Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX-8350 worth it for gaming?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX-8350 worth it for gaming? - Page 2  

post #11 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apropo View Post

well from all "GAMING" benchmarks I've not seen it out perform the 3570k. Though in other things that isn't gaming it does but that isn't what you asked.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
I've been searching ever since AMD released the 8350 and I can't find a single review with gaming benchmarks that put it at beating the 3570k... The reason I've been looking so hard is because I am / was an AMD fan and want it to give INTEL competition but it just isn't. If I missed something then please correct me but I can't find it.

I've seen benchs where it beats the i5 3570k at Battlefield 3 (since bf3 uses more cores than most games) and Skyrim where it ties it.
post #12 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aortic View Post

Well at stock it out performs, from what i've seen/read. Also, isnt Excavator coming after Steamroller on AM3+ also? I figured if 8350 was such a big jump from 8150 (like it was), Steamroller would be an even bigger leap. I'm just hoping AMD made a bad call in design, and they've seen their mistake, and they'll be coming back to top dogs with Intel. I'm not looking for a fanboy reassurance, just peoples opinions on the situation aha.
(not calling you a fanboy of course)


8350 is a fine cpu, and if you actually use your computer for doing work, its a great cpu for the money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apropo View Post

do you have links to benchmarks "for gaming" that show the 8350 / 8320 out performing the 3570k?


mostly, its a tie. The intel CPU's beat the AMD cpus in games that are old, single threaded or that just os happen to be well optimized for Intel cpu's. this happens allot actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb2e View Post

For gaming alone the 3570k will have a slight advantage over the 8350. If you plan on doing anything other than gaming such as video encoding, 3d rendering, or anything that is optimized for 4+ cores, you may find that the 8350 is at a slight advantage.
Generally speaking however, the I5 3570k at 4.5ghz and the 8350 at 5ghz are fairly close for gaming purposes. In most modern titles the 3570k will yield higher framerates and consume less power however.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5


the power difference real world, is less then the cost of a pack of 100w incandescent light bulbs, annualy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0max View Post

for gaming specifically an intel 2500k or anything greater will beat an amd 8320/50.
gaming benchmarks consistently show intel having a greater ipc and single-thread peformance resulting in better gaming scores.
if you don't have a budget go intel x79 3820, there's no reason to wait for steamroller.


ehh, higher IPC at which instructions ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aortic View Post

The only gave i've seen 8350 match at stock with i5 3570k is Skyrim, and Battlefield 3. Thats just me personally.


funny how the cpu's tie with skyrim, becuase it isn't a well threaded game, IIRC skyrim is built with GCC compiler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apropo View Post

well from all "GAMING" benchmarks I've not seen it out perform the 3570k. Though in other things that isn't gaming it does but that isn't what you asked.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
I've been searching ever since AMD released the 8350 and I can't find a single review with gaming benchmarks that put it at beating the 3570k... The reason I've been looking so hard is because I am / was an AMD fan and want it to give INTEL competition but it just isn't. If I missed something then please correct me but I can't find it.

Personally, I suspect your a intel shell, trying to push intel sales in a weak quarter. You've done a aweful lot of positioning to make a intel purchase looking at all this research you've done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aortic View Post

I've seen benchs where it beats the i5 3570k at Battlefield 3 (since bf3 uses more cores than most games) and Skyrim where it ties it.

no way, maybe becuase they use portland or gcc compilers ?
post #13 of 258
Thread Starter 
I've heard Battlefield 3 use 8 cores. I know it'll use 6 cores and 12 threads.
post #14 of 258
Well it totally depends, at lower resolution the cpu comes into play that is why you see the amd processors underperforming at lower res but at higher resolution it becomes more gpu limited anyway, the thing is though that If you are going for a single gpu solution you won't really get bottlenecked by the fx processor unless the only thing you are playing is starcraft II, but if you do decide to get multigpu its better to get an intel setup over the amd counterparts the sole reason being that they are massively better in terms of IPC and efficiency and they will let you use the full potential of your dual gpu setup where as the bulldozer/Piledriver won't have enough clock per clock and core per core strength for that and will ultimately bottleneck it.
Im still running a 1090t @4.2 GHZ and 3.0 NB and It has been good enough for gaming for me though if I do upgrade I will be looking towards intels offerings
post #15 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulk View Post

Well it totally depends, at lower resolution the cpu comes into play that is why you see the amd processors underperforming at lower res but at higher resolution it becomes more gpu limited anyway, the thing is though that If you are going for a single gpu solution you won't really get bottlenecked by the fx processor unless the only thing you are playing is starcraft II, but if you do decide to get multigpu its better to get an intel setup over the amd counterparts the sole reason being that they are massively better in terms of IPC and efficiency and they will let you use the full potential of your dual gpu setup where as the bulldozer/Piledriver won't have enough clock per clock and core per core strength for that and will ultimately bottleneck it.
Im still running a 1090t @4.2 GHZ and 3.0 NB and It has been good enough for gaming for me though if I do upgrade I will be looking towards intels offerings

You think the 8350 at 5ghz Will really bottleneck a dual GPU setup? i know 8150 had those issues.
post #16 of 258
The FX chips are much more general purpose than the 3570K, which in my opinion is going to be realistically a better cpu for gaming. However, if games continue with the trend of BF3, we're likely to see less of a performance advantage going with the high IPC chips, as they will continue to become more multithreaded.

IPC is somewhat overrated in my opinion. Take a look at a Thuban vs a Vishera. Thuban chips technically have a higher IPC, but get soundly outclassed by Piledriver chips in games. Memory bandwidth and other optimizations tend to get overlooked when it comes to overall performance.
post #17 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aortic View Post

You think the 8350 at 5ghz Will really bottleneck a dual GPU setup? i know 8150 had those issues.

Depends very heavily on the game. I speak from experience, I use 2 6970s and I do know that the 8350 at 5GHz is much better than Zambezi and Thuban in this respect though.
post #18 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0bius View Post

Depends very heavily on the game. I speak from experience, I use 2 6970s and I do know that the 8350 at 5GHz is much better than Zambezi and Thuban in this respect though.

Right now i have a GTX 680, and a GTX 460 as a Physx card. In the future I'd do SLI GTX 680 with the 460 as Physx. Think it'd bottleneck? I havent touched AMD in a long time due to their issues. So its like relearning a lost craft D:
post #19 of 258
2 680s? Yeah, you'd probably bottleneck. But like I said before it depends on the game how badly.
post #20 of 258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0bius View Post

2 680s? Yeah, you'd probably bottleneck. But like I said before it depends on the game how badly.

Eek. I'm just actually happy AMD did better than before. I'm just trying to justify a switch back with others personal experience. I've found very little people with it that actually post/reply besides their overclocks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX-8350 worth it for gaming?