FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

[Martini1991]

Why would you lean towards AMD for older games? Their new CPU's barely perform any better than their older ones for that.

RTW for example would be so much better on an Intel, it uses a single Core that game, and fully modded you need the IPC, and with RTW2 being a bit lacklustre at the moment, it's unfortunately the superior game.

Rome Total War can be easily made to bog with a 2500K, I'd hate to see what I could do to a Piledriver.
That said, I wouldn't buy anything new from Intel at the FX6350 price.

 

[gijohn2]

Because its cheaper then any intel offering, it will play all new games, albeit not at full whack but im not fussed about graphics, aslong as the game play is smooth im happy.

Its going to be better then my old Q8200 which can play BF3 on medium high when accompanied with a good graphics card, but it spacks out on RTW2 (massive load times)

And from a price point ill save about £60-80 and in my opinion the performance boost that the intel set up would give is not worth £60-80, Then i have 60-80 to put towards a better graphics card as my 465 is coming to an end

 

[Martini1991]

Have you tried RTW2 with the latest patches?
They've got a crap ton of fixes coming along.

 

[james_2k]

rtw2 is beasting along on my 4770k. sub 10 sec load times and even very fast ai turns. its great

 

[Marine-RX179]

Because its cheaper then any intel offering, it will play all new games, albeit not at full whack but im not fussed about graphics, aslong as the game play is smooth im happy.

So for the sake of saving little money, you'd rather have a 8 core CPU that will lose half its grunt on 4 cores game comparing to a i5 that will have 100% grunt?

Also for older games that use 2 cores, the i5 would still have 50% of its grunt, but the 8 cores AMD will only have 25% of it grunt

Take an "old game" like Killing Floor for example...my overclocked i5 2500K will pretty much hold constant 90fps (multiplayer cap frame rate at 90fps) with VERY rare occasion with frame rate dipping down to 75fps; an overclocked FX6 or FX8 would be looking at frame rate up and down like a roller-coaster between 30fps and 60fps

 

[X3T]

So for the sake of saving little money, you'd rather have a 8 core CPU that will lose half its grunt on 4 cores game comparing to a i5 that will have 100% grunt?

Also for older games that use 2 cores, the i5 would still have 50% of its grunt, but the 8 cores AMD will only have 25% of it grunt

It doesn't work like that... the FX has twice the 'resources' of the i5, and each core's low IPC is compensated by a high clock speed. In theory a single FX core should equal an i5 core (IPC x Clock speed), but the i5 architecture is more efficient and could clock higher than expected. Even so the difference is not that big.

Take an "old game" like Killing Floor for example...my overclocked i5 2500K will pretty much hold constant 90fps (multiplayer cap frame rate at 90fps) with VERY rare occasion with frame rate dipping down to 75fps; an overclocked FX6 or FX8 would be looking at frame rate up and down like a roller-coaster between 30fps and 60fps

Where is your evidence for this?

 

[gijohn2]

Im not getting any of the 8cores, Im sticking to the 6300/6350

 

[Make]

It doesn't work like that... the FX has twice the 'resources' of the i5, and each core's low IPC is compensated by a high clock speed. In theory a single FX core should equal an i5 core (IPC x Clock speed), but the i5 architecture is more efficient and could clock higher than expected. Even so the difference is not that big.

Ohh hold your horses just a minute. You are saying 1 core on the FX is just as powerful as 1 core on an I5?

The FX clocks higher than I5, usually people run em at up to 4.8ghz.

Clockspeed does not equal performance, and the FX does not equal an I5, not in any way whatsoever, and definately not core-for core. A 4-core FX would suck a lot compaired to 4-core 4670k.

 

[Martini1991]

It doesn't work like that... the FX has twice the 'resources' of the i5, and each core's low IPC is compensated by a high clock speed. In theory a single FX core should equal an i5 core (IPC x Clock speed), but the i5 architecture is more efficient and could clock higher than expected. Even so the difference is not that big.

The difference core for core is pretty huge.

I run my cores at 4.6GHZ, one of my cores would do some dirty things to a PD core at 4.6GHZ, and have room for a second.

 

[X3T]

Ohh hold your horses just a minute. You are saying 1 core on the FX is just as powerful as 1 core on an I5?

The FX clocks higher than I5, usually people run em at up to 4.8ghz.

Clockspeed does not equal performance, and the FX does not equal an I5, not in any way whatsoever, and definately not core-for core. A 4-core FX would suck a lot compaired to 4-core 4670k.

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's the combination of IPC and clock speed which determines performance. You can't compare an i5 core at 4Ghz with an FX core at 4Ghz - that's meaningless.

The FX was designed to run at high speeds and low IPC, whereas the i5 was designed to run at high IPC and low speeds. The difference in performance comes from the i5 being able to achieve higher speeds than it should, giving it the advantage (or the FX not being able to achieve the speeds it should have.)

The fact the FX chips can reach 4.8Ghz plus is also irrelevant, as it's not the highest clock speed that matters, it needs to be proportional to the IPC.

 

[imginy]

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's the combination of IPC and clock speed which determines performance. You can't compare an i5 core at 4Ghz with an FX core at 4Ghz - that's meaningless.

The FX was designed to run at high speeds and low IPC, whereas the i5 was designed to run at high IPC and low speeds. The difference in performance comes from the i5 being able to achieve higher speeds than it should, giving it the advantage (or the FX not being able to achieve the speeds it should have.)

The fact the FX chips can reach 4.8Ghz plus is also irrelevant, as it's not the highest clock speed that matters, it needs to be proportional to the IPC.

8350 and 3570k both clock the same I don't get your point?

If you compare a benchmark like 3dmark the intel scores double per core.

The 8350 need all 8 core running to compete when gaming but most games don't use more than 4.

 

[Martini1991]

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying it's the combination of IPC and clock speed which determines performance. You can't compare an i5 core at 4Ghz with an FX core at 4Ghz - that's meaningless.

The FX was designed to run at high speeds and low IPC, whereas the i5 was designed to run at high IPC and low speeds. The difference in performance comes from the i5 being able to achieve higher speeds than it should, giving it the advantage (or the FX not being able to achieve the speeds it should have.)

The fact the FX chips can reach 4.8Ghz plus is also irrelevant, as it's not the highest clock speed that matters, it needs to be proportional to the IPC.

AMD doesn't really outclock Intel though.
I can run my cores at 4.8GHZ, that's about as far as I can go, that's also as far as AMD's PD cores go about 7/10 times.
Even at 5GHZ, it in no way offsets the IPC loss.

AMD's chip may well be designed for high clocks, but it isn't outclocking enough to offset its IPC deficit.
And you can't say "Intel isn't designed to run high clocks" as a defense because it's a fallacy.

 

[Marine-RX179]

It doesn't work like that... the FX has twice the 'resources' of the i5, and each core's low IPC is compensated by a high clock speed. In theory a single FX core should equal an i5 core (IPC x Clock speed), but the i5 architecture is more efficient and could clock higher than expected. Even so the difference is not that big.

Where is your evidence for this?

Just check ANY single-threaded performance comparison?

The FX was designed to run at high speeds and low IPC, whereas the i5 was designed to run at high IPC and low speeds. The difference in performance comes from the i5 being able to achieve higher speeds than it should, giving it the advantage (or the FX not being able to achieve the speeds it should have.)

That's the exact problem...AMD was expect themselves to have clock advantage over Intel, but they got caught with their pants down when the Intel CPU turn out to be able to clock just as high. So they end up with no clock speed advantage but only with the disadvantage of much weaker per core performance.

According to benchmark, the FX8350 at 4.00GHz is only a match for a IvyBridge i5 at 3.20GHz on heavily threaded games such as Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3. So basically for AMD's approach to work, they'd need to have 25% higher clock on a FX8 to match a 4 cores IvyBridge i5's performance. So they need something like FX8 at 5.75GHz in a heavily threaded game that use all the cores to match the performance of a IvyBridge i5 at 4.60GHz.

 

[Martini1991]

More like caught mid dump to be honest.
2500k came out, and all hell broke loose as they were clocking from 4.6-5GHZ.

 

[Marine-RX179]

More like caught mid dump to be honest.
2500k came out, and all hell broke loose as they were clocking from 4.6-5GHZ.

Yea...I still remember the 9 months delay on the Bulldozer. If AMD had managed to turn the Bulldozer to the current Piledriver during that time, as least they wouldn't be so far behind right now (they might even already have the Steamroller fighting the Haswell right now...).

 

[ussie]

I5 if you want better performance. 8350 will still give u good performance, cheaper but obviously not as good at the intel.

Being abit realistic if you do go for the AMD, you won't be seeing a big performance gap between the 8350 and 3570 whereas you'll see something like a 10 seconds load time, or 20 fps difference? but even so with some fps drop with the 8350 surely the fps will still be more than enough for you to enjoy a good gaming experience especially considering you have a good graphics card and the 8350 won't really be bottle necking and gpus

 

[teppic]

You won't see any differences in load time between the processors. FPS differences are generally very small - in many games, the same.

RTW2 uses 8 cores. I don't think any CPU benchmarks have been published yet, but there's no reason to think it won't perform well on an 8350. It may very well outperform a 3570K given its use of all the cores.

 

[Marine-RX179]

RTW2 uses 8 cores. I don't think any CPU benchmarks have been published yet, but there's no reason to think it won't perform well on an 8350. It may very well outperform a 3570K given its use of all the cores.

Like all those examples of highly overclocked FX 8 cores comparing to a stock clock 3570K right?

More than half the time which the overclocked FX8350 being equal to an overclocked i5 is when the bench is GPU limited; and then with the 1-2fps marginal of error which the AMD CPU just so happen to be ahead at GPU bounded situation and people going around saying the AMD CPU is faster

 

[teppic]

By all means show me a CPU benchmark that shows a stock 8350 unable to keep up with a 3570K in RTW2.

People aren't ever saying that the AMD CPUs are faster (in general), they're saying that they're just as good in general for gaming, especially taking the price into consideration. The 8350 can match a 3570K in most games, and can occasionally beat it. In some it does need an overclock to match it. In others it can't match it, but lots of the time it's still well over 120fps, so matters nothing in real gaming. For modern games that use 8 threads, the 8350 is almost certainly going to match or beat an i5.

What is particularly annoying on here is that people can make blanket statements that any old Intel CPU can always beat an 8350 with normally nobody saying anything. Mention any game where an 8350 can actually outperform an Intel CPU, and insults and condescension land.

 

[Something Else]

I read that comparison too, cant find it now but wasn't there a 20fps difference between the 8350 and the 3570k? I bet my 2500k could even manage to beat the 8350