Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Well then I guess you gave up, no problem.

 

[griptwister]

i cant believe it! all of you people have been supporting me for a month and several pages! thanks everyone. i suppose the fx 8350 is pretty powerful. what about itself without a gpu, is it good for hosting a server

Well then I guess he won this debate, so I'll annoy forum members with my guesses and opinions and will ignore all factual evidence given to me.

Corrected. Again, 1C made your argument completely invalid. As far as I am concerned, I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

i cant believe it! all of you people have been supporting me for a month and several pages! thanks everyone. i suppose the fx 8350 is pretty powerful. what about itself without a gpu, is it good for hosting a server

Well then I guess he won this debate, so I'll annoy forum members with my guesses and opinions and will ignore all factual evidence given to me.

Corrected. Again, 1C made your argument completely invalid. As far as I am concerned, I'm done discussing this with you.

I said no such thing. It at least was below ambient room temperature for gods sake. So if your done talking about it then just accept what I am saying. 8350 or some godly poster with 500 badges could say something so wrong and you'd still accept it. God Help Me.

 

[8350rocks]

I said no such thing. It at least was below ambient room temperature for gods sake. So if your done talking about it then just accept what I am saying. 8350 or some godly poster with 500 badges could say something so wrong and you'd still accept it. God Help Me.

The problem is, I don't make up garbage, and talk out of an orifice other than my mouth. I also don't try to talk about things from a technical perspective when I know nothing about them.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

I said no such thing. It at least was below ambient room temperature for gods sake. So if your done talking about it then just accept what I am saying. 8350 or some godly poster with 500 badges could say something so wrong and you'd still accept it. God Help Me.

The problem is, I don't make up garbage, and talk out of an orifice other than my mouth. I also don't try to talk about things from a technical perspective when I know nothing about them.

Im writing the information in the same process you do, no different other than true vs. False, and truth is honestly what your lacking. If I had that badge and you didn't, how much of a difference would that make? Everyone would go for the guy with the badge. Just because your orange is certified doesn't mean mine's better tasting. (It's a figure if speech btw, just thought id mention that because of the lack of common sense you guys have and take everything to the literal)

Also, if my facts weren't facts at all, why would I be striving this much just to prove false info? You guys basically gave up already, but I'm still pushing until you realize that oranges can't grow from apple trees, and that Harvard graduates aren't always perfect and right.

 

[griptwister]

*facepalm* I have no idea what tasting an Orange has to do with this. But facts already have presented your argument is invalid. I've gamed on a i7 and a FX 8320, same GPUs, noticed no difference because VSYNC was on. And, an 8 core will whoop an i7 in a multithreaded work load. The future is multithreading. Multiple programmers have stated this. What are you not getting?

 

[OnyxGunslinger]

My simple opinion? It somewhat depends on the game. Games like BF3 and Planet Side 2 love cores, the more the better. Other games not so much. I think if you go high end AMD or high end Intel you wont be disappointed. That being said, typically the intel i5 and i7 get more frames but usually both intel and amd are 70 or more frames and you really can't tell the difference.

 

[griptwister]

My simple opinion? It somewhat depends on the game. Games like BF3 and Planet Side 2 love cores, the more the better. Other games not so much. I think if you go high end AMD or high end Intel you wont be disappointed. That being said, typically the intel i5 and i7 get more frames but usually both intel and amd are 70 or more frames and you really can't tell the difference.

Excellent. This guy puts it into perspective.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

My simple opinion? It somewhat depends on the game. Games like BF3 and Planet Side 2 love cores, the more the better. Other games not so much. I think if you go high end AMD or high end Intel you wont be disappointed. That being said, typically the intel i5 and i7 get more frames but usually both intel and amd are 70 or more frames and you really can't tell the difference.

Excellent. This guy puts it into perspective.

I thought that you guys wanted more than that. If I said that you wouldn't give a rat's ass.

 

[8350rocks]

Im writing the information in the same process you do, no different other than true vs. False, and truth is honestly what your lacking. If I had that badge and you didn't, how much of a difference would that make? Everyone would go for the guy with the badge. Just because your orange is certified doesn't mean mine's better tasting. (It's a figure if speech btw, just thought id mention that because of the lack of common sense you guys have and take everything to the literal)

Also, if my facts weren't facts at all, why would I be striving this much just to prove false info? You guys basically gave up already, but I'm still pushing until you realize that oranges can't grow from apple trees, and that Harvard graduates aren't always perfect and right.

To save face...you may believe what you're saying is true...I don't discount your belief in that. You just believe something that isn't right, and has been demonstrated to be incorrect with irrefutable evidence.

What more do you want?

Attorneys argue invalid cases all the time, and sometimes they even win. The difference is, in a court of law, all that matters is what you can get the jury to believe. That's why high priced defense attorneys cost so much...look at O.J. Simpson. He basically outright confessed to killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman years later...but the attorneys he hired were able to convince a jury that he was innocent and he walked.

However, in scientific and technical fields, what you can get others to believe and what you can prove are 2 different things...and I am not buying something you cannot support with credible evidence. No matter how much you insult me or swear up and down that you're telling me "the truth, and have facts". You simply don't, or you would have presented them already.

I am at the point to where you're not listening to the information given that disproves your thought process. You haven't provided sources or facts, and your argument is full of holes.

You're wrong...it's that simple.

If you want to keep pushing, go right ahead...but you can't push the real facts with hot air and speculation (which is all you've offered).

 

[CallumCJ]

Right guys, to all you intel fanboys please STFU. My AMD FX8350 (using passmark software) gets a nice xeon/i7 beating score of 10772. My 8350 outperforms the i7 3770K in every test except single core performance and even then it isn't far behind it.

I really don't understand how some people can be so ignorant and stupid. The FX8350 is the best thing AMD has released in YEARS, the future is multithreaded - intel has been saying this for decades for christ sake. Yet AMD still manages to wipe the floor with intel in multithreading. I don't understand this neckbeard approach to "OMG AMD USES MOAR POWER SO YOU SPEND A BILLION ON ENERGY" -- sorry to disappoint but no you wont, maybe an extra £5 a year (~$10) which you WILL NEVER NOTICE and considering the 8350 in general is cheaper anyway you wont be making a loss for several years.

The FX8350 is continuing to have BIOS updates and windows updates to make the performance better and to optimize better on the software side. This is only increasing its performance it easily plays games just as well as i5 or i7, I cannot understand how anybody would say otherwise as it's 99% of the time down to your GPU.

There is also evidence of the 8350 NOT being a bottleneck anywhere in a system as there is a guy who has one in the top 10 scores on 3dmark i think? He was running quad 7970 with an 8350 and was 3rd from top or something insane at some point. Now seriously come-on... you try to tell anyone that an 8350 is crap when it gets just as good a score in a very popular benchmark as everything else from intel... plain stupidity

**EDIT: not 3dmark i was mistaken, Heaven 3.0 - Red1776: FX8350 with 4x 7970 in xfire came 11th. closest i5 is 25th.... think that says it all. Top scores were from the overprice 3930 and 3960 i7's **

 

[whyso]

Right guys, to all you intel fanboys please STFU. My AMD FX8350 (using passmark software) gets a nice xeon/i7 beating score of 10772. My 8350 outperforms the i7 3770K in every test except single core performance and even then it isn't far behind it.

I really don't understand how some people can be so ignorant and stupid. The FX8350 is the best thing AMD has released in YEARS, the future is multithreaded - intel has been saying this for decades for christ sake. Yet AMD still manages to wipe the floor with intel in multithreading. I don't understand this neckbeard approach to "OMG AMD USES MOAR POWER SO YOU SPEND A BILLION ON ENERGY" -- sorry to disappoint but no you wont, maybe an extra £5 a year (~$10) which you WILL NEVER NOTICE and considering the 8350 in general is cheaper anyway you wont be making a loss for several years.

The FX8350 is continuing to have BIOS updates and windows updates to make the performance better and to optimize better on the software side. This is only increasing its performance it easily plays games just as well as i5 or i7, I cannot understand how anybody would say otherwise as it's 99% of the time down to your GPU.

There is also evidence of the 8350 NOT being a bottleneck anywhere in a system as there is a guy who has one in the top 10 scores on 3dmark i think? He was running quad 7970 with an 8350 and was 3rd from top or something insane at some point. Now seriously come-on... you try to tell anyone that an 8350 is crap when it gets just as good a score in a very popular benchmark as everything else from intel... plain stupidity

**EDIT: not 3dmark i was mistaken, Heaven 3.0 - Red1776: FX8350 with 4x 7970 in xfire came 11th. closest i5 is 25th.... think that says it all. Top scores were from the overprice 3930 and 3960 i7's **

The 8350 does not beat the 3770k in every single test. (I can see right here your exaggeration). Its a very good cpu but it has its flaws.

Future is multithreading but this is difficult and threading for 4+ cores can be very difficult for some applications (highly branching code). Power use is largely minimal unless you are using the computer as a rendering farm and electricity is expensive (If there is a 50 watt difference between the 3770k and the 8350 and electricity costs 40 cents a kwh then your yearly costs are 50*24hr=1.2kwh day X 365 days x $0.4/kwh=$175 but this is an unrealistic senario for the average consumer).

Gaming is 99% down to your gpu but if you can afford 4 7970s it might be a wise idea to spend a couple hundred dollars more on the cpu.

The 8350 is a great cpu at its price point and will get equivalent or high enough fps compared to intel cpus. At its price point its a nice buy (excluding the mmo type game which are highly singlethreaded) over comparable intel solutions. However, for really expensive systems it may not make a lot of sense

 

[sam_p_lay]

Props to whyso there for actually doing the math and not pulling an arbitrary number out of their backside like some users do. I did the math on this a while ago (back of napkin style estimates) and came to ~£30-40/year for my own CPU (Nehalem i7, 135w TDP) vs 77w, so a 58w difference instead of 48w.

35(48/58) = £28.96 (like I say though, back of napkin - rough estimates).

Personally I think Piledriver is a really great step forward for AMD, but I'd still take an i5/i7 in a heartbeat. That's all I'll say on it though - not gonna get into one of these stupid arguments over it.

EDIT: Just to point out you need to factor in PSU efficiency to get a better idea - the PSU won't be 100% efficient at any load so will need to draw more than 48w to supply an additional 48w to the CPU. So then you also have to factor in usage of the system (how long is it spending idling, at load, and anywhere in between)... I think Tom's or some other tech site actually did the math too in an article last year (I didn't pay much attention at the time though).

 

[8350rocks]

Props to whyso there for actually doing the math and not pulling an arbitrary number out of their backside like some users do. I did the math on this a while ago (back of napkin style estimates) and came to ~£30-40/year for my own CPU (Nehalem i7, 135w TDP) vs 77w, so a 58w difference instead of 48w.

35(48/58) = £28.96 (like I say though, back of napkin - rough estimates).

Personally I think Piledriver is a really great step forward for AMD, but I'd still take an i5/i7 in a heartbeat. That's all I'll say on it though - not gonna get into one of these stupid arguments over it.

EDIT: Just to point out you need to factor in PSU efficiency to get a better idea - the PSU won't be 100% efficient at any load so will need to draw more than 48w to supply an additional 48w to the CPU. So then you also have to factor in usage of the system (how long is it spending idling, at load, and anywhere in between)... I think Tom's or some other tech site actually did the math too in an article last year (I didn't pay much attention at the time though).

It boils down to turning on an additional 40W bulb every month. I pay $0.11 per KW/hr. At those rates, I can afford to run the FX8350 for 3+ years over what I would have paid for the Intel i5-3570k + MB when I bought my CPU.

There's your Math.

(I saved $117 at the time)

 

[sam_p_lay]

You obviously missed the bit about efficiency, unless you own a PSU that's 100% efficient at all loads? On average, you're probably looking at 100w extra from the wall. So call it a 100w bulb if you want, makes it sound like not a lot. If what you say about your energy costs is true then you're paying 1/3 what I'm paying, so I guess it's gonna depend a lot on where you are. Based on my numbers, 3 years ownership would be £86 extra, and people agonise over far smaller price differences than that when choosing a processor.

 

[8350rocks]

My PSU is 80 Plus Gold...so let's call it a 45W bulb

 

[sam_p_lay]

Yeah mine too, but that's 80% at load 😛 Nobody has a PSU that's 80% when idling or light/medium loads. At high loads you'll get your 80%. So depends how much time you spend gaming vs idling. Not a simple calculation, way too many variables... hence my very rough calculations based on a whole load of ballpark estimates.

Another thing that varies by location of course is the hardware price itself - in Britain you're looking at £160 for a 3570K vs £150 for an FX8350. Much less price difference than the energy cost.

 

[8350rocks]

Yes, power costs and hardware costs vary wildly...

I think with my UPS the increased power consumption is balanced out somewhat though...

 

[cmi86]

Mother of god how is this thread still flaming ?

 

[juanrga]

Right guys, to all you intel fanboys please STFU. My AMD FX8350 (using passmark software) gets a nice xeon/i7 beating score of 10772. My 8350 outperforms the i7 3770K in every test except single core performance and even then it isn't far behind it.

I really don't understand how some people can be so ignorant and stupid. The FX8350 is the best thing AMD has released in YEARS, the future is multithreaded - intel has been saying this for decades for christ sake. Yet AMD still manages to wipe the floor with intel in multithreading. I don't understand this neckbeard approach to "OMG AMD USES MOAR POWER SO YOU SPEND A BILLION ON ENERGY" -- sorry to disappoint but no you wont, maybe an extra £5 a year (~$10) which you WILL NEVER NOTICE and considering the 8350 in general is cheaper anyway you wont be making a loss for several years.

The FX8350 is continuing to have BIOS updates and windows updates to make the performance better and to optimize better on the software side. This is only increasing its performance it easily plays games just as well as i5 or i7, I cannot understand how anybody would say otherwise as it's 99% of the time down to your GPU.

There is also evidence of the 8350 NOT being a bottleneck anywhere in a system as there is a guy who has one in the top 10 scores on 3dmark i think? He was running quad 7970 with an 8350 and was 3rd from top or something insane at some point. Now seriously come-on... you try to tell anyone that an 8350 is crap when it gets just as good a score in a very popular benchmark as everything else from intel... plain stupidity

**EDIT: not 3dmark i was mistaken, Heaven 3.0 - Red1776: FX8350 with 4x 7970 in xfire came 11th. closest i5 is 25th.... think that says it all. Top scores were from the overprice 3930 and 3960 i7's **

The 8350 does not beat the 3770k in every single test. (I can see right here your exaggeration). Its a very good cpu but it has its flaws.

Future is multithreading but this is difficult and threading for 4+ cores can be very difficult for some applications (highly branching code). Power use is largely minimal unless you are using the computer as a rendering farm and electricity is expensive (If there is a 50 watt difference between the 3770k and the 8350 and electricity costs 40 cents a kwh then your yearly costs are 50*24hr=1.2kwh day X 365 days x $0.4/kwh=$175 but this is an unrealistic senario for the average consumer).

Gaming is 99% down to your gpu but if you can afford 4 7970s it might be a wise idea to spend a couple hundred dollars more on the cpu.

The 8350 is a great cpu at its price point and will get equivalent or high enough fps compared to intel cpus. At its price point its a nice buy (excluding the mmo type game which are highly singlethreaded) over comparable intel solutions. However, for really expensive systems it may not make a lot of sense

He said "in every test except..." you have changed his words for making your point. That has a name.

Nobody said that multithreading is easy, but it is more easy than obtaining significantly faster cores. See Failwelll fiasco which offers virtually the same performance than 3770k. That is the reason why we will see more cores in future chips.

If one is going to use several 7970 one would not "spend a couple hundred dollars more on the cpu" but just obtain the best cpu. This does not equate to more expensive. Crysis 3 benchmarks shows how the FX can beat an expensive i7 and more games will like that.

All triple-A developers participating in eurogamer poll selected the FX 8350 as the best cpu for future gaming. They did not care about if it costs more or less than..., but about performance.

 

[juanrga]

You obviously missed the bit about efficiency, unless you own a PSU that's 100% efficient at all loads? On average, you're probably looking at 100w extra from the wall. So call it a 100w bulb if you want, makes it sound like not a lot. If what you say about your energy costs is true then you're paying 1/3 what I'm paying, so I guess it's gonna depend a lot on where you are. Based on my numbers, 3 years ownership would be £86 extra, and people agonise over far smaller price differences than that when choosing a processor.

It is more like 50-80W from the wall depending on specific hardware and load. Moreover your maths are based in the assumption of 100% load 24/7 which is very very far from average user.

Most computers are at idle 60-90% of time and are not turn on 24/7.

 

[whyso]

He said "in every test except..." you have changed his words for making your point. That has a name.

Nobody said that multithreading is easy, but it is more easy than obtaining significantly faster cores. See Failwelll fiasco which offers virtually the same performance than 3770k. That is the reason why we will see more cores in future chips.

If one is going to use several 7970 one would not "spend a couple hundred dollars more on the cpu" but just obtain the best cpu. This does not equate to more expensive. Crysis 3 benchmarks shows how the FX can beat an expensive i7 and more games will like that.

All triple-A developers participating in eurogamer poll selected the FX 8350 as the best cpu for future gaming. They did not care about if it costs more or less than..., but about performance.

1. I apologize, I meant every single task that is not singlethreaded. (The 8350 does not beat the 3770k in every single task that is not singlethreaded).

2. See what? There are no proper reviews out yet. (tip: its hard to take you seriously when you label haswell 'failwell')

3. The best consumer cpu is probably the 3960X. Not really sure what you are saying here but if I have the money to buy 3 7970s I can probably afford a 3930x or 3770k(and many tri 7970 owners have a 3930x). Sure crysis 3 may say one thing (and the fact that many crysis 3 benchmarks often do not agree on this) but does that mean the same for every game? No.

4. Again trying to pass off one article which is mostly speculation as fact. Not to mention that they have more to gain by hyping up the ps4 and buttering up AMD and sony than saying "This is crap." Of course they care about price otherwise they would recommend the 3960X.

 

[sam_p_lay]

You obviously missed the bit about efficiency, unless you own a PSU that's 100% efficient at all loads? On average, you're probably looking at 100w extra from the wall. So call it a 100w bulb if you want, makes it sound like not a lot. If what you say about your energy costs is true then you're paying 1/3 what I'm paying, so I guess it's gonna depend a lot on where you are. Based on my numbers, 3 years ownership would be £86 extra, and people agonise over far smaller price differences than that when choosing a processor.

It is more like 50-80W from the wall depending on specific hardware and load. Moreover your maths are based in the assumption of 100% load 24/7 which is very very far from average user.

Most computers are at idle 60-90% of time and are not turn on 24/7.

How the hell do you know what my maths are based on? I posted no formula and clearly stated (more than once infact) back of napkin estimates that I thought through several months ago for my own Nehalem i7. whyso's formula was based on 24/7. My own was based on a rough estimate (I probably estimated 8 hrs per day but I can't remember now). As for your Crysis 3 CPU comment, really?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,review-32644-8.html

I don't see it beating an 'expensive i7'. Infact I see it getting beaten by an i5. Back up your claims with evidence. Those kind of idiotic posts are why these threads degenerate into flame wars. It's not necessary if you simply fact-check first and post evidence. And also don't claim people said things they didn't - the original posts are there for everyone to see so you just make yourself look stupid/dishonest when you make false claims about what was said.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Right guys, to all you intel fanboys please STFU. My AMD FX8350 (using passmark software) gets a nice xeon/i7 beating score of 10772. My 8350 outperforms the i7 3770K in every test except single core performance and even then it isn't far behind it.

I really don't understand how some people can be so ignorant and stupid. The FX8350 is the best thing AMD has released in YEARS, the future is multithreaded - intel has been saying this for decades for christ sake. Yet AMD still manages to wipe the floor with intel in multithreading. I don't understand this neckbeard approach to "OMG AMD USES MOAR POWER SO YOU SPEND A BILLION ON ENERGY" -- sorry to disappoint but no you wont, maybe an extra £5 a year (~$10) which you WILL NEVER NOTICE and considering the 8350 in general is cheaper anyway you wont be making a loss for several years.

The FX8350 is continuing to have BIOS updates and windows updates to make the performance better and to optimize better on the software side. This is only increasing its performance it easily plays games just as well as i5 or i7, I cannot understand how anybody would say otherwise as it's 99% of the time down to your GPU.

There is also evidence of the 8350 NOT being a bottleneck anywhere in a system as there is a guy who has one in the top 10 scores on 3dmark i think? He was running quad 7970 with an 8350 and was 3rd from top or something insane at some point. Now seriously come-on... you try to tell anyone that an 8350 is crap when it gets just as good a score in a very popular benchmark as everything else from intel... plain stupidity

**EDIT: not 3dmark i was mistaken, Heaven 3.0 - Red1776: FX8350 with 4x 7970 in xfire came 11th. closest i5 is 25th.... think that says it all. Top scores were from the overprice 3930 and 3960 i7's **

The 8350 does not beat the 3770k in every single test. (I can see right here your exaggeration). Its a very good cpu but it has its flaws.

Future is multithreading but this is difficult and threading for 4+ cores can be very difficult for some applications (highly branching code). Power use is largely minimal unless you are using the computer as a rendering farm and electricity is expensive (If there is a 50 watt difference between the 3770k and the 8350 and electricity costs 40 cents a kwh then your yearly costs are 50*24hr=1.2kwh day X 365 days x $0.4/kwh=$175 but this is an unrealistic senario for the average consumer).

Gaming is 99% down to your gpu but if you can afford 4 7970s it might be a wise idea to spend a couple hundred dollars more on the cpu.

The 8350 is a great cpu at its price point and will get equivalent or high enough fps compared to intel cpus. At its price point its a nice buy (excluding the mmo type game which are highly singlethreaded) over comparable intel solutions. However, for really expensive systems it may not make a lot of sense

Hello Again ^_^

I would like to agree with whyso, as he does state the truth, more of what I have also done, but most people disregard it.

Otherwise, I would like to propose an experiment. Stock, the i7-3770k runs at 3.5, and the FX-8350 runs at 4.0. If anyone can. I would like to see some benchmarks of cpu performance where the Intel is at 4.0, and then vice versa where the AMD is at 3.5. Also game performance on minimal and maximum settings. I would provide them for myself, however, since no one really accepts on this thread what I say, I leave this proposal to those who would like to see some truth.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

How the hell do you know what my maths are based on? I posted no formula and clearly stated (more than once infact) back of napkin estimates that I thought through several months ago for my own Nehalem i7. whyso's formula was based on 24/7. My own was based on a rough estimate (I probably estimated 8 hrs per day but I can't remember now). As for your Crysis 3 CPU comment, really?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,review-32644-8.html

I don't see it beating an 'expensive i7'. Infact I see it getting beaten by an i5. Back up your claims with evidence. Those kind of idiotic posts are why these threads degenerate into flame wars. It's not necessary if you simply fact-check first and post evidence. And also don't claim people said things they didn't - the original posts are there for everyone to see so you just make yourself look stupid/dishonest when you make false claims about what was said.

I just want to say on behalf of the admins, try to refrain from profanity. Also, you posted basically a word problem, so thus you can extract a forumula from it.