FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

[Martini1991]

Or you don't go into a thread touting benchmarks to prove a point from the get go, you just stick to the facts.

The FX8320 offers the best price/performance on the market.

The 4670K 9/10 times is the better gamer, but it costs more, if it can fit into a budget without sacrifice, there's no reason not to get it (Unless of course you've got some weird AMD thing), if you can't? You get the FX83.
Then maybe talk about future games, and the high possibility of them becoming more threaded (But don't pretend that'll suddenly change the game over night) etc.

The FX83 aren't bad choices by any stretch, but they certainly aren't the best.

 

[teppic]

There are always sacrifices. Get the 4670K and get a 7850, or an FX8320 with a 7950, etc. Using benchmarks to show that the latter will get far better performance in most recent games is more useful than the same old stuff based purely on biased/misinformed opinion, which is the norm on these threads.

 

[Martini1991]

There aren't always sacrifices, as people can just up the original budget.

The 4670K&7850 against FX83&7950 is a no brainer victory to the FX83.
The same goes for ~100 quid CPU's, AMD wins hands down.

But that's hardly representative of the thread you push AMD like you've got a vested interest.

I gave a pretty unbiased post in my first post, stating if a sacrifice has to be made to fit an i5, then go FX83, but from what I can see? You're straight on the "Go AMD" front in this case.

 

[gpuerrilla]

The FX83 aren't bad choices by any stretch, but they certainly aren't the best.

Again another thread where the guy states a budget and people are saying "but with another £xxx you could get.."

The AMD cpu is pretty well placed to deliver the goods. I think the comment somewhere above about drivers and aged benchmarks is pretty apt, take this to the graphics department and you will find the same with AMD vs nVidia - brand bashing for the sake of it is not good.

But when we're talking the high end when you've spent 100 quid extra for a little gain the GPU (Say a 7950 over a 7970), there's absolutely no reason to lower your "benchmarks" as then you've wasted money on your GPU set up.

This bit I didn't get as I'm probably tired, but whats your point?

 

[teppic]

There aren't always sacrifices, as people can just up the original budget.

The 4670K&7850 against FX83&7950 is a no brainer victory to the FX83.
The same goes for ~100 quid CPU's, AMD wins hands down.

But that's hardly representative of the thread you push AMD like you've got a vested interest.

I gave a pretty unbiased post in my first post, stating if a sacrifice has to be made to fit an i5, then go FX83, but from what I can see? You're straight on the "Go AMD" front in this case.

I didn't realise you monitored all my posts so closely, and even know exactly what I recommend and why.

The choice here was 8350 or 3570K and as usual, there are posts saying "You would be missing out big time on some of the games", "Go 3570k or 4670k for gaming, it's that simple", "never mind a 3570k I would even take a 2500k over the 8350 especially for gaming!", and yet me speaking up for the 8350 is somehow "Go AMD".

 

[gjc10212]

4670k or 8320 for Adobe Lightroom and CS6? I dabble with transcoding as well (rarely), and don't really game too much.

 

[gpuerrilla]

There are always sacrifices. Get the 4670K and get a 7850, or an FX8320 with a 7950, etc. Using benchmarks to show that the latter will get far better performance in most recent games is more useful than the same old stuff based purely on biased/misinformed opinion, which is the norm on these threads.

This is dead on, I would worry less about the benchmarks as your weight in argument as that extra on the GPU will make a far better overall system.

The 4670K&7850 against FX83&7950 is a no brainer victory to the FX83.
The same goes for ~100 quid CPU's, AMD wins hands down.

As backed up by Martini's own text ^.

 

[teppic]

This is dead on, I would worry less about the benchmarks as your weight in argument as that extra on the GPU will make a far better overall system.

The thing is, if I (or anyone else) tries reasonable argument, it's met with the same old stuff about how Intel is always better than AMD. That tends not to get challenged at all, and nobody accuses them of "Go Intel".

 

[Martini1991]

This bit I didn't get as I'm probably tired, but whats your point?

Why would you ever spend the extra money on the GPU set up to gain performance that you'll lose with the lower CPU, it's entirely pointless.

 

[Orch]

The FX8320 offers the best price/performance on the market.

Is my conclusion so far.

 

[joeyjojo]

COH2 contradictions ; http://www.techspot.com/review/689-company-of-heroes-2-performance/page4.html

Seeing the minimum frame rates would be very useful there. The averages are close and very playable though, and nice to see both chips keeping a Titan busy (enough).

 

[Orch]

Go get an FX83 and bench COH2 against your i7.



So, ignorance is bliss?

With only a 7850, there's no reason in the world for you to jump to an Intel chip, an FX8320 would be fine (Although you need a new board, which getting AM3+ right now is unwise)
But when we're talking the high end when you've spent 100 quid extra for a little gain the GPU (Say a 7950 over a 7970), there's absolutely no reason to lower your "benchmarks" as then you've wasted money on your GPU set up.

No, not ignorance is bliss. I can see just as well as the next person that an i7 is better, but to me, in real world usage, it's not worth the additional premium.

And yes I'm changing mobo too, then when funds allow either another 7850 to crossfire or a 7970.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Why would you ever spend the extra money on the GPU set up to gain performance that you'll lose with the lower CPU, it's entirely pointless.

Right that was easier to digest..

O.K. my answer would be this [subjective]:

Rarely have I built a machine (for myself - not others) that is bottlenecked to a stupid hardware decision. Lately I have tried a few modern games with my system and have found that my cpu is causing this very situation (4+ yrs old). If it has taken four years for my cpu to be the bottleneck then I made a wise/lucky/era decision back then.

I think in all honesty that in this case you are exaggerating the "lower CPU" in this argument as by not too much reading you can see that games utilising the "lower CPU"'s strengths actually make it a decent processor especially for it's marketed price point.

It is afterall <put's AMD hat on> not quite apples to apples that intels CPU logic methods get the benefit due to the order of sequence when it comes to the table regarding divvying up cores, instructions and hyperthreading.

 

[Martini1991]

Your scenario is quite different though, as I'm talking about games now, I don't live in the future, do you?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Your scenario is quite different though, as I'm talking about games now, I don't live in the future, do you?

No. But do I have to play a game when it is released? Can I not play it when I want or have the hardware advantage when said hardware might be affordable/second hand?

 

[Martini1991]

No. But do I have to play a game when it is released? Can I not play it when I want or have the hardware advantage when said hardware might be affordable/second hand?

If you're playing older games right now the Intel offers much better performance as older games weren't heavily threaded, so if we want to go through the flawed argument, we'll do it properly?

But I can't be fussed with a flawed debate.

It also doesn't make any sense given your opening point about your Core 2 Dual core bottlenecking now.

 

[Doomedspeed]

No. But do I have to play a game when it is released? Can I not play it when I want or have the hardware advantage when said hardware might be affordable/second hand?

So you'd rather spend the money on something cheaper then upgrade when you find out you need something better? Not all of us have money to burn..

 

[Phixsator]

Im a bit sick of this misinformation. Its already been proven that a 8320-8350 is very competitive with an I5 3570k or older in anything half modern or better and while it does consume more power when running it only amounts to a few bucks every year so its not like its a big concern.

If you wanna hang on to performance in 5-6 year old games that apparently run way better on an Intel machine spite it already running faster that what you would need anyway on an AMD chip go ahead but when it comes to games released within the last 2-3 years and not to mention games that are going to be released in the future the I5 3570k and FX-8320/8350 are usually neck and neck with a few complete wins to either depending on if the game is horribly threaded like starcraft 2 is or proper multithreaded like BF3 and Crysis 3 seems to be..

Here is a few benches i did and as we can see the fx chip is fare from "bad" as some claim it to be. Toms Hardware even release a bench of Far cry 2 were the average fps for the fx 8350 was 93 and as one can see it doesnt really add up to the bench i just did.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Temp.sgk]

but when it comes to games released within the last 2-3 years and not to mention games that are going to be released in the future the I5 3570k and FX-8320/8350 are usually neck and neck with a few complete wins to either depending on if the game is horribly threaded like starcraft 2 is or proper multithreaded like BF3 and Crysis 3 seems to be..

Does that mean that both the i5 3570k and FX-8 have very similar life spans?
Also for future, as in 3 years ahead will these two cpu still stand? Or is a i7 better for the future.

 

[Martini1991]

Does that mean that both the i5 3570k and FX-8 have very similar life spans?
Also for future, as in 3 years ahead will these two cpu still stand? Or is a i7 better for the future.

Truthfully it's an unknown.