Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming

Page 5 - 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.
Yes, the i5 does better in games such as skyrim under Windows but then the FX does better in other games such as Showdown or Batman Arkham City under Windows (the FX perform at the same level that the i7-3770k in this latter game at 1080p). The FX is also at the i7 level on Battlefield 3 under Windows

battlefield%203%201920.png


Toms last advice (gaming cpu hierarchy chart update of 20 March 2013) is that, overall, you do "not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance" in Windows gaming. If you own a FX-8350, Toms recommend you to not upgrade to a more expensive chip. Moreover, neither Windows nor those games are using all the performance of the FX chips.

Moreover, at the time of writing this the FX is clearly faster (even beating the i7) under linux {*} and future games will be optimized for the AMD because just-ready consoles will be using AMD chips.

{*} Before anyone claim that linux is not for gaming, notice that developers such as Valve are abandoning Windows platform and porting games to linux.
 


Yep, I think this is important. The PS4 is running on piledriver architecture and radeon graphics, AMD could easily pull ahead in gaming in the future because games well be optimized for their hardware.
 


The thing is for many games the GPU is more important at higher resolutions with any capable CPU doing the job well enough.
Once you go to some games like Civilization5,SC2,Skyrim which demand more light threaded CPU power the fx8350 falls down which is never the case with
likes of i5 3570k.The point is for current games i5 3570k wins more and in some games the difference is more than noticeable.
Even in hitman absolution which is not that old game fx8350 gets considerably behind an i5 3570k http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html
Try to get the point,don't get blind in your support for a brand.

juanrga
Would you like to show the benches,then I can comment upon those.

I am not saying that fx8350 is a bad chip.It is a very good chip for the price considering it's all round abilities,full instruction set support unlike intel k series processors.But for gaming and things where per core performance is still very important i5 3570k still is a better choice.Well if one can get a better GPU with the saved money from the fx8350 set up then that is well and nice for gaming but otherwise i5 3570k is the way to go.

People please don't directly reach to the conclusion about gaming by directly comparing PS4 CPU specs with the PC CPU specs.The CPU in PS4 uses Jaguar cores not piledriver.In a dedicated platform like a PS4 the OS is much different,the layers of abstractions are much less.PS4 has unified memory for CPU and GPU,does PC have the same?I think it would be better if we talk about what we have seen or what we have now rather than talking about what will happen,just becoz a PS4 has 8 cores doesn't mean it is what you would take and directly compare with the PC CPUs with PC OSes and their ability to handle games.Gaming might become more threaded in future but per core performance of a processor is still quite relevant,which is why an i5 3570k in some games beats fx8350 by a good amount at this date.




 
I don't think AMD fans understand that the 8350 is already clocked to 4.0Ghz. The 3570K is clocked at 3.4Ghz. If the 3570K was overclocked to 4.0Ghz, it would beat the 8350 is most things.
 


You missed my post explaining what is going on with that...please refer to the bottom end of the page before for my example.

You are uninformed about how the CPUs work, I gave an example analogy in a long post about shopping lines at stores that explains the difference, it was a reply to ericjohn004.
 


They were given before in the thread in several parts.



This was all addressed before.



What I have said is irrelevant to the core architecture. Moreover, I have not said you would wait the same amount of optimization than in the PS4 only you would wait optimization. It is not arbitrary that the PS4 will be an eight-core design. And if you learn how to parallelize your game for an eight-core design that game will run faster in an eight-core chip.
 
juanrga
The PS4 thing that I posted was not for you,it was in general.

There are no links given.
Phoronix did a review about fx8350 under ubuntu12.10.
And most of the benches like NAS parallel benches,John the ripper etc are massively parallel,even then fx8350 with its 8 core gets beaten by i7 3770k in most cases,even if it wins in some the margin is not that high.
Games are different from things like NAS parallel benches,kernel compilation.
And it is not as if under linux fx8350 gets boosted by 40% than under windows7/8.
On overclocking an i5 3570k would pay off more in most of the things since it is more sensitive to frequency.
There is a reason why fx8350 is priced that low and that reason is not AMD are generous or are a no profit company,rather they don't have a good per core and light threaded performance,though it is still quite a good chip for the money.

The context here is gaming,and for gaming i5 3570k is a better chip than fx8350 as on this date,period.
 


I can see someone comparing an 8350 to an i5 3570k in rendering and editing because if a 3570k and an 8350 are BOTH clocked at 4.5Ghz they both score a 7.5 in Cinebench 11.5. Granted I'm sure if an 8350 and 3570k were both at 4.5Ghz, I'm sure the 8350 would do better on MOST tests with anything that uses 5+ cores. Although the 3570k does win some tests that take advantage of 8 cores too. So I'll admit that. I compared some of my 3570k's benchmarks to a guy on Tom's that has an 8350. He beat me by 200 points in Passmark8, I score a 9700 and he scores a 9900. I beat him at Cinebench because I'm clocked .1Ghz higher than he is, other than that we would be the same, both scoring 7.50. And these scores are VERY similar to other websites I've viewed. And of course I would absolutely crush him in single threaded benchmarks such as SuperPi. Afteall an 8350 clocked at 7.8Ghz only scores an 11 second SuperPi score(I just looked this up). My 3570k at 4.6Ghz scores a 7.92 second SuperPi score. The 8350 and 3570k are just not comparable when it comes to single threaded benchmarks and programs. And fortunately for me, a lot of games and programs use less than 4 cores. Which is why I prefer the 3570k.

But to say that an 8350 compares to a 3770k OVERALL is just wrong. Compare the 3770k at 4.5Ghz vs. the 8350 at 4.5Ghz and the 3770k wins everything. Why compare them stock, when the 8350 is clocked at 4.0Ghz and the 3770k is clocked at 3.5? And even stock the 3770k wins alomst everything. Everyone knows they could make a 3770k 4.0Ghz stock too. So why not let it be equal? You may be able to find a couple oddball benchmarks that the 8350 win's in but if you use Sisoft Sandra, Passmark8, Aida 64, Cinebench 11.5, Handbrake, Fitz Chess Benchmark, 3DMark11 Physics, PCMark7, SuperPi, and ect. the 3770k wins in all of those benchmarks by a decent margin. It doesn't crush the 8350 in multithreading but it does beat it by a good 15-20%. And in single threaded benchmarks it's not even close. For example, the 3770k scores a 9 second SuperPi 1m score stock whereas an FX8350 overclocked to 7.8Ghz only scores an 11 second 1m score. So if the 8350 was stock, I'm guessing it would score somewhere around an 18-20 seconds 1m. Which is twice as slow. This benchmark goes to show you how much more powerful an i5 or i7 is while using 4 cores or less. And as I've said before, ALOT of programs and 99.999% of games don't use 5+ cores. Maybe in the future they will, but we're talking about right now.

Some FX fans completely forget about single threaded performance. Which is a BIG part of the overall picture. Not everything you do uses 5+ cores. Hell, EVERYTHING I do uses 4 cores of less during my everyday at my PC. This is why I love me 3570k, it's the best processor I could have for what I'm doing. If I would get an 8350 it would be a complete waste of 8 cores, plus I would get worse performance with everything I did, everyday. Sure I might not notice this one bit, but I like having high benchmark scores and impressive single threaded capability.

The thing is though, the 8350 only costs 199.99 on average. So it's not SUPPOSE to compete with the 3770k at 329.99. It's not even SUPPOSE to compete with the 3570k. As the 3570k is designed for people like me. People who do everyday computing and want that everyday computing and gaming to be the absolute best it could be. The 8350 is designed for multitaskers, and people who want high quality fast rendering on the cheap. Basically, an 8350 is for someone who wants a more cost effective version of a 3770k, but with a little less rendering muscle and very capable single threaded performance. So if you constantly doing this kind of stuff and want a great deal, I can see people buying the 8350. And the 8350 is a very good deal for the price and it overclocks like hell. I would buy one myself if it fit the profile of what I normally did with my PC.

What could possibly be wrong with what I've said? I'm not trying to be mean to FX owners, I just tell it like it is. But what I've said is true and I think everyone should agree. And if you only use multithreaded benchmarks to compare the 8350, 3770k, and 3570k then your missing a very large part of the overall picture because programs and games MOST people use, don't use 5+ cores.
 
You know, that's a fair assessment...however...I don't think an i3 at any price point makes sense over the FX6300...

I also think that people multitask more than they realize, and games coming soon are going to require more cores in the near future.

In less than 12 months anyone without a quad-core CPU (or more) is going to be handicapped.

That said, the architecture is going to start to be better utilized as software is more optimized for AMD protocols.

So, for a budget gaming build, I think an FX series CPU not only presents a more than valid way to go...it also leaves them far more choices down the road, and they get ALOT of performance now versus what they would pay for comparable intel performance.

Yes, the single threaded apps favor intel...of course...however, most budget gamers are not going to miss the 2-5 FPS difference.

If they can afford it now...and ONLY game, sure go i5/i7...especially if they can afford to upgrade in 12 months.
 


There was direct links and linked images of benchmark results.



Precisely the reason for a multi-core design is exploiting parallel work. Nobody develops four or eight cores chips for running only one of them at once.



The data says otherwise "FX 8350 competitive with Core i7 3770K". Moreover it seems you also missed the conclusion where explains that the current GGC is not using the advantages of the piledriver architecture over the Bulldozer one and how this explains the tests where the FX was not so good.



Several benchmarks with the FX-8350 OC beating an i5 3570k OC were given.



It is not that the FX is priced low. It is Intel chips which are overpriced.



Here you ignore all, including the Toms cpu gaming hierarchy chart.
 


I gave you the link to Passmark score with the FX-8350 on pair with an i7-3770K and beating your i5-3570K by a very wide margin.

I gave you best worldwide Cinebench value obtained by the FX-8350 and how it beats the best value obtained ever on an i5-3570K.

I gave you the link to the Wikipedia article explaining how the use of SuperPi for measuring chip performance is declining and why. You insist on evaluating the eight-cores FX-8350 with a test that only uses one of them, because this is how the i5-3570K can win thanks to a better performance using a single core.

You ignore the many benchmarks provided showing how "the AMD FX-8350 proved to be competitive with the Intel Core i7 3770K "Ivy Bridge" processor".

Your claim one cannot compare AMD and Intel processors unless the Intel chip is overclocked is so ridiculous that I don't need to answer this one.

You continue ignoring my emphasis on that current Windows games are not using all the performance of the AMD FX chip because were designed for an older architecture (as that in Intel i5-3570K), but that future games will be thanks to next consoles such as the PS4 which includes an 8-core chip from AMD.

You also ignore toms cpu gaming hierarchy, updated to this month, where they claim that if you were to upgrade from an FX-8350 to an expensive i7-3770K you would not notice overall gain in gaming performance.

You continue ignoring that lots of Windows programs are using the Intel compiler cheating, which forces the code to run slower when detects a non-Intel chip (did you read the links?). That is, your i5 is not so good as you believe it is, but the compiler is cheating about which is the real performance of the non-Intel chips.
 


Yeah you STILL have no answer for single core performance, AND performance using 4 cores or less. And that's a HUGE, a HUGE part of the picture. Why do you neglect to go anywhere around single core and programs that use 4 cores or less? Because then you know your argument would go out the window. And you would have to start backtracking on some of your statements.

Yeah, everythings all great when you only compare threaded performance. Yeah then the FX8350 lives up to what it's suppose to be. But since 99.999% of all games AND at least half of all programs use 4 cores or less(probably more), I'd say single threading is far more important than what the processor can do while using 8 cores. And once you put the 3770k into the equation the 3770k wins in multithreading and single threaded performance so I don't see where your coming from.

I haven't even looked at one of your links. Because for some reason I'm sure your passmark8 links are going to have a different score than Tom's Hardware does. And Tom's Hardware clearly shows that a 3770k beats an 8350 in Passmark8. And if you don't trust them IDK what to say. And a 3570k an and 8350 are close. Yeah the 8350 beats the 3570k(I think), as I've already said, but that's just because passmark8, like Sisoft Sandra relies heavily on multithreading and hardly any in single threading and 4 cores or less.

And I think it's just hilarious how you have to go to websites that are specifically designed to show how the 8350 is awesome. You gotta go to some biased site where their motto is to prove the 8350 is better because of the "OS", "Intel's Compiler Programs", "SuperPi isn't a good benchmark", "Sysmark isn't a good benchmark". Why when Intel loses a benchmark they say "well we just lost that one". Why don't they make 1000 different excuses?

Because that's what your all about, EXCUSES.
 
Intel's just so happened to be designed to where if you use 1-4 cores, you get 1-4 cores at 100% power. And if you use Hyperthreading, you get 8 cores at about 65% power. AMD's are designed in a way that is flawed. If you use 4 or less cores, you still only get cores at 65% since they ALL SHARE RESOURCES. A 3770k's cores only share if they are using Hyperthreading. THAT's why an 8350 is not nearly as good as Intel with single core and 4 cores or less performance. Because all of an 8350 cores are always running at 65% because they constantly have to share resources while a 3770k can run at 100% when it's not Hyperthreading.
 


Well, you're barking up the right tree, but you went up the wrong branch...

Intel virtual cores (hyperthreading) is like each core in an intel being 1.2 cores in the chips that have it. So, in a 4 core processor with HT...you're kind of getting almost a 5 core CPU, in the grander scheme of things this is a decent approximation.

AMD cores on the other hand, share a floating point unit between 2 cores. Floating point units only come into play in certain specific scenarios...primarily physics calculations and rendering, which is why GPUs are so important in gaming...modern GPUs are physics crunching machines...however, back to my point. Only under unique circumstances will there be an occurence where you have resources shared between 2 AMD cores. The only situation I can think of would seriously be something like Crysis 3 MAYBE! Even then it must not have happened much because the benchmarks are basically mas o menos same/same between the 8350 and the intel i5s/i7s it was compared to.

Having said that, AMD cores are slightly stronger than your virtual cores in intel, because, unlike intel virtual cores, they don't have to tap resources from another core to run integer calculations or ANYTHING BUT FP calculations. So, an AMD Module, is 2 cores and 1 FPU, but it amounts to 1 module being approximately worth about ~1.6-1.8 Intel cores for raw horsepower. Intel chips run virtual cores that tax the resources of a "real" core, because you're sapping clock time that could be spent elsewhere.

So the reason AMD really shines at parallel coded applications (because of HSA)...is because it can run 8 separate integer calculation functions at 1 time without sharing resources, where as the i5 can only run 4 before it starts sharing resources.

Also, with more Cache on board the AMD chip, that makes it easier to keep parallel instructions fed to multiple cores, even when they do share resources under SUPER heavy load.

I think you're reading up more into this stuff...I am glad to see you're doing some self education on the subject.

 


Thanks man I'm trying lol... Still not quite there yet. I can see how AMD cores are all equally powered no matter how many of them you use, whereas with Intel you only get, from what I read, about a 30% increase in performance which is about 65% of a full core. So the way AMD does it is superier to the way Intel does the Hyperthreading. The problem is, is that sometimes 1.3x a regular Intel core is more powerful than 2 AMD cores. And this is, I think, why sometimes the 3770k beats the 8350 in some multithreading. But the way AMD does it is a better way, in theory.

The way I see AMD really starting to be superior is if they really up the IPC on their chips. Or the per core power. Once they can compete, per core, then I can see an AMD 8 core chip beating a 4 core Intel chip plus Hyperthreading in ALL 5+ core tasks. But it almost seems like, from what I read, that AMD doesn't care about performance using 4 cores or less. It seems like they are really only trying in the multithreading game. Which is why they are so good at multithreaded applications. I mean if your really into things that use 5+ cores, an AMD is the better option from a price standpoint even though it, and the 3770k are similar in performance. The benchmarks I see have the 3770k winning by a handful of points the majority of the time but for the price you pay for the 8350 it makes the 8350 worth it. I can definately see why people buy the FX8350. Plus it is a little better overclocker than a 3770k I hear. Just by a couple Mhz though, but that does make a difference. But Intel kinda makes up fo that being that their chips start out at only 3.4 and 3.5Ghz.

If AMD can get their single threaded performance to about 75-85% of what an Intel core does, I think the 8350 would be a killer CPU. Then I would definately buy one of these for a future PC. But I think AMD's plans are for the future. When in 3-4 years, everything uses 8+ cores. But in the meantime, per core performance is a rather large part of the picture. And per core performance will always be important. When are AMD's next generation of CPU's coming out? The 4770k is coming out in June I think, although according to Tom's it's only anywhere from 6-13% faster than a 3770k. So for me, it's not worth the upgrade. Although by then I won't be able to claim I have the most powerful CPU, per core, on the market lol. But I think AMD's new CPU's normally come out long after the new Intel CPU's come out.

 


That review from phoronix clearly shows that i7 3770k is the better choice and it is not as portrayed by many as if the fx8350 is competitive with i7 3770k.Competitive in few benches doesn't mean it is overall competitive with i7 3770k.Check this :http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34472568&postcount=37
Even when HT is turned off i7 3770k still comes out ahead of fx8350 at same clocks,which says an i5 3570k would perform similar or better to fx8350 at same clocks in 3DS MAX 2013 rendering.An in 3DS MAX there are many things like previewing objects in viewport which depend upon single/light threaded performance,so i5 3570k is quite a good choice for 3DS MAX 2013 as it has good performance in both single threaded and heavily threaded tasks.
No wonder,one can say intel processors are overpriced and if fx8350 had all round performance with it then probably it would have been priced more than i5 3570k.Come on,AMD is not doing charity here,they need money as well.Even hd7970 was priced 550$,AMD afterwards got it priced to much lower levels as soon as they got competition.
Several benchmarks!!!...there are enough benchmarks where an OCed i5 3570k beats fx8350 quite well and vice-versa but for most of the things which utilise 4/5 or less cores i5 3570k wins hands down.Every program doesn't use 8 or more cores neither everything requires more cores.Never did I say that parallel things like NAS parallel benches should not use more cores,so what was your point in that context?
What I implied was you can't compare gaming performance by seeing those benches.

And about gaming I haven't said anything that is wrong.I have explained well enough that there are some situations where fx8350 is noticeably slower than i5 3570k.Check these
skyrim%201920.png


world%20of%20warcraft%201920.png


Fx8350 is a good processor for the price,quite fantastic for specific tasks like video encoding,compression etc.
Single core performance and light threaded performance of fx8350 is quite weak compared to i5 3570k.I have repeatedly said the context here is gaming and i5 3570k is the better one for it as of now.You clearly are missing the point here.So don't deviate more,rather put your logic on the context.
 


Well, I can get into why the i7-3770k still wins occasionally, I will address it further down though because it will be more pertinent.


AMD's protocols (called HSA) are designed specifically to excel at multi threaded or parallel applications. You're right the IPC on the BD/PD architecture is still comparatively low to what intel is doing...this is why the i7-3770k occasionally still wins, what it lacks in comparatively raw horsepower, it makes up for in efficiency of clock time used. AMD is working on this...



I agree, and so do many of the people with a similar level of knowledge...THIS, PRECISELY, is why the few that are following steamroller are excited about. Steamroller is going to be PD with a more refined protocol for handling instructions, which will make the architecture far more efficient using clock time. The IPC on Steamroller is supposed to be competitive to what ivy bridge is now...but with more raw horsepower under the hood. So, steamroller is going to be what everyone THOUGHT bulldozer was going to be, however, in order to keep something out there, AMD rushed their 1st generation chip out to a great deal of enthusiasm that was quickly glossed over by the fact that the chip didn't deliver on the claims...YET! But, the architecture is capable of competing, and with a new instruction protocol in place at the basic level that processes instructions more efficiently...it should effectively "steamroll" it's way through to being a very valid option for anyone that would save them quite a bit of money.

The expectations from AMD are a 30% gain in single threaded performance and 15-20% overall. A 30% gain puts the Steamroller architecture right in the thick of everything even with Haswell coming out, the advance in performance is only going to be a minor one...you don't hear about a 30% increase in CPU performance, it's unheard of...but the new instruction protocol is that drastic an upgrade that it's going to really put things in a new light.
 
Juanrga's problem is he's only taking into account heavily threaded benchmarks. He says nothing about lightly threaded benchmarks, single threaded benchmarks, or gaming. The only thing he says about gaming is that the 8350 is almost as good as the 3570k. But in some games the 3570k dominates, like your benchmarks say(notice Tek Syndacate doesn't include Skyrim, they seem to be trying to prove a point though). In some games the 8350 actually wins by a small margin. The 8350 IS good for gaming. But not AS good as the 3570k for gaming OVERALL. Most games you really won't notice much of a difference, but then Skyrim comes along.

And I find, if you have to deviate from sites like Tom's Hardware and dig all through the internet to find certain websites that prove your point(and you can ALWAYS find some site that disagrees with reality), then your looking for something that's probably not there.

I'm not saying that there aren't some other really good benchmark sites, and I'm not saying those sites aren't correct in what they are reporting, I'm just saying that they aren't going to tell you the whole story. They may only come at it from one specific angle that's preferable to what they are trying to show you. And anything that might deviate from their specific agenda, well, they just won't include that in their analysis or they'll purposely avoid even running a certain benchmark just to further prove their point. That's why there are some sites that have an 8350 "winning" over a 3570k. But those sites are probably only using multithreaded benchmarks and won't include any single threaded benchmarks, just so one processor will "win" over the other.

So if you visit a site that uses a good general variety of popular benchmarks(like Anandtech or Tom's Hardware), and doesn't rely so heavily on multithreaded tests, you'll see that what I've said is indeed true. Let me point out though that it's not like I'm trying to prove the 8350 "loses" I'm just trying to get everyone to see the whole picture and not just a small piece of the whole puzzle.

This is why the 8350 is priced where it is, and the benchmarks show that. You are getting a great deal for the 8350 and you also usually get what you pay for.
 


Yeah, now that you say this, I'm a lot more excited about the new AMD chips than the 4670k or the 4770k. Although that might be because I already know what they can do. But if AMD's doing what you say they are doing then that's definitely something to be excited about.

I would expect their pricing to stay below Intels for comparable performance. But I won't expect it to stay as low as say, 179.99, like you can get an 8350 for. If it's comparing with a 4770k then I would expect the price to be 279.99 or 249.99. And even if it's just as powerful they will have to still be cheaper just because of people's perception. People perceive Intel to be the highest quality and they perceive AMD to be cheaper but still quality 2nd best. And some people don't read enough benchmarks to overcome that perception.

I wonder when these new steamroller designed will be introduced? 2013? Beginning of 2014?

 


I have read...somewhere...that Steamroller may be Q4 2013, but will more likely come Q1 2014. Kaveri, the next iteration of the APU after Richland will be steamroller architecture, so if it hits for the holiday season, I would expect the steamroller CPUs to be right there as well. I am sure they will likely launch simultaneously.

If the original Bulldozer pricing estimate holds true, then I would expect the top of the line chip in the $229-239 price range, that's where bulldozer was going to fall retail when they launched it, then they cut it back to get market share and because it was less competitive than they had hoped.
 
All I see is proof that the FX 8350 is adequate for gaming and CPU tasks that can use more than 4 cores. Please people, stop being fanboys and morons. We're all adults here... or most of us. Grow up. People buy the CPU they want or like. You can't go wrong with either processor.
 


1) Maybe you would go through the thread and count the number of times that I said that i5-3570k/i7-3770k usually has better performance per core.

2) Yes, there is older software which is single threaded (I also said this), but there multi-threaded versions of several of them available now, and the future goes toward multi-threading hardware not towards hyperclocked single cores.

3) My main point is that the FX-8350 is an excellent machine for current software and will be better for future software per point 2).

4) I have given you Toms benchmarks showing how the FX-8350 is on pair with a i7-3770k on several games, albeit the games are not still using the full potential of the FX chip. I have cited and quoted Toms gaming cpu hierarchy chart. And I have cited recent openbenchmarks that show the real potential of the FX beating a i7-3770k with modern software.

5) I have given you a link to the Wikipedia explaining why Super Pi is a bad tool for measuring chip performance and why "its use is declining". Of course you can continue reporting everyone else your Super Pi score. But pretending to evaluate a FX-8350 by insisting on an older software that only uses a 12.5% of the FX chip is kind of laughable.

6) I gave links to news reporting AMD, Nvidia, and VIA abandoning BAPCO because of the "SYSMARK bias" toward Intel products.

7) I gave links to a court case won by AMD because of the Intel compiler cheating.

8) "I haven't even looked at one of your links". This says it all and shows that there is not reason to further arguing with a blinded owner.
 


1) That review from phoronix clearly shows that the cheap FX-8350 is on pair with an i7-3770k (beating the Intel ivy Bridge in several tests). The review also emphasizes that the FX is competitive with the i7, albeit the current version of the compiler is not still using all the advantages of the Piledriver architecture over the Bulldozer one. The FX will be still better when the software was using all the hidden performance from the chip...

2) You write "Competitive in few benches doesn't mean it is overall competitive" but then spout a link to a forum presenting one closed benchmark avoiding hardware details (really any detail is avoided). And the benchmark is biased to every place posible: presenting the data in such a way that you visually compare the FX stock with the Intel overclocked, measuring power from the wall, using overclocked memory on the Intel but stock memory on the FX, extrapolating the Intel data far beyond its maximum speed... and all for finally obtaining a real 13% gain which reads to a few seconds.

3) I notice how every fanboy insists on the existence of little software that uses 8-cores. Not only they miss that an entire generation of next games will be optimized for 8-cores thanks to consoles as the PS4 using a 8-cores chip from AMD. But that the fanboys also omit that people often runs two-three applications at once. It is not usual to see a FX-8350 user gaming whereas doing some background work. Again this is a typical situation where the FX shows its real performance.

4) Yes you can pick a pair of selective games and configurations where the FX-8350 does not look so good. Toms have something important to say about your choice of Skyrim as example (bold font from mine):

Skyrim appears to be the most CPU-dependent game in today’s suite. It also appears to be the most heavily slanted toward Intel's architecture. AMD's FX-8350 appears adequate across all of the tested settings, though we do have a little more data to discuss.
Click to expand...

And still they say "AMD's FX-8350 appears adequate across all of the tested settings".

You cannot take one of the most unfavourable case possibles and pretend that it is something that happens more often.

It is also interesting that you give WoW as example of how you believe the FX "is noticeably slower". Are you serious? A difference of 10FPS above >80FPS? I suppose that you mean that those 10FPS are noticeable only when your see the bars in the graph, because you cannot detect the difference between >80FPS and 90FPS when playing the game in a 60Hz monitor, you cannot even using a 80Hz monitor...

And of course, one again, you ignore what Toms says in the cpu gaming hierachy chart (updated to this month), where the FX is placed near the top and emphasized that you do not see overall gain performance when going to a more expensive i5/i7. See also point (3).
 
SO much people going back and fourth intel better amd better.... POINT is practically ALL games are gpu bottlenecked my best friend has a overclocked 680 with his phenom 2 x 4 clocked at 3.5ghz and he gets 60 frames in crysis 3 and far cry 3 and bio shock all at max in one monitor at 1080p..... point is the fx-8350 is more than enough all you need to worry about is GPU for gaming. i have an i7-3770k with a hd 7970 and i play all those games exactly the same at 60 frames.... get w/e cpu you want focus on the video card its where the performance is at an i5 or the fx-8350 you wont tell the differance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom