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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel for games

At best the 8350 slightly beats the similar priced 3570k on a few occasions and this isn't going to change much with new consoles.

And comparing to i7 is silly.

We all want AMD to do better in games,so we can have more competition and better prices. Desperately hoping they don't does not,as it only affects our pockets.

I have a Core i5 myself and a Core i3 before that,and you know what?? Instead of a unlocked Core i5 for £180,I would prefer a unlocked Core i7 instead,or at least a £150 Core i5 3570K. That is how much the Core i5 700 series could be had for after a while and even the Core i5 2500K could be had for that price in 2011.

I want technology to move forward,and not stagnate in games,and I don't want my own investments clouding my judgement in that regard.

People have no issues having it happen with graphics cards,and neither should it be for CPUs too IMHO.

 

[Martini1991]

We all want AMD to do better in games,so we can have more competition and better prices.

Desparately hoping they don't does not,as it only affects our pockets.

At the end of the day, we're comparing AMD's very best to Intels middle of the road, if anything we're only going to see better price/performance in certain price segments, which is good, but overall performance, we're not really going to see much change, Intel have 6 cores they could probably drop in an instance, the extra 2 cores they could unlock in an instance etc.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

At the end of the day, we're comparing AMD's very best to Intels middle of the road, if anything we're only going to see better price/performance in certain price segments, which is good, but overall performance, we're not really going to see much change, Intel have 6 cores they could probably drop in an instance, the extra 2 cores they could unlock in an instance etc.

In the end the sub £250 market is the most important one,so in the end I could not care less if Intel has £10000 CPUs even. IBM probably has Power CPUs that cost that much and do we care,no??

Regarding,Intel having six core CPUs they could drop in price,excellent then. We can see £100 socket 2011 motherboards and £200 to £250 six core Core i7 CPUs,so yes good if we get better competition. You have just validated what I was saying.

Edit!!

At the very least it should keep consumer socket Core i5 and Core i7 CPU prices in check.

OcUK,listing the Core i5 3570K for £200 recently was taking the mickey for example.

 

[humbug]

Different CPU reviews show different results, sometimes the FX-8350 at least as fast as the i7 3770K, other times the i5 is at least as fast as the FX-8350.
So i would suggest it depends on what map is benchmarked, IE: one map may use the CPU differently to the other.

AMD said they arrived at Crytek very late in Crysis 3's production, with that were perhaps only able to optimise a few maps.

I dont think they meant smoother than the intel cpu's, I think smoother than what the 8350 benchmarks suggest.

Still, if someone gave you the choice of higher fps but higher latency, vs lower fps and lower latencies (higher frames being 30 and low being 20) you would choose the higher fps and high latency option.

I would chose lower Latency over FPS as Latency is what makes for smooth gameplay, you can have low Latency and low frame rates and it will be smoother than massive framerates and high Latency.

What i do know from playing this game is even at 25 - 30 FPS on settings my GPU can't handle it is as smooth as silk, turn the FPS counter off and you would never guess its under 50.

Whatever and what not, my old x6 is significantly slower than an FX-8350 in this game and it has never got anywhere near bottle necking my 7870, including on very high settings where the GPU continuously running at 98% can only manege a minimum high 20's.

I would also be interested to see some CPU Latency results.

 

[~>Dg<~]

im 99 percent of games a i5 3570k is still faster than a 8350 nevermind a 3770k

intel are faster if you want the higher percentage most of the time choose intel.

amd can compete but with most games they are slower .

 

[humbug]

im 99 percent of games a i5 3570k is still faster than a 8350 nevermind a 3770k

intel are faster if you want the higher percentage most of the time choose intel.

amd can compete but with most games they are slower .

Do you work for Intel?

 

[Martini1991]

Do you work for Intel?

No, he's just hyperbolic with a lack of objectiveness.
But you can't say stuff like that anywhere given your obvious stance anyway Humbug.

 

[FoxEye]

if the programmers of most games, actually wrote good code, then optimised it for multi threads, games might just look and play better and faster, but they don't.

2/4/6 or 8 cores matter little if they don't use them correctly and efficiently

There are lots of people in this forum who seem to think that using more cores is merely a process of "optimising" your code. (this phrase gets used a as a general catch-all for a hundred different meanings)

Nothing could be further from the truth, and anyone who has done even a tiny amount of programming will know this.

Parallel coding is completely different to to serial coding. You basically have to forget everything and learn to code again entirely from scratch.

Parallel coding introduces so much complexity to your design (and thought processes) that it cannot be called an "optimisation". That old code you had from your last, greatest engine yet? Was built from the ground up to be parallel? If not, you can pretty much throw it all away and start again.

If you want to code for 8 cores, and do it right, you have to design your program from the very start to be as parallel as possible, and that is possibly one of the hardest things imaginable.

 

[wolvers]

We all want AMD to do better in games.

That's where some of the problem lies because it would appear that's not the case. You only have to look at what's been posted above to see that.

AMD have the bang for buck sector fully sown up IMO. People go on about the 8350 and 3570k yet it's chips like the 8320 and 6300 are the real gems in their line up, but you don't get people on forums talking about and recommending them in the way you just did. It's always the 'buy a 3570k, AMD are rubbish' nonsense that gets touted. There's just complete ignorance of the fact that the end experience is so similar yet the price difference could be important for many. 3570k + GPU, or 8320 + better GPU or even 6300 + even better GPU? What gives the better experience for the same cost?

Totally agree with what you said about the sub £250 market (well sub £200 really). AMD aren't even attempting to compete anywhere else so we shouldn't judge them for failing in an area they're not even in. And if AMDs competitiveness in the sub £200 market forces Intel to drop prices relatively, then it's a win for everyone.

Also, for me anyway, Intel have stripped the challenge of OCing out of that range and almost totally removed any possibility of OCing under £170. It's just - look it up on the internet, increase multi and vcore to the same as some guy that's already benched it and........well that's it really.

 

[Martini1991]

I've been banging on about the FX8320 at 120 being the best bang/buck CPU out for ages now.

It is the best value by far, I'd always tell people to stump up the extra from the FX6300 to it as the total performance percentage is higher than the price percentage.

 

[humbug]

No, he's just hyperbolic with a lack of objectiveness.
But you can't say stuff like that anywhere given your obvious stance anyway Humbug.

My position on the whole Intel vs AMD CPU's as they stand at the moment is that Intel are generally the safer option for gamers, whats more i have said this repeatedly and recommended Intel CPU's in this very room to people looking for gaming CPU's.

Beyond that i believe AMD do offer solid all round performance for a reasonable price in productivity work and games which make better use of their architecture.

In that i believe you and i are actually of the same mind, so your smack down there was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.

No, he's just hyperbolic with a lack of objectiveness.

While you are obviously aware of my despair at the way DG seems to conduct himself at times my question to him was rhetorical and of a sarcastic nature, while you may rightly or wrongly feel this gives you the right to use it as a springboard to pronounce your diagnosis, Dr Phil. I would appreciate it if you didn't.
I have no intention or desire to join you in some collaborative effort to fix whatever you or i wrongly or rightly feel is his problem.
If he has issues that would be way beyond me and yourself in any-case.

I am perfectly content to voice my despair at him and then move along on my own.

 

[Martini1991]

I'm sure I can bring up a quote from you stating "The 2500k is an overpriced piece of crap"

But, if inconsistency is your game, yolo.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Do you work for Intel?

do you work for amd ? its true intel are faster 99 percent of the time in games saying otherwise is bs.

best thing is i prefer amd as a company and love there products i think they are priced well and give a good performance for what you pay. its just they are not the fastest and thats all im saying.

 

[humbug]

I'm sure I can bring up a quote from you stating "The 2500k is an overpriced piece of crap"

But, if inconsistency is your game, yolo.

There are things about Intel CPU's that i feel are crap

I simply don't use my own personal experiences or views to cloud datatorial facts in references to conjecture, and certainly not when it comes to another's hard earned cash.

 

[Martini1991]

There are things about Intel CPU's that i feel are crap

I simply don't use my own personal experiences or views to cloud datatorial facts in references to conjecture.

Yes you have, many a time.

 

[~>Dg<~]

No, he's just hyperbolic with a lack of objectiveness.
But you can't say stuff like that anywhere given your obvious stance anyway Humbug.

im not pro anyone im pro for gaming. this is where assumption creeps in on here. i dont care what sticker is on my product just it does what i want it to to the best of its abilities.

as said amd does a great job and for eg i told my mate to buy wolvers 8320 as i knew they were decent chips. so stop with the pro whatever as im not pro anyone. what i do know is i play with many people with many varying combinations of pcs and i know what performance they do get. so it aint a benchmark of andatech or some other site its straight in front of my face playing benchmark with real life performance.

amd are slower cpus in games overall.

 

[Martini1991]

im not pro anyone im pro for gaming. this is where assumption creeps in on here. i dont care what sticker is on my product just it does what i want it to to the best of its abilities.

as said amd does a great job and for eg i told my mate to by wolvers 8320 as i knew they were decent chips. so stop with the pro whatever as im not pro anyone. what i do know is i play with many people with many varying combinations of pcs and i know what performance they do get. so it aint a benchmark of andatech or some other site its straight in front of my face playing benchmark with real life performance.

amd are slower cpus in games overall.

I don't recall saying you were pro Intel.

No wait, I didn't, I called you hyperbolic.

 

[~>Dg<~]

maybe i was hyperbowling

 

[wolvers]

its true intel are faster 99 percent of the time in games saying otherwise is bs.

I don't think anyone can argue that Intel isn't the best choice for gaming if money is no object, but your statement is way too generalised AND over exaggerated. Or as Martini puts it, hyperbolic (I swear that I didn't have to look it up ). It's like saying that Nvidia is faster than AMD 99 percent of the time just because of Titan. Which is true, but again a very generalised statement.

 

[~>Dg<~]

what does it matter if its true ?

simple things it comes down to if you want fastest cpu on the whole for gaming you get a intel.

you have a limited budget for your build but still want a good experience you get amd

thats how simple it is with choosing your gaming cpu.

show as many benchmarks as you want intel is the fastest choice while amd are good for a limited budget. call it hyperboling or whatever you want i call it straight truth