FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

Marine-RX179 · 12 Sep 2013 at 17:46

Something Else said:
I bet my 2500k could even manage to beat the 8350

Considering 95%+ of the games out there use 4 cores or less, it's not even a challenge...

If people were to check their Steam library (not EA's Origin), I think they will struggle to find more than 1 or 2 (or any) games that would properly use up to 8 cores...

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 17:59

Marine-RX179 said:
Considering 95%+ of the games out there use 4 cores or less, it's not even a challenge...

If people were to check their Steam library (not EA's Origin), I think they will struggle to find more than 1 or 2 (or any) games that would properly use up to 8 cores...

You won't even find any CPU benchmarks for most games because they run perfectly fine on any modern CPU. I'm sure that in older titles like Dead Space or Bioshock 1/2 you might get 400fps on an 8350 and 450 fps on an i5, and that matters only to people who are more interested in FPS counters than gaming. Lots of recent titles like Tomb Raider give no performance difference between an 8350 and a 4770K, let alone a 2500K.

As for disregarding all of the major recent titles, because it doesn't suit your argument, it's not worth bothering to refute.

Marine-RX179 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:17

teppic said:
You won't even find any CPU benchmarks for most games because they run perfectly fine on any modern CPU. I'm sure that in older titles like Dead Space or Bioshock 1/2 you might get 400fps on an 8350 and 450 fps on an i5, and that matters only to people who are more interested in FPS counters than gaming. Lots of recent titles like Tomb Raider give no performance difference between an 8350 and a 4770K, let alone a 2500K.

As for disregarding all of the major recent titles, because it doesn't suit your argument, it's not worth bothering to refute.

Seriously you have no idea how CPU limited it is for old games that use single thread can be do you? I play Witcher 1 and Killing Floor, and even with my overclocked i5 2500K I get occasional dip down to around 70fps with GPU usage not at 99%.

Minimum frame rate 400fps+? Yea we wish.

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:22

Marine-RX179 said:
Seriously you have no idea how CPU limited it is for old games that use single thread can be do you? I play Witcher 1 and Killing Floor, and even with my overclocked i5 2500K I get occasional dip down to around 70fps with GPU usage not at 99%. So why don't you take your imaginary minimum frame rate of 400fps+ back to fantasyland, as people are discussing reality here?

I do have an idea, yes. Like I said above - condescension.

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:25

Is there a GPU range I don't know about? I couldn't get 400 FPS in Bioshock when I completed it last month

Marine-RX179 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:34

teppic said:
I do have an idea, yes. Like I said above - condescension.

You are the one "thinks" I disregarding recent titles, when the simple fact is that there's "nothing worth talking about", other than it would be that "the overclocked FX 8 would MAY BE on par with overclocked i5 level in 8 cores titles (even IF...a very big IF it was faster, it's not gonna blow the overclocked i5 away by a margin worth mentioning"), unlike the huge difference in performance FX8 and i5 in games that don't use 8 cores.

It make no sense at all to go for a CPU that WILL be slower in 95% of the situation, for a very big MAY BE equally fast in 8 cores game.

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:39

For RTW2. I don't think any CPU benchmarks would be reliable right about now.
I say that while having decent performance with my i5 4670K and my friend having a nightmare with an FX8320.

A few more patches will help.

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:40

Martini1991 said:
Is there a GPU range I don't know about? I couldn't get 400 FPS in Bioshock when I completed it last month

They were examples, but my 670 seems to do ok in Dead Space.

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:41

But you're rendering like almost nothing there lol.

Marine-RX179 · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:46

teppic said:
They were examples, but my 670 seems to do ok in Dead Space.

You do know what minimum frame rate in actual gaming sitation mean right? No game runs with a close-up camera like that in an confined area with such minimal objects from start to finish.

How about try finding a screenshot in an open area with lots of backgrounds objects with 3 figures frame rate instead huh?

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 18:48

In a complex scene it might drop to 200fps. I'd best go out and get 4xTitans.

gareth170 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:04

go amd fx if your on a budget

go intel i5/i7 if you want the full performance from your high end GPU

simple as that

teppic · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:06

An ocuk staff member just posted this, I hope he doesn't mind me quoting it here:

When it comes to gaming there is actually very little in it for Haswell and AMDs piledriver at the moment. If you get a decent chip, take it to around 4.4 on the spec listed then your talking perofrmance within 5-10% of the Haswell for a good £250 less when you factor in the 4770k price.

£250 as you may have seen buys you an GTX680 or 7970. Both of which on the AMD platform will absolutely smoke the GTX285 on Haswell and keep your pocket gleaming for SSDs and games too!

The martini/marine double act had better get on to him to tell him he's an idiot who knows nothing too, I guess.

From an article on the 8350 vs 3570K

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

Perhaps it's not entirely surprising - Crytek's Crysis 3 is a forward-looking game in many ways, and as these CPU tests by respected German site PC Games Hardware demonstrate, not only does the FX-8350 outperform the i5, it also offers up an additional, minor margin of extra performance over the much more expensive Core i7 3770K - a processor that's around £100 more expensive than the AMD chip. Only the six-core Intel Core i7 3930K - a £480 processor - beats it comprehensively.

kaku · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:29

He's not building a computer to solely run Crysis 3 though, or am I mistaken?

gareth170 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:29

teppic said:
An ocuk staff member just posted this, I hope he doesn't mind me quoting it here:

When it comes to gaming there is actually very little in it for Haswell and AMDs piledriver at the moment. If you get a decent chip, take it to around 4.4 on the spec listed then your talking perofrmance within 5-10% of the Haswell for a good £250 less when you factor in the 4770k price.

£250 as you may have seen buys you an GTX680 or 7970. Both of which on the AMD platform will absolutely smoke the GTX285 on Haswell and keep your pocket gleaming for SSDs and games too!

Click to expand...

but i think his forgetting that the Haswell can be OC'ed so a OC'ed Haswell would still be ahead of the OC'ed amd FX

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:31

Just buy an FX83 ****

Also, he's saying overclock an FX83 to be within 5-10% gaming performance of the 4770K, and there's a 250 quid difference in system price.
1.) You can overclock the i7.
2.) Whos' talking about i7's?
3.) The difference between an i7 and FX83 doesn't have to be 250 quid.

****

** Comments removed - thread carefully Martini.. **

gijohn2 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:32

gareth170 said:
go amd fx if your on a budget

go intel i5/i7 if you want the full performance from your high end GPU

simple as that

/Thread

Also

If you just game, web browse and all other normal PC stuff go AMD

If you on the other hand game, code, CAD, design, photoshop etc then go Intel

@martini 1991, If people stopped going around sticking the Intel ore into every AMD thread then this would never happen, But, Intel fanboys gone fanboy about every AMD thread

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:34

I think I'm having a stroke.

Pretty sure I said in the OP if he can't get the i5 without sacrifice he should just get an FX8320.
Since when was a choice between an i5 and an FX83 an AMD thread?

I'm definitely having a stroke.

Intel fanboys? Again, this stroke is going to kill me.

gijohn2 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:38

Good, Might stop your post count flying up.

The problem is, You put forward you opinion in a way that comes across as "intel am best dont even think about AMD"

Where in fact AMD is more then capable of doing what OP wants whilst being cheaper then Intel

Martini1991 · 12 Sep 2013 at 19:40

I'm not sure how "Get the FX8320" if you have to make a sacrifice on the GPU is "INTEL IS BEST DON'T THINK ABOUT AMD"

But whatever, you're certainly more objective than I am, you'd almost think I don't CONSTANTLY recommend FX63's and CONSTANTLY blast Intels i3 and lower i5 offerings, but whatever.

We'll ignore the "Good enough" fallacy again.