AMD FX 8350

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 22:48

Doomedspeed said:
Like martini said, lets leave it now.

Maybe its worth saying the 8350 is better value but the 4670k/4770k is better overall performance. is that a fair enough statement?

I'm not saying much more than that - the 4770K gives good results consistently in SLI/Crossfire, the 8320/50 OC can match it in most recent games, and in those it can't, framerates are usually high enough that nobody playing the game would be able to tell. There are occasions where the 8350 OC can beat a stock 4770K, but it's not common.

If someone wants a lower cost system with the option of SLI/Crossfire later, the 8320/8350 is a good choice. If they want the best performing system in every game possible regardless of the price difference, sure, the 4770K.

james_2k · 10 Sep 2013 at 22:51

you are saying the 8350 oc is sometimes the same as the 4770k? at stock i presume. you can oc that too, as you are finding out in your other thread.

bear in mind he also wants to record. better cpu, better future!

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 22:53

james_2k said:
you are saying the 8350 oc is sometimes the same as the 4770k? at stock i presume. you can oc that too, as you are finding out in your other thread.

bear in mind he also wants to record. better cpu, better future!

In the games it's the same (as shown on the first page) it's because 2x680s becomes the limit, so we don't know where it'd change with a better GPU. Increasing the CPU speed wouldn't make any difference there.

The extra cores help with recording, generally.

james_2k · 10 Sep 2013 at 22:56

not weak extra cores. im fairly sure the i7 would beast it in most gaming + recording situations also.

games like rome 2 are very cpu dependant, reading a lot about people not getting full utilisation of their gpus. (single, as sli is not supported yet) but im getting 99% on my half a 690.

like i said before, its a full system rebuild to change out the motherboard and cpu, so he might as well spend a bit extra, even at the cost of sli (especially at his res) and get the best he can. it will last longer.

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:00

james_2k said:
not weak extra cores. im fairly sure the i7 would beast it in most gaming + recording situations also.

games like rome 2 are very cpu dependant, reading a lot about people not getting full utilisation of their gpus. (single, as sli is not supported yet) but im getting 99% on my half a 690.

like i said before, its a full system rebuild to change out the motherboard and cpu, so he might as well spend a bit extra, even at the cost of sli (especially at his res) and get the best he can. it will last longer.

A feeling isn't the same as actual results

The general feeling on this forum is that AMD is useless at everything compared to Intel.

I haven't seen any 8350 OC benchmarks for RTW2. If it's using 8 threads it may well match or perform better than a stock 4770K.

james_2k · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:02

so you feel that about rome 2

? i doubt it, but it would be good to see actual results yes.

out of interest, why didnt you buy an amd cpu?

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:06

james_2k said:
so you feel that about rome 2 ? i doubt it, but it would be good to see actual results yes.

out of interest, why didnt you buy an amd cpu?

I don't feel it about RTW2 - I'm saying it's certainly possible. The 8350 at ~4.7GHz comfortably outperforms a stock 4770K in Company of Heroes 2.

I've had AMD CPUs and Intel - I need a higher end Intel CPU for various research work I'm doing.

james_2k · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:08

interesting

t103Ninja · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:19

woah woah woah, hold up guys i didnt mean to start a massive debate
you are all talking about gaming i started this thread by asking about gaming AND recording at 1080p.... surely an 8350 will perform better than i5 for this 8 cores vs. 4 cores for multi tasking

as far as bottlenecks go i dont really think that will be much of an issue with SLI i was looking at gtx 680 SLI benchmarks with the 8350 and it seemed to handle it fine

james_2k · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:20

spend the extra for an i7. forget sli for now if you have to. you wont regret it.

t103Ninja · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:23

james_2k said:
spend the extra for an i7. forget sli for now if you have to. you wont regret it.

the problem i have with an i7 is that id be going with a 4770k and everything ive seen says they run hot i dont have room in my case for an h100i or h110 an h80i is the best i can do for a cooling i probaly wouldnt be able to get much of an overclock out of it

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:24

People will always argue about Intel vs AMD and Nvidia vs AMD

I wouldn't recommend an i5 if you're considering SLI/Crossfire as well as recording. The 4770K is the safest choice, but if the games you're playing are the kind that won't have any performance problems at all on an 8320/50, you've got a better value option as well.

t103Ninja · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:26

teppic said:
People will always argue about Intel vs AMD and Nvidia vs AMD

I wouldn't recommend an i5 if you're considering SLI/Crossfire as well as recording. The 4770K is the safest choice, but if the games you're playing are the kind that won't have any performance problems at all on an 8320/50, you've got a better value option as well.

nah i wont be going with an i5 its going to be the 8350 an i7 for sure... as for games everyone wants to talk to battlefield and battlefield probaly makes 5% of what i actualy play i play tons of games triple A titles indie titles and old games aswell

teppic · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:34

Most indie games and older ones won't scale well on SLI/Crossfire or really need it. Ones like Limbo and the Walking Dead run easily on anything recent pretty much.

For the most flexibility a 4770K - you don't need water cooling to give it a mild overclock.

t103Ninja · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:42

teppic said:
Most indie games and older ones won't scale well on SLI/Crossfire or really need it. Ones like Limbo and the Walking Dead run easily on anything recent pretty much.

For the most flexibility a 4770K - you don't need water cooling to give it a mild overclock.

hmm i dunno im still leaning towards AMD on an h80i i know ill easily get 4.5ghz and if i forget about SLI just get a more powerfull single card like a 780 or something i just cant help thinking it will do what i want a little better

X3T · 10 Sep 2013 at 23:56

Most people seem to make out that the 8350 performs like a Pentium 2 when compared to the i5/i7, where that is clearly not the case. Obviously the Intels are faster, but you would be hard pressed to be able to tell the difference between an AMD and an Intel system without staring at an FPS counter.

I've been PC gaming my whole life and spend far too much money constantly upgrading my PC. Do you think I would still be using an AMD CPU if it didn't perform well?

A quick note about Skyrim benchmarks - it uses x87 code which AMD has to emulate, hence the low scores. Even so it runs super smooth on ultra settings on my machine.

t103Ninja · 11 Sep 2013 at 02:29

X3T said:
Most people seem to make out that the 8350 performs like a Pentium 2 when compared to the i5/i7, where that is clearly not the case. Obviously the Intels are faster, but you would be hard pressed to be able to tell the difference between an AMD and an Intel system without staring at an FPS counter.

I've been PC gaming my whole life and spend far too much money constantly upgrading my PC. Do you think I would still be using an AMD CPU if it didn't perform well?

A quick note about Skyrim benchmarks - it uses x87 code which AMD has to emulate, hence the low scores. Even so it runs super smooth on ultra settings on my machine.

do you do any recording or anything like that? if so what kind of hit does it put on your FPS?

Doomedspeed · 11 Sep 2013 at 07:08

t103Ninja said:
surely an 8350 will perform better than i5 for this 8 cores vs. 4 cores for multi tasking

as far as bottlenecks go i dont really think that will be much of an issue with SLI i was looking at gtx 680 SLI benchmarks with the 8350 and it seemed to handle it fine

you know 8 core vs 4 core isn't that simple right? You did your research didn't you? There must be a reason why a '4 core' cost £100 more than a '8-core'...

Well the 680SLI benchmarks we found told the opposite story, that the Intel performed much than the 8350.

At the end of the day youre thinking of spending £700 on graphics cards and you're risking the 8350 to save £100 on your CPU.. That seems suspect to me.

t103Ninja said:
hmm i dunno im still leaning towards AMD on an h80i i know ill easily get 4.5ghz and if i forget about SLI just get a more powerfull single card like a 780 or something i just cant help thinking it will do what i want a little better

If you want to go for the 8350 feel free...

I don't (and a few others in this thread) think its the right decison though and we've used benchmarks (which are actually designed to be compared) like 3D mark to show as much.

At the end of the day i've said my peice.

We just want whats best for you and if thats compromising your rig to suit the 8350 so be it.

pastymuncher · 11 Sep 2013 at 09:27

58 posts and not a single spec!! As usual another thread ruined by a Intel v AMD flame war. It's bad enough in the graphics card forum without it going on in here as well. This place is getting pathetic.

Op, if you are intent on getting a 8350 buy a 8320 instead. It's basically the same cpu albeit with a lower multiplier and cheaper. It will clock just as well as the 8350. You will need a decent 990 chipset mobo to get the best out of these cpu's.

Make · 11 Sep 2013 at 09:51

A question, why is anyone compairing an OC'd 8350 to a stock *Name an intel processor here*.

Surely you will need to factor in a proper cooler in the price of that, if you are thinking you are getting better value for money by saying that. While you are on it, also count in the extra electricity over two years from an OC'd 8350 vs *name intel here*

Or just forget about silly comparisons like that and compair OC vs OC if you want to compair performance. And for that, performance, an intel 4670k or 4770k will beat any AMD stock for stock or OC for OC. Any game or any program. (Alright, in 1 benchmark the AMD won) And no, the intel does not need to be clocked to 4.8ghz to get the same performance.

Futureproof your machine with a proper CPU now and 1 GPU, if you seem to run on to problems with maxed out GPU, then buy another one later. You cannot upgrade your processor later without buying a new mobo most likely.