• 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.

Will next-gen games run better on AMD 8350 than 3770K?

Andy_pandy

Andy_pandy

Andy_pandy

Associate
Joined
10 Aug 2011
Posts
146
I realized PS4 will be using the new AMD 8 Core architecture. Does that mean next-gen games will run better on AMD's 8350 CPU than Intel 3770K?

I'm curious since current games use no more than 4 cores. I'm guessing that it is likely that future games will use 8 cores.

Your thoughts?
 
Its not all about cores, as Bulldozer so amazingly proved...

The Best worrying thing for PC gamers is the GPU architecture it will have..

Appearently it's not to dis-simular to the 7970M

I don't games will be using 8-cores anytime soon. Sony are just thinking ahead.. a lot of modern games are driven by consoles, so if developers see they have 8 cores to play with, they may aim to utilise more than 4..
 
This is a long way from the norm yet, but.....

qQpVGOc_zps14e25a80.jpg


Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p_zps221c9475.png


We could see more of that in time.
 
7970M is what, around 7850 level?

As for CPUs games are only just starting to use 4 cores let alone 8..hyperthreading on 3770k is also only beneficial on a few games
 
Last edited:
I'm a little sceptical of those benchmarks. Why would 8350 perform better than 3770k. Isn't 8350 slower than 3770k

I tried 3D rendering (Softimage 2013) on my mates 3770K and my 8350, and the 3770K finished 50sec quicker.

We used the same corsair Vengeance 16Gb and AMD Radeon 7950. We bought them together to reduce shipping price.

Rather odd benchmarks. All the ones I have seen 3770k beats the 8350.
 
Last edited:
haha tested it oc not stock lol

chuck in dustbin

i5 3570k is faster in games never mind a 3770k
 
Last edited:
Andy_pandy said:
I'm a little sceptical of those benchmarks. Why would 8350 perform better than 3770k. Isn't 8350 slower than 3770k

I tried 3D rendering (Softimage 2013) on my mates 3770K and my 8350, and the 3770K finished 50sec quicker.

We used the same corsair Vengeance 16Gb and AMD Radeon 7950. We bought them together to reduce shipping price.

Rather odd benchmarks. All the ones I have seen 3770k beats the 8350.
Click to expand...

For rendering and what not the Intel will always win, the 8350 is pretty good for gaming though, I'd still never go AMD for my CPU these days unless they seriously caught up in all areas of CPU performance.
 
Two reviews websites independently confirmed the results so they are valid and they are reasonably well known sites. One was with a GTX690 and the other with Geforce Titan.
 
Last edited:
I actually hope that AMD CPUs will now have a performance advantage with the newer games. It might give them a little boost to start making better processors.

I would happily consider getting a AMD if it matched a i5's performance in most games.
 
Crysis 3 is a Gaming Evolved title, AMD sent an army of engineers to Crytek to help them develope the game.

Those are two completely independent and well known reviews confirming eachother.
What they show is the FX-8350 is a match for the 3770K, the FX-6300 is a match for the 3570K and will allow a GTX 690 stretch its legs.

Is this the way of the future?
AMD have game development SKD's available to dev's now and i think for the firs time ever, something previously only the proviso to Intel.

With the AMD CPU's landing in Game Consoles dev's are going to start using those SKD's to optimise their games, they will have to if they want the game to run well on Game Consoles.

So yes its certainly possible that the option for gaming in terms of CPU performance is equally Intel or AMD.

Thats a very good thing for everyone.
 
Doomedspeed said:
Its not all about cores, as Bulldozer so amazingly proved...

The Best worrying thing for PC gamers is the GPU architecture it will have..

Appearently it's not to dis-simular to the 7970M

I don't games will be using 8-cores anytime soon. Sony are just thinking ahead.. a lot of modern games are driven by consoles, so if developers see they have 8 cores to play with, they may aim to utilise more than 4..
Click to expand...

Games WILL use 8 cores and very soon, both consoles have gone for 8 core low power cpu's rather than quad or 8 core high power chips.

Currently a thread on either AMD/Intel chips can run above 4Ghz pretty easily, both consoles will very likely be running below 2.5Ghz, Jaguar cores have a shorter pipeline and aren't in any way designed for 4Ghz running, they are custom, so they may have managed to add some ability to run at higher clocks but its unlikely that will be what they customized meaning in all likelyhood to get any performance at all from the CPU all game dev's will be going heavily multithreaded, Jaguar is also slower per core, but not by a huge amount at all. Bobcat was 15% behind Bulldozer in IPC, but at effectively 1/4 the clock speed, Jaguar will boost this so it may get around Bulldozer IPC but still at half clock speeds, meaning the performance you'd get from 4 cores fully loaded on a Jaguar would likely only equal the workload on 2 Bulldozer cores, which as you can see from that Crysis graph, isn't going to cut it.

To leverage the full power of the PS4/720 or next, whatever it gets called, they will HAVE to use the 8 cores pretty effectively.

This will almost certainly translate into AMD pretty much owning Intel next year in gaming. Optimising for an AMD cpu and optimising for 8 threads. 8 real cores will likely do very very well in terms of scaling. Of course if a game CPU wise works fine on 8 2Ghz cores, 8 4-5Ghz cores might not bring an awful lot of performance, you'll run out of GPU power at some point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8 core Steamroller walk all over Haswell chips from mid 2014 onwards.

I still wouldn't buy a 8350 unless you have to today, I'd be waiting for Kaveri without question, lower power usage, better power saving, much better chip all around with every big flaw fixed.
 
Jokester said:
Yes the next year or two could be very interesting for AMD and gaming again.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we might finally see a mainstream hex from Intel too to combat it.
Progression for everyone :p

Just as long as games stop looking like BF3/Crysis 2 & 3, I detest the style.

Have to say, I'm surprised at the Crysis 3 result, not because AMD is ahead, but because they're ahead with this level of GPU's with Crysis 3, a few years down the line when we've got like 3x GPU performance, then yeah sure, but right now there's a difference in results? The 3930K having more room to spread the GPU's legs a fair amount over an FX83, again at this level is..... Surprising..
 
Last edited:
Mertini, have you played Crysis 3? it looks astonishing, the level of detail and texture is off the planet, the lighting, reflection and shadowing is beautiful.
I also once asked if we will over see the level of detailed fine particle Physics we had seen in Metro2033 ever again, well yes, its all there.
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
why cant anyone just do proper reviews? show stock and oc :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The 8350 stock speed is 4.0GHz.

Also there's a lot to the AMD processors, for example they have very large amounts of slower cache compared to the Intel chips, so if you factor that into your programming you can increase the performance. The total instructions per second of the 8350 is also theoretically higher than a 3770k, provided you can utilise all the cores as a 3770k only has 4 cores + 4 hyperthreaded ones where as an 8350 is closer to 8 real cores.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom