AMD FX 8350

teppic said:
Some games are very CPU intensive, some are not, some are heavily threaded some or not. All that depends on the performance if the GPU isn't a limitation. The 8350 above 4.5GHz is very rarely benchmarked, but when it is, the results are hugely improved.
Click to expand...

Hugely improved in what though?

Like you say each game has its limitation..
 
Doomedspeed said:
Hugely improved in what though?

Like you say each game has its limitation..
Click to expand...

Improved in comparison in any benchmarks, but particularly in multi-threaded games, where you have 8 cores running at the higher clock instead of 4. In some games at lower clocks, one thread will hold back all the others - a threading bottleneck that is substantially reduced at the higher clock.

I've always said you need the 6300/8320/8350 at 4.5GHz to get the most out of it. In slightly older games you're normally getting well over 60fps anyway, combined with a reasonably good card, and newer ones tend to use the cores more effectively.
 
If AMD GPU reviews started getting done with FX8350's, and Nvidia GPU's were reviewed with Intel CPU's.

You'd seen an outcry, especially in Crossfire scaling benchmarks.

Because the AMD GPU's would be getting slightly hobbled.

I think that proves the point nicely.
 
That the majority of existing games are not heavily threaded makes them perform worse on AMD -- but most of these don't get huge benefits from Crossfire/SLI, and when we're talking about framerates over 140 anyway, it matters only to people who are more interested in benchmarks than games.

Some newer ones, like Tomb Raider and Dirt 3 are essentially just GPU bound even with the top GPUs.

Clearly there are reasons why it's better to use a high end Intel CPU, but it's not remotely true to say that the 8350 is useless with SLI/Crossfire, or that it'll always bottleneck things.
 
The situations it'll bottleneck far outweigh the situations that don't.

If you're going to give the argument that "lol, what's the point, you're at 100000FPS anyway" why not say "Lower the GPU's down" otherwise it's wasted money.

It's a fallacy to pretend it doesn't matter when we're talking 700 quid of GPU's.

There's a few games that are very GPU bound that an FX83 won't bottleneck on a Crossfire, I won't pretend there's not, but their few and far between.

There's a guy using a 7990 with an i7 3770.
Guess what I said? It'll bottleneck, but it's not an AMD, Shocker right?

I don't care for vendors, I care for people getting the most out of their equipment/money.
 
BF3 is a good example, since it's usually quoted as the game that bottlenecks an i5 :)

More:

s5N8Gqw.png


oarMp69.png


U7RE2ME.png


GImXtiC.png


Yes, it's less in F1 2012 - but on here people are always told not even to consider AMD. In most here it's negligible.
 
I've missed out Skyrim as it's a waste of time, given its stupid performance on AMD processors (and that performance is fine, but much lower, when the official patches are applied).

The scaling isn't disputing anything I am saying - the graphs show that you get good performance with either.
 
The benchmarks don't back it up. Of course sites benchmark demanding games, as that's the whole point of running SLI/Crossfire. If you want to run games at low at 1280x1024 you won't be using 2x770s.
 
Doomedspeed said:
... in some games..

and the fact the Intels have a less up and down affair with frames rates is irrelevant? Thought so..
Click to expand...

Older games are written with dual core Intel CPUs in mind. New ones run fine on either processor, SLI/Crossfire or single card. The fact is that any 8320 at £115 can overclock to 4.4GHz to get those results, mostly equal to the 3770K at 4.4GHz.
 
We can do this all night, end of the day, I want the OP to get the best performance he possibly can, you obviously don't.
Which somewhat ironically in my opinion is a 7970 Crossfire set up (At this pricing) which frees up more budget potentially.

So I'll just leave it here.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
+1 to doomedspeed and martini1991s' views.

get intel if you can. cpu and motherboard generally last a lot longer than graphics cards. you should try to get the best 'base' you can with your system, which includes the psu btw.

you could even drop one 770 to get the intel equivalent cpu because at 1080 you dont need sli nearly all of the time. then get another 770 later
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom