Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

[linkgx1]

chit chat thread 😛
post your fb id 😗

By the time more games support more cores, your current cpu is already obselete.
Especially considering are architecture changes so rapidly.

thats the best logic that i ever heard from one other than me 😉

Gracias. I'm just saying. Technology changes rapidly, but adoption is slow. HD technically happened in the 1960 and 1980s. There were prototypes. It was released to the public in the '90s. But most content today still isn't in HD. If you get a 4k tv now, you're looking for at least anotehr 8 years before viable, true 4k content is avaliable.

I understand the logic to getting an FX 8350 for its cores, but it's ironically limited by AMD itself. Until AMD offically has their APUs shipped in the Xbox One and PS4....the industry is going to have to wait.

Consoles seem to be the forefront of technology pushing. Nintendo 64-bit (not true 64 bit processing, but you know). HD (Xbox 360 being of the first, even though Xbox came out supporting 720p). Online gaming (Sega Dreamcast). I mean, these started on PC fiirst but consoles 'modernize' it to the masses. Just my theory.

 

[8350rocks]

I'm not sure why people keep arguing the fact that "future" games will support more cores. Future proofing is moot in the tech world. Maybe immediate future proofing.

I don't think most games will use many cores efficently until the middle of the 8th gen console era. Right now single-threaded performance is key for now. By the time more games support more cores, your current cpu is already obselete.

Especially considering are architecture changes so rapidly.

I think the people running E8400s and Q9550s would argue against that logic...Also, the people running Athlon II product would probably argue against that as well as the people who still own and run Phenom II X4 CPUs. Here they are, at least 4 years old...and still going strong in modern games that are using their capability more and more now than games in their day were.

Now, that doesn't mean they're the best for newer games and applications...but they're also hardly obsolete either.

Future proofing is a very valid approach if you have a longer upgrade cycle. It also means that instead of doing nickel and dime upgrades, you can do full system overhauls.

In terms of looking forward, I want the most capable technology available, and something that looks like it will still be relevant in 2+ years. I have 4 PCs in my house, and about every 3 years or so I do a complete scratch build and repurpose the others. When one gets old enough that it can't keep up anymore, I just toss it or donate it or give it away to someone who needs a PC period.

With things shifting more and more toward more cores, I think in the next 2-3 years we will see the final death knell for dual core CPUs in mainstream desktops. They will still be around in web browsing rigs, etc. though their mention won't even be uttered in conversations about gaming CPUs.

If technology were obsolete so quickly, why do so many now still run 4-5 year old architecture? By your logic, that shouldn't happen...though a great majority of the world is running last generation or older hardware.

Future proofing is highly relevant.

 

[juanrga]

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.

Sites as tech spot have a tendency to make reviews giving advantages to Intel and Nvidia. They usually run memory underclocked on the AMD chips or lack FX hotfixes, or when do an Nvidia AMD comparison they use beta drivers for AMD cards...

I already explained you that:

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.

What you say about games scaling poorly with increasing core count must be corrected to games using few threads scale poorly when going above the optimal number of cores.

But I may concede that I was wrong in one thing. Above I wrote:

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.

I was wrong, Crysis 3 is not using the 100% potential of the FX chip. The game is not optimized for six or eight cores. The game is better than older games and can use "moar cores" and that is why the FX outperform the i5-3570k and the i7-3770k, but crysis 3 is not still showing the real performance of the FX chips.

In fact, crysis 3 is loading only two cores of the FX-8350 above the 90%, whereas four cores are loaded slightly above 60% and the remaining 2 cores are loaded between those two extremes. That is, crysis 3 is using between 2/3 and 3/4 of the FX-8350. Maybe crysis 4 will be able to load the eight cores at 94%, then we will see the real gaming performance of the FX-8350. Next gen games will be heavily multi-threaded thanks to consoles being 8-core chips.

Finally, as you say people care about the platform that they use. Therefore Windows users don't care about linux benchmarks and linux users don't care about windows benchmarks.

Moreover, in the desktop, there is about the same users of linux as users of W8. There is no reason to give benchmarks of one and don't give the benchmarks of the other, unless you only want bash AMD chips because linux can use the performance of AMD chips.

 

[juanrga]

I'm not sure why people keep arguing the fact that "future" games will support more cores. Future proofing is moot in the tech world. Maybe immediate future proofing.

I don't think most games will use many cores efficently until the middle of the 8th gen console era. Right now single-threaded performance is key for now. By the time more games support more cores, your current cpu is already obselete.

Especially considering are architecture changes so rapidly.

Because the triple-A game developers have said that they will code for eigth-cores?

Because the same developers have said that they recommend the FX-8350 as the best cpu for future gaming?

Albeit the PS4 and the Xbox One are not still shipping, some of those developers have already presented a demo of their future games and the demo is already using six cores. This is the cpu profiling

The game will be released with the PS4.

 

[juanrga]

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

And don't forget the future Steam Box consoles which will be based in linux (with windows as second choice).

 

[griptwister]

There are benchmarks that show the 8350 to out perform the i7 in Metro 2033 when the 8350 was using 1866Mhz RAM. I don't know where you guys are getting this 2% number from.

@dirtyferret, PS4 - One = 3

HL3 confirmed 😀 lol jk.

@jaunrga, nice finds. It was indicated in another thread that Crysis 3 prefers the Ghz as opposed to ICP at certain times.

The point everyone is missing is that for less money, you can have more cores, better future proofing, and a playable experience with a FX 8350. I refuse to buy another quad core, even an i7 because I know that in the near future, that isn't going to cut it. I'm going to run my Phenom into the ground before my next purchase. Lol.

 

[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.

Sites as tech spot have a tendency to make reviews giving advantages to Intel and Nvidia. They usually run memory underclocked on the AMD chips or lack FX hotfixes, or when do an Nvidia AMD comparison they use beta drivers for AMD cards...

I already explained you that:

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.

What you say about games scaling poorly with increasing core count must be corrected to games using few threads scale poorly when going above the optimal number of cores.

But I may concede that I was wrong in one thing. Above I wrote:

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.

I was wrong, Crysis 3 is not using the 100% potential of the FX chip. The game is not optimized for six or eight cores. The game is better than older games and can use "moar cores" and that is why the FX outperform the i5-3570k and the i7-3770k, but crysis 3 is not still showing the real performance of the FX chips.

In fact, crysis 3 is loading only two cores of the FX-8350 above the 90%, whereas four cores are loaded slightly above 60% and the remaining 2 cores are loaded between those two extremes. That is, crysis 3 is using between 2/3 and 3/4 of the FX-8350. Maybe crysis 4 will be able to load the eight cores at 94%, then we will see the real gaming performance of the FX-8350. Next gen games will be heavily multi-threaded thanks to consoles being 8-core chips.

Finally, as you say people care about the platform that they use. Therefore Windows users don't care about linux benchmarks and linux users don't care about windows benchmarks.

Moreover, in the desktop, there is about the same users of linux as users of W8. There is no reason to give benchmarks of one and don't give the benchmarks of the other, unless you only want bash AMD chips because linux can use the performance of AMD chips.

I swear to god in another thread you knocked those hotfixes for improving gaming performance by almost nothing but increasing power consumption by 7%.

Fact is games are hard to scale for. The more threads you break your game into the more times you have to have one thread ask another thread for a piece of information. This information transfer takes time and reduces efficiency. Furthermore their is a limit to how much you can break a game up into pieces (both limited theoretically and by time/money constraints).

Crysis three is probably one of the best multithreade games on the market, I think it'll be a while before it becomes mainstream to do that much multithreading.

And I'll also bet that the number of computers running win 8 and capable of running crysis 3 is higher than the number of computers using Linux that can run C3.

Not to mention that C3 doesn't run on linux.

 

[truegenius]

if anyone owns crisis 3 here and have fx8350 then run this test to see how much cores crisis 3 use

test
clock down the fx8350 to minimum (say 1ghz)
and then run crisis 3 and a cpu monitor like task manager
and see the total cpu usage and post the chart/picture of taskmanager

 

[juanrga]

I swear to god in another thread you knocked those hotfixes for improving gaming performance by almost nothing but increasing power consumption by 7%.

Fact is games are hard to scale for. The more threads you break your game into the more times you have to have one thread ask another thread for a piece of information. This information transfer takes time and reduces efficiency. Furthermore their is a limit to how much you can break a game up into pieces (both limited theoretically and by time/money constraints).

Crysis three is probably one of the best multithreade games on the market, I think it'll be a while before it becomes mainstream to do that much multithreading.

And I'll also bet that the number of computers running win 8 and capable of running crysis 3 is higher than the number of computers using Linux that can run C3.

Not to mention that C3 doesn't run on linux.

The hotfixes improve performance between a 2 and a 10% depending of the game. 5% is rather common. This alone is enough to close the supposed gap between the i7-3770k and the FX-8350 in the 'review' that you gave. Not to mention that by using the correct RAM at stock speed gives and extra boost for the FX.

One does not split a code into threads that depend on each one. One splits the code in parts almost independent. The game developers choose the eight-core design of the PS4 after several technical meetings before the hardware was designed. Developers such as Crytek also ask for "moar cores".

First generation games for the PS4 and the Xbox One are using more than four cores. We already saw some demo of a future PS4 game using six cores. This is only the beginning.

And I'll also bet that the number of computers running win 8 and capable of running crysis 3 is higher than the number of computers using Linux that can run C3.

Really?

 

[whyso]

I swear to god in another thread you knocked those hotfixes for improving gaming performance by almost nothing but increasing power consumption by 7%.

Fact is games are hard to scale for. The more threads you break your game into the more times you have to have one thread ask another thread for a piece of information. This information transfer takes time and reduces efficiency. Furthermore their is a limit to how much you can break a game up into pieces (both limited theoretically and by time/money constraints).

Crysis three is probably one of the best multithreade games on the market, I think it'll be a while before it becomes mainstream to do that much multithreading.

And I'll also bet that the number of computers running win 8 and capable of running crysis 3 is higher than the number of computers using Linux that can run C3.

Not to mention that C3 doesn't run on linux.

The hotfixes improve performance between a 2 and a 10% depending of the game. 5% is rather common. This alone is enough to close the supposed gap between the i7-3770k and the FX-8350 in the 'review' that you gave. Not to mention that by using the correct RAM at stock speed gives and extra boost for the FX.

One does not split a code into threads that depend on each one. One splits the code in parts almost independent. The game developers choose the eight-core design of the PS4 after several technical meetings before the hardware was designed. Developers such as Crytek also ask for "moar cores".

First generation games for the PS4 and the Xbox One are using more than four cores. We already saw some demo of a future PS4 game using six cores. This is only the beginning.

And I'll also bet that the number of computers running win 8 and capable of running crysis 3 is higher than the number of computers using Linux that can run C3.

Really?

RAM= no performance gains for gaming (maybe in encoding or winrar but for games the average is 0-2%; yes there are cases where its higher but the average is 0-2). The hotfixes bring no appreciable performance gains. You cannot take the absolute best case scenario and apply it as if it is the minimum guarenteed.

You cannot spilt a game into fully independant pieces.

Given the choice between 8 or 4 jaguar cores devs will gladly take 8. They are weak cores and only 4 would be a huge bottleneck for a 7850 class gpu.

 

[8350rocks]

juangra where did you see 6 cores being used. Also some people get mislead by this cores thing. If a 3770k and fx8350 had 100% cpu usage in games with same gpu intel will win as its architecture and concentrated performance will push those fps up. AMD fanboys should hope steamroller doesn't fail, no chance an fx8350 beating a 3770k on most heavily threaded games. I am more shocked fx8350 struggles in f1 2012 and other codemasters games. i3 run them as good if not better then an fx8350.

Post a link to a technical expert backing up your claims...or quit posting nonsense. Any expert I have ever read concedes the FX8350 is better than just about any intel when the cores are loaded (any 4 core intel). The issue is getting software threaded enough to load all 8 cores.

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

You post more misinformation than anyone I have ever encountered in my entire life...and that's really saying something.

 

[truegenius]

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
now fight with toms reviewer/tester for why they are placing i3 and 8350 in same slot 😉

so no one have dare to post results after this test

test
clock down the fx8350 to minimum (say 1ghz) and then run [strike]crisis 3[/strike] any game that you have and a cpu monitor like task manager
and see the total cpu usage and post the chart/picture of taskmanager

this test will show if the game is only multithreaded or realy use all cores

 

[8350rocks]

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
now fight with toms reviewer/tester for why they are placing i3 and 8350 in same slot 😉

so no one have dare to post results after this test

test
clock down the fx8350 to minimum (say 1ghz) and then run [strike]crisis 3[/strike] any game that you have and a cpu monitor like task manager
and see the total cpu usage and post the chart/picture of taskmanager

this test will show if the game is only multithreaded or realy use all cores

They also put the 1st gen core i7 series in that bracket too, and the FX8350 obliterates those...what's your point? Tom's isn't spot on about everything, everytime. As I said before, they are objective in most of their benchmarks, at least as much as you can expect. However, when it turns to "rating" situations...they have human bias like anyone, and they try to hide it...however, the FX8350 and I would even argue down to the FX6300 really deserve to be in the top bracket with the newest core i5's. They will lean slightly toward team blue when they "freestyle" their ratings...

I have even stated this before. There are far too many benchmarks that show AMD FX8350 is WAY better than i3's and gets comparable performance to i5's and i7's for them to be this naïve for this long and lump the FAR WEAKER CPUs in with the most potent AMD models.

 

[juanrga]

3770k beats fx8350 on most benchmarks compared to an fx8350. AMD wins on a few with the fx8350. All the games intels top end quad wins.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Nope. It is well-known that Anandtech reviews are biased pro intel. They select hardware and/or software configs for favouring Intel chips. For instance, they still continue using Sysmark and other biased benchmarks that give fake scores.

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/20/nvidia-amd-and-via-quit-bapco-over-sysmark-2012/

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

juangra where did you see 6 cores being used. Also some people get mislead by this cores thing. If a 3770k and fx8350 had 100% cpu usage in games with same gpu intel will win as its architecture and concentrated performance will push those fps up. AMD fanboys should hope steamroller doesn't fail, no chance an fx8350 beating a 3770k on most heavily threaded games. I am more shocked fx8350 struggles in f1 2012 and other codemasters games. i3 run them as good if not better then an fx8350.

Post a link to a technical expert backing up your claims...or quit posting nonsense. Any expert I have ever read concedes the FX8350 is better than just about any intel when the cores are loaded (any 4 core intel). The issue is getting software threaded enough to load all 8 cores.

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

You post more misinformation than anyone I have ever encountered in my entire life...and that's really saying something.

I believe that you should also post credible information. Tek Syndicate, is biased towards AMD cpus, and doesn't test in a fully correct manner. Find another right source, and make sure that it can back up your biased username.

 

[griptwister]

juangra where did you see 6 cores being used. Also some people get mislead by this cores thing. If a 3770k and fx8350 had 100% cpu usage in games with same gpu intel will win as its architecture and concentrated performance will push those fps up. AMD fanboys should hope steamroller doesn't fail, no chance an fx8350 beating a 3770k on most heavily threaded games. I am more shocked fx8350 struggles in f1 2012 and other codemasters games. i3 run them as good if not better then an fx8350.

Post a link to a technical expert backing up your claims...or quit posting nonsense. Any expert I have ever read concedes the FX8350 is better than just about any intel when the cores are loaded (any 4 core intel). The issue is getting software threaded enough to load all 8 cores.

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

You post more misinformation than anyone I have ever encountered in my entire life...and that's really saying something.

I believe that you should also post credible information. Tek Syndicate, is biased towards AMD cpus, and doesn't test in a fully correct manner. Find another right source, and make sure that it can back up your biased username.

Man... Tech Syndicate? Their OC benchmarks were done 500Mhz for 500Mhz as opposed to Clock for clock. And you want credible information? YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED YOUR FRIEND RAN AN i7 WITH A REGULAR COOLER, UNDER LOAD, AT 1C!!! Not to be mean, but come on man...

 

[juanrga]

juangra where did you see 6 cores being used. Also some people get mislead by this cores thing. If a 3770k and fx8350 had 100% cpu usage in games with same gpu intel will win as its architecture and concentrated performance will push those fps up. AMD fanboys should hope steamroller doesn't fail, no chance an fx8350 beating a 3770k on most heavily threaded games. I am more shocked fx8350 struggles in f1 2012 and other codemasters games. i3 run them as good if not better then an fx8350.

Post a link to a technical expert backing up your claims...or quit posting nonsense. Any expert I have ever read concedes the FX8350 is better than just about any intel when the cores are loaded (any 4 core intel). The issue is getting software threaded enough to load all 8 cores.

If I hear you compare an i3 to the FX8350 one more time without posting relevant information from a credible source...my head might explode.

You post more misinformation than anyone I have ever encountered in my entire life...and that's really saying something.

I believe that you should also post credible information. Tek Syndicate, is biased towards AMD cpus, and doesn't test in a fully correct manner. Find another right source, and make sure that it can back up your biased username.

Proof?

3770k beats fx8350 on most benchmarks compared to an fx8350. AMD wins on a few with the fx8350. All the games intels top end quad wins.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Nope. It is well-known that Anandtech reviews are biased pro intel. They select hardware and/or software configs for favouring Intel chips. For instance, they still continue using Sysmark and other biased benchmarks that give fake scores.

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/20/nvidia-amd-and-via-quit-bapco-over-sysmark-2012/

lol, its not fake scores. Its that amd cpus were crap at that test and intel excelled in it.

LOL, if that was half true they would not continue using cheating benchmarks with the cripple_AMD function neither would select unfair hardware settings.

 

[griptwister]

Runner up? We know for gaming the i7 and i5 get more FPS. But the 8350 isn't as far off as people claim. That's all we're trying to prove. Not that our product is better. However, the next generation called steamroller will be better than Haswel I'm sure.

 

[truegenius]

17.5% overclock on fx8350 resulted in 117w increase in power draw
that means 125w cpu pulls 242w after applying 17.5% overclock

fx8350 overclocks below 20%
and i5-3570k overclocks 30-50%

i am not a fortune teller so for current games, an i5-3570k is great, better than fx

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_3570k_review,11.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,20.html

 

[juanrga]

there is no doubt the FX-8350 is good for gaming, answering the OP original question. When compared to intel 3570k, the consensus is clear.

Yes, consensus is clear, all triple-A game developers say that the FX-8350 is better than the i5-3570k for future games.

For old games consensus is again clear, the i5-3570k is better.

For the rest of games both are good enough and you can select any. The FX gains in some games, the i5 gains on other games.

 

[8350rocks]

As I have been saying all along...90-95% of the time, the benchmarks show both CPUs within margin for error of each other. What does that mean? You can't go wrong...

Now, will this change with 8 core consoles hitting the market around Christmas time? Certainly. How long will it be before we see the results of the influence these consoles have? I would bet about 6-12 months before the results begin to be really prevalent...and probably 12-24 months before the majority of games developed are 8 core aware. Considering game development cycles...1-2 years is likely how long it will take before the vast majority of games will use 4+ cores predominantly.

 

[truegenius]

and then we will be on excavator

 

[8350rocks]

and then we will be on excavator

If steamroller is as potent and popular as many are hoping, there will be a great many steamroller CPUs taking advantage of the games that are really harnessing the potential. Additionally, considering the Steamroller FX CPUs will likely not be out until at least when the consoles hit, if not the following quarter...they may do something like Phenom II series or Richland and simply do a product refresh with some minor performance tweaks if it sells and performs well enough.

 

[8350rocks]

but more likely when the FX-8350 is no longer a viable gaming CPU, the intel i5 will be right there with it as no longer viable.

Skipping to this part intentionally because...

I am going to write this down on my calendar...you and I agreed about anything!

Just curious...are you feeling well? (Jesting)

 

[8350rocks]

I don't view the status as negative, but what irks me, is the people who portray it to be a HUGE difference in performance and then quote a benchmark with 3 fps difference between the 2, and both framerates well over 100 FPS...

That's absurd...and realistically, it's exacerbating a slight edge in some areas by making it appear to be much more than it is. There are a few edge cases where performance difference between the 2 is fairly dramatic...but those are the exception, not the rule...(looking squarely at iTunes for intel, and encryption for AMD).