1100t to FX8350?

Soundood · 12 Feb 2013 at 17:59

OK its that question again, i have some money in my account to spare and wanna upgrade.

i currently have an Asus M5A99X EVO AMD 990X, and is currently running with my 1100t, the original idea like maost was to keep an upgrade path for faildozer, but we all know what happened there.

now i have seen some better reviews with the FX8350, and was wondering if i should just bite the bullet and get one. and maybe sell the 1100t (that sits at 4gig with ease)

what do you guys think? worth the easy upgrade?

note: i also have 2 x GTX470's in SLI that will be replaced with a GTX670 now, and then another for SLI in a few months

note 2: my system is watercooled with 2 x 360 rads with twin pumps

thanks in advance

Smoogels · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:14

I guess it depends what your usage is and if you have money to spare. The 1100t is still a capable processor (more so when overclocked) and may only provide slight bottlenecks in games.

What is your main usage?

Soundood · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:29

bit of encoding, but mainly gaming, BF3 is the game at the moment, ans will be for a while.

doesnt BF3 use up the cores?

teenwolf · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:30

if its mainly gaming you would be better going intel

imginy · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:35

You are going to need an i7

Soundood · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:47

bunnox said:
if its mainly gaming you would be better going intel

imginy said:
You are going to need an i7

these are great answers, but to 'go intel' would cost £300-£400, this would cost £150 and be simply putting a chip into an already compliant board?

Jay85 · 12 Feb 2013 at 18:59

bunnox said:
if its mainly gaming you would be better going intel

imginy said:
You are going to need an i7

Really helpful guys... im sure he'll just take that answer and go buy an i7 without even thinking it through like you probably did.

Jay85 · 12 Feb 2013 at 19:02

I would love to help you on this end but my lack of reading lately especially with amd chips is gonna give you no useful help at all.

All i can say is, search around not just on this forum but do your own research in reviews and look at the pros and cons of each path.

From what i've heard the FX8350 is a good chip, you might wanna look into buying second hand instead of brand new to save a few bucks.

I suppose the questions to be asked are, what do you normally do with your pc? Game? Encode? Music/video entertainment purposes?

imginy · 12 Feb 2013 at 19:06

soundood said:
these are great answers, but to 'go intel' would cost £300-£400, this would cost £150 and be simply putting a chip into an already compliant board?

8350 is never going to run 2x 670 to the full potential.

To be honest an 8350 isn't even going to run a single 670 properly.

Go look at some benchmarks the 8350 isn't much better than what you already have.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

The only thing that is going to give you a decent jump in performance is the i7.

teenwolf · 12 Feb 2013 at 19:12

you will need an i7 to get the full speed out of those GPU'S.
any AMD will bottleneck for sure.

imginy · 12 Feb 2013 at 19:16

Jay85 said:
I suppose the questions to be asked are, what do you normally do with your pc? Game? Encode? Music/video entertainment purposes?

He already said it's mainly for gaming

Jay85 said:
Really helpful guys... im sure he'll just take that answer and go buy an i7 without even thinking it through like you probably did.

I have a 3570k which I got just for gaming single card 60fps 1080p

Soundood · 12 Feb 2013 at 19:16

imginy said:
8350 is never going to run 2x 670 to the full potential.

To be honest an 8350 isn't even going to run a single 670 properly.

Go look at some benchmarks the 8350 isn't much better than what you already have.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

The only thing that is going to give you a decent jump in performance is the i7.

mmm, this is the conclusion i came to last time, hence why i still have the 1100t, but i just dont know enough about Intel, been AMD all my years from barton days,

what would you guys recommend (motherboard and cpu), that would go with some crucial ballistix tracers?

badcompany · 12 Feb 2013 at 20:14

8350's are fast enough just go for it.

teenwolf · 12 Feb 2013 at 20:17

badcompany said:
8350's are fast enough just go for it.

so he should pay out for a cpu that is only just as good as what he already has.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 12 Feb 2013 at 20:34

soundood said:
mmm, this is the conclusion i came to last time, hence why i still have the 1100t, but i just dont know enough about Intel, been AMD all my years from barton days,

what would you guys recommend (motherboard and cpu), that would go with some crucial ballistix tracers?

Bahaha! Bit-tech and CPC are from the same people who do PC Pro.

I had to correct them on some of the silly mistakes they made in their own articles.

Do yourself a favour and look at some other reviews sites(even HardOCP are better,but I would not bother with them either).

Edit!!

Here is the only review of the latest BF3 expansion,Armored Kill, that tests 64 player MP performance:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-armored-kill-test-gpu.html

Here are the results of their CPU test with a GTX690:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battlefield 3 Armored Kill/test/b3 ac proz 64 2.png

That is with an FX8150,which is faster than the Phenom II X6 by a decent margin.The FX8350 will be probably at least 10% to 20% faster I suspect,and even it wasn't it would be reasonably quicker.

However,there is noise that the FX8350 will be replaced by a newer revision over the summer with some tweaks.

Martini1991 · 12 Feb 2013 at 20:36

I'd stick with what you've got to be fair.
Although an i5 3570k and Z77 board can be done at 250-300 easily, not that I'm advocating is. This late in the game I'd wait for Haswell, not that it's going to be game changing.

badcompany said:
8350's are fast enough just go for it.

So's his 1100T.
Fast enough isn't ever a good enough reason for spending 150 quid.

badcompany · 12 Feb 2013 at 21:25

bunnox said:
so he should pay out for a cpu that is only just as good as what he already has.

lol they are loads faster stop making out they are slow. Have you seen recent benchmarks for these they are plenty fast enough.

Chrisoldinho · 12 Feb 2013 at 21:44

imginy said:
8350 is never going to run 2x 670 to the full potential.

To be honest an 8350 isn't even going to run a single 670 properly.

Go look at some benchmarks the 8350 isn't much better than what you already have.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

bunnox said:

you will need an i7 to get the full speed out of those GPU'S.
any AMD will bottleneck for sure.

Click to expand...

Really?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

That said it depends on your resolution, I notice no difference between a 3570K and an 8350 when gaming at 6048x1080.

Ollie1132 · 12 Feb 2013 at 22:01

badcompany said:
lol they are loads faster stop making out they are slow. Have you seen recent benchmarks for these they are plenty fast enough.

I don't think you understand what IPC is mate :/ I'd just stick with the 1100T unless you're severly bottlenecked no point in an upgrade really is there?

Martini1991 · 12 Feb 2013 at 22:07

Chrisoldinho said:
[/url]
Really?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

That said it depends on your resolution, I notice no difference between a 3570K and an 8350 when gaming at 6048x1080.

Agh yes, the locked thread and the questionable results.

EDIT : PCZ did a Heaven test, and surprisingly the AMD FX8350 could bottleneck.
The Dirt 3 score, the AMD is ahead a little bit single GPU, but behind in dual GPU, that doesn't make sense.
No Intel usage graphs?