• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

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.

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.
Click to expand...

Cant argue with this its a well constructed post. +1
 
Martini1991 said:
For gaming though, like I say, in 99/100 cases, it's no better than what you have.
Click to expand...

This is what needs analysing. Flip the statement on it's head and think about the future titles that are being released in the short-long term.

I think BF4, mantle and even win8 have now highlighted that the FX8 will definitely handle these games with aplomb. AM3+ may be road blocked and the next SR release could be 6 months away or more.

Right here, right now if you cannot push out to a £250 CPU then the AMD for me is the choice. I would love to sit and wait for SR, but I could also sell my current CPU/Mobo/RAM then and upgrade too knowing I have had some good experiences on the hardware.
 
In the short term his i5 isn't going to crap its pants, if it does, he deals with it there and then and makes a choice? If the best option when that time comes is the FX83, then he gets it then.

I love mantle being brought up, it's an unknown quantity, yet it's a plus to the AMD? Surely if it's about lowering the CPU overhead and getting lower down to the GPU, it makes the CPU choice fairly moot? We simply don't know how it's going to be implemented, mantle has crap tons of potential, but we can't make statements about it yet.

If you're upgrading from AM3/775, then AM3+ is certainly worth a look if you're at a budget that can't support an i7 or 4670K.

But right here and now, the OP has FX83 gaming performance and isn't needing to spend a penny.

I don't deny at all that an FX83 is going to handle new games very well, but by the time those games are about, there's going to be a better all around AMD CPU out very shortly (Well, relatively, and hopefully).

Also, then you have to factor in, a lot of Intels pricing is artificial, as is their limits on what they offer, by the time these engines are with us, the choice we have could be a lot better.
 
Last edited:
I am not disputing your advice as to the OP as it is spot on. I am highlighting in a generic sense that this gaming comment statistic that is hypothetical is not right.

I know you mention we don't have a crystal ball for the 'future' but gamers and enthusiasts do know what titles are coming up and it's obvious from the console side that amd/multicore are not going to be penalised (this time round) moving forward.
 
The statistic will change in the future, but we're not at that future yet, when it comes the OP can evaluate ; "Is my i5 750 holding me back? Yes ; Go FX83, No ; Wait."

I don't think it needs anymore than that really? The statistic is literally only accurate to the present situation, a clocked i5 750 is no slouch.

The consoles aren't out yet, and a lot of these newer engines won't come straight away.

AC4's going to be coming on Anvil Next (I'm curious how the consoles are going to handle that) for example, and that's a pretty big game.

Like I say, I think the FX83 in future games is going to be very good, but in that future will be better performance CPU's with a different market.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
The statistic will change in the future, but we're not at that future yet, when it comes the OP can evaluate ; "Is my i5 750 holding me back? Yes ; Go FX83, No ; Wait."

I don't think it needs anymore than that really? The statistic is literally only accurate to the present situation, a clocked i5 750 is no slouch.

The consoles aren't out yet, and a lot of these newer engines won't come straight away.

AC4's going to be coming on Anvil Next (I'm curious how the consoles are going to handle that) for example, and that's a pretty big game.

Like I say, I think the FX83 in future games is going to be very good, but in that future will be better performance CPU's with a different market.
Click to expand...

people buying amd 8 core cpus on hopes. why just buy a intel. not fanboy. they wont get better because the games makers wont put the effort in to make them better.

hope and dreams on devs making games to complement your cpu. just isnt going to happen.

big titles next year hmmm nothing. the only titles which will try and optimize for cores are small in number one or two titles a year. this is what many dont understand. so next year for eg 2 titles thats it ! rest will be ports. blah blah consoles 8 core no !

big title cost too much money they are the titles that will optimize so you have 2 games that might a year way that up on your hopes for a amd cpu jesus like revival and you realize you just buying marketing or hope. why buy hope ?

just buy intel if you can have it or amd and be happy on budget. do not factor hope into it.

to the op keep your cpu oc to 4ghz will keep you going for min year yet.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
people buying amd 8 core cpus on hopes. why just buy a intel. not fanboy. they wont get better because the games makers wont put the effort in to make them better.

hope and dreams on devs making games to complement your cpu. just isnt going to happen.

big titles next year hmmm nothing. the only titles which will try and optimize for cores are small in number one or two titles a year. this is what many dont understand. so next year for eg 2 titles thats it ! rest will be ports. blah blah consoles 8 core no !

big title cost too much money they are the titles that will optimize so you have 2 games that might a year way that up on your hopes for a amd cpu jesus like revival and you realize you just buying marketing or hope. why buy hope ?

just buy intel if you can have it or amd and be happy on budget. do not factor hope into it.

to the op keep your cpu oc to 4ghz will keep you going for min year yet.
Click to expand...

There are 15 titles big titles including BF4 that is confirmed for the Frostbite 3 engine alone, an engine the fx8350 does a very good job at keeping up with the competition. Anything released on the CryEngine 3 is for the most part as happy with a FXer as it is with the mainstream Intel parts. There is abselutely no reason to buy an I5 over an FX-8320/8350. An i7 is on the other hand a better buy if you can afford it.

Sidenote: My OCed [email protected] has no problem keeping up with a 2600k near the same clockspeed. Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't think I'm gonna upgrade afterall. Overclocked i5 750 to 4Ghz and overclocked my GTX680 to +140 GPU CLOCK OFFSET and +500 MEM CLOCK OFFSET. I'm now getting pretty much 70 fps all the time, that's an increaase in roughly 10 fps :)

My CPU cores do hit 64C though and the GPU 68C, is that safe?
 
The 4670k gives better results across the board over the 8350. Even heavily threaded games feel smoother on the Intel setup. Benchmarking the 4770k is miles ahead of the 8350 even when you clock it up.

Buying new now the best all round CPU is the 4670k for value and performance. But I would stick with what you have for the time being.
 
elrasho said:
Well I don't think I'm gonna upgrade afterall. Overclocked i5 750 to 4Ghz and overclocked my GTX680 to +140 GPU CLOCK OFFSET and +500 MEM CLOCK OFFSET. I'm now getting pretty much 70 fps all the time, that's an increaase in roughly 10 fps :)

My CPU cores do hit 64C though and the GPU 68C, is that safe?
Click to expand...

Your temperatures are fine and modern components are designed to throttle back if they do get too hot so you've got nothing to worry about. Nice overclocks by the way :)
 
ALXAndy said:
LOL sorry dude but you're seriously having a laugh with that.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1333256

There's an I5 750 running 3.8ghz and look at the Firestrike Physics score ! It sucks monkey balls :D

The 8350 IMO will offer up double the performance of the 750. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 8350 had the same or a higher IPC only with double the cores.
Click to expand...

That made me laugh.

My i5 760 at 4.0Ghz scores about 7,400 in Firestrike Physics which compares favourably with i5 2500K/3570K's of similar speed.

There is no way I would consider running an 8350 being an upgrade from what I have.
 
the1gooner said:
That made me laugh.

My i5 760 at 4.0Ghz scores about 7,400 in Firestrike Physics which compares favourably with i5 2500K/3570K's of similar speed.

There is no way I would consider running an 8350 being an upgrade from what I have.
Click to expand...

My 8350@4,8ghz scores around the 9500 mark. But I agree, double the performance, no.
 
Phixsator said:
My 8350@4,8ghz scores around the 9500 mark. But I agree, double the performance, no.
Click to expand...

No and in gaming performance the 8350 would have to be at 4.8ghz to even do any better than an i5 760 at 4.0Ghz and even then I doubt it would do in some games.

Of course this all depends on what graphics card is being used.

I could swap my i5 760 for an i7 870 and score close to 10,000 in Firestrike Physics but in gaming the difference wouldn't be that great.

The 8350 is a good processor for the price but at the moment offers no real benefit in gaming to my current processor released 3-4 years ago.

This may change of course with new games being released and then perhaps I will look at upgrading but it would be to something like a 4770K.
 
Phixsator said:
Take a look at this guys experience. His review/test seems very honest and the result shouldn't come as a surprise. The actual results are around 8 minutes in but i would recommend seeing the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUBE9xNz_mQ
Click to expand...

It's amazing just how badly people miss the point.

8320 (ignoring the 8350 as it's not worth buying) is £113.

I7 4770k = £240. So basically double the price. Does it offer double the performance then?

No, not even close to it. I've continually said that the only Intel CPU worth buying for gaming (be cause people like twisting words it would seem) would be the 4770k. The reason? AMD can't compete simply because the 4770k is a massive step up from £113. It's double the price !!!

But such is life when you have a CPU that has no competition.. You can charge whatever you like for it. And that's fair enough.

However, some of what's being said here is hilarious. When it comes to the next gen games (at least five of which we already have !) 8 core FX CPUs are hugely better than I5s from three gens ago. They always were, they just didn't have the support. If you can't see past the end of your nose? fair enough. But things are changing. Next gen games have been listed and specced and they want 6gb ram, a 64 bit OS (the FX CPUs simply don't work properly in anything less, do your research) and 8 cores for the highest spec.

Seriously if you can't read the writing on the wall you have serious issues.

By all means go Intel. AMD have nothing to offer once you get to the 4770k, so you can feel all fuzzy and warm inside knowing you have the best. Best performance. But don't think for a minute you got the best value for money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom