What CPUs are 2x as powerful as an FX-8350 in DX12?

[Vexr]

DX12 has been an impressive boost to my FX-8350 - that is until I reached Kuwaq Yaku in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I'm getting about 45 fps in this area despite near 100% CPU utilization on 8 cores with dips down in to the 30s.

I'm guessing with the full core utilization now available through DX12, the days of a quad core Ryzen 3 1200 trumping an 8-core FX series in gaming is now over, so I'd need to aim a bit higher up the Ryzen range for a big improvement.

 

[Vexr]

That's a start, thanks.

Been looking online for some comparisons that involve the FX series versus newer chips like Ryzen using proper DX12 on optimised titles, and it's very slim pickings. There's amateur youtube vids that are a joke comparing CPUs using GPU bottlenecked systems, or DX11 vs DX12 on the FX, or how the FX is holding up against Intel chips of the same era (~2012) these days, but not a lot else.

 

[Vexr]

Very informative, thanks very much everyone. Looks like Cinebench multi-thread is the standard to use when comparing the FX series with newer processors these days, and that'll hopefully be an accurate enough portrayal of DX12 performance.

It indeed looks like the Ryzen 1600/2600 is where I need to be looking to get double the CPU performance of the FX-8350, and going for something like the Ryzen 1200 or 1300 would be a downgrade, and the 1400/1500 would be a side-grade for very similar performance.

 

[Vexr]

As suggested by Humbug - his combination of Tomahawk mobo and Ryzen 2600 is what I have gone for with 16gb Corsair 3000mhz RAM.

I have a FX 8350 and am upgrading to this. Hopefully should see a good improvement!

However, and people will disagree, but I am actually relatively impressed at how the 8350 performed. Especially as everyone slates it!

Completely agree, the FX can punch above its weight in well optimised games, but falls apart disastrously in badly optimised games that don't like multi-threading (World of Warcraft being one I tried a few years back - was like playing on a 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo from 2007).

There's a lot of naff out-dated advice / misconceptions online. I recall one person stating the FX-8350, being so bad on WoW, would have absolutely no chance on a triple A game like the Witcher 3. Yet actually 60 fps in crowded areas on the Witcher 3 is perfectly fine on an FX-8350, as the game is so well optimised.

Sounds like MSI must have sorted their act out to be recommended as 'the best' motherboard for AM4 on here. My current motherboard is an MSI on AM3. It works, but after trying to OC my CPU and looking online about this motherboard, it turns out it's garbage compared with other competitors, and MSI seem to have a bad rep for their motherboards from that era.

 

[Vexr]

but games dont use all threads so cinebench dont tell you the truth, not in a gaming situation. Less faster cores/thread are the best for gaming, at the moment anyway.

I'd have agreed a couple of years ago, but I'm asking specifically about DX12 performance as per the thread title, which does use all cores and threads.

For instance, Shadow of the Tomb Raider:

It's thrashing all CPU cores / threads in the hub areas, but still bottlenecked unfortunately.

I'd personally be unwilling to move to anything with less than the 4c/8t the FX-8350 has when upgrading, what with the future being DX12. Higher IPC per core/thread than the FX has is also necessary for older titles, but all of the newer CPUs seem to already have that covered.