPUs. That's generally why most Xeon boards have two physical CPUs. They're not meant for gaming, so you won't benefit from them and will get worse performance on games than if you had an i7.

E3's are workstation CPUs. They perform exactly the same as an i7 at the same clockspeed, minus a few features that the huge majority of users dont use. They also come with many instruction sets that are missing from k series intel CPUs.

Show me benchmarks then. I know that server CPUs aren't meant for gaming, so they aren't optimized to perform as well as a gaming CPU. They're based around different architecture and are meant to do number crunching, things of that nature.

It's just like workstation GPUs. They're meant for 3D Modeling and rendering video, so they won't perform as well on games as an actual gaming GPU like the Radeon and R7 and R9 series.

A Xeon is an i7 that's optimised for stability. E5's are for servers, and E3s commonly for workstations. They will perform exactly the same as if the i7 was at the same clockspeed. You can look up benches yourself. They're literally rebranded i7s with some features removed and others added.

 

[Dat_PC_gamer]

The 4670k would currently be the better choice, however the FX 8350 might perform better in future due to increased multithreading. Here's my draft for the difference between them:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform much better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.
For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These benchmarks are very controversial, since most other benchmarks show the i5 winning 9 times out of 10. It's interesting though.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have almost caught up in performance for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

I've looked up other people who were having trouble in deciding between these 2 CPU's and this is the same copy paste answer. My question is, will it bottleneck with the GPU I am going to use(R9 290) or is there any other CPU for around the same price which will be perfectly paired with my GPU.

That's pretty funny, it's my draft haha.
An i5 4670k will not bottleneck your GPU. An FX 8350 may do so in single-threaded (generally older) games, and some newer ones since it's single-core performance is not up to par. But it also seems that games are getting increasigly multithreaded. I'd honestly choose a Xeon 1230v3 (essentially an i7 4770) and get a B or H series motherboard. You get the benefits of intels single-core performance and then you also get hyperthreading for when multithreading takes off.

Nonononono. Do NOT get a Xeon CPU for gaming. Those are workstation server CPUs. That's generally why most Xeon boards have two physical CPUs. They're not meant for gaming, so you won't benefit from them and will get worse performance on games than if you had an i7.

E3's are workstation CPUs. They perform exactly the same as an i7 at the same clockspeed, minus a few features that the huge majority of users dont use. They also come with many instruction sets that are missing from k series intel CPUs.

But I'd be using the CPU mainly for gaming.

It's marketed as a workstation CPU. It performs exactly the same as an i7 of the same clockspeed, regardless of the task, whether that be gaming or video editing or whatever you want to do.

But you just said that Xeon isn't for gaming!

I never said that. Someone else did.

Sorry. My bad. It was thenoobypro who said that.

 

[jacobian]

The FX 8350 costs about $200, which is in the neighborhood of Core i5. If you check Tom's review, the Vishera 8350 runs games about as fast as a Core i5, and slightly slower in some cases. So in both cases, you get what you pay for. I'd probably just take the Core i5 as benchmarks confirm it to be a very good CPU for games, and you will stress the PSU a bit less with it compared to AMD FX CPUs. But if you're fan of AMD, you can certainly achieve the same or similar performance the the FX processor, perhaps overclocked a little.

Do not buy into "more cores is always better". Some people make it sound like you need cores for every thread. 10 years ago we had single core processors and multi-threaded apps run just fine. Multiple threads will share the same core if there are not enough cores, and a core that's relatively fast can more than make up the ground relative to CPU with an additional core if those cores are slower. It's like, do you want to transport your cargo in one big truck or two small trucks? The result could be the same, but one big truck is better for cargo that can't be divided.

 

[noor jaha]

Hey! I am confused between these two CPU's:
AMD FX 8350
Intel i5 4670k
I am going to have:
8 gb of ddr3 1600 Mhz RAM
AMD R9 290 Graphic card.
Will the cpu or gpu bottleneck?
I don't care about the extra power that the AMD CPU takes. Also, the AMD FX 8350 has more L2 and L3 Cache.
All input is appreciated.

AMD FX 8350 is best

 

[Comgen]

The JOOK-D draft explains more or less what the situation is, in the end with both processors you will not notice substantial differences in gaming. (if you only focus on games)
If the choice is expanding in other fields / or on specific applications, then things could change a bit between these two processor you listed (mostly in favor of i5k) and things change even if you do or do not want to OC (then make up your mind on this).
In the end I would recommend you to choose the right CPU for your buget, and do not worry or make too many problems, either will be fine and paired with a 290.

Spoiler

About the Xeon, it would be the best choice, with top performance even outside the gaming world = overall (as the i7).
Yes, not many benchmarks around (this is a long topic) but you can see some of my answers, to give you a quick idea.
Xeon E3 vs i7
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1968104/xeon.html#12382664
FX 8320 vs Xeon 1230v3 for Gaming/Streaming
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1992013/8320-xeon-1230v3-gaming-streaming.html#12515606

 

[dacquesta1]

Such misinformation here...the e3 xeons are I7's with the IGP removed and a slightly lower TDP. You will see the same performance as a similarly clocked I7 CPU. Also they are socket 1155/1150 so they fit into motherboards designed for the i5/i7 (just make sure the motherboard supports the xeon e3 series). If you are willing to spend 200 on an 8350 then get the xeon for 30-50 dollars more OR spend 40-50 less on an 8320 and get a decent cooler and take it to 4500mhz. I will say at stock clocks, the 8320/50 will hold you back a little as far as framerates, but if you overclock to 4.5 you won't see much of a difference between the amd or intel choice.

 

[dacquesta1]

same, I couldn't justify 200 dollars for an 8350 when the 8320 is 160 normally (got mine for 130) and overclocks just the same. Save the 40+ and get a hyper 212 for the same price as an 8350 OR spend the extra 50 for the xeon. Either way you won't notice a difference in game.