Will Fx 8350 perform well with 2 hd7850s?

[FrizzyBaBeHYFR]

Hi everyone,
I'm currently using a 2 hd 7850s crossfire setup,and my cpu is amd X4 955. In most of games ,they perform pretty well, however in BF3 multi, I can tell my cpu is bottlenecking the fps a lot, both my cpu just got like 50% usage. I even turned cf off to get better experience in multi now. So i brought my video cards to my buddy who got a 3570k, both cards are running above 80 percent with a pretty decent fps around 90-100. So i'm quite sure its my x4 bottlenecking. So now i decided to get a new cpu. I know intel perform a lot better in games, but i already got a AM3+ mobo(m5a99x evo), and i dont wanna spend like hundred something more on a new intel mobo, I decide to go for fx 8350 during xtmas. I just wonder will the fx 8350 make my gpu usage on both graphic cards above 80%?

 

[griptwister]

Yes. And It will do even better if you over clock it! In fact, it's probably the only AMD processor that will handle that right now. I have a buddy who is running 2x GTX 670 SLI just fine at stock speeds. Don't let the intel fanboys tell you otherwise. You buy what you can afford.

 

[FrizzyBaBeHYFR]

Yes. And It will do even better if you over clock it! In fact, it's probably the only AMD processor that will handle that right now. I have a buddy who is running 2x GTX 670 SLI just fine at stock speeds. Don't let the intel fanboys tell you otherwise. You buy what you can afford.

Thanks man, i prolly gon pick up a 8350 during christmas!

 

[FrizzyBaBeHYFR]

Best answer selected by FrizzyBaBeHYFR.

 

[griptwister]

Thanks man, i prolly gon pick up a 8350 during christmas!

Good for you! I'm probably going to upgrade to that Next year as well. It's quite Amazing. The only game that You might have issues with is Skyrim... but otherwise, the FX 8350 is somewhere inbetween the i5 and the i7 performance but is cheaper. Have a great day and a merry christmas!

 

[voiidwulf]

Good for you! I'm probably going to upgrade to that Next year as well. It's quite Amazing. The only game that You might have issues with is Skyrim... but otherwise, the FX 8350 is somewhere inbetween the i5 and the i7 performance but is cheaper. Have a great day and a merry christmas!

The i7 and i5 have essentially the same gaming performance. i7s are just i5s with hyper threading, which isn't used in games. I agree with everything you've said except the last point. The 8350 is less powerful than a 2500K/3570K.

 

[griptwister]

The i7 and i5 have essentially the same gaming performance. i7s are just i5s with hyper threading, which isn't used in games. I agree with everything you've said except the last point. The 8350 is less powerful than a 2500K/3570K.

I saw some benches a while back that showed otherwise... the FX 8350 is more powerful than a i5 in multithreaded performance. With a Decent GPU, You won't even notice a difference. There aren't many single theaded games anymore.

 

[voiidwulf]

Alright, I looked at some benchmarks and they do seem pretty close. I guess I was basing it on Bulldozers poor performance, not realizing that Piledriver is decent.

 

[HEXiT]

lol most games are dual threaded max... about 90% of current and new games are single or dual threaded very very few use more than 2 and thats where the fx falls down so what you say may well be true when you put all 8 modules to work against a 4 core intel you will get similar performance. but as soon as you stop using all 8 then the performance crumples... single and dual threaded perfomnace on the fx cpus is worse than on the amd x2 athlons for the most part and sone even match the phenom 2 when the fx cpu are seriously overclocked. this has nothing to do with intel fanboi'ism either its just a fact that the hardware is a poor design for low workloads like gaming.
you can throw up as many 3dsmax or hd video encoding benches you like that doesnt represent gaming performance.
all you have done is convince some 1 to buy a system that will bottleneck on any game that doesnt use a minimum of 4 threads. and because he has xfired it. the chances of bottlenecks on them 4 threaded games will also increase...
he wants a gaming machine not a workhorse for rendering 3dimages or encoding video...


so op forget the fx cpu for gaming they are pants unless all you want to do is play bf3 and only bf3.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html
if you want to play other games then consider getting an intel 3570 or similar.

as for piledriver being decent... sorry it just isnt. it gives maybe 4-5% over bulldozer. which is an improvement but nowhere near the required 50% needed to compete with intel for per clock perfomance.

gaming benches say it all.
intel based systems. 100-120 fps...
amd based systems 60-80 fps with exactly the same gfx card. limiting factor the cpu.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html


for power users they are great cheap cpu's but for gamers they are pointless.

 

[griptwister]

lol most games are dual threaded max... about 90% of current and new games are single or dual threaded very very few use more than 2 and thats where the fx falls down so what you say may well be true when you put all 8 modules to work against a 4 core intel you will get similar performance. but as soon as you stop using all 8 then the performance crumples... single and dual threaded perfomnace on the fx cpus is worse than on the amd x2 athlons for the most part and sone even match the phenom 2 when the fx cpu are seriously overclocked. this has nothing to do with intel fanboi'ism either its just a fact that the hardware is a poor design for low workloads like gaming.
you can throw up as many 3dsmax or hd video encoding benches you like that doesnt represent gaming performance.
all you have done is convince some 1 to buy a system that will bottleneck on any game that doesnt use a minimum of 4 threads. and because he has xfired it. the chances of bottlenecks on them 4 threaded games will also increase...
he wants a gaming machine not a workhorse for rendering 3dimages or encoding video...

so op forget the fx cpu for gaming they are pants unless all you want to do is play bf3 and only bf3. if you want to play other games then consider getting an intel 3570 or similar.

as for piledriver being decent... sorry it just isnt. it gives maybe 4-5% over bulldozer. which is an improvement but nowhere near the required 50% needed to compete with intel for per clock perfomance.

gaming benches say it all.
intel based systems. 100 fps...
amd based systems 60 fps with exactly the same gfx card. limiting factor the cpu.

He doesn't have the money for a new MoBo. Vishera will do just fine. Intel is the best at processing, but AMD has the best value... Like I said, For gaming, it'll do just fine... The processor will not bottleneck. How ever, I've yet to see a review to say all games get 40 more FPS with intel. Get real numbers, it's only 20FPS difference. And even in skyrim, Once you get to the higher graphical settings and Resolution, It's only 5-10 FPS difference. On behalf of those of us who use a 60Hz monitor AMD suits just fine.

 

[griptwister]

Also, If he is using a 120 HZ monitor, he will get around 85+FPS even with Vishera. Vishera had a 15% improvement over bull dozer... It actually got 15 more FPS in skyrim.

Don't get me wrong, I'd buy intel too... If I could afford it.

 

[HEXiT]

oh! look i just put up the skyrim benches...
and there for 1 card setups... add in another the gap only widens... you can spout as much propaganda as you want. the truth is this guy will be back here asking why this and that game doesnt work as it should just like all the other fx gamers do... this isnt a fanboi statement its just a fact... look through the threads and see how many fx users with moderately powerful gfx cards that should hande games easily are chugging along at 20-30 fps... again things only get worse when you add more gfx cards... i dont deal in myths or what should be. i deal in what is and facts and the fact is the fx isnt a good gaming part unless you play very specific games and even then it doesnt compete frame for frame. just because its cheaper doesnt excuse its lack of overall performance.
in the end the cpu isnt actually cheaper if it costs 30 a quater to run it above what the intel costs to run... you may save at the till but it wont save at home.

if you can afford an fx you can afford the intel i5 3570k its 5 bux cheaper so that doesnt cut it...

 

[griptwister]

Again, the MoBo bro. Intel charges up the yin yang for a decent MoBo. I got a 970A for $70 and I can SLI or xFire if I want. Lol, Again, OC and he'll have no probs with Bottleneck.

Check this. Only game that shows an extreme drop in performance is Civ5. The i5 is also $40 more than the 8350. Vishera is impressive considering most games are optomized for intel.

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8350-piledriver-gaming-comparison

 

[HEXiT]

nope $70 for a motherboard that can overclock in the z77 series...
and most games aint optimized for intel... even hear of gaming evolved... the x86 instruction set is an amd idea... seriously guy calm down. learn a bit of pc history and stop believing propaganda thats being spread on amd fan sites.

do you actually know how to read a benchmark... on your link they oc an fx to 5 ghz and then try and compare it to a much more expencive 3770k @stock speeds... its pure propaganda... they could have gotten exactly the same results for a 3570k but its $100 cheaper which would make the comparison slighty more believable. and then they need to run the cpus at there stock speeds not overclocked.
i look at your profile and see your an amd use... but you dont have an fx yourself. you were wise enough to stick with a phenom 2... advise any 1 you meet for the next generation at least to do the same. if they want a good basic gaming setup...

my message to the op is as soon as you notice you cant get over 10 fps turn off 1 of the gfx cards. you should at least get a playable frame rate. then sell your cpu and buy an amd phenom 2 960t not an 1100t as that will give the same bottlenecking issues. but the unlocked 960t then dont bother unlocking the extra cores but overclock the life out of it...
only then will you be ableto tun the second card without issue on all new games. on older 1s that use less threads your still gonna have to turn 1 card off. but at least you will get consistent fps.

 

[voiidwulf]

Get real numbers, it's only 20FPS difference.

20 FPS is a lot. 20 FPS is considered unplayable, while 40 FPS is good enough for most people.

 

[Firespert]

nope $70 for a motherboard that can overclock in the z77 series...
and most games aint optimized for intel... even hear of gaming evolved... the x86 instruction set is an amd idea... seriously guy calm down. learn a bit of pc history and stop believing propaganda thats being spread on amd fan sites.

do you actually know how to read a benchmark... on your link they oc an fx to 5 ghz and then try and compare it to a much more expencive 3770k @stock speeds... its pure propaganda... they could have gotten exactly the same results for a 3570k but its $100 cheaper which would make the comparison slighty more believable. and then they need to run the cpus at there stock speeds not overclocked.
i look at your profile and see your an amd use... but you dont have an fx yourself. you were wise enough to stick with a phenom 2... advise any 1 you meet for the next generation at least to do the same. if they want a good basic gaming setup...

my message to the op is as soon as you notice you cant get over 10 fps turn off 1 of the gfx cards. you should at least get a playable frame rate. then sell your cpu and buy an amd phenom 2 960t not an 1100t as that will give the same bottlenecking issues. but the unlocked 960t then dont bother unlocking the extra cores but overclock the life out of it...
only then will you be ableto tun the second card without issue on all new games. on older 1s that use less threads your still gonna have to turn 1 card off. but at least you will get consistent fps.

They have a AMD fx-8350 running at stock speeds + a AMD fx-8350 running at 4.9 GHZ, so they are not purely comparing the processors with the 8350 running at 5 GHZ. With the fx 8350, and the latest drivers, it beat the intel core i7-3770k in 5 of those benchmarks.

 

[Youtubegamefox]

Guys running at 60fps at almost all the time with all settings set to max is a not that bad. Don't get me wrong, intel is very high quality is is more Powerful but is also almost slower in multithreading. Single threaded will always be better on intel, at least this generation, But a FX 8350 competes with a I7 3770k and beats it half the time. Think of the possibilities down the rode when multithreading is the normal. The only reason with Intel is if you need the maximum performance or bleeding edge in games. If you don't mind 60fps and a few drops with hq textures go for AMD. But remember the Graphics card will create the biggest difference in most games, so put more money on that. Just go with what works and what you need. Fanboisim gets nobody anywhere, and just creates tensions. Just chill and game guys

 

[HEXiT]

when your comparing a 4 core cpu to an 8 core cpu and the 8 core just scrapes a win that tells you something.
the 8350 is putting up some impressive benches but its per core performance leaves something to be desired. its a definite improvement from what went before but the power usage, the fact it has to run faster and single threaded performance all mean its just not as good as amd hoped.
its all well and good benching on games people dont play and coming away with a win. but clock for clock things seriously need to improve for amd to say they have a comparable gaming part to the intel ivy.
dont get me wrong the last week or so i have seen some impressive results with the 8350 but the over all consensus is its still not an intel beater.
to me thats a shame as it means intel dont have to push, but for amd fanboys its an opertiunity to get the Vaseline out and thats not good...