i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 18:18

We don't live in the future.
He has the i5 750 right now.

It's ridiculous advice to tell him to play into a platform that may's well be dead, which will equal what he has now in 99/100 games.

Sitting still and going for AMD's future platform is far more logical.

And that's me out.

gpuerrilla · 11 Oct 2013 at 18:26

Martini1991 said:
Sitting still and going for AMD's future platform is far more logical.

I have mentioned this time and time before. Some people do not have your rig Martini, and are coming from rigs that are 4+ years old. Sitting still and waiting for months you will always get the best tech albeit you could always be waiting then.

In this case the advice would be good.

I'm not however getting into the 'sidegrade' argument if that is even a word. The OP doesn't need to go AMD but it is still an option therefore should be considered.

Skellz · 11 Oct 2013 at 18:29

Get a 4770k!

I recently upgraded from an i5-750 and I've seen a bit more fps difference in some games i tried, it's definitely a nipper CPU all round.

I use mine for more than gaming though so maybe I notice it more with rendering/Image editing software. Also less power hungry which is good stuff, having the 8 threads is nice too. Runs hot like most, got mine on air cooling at 4.2ghz at the moment, going to try 4.3.

There have been some good deals on OCUK and other places recently on Mobo's & 4770k's, so keep an eye out.

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 20:46

Th0nt said:
I have mentioned this time and time before. Some people do not have your rig Martini, and are coming from rigs that are 4+ years old. Sitting still and waiting for months you will always get the best tech albeit you could always be waiting then.

In this case the advice would be good.

I'm not however getting into the 'sidegrade' argument if that is even a word. The OP doesn't need to go AMD but it is still an option therefore should be considered.

Sidegrades happen, I've done it. I went from a I7 950 that ran really hot to a Xeon on Sandy and gained pretty much nothing, apart from the better IPC in older games. Thing was? my I7 already ran the older games fine so it was a bad move tbh.

So I do agree that you need to be careful. However, the FX 8 core CPUs are a perfectly good upgrade from an old I5. If it were an I7 860 or whatever they are? then yes, I would say do your homework.

What's important in gaming is finding a CPU that meets as closely to the consoles that are out as possible. I don't know how things are going to pan out but it's quite probable that you will only need an 8320 to get you through the next three years.

uksoldierboy · 11 Oct 2013 at 20:48

ALXAndy said:
Crysis 3 on 8320 @ 4.6ghz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPVhSYYnpgc

What res is that at?

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 20:55

uksoldierboy said:
What res is that at?

1440x900 4xmsaa.

Here it is on a 8320 @ 4.2ghz 1080p 8xmsaa. Min FPS was around 40 something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVHwA7hMe1w

In fact, here are the exact FRAPS results for that benchmark.

Min = 39 FPS
AVG = 51.244 FPS
MAX = 72 FPS

When I ran it on the Xeon I had no choice but to disable any aliasing completely, and it still wasn't playable on the max settings.

One thing I've learned from Crysis 3 is that as soon as you touch the aliasing no matter what res it really gives your components a workout.

uksoldierboy · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:12

Great cpus, especially on a budget.

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:14

uksoldierboy said:
Great cpus, especially on a budget.

Yeah. Been having tons of fun in the overclocking thread tbh

uksoldierboy · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:18

I've seen, I was always surprised by how well my old system did with a FX4100 @4.8 and a 7970 mind.

Had i not been able to afford my 4770K, the 8320-8350 was my backup.

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:21

uksoldierboy said:
I've seen, I was always surprised by how well my old system did with a FX4100 @4.8 and a 7970 mind.

Had i not been able to afford my 4770K, the 8320-8350 was my backup.

4770k and above IMO are the only Intel CPUs worth buying. And that's not really so much that they're worth the money, it's more that once you get to the 4770k AMD have no equivalent and can't compete. So Intel can basically price them as they like.

Move back down the spectrum though? AMD are asking some pretty hard questions of Intel now.

elrasho · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:42

I'm confused now, so are you guys saying I should consider getting an 8350? I've got the upgrade itch and looking at the benchmarks on some applications the 8350 is up there with the high end i7 CPUs. I've over clocked my 750 to 4ghz and is stable but I can't help but think it's so old and surly the 8350 will increase performance greatly

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:50

The FX83 doesn't have consistent performance, it needs to be fully utilised to realise its full performance.

So it can go from scoring under a 4670K, to being neck and neck with a 4770K.

For gaming though, like I say, in 99/100 cases, it's no better than what you have.

In encoding etc, the FX83 will be a fair amount higher than your i5 750, as it has a much higher potential performance at 100%.

But, you're far better to stick with what you have, and then get the newer AMD stuff when AMD reveals their hand, as that could be quite good (And definitely worth the upgrade to)

AM3+ is all but dead, it may not get an update to it for new CPU's.

Do bear in mind, in reviews, your CPU's clocked 1.4GHZ lower, which is massive.

The FX8320 offers tremendous price/performance, but you're coming from something which is already a very good performer for gaming.

The FX83 is the better CPU, and you'll notice gains in situations that are heavily threaded, but gaming, you're literally going to be wasting your money, except for that 1/100, but then again, you'll definitely benefit in the long run to see what AMD do, as we should find out very soon, the FX83 is coming up a year old and Kaveri (Steamroller) is well on its way to launching and that'll give us an inkling to AMD's future 8 cores.

uksoldierboy · 11 Oct 2013 at 21:59

Martini1991 said:
The FX83 doesn't have consistent performance, it needs to be fully utilised to realise its full performance.

So it can go from scoring under a 4670K, to being neck and neck with a 4770K.

For gaming though, like I say, in 99/100 cases, it's no better than what you have.

In encoding etc, the FX83 will be a fair amount higher than your i5 750, as it has a much higher potential performance at 100%.

But, you're far better to stick with what you have, and then get the newer AMD stuff when AMD reveals their hand, as that could be quite good (And definitely worth the upgrade to)

AM3+ is all but dead, it may not get an update to it for new CPU's.

Do bear in mind, in reviews, your CPU's clocked 1.4GHZ lower, which is massive.

The FX8320 offers tremendous price/performance, but you're coming from something which is already a very good performer for gaming.

+1

I have to agree, i'd stick for the time being at least.

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:07

elrasho said:
I'm confused now, so are you guys saying I should consider getting an 8350? I've got the upgrade itch and looking at the benchmarks on some applications the 8350 is up there with the high end i7 CPUs. I've over clocked my 750 to 4ghz and is stable but I can't help but think it's so old and surly the 8350 will increase performance greatly

Have a read of this article. You may or may not find it beneficial.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

I totally disagree with what's being said in this thread because it's stagnant advice. From the look of it you don't upgrade very often so you'll want something more forward looking at the right price. Sitting in the here and now on computers is just ridiculous. Of all the things on this earth that refuse to stand still and move along quickly PC components would be right up there.

I assure you that the only way you can get any guarantee of the future right now at the price point you're talking is AMD. And not because I've said so, or some one of importance has said so, but because the people who will be writing the games for the next gen have said so.

So that should allow you to cut through all of the stupid arguments and make an informed decision on who you should trust.

1. Some dude on an internet forum who assures you that Intel CPUs are 'teh grate' and that the AMD will be a side grade.

2. The people who will actually be writing the games and therefore completely understand how the technology works.

Oddly enough the latter ALL suggest AMD are where you want to go if you're gaming, and, all state that the 8350 is faster than a 3570k. Which is why I take exception to what's being said here, because a 3570k would be a significant upgrade from your I5.

stulid · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:09

AM3+ is a dead platform, it's going all FM2+/FM3 etc.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:09

Pretty sure I'm recommending he go AMD, just not Piledriver.

Herp derp.

Because right now, that FX83 will be a side grade in gaming.

So why not get the better AMD chip when we're closer to that future, which will have an AMD chip that's all around faster, and you lose nothing right now, you're just set to gain more than you would be if you went for the FX83.

ALXAndy · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:11

stulid said:
AM3+ is a dead platform, it's going all FM2+/FM3 etc.

Every Intel socket ever is a dead platform and will be replaced within 18 months, so your point is what exactly?

You don't buy a motherboard and CPU based on what you can replace them with before you've even bought them do you?

All of the noises in the tech world right now are saying that buying the right components that match the consoles will make them last as long as the consoles. Pretty much because they're the same parts, only three times quicker minimum.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:14

Pretty sure it took about 26 months for 1155 to get replaced.

2011 is coming up 24 months and doesn't look to change yet.

Whereas AMD's socket history recently? FM1/FM2 (They were both snuffed out quickly, FM2 was meant to be getting Kaveri, what happened there?)

Don't get me started on AM's, there's so much ignorance it's astounding.

The base spec needs improving, FM2+ comes with PCI-E 3.0, whereas AM3+ doesn't, it had the odd board with a 3rd party controller, but they disappeared pretty much.

AMD's future desktop platform will be very enticing however, but from 1156? AM3+ just isn't.

stulid · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:18

Martini1991 said:
Pretty sure it took about 26 months for 1155 to get replaced.

2011 is coming up 24 months and doesn't look to change yet.

Whereas AMD's socket history recently? FM1/FM2 (They were both snuffed out quickly, FM2 was meant to be getting Kaveri, what happened there?)

Don't get me started on AM's, there's so much ignorance it's astounding.

The base spec needs improving, FM2+ comes with PCI-E 3.0, whereas AM3+ doesn't, it had the odd board with a 3rd party controller, but they disappeared pretty much.

AMD's future desktop platform will be very enticing however, but from 1156? AM3+ just isn't.

Well summed up, Intels sockets have lasted well, I know there are rumours that Broadwell will need a new chipset (despite still being 1150) but its only rumours.

Martini1991 · 11 Oct 2013 at 22:19

stulid said:
Well summed up, Intels sockets have lasted well, I know there are rumours that Broadwell will need a new chipset (dispite still being 1150) but its only rumours.

You tend to get a lot of Intel scaremongering.

Although the broadwell is certainly interesting, it's certainly an unknown right now (I'm pessimistic about my chances of running it on a launch day Z87 board, whereas I was had absolutely nothing but optimism regarding Ivy)