Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

[juanrga]

It is OK but not great the similarly priced I5's are better

The i5 is better for older games. The FX-8350 is better for recent (e.g. crysis 3) and future games.

All game developers in a recent poll recommended the FX-8350 as a better gaming cpu over the i5-3570k.

 

[juanrga]

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.

Both Cinebench and Sandra are two benchmarks compiled with ICC, which is used by what? a 1% of industry? And both rely on a biased dispatcher that forces non-intel chips to run the slowest possible code, generating biased scores towards Intel chips.

 

[juanrga]

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.

I always worried why the FX had problems with Skyrim, recently I discovered that Skryrim is one of the games listed in Intel website as "optimized for intel".

 

[juanrga]

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.

If you are using two independent threads you can schedule each one for a core in a different module. Then there is no sharing of resources. If you are using dependent threads, e.g. thread 2 depends on data of thread 1, then it is better to schedule them on cores in the same module. Sharing resources such as cache improves performance. Precisely Windows 8 includes a modified scheduler that partially accounts for this kind of stuff.

 

[whyso]

I think what he means is that given the same max multithreaded output it is best to have the fewest number of cores. (Anything using 4 cores or less ivy bridge i5/i7 wins hands down, its not until you start going over 6 cores than the 8350 starts to edge over the 3570k).

Skyrim isn't optimized for anything. That game was a really sloppy port (at release it didn't even have sse and was coded in x87).

1 poll is hardly representative, especially given the slant of the article. 90% of dentists recommend colgate, 90% recommend crest.

I think the 30% is relative to the bulldozer chip because other sources say 15% over piledriver.

 

[chrisafp07]

I think what he means is that given the same max multithreaded output it is best to have the fewest number of cores. (Anything using 4 cores or less ivy bridge i5/i7 wins hands down, its not until you start going over 6 cores than the 8350 starts to edge over the 3570k).

Skyrim isn't optimized for anything. That game was a really sloppy port (at release it didn't even have sse and was coded in x87).

1 poll is hardly representative, especially given the slant of the article. 90% of dentists recommend colgate, 90% recommend crest.

I think the 30% is relative to the bulldozer chip because other sources say 15% over piledriver.

Yes the increase in cores has led to better comparisons with the 3570k and other i5 modeals, but the architecture is not the same as the other in the FX line and performs better as well core for core.

As for professional surveys, you are so right haha. Colgate will pool 300 dentists, poll them, get a 90% recommend. Crest will pool 300 different dentists, poll them, get 90% recommend, survey's are always going to be relative to the demographic. You can survey different people with the same questions, get results and then survey more to add results, but you are only compiling evidence and not really ever going to be able to truly express a 100% realistic estimate or definite number for either a perspective on an opinion or a product.

 

[griptwister]

Honestly, unless if you're gaming on a 120Hz monitor, the difference between FX 8350 and i5 3570K isn't big enough. I find it total BS that people think that having the i5 and a lower end graphics card is better than having a FX 8350 and a high end graphics card. Intel is more expensive, even for a good OCing MoBo.

 

[8350rocks]

Honestly, unless if you're gaming on a 120Hz monitor, the difference between FX 8350 and i5 3570K isn't big enough. I find it total BS that people think that having the i5 and a lower end graphics card is better than having a FX 8350 and a high end graphics card. Intel is more expensive, even for a good OCing MoBo.

+1 Completely true.

 

[DukeOvilla]

When it comes to gaming, most any modern day CPU will do fine, it's the GPU that matters.

I'd go with the AMD chip because it has more leeway for overclocking. (lower temp rise per increment, plenty of cores to disable for lower temps and higher speeds. I mean face it, you don't need 8 cores for gamming, I'd disable at least 2 and overclock the rest.)

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

It is OK but not great the similarly priced I5's are better

More misinformation...

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.

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.

Im going to say this once, all of my facts except maybe that last one with the threading, were true. I got all my facts from trusted sources and my own personal experience. And actually yes the one degree Celsius was false on a full load, my friend miss informed me. It ran on idle, but it still did run at one degree. The other thing is, even if I'm false, it doesn't mean only me, maybe YOU'RE at fault, or both of us are wrong or right.

I do know that over all as a CPU based testing environment, the I7-3770k beats AMD in everything except Hashing which is good for video and bit mining, and I believe some memory rendering test for video. One of the gaming tests which was a game optimized for CPU, Batman: Arkham City, ran at an average of 320 on the 8350 and 490 on the 3770k. The settings were minimized as much as possible to prevent GPU bottle knecking. There were a few other gaming tests, which Intel still won in them, but the video was on one of my previous posts.

 

[8350rocks]

Im going to say this once, all of my facts except maybe that last one with the threading, were true. I got all my facts from trusted sources and my own personal experience. And actually yes the one degree Celsius was false on a full load, my friend miss informed me. It ran on idle, but it still did run at one degree. The other thing is, even if I'm false, it doesn't mean only me, maybe YOU'RE at fault, or both of us are wrong or right.

No, it's not just you that's false, just about every intel fanboy spouting non sense about crazy temp readings and inaccurate information about performance is wrong too.

I do know that over all as a CPU based testing environment, the I7-3770k beats AMD in everything except Hashing which is good for video and bit mining, and I believe some memory rendering test for video. One of the gaming tests which was a game optimized for CPU, Batman: Arkham City, ran at an average of 320 on the 8350 and 490 on the 3770k. The settings were minimized as much as possible to prevent GPU bottle knecking. There were a few other gaming tests, which Intel still won in them, but the video was on one of my previous posts.

If that's honestly the case, then why can we provide numerous benchmarks where the i7-3770k does not meet the performance of the FX8350? Did these benchmarks just get fabricated? The software just randomly decided to favor AMD?

The problem is, you are not reading the information given to you, you do not see the real facts, and you don't understand the subject matter entirely. The only part of that I hold against you, in this entire conversation, is the fact that you're not learning from the information presented to you. Information that also clearly proves your theories inaccurate, I might add. You need to understand, intel is not drastically ahead of AMD, the 2 are much more equal than you realize, and at this point, I am beginning to think you never will.

 

[griptwister]

Lol, I'll be impressed once I see the graphical settings are maxed and seeing the CPU still carrying 170FPS over another CPU on a monitor that can display more than 300Hz.

Honestly, that isn't "Real World." Real world is in game, maxed settings. The difference is much smaller when you climb up to higher resolutions. You wouldn't notice a difference between an i7 and a FX 8350 in a gaming environment. Don't believe me? Ask the people that have switched from Intel to AMD. AMD is actually offering a lot more for your money, especially if you can OC.

It's totally pointless arguing with you, you don't really even know what you're talking about half the time. Most Intel fan boy's don't even know. They see benchmarks, but they don't understand how close it really is. Only 25% or about that. Maybe not in all benchmarks. But in some it's more, and in some, AMD is winning. Even in FPS.

Again, you'd need a 120Hz monitor to see a massive difference.

Most of the mainstream testers that insult AMD don't OC the CPU. And when they do OC, they go Clock for Clock. Which is unfair to AMD, People seem to forget this.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Im going to say this once, all of my facts except maybe that last one with the threading, were true. I got all my facts from trusted sources and my own personal experience. And actually yes the one degree Celsius was false on a full load, my friend miss informed me. It ran on idle, but it still did run at one degree. The other thing is, even if I'm false, it doesn't mean only me, maybe YOU'RE at fault, or both of us are wrong or right.

No, it's not just you that's false, just about every intel fanboy spouting non sense about crazy temp readings and inaccurate information about performance is wrong too.

I do know that over all as a CPU based testing environment, the I7-3770k beats AMD in everything except Hashing which is good for video and bit mining, and I believe some memory rendering test for video. One of the gaming tests which was a game optimized for CPU, Batman: Arkham City, ran at an average of 320 on the 8350 and 490 on the 3770k. The settings were minimized as much as possible to prevent GPU bottle knecking. There were a few other gaming tests, which Intel still won in them, but the video was on one of my previous posts.

If that's honestly the case, then why can we provide numerous benchmarks where the i7-3770k does not meet the performance of the FX8350? Did these benchmarks just get fabricated? The software just randomly decided to favor AMD?

The problem is, you are not reading the information given to you, you do not see the real facts, and you don't understand the subject matter entirely. The only part of that I hold against you, in this entire conversation, is the fact that you're not learning from the information presented to you. Information that also clearly proves your theories inaccurate, I might add. You need to understand, intel is not drastically ahead of AMD, the 2 are much more equal than you realize, and at this point, I am beginning to think you never will.

Lol, I'll be impressed once I see the graphical settings are maxed and seeing the CPU still carrying 170FPS over another CPU on a monitor that can display more than 300Hz.

Honestly, that isn't "Real World." Real world is in game, maxed settings. The difference is much smaller when you climb up to higher resolutions. You wouldn't notice a difference between an i7 and a FX 8350 in a gaming environment. Don't believe me? Ask the people that have switched from Intel to AMD. AMD is actually offering a lot more for your money, especially if you can OC.

It's totally pointless arguing with you, you don't really even know what you're talking about half the time. Most Intel fan boy's don't even know. They see benchmarks, but they don't understand how close it really is. Only 25% or about that. Maybe not in all benchmarks. But in some it's more, and in some, AMD is winning. Even in FPS.

Again, you'd need a 120Hz monitor to see a massive difference.

Most of the mainstream testers that insult AMD don't OC the CPU. And when they do OC, they go Clock for Clock. Which is unfair to AMD, People seem to forget this.

Any specific reason why your only giving positive input for AMD? Sounds like some one REALLY likes AMD huh?

 

[juanrga]

Im going to say this once, all of my facts except maybe that last one with the threading, were true. I got all my facts from trusted sources and my own personal experience. And actually yes the one degree Celsius was false on a full load, my friend miss informed me. It ran on idle, but it still did run at one degree. The other thing is, even if I'm false, it doesn't mean only me, maybe YOU'RE at fault, or both of us are wrong or right.

I do know that over all as a CPU based testing environment, the I7-3770k beats AMD in everything except Hashing which is good for video and bit mining, and I believe some memory rendering test for video. One of the gaming tests which was a game optimized for CPU, Batman: Arkham City, ran at an average of 320 on the 8350 and 490 on the 3770k. The settings were minimized as much as possible to prevent GPU bottle knecking. There were a few other gaming tests, which Intel still won in them, but the video was on one of my previous posts.

Your claim about the I7-3770k beating AMD in everything has the same validity than your claim about the degree Celsius: none

And "Batman: Arkham City" is just one of those games in Intel radar.

 

[griptwister]

Lol, I've kept it honest. I've had lots of bad Input on AMD. But then I evolved and was one of the few that got past the "OMG, Intel owns AMD in single thread performance" stage. I did a little something called "research" and got "Un-biased Opinions" and saw how close the FX 8350 is to the i7 in gaming performance. I also did some research and found that the i7 is a rip off. Intel could fit 8 cores into their CPU, but they put threads in so they can have an excuse to charge more for an actual 8 core. But like it's said "It's just, Good business."

I just enjoy how you're trying to make me look like a fanboy. Yes, I'm putting AMD in a positive light, but because people talk crap about AMD, but they don't understand how close it really is. I also love how you made up some incredible assumptions on the Piledriver Architecture, the i7 running at 1C on full load and even that AMD's CPU's aren't good for gaming compared to an i5.

I know Intel has the single thread performance, but they don't offer nearly as much as AMD for the money.

And here is what tic's me off the most, if someone wants to buy an i5, I don't say, "Buy a FX 8350 instead." I say, I go for it, it's what you want. But if someone says, "I want a FX 8350." People instantly flood to that post to convince the user otherwise and say how horrible the CPU is. It's terrible. So I'm sort of like one of the last AMD prophets. lol.

I figure I should say, GOMER, You have ZERO credibility right now considering you were wrong on several points. And you actually believe your friend's CPU is running at 1C under load.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Lol, I've kept it honest. I've had lots of bad Input on AMD. But then I evolved and was one of the few that got past the "OMG, Intel owns AMD in single thread performance" stage. I did a little something called "research" and got "Un-biased Opinions" and saw how close the FX 8350 is to the i7 in gaming performance. I also did some research and found that the i7 is a rip off. Intel could fit 8 cores into their CPU, but they put threads in so they can have an excuse to charge more for an actual 8 core. But like it's said "It's just, Good business."

I just enjoy how you're trying to make me look like a fanboy. Yes, I'm putting AMD in a positive light, but because people talk crap about AMD, but they don't understand how close it really is. I also love how you made up some incredible assumptions on the Piledriver Architecture, the i7 running at 1C on full load and even that AMD's CPU's aren't good for gaming compared to an i5.

I know Intel has the single thread performance, but they don't offer nearly as much as AMD for the money.

And here is what tic's me off the most, if someone wants to buy an i5, I don't say, "Buy a FX 8350 instead." I say, I go for it, it's what you want. But if someone says, "I want a FX 8350." People instantly flood to that post to convince the user otherwise and say how horrible the CPU is. It's terrible. So I'm sort of like one of the last AMD prophets. lol.

I figure I should say, GOMER, You have ZERO credibility right now considering you were wrong on several points. And you actually believe your friend's CPU is running at 1C under load.

Give me valid sources that I'm wrong and that your right.

I have to say yeah I agree the the AMD processors are great, but for what I want to do I need an Intel, and the couple of advantages of better overclocking than the i5, higher stock freq than the i5, and hyper Threading which helps games, make it worth it. The only real thing that makes the Intels a "rip-off" as you say is the build quality that is more aimed for performance of code rather than how hot and high of a frequency I can get. Watch the video that I posted earlier on this thread and tell me what you think. And honestly I think AMD is great, but I would only get it when I start up servers for bit mining or if I make a separate pc for video editing. And all of the sources that I got off the internet, I made sure they were valid before posting them.

 

[griptwister]

Give me valid sources that I'm wrong and that your right.

I have to say yeah I agree the the AMD processors are great, but for what I want to do I need an Intel, and the couple of advantages of better overclocking than the i5, higher stock freq than the i5, and hyper Threading which helps games, make it worth it. The only real thing that makes the Intels a "rip-off" as you say is the build quality that is more aimed for performance of code rather than how hot and high of a frequency I can get. Watch the video that I posted earlier on this thread and tell me what you think. And honestly I think AMD is great, but I would only get it when I start up servers for bit mining or if I make a separate pc for video editing. And all of the sources that I got off the internet, I made sure they were valid before posting them.

Okay, key words in bold. Stupid words bold and Italicized.

Intel's hyperthreading = better gaming performance? LOL! In case you didn't know, Most games CANNOT properly use threads.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28583525&postcount=2

And those benchmarks? Here...

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-13/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/?page=5

The only reason as to why the i7 gets better FPS than the i5 is because it has slightly stronger single core performance a slightly higher clock speed. And again, the FX 8350 is not far off Intel. And those are just the gaming benchmarks. Not even OC'd. Proves that if you're on a 60Hz monitor, you aren't going to know the difference if you have a good GPU. And again, HT does NOTHING in gaming.

 

[8350rocks]

Go check out openbenchmark.org...and see what the ubuntu benchmarks look like...the FX8350 blows the doors off the i7-3770k in nearly everything...

Seems to me like you're just not willing to read unless it's slanted toward intel...

Here's some more advice...don't believe everything you read about intel...a lot of it's sensationalist garbage.

 

[whyso]

Eurogamer did a poll among game developers and all replied that the FX-8350 is better gaming cpu for future games.

Moreover they offer Crysis 3 benchmark where the FX-8350 outperformed the i5-3570K but also the i7 3770K.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

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).

The benchmark looks as this

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.

Please look at a number of benchmarks.

Also note that my main comment was scaling.

Toms

Worse than the i5 (lower minimums). Look at the poor scaling between the i3 and the SB-E chips. Despite having nearly three times more power SB-E only performs 50% better. Look at the 4170 vs the 8350. Twice the number of cores and a better architecture yet only 50% faster (and still cpu limited).

tech spot

Not sure if gpu limited but don't seem to be using more than 4 cores (difference between the 4170 and 8350 is tiny and basically representitive of ipc increase from bulldoze to piledriver).

Gamegpu

Minimal difference between the 8350 and the 6300. 8350 is only 35% faster than the 4300.

Again scaling is tapering off. 8350 does very well here.

Crysis three is a funny game that is not consistent

What I mean to say is that games scale much more poorly with increasing core count that tasks such as video encoding. Actually there is very little scaling between the 8350 and the 6300 when you consider its 4.0 ghz vs 3.5 ghz.

Give me valid sources that I'm wrong and that your right.

I have to say yeah I agree the the AMD processors are great, but for what I want to do I need an Intel, and the couple of advantages of better overclocking than the i5, higher stock freq than the i5, and hyper Threading which helps games, make it worth it. The only real thing that makes the Intels a "rip-off" as you say is the build quality that is more aimed for performance of code rather than how hot and high of a frequency I can get. Watch the video that I posted earlier on this thread and tell me what you think. And honestly I think AMD is great, but I would only get it when I start up servers for bit mining or if I make a separate pc for video editing. And all of the sources that I got off the internet, I made sure they were valid before posting them.

Okay, key words in bold. Stupid words bold and Italicized.

Intel's hyperthreading = better gaming performance? LOL! In case you didn't know, Most games CANNOT properly use threads.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28583525&postcount=2

And those benchmarks? Here...

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-13/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/?page=5

The only reason as to why the i7 gets better FPS than the i5 is because it has slightly stronger single core performance a slightly higher clock speed. And again, the FX 8350 is not far off Intel. And those are just the gaming benchmarks. Not even OC'd. Proves that if you're on a 60Hz monitor, you aren't going to know the difference if you have a good GPU. And again, HT does NOTHING in gaming.

The games that cannot properly use threads are the ones that generally do bad on the FX 8350 because they are not optimized for more cores.

Go check out openbenchmark.org...and see what the ubuntu benchmarks look like...the FX8350 blows the doors off the i7-3770k in nearly everything...

Seems to me like you're just not willing to read unless it's slanted toward intel...

Here's some more advice...don't believe everything you read about intel...a lot of it's sensationalist garbage.

Here is something. How many people give a crap about ubuntu? Most people care about the platform they are USING on the PROGRAMS THEY ARE USING.

 

[8350rocks]

Here is something. How many people give a crap about ubuntu? Most people care about the platform they are USING on the PROGRAMS THEY ARE USING.

So, the windows software run on WINE on the AMD and intel, showing AMD is faster, is irrelevant considering everyone uses them, albeit on windows not ubuntu?

 

[griptwister]

Here is something. How many people give a crap about ubuntu? Most people care about the platform they are USING on the PROGRAMS THEY ARE USING.

So, the windows software run on WINE on the AMD and intel, showing AMD is faster, is irrelevant considering everyone uses them, albeit on windows not ubuntu?

We live in a world where benchmarks are completely irrelevant unless if AMD is losing. :lol:

Oh, and what was that whyso?

http://www.alienware.com/ubuntu/?dgc=EM&cid=262618&lid=4756231&acd=NZ83ST-C5QFLO-2VO68AV-120CLT-EWU90M-v1

 

[8350rocks]

If Dell/Alienware is now distributing ubuntu...that...that...that's absolutely amazing.

 

[whyso]

Here is something. How many people give a crap about ubuntu? Most people care about the platform they are USING on the PROGRAMS THEY ARE USING.

So, the windows software run on WINE on the AMD and intel, showing AMD is faster, is irrelevant considering everyone uses them, albeit on windows not ubuntu?

Yes, if I am doing editing with adobe products on windows then that is where I'm going to be looking at benchmarks to determine which processor to use. Its like a weight factor. Performance x Relevance. Look at the cell cpu in the ps3. Very very high theoretical performance held back by a very low relevance factor (pain to code for).

If we run a program on ubuntu using WINE it will be faster for both camps (that was the argument about windows bloat and the toms article was on an intel cpu).

We live in a world where benchmarks are completely irrelevant unless if AMD is losing.

No I never said that but you can't deny that the vast majority run windows and so performance under windows is simply more relevant for the vast majority of users.

 

[8350rocks]

Yes, intel sees a performance increase on ubuntu...

You know, the irony of this conversation is...while America runs on windows...the rest of the world is taking notice of ubuntu. There are several entire countries that use ubuntu for governmental and educational institutions. It was actually quite a coup from the article I read. Spain was among those to switch and Germany is hot on their heels, with China adopting Ubuntu in 2014 unilaterally as well. So every PC bought by government funding in those countries will be running ubuntu.

Additionally, many sectors of corporate america are running ubuntu for it's better efficiency, cross compatability with windows, and lower threat level from viruses/malware. Plus no licensing costs, and 5 year tech support from the company that backs it (I forget the name, but it's a private company out of the UK that supports it, owned by a wealthy South African entrepreneur and longtime linux developer).

That's a lot of positive attributes...

 

[griptwister]

@whyso, the bottom half was directed at you. The top half was directed at the person who asked me to post benchmarks, but hasn't posted any himself.

@8350rocks, I'm considering it as my new OS. It seems VERY promising. No marketing schemes like MS with windows 8. It's not being shoved down our throats. And I like that.