Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


well if you want to invest in another 7970 in the future then youd need a better motherboard thats what i was saying. Id recommend a z77 motherboard that has pcie 3.0 for example this motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130643
has pcie 3.0 slots at 16x 8x 4x so if you put 7970 in crossfire theyd be running at pcie 30 8x 8x which equals to pcie 2.0 16x 16x. Well for gaming there is a minor difference for an i7 3770k and a i5 3570k but that doesnt justify a the $100 difference. You cant go wrong either way but since your on a budget theres two scenarios you can play out: 1. you can get the i7 3770k with the msi z77a-gd65 motherboard and wait to get a better videocard 2. you can get the i5 3570k with the msi z77a-gd65 motherboard and a decent video card, depending on if its used or new.

I just wouldnt recomend the 8350fx because overtime its going to cost more than an i7 because of the amount of power it consumes= your energy bill.
 

cache are tiny ulra-fast memory slots that save key locations and information that are most used in your computer. places in the OS. it means it will run more advanced OC more smoothly and fast. the diffarence between L3 and L2 is they are differend "depth" in you're OS, example: L3 cache will be something like C:\windows\system32\XOB\knob\data. a L2 cache will look something like c/windows/system32/PCI. cache is pretty important when it comes to PCUs
 
It's funny to see everyone battling on this. Its honestly for what you do. For example, I'm getting and i5-3570K for the sole reason of ArmA 2, DayZ, and ArmA 3. These games perform best on the i5 because hyper threading kills the frames and only gives a small advantage on other games. I'm also getting Dual SLI Zotac GTX 680 4GBs which also is better for ArmA and such. And even comparing AMD and Intel, Intel's coding and physical build is better than the AMDs and also is more compatible with more boards and software. The choice of Nvidials software on GPUs is obvious as its better for my games (ArmA / DayZ). Also running in Dual SLI decreases Temp by 15ºC O.O. Anyways, go with what your gut tells you and what you are using it for. Try to find the software that the applications/games use, and look up multiple (at least 3 or more) reviews on Hardware with games, and hardware vs other hardware. Good Luck ^_^

EDIT: ALSO! The i5-3570K can overclock safely to 5.0 GHz while the i7-3770K can only go to 4.8 GHz ^_^
 

@8350rocks - 8350 does not rock. better to get i5 /thread
 


I would like to know what GPU, Motherboard, and how many watts the PSU is.

Its very much possible that the GPU has an affect on it, for example, the i7-3770K with a single GTX 680 4GB can get about 40 FPS on Metro 2033. However when Dual SLI overclocked is used, it goes up to about 70-80 FPS. So please let me know ^_^
 
Xfire'd Radeon HD 7870 GHz editions, and later another one was done with GTX 670's in SLI configuration with similar results.

System specs:

AMD FX 8350 Rig
•MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
•16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)
•EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
•16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
•Corsair H100
•ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel 3820 Rig
•ASRock X79 Extreme4m Motherboard
•16 GB Gelid 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 256 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870
 
As far as an 8350 being better in multithreaded apps, NOT all the time. Sometimes the 3570k's 4 cores are more powerful that all "8" of AMD's cores. On ANDTECH, they have 40 benchmarks. The i5 win's 25 of them and the 8350 win's 13 of them. I'd go with the i5 because it has better gaming performance. And win's more benchmarks during normal compute tasks. So as far as AMD 8350 being a better "all around" computer, that's hardly true. Personally I much rather have 4 really powerful cores(no other cpu is more powerful, per core, than a 3570k)than 8 weak ones.
 


Err...current benchmarks were TL;DR for you?
 


Actually we are near that point. What two popular games were recently released? Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3. Do they support 8 Cores? Yes.

What Consoles are launching this year?
Xbox 720 and the PS4.

Both will be Multi-Core configurations. The PS4 will be an AMD x86 8-core CPU with an AMD GPU (an APU on steroids). What does this mean? Means that games being ported to and from consoles will be multi-core aware and designed to take 8 cores into consideration. Also means that down to the architecture level... these games will be tailored for GCN and not Kepler. The effects and shaders used will be tailored for AMDs architectures.

The PS4 is set to launch during the holidays of this year with many titles available on the onset. Those titles will be ported to the PC. Care to wager as to how "multi-core aware" they will be?
 


+1
 


I know this seems a little blunt, however, I hope that you realize that The different motherboards, fans, SSDs and RAM do make a difference even though you may think it not. If you want true results, get (for example). Same everything except the graphics cards and processors. Do tests with one GPU (ie. one from Nvidia) with both processors and then both processors again with a different one (AMD). Then compare the results and see which one works better, and which one works better with which GPU.
 


It's not even that its overpriced. I have to say, AMD processors are great processors and are definitely worth the money. However, they are mostly meant for video editing and extreme multitasking. The physical build of it and the code isn't as good as Intel, but some of the code is better for Video editing. You can honestly go for whatever, and I'm not any kind of fan boy, however I do know facts. If your going for hardcore gaming, and that's all your really using it for, then definitely go for Intel. If you all about video editing, and maybe even some small games, the AMD. However if you want the best of both worlds, or even just playing a game with stuff running in the background, The smarter thing to do would be to invest in an i7 Extreme series (i.e the i7 - 980X / 990X / 3960X / or 3970X) or a better / higher-end AMD processor (i.e the A8 or A10 series).

Its for what your using, not really for what has better core clock or different technologies overall, its for what YOU want to do with YOUR system.

EDIT: Also, most games these days never use more than 2 cores, and at most (maybe ArmA 3) will use 3 cores.
 


I think what hes saying goes along with what i just recently posted.
 
A FX 8350 (or even FX 8320) OC'd, compared to an i7, you would never notice the difference! Most people are racist against AMD because of the single threaded performance... Can you honestly tell me that 60FPS is a bad adverage framerate? Unless you're going to be playing on a 120Hz monitor, there is no need for the extra 20FPS in certain games... In fact, If you have even tried using a FX 8350 you would realize... IT'S NOT A SLOUCH! By no means... I was going to buy an i7 and a z77 MSI gamer's series MoBo... but I decided I'd rather have a better GPU first... Do your research and see that the FX 8350 is an amazing processor... even if it is behind in tech! 8 cores are the future... AMD controls the console market, they're giving out 8 cores for cheap! You're going to see that steamroller is going to be very close to the next market line of intel products... just wait.
 
Oh, and Clock for clock, Intel is faster... but if you overclocked an i7 500Mhz and a 8350 500Mhz, I doubt you'd see a Massive difference. In fact, a noticeable difference. If you even looked at benchmarks... the i7 isn't as far ahead as people would like to believe.
 
I have to say, the aura coming off you is much like a fanboys, no offence ^_^. From my experience of playing computers with AMD and Intel processors, I agree that Hyper-threading doesn't help that much, especially when playing ArmA. However, I see that Clock Speed, Threading, and Brand Name are not factors that much as when you compare the physical aspects.

The AMDs are cheaper due to that their physical aspects are far inferior to the Intel Processors, where as the Intel processor are made with more precision and require more time into them. Also, the coded aspect, which no one regards at all, is also what makes the biggest difference.

AMD's coding is superior to the Intels in the fact of normal everyday, and hardcore video and browser usage. Its more into the, Visual World, as you may say. However, the Intel processors are inferior to the Processing for the Video editing, not by much, and are much more complex and at the same time simplified in the fact of 3D rendering, video, browser, and math usage. AMD does have a far advantage with cores, but likewise, they are truly weaker in the code and physical aspect.

The Clock Speed does come into play, but it is dependent on code, and its basically how fast it can use its OWN code. So you can have a better clock speed and more cores, but if my code is better, I'll probably do better.

The clear victor (if you may) for a universal and gaming use is Intel, but if you are a video editor (i.e Freddie Wong) the victor may be AMD.

As I say many times again, its what you go for.

EDIT: In addition, 5 or 10 frames may not be noticeable, but have you considered lag spikes. For example if 3 bombs go off, a tank shoots, jets fly over, and 20 people are running around me shooting on something with the graphics intensiveness of Metro 2033, those few frames will help you in not seeing any kind of lag spike. ^_^
 


I know it makes a small difference, but even then, you can't have the exact same board for AMD and Intel, it isn't physically possible because of the architecture and it's engineering. So eliminating that "variable" in a test like this isn't possible.

I can understand your argument for using the same card per station for the benchmarks, and frankly, there's good scientific logic in that...though for the sake of expediency, The variance between stock clock GPUs is going to be very little in this day and age. If they were OC'ing the GPUs and they OC'ed to different frequencies...then I could sit back and say...well...that isn't exactly fair, or scientific...but that was simply not the case.

The point of the benchmarks was to test max settings on some ridiculously CPU/GPU heavy games that run alot of physics calculations and utilize multiple threads for integer calculations and floating point calculations. It showed that the frame rate decay on the AMD system was drastically less at max settings than it was on either Intel chip. Which is impressive...because that means...theoretically...AMD is better prepared for what's coming, intel is better prepared for what's here.

Knowing that the next gen consoles are on AMD architecture is something to be excited about, that means the possibility to have all 8 cores utilized at once is going to happen in a very short time frame. I can only imagine, something like Uncharted 4 will come along and really tap into the capability of that hardware, or the next Final Fantasy installment on the consoles would be a good one to watch for as well. You're going to see some stupid resolution capability once they really get their claws into the hardware and learn it inside and out.
 
No fanboy... just tired of morons who have no idea what they're talking about, come on here, and convince someone to buy a different CPU that because some reviewer didn't recommend that specific CPU. It angers me deeply. A company is losing money because people who don't know the difference between a core and a module come on here and bash. You, you know what you're talking about Mr. Gomer lol. I've got no problem with you at all... But for day to day tasks and a few HD Games here and there, people won't notice a difference.

I'm not a fanboy... I just don't like what Intel is doing... how much they're currently over charging... It's insane! lol. The price on the i5 went up again because people were buying the i5 over the i7.

Also, I've seen multiple benchmarks where the FX 8350 gets better FPS in metro. I also have to state that a Drop from 60 FPS to anything below 40 FPS is very noticeable... but the 8350 CPU doesn't really ever drop below 45 FPS. and Intel CPU's experience the same drop in certain games.

There was a test conducted a while back where there was a AMD system and an Intel System. But these people switched labels so that the people would think they were playing on a Intel system, but they were really playing on a AMD system... most of the people chose the supposed intel system... and to their shock it was really the AMD system. Again... people only choose intel for the Brand name and can't say they can tell the difference... unless if they are using the Hexa-core i7
 
It has 8 real integer cores that share 4 floating point calculations and each set of 2 integer cores share L2 cache...

So it isn't an 8 core in the sense of intel cores, but it is drastically more powerful than a 4 core processor.
 
No... 8 Bull Dozer and 8 Pile Driver use 4 modules each with 2 actual cores that share cache. While the i7 carries 4 cores and 4 virtual cores (referred to as threads). There is a difference between a core and a thread... but threads are weaker than actual cores... most of the time.
 
I'm just going to comment on one thing because I have to get on a flight. It's the fact that they are "overpriced" because they are coded and physically built better. It's also common sense that when its trending people raise the price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom