AMD FX-8350 TODAY AT TD $169.99

Status
Not open for further replies.

wtourist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
1,045
DONE/OVER //////Tiger Direct Daily Deal today $169.99 after coupon code TDU100708. Surprised no one has posted this. Limit 2.
 
Last edited:

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
It's a good CPU, I found it comparable to the 2600k when gaming at realistic resolutions (native), not the rubbish resolutions that most sites review it at. And with the next consoles being based on 8-Core AMD CPUs, you we may start seeing more games optimized for 8-cores. Wouldn't be out of the question for a game ported from next-gen console that utilizes 8-Cores to actually run better on the 8350 than my 3770k. This is a solid deal.
 

kuhla

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
472
It's a good CPU, I found it comparable to the 2600k when gaming at realistic resolutions (native), not the rubbish resolutions that most sites review it at.

They test CPUs in games at low resolutions to really highlight the cpu limitation. If they test at the resolutions people play at, they will probably be GPU limited which doesn't tell us much about how the cpu really performs.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
It's a good CPU, I found it comparable to the 2600k when gaming at realistic resolutions (native), not the rubbish resolutions that most sites review it at. And with the next consoles being based on 8-Core AMD CPUs, you we may start seeing more games optimized for 8-cores. Wouldn't be out of the question for a game ported from next-gen console that utilizes 8-Cores to actually run better on the 8350 than my 3770k. This is a solid deal.
please not this again. if you test at completely gpu limited resolutions and usa max AA then you will have no idea how your pc will perform when you upgrade your gpu or want to lower settings to keep the frame rate. in other words if all a cpu can produce is 60 fps average and you want to upgrade your gpu then you still end up with 60 fps average and accomplish nothing. the 2600k and even 2500k are the better overall gaming cpus and will keep up better with the fastest gpus now and when you upgrade. if building from scratch then spending just a little more on Haswell makes much more sense then going with 8350.
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
please not this again. if you test at completely gpu limited resolutions and usa max AA then you will have no idea how your pc will perform when you upgrade your gpu or want to lower settings to keep the frame rate. in other words if all a cpu can produce is 60 fps average and you want to upgrade your gpu then you still end up with 60 fps average and accomplish nothing. the 2600k and even 2500k are the better overall gaming cpus and will keep up better with the fastest gpus now and when you upgrade. if building from scratch then spending just a little more on Haswell makes much more sense then going with 8350.

Benchmarks aside Cannondale06, have you ever, PERSONALLY, used an 8320/50 system for gaming? I have always been an avid AMD fan, but buy what is the best performer based on the "benchmarks" the tech scene gives us...

If you look at my system below, you will see I am running a 3770K @ 4.8Ghz..It's a stupid fast cpu, and I love every bit of it..One of my best friends built an 8320 system with a decent 990FX board that came out to be ~$180 less then my 3770K combo (both were purchased @ MicroCenter)..We did a full WC loop and clocked the 8350 to 4.8Ghz as well..

The result with the same gpu installed? Identical from a "seat of the pants" experience in BF3 and MW2 (only two games we had time to put any time into)..On paper, my 3770K should be quite a bit faster in most applications and games..But sitting down, IN FRONT, of the system, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was AMD powered and which was Intel powered...Let's not forget that the combo was $180 less, which paid for the completely custom WC loop and allowed for a better GPU then if he had went the Intel route..

Since I know you love to argue your points like a rabid animal, lets look at some pricing:

Looking at MC's current pricing, the cheapest AMD 8350 and good 990FX MB combo is $257, or you could get the same MB with the nearly identical O/C'ing 8320 for 227!..The cheapest 4770K system with a decent board (which is the cheapest ASRock board) is $384.. That is $127 ($157 for the 8320 combo) you would be "spending a little more on"..

That $127/57 would pay for a nice 120GB+ SSD, a name brand Full Tower case with great air cooling, a high end AIO WC unit, or 65-85% of a nice AMD 7950 GPU (after MIR)...

So tell me again how much GREATER it would be to spend more money on a hot, poorly O/C'ing Mobile CPU in a desktop package??:confused:
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
the 4670k is what I was referring to which is 100 bucks cheaper. and no way would I build an 8350 over a 4670k. the 4670k is faster and sips power compared to the 8350. oc both and the 4670k pulls even farther head while power usage for the 8350 goes through the roof in comparison. then next year when you want a faster gpu that 4670k is going to handle it better. and please not the future games will use more cores excuse. we heard that with the Phenom X6 cpus and they got left in the dust with newer games. so bottom line is yeah the 8350 is a good cpu especially for the money but would not be my choice if building a gaming pc from scratch. I would grab one in a heartbeat if I had a compatible mobo and just wanted a cpu upgrade though.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,056
Does this cpu have a lower fps floor as opposed to 2500k+?
 

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
Benchmarks aside Cannondale06, have you ever, PERSONALLY, used an 8320/50 system for gaming? I have always been an avid AMD fan, but buy what is the best performer based on the "benchmarks" the tech scene gives us...

If you look at my system below, you will see I am running a 3770K @ 4.8Ghz..It's a stupid fast cpu, and I love every bit of it..One of my best friends built an 8320 system with a decent 990FX board that came out to be ~$180 less then my 3770K combo (both were purchased @ MicroCenter)..We did a full WC loop and clocked the 8350 to 4.8Ghz as well..

The result with the same gpu installed? Identical from a "seat of the pants" experience in BF3 and MW2 (only two games we had time to put any time into)..On paper, my 3770K should be quite a bit faster in most applications and games..But sitting down, IN FRONT, of the system, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was AMD powered and which was Intel powered...Let's not forget that the combo was $180 less, which paid for the completely custom WC loop and allowed for a better GPU then if he had went the Intel route..

Since I know you love to argue your points like a rabid animal, lets look at some pricing:

Looking at MC's current pricing, the cheapest AMD 8350 and good 990FX MB combo is $257, or you could get the same MB with the nearly identical O/C'ing 8320 for 227!..The cheapest 4770K system with a decent board (which is the cheapest ASRock board) is $384.. That is $127 ($157 for the 8320 combo) you would be "spending a little more on"..

That $127/57 would pay for a nice 120GB+ SSD, a name brand Full Tower case with great air cooling, a high end AIO WC unit, or 65-85% of a nice AMD 7950 GPU (after MIR)...

So tell me again how much GREATER it would be to spend more money on a hot, poorly O/C'ing Mobile CPU in a desktop package??:confused:

+1

I can tell you from experience myself, just check out my sig. With identical videocards I don't notice a difference between the 2600k and 8350, when I play games at realistic resolutions. I'm not a fanboi so reviews that review gaming CPUs and gaming GPUs at low resolutions is frankly insulting. I game at high res, if I want to test actual CPU performance then run CPU based tests like Handbrake, and again I found the 8350 and 2600k run close in that.
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
First, I would like to say this has been a nice civil conversation/debate..It would be impossible for this to happen in the AMD sub-forum sadly, and it only hurts the many less informed members that come here for help and only see endless flaming from fan boy's on both sides...I do want to address some points you made in the hope of being able to link to this in the above mentioned forum in hopes of helping some that need help considering their options...

the 4670k is what I was referring to which is 100 bucks cheaper. and no way would I build an 8350 over a 4670k. the 4670k is faster and sips power compared to the 8350. oc both and the 4670k pulls even farther head while power usage for the 8350 goes through the roof in comparison. then next year when you want a faster gpu that 4670k is going to handle it better. and please not the future games will use more cores excuse. we heard that with the Phenom X6 cpus and they got left in the dust with newer games. so bottom line is yeah the 8350 is a good cpu especially for the money but would not be my choice if building a gaming pc from scratch. I would grab one in a heartbeat if I had a compatible mobo and just wanted a cpu upgrade though.

You never mentioned a 4670K. First you claimed a 2500K/2600K were the "best"overall gaming CPU's, which is quite a reach..Again, anyone that has used both would be very, very satisfied with the 8320/50, especially in simple gaming rigs with a single decent gaming card..Hell many love the 6350 hex cores, since they are cheaper, and seem to be stupidly easy to o/c to 5Ghz!

You then said Haswell, and since we are comparing an 8 core AMD CPU, it only seemed proper to compare it against it's 8 core Intel counter part, which would be a 2600/3770/4770K..The 4607K can fall well behind in a number of games/apps due to only have 4 cores, a gulf that is only going to grow, not SHRINK..Even Intel points toward this with their planned release of an 8 core Haswell SKU next year no?


As far as power usage, Haswell wins there sure, but it is an insanely hot running CPU that can only be fixed by de-lidding if you want any sort of "decent" O/C while using the instruction sets Intel touted as such a great feature. Most O/Cer's do not care about power useage, or they wouldn't be cranking the speeds up in the first place. You can also enable power saving modes on the AMD chips just as easily as an Intel.

we heard that with the Phenom X6 cpus and they got left in the dust with newer games

I ran both a 1055T @ 4.3Ghz and an Intel Xeon (32nm) QC w/HT @ 4.25Ghz, and the X6 was a wonderful CPU..It could hang with the Intel just fine, especially when the NB was clocked where it should be..In fact it was completing some very intensive WU's in F@H that were designed to only be run on an 8 core or higher CPU..I would call that excellent, far from being "left in the dust"..I also gamed on it without any issues at all. I thought it was a wonderful CPU, considering the age of the PII micro arch, and the TDP constanits AMD had to work within..Classic example of doing way more with way less R&D dollars..

I can tell you from experience myself, just check out my sig. With identical videocards I don't notice a difference between the 2600k and 8350, when I play games at realistic resolutions. I'm not a fanboi so reviews that review gaming CPUs and gaming GPUs at low resolutions is frankly insulting. I game at high res, if I want to test actual CPU performance then run CPU based tests like Handbrake, and again I found the 8350 and 2600k run close in that.

Yea, many that have ACTUALLY USED an 8320/8350 system are very, very happy with their performance, and their cost..Plus some of these newer 8320s have no problem pushing 4.8-5Ghz+..Where do you think the 9XXX series came from after all?:p

I would love to see a solid 8, or even 6 (if clocked highly) Steamroller based CPU/APU on the new FM2+ with all the modern bells and whistles..I think AMD has some big things in store for them over the next 5 years, and we could very easily see the company surpass the Athlon63/X2 days of performance (the company as a whole: CPU/APU, GPU lines, new Mobile CPUs both ARM/X86 etc)..

Does this cpu have a lower fps floor as opposed to 2500k+?

Unless you are playing some old ass, poorly coded DirectX 9 game (even then you should have AMPLE power on tap), then no..Once O/C'd to the same speeds, I would take the extra 4 cores going forward..No matter how "some" may attempt to dice it, the moar cores the better is going to be trend over the next few years..If not you would have seen 2-3 highly clocked cores in the new APUs instead of 8 slower, more efficient cores..
 

Citizen86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
4,572
You then said Haswell, and since we are comparing an 8 core AMD CPU, it only seemed proper to compare it against it's 8 core Intel counter part, which would be a 2600/3770/4770K..The 4607K can fall well behind in a number of games/apps due to only have 4 cores, a gulf that is only going to grow, not SHRINK..Even Intel points toward this with their planned release of an 8 core Haswell SKU next year no?

You mean Intel 8-thread CPU's, right? The 2600/3770/4770 are all still 4-core CPU's that are hyperthreaded.
 

SonDa5

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
7,430
Looks like a decent cpu if you think the 8 core processing is going to be important in the immediate future.... but seems like 3570k/ 4670k would ibe better value/performance out of the box providing you can find a Z87 motherboard that works.





In general the Intel motherbaords are better built with more features and have PCI-E 3.0 with at least one PCE-E slot.


Also for memory over clocking Intel is much faster.
 
Last edited:

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Unless you are playing some old ass, poorly coded DirectX 9 game (even then you should have AMPLE power on tap), then no..Once O/C'd to the same speeds, I would take the extra 4 cores going forward..No matter how "some" may attempt to dice it, the moar cores the better is going to be trend over the next few years..If not you would have seen 2-3 highly clocked cores in the new APUs instead of 8 slower, more efficient cores..

maybe you have not checked out newer game cpu reviews because the 8350 is not getting any better looking for the most part. and the apus are looking quite pitiful compared to 2 cores from Intel.

also you can claim whether you want about your old Phenom X6 cpu but that does change facts. it fell further and further behind Intel quads even in games that used more than 4 cores.
 

InternationalHat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
1,481
FX 6/8 core + ECC + 990fx board with IOMMU = good.

The alternative is trying to find a reasonably priced E3 xeon ($250ish for 4core/8t and recent architecture) and motherboard that supports ECC ($200+? from supermicro)

That's $450 easy vs $120(6 core) or $160(8 core) + $185 (sabertooth 990fx). $340 or $305 total

Sure with Intel you're getting a processor that uses a less power, but in overall system terms I'm not sure how much that amounts to, especially if you're packing it with drives.


I like comparing them to the Xeons, as the i5/i7's don't support ECC and the K-series don't have VT-d support. I don't think it's particularly a comparison if you're doing virtualization work. The K-series chips just shouldn't really be in consideration.
 

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
maybe you have not checked out newer game cpu reviews because the 8350 is not getting any better looking for the most part. and the apus are looking quite pitiful compared to 2 cores from Intel.

also you can claim whether you want about your old Phenom X6 cpu but that does change facts. it fell further and further behind Intel quads even in games that used more than 4 cores.

Did you experience gaming on the 8350 personally? Because I could tell you from personal experience that when I moved my Radeon 7930 to my 8350 machine for CFX and play Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light at max settings, it looks just as pretty and smooth as my GTX670 in SLI on my 3770k. At the price posted here for the 8350 ($170 at the time) I would have no problem recommending it over almost any i5/i7.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Did you experience gaming on the 8350 personally? Because I could tell you from personal experience that when I moved my Radeon 7930 to my 8350 machine for CFX and play Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light at max settings, it looks just as pretty and smooth as my GTX670 in SLI on my 3770k. At the price posted here for the 8350 ($170 at the time) I would have no problem recommending it over almost any i5/i7.
no but it is inferior to the i5 in overall gaming. there are even a couple of games where it cant even maintain 60fps which I think is unacceptable. for the most part though there will be no difference in playable performance if 60 fps is all that someone needs.
 

Shark974

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
378
please not this again. if you test at completely gpu limited resolutions and usa max AA then you will have no idea how your pc will perform when you upgrade your gpu or want to lower settings to keep the frame rate. in other words if all a cpu can produce is 60 fps average and you want to upgrade your gpu then you still end up with 60 fps average and accomplish nothing. the 2600k and even 2500k are the better overall gaming cpus and will keep up better with the fastest gpus now and when you upgrade. if building from scratch then spending just a little more on Haswell makes much more sense then going with 8350.

This is bull because people dont game at 720P. They just dont.

Hardware Canucks has loads of 720P benches where Intel wins by huge margins, so? I game at 1080P. I want to see benches at 1080P (where it's much closer).

Also, the load on the CPU actually changes at 1080P. It isn't just a case of perfect scaling or something.

Also, the new consoles are coming in with 8 core CPU's and I'm pretty sure basically 90% of games over the next 7 years are going to be well optimized for 6-8 cores which could play in AMD's favor, as far as saying 2500K will be better in the future...

Not even to mention, "future" games tend to be MORE GPU limited as time goes on, not LESS.

Finally there's price. Usually the decent low end Intel quad cores like the 4670 run $230, where you can usually find the 8350 on sale for $180, or 8320 for $145. Plus AMD mobo's are cheaper. It's apples and oranges. I'd probably still go 4670, but it's a factor that needs considering.

Think FX 6350 is crap for gaming? Great, but it still smokes an i3 3225 even at gaming (which is AMD's worst area) and they are about the same price. So guess what, the AMD is better there.
 

Shark974

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
378
Did you experience gaming on the 8350 personally? Because I could tell you from personal experience that when I moved my Radeon 7930 to my 8350 machine for CFX and play Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light at max settings, it looks just as pretty and smooth as my GTX670 in SLI on my 3770k. At the price posted here for the 8350 ($170 at the time) I would have no problem recommending it over almost any i5/i7.

Yup. That's because in almost every game the 8350 is enough for 70-100 FPS which is basically more than you ever need anyway. Personally I turn eye candy to max with 30 FPS as my acceptable FPS. Some people like 60 FPs obviously.

Heres some 8350 average FPS at 1080P/generally highest-ish settings at Hardware Canucks:

Dues Ex HR: 99
Dirt 3: 107
Elder Scrolls Skyrim: 55 (one of the only games where Intel actually holds what I'd call a relevant lead, but also just a terribly optimized game for AMD (x87 instructions) and a real outlier, and 55 FPS still is not bad/playable)
Streetfighter IV: 225
Torchlight 2: 109


I dunno they used some oddball/weird games but you get the idea.


As for this actual deal, TD charges tax for me, kills it since 8350 is on sale for 180 (without tax) at newegg all the time.
 
Last edited:

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Yup. That's because in almost every game the 8350 is enough for 70-100 FPS which is basically more than you ever need anyway. Personally I turn eye candy to max with 30 FPS as my acceptable FPS. Some people like 60 FPs obviously.

Cant believe cannondale is still at it after all these years. Like it's a job.

As for this actual deal, TD charges tax for me, kills it since 8350 is on sale for 180 (without tax) at newegg all the time.
at what? facts are facts so fucking deal with it. make up whatever excuse you want to buy the 8350 and that does not change anything I said or can be shown in benchmarks. and I like how you skip right over the parts where I said for the most part there will be no difference when actually playing. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top