• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

1100t to FX8350?

Ollie1132 said:
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?
Click to expand...

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=9

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=10

not overclocked but the 8150 is so you can imagine the difference for yourself.
its faster, its up to you if you think its good value upgrade or not depends on your personal finances but to say its slower is just wrong.

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=8


FX 8350 vs. X6 1100T FX 8150 'i5 2500K' i7 2600K
Pass 1 +84% +14% +23% -8%
Pass 2 +32% +16% +40% +8%
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It doesn't take a genius to realise there's something whack about those results.

BF3, (Ignoring the Intels getting killed) FX8350 is only 1 frame ahead of the FX8150, but an OC'ed FX8150 is going mental on the FPS.

The FX8350 only being 1 frame higher than the FX8150 then doesn't make sense.

For the memory results, no comment really.
The trucrypt AES, probably down to the instruction set, because AMD had a rather lacklustre instruction line up set previously (Could be wrong)
Same with the Aida?
Second Aida, not much to say.
 
Martini1991 said:
It doesn't take a genius to realise there's something whack about those results.

BF3, (Ignoring the Intels getting killed) FX8350 is only 1 frame ahead of the FX8150, but an OC'ed FX8150 is going mental on the FPS.

The FX8350 only being 1 frame higher than the FX8150 then doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I've never even heard of the benchmark they used aha. Nor the fact that a 8150 out does a 2500k in anything ever period? Pretty sure the first gen i series out does the 8150 easily?
 
Ollie1132 said:
I've never even heard of the benchmark they used aha. Nor the fact that a 8150 out does a 2500k in anything ever period? Pretty sure the first gen i series out does the 8150 easily?
Click to expand...

Not in things which can fully load an FX8150. I'd except the FX8150 ahead in those situations, likewise a fully loaded 1100T gives a pretty good show.
 
badcompany said:
bf3 is one of the few games that the 8350 will do well in, plenty of sites showings its top dog in bf3 if you look.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I never said anything contrary to that.
Read a few more times till you understand.

Every other review I've ever seen with BF3 has them all equal at normal resolutions, lower resolution (Which wasn't expected) went i7/i5/FX83, so I wouldn't quite say they show it top dog at all.
 
whatever, he wants encoding and BF3 performance so a 8350 would be just grand if he has money to spend on it but the current cpu will be just fine if he would rather not spend.
 
And I don't disagree, don't spit your dummy out.
But it being fast enough isn't reason enough to put 150 pound into an upgrade for myself, for the OP it might be, in which case, not a bad CPU at all, but what he's got now is perfectly fine.
 
If Armored Kill ,which is the latest BF3 expansion, shows an FX8150 doing much better than a Phenom II X6 1100T with a GTX690,that an FX8300 series CPU would be an upgrade too. IIRC,looking at the FX8150 results in BF3 MP,it was one of the few games it was OK in,when compared to a Core i5,although I could be wrong there.

Also,the Phenom II X6 1100T has held its value reasonably well,so if the OP got an FX8320 or FX8350 it would be a very cheap upgrade for BF3.

It does not surprise me,if BF3 after over a year now, runs better now on the newer AMD CPUs than say a year or so ago. People forget BF3 is an AMD Gaming Evolved Title,and the other Frostbite2 based game,Medal of Honour Warfighter,which is AMD sponsored too, does reasonably well on AMD CPUs.

Like I mentioned there is another revision/stepping of the current FX8300 CPUs, supposedly being released in the next few months. If I was the OP,I would probably wait and see what this looks like.

Edit!!

On the famous auction site,the Phenom II X6 1100T sells for around £100 to £115. So,even if you got £80 to £90 in your pocket,that would make an FX8320 or FX8350,around £40 to £70 more.

The FX8350 also gives you AVX,FMA3 and FMA4 which means it has all the modern instruction sets,for video encoding,and the Phenom II X6 lacks this.
 
Last edited:
8350 and 8150 do well in bf3

BUT are still 30-40 frames behind a 3570k on games like skyrim borderlands 2 crysis 3..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoYehBf8VFY

http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page6.html

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,review-32550-15.html

If I was planning on running 2x 670 I would definitely be looking at either the 3820 or 3770k.

I have the 3570k and it's good but the i7 would be more of an upgrade :)

I just switched from thuban to ivy at christmas and the difference is unreal :)
 
imginy said:
8350 and 8150 do well in bf3
Click to expand...

Which is what the OP wants to run.


imginy said:
BUT are still 30-40 frames behind a 3570k on games like skyrim
Click to expand...

With or without the patch?? Difference looks around 15 to 30FPS,but then at nearly 70FPS,why would it matter??

Its a single player DX9 game and Elder Scrolls:Online looks like it is using a custom engine which is DX11 which probably means better core scaling. They even used an existing multi-threaded engine to demo the game.

Gamebryo and Creation are probably being thrown out by even Bethesda now,and good riddens. That means the next Fallout will be DX11 AND use my Core i5 well!! :)

OTH,I know loads of people running the game on older CPUs at reasonable settings(they are not casual players),so,I makes me think whether like WoW,hardware enthusiasts are trying to overstate the requirements of the game.

In fact I met a chap who was in the SC2 Platinum or Diamond League IIRC,and he had a Phenom II X4 965 and an HD6870. Even the power of a Core i5 did not save me.....and a couple of other people too during a LAN!! :(


imginy said:
borderlands 2
Click to expand...

No FX8150 there and you are looking at 10% to 20% better performance with the newer CPU,which does not put it much behind a Core i5 2500K,maybe around 10% or thereabouts with an HD7970.

With or without CPU PhysX on or off?? People were discussing that about Techspot review,and it is suspected they were running CPU PhysX on a higher setting in the CPU review part.

With CPU PhysX off/low it runs fine on most CPUs,and I have played well over 100 hours of both games in total,and know plenty of people who run the game.

CPU scaling with PhysX off/low it is very similar to Deus Ex,which means its fine with any reasonably clocked quad core.

However with CPU PhysX to medium or high it really taxes the CPU!! :(

During big battles,even with a overclocked Core i7 if you use PhysX on high,performance craters.

A Core i5 or Core i7 would probably be better in this situation,but TBH running a Nvidia card would make more sense if you really want the effects.

imginy said:
crysis 3..........
Click to expand...

Crysis3 MP Beta is a mess,ATM,so trying to gleam any info out of it before it is released ,is not a good idea. I have run the Beta myself and the Alpha too.

Moreover,like with Crysis2 most people are going to play this in SP mode anyway.

Crysis2 uses the same engine,and an FX8350 is Core i5 level anyway with an HD7950:

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-fps.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-99th.gif

The engine does thread very well though.

In fact what really surprised me with the newer AMD CPUs is this:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/S/360280/original/wow 1680.png

The FX CPUs are massively faster in WoW than a Phenom II X6. An FX8350 is around 10% slower than a Core i5 2550K which is not bad at all for an AMD CPU. Its probably some better optimisation in WoW with the latest expansion I suspect.

The Core i5 CPUs are no doubt better overall,but the newer AMD CPUs do show a decent performance boost over the older ones now.
 
Last edited:
Normally I would disagree with upgrading from a decent Phenom II X6 to a FX8...however, if BF3 is really all OP's gonna play, and if he's set to get another GTX670 to SLI, then a FX83xx would be a reasonable upgrade, if disregarding the fact it would still bottleneck SLI GTX670 more than i5 3570K in 99% of the other games (which don't scale up to 8 cores).
 
I upgraded 1090T to FX8350 on that same board and I found it was a good upgrade. The 1090T was overclocked at 3.8Ghz and easily went above 4Ghz. The FX8350 is at 4.6Ghz and will easily run 4.8Ghz with my cooling. 5Ghz if not prime stable but will bench Aida64 and not fall over.

Power wise there is about 60W between the two at full load overclocked so not much difference.

I only run a single 6950 which is easily 100% loaded, I was going to Xfire two but that plan did not come off.

Personally for the nett £80 difference in new processor and resale of old, it is a no brainer for me. The FX8350 is fast and productive. You have to factor in decent cooling when overclocking is my only slightly negative comment.
 
*facepalm* at all the I7 suggestions in this thread. hyperthreading won't be used in gaming and a 100 mhz bump in base frequency won't get you very far :)

I considered upgrading to an 8350, but didn't see much point as there wouldn't be much difference when gaming on a single screen at 1080p.
 
thanks for all your help guys, i pulled the trigger on it @ £149.99 (week Special) with free shipping.

quik bios update and i should be good to go ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom