Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Fahrenheit. I'll put up a picture of it when I go over to his house. I'm dead serious. I wouldn't lie about something like this.
 


Home design.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=126464&mpage=1

As far as performance goes it keeps my i7 920 @ 16C idle temps, and load temps are 38C (with linX). (there is also a single 295 connected with the CPU block in parallel connections) The CPU block is a special block that I will post pictures of in the near future-once it has been fully tested.
Click to expand...

IF you are not DIY.

Hey look there are products using evaporative cooling!

http://www.frozencpu.com/products/13091/ex-vap-20/Cooler_Express_2013_Design_Super_Evaporator_CPU_GPU_Cooling_Unit_w_Upgraded_Socket_Kit_-_All_Sockets_478_754_775_1155_1156_1366_2011_939_940_AM2_Xeon_CE-48-D-1C-1G.html?tl=g49&id=5UGwj28N

Toms did a review too!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/5-ghz-core-i7-980x-overclocking,2665.html

Notice that the highest temperature reached by our CPU at stock settings was measurable, exceeding the lowest-possible reading of its DTS (digital thermal sensor) at -12° Celsius. While we couldn’t track temperatures this cold in real time, the fact that they occasionally exceeded the minimum threshold tells us that the CPU core is much warmer than the -50° evaporator temperature reported by the Cooler Express status monitor.
Click to expand...

-12 degrees centigrade! Using evaporation! On a MUCH more power hungry CPU!

Those laws of physics must be in pieces!!!!

Google is your friend!

 
He said specifically no such cooling was employed...

I emphasized numerous times...some external cooling device had to be employed beyond a stock fan system to achieve such temperatures.

I was not saying it's not possible...merely that it's not possible without some external modifier in place to make it feasible.
 
I can't tell if you guys are fanboys or idiots.

1: The argument is that the i7 ran at 1C under load.

2: The links posted don't show 1C under load.

3: It's the cooler, not the CPU.
 


+1
 


I don't know what he is using. He said some kind of 'special thermal plates' though (I don't think its just the stock cooler).
Anyway its not clear.
 


Even then though, if the i5 wins for gaming hands down, the margin is still small. Mere .3 fps difference for BF3, no matter what anyone says, the benchmarks are the truth.
 


Crysis 3 seems to be highly variable sometimes it performs beter, sometimes worse (seems like the game is well optimized but there are pieces that are highly singlethreaded) on the 8350.

For future games the 8350 is probably equal to if not better than the i5. The problem is all the present games. Its kinda pointless to buy a CPU for games 2+ years down the road (people play games now, in the present).

 


I see no constant GPU variable, since the graphics were maxed out, it was heavily GPU based, and it was mostly revolved around consoles. The console makers, not that they're bad, try to go for the better cheap option. Just because they choose it doesn't mean it's better. Also about threaded games, having separate cores doesn't help with THREADING, hyper Threading helps with Threading.
 


Actually, having more cores helps specifically with threading. HyperThreading is creating a virtual core that taps resources from a real core to run extra threads. It's poorly designed and well hyped.

Additionally...as a developer, I can speak to why they chose AMD...AMD actually listens when developers ask for features, and so many modern developers have learned that AMD wants to own the gaming market. Because of this, they know that future games being developed are more likely to be well utilized by AMD because they incorporate coding features and instruction sets that will not only make life easier, but it will allow the newest batch of games to perform optimally.

This, as opposed to intel, who says..."Well, we couldn't get that new instruction set support you wanted...but...look how GREAT it is at Cinebench!!!" Intel is the synthetic benchmark king...that's all they care about. Real world performance is less a concern for them as long as the synthetic benchmark performance that no one will ever realize is high.

Some people put far too much stock into synthetic benchmarks...they normally don't mean much other than a means for relative comparison. System performance is a sum of the whole...not just one component being benchmarked.
 


The benchmark looks as this

Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png


With the FX-8350 being only outperformed by an ultraexpensive 12-thread chip from intel. The game is not optimized for AMD, the advantage is exclusively coming from multithreading, which helps to use the 100% of the FX chip unlike older games.

There are some scenes of the game where the FX-8350 performs worse, but it is not related to being less-threaded on those but to some issues with the floating-point computations.

I have just read an review of crysis 3 by PCLAB where they ask if the AMD FX will be more efficient than the 4-core intel chips in the coming games, and then add that Crysis 3 provides a foretaste of what developers can show in the coming games.

Therefore PCLab confirms what Eurogamer says on that AMD CPUs like the FX-8350 will shine for future gaming and are a better choice than the Intel chips.

 

Those are pretty good benchmarks for the 8350 considering is being paired up with expensier chips.. More than good enough if you are not obsessed with achieving irrelevant small performance gains.

I have a 8350 and I mostly play SC2, I usually get +100 fps on 1v1 matches... so whatever.
 


I don't know if you know but yes, it creates more cores for it to work on, but it also allows for the cores to share information between each other. And the idea of a threaded game is that it can work better by the processor sending it information all at once rather than In separate pieces that it compiles together. Even so, if the game didn't benefit from it and rather degrades it, you can just shut it off. And it would make sense for the game producers to use the AMD chips because they are cheap and can handle the heart that most consoles will produce. And yes there will be pc rated architecture, but it will be BASED off of it, and made to be more fps friendly.
 


The difference in HT and more cores...is that more cores are more physical resources that can be dedicated to tasks without expending resources of other areas. While HT is a "virtual system" designed to tap resources from other areas to run additional processes.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about man...I've explained this throughly back on pages 3 and 4 of this thread...you need to go back and read those so you'll be up to speed on how CPUs work at the base level. You're contradicting yourself within the same set of statements.
 


I think I'm done with this thread. I'm just going to say, if your video editing and playing game titles or bit mining, get an AMD. If your doing hard core gaming and some other stuff, get an Intel if you have the budget. If I need to, I'll come back on.
 


That's ok...you had some bad information...at least you've been exposed to reality. I don't expect everyone to see the light from the beginning. Steamroller will change your mind though, if Centurion doesn't.
 


You don't sound like you know what you are talking about first off. Secondly, Cinebench is a real world benchmark, didn't you know this? And most benchmarks Intel wins are real world. I agree synthetics are a waste of time, like Sisoft Sandra. But the 8350 is pretty good at Synthetics. So basically your saying than 8350's synthetics don't matter even though they are very good.

8350rocks know's I'm not an Intel fan. I like AMD and I'm excited about where it's going in the future. The only harp I got on AMD is single threaded performance. But to make an argument like you just did proves nothing at all. Go do more research and try to prove that what you say is fact instead of just saying things because you think it's so.

Edit: To me Hyperthreading is the best way to do this because if your only using 1-4 cores, they don't have to share resources like AMD does. The best way to do it would be to have 8 TRUE cores. So really AMD and Intel are both skimping. The bad thing about what AMD is doing is that since they are designed to share resources, when only a single core or 2, 3 or 4 are being used, they have to share resources. When using 1-4 of intels cores are functioning, they DON'T have to share, Therefore, much better 1-4 core performance. This is why AMD will never catch up in single threaded and lightly threaded apps and benchmarks, it's because 2 AMD cores is only like 1.4 Intel cores because of less IPC and shared resources. So it seems like on the surface that "yeah, having 8 cores is better than 8 virtual cores", but there is a reason why Intel designed it like this. And it's for the exact reason I specified above.

I'm still excited about the new AMD cpu's though. If they can improve the IPC, they'll have one hell of a multithreading king, and be good enough for single/lightly threaded workloads too.

 


Bad information? Okay that last part about threading was off, I agree, but everything else was from experience and research. I wouldn't be posting anything if I didn't have Any true facts.
 


And that is why you're done with this thread, because most your facts have all been proven wrong. i7 at 1C under full load? That's false. And the whole FX 8350 being a threaded CPU. Also false. It's starting to look like you're just another child that's on the Intel is better than AMD Bandwagon on the forums.

The FX8350 isn't a bad gaming CPU, Its just the games that are poorly optimized for PC. Examples, Skyrim and SC1. The i5 might be better at HD resolutions, but once you get to HD+ resolutions, the gap quickly narrows.
 


Cinebench is considered a synthetic benchmark in the gaming industry. While it shows DX11 performance...it's not dictated by user input. Plus, cinebench generates a score based on the system performance running the single program, while it is a more realistic synthetic benchmark, the system always performs the same tasks. Much like unigine Heaven, these are more like synthetic stress tests to see what your system can handle. Cinebench is also compiled on ICC, which does not make it synthetic, but does make the scoring slightly biased.

A real world benchmark is something like a game benchmark, or photoshop, or a rendering benchmark using an application where user input directs the system to do different functions. Perhaps your understanding or interpretation of synthetic benchmarks is slightly different.

8350rocks know's I'm not an Intel fan. I like AMD and I'm excited about where it's going in the future. The only harp I got on AMD is single threaded performance. But to make an argument like you just did proves nothing at all. Go do more research and try to prove that what you say is fact instead of just saying things because you think it's so.
Click to expand...

I have been trying to tell him for a while that he needs to show his work on these things, and he can't seem to provide that information...(partly because it doesn't exist).

Edit: To me Hyperthreading is the best way to do this because if your only using 1-4 cores, they don't have to share resources like AMD does. The best way to do it would be to have 8 TRUE cores. So really AMD and Intel are both skimping. The bad thing about what AMD is doing is that since they are designed to share resources, when only a single core or 2, 3 or 4 are being used, they have to share resources. When using 1-4 of intels cores are functioning, they DON'T have to share, Therefore, much better 1-4 core performance. This is why AMD will never catch up in single threaded and lightly threaded apps and benchmarks, it's because 2 AMD cores is only like 1.4 Intel cores because of less IPC and shared resources. So it seems like on the surface that "yeah, having 8 cores is better than 8 virtual cores", but there is a reason why Intel designed it like this. And it's for the exact reason I specified above.
Click to expand...

Steamroller will be a 30% single threaded performance increase, and about 20-25% multithreaded increase. I highly expect that this will very much level the playing field in most areas.

I'm still excited about the new AMD cpu's though. If they can improve the IPC, they'll have one hell of a multithreading king, and be good enough for single/lightly threaded workloads too.
Click to expand...

It's coming Q1 2014 for FX series...I cannot wait...lol

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom