• 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.

AMD Phenom II x6 vs FX-8350

JGStonedRaider said:
:D

Ohhhh time t spank the 960T for a few days...1.6v here we go :D

*Don't worry, I heff watercooling
Click to expand...
Lol, go easy on the ol girl. Hopefully mate you get a decent chip.:) If its a badly pasted jobby watercooling wont help a lot. Seen a user on here report the exact same temps on custom water that he got on air using a prolimatech megahelims. Im changing over to the new 4790k myself as the chip in sig is just too hot.
 
A few months back I bought an 8350, tried it for a few days and returned it and went back to my 1100T. The 8350 is a great CPU, but I prefer the older architecture. I'll be running my two X6 boxes for several more years until they die. Best CPUs I've ever had. I run them with a mild 3.6 multipier overclock at stock volts, with turbo turned off.
 
Yes the 1090t/1100t are still decent chips I didn't see any improvement "upgrading"/switching to an i5 3570k, although in games this is due to my graphics card :p Still even with a decent GPU I'm sure any noticeable difference would be minimal
 
Firstly, thanks for testing bugofhums! :)

Warsam71 said:
Great results Humbug! The FX-8350 is an awesome CPU.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think they are handy enough contrary to others opinions on the CPU forum. :D

GoogalyMoogaly said:
I went from a Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3.5GHz/3.8GHz to a FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz and I didn't do anything this detailed but I really couldn't notice much difference, infact except for video encoding I probably preferred the X6 (video encoding the FX-8350 was better, partly due to having 2 more cores).
From my experience (again, not as 'scientific' as yours, just gut feeling) I would've said going from my X6 to the FX was a complete waste of money.

I was so disappointed that I then switched it out for a 4770K and noticed a world of difference. Some of that might have just been a placebo though from knowing that the Intel chip would be much better.
Yes the Intel was more expensive, but if I calculated the cost of everything I do in life to find the cheapest option I'd never have time to do anything.
Click to expand...

I would say it's semi placebo, but you do recognise a cost factor so that's good enough for me. Quote below would be accurate summary (admitted by shaken himself):

Stas823 said:
Just changed to a 4770k though and there is definatly improvement over the fx unfortunately. £/performance it's king still.
Click to expand...

JonSmith said:
My 8320 was good for me because I had a poor clocking 955 BE. I think where they really shine is in productivity applications. In 3ds Max for example the FX-8xxx are about as fast as a 4770.
Click to expand...

Similar for me, jumped from a C2D8500 which was a great chip but not cutting the mustard so had to become the new server. I would be happy to run some tests if any are needed, I currently have it purring away at 4.6 since the last BIOS update which apparently improved stability but not had much time to fine tweak.
 
Last edited:
dacads said:
Yes the 1090t/1100t are still decent chips I didn't see any improvement "upgrading"/switching to an i5 3570k, although in games this is due to my graphics card :p Still even with a decent GPU I'm sure any noticeable difference would be minimal
Click to expand...

Think you just talked me out of going from my 1090t to 4690k. Though I do play mmo's and I do get the odd fps drop and was hoping a i5 would help.
 
FWIW, I went from a 1090T to a 4770K a few months ago. At stock, BF4 minimums jumped from mid-20s to mid-50s, and in less threaded titles (e.g. Crysis/Warhead) the jump was at least +100%.

OC vs OC, the 4770K is less of an improvement but I'm probably running into a GPU bottleneck there.
 
I have just played a round of Planet Side 2, Min FPS over 100, this is a game where the performance on AMD CPU's is apparently crap.

Go figure. i have never seen that level of performance with PS2, not even with a 4Ghz Bloomfield i7, no where near.
gIeNSUB.png

DDLBXEI.png
 
Yeah, we can all look at empty spaces with no action and claim we're getting 100 FPS min ; 49% GPU usage. I can post screenshots of SWTOR hitting my refresh rate constantly, but they don't mean anything, because that'll change if I'm actually doing anything meaningful.
But I get that you're not actually going for substance.

Is that maxed out or just terrible compression?
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I have just played a round of Planet Side 2, Min FPS over 100, this is a game where the performance on AMD CPU's is apparently crap.

Go figure. i have never seen that level of performance with PS2, not even with a 4Ghz Bloomfield i7, no where near.
gIeNSUB.png


DDLBXEI.png
Click to expand...

yea ive only got a 6300 and a 280x and it runs perfectly fine too Ive never seen the fps drop below 55/60 fps in ps2
 
Martini1991 said:
Yeah, we can all look at empty spaces with no action and claim we're getting 100 FPS min ; 49% GPU usage. I can post screenshots of SWTOR hitting my refresh rate constantly, but they don't mean anything, because that'll change if I'm actually doing anything meaningful.
But I get that you're not actually going for substance.

Is that maxed out or just terrible compression?
Click to expand...

Its maximum IQ settings, i didn't say it didn't bottleneck the GPU, its a 290, what it did do is run constantly over 100 FPS, i only played one round, i'm going to do some more extensive testing later.

And here is World of Tanks. again over 100 FPS.

Xq90l2S.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom