AMD FX 8350

t103Ninja said:
and what you say isnt totaly true BF3 and crysis 3 do use 8 cores if they are available and the 8350 does slightly ahead in benchmark tests
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, you've just seen an FX8350 in a SLI set up come up trumps against a 4770K one (Although barely)

The Crysis 3 results are contradicted by other reviews which show them only on parity with the i5.
 
t103Ninja said:
it may only be speculation but it does make sence the console are running 8 cores so games are probaly gonna use 8 cores on PC
Click to expand...

Well no, think about it...

On a console the CPU will be doing much more than it would in a PC, especially as its an APU, so it will be handling: Graphics, Recording (the constant record feature), The UI, Download and play games, Background chat and much more..

Games for the new consoles may not even be able to use 8-cores as you may find some (2-3) are tied up focusing on UI, downloading graphics ect.. Not to mention they'll be considered "mobile" chips so nowhere near as powerful as a desktop equivalent..
 
t103Ninja said:
it may only be speculation but it does make sence the console are running 8 cores so games are probaly gonna use 8 cores on PC

and what you say isnt totaly true BF3 and crysis 3 do use 8 cores if they are available and the 8350 does slightly ahead in benchmark tests
Click to expand...

I think just matching up the numbers like that is over-simplifying the issue. If it were actually that simple, you could just say "The FX8320 has 8 cores and the 4770k has 4 cores, so AMD is better". It's definitely not as simple as 'new consoles are using more cores' when you look at what they're actually using them for. Xbox One is talking about having multiple operating systems running simultaneously so you can switch between them instantly - that's not going to happen without reserving significant resources.

If you're genuinely worried about the performance of future console ports, all you can do is wait until there are some around and see what the performance is like. It's a boring non-answer, but we can speculate forever until the games are actually released and then still end up being wrong.

My opinion is this: performance numbers are not going to jump overnight. Multi-core optimization is not going to magically make a 4770k worthless and an FX8320 the new king of the hill. PS4 and Xbox One are scheduled for release in a few months, but how long is it going to be before devs are truly taking advantage of the systems power?

By the time you're seeing ports optimized significantly enough for the consoles multi-core architecture, there's going to be a whole new generation of Intel/AMD processors to argue over.

If I were buying right now, I'd buy for the performance I know I'd get at my price range, rather than gamble on what I may or may not get in the future.
 
Martini1991 said:
No it doesn't, you've just seen an FX8350 in a SLI set up come up trumps against a 4770K one (Although barely)

The Crysis 3 results are contradicted by other reviews which show them only on parity with the i5.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, yet conveniently ignore every single benchmark that contradicts you.

Make said:
If you do a comparison of a 8350 vs a 4770k they will clearly show that the intel one is far superior in every aspect. That is not fanboyism, it's a cold fact. Same can be said for the 4670k.
Click to expand...

That 'cold fact' isn't a fact at all. There are lots of multi-threaded benchmarks that put the 8350 at stock above a 4670K at stock. See the post above for an example.
 
Last edited:
t103Ninja said:
it seems weird to me than an 8 core CPU can really be compared to an i5 wich only has 4 cores... whatever im just gonna get an i7 lol
Click to expand...

its because things aren't that simple. like you said earlier is the double price i7 twice as good as the 8350, no its not.

Take cars for example a £12k cords can do 130mph, good luck finding a 260mph car for £24k.
 
kaku said:
It's definitely not as simple as 'new consoles are using more cores' when you look at what they're actually using them for. Xbox One is talking about having multiple operating systems running simultaneously so you can switch between them instantly - that's not going to happen without reserving significant resources.

My opinion is this: performance numbers are not going to jump overnight. Multi-core optimization is not going to magically make a 4770k worthless and an FX8320 the new king of the hill. PS4 and Xbox One are scheduled for release in a few months, but how long is it going to be before devs are truly taking advantage of the systems power?

By the time you're seeing ports optimized significantly enough for the consoles multi-core architecture, there's going to be a whole new generation of Intel/AMD processors to argue over.

If I were buying right now, I'd buy for the performance I know I'd get at my price range, rather than gamble on what I may or may not get in the future.
Click to expand...

I can see what this guy is getting at, let me explain kaku:

I built my rig years ago (C2D E8500, 4Gb RAM etc) and still am using it (typing right now) only changes have been SSD and a few graphics cards.

Due to circumstance I currently got hold of two HD7770's and run in crossfire, pretty much cos the board can. I spent £75 for both of these a few months back - it costs that for just one on OcUK deals atm. :D

Anyway, I am playing older games with all the settings up enjoying them as I have the odd hour (15 month old baby takes up a lot of time).

Just because some people buy release priced goods and upgrade to the next best flavour a year later doesnt mean all of us want to follow that. My next purchase will hopefully last 4+ years like this one has - which may with a few driver optimisations and an 8-core piece of hardware last just that little bit longer.

:o

Here's hoping anyway...
 
teppic said:
That 'cold fact' isn't a fact at all. There are lots of multi-threaded benchmarks that put the 8350 at stock above a 4670K at stock. See the post above for an example.
Click to expand...

"Lots of", actually on the reviews MOST of the benchmarks are in favour of the 4670k. Not to mention the 4770k.

Weren't we talking game performance anyway? Might wanna check out all those benchmarks and see in how many the AMD tops the 4670k. Tip: Not many. Again not to mention the 4770k.

Please stop cherry-picking the benchmarks and look at the total numbers.
 
Instead of looking at benchmarks just check the price tag. Buy the component that you can afford that isn't sacrificing any other to create a weakness.
 
all i wanted to know is if the 8350 would be ok for playing and recording paired up and a decent gpu and i ended up started a 3 page long argument :/ lol

so can somebody actualy tell me will the 8350 get the job done? or should i get an i5 4670k seeing as its sort of around the same price point
remember im not just looking at playing gaming i want to also record my gameplay using dxtory in 1080p
 
I ran DXTory perfectly fine on an i5 2500K while gaming.
Make whatever you will of that.

The FX83 will suffice, but when/if adding a second GPU, you won't get the full benefit of that second GPU.
 
Martini1991 said:
I ran DXTory perfectly fine on an i5 2500K while gaming.
Make whatever you will of that.

The FX83 will suffice, but when/if adding a second GPU, you won't get the full benefit of that second GPU.
Click to expand...

im thinking thinking SLI wouldnt be the best idea anyways... reading a lot of stuff about what kind of problems it can cause so im thinking it would be a better idea to just go with a single powerfull card
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom