i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

[MOOGLEYS]

The 8350 shares FP units so is not a true 8 core CPU it has a pair of cores (modules) sharing resources.

If rumours are true the new consoles have separate FP units per core so are a true 8 core CPU as there will be no sharing.

Also don't forget the consoles will use CPU cores for all sorts of tasks as well so its unlikely all 8 cores will be available for games.

Chucking more work at more cores does not equal more performance. Having efficient cores will always be a better option.

 

[~>Dg<~]

A year?

Well given that the last few big titles have all supported 8 cores I think you'll find it's already happened. No I5 can compete with the 8350 in heavily threaded games, just like they can't compete in heavily threaded apps.

Nice to know you read the article and understand it fully though.



Would be the recommended specs for Watchdogs. Oddly enough under the recommended specs I don't see an I5. Strange !

Maybe that's because it wants eight threads and not four?

As for Intel controlling? pmsl where have you been under a rock? AMD Gaming Evolved.

Xbox one - AMD.
PS4 - AMD.

Intel control so badly that they are shrinking their dies for mobile devices so they can get out of the desktop market. Yeah that's control alright.

because its not recommended lol.

wait for benchmarks on the game then see i5s will be as usual about 10 percent quicker.cant wait for it to launch

 

[Marine-RX179]

That's what I'm thinking, seen some i7 860s on the bay... very tempting

Indeed. The thing is if comparing i7 860/870 overclocked to FX83xx overclocked, the i7 would STILL be faster in games that use 4 cores or less; in games that would use up to 8 threads, with the i7's HT together with its 4 physical cores it would mostly matches the FX83 anyway.

 

[Davanius]

If the BF4 Mantle update proves itself, will Amd hardware such as the 8350 and the gpu's goes up in price?

 

[Martini1991]

So far it'l be for one game, it'd be foolish for current CPU prices to go up.
Maybe we'll see the FX83's successor higher priced (Which if it can perform, isn't an issue, price depending)
The GPU prices of the rebrands are already higher than their 7XXX parts, and the flagship's going to be more expensive anyway, so I'd hope prices don't head north

 

[~>Dg<~]

its just all marketing ! its working and people are doubting the usual so well done amd on that front. will gain them some sales.

 

[ALXAndy]

its just all marketing ! its working and people are doubting the usual so well done amd on that front. will gain them some sales.

Only it isn't. If you load up Crysis 3, BF3, Far Cry 3 and anything else that already support 8 cores then the 8350 is ahead of the I5 3570k. And it costs (in 8320 guise) £113.

Exactly the same can be said for Cinebench or 3dmark Firestrike. So that's at least five modern forward thinking apps and programs yet still you would continue making excuses until the cows come home.

The biggest bone of contention I have is when people want to ignore facts and just utter nonsensical rubbish. You might not like AMD processors but there's no denying how good they are when supported properly.

You're just in denial, man.

If the BF4 Mantle update proves itself, will Amd hardware such as the 8350 and the gpu's goes up in price?

If Mantle does what it claims to do and uses the heterogeneous architecture that AMD have been banging on about? then it would be foolish to have hardware made by any other vendor.

Mantle will talk directly to the hardware, and, link it all together to reduce latency. If it works? then having Intel or Nvidia will simply stop it working and force you back to DirectX, and we all know how crap DX is.

 

[Davanius]

The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

Would I be right in saying that getting a 8320-50 would result in losing frames to the i5's in old and the majority of current games but gaining in the imminent arrival of next gen ports such as bf4, nfs and the like?

 

[ALXAndy]

The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

Would I be right in saying that getting a 8320-50 would result in losing frames to the i5's in old and the majority of current games but gaining in the imminent arrival of next gen ports such as bf4, nfs and the like?

Let me clarify a few things here. When the 8320 loses it will be in stuff like Skyrim which is lame and uses two CPU cores. Same sort of deal as Fallout 3. When the 8320 loses it does so because it's not being utilised properly.

However !

It will lose in a situation like 90 FPS on AMD, 113 FPS on Intel. What I'm saying is that Piledriver's IPC is more than enough for any game on the market. However, over the past year it's been one of two situations.

1. It's completely GPU bound (see Tomb Raider and Metro : Last Light) to which ends it doesn't matter diddly squat what CPU you have and you were better off investing in GPU/S.

2. It sees all 8 cores and the AMDs win in their price category (because I'm not going to be so idiotic as to forget what this all bloody costs !!).

More often than not, in the recent games, the 8320/50 sit comfortably between the I5 3570k clock per clock and the 3770k clock per clock. At no point does the AMD beat the I7 (which I've made blatantly clear).

So, the 8320 and 8350 pretty much sit dead even with the 4670k clock per clock. Some things they win, some they lose. But again we come back to price. £113 for a 8320, £170 or so for an I5. That extra money can be put to where it matters, your GPU.

Some people want to cling onto things so badly that they'll literally be sitting there clinging onto one benchmark and ignoring the 30 that lose. It's pretty mad really. I like being open minded, it gives you a much better chance of understanding things.

 

[Martini1991]

You keep using clock for clock wrong.

It's slower clock for clock, just has more cores which makes up the deficit in the 8 threaded apps.
In anything that's less threaded, at the same clock, the FX8 loses, because they're not clock for clock the same.

And the FX8's can best i7's, in very, very limited tasks that aren't FPU heavy (There's some 7zip benchmarks for example)

The FX83's successor will be interesting if it's got 8 FPU's, it'll be very interesting.

 

[ALXAndy]

You keep using clock for clock wrong.

I don't. We've done clock per clock in the tests that use both CPUs properly.

 

[ALXAndy]

You keep using clock for clock wrong.

It's slower clock for clock, just has more cores which makes up the deficit in the 8 threaded apps.
In anything that's less threaded, at the same clock, the FX8 loses, because they're not clock for clock the same.

And the FX8's can best i7's, in very, very limited tasks that aren't FPU heavy (There's some 7zip benchmarks for example)

The FX83's successor will be interesting if it's got 8 FPU's, it'll be very interesting.

As I have continually said I will compare CPUs as a whole, total package and how they perform overall when used properly. Not dissect them into chunks and start comparing bits.

I understand what you're saying and they are very different in the way they work, but the only way to really compare them is to run them both flat out and see what results they churn out. If the results were not accurate? then yes, I would think of another means of testing. However, at the same kinds of clock speeds they tend to produce the same results on where they sit.

Now if AMD get this HSA (Heterogeneous system architecture) working on a PC? then it'll be pretty much game over for Intel, unless they can get a API out there and get people to use it. Which I can't see happening, as it would make the devs have to do double the work. Over the years they've shown just how keen they are to make games work well on a PC (I'm being sarcastic simply because 99 out of 100 devs don't care about the PC).

AMD are basically taking that work away and offering somewhat of a guarantee that if you use their desktop parts then games will run well on modest hardware.

It's what they do best. Value.

 

[Martini1991]

You should become the next AMD PR rep.
-VK-'s time's limited.

 

[ALXAndy]

You should become the next AMD PR rep.
-VK-'s time's limited.

I'm not any one's rep, I just like the facts. TBH I'm quite paranoid as to AMD's intentions. On the one hand it seems like they're trying to improve PC gaming massively and, are investing lots of money into it. At the same time though I remember that they're a corporate business and they don't do any one any favours.

What was mentioned above about prices etc? yes, that's definitely going to be a worry. AMD basically groom us, get us on their hardware that they have a somewhat monopoly over then start ramping up prices.

Right now though? CPU/GPU for gaming AMD are winning hands down. It'll take a while longer yet until people come around on their CPUs but they're already winning in the GPU sector.

The more the months roll by the more Nvidia are just sounding like an expensive curiosity.

 

[Davanius]

Let me clarify a few things here. When the 8320 loses it will be in stuff like Skyrim which is lame and uses two CPU cores. Same sort of deal as Fallout 3. When the 8320 loses it does so because it's not being utilised properly.

However !

It will lose in a situation like 90 FPS on AMD, 113 FPS on Intel. What I'm saying is that Piledriver's IPC is more than enough for any game on the market. However, over the past year it's been one of two situations.

1. It's completely GPU bound (see Tomb Raider and Metro : Last Light) to which ends it doesn't matter diddly squat what CPU you have and you were better off investing in GPU/S.

2. It sees all 8 cores and the AMDs win in their price category (because I'm not going to be so idiotic as to forget what this all bloody costs !!).

More often than not, in the recent games, the 8320/50 sit comfortably between the I5 3570k clock per clock and the 3770k clock per clock. At no point does the AMD beat the I7 (which I've made blatantly clear).

So, the 8320 and 8350 pretty much sit dead even with the 4670k clock per clock. Some things they win, some they lose. But again we come back to price. £113 for a 8320, £170 or so for an I5. That extra money can be put to where it matters, your GPU.

Some people want to cling onto things so badly that they'll literally be sitting there clinging onto one benchmark and ignoring the 30 that lose. It's pretty mad really. I like being open minded, it gives you a much better chance of understanding things.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I have an old q6600 rig that was going to get my i5 2500k and was opting for a 4670k as a replacement. Then I decided that might as well get a 4770k as a proper upgrade for myself. The 8320 has thrown a small spanner in the works since I noticed this thread.

Going to watch this space. Folks try not to get this debate locked please as it is very informative from both perspectives.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

So if they run equal to an i5 clock for clock whats the reason for skyrims performance? A game that relies on only a few quick cores? Its because their clock for clock performance doesn't match intels. Check out the cinebench single thread scores that you are so fond of

 

[pastymuncher]

For crying out loud stop bitching, it's pathetic. You lot are ruining this place. It used to be just the graphics card section but now this one is going downhill too. Op asks a simple question and we end up with 116 post's of bitching. How about somebody actually helps someone for a change instead of destroying peoples threads?

 

[ubersonic]

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

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.

Your looking at a platform getting a low score at a synthetic benchmark, not the CPU itself failing. FX Processors are known for poor performance per core hence why AMD loaded so many onto them (They are currently in the situation of attempting to polish a turd much like Intel found themselves in with the Pentium IV, where they ran out of clock speed so had to bring in HT/FSB/L2/etc). A Lynfield core (as used on the i5-7xx) has more performance per core than Piledriver at the same speed, Piledriver is more comparable to Yorkfield (as used on something like the QX9xxx).

Yes the FX-8350 will run rings around the i5 on software that can use all of its cores effectively, however for the other 99.99% of the time it's not worth it.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

I have an 8350 system and in the games mentioned Far Cry, Crysis 3 etc the 8350 does not outperform my 4670k system. Infact it actually has lower min FPS in these games.

Being unbiased as I own systems based on both CPU's the only time I can get the 8350 to beat the 4670k is in multi threaded benchmarks. Otherwise even at 5Ghz it struggles to keep up with a 4.6Ghz 4670k.

The 8350/20 are great value CPU's but they really cannot compete with the Intel's at the moment.

It's usually the same with AMD only owners saying they are best and intel only owners saying they are the best. I have both and the 4670k is a better cpu in my opinion. It offers much better all round results and even in multi threaded games it outperforms the 8350 with a much more consistent frame rate.

Just my 2p's worth.


The O/P would be better waiting for the final BF4 game as the beta is a bit of a mess. But the I5 750 should be more than capable of giving good results if coupled with a decent GPU.

 

[Martini1991]

For crying out loud stop bitching, it's pathetic. You lot are ruining this place. It used to be just the graphics card section but now this one is going downhill too. Op asks a simple question and we end up with 116 post's of bitching. How about somebody actually helps someone for a change instead of destroying peoples threads?

I thought I did help.

Told him to stick put, see how things actually progress then can make an objective decision in due time.

It's usually the same with AMD only owners saying they are best and intel only owners saying they are the best. I have both and the 4670k is a better cpu in my opinion. It offers much better all round results and even in multi threaded games it outperforms the 8350 with a much more consistent frame rate.

That doesn't exactly make the Intel owners wrong then if you agree.
That's one reason I'm pro i5, consistency, but only if an i5's achievable at no sacrifice.