Isn't the 3570k faster than FX-8350 for gaming?

[Meatbag723]

I'm building a computer and I think I should get a 3570k. It's faster than the 8350 for gaming, right? Someone told me the 8350 is faster but benchmarks show the 3570k winning by a lot.

Here is my build: (I downgraded to a GTX 760)

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/30SAB

 

[Grippinq]

from the newest Ubisoft AAA game called ''Watch Dogs'' scheduled to come out on may 2014 and looking in the future, i would say FX-8350...
looking at the PC requirements for this game, the Recommended specifications are as follow :

Recommended

Processor: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 2048 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 or higher (see supported list)
Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card
Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series;
AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series
Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200

Links for more information :
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/08/watch-dogs-system-req...

http://ca.ign.com/wikis/watch-dogs/PC_System_Requiremen...

All speculation though as its not out yet.

If it doesn't run well on a 3570k then its got terrible coding.

i agree with you, but if i where to build a system today for future games i would rather have an 8 thread capable CPU...but these are no speculation these are the specs that have been posted by ubisoft's developpers, they have
the game in hands and know what they are doing, they recommanded that type of configuration for a reason...

Where does it say that Ubisoft gave these specs?

I disagree. Although the 8350 has 8 cores, they are slower cores and older architecture. Its a great CPU ( I have one in my work computer and its very good at the tasks I give it), but for gaming I would be looking at the 4670k or 4770k for longevity, not the AMD 8 core.

Regardless of how well they can multithread games, IPC and single thread performance will always be important for games.

are you saying that IGN or Pc Gamer made-up these specifications by themselves?
Of course they come from ubisoft otherwise they would have not published them...

and about IPC i do agree too that it is important in games...that is why the FX-43xx, FX-63xx and FX-83xx have only 30% les IPC per core compared to intel's flagship CPU...still it's way enough for anything...just look at the PS4 and xbox one they have way worse IPC than the FX cpu's and still they will run the same games
on 6 or 8 threads at a time...this is where the industry is going wheter you jump in the wagon or not...of course the 4770k will always lead the way, but the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 core as the time will go by...

Yes thats exactly what I am saying, its not uncommon for sites to speculate themselves on specs, without them coming from the game maker/publisher.

Again what you are saying is speculation, you dont know that the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 as time goes by. You say your self that the lower performance 8 cores in the consoles will be able to run the games, and you think a much faster quad wont? That makes no sense.

The majority of people who game on pcs are on Intel systems so I would be surprised if game makers alienated their biggest customer base (over 74% of gamers on steam are using Intel CPUS, 47% are on dual cores 44% on quads and only 4.7% on higher than quad).

i didnt say that the all mighty and all powerfull intel quad core CPU will not be able to handle the games...the OP
asked if the i5 was faster then the FX-83xx in gaming...and it is...for now...
what you don't seem to realise is that we PC gamers are only about 10-12% of the market while 90% of the
people are gaming on console (Ps4 Xbox one and WiiU) and those are all 8 core AMD driven...PC gamers are a
negigeable portion of the market..

Ok, you carry on with your guesses, but thats all they are, not facts.

It's honestly people like you who ruin the PC community. Honestly, get YOUR facts straight, and look into the whole idea of 'futureproofing' before making dipshit assumptions.

 

[RobCrezz]

from the newest Ubisoft AAA game called ''Watch Dogs'' scheduled to come out on may 2014 and looking in the future, i would say FX-8350...
looking at the PC requirements for this game, the Recommended specifications are as follow :

Recommended

Processor: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 2048 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 or higher (see supported list)
Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card
Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series;
AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series
Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200

Links for more information :
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/08/watch-dogs-system-req...

http://ca.ign.com/wikis/watch-dogs/PC_System_Requiremen...

All speculation though as its not out yet.

If it doesn't run well on a 3570k then its got terrible coding.

i agree with you, but if i where to build a system today for future games i would rather have an 8 thread capable CPU...but these are no speculation these are the specs that have been posted by ubisoft's developpers, they have
the game in hands and know what they are doing, they recommanded that type of configuration for a reason...

Where does it say that Ubisoft gave these specs?

I disagree. Although the 8350 has 8 cores, they are slower cores and older architecture. Its a great CPU ( I have one in my work computer and its very good at the tasks I give it), but for gaming I would be looking at the 4670k or 4770k for longevity, not the AMD 8 core.

Regardless of how well they can multithread games, IPC and single thread performance will always be important for games.

are you saying that IGN or Pc Gamer made-up these specifications by themselves?
Of course they come from ubisoft otherwise they would have not published them...

and about IPC i do agree too that it is important in games...that is why the FX-43xx, FX-63xx and FX-83xx have only 30% les IPC per core compared to intel's flagship CPU...still it's way enough for anything...just look at the PS4 and xbox one they have way worse IPC than the FX cpu's and still they will run the same games
on 6 or 8 threads at a time...this is where the industry is going wheter you jump in the wagon or not...of course the 4770k will always lead the way, but the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 core as the time will go by...

Yes thats exactly what I am saying, its not uncommon for sites to speculate themselves on specs, without them coming from the game maker/publisher.

Again what you are saying is speculation, you dont know that the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 as time goes by. You say your self that the lower performance 8 cores in the consoles will be able to run the games, and you think a much faster quad wont? That makes no sense.

The majority of people who game on pcs are on Intel systems so I would be surprised if game makers alienated their biggest customer base (over 74% of gamers on steam are using Intel CPUS, 47% are on dual cores 44% on quads and only 4.7% on higher than quad).

i didnt say that the all mighty and all powerfull intel quad core CPU will not be able to handle the games...the OP
asked if the i5 was faster then the FX-83xx in gaming...and it is...for now...
what you don't seem to realise is that we PC gamers are only about 10-12% of the market while 90% of the
people are gaming on console (Ps4 Xbox one and WiiU) and those are all 8 core AMD driven...PC gamers are a
negigeable portion of the market..

Ok, you carry on with your guesses, but thats all they are, not facts.

It's honestly people like you who ruin the PC community. Honestly, get YOUR facts straight, and look into the whole idea of 'futureproofing' before making dipshit assumptions.

:lol: ok fanboy. Any facts in that post? :lol:

 

[vmN]

well, in theory, if an application would scale very well, if we assume the core i5 is 30% faster per core (it's even a little bit less but lets round that up to 30%) and it has 4 of them, that makes it 4x 100% (400) where the 8 core FX would be 8x 70% (560) that if you do the maths ( 560/400 = 1.4) equals to 40% faster...that of course would be the ideal scenario where the CPU would be utilised to 100%...never happens...cause you know the FX has always a couple core to spare to run other applications, the OS and stuff, downloading content...etc...whereas the i5 has NONE

NO, that is NOT how you measure CPU performance, there are alot more to factor. And NO that is not theory.

 

[vmN]

It's honestly people like you who ruin the PC community. Honestly, get YOUR facts straight, and look into the whole idea of 'futureproofing' before making dipshit assumptions.

What is future-proofing? Some good looking ISAs? bigger better faster stronger cores?

You might need to explain what "future-proofing" is in your perspective on CPU architecture.

 

[RobCrezz]

Thanks vmN. Im glad someone else has some sense, rather than fanboy ramblings.

 

[cyborgcity]

from the newest Ubisoft AAA game called ''Watch Dogs'' scheduled to come out on may 2014 and looking in the future, i would say FX-8350...
looking at the PC requirements for this game, the Recommended specifications are as follow :

Recommended

Processor: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 2048 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 or higher (see supported list)
Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card
Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series;
AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series
Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200

Links for more information :
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/08/watch-dogs-system-req...

http://ca.ign.com/wikis/watch-dogs/PC_System_Requiremen...

All speculation though as its not out yet.

If it doesn't run well on a 3570k then its got terrible coding.

i agree with you, but if i where to build a system today for future games i would rather have an 8 thread capable CPU...but these are no speculation these are the specs that have been posted by ubisoft's developpers, they have
the game in hands and know what they are doing, they recommanded that type of configuration for a reason...

Where does it say that Ubisoft gave these specs?

I disagree. Although the 8350 has 8 cores, they are slower cores and older architecture. Its a great CPU ( I have one in my work computer and its very good at the tasks I give it), but for gaming I would be looking at the 4670k or 4770k for longevity, not the AMD 8 core.

Regardless of how well they can multithread games, IPC and single thread performance will always be important for games.

are you saying that IGN or Pc Gamer made-up these specifications by themselves?
Of course they come from ubisoft otherwise they would have not published them...

and about IPC i do agree too that it is important in games...that is why the FX-43xx, FX-63xx and FX-83xx have only 30% les IPC per core compared to intel's flagship CPU...still it's way enough for anything...just look at the PS4 and xbox one they have way worse IPC than the FX cpu's and still they will run the same games
on 6 or 8 threads at a time...this is where the industry is going wheter you jump in the wagon or not...of course the 4770k will always lead the way, but the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 core as the time will go by...

Yes thats exactly what I am saying, its not uncommon for sites to speculate themselves on specs, without them coming from the game maker/publisher.

Again what you are saying is speculation, you dont know that the 4670k will trail behind the FX 8 as time goes by. You say your self that the lower performance 8 cores in the consoles will be able to run the games, and you think a much faster quad wont? That makes no sense.

The majority of people who game on pcs are on Intel systems so I would be surprised if game makers alienated their biggest customer base (over 74% of gamers on steam are using Intel CPUS, 47% are on dual cores 44% on quads and only 4.7% on higher than quad).

i didnt say that the all mighty and all powerfull intel quad core CPU will not be able to handle the games...the OP
asked if the i5 was faster then the FX-83xx in gaming...and it is...for now...
what you don't seem to realise is that we PC gamers are only about 10-12% of the market while 90% of the
people are gaming on console (Ps4 Xbox one and WiiU) and those are all 8 core AMD driven...PC gamers are a
negigeable portion of the market..

Ok, you carry on with your guesses, but thats all they are, not facts.

It's honestly people like you who ruin the PC community. Honestly, get YOUR facts straight, and look into the whole idea of 'futureproofing' before making dipshit assumptions.

:lol: ok fanboy. Any facts in that post? :lol:

Hmm this article seem to suggest otherwise...
http://gearnuke.com/pc-dominates-market-51-console-30-mobile-13-according-new-report/

 

[RobCrezz]

Please don't bring more facts to the thread, will only upset the Fanboys

 

[cyborgcity]

Please don't bring more facts to the thread, will only upset the Fanboys

Haha i couldnt resist

 

[vmN]

Also, this is just a rant.

My guesses is that the future is not necessary depending on more cores, as we both can see Intel and AMD aren't going to release any consumer 8 core for quite some time.

Intel and AMD is trying to make their iGP do as much work as possible as GP are much much faster for parallel processing.
AMD bought it into HSA, which could give it a good performance increase once utilized.
then again Intel just introduced AVX2 / TSX with with haswell and that could mean some serious performance increase(we are talking from 60% to over 100% performance increase from ivy-bridge if carefully utlilzed).

I dont think Intel will go into HSA, I think they are going with a different approach.

The next couple of generation the ISA will be extremely important.