Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD Piledriver FX-Series CPU Reviews (Vishera FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300, FX-4300)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] AMD Piledriver FX-Series CPU Reviews (Vishera FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300, FX-4300) - Page 130  

post #1291 of 2391
It really comes down to this, we are trying to talk about what it is good for and what is relevant to the 8350, and what amd users who already have 990 boards see it as.

Not how 20fps in frames you'll never see on a 60hz panel in the first place because that mark is > 60 and doesn't matter on 60hz or for that matter frames you'll never even see on a 120hz panel.

>60 on 60hz panels = win
>60 on 60hz panels you cannot see = wasted resources, go run some apps while gaming

It has been proven in single gpu situations in like 80% of games, that the fps differences at stock vs stock are almost non existent, while this is where amd has a cruddy thermal envelope in comparison, but that doesn't mean it is absolutely inept at single gpu gaming.

It's real issue comes from multi gpu and rubbish but not commonly run into single threaded weakness.
Edited by endevite - 10/24/12 at 4:29am
post #1292 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundamnitpete View Post

Who in their right mind would pay $300 for the 3770K when a $170 8320 OC'd to 4.2ghz will push a 670 to it's bottleneck? The difference is 2 FPS.
That means 50$ per FPS advantage!
yeah right! just take that $130 and put it toward a better GPU.

Or another ssd or another 16gb of ram.
post #1293 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frosty View Post

Chips get reviewed against other chips, and some of those other chips are Intel ones.
One of the reviews above shows PD's gaming performance lower then a stock 2.6ghz Core i7 920 and even at 5Ghz struggles to beat it....

What will you say then ? rolleyes.gif


Fastest Ivy bridge i7 3770k @ 4.8GHz = AMD FX 8350 @ Stock eek.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
post #1294 of 2391
Like I said, lol, any card under about $400, and if you spend more than $200 on a CPU for gaming it's a waste . Transfer that bottleneck to your GPU and your fine, as a current bulldozer user will tell you. thumb.gif
PINGAS!
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350@4.6ghz Asus Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6870 Hawk G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 2TB DVD H60 push/pull Win 7 
MonitorPower
60" Sony Bravia OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
  hide details  
PINGAS!
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350@4.6ghz Asus Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6870 Hawk G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 2TB DVD H60 push/pull Win 7 
MonitorPower
60" Sony Bravia OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
  hide details  
post #1295 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundamnitpete View Post

Who in their right mind would pay $300 for the 3770K when a $170 8320 OC'd to 4.2ghz will push a 670 to it's bottleneck? The difference is 2 FPS.
That means 50$ per FPS advantage!
yeah right! just take that $130 and put it toward a better GPU.

the difference can be higher in some games,
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-13/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html

anyway, that's why most people recommend i5s for gaming, not i7s...

if you don't care about power usage and heat, the FX is looking quite good indeed, but... the i7 is clearly a more capable gaming CPU... but the price difference is pretty significant!
Current PC
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2310 Pegatron IPMSB-H61 Sapphire r7 370 2GB 8GB 1333 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung hd103sj lga 775 Intel stock cooler Win10 HP l190hb 
KeyboardPowerMouseAudio
AT with PS/2 adapter Huntkey 450W MS WMO 1.1 ALC662 
  hide details  
Current PC
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2310 Pegatron IPMSB-H61 Sapphire r7 370 2GB 8GB 1333 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung hd103sj lga 775 Intel stock cooler Win10 HP l190hb 
KeyboardPowerMouseAudio
AT with PS/2 adapter Huntkey 450W MS WMO 1.1 ALC662 
  hide details  
post #1296 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitlian View Post

What will you say then ? rolleyes.gif

Fastest Ivy bridge i7 3770k @ 4.8GHz = AMD FX 8350 @ Stock eek.gif

That is called being GPU limited. Drop the resolution a couple notches and you will see the CPU having to do work. It would be a completely different story. Any time you see a processor overclocked by 1ghz and that exact same processor at stock producing within margin of error FPS, the CPU isn't being worked much.
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
post #1297 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMBR View Post

the difference can be higher in some games,
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-13/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html
anyway, that's why most people recommend i5s for gaming, not i7s...
if you don't care about power usage and heat, the FX is looking quite good indeed, but... the i7 is clearly a more capable gaming CPU... but the price difference is pretty significant!

Yeah, this is why most of us have been saying new board go new i5 or i7.
Have a 990fx and a 1 to 2yr old chip and only 200bux? Then the 83xx looks pretty good.
post #1298 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

That is called being GPU limited. Drop the resolution a couple notches and you will see the CPU having to do work. It would be a completely different story. Any time you see a processor overclocked by 1ghz and that exact same processor at stock producing within margin of error FPS, the CPU isn't being worked much.

I already know that theory Sir smile.gif
I was just replying to someone who claimed FX at 5Ghz is slower than i7 920 at 2.66Ghz
I know this is GPU bottleneck, but he doesn't understand biggrin.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
post #1299 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

That is called being GPU limited. Drop the resolution a couple notches and you will see the CPU having to do work. It would be a completely different story. Any time you see a processor overclocked by 1ghz and that exact same processor at stock producing within margin of error FPS, the CPU isn't being worked much.

Who exactly is gaming modern games at 1024 for that problem to peak it's head? People play at their panels native and at 60fps if they can, why drop down to 1024 just to show a more expensive Intel does better with less gpu bottle necking. This is the very same reason Intel is better at multigpu and amd does not, it is that very same bottleneck, we don't need to runtest becnhes at 1024 to see it. No one uses resolutions under their native panel res if they can help it.

It is still pretty simple, if you have a 1500 dollar panel or 800 dollars in multihead panels, then use intel.
If you have 1500 vested in gpus, use intel, you obviously have the cash.
If you have a 990fx board already, have 200bux to burn, want a perf increase, have a single panel and a single gpu, then the amd is just dandy and wont kill your budget. Simply because >60fps on native panel resolution is the best people can see, it will not magically display more past its rating.

Edit: Multihead for working and not gaming is however fine.
Edited by endevite - 10/24/12 at 5:44am
post #1300 of 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMBR View Post

the difference can be higher in some games,
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-13/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html
anyway, that's why most people recommend i5s for gaming, not i7s...
if you don't care about power usage and heat, the FX is looking quite good indeed, but... the i7 is clearly a more capable gaming CPU... but the price difference is pretty significant!
Arma is probably the only game out there that is really THAT heavily dependant on CPU, and the FX still produces acceptable results. I stand by statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

That is called being GPU limited. Drop the resolution a couple notches and you will see the CPU having to do work. It would be a completely different story. Any time you see a processor overclocked by 1ghz and that exact same processor at stock producing within margin of error FPS, the CPU isn't being worked much.

That's our point. The FX will not be the bottle neck, even for a GTX670, except for in ARMA, and like FSX or soemthing. in real world gaming at real world settings, it's identical. If you spend $400 on a GPU, are you seriously gonna drop resolution and turn the graphics settings down? No.

Telling someone to intentionally reduce there performance to say "see look less performance!" is retarded. If it's doing good, it's doing good.

Why on earth would you pay $300 for a CPU that only shines when you make your games look like crap with low settings?
PINGAS!
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350@4.6ghz Asus Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6870 Hawk G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 2TB DVD H60 push/pull Win 7 
MonitorPower
60" Sony Bravia OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
  hide details  
PINGAS!
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350@4.6ghz Asus Sabertooth 990FX MSI 6870 Hawk G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 2TB DVD H60 push/pull Win 7 
MonitorPower
60" Sony Bravia OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] AMD Piledriver FX-Series CPU Reviews (Vishera FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300, FX-4300)