FX-8 8350 or 3570k?

[teppic]

Most games are not limited by the CPU. As easily seen from this graph, there's no scaling issue with the 8350 compared to the 3770 at any common resolution with this multithreaded game:

 

[Marine-RX179]

And game developers recommend an 8350 over an i5 for future proofing with next gen games. Strange attitude for something so inferior.

As has been said throughout this thread by people who actually use the CPUs, the 8320/50 is a good choice for gaming, particularly considering the price. Both 8320/50 and 3570K make good choices for current games, but on a strict budget the higher price Intel CPUs would mean sacrificing other things.

May be you should go have a look over at the graphic forum and see how people are calling the recommended 3GB graphic memory for BF4 being BS, because AMD are in bed with the developer

In terms of sacrificing budget that could be spend on graphic card, it's really depended on what price bracket's graphic cards are being looked at. For example, getting the £121 FX8320 instead of the £186 i5 4670K would save around £65:

Between the FX8320+7950 vs i5 4670K+7850, the FX8320+7950 would be the better choice, however between the FX8320+7970 vs i5 4670K+7950, the i5 4670K+7950 would be the better choice considering the extra 3-5% advantage of the 7970 has over the 7950 on the same clock means very little, if comparing the amount of performance lost cause by CPU bottleneck in games that uses less than 4 cores or less.

Most games are not limited by the CPU. As easily seen from this graph, there's no scaling issue with the 8350 compared to the 3770 at any common resolution with this multithreaded game:

"Most games" ain't half as nearly heavy threaded as BF3...

We can count the number of games that would properly use up to 8 threads with the fingers on our two or even one hand, they are hardly great representation for "most games".

And from the looks of it, with those frame rate those BF3 result are taken from single player bench, rather than from online multiplayer gameplay (which are known to be far more CPU demanding than single player)

 

[gpuerrilla]

..for those that don't or can't, the FX8320/FX6300 are good choice around the £100 budget, and not once did he recommend getting a Intel i3.

I never mentioned i3.. who are you talking about?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Unless I'm silly, the OP hasn't stated a budget.
Saying "I'm on a budget" means nothing, as a budget is the amount you're spending, and the difference between the two chips in the OP is 30 quid.

That's fair comment.

But until the guys expands on this there has been a lot of needless comparison based on reader interpretation. The mere point in having a 'budget' means you have a finite or disposable amount to spend and by simply recommending the next model up because it is better (yet still more expensive) actually dissolves the point of the budget.

You can start shuffling around other components to work with the 'budget' so lets wait and see.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I never mentioned i3.. who are you talking about?

I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was just saying people in general who gang up on Martini calling him Intel fanboy so conveniently ignore or overlook the fact he recommends the FX6300/FX8320 over the Intel i3 all the time.

Far too many people bashing for bashing's sake.

 

[murah]

if i could afford it I'd go intel, but if i had a tight budget i'd be just as happy with an AMD..honestly some people have too much money for their own good and get spoilt so its always have the best or gtfo , Yes i bought myself an intel system but I was lucky to be able to afford it and I would have happily settled for an AMD system over my old core 2 duo lol

 

[gpuerrilla]

I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was just saying people in general who gang up on Martini calling him Intel fanboy so conveniently ignore or overlook the fact he recommends the FX6300/FX8320 over the Intel i3 all the time.

Far too many people bashing for bashing's sake.

Well I never indicated he was a "fanboy" but I will add that he kind of drums his own reputation up when you look at other posts, he tends to rub people up the wrong way. Either way I personally have no problem with Martini.

 

[gpuerrilla]

What would you like to know?



lol I totally miss that 27p per month

TBF if I had to buy a new motherboard and CPU now, I might have made a different choice, AM3+ is looking more and more like a dead end socket. The price of an 8320 and having a 990FX board, it was a no-brainer

Toms (like most places it seems) results with this chips don't really line up with my user experience. It was the same with my A10 laptop - consistantly getting better minimum/averages than reviews.

I've been called an AMD fanboy before but that's not really the case, I've had/still have every platform bar Haswell and the E hex cores. I'm a technology enthusiast and AMD make more quirky products at the moment.

I think if you have a crappy experience with a game that does not run well enough on an FX63xx and up, you'll only have a slightly less crappy experience on an Intel i5 and up system.

Thank you for entering the debate d_brennen!

I think theres enough material here for you to look at and comment on whether the AMD purchase has been noticeably flawed, hampering you with 50% processing or general other bottlenecks spoken of.

With PC's in general we can all wait another week and get the better tech/price. You cant always tick the boxes when purchasing with regard to:

Longevity
Price
Performance
Upgradeable

 

[Marine-RX179]

With PC's in general we can all wait another week and get the better tech/price. You cant always tick the boxes when purchasing with regard to:

Longevity
Price
Performance
Upgradeable

I think that's the issue with the AMD CPU at the moment- there's no consistance for their CPU performance for gaming, as different games would address and use different number of cores/threads.

The biggest problem is more than 95% of the games on PC runs on 4 or fewer cores/threads, which would would make the 8 cores CPU far from delivering its full potential. We would have the FX8 running as FX8 in heavily threaded games such as BF, Crysis 3 etc no problem there, but for games that use 4 cores/threads or less, the FX8 would be running like a "FX4" (if you know what I mean). Yet we got people bushing it off as "it's not an issue at all" and always try their best NOT TO bring that up, how exactly is that gonna help people that are genuinely seeking advise before parting with their cash?

 

[gpuerrilla]

I think that's the issue with the AMD CPU at the moment- there's no consistance for their CPU performance for gaming, as different games would address and use different number of cores/threads.

The biggest problem is more than 95% of the games on PC runs on 4 or fewer cores/threads, which would would make the 8 cores CPU far from delivering its full potential. We would have the FX8 running as FX8 in heavily threaded games such as BF, Crysis 3 etc no problem there, but for games that use 4 cores/threads or less, the FX8 would be running like a "FX4" (if you know what I mean). Yet we got people bushing it off as "it's not an issue at all" and always try their best NOT TO bring that up, how exactly is that gonna help people that are genuinely seeking advise before parting with their cash?

Absolutely.

Take my processor though the C2D, back then I felt that quad was not required (as it was available) and the current or anticipated games did not need 4 cores back then.

Now you see many swearing by the quad cores..

It's just hedging the bets hoping if you get the one with more cores it could be beneficial in the not so distant future (this time round for me).

 

[Martini1991]

I can see the logic, but it's no where near as clear cut as it was back then.

When you went for a quadcore back then, you spent more, no real sacrifices on performance if the game doesn't use all the cores (Unless you ran them at stock)

Right now, Quad's are the mainstream, it's also only the quads that overclock (For Intel), core for core performance is vastly higher now.
If, and this is a big if, Intel had a 70 quid Haswell i3 that could overclock, I bet many people would opt for it over an FX4300, that's a dual core over a quad core. But that's a scenario that won't happen.

If Intel had a Hexcore at 200 quid, we'd probably all be swearing by it,.

It's also not going to be easy to make games evenly threaded, and that'll get harder and harder as we get more threads to play with.

Steamroller is *probably* going to be the CPU that really makes people question whether or not to go for the 8 core, or Intels Quad core, as it won't be sacrificing as much, and will have a higher total performance than current AMD stuff and the i5's, and that might make the trade off worth it.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Absolutely.

Take my processor though the C2D, back then I felt that quad was not required (as it was available) and the current or anticipated games did not need 4 cores back then.

Now you see many swearing by the quad cores..

It's just hedging the bets hoping if you get the one with more cores it could be beneficial in the not so distant future (this time round for me).

But thing is not a simply case of "more cores, any CPU would do". It's no secret now that Core2Quad would perform better than Core2Duo in games that use 4 cores/threads, but that's because their per core performance were quite similar; for the FX8 their per core performance is much lower than the Intel i5, so their best case scenerio would be equal to the i5's level (if comparing both CPUs at same clock speed), but slower in pretty much everything else that don't address and use all of its cores.

 

[gpuerrilla]

But thing is not a simply case of "more cores, any CPU would do". It's no secret now that Core2Quad would perform better than Core2Duo in games that use 4 cores/threads, but that's because their per core performance were quite similar; for the FX8 their per core performance is much lower than the Intel i5, so their best case scenerio would be equal to the i5's level (if comparing both CPUs at same clock speed), but slower in pretty much everything else that don't address and use all of its cores.

Yes. The consideration would then be what do you use the machine mostly for and if you would ever use software that would harness the additional cores.

Are other games going to follow BF4 and start using more cores, or are GPU's taking the meat moving forward?

 

[gareth170]

everybody knows here i was a amd fanboy for so long. but after going from a 1090t 4ghz to a amd FX 8 core 4.5ghz, i was so disappointed has tbh the performance was a downgrade in everything even gaming, so i went to a I7 and tbh that performance blow amd out of the water in everything.

 

[james_2k]

Yes. The consideration would then be what do you use the machine mostly for and if you would ever use software that would harness the additional cores.

Are other games going to follow BF4 and start using more cores, or are GPU's taking the meat moving forward?

i dont think you read what he said.

basically he says that as the ipc of the intel is so much better. even in multi thread apps, the intel will likely be the same or even still better. NOT favour the amd.

 

[Marine-RX179]

basically he says that as the ipc of the intel is so much better. even in multi thread apps, the intel will likely be the same or even still better. NOT favour the amd.

Just to clarify I didn't mean ALL multi-threaded apps, I was talking strictly about gaming performance. For things such as encoding etc the FX8 would possibly be faster than the i5.

 

[teppic]

The FX8350 is far ahead of any i5 in encoding and rendering and similar tasks where load can evenly be distributed, that is no secret.

Games that run on 8 cores are still few in number, and like I said earlier, they tend to rely on one or two threads more than the others, which is why overclocking can significantly improve performance by freeing up the remaining threads to do more.

Console-style games tend to use only 2-4 cores, but still run well above anything necessary. Take the earlier benchmark here of Far Cry 2, which was giving 150fps or so. Whether 50% of the CPU is being left idle or not isn't of any concern if the game performs well anyway (again, unless you want the highest FPS counters possible).

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

everybody knows here i was a amd fanboy for so long. but after going from a 1090t 4ghz to a amd FX 8 core 4.5ghz, i was so disappointed has tbh the performance was a downgrade in everything even gaming, so i went to a I7 and tbh that performance blow amd out of the water in everything.

You had an FX8150,ie,a BD CPU. BD is not PD. An FX6300 beats an FX8150 even in multi-threaded games and is lower clocked:

http://www.bf-blog.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bf4procesor.jpg

It is also a fraction of the price of the FX8150.

 

[Zaim]

You had an FX8150,ie,a BD CPU. BD is not PD. An FX6300 beats an FX8150 even in multi-threaded games:

http://www.bf-blog.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bf4procesor.jpg

Hmm, The 2500K is actually better than the FX8350.

The FX8350 is far ahead of any i5 in encoding and rendering and similar tasks where load can evenly be distributed, that is no secret.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_3570k_review,15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_3570k_review,14.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/3

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/4

 

[Martini1991]

Tbf, it's about 20%+ to the FX8350 in the first link their Zaim, but it's also only the 3570K.