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

[ubersonic]

I'm not sure that's true. The 8350/8320s that I've had are the same as the 920 I had so wouldn't I be right in saying that would make the 1st gen i5 slightly slower?

As said previously that statement was regarding per core performance not overall performance (and using cinebench as a measurement).

 

[wolvers]

I'm talking about per core performance. 8350 and 920 at max clocks score the same in CB single core. In multi core the 8350/8320 is loads faster than the 920, well obviously.

 

[ubersonic]

I'm talking about per core performance. 8350 and 920 at max clocks score the same in CB single core. In multi core the 8350/8320 is loads faster than the 920, well obviously.

Ahh I see what you mean now, its counter intuitive but the i5 7xx and the i7 8xx are actually faster than the i7 9xx in single core performance, its because of higher clock speeds.

 

[imginy]

The question what would run Crysis3 or BF3 better?? An HD7850 and a Core i3 3220 or a HD7850 an a FX6300,or a Core i5 3350P and a HD7770?? They all cost around the same.

The same goes even down to the AMD APUs against the equivalent Intel ones too and so on and so forth.

I would take the cheapest ivy/sandy i5 I could find over an amd any day.

The single threaded performance might not be needed in the games you mentioned but there's 100's of games that do need it.

The only time an amd cpu is the better choice for gaming is in a theoretical scenario like yours where the buyer has to get a crap graphics card if he chooses a good processor.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would take the cheapest ivy/sandy i5 I could find over an amd any day.

The single threaded performance might not be needed in the games you mentioned but there's 100's of games that do need it.

The only time an amd cpu is the better choice for gaming is in a theoretical scenario like yours where the buyer has to get a crap graphics card if he chooses a good processor.

The situation is not theoretical as I have helped 100s of people with builds in the last few years. It is only theoretical for many hardware enthusiasts on forums who like hardware as a hobby.

There are hundreds of games which do well on multi-core CPUs.

The hilarious thing is that Core i5 3350P,actually has lower single thread performance than a Core i3 3240.

So,it seems you want a Core i5 with slightly lower single single thread performance over a Core i3 with higher single thread performance.

Oh wait!! Its because,multi-threaded performance is higher,and it shows in games.

I actually went to a large LAN,a while back with some pretty hardcore gamers.

One of them was a Diamond League SC2 player. He thrashed all of us,including me who has a Core i5 CPU.

He had a Phenom II X4 965 and a HD6870.

I also know plenty of dedicated WoW players who don't use Core i5 CPUs.

In fact I met far more gamers out there who have cheaper AMD and Intel CPUs,than Core i5 CPUs.

 

[Martini1991]

What does PC set up have to do with gaming ability?

No one says you can't game with AMD.

 

[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.

Moreover,it also does not take into account the whole price range below £150 either,or future trends.

The question what would run Crysis3 or BF3 better?? An HD7850 and a Core i3 3220 or a HD7850 an a FX6300,or a Core i5 3350P and a HD7770?? They all cost around the same.

The same goes even down to the AMD APUs against the equivalent Intel ones too and so on and so forth.

I would take the cheapest ivy/sandy i5 I could find over an amd any day.

The single threaded performance might not be needed in the games you mentioned but there's 100's of games that do need it.

The only time an amd cpu is the better choice for gaming is in a theoretical scenario like yours where the buyer has to get a crap graphics card if he chooses a good processor.

What does PC set up have to do with gaming ability?

No one says you can't game with AMD.

So,people like him make instant blanket statements about AMD CPUs. More hyperbole.

That includes the whole range from £30 to £160 including situations where people have to game on an Intel IGP.

 

[Martini1991]

None of those quotes say "AMD can't game"

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel for games

None of those quotes say "AMD can't game"

Intel for gaming indicates that.

That indicates the whole range of AMD CPUs.

Its hyperbole.

So Intel for gaming with an IGP then??

A Core i3 for gaming in BF3 MP?

Crysis3??

All modern FPS games.

See how he sidesteps the Core i3 I mentioned.

I mentioned the locked Core i5 3350P for a reason. It has slightly lower single thread performance than a Core i3 3240.

Then he adds,any SB/IB Core i5.

But there are other Core i5 CPUs which even have lower clockspeeds than the Core i5 3350P.

There are SB Core i5 CPUs with even lower clockspeeds and less IPC too,and the IB Core i3 CPUs have greater single thread performance.

So that means the Core i5 2300 when compared to a Core i3 3240,which probably has at least 15% better single threaded performance.

So,despite him going on about single thread performance:
1,)He wants to go with a Core i5,indicating he wants multi-threaded performance
2.)He would go for a low end Core i5 which has lower single threaded performace,than a Core i3. Hence he wants multi-threaded performance.
3.)Even if single threaded perfomance were the same,it would still be a Core i5. Yep,for multi-threaded performance.

So,all these people,who go on about single threaded performance 24/7,end up getting Core i5 CPUs not a Core i3 CPU,because they want multi-threaded performance.

Edit!!

If single thread performance was the only important metric,then why don't we see more Core i5 K series users,disabling half the cores on their CPU so they can push higher clockspeeds??

Second Edit!!

On top of this he actually thinks a situation where someone has a more limited budget is theoretical,and they might need to balance bits around in the build. I didn't know the sub £140 CPU market was a theoretical one!!

Maybe we should tell Gibbo to stop selling any CPUs under a £140 as obviously no one would ever buy one of them for a gaming build.

The same goes with APUs,who would care about IGP performance??

 

[Martini1991]

You're thinking wayyyyy too much.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You're thinking wayyyyy too much.

Then go into the GPU section and start a thread saying "AMD" or "Nvidia" for gaming and see where that will head??

Since Nvidia has the single GPU crown,maybe it should be "Nvidia" then.

 

[Martini1991]

Then go into the GPU section and start a thread saying "AMD only" or "Nvidia only" for gaming and see where that will head??

I fear I may be concussed.
What's that got to do with anything?

You just seem to be rambling off a rant and trying to see something that isn't there about what he's said.

I can quite clearly see the blanket "Intel for games" but I'm not going to dissect it, it's not as black as white as his statement, say so and move along.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I fear I may be concussed.
What's that got to do with anything?

A lot. You look at the individual budget and needs of the users and make a recommendation. Just because Titan is the fastest desktop,or the GTX680MX is the fastest single mobile card,does not instantly make any other AMD card not worthy of recommendation.

The same goes with CPUs. Its just hyperbole when he says "Intel for gaming" which is based on the Core i5 CPUs.

You just seem to be rambling off a rant and trying to see something that isn't there about what he's said.

I can quite clearly see the blanket "Intel for games" but I'm not going to dissect it, it's not as black as white as his statement, say so and move along.

The only time an amd cpu is the better choice for gaming is in a theoretical scenario like yours where the buyer has to get a crap graphics card if he chooses a good processor.

So,read that. He specifically says Core i5 CPUs which started at arond £135 to £140.

He ignores the cheaper Intel CPUs too like the Core i3,because it clashes with what he really wants,ie,multi-threaded processing power too.

So in his view,anyone going for a cheaper CPU in a gaming rig is a "hypothetical" situation,to side-step the Core i3 issue.

I did not know £100 CPUs were theoretical.

 

[humbug]

There does seem to be a little animosity toward AMD, unfortunately. (in general)

On the face of it people are willing to say (AMD CPU's have thier place) and then a little further down imply they are for poor people or for people who are misinformed and then go on searching for any price for price Intel alternative to try and prove that point, even if its older tek, sometimes used older tek that actually doesn't work well.

It would be very interesting to see what may happen if AMD did catch up with Intel's best at a much lower price point, what would some so called enfusiasts do then?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It would be very interesting to see what may happen if AMD did catch up with Intel's best at a much lower price point, what would some so called enfusiasts do then?

Intel was there first.

 

[Martini1991]

There does seem to be a little animosity toward AMD, unfortunately. (in general)

On the face of it people are willing to say (AMD CPU's have thier place) and then a little further down imply they are for poor people or for people who are misinformed and then go on searching for any price for price Intel alternative to try and prove that point, even if its older tek, sometimes used older tek that actually doesn't work well.

It would be very interesting to see what may happen if AMD did catch up with Intel's best at a much lower price point, what would some so called enfusiasts do then?

They'd buy the best product for their money as they do now?
None biased ones that is.

If AMD offered the same performance consistently at a lower price point, I'd be AMD, but there's still no CPU that will consistently give the same performance.

 

[humbug]

They'd buy the best product for their money as they do now?
None biased ones that is.

If AMD offered the same performance consistently at a lower price point, I'd be AMD, but there's still no CPU that will consistently give the same performance.

I believe you.

 

[Martini1991]

Probably sarcastic given your previous postings of believing I'm some rabid Intel fanboy/AMD hater, when I'm far from it.

End of the day, does AMD have a single CPU that will offer me the same/better performance consistently as my current stuff at any price point? Nope, so how am I meant to make a rational purchase for an AMD CPU?

If you look through the years, when AMD were on top, was it Intel getting recommended? Nope, it was AMD. If that was the case now, then people would recommend AMD.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Probably sarcastic given your previous postings of believing I'm some rabid Intel fanboy/AMD hater, when I'm far from it.

End of the day, does AMD have a single CPU that will offer me the same/better performance consistently as my current stuff at any price point? Nope, so how am I meant to make a rational purchase for an AMD CPU?

If you look through the years, when AMD were on top, was it Intel getting recommended? Nope, it was AMD. If that was the case now, then people would recommend AMD.

What about at other price points though??

 

[Martini1991]

What about at other price points though??

What'd you mean? Your question doesn't actually make any sense given my post, but yolo.

I don't believe Intel have the best price/point offerings.
Do I have to once again repeat that I think the FX8320 is the best CPU price/performance wise.

I think having to choose between the FX6300 and the i3 3220 isn't a great situation either, I'd choose the FX6300 unless the i3 was a temporary CPU (For ~ 2 months)