FX 8350 best gaming chip thread

ManofGod

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,888
I have no idea what happened to the thread or user that started the thread. However, I want to say thank you for posting it since I found the links in the thread to be a great read and enjoyable.

The FX 8350 is a fantastic chip and definitely being much better supported. If you do not agree, that is fine but please, leave fanboy crap out of here. (If the thread was just removed because it does not agree with the [H] results, I would be very disgusted with that.) Once again, thank you for the links whoever the OP was. :)
 
It was me, but I might get banned if I'm reading the tea leaves right. You can still find me on other tech site forums - I use anubis44 on virtually all of them.
 
I saw it and wanted to click but it was already gone, used google cache to find it. Thread was removed most likely because its flame bait.
 
I missed it. So what results were linked in it? I'm most likely going to skip this generation and grab the next. But I'm still interested in what a FX-8350 is capable of.
 
That's too bad. You can't have a pro AMD thread without it turning into a flame war and get deleted. The places where we AMD fanboys can congregate are getting few and far between.
 
Just do a search for: Future-proofing your PC for next-gen gaming. It will be in one of the first 2 links that come up. Oh, and overclock.net and xtremesystems.org have a fantastic amd section without the usual flamewars and other crap.
 
psyside said:
Not best, 3750K beats it generally.
Click to expand...

All I can think of to say is things that might get me banned or at least infracted. So, I will just leave it at this: enjoy what you have and I will enjoy what I have. I am guessing a typo since there is no 3750K either.
 
I've owned the whole gamut of current chips, the only one that had a negative impact on my gaming was the FX 8150, on air it was simply not able to hit a clock speed where it could be competitive. The FX 8320 I had later was a huge improvement, and I noticed no difference between gaming on it or my 3930k or any of the Ivy chips I've had. I currently went back to an mATX Ivy build untill Haswell, but its more because I like to change my build all the time more than anything.
 
cageymaru said:
I missed it. So what results were linked in it? I'm most likely going to skip this generation and grab the next. But I'm still interested in what a FX-8350 is capable of.
Click to expand...

Type in "Future-proofing your PC for next-gen gaming" into google. You'll find it there.
 
The only difference I think I'd see between my primary and secondary machines is the GPU, especially at native 1920x1080 resolution.

Oh yeah, by the way MoG, I worked on my 1055T over the weekend and got clocked to 3.5GHz. My overclockings of both my CPU's has been real easy because I simply let the motherboard adjust voltages and what not. The i7 has been rock solid for a couple years, we'll see how the 1055T does. Temps look great. And 3.5GHz is a sweet spot on the chip because I was able to adjust everything else to it's native settings.
 
Last edited:
Link to article. I read it and enjoyed it, but I don't think the 8350 will beat a 3570k @ 5ghz, even in highly multithreaded games. Yeah stock 3570k vs stock 8350 maybe, but OC vs OC no way.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

EDIT: Actually, even OC vs OC I bet the 8350 has the best price/performance ratio by a landslide and will be able to easily feed an HD 7970. There very well may be some truth in this article. On the other hand, the PC games (not console ports) currently on the market are becoming more and more CPU limited (NS2, PS2), so this is really where the Single threaded horsepower of the Ivy Bridge shines.
 
Last edited:
leeleatherwood said:
Link to article. I read it and enjoyed it, but I don't think the 8350 will beat a 3570k @ 5ghz, even in highly multithreaded games. Yeah stock 3570k vs stock 8350 maybe, but OC vs OC no way.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

EDIT: Actually, even OC vs OC I bet the 8350 has the best price/performance ratio by a landslide and will be able to easily feed an HD 7970. There very well may be some truth in this article. On the other hand, the PC games (not console ports) currently on the market are becoming more and more CPU limited (NS2, PS2), so this is really where the Single threaded horsepower of the Ivy Bridge shines.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen that article before. Pretty interesting read. Obviously I'm looking thru AMD fanboy colored glasses but it makes some pretty interesting points. It does seem that FX chips are performing better and better in these latest games. Plus it seems like I went in the exact direction they recommended with FX processor and Nvidia gpu.
 
ManofGod said:
Just do a search for: Future-proofing your PC for next-gen gaming. It will be in one of the first 2 links that come up. Oh, and overclock.net and xtremesystems.org have a fantastic amd section without the usual flamewars and other crap.
Click to expand...

Well I read it and found it very interesting. Now as far as them recommending AMD over Intel as a way to "future proof", there's no way that Intel allows AMD to surpass them that easily. Intel right now is developing their new tech and sitting on their current tech. I doubt that Haswell is going to be revolutionary as their last few generations of chips are designed to be one simply step ahead of AMD. The high end Intel chips are much more powerful that what AMD has currently.

Intel has the ability to price those in the same range as the 3770K is now if they want to. Also I don't see how what they are doing on the PS4 will affect the PC if Direct X is lacking support for the technology. As always it all comes down to the software; not the hardware. It's not like we're going to get the PS4 OS with AMD perks as an option on PC.

I agree about the size of the memory pool on the PS4 and the main reason I refuse to buy a second 7950 until the next generation comes out. I would figure that the average game on a PS4 would use 2GB for the cpu and 6GB for the video card. I think that the shared pool could allow for really high end graphics and reconfiguration on the fly of assets within the game based on system load. PC can do somewhat similar on a smaller scale, but because of varying hardware it's just not worthwhile. So in my opinion the PS4 is going to be "better" than a similarly priced PC for a few years, then we'll brute force past it and dust it for the last few years of it's product cycle. PC hardware will be so much more advanced in 7 years that we'll forget this conversation ever happened.

Very interesting article on Eurogamer. I'll never own a PS4 but it will be interesting to see what my nephews think of it and compare it to their high end PC's.
 
The use of an 8 core AMD chip on what is looking to be the primary AAA development platform (next gen consoles) could make such chips shine better than they currently do as pointed out in the article (how the engine prioritizes threads, and also how SIMD code could be optimized for that type of core). Crysis 3 is mentioned as an existing example of one of the few where the 8c AMD chips beat 4c enthusiast Intel chips.

Those are fair points, but the article reeks of speculation, simplification and how important Crysis 3 type engines are going to be. I'd think more console engines would exploit the available hardware, and by extension how that could filter down with PC ports to possibly benefit AMD 8c chips more than Intel chips.

However, the PC has rendering bottlenecks affecting consoles much less, and it's not clear how even the benefits in some ideal case will play out on the PC in system level game performance. IOW, I think *current* AMD chips will probably look better against *current* Intel chips in some future console ports (and PC developed games of the Crysis 3 engine style) where 8c chips are being more fully exploited. Making claims about how future chips from either company will do competitively with so many platform and core variables is just silly.
 
For most gaming purposes any semi-recent quad or above core CPU from either AMD or Intel is going to be fast enough to not be the bottleneck when looking to reach 60fps in games.

There are a few poorly coded games (and there are fewer and fewer of these as time goes on), that are very CPU intensive on a single thread, that will run better on a high end Intel chip than on a high end AMD chip, but they are the exception more than the rule.

When I last upgraded (from a Phenom II X6 1090T OC:ed to 4.1Ghz) I was going to get a Bulldozer, but BD had just had it's disappointing launch, and one of my favorite games at the time was one of those exceptions that was highly CPU intensive in a single thread, so I opted for Intel this time around.

If it weren't for that one game, I'd probably still be on AMD. I like supporting the under-dog.
 
Well to be honest Crysis 3 is just a tech demo for the latest CryEngine. CryEngine is in MMO's like Aion which still looks better than 99.9% of the other MMO's out there, shooters of course, etc. So I understand the angle where the article is coming from. The problem is that Windows doesn't support that type of swapping of cores that the article is intimating that the PS4 does. It's like Windows 8 is an old country road that they added stop signs to and the PS4 OS that they are lauding in the article is a 8 lane highway with infinite on and off ramps. No software support for hardware is what kills innovations.

Maybe Microsoft and developers will realize it's easier to port code that is multithreaded to an equally multithreaded OS in the future. I'm not going to hold my breath until I see it though.
 
xTrident said:
The only difference I think I'd see between my primary and secondary machines is the GPU, especially at native 1920x1080 resolution.

Oh yeah, by the way MoG, I worked on my 1055T over the weekend and got clocked to 3.5GHz. My overclockings of both my CPU's has been real easy because I simply let the motherboard adjust voltages and what not. The i7 has been rock solid for a couple years, we'll see how the 1055T does. Temps look great. And 3.5GHz is a sweet spot on the chip because I was able to adjust everything else to it's native settings.
Click to expand...

Cool. :D It is always good to hear about overclocking success on any platform.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039819825 said:
For most gaming purposes any semi-recent quad or above core CPU from either AMD or Intel is going to be fast enough to not be the bottleneck when looking to reach 60fps in games.

There are a few poorly coded games (and there are fewer and fewer of these as time goes on), that are very CPU intensive on a single thread, that will run better on a high end Intel chip than on a high end AMD chip, but they are the exception more than the rule.

When I last upgraded (from a Phenom II X6 1090T OC:ed to 4.1Ghz) I was going to get a Bulldozer, but BD had just had it's disappointing launch, and one of my favorite games at the time was one of those exceptions that was highly CPU intensive in a single thread, so I opted for Intel this time around.

If it weren't for that one game, I'd probably still be on AMD. I like supporting the under-dog.
Click to expand...

I came from the exact same experience, i was pre upgraded to the thuban with expectations of grabbing bulldozer. after the poor launch i got in on the 2600k deal at microcenter and invested that route. I'm probably going to pick up an 8350 to play with on my previous am3+ board though. I do prefer going amd when i can.
 
leeleatherwood said:
Link to article. I read it and enjoyed it, but I don't think the 8350 will beat a 3570k @ 5ghz, even in highly multithreaded games. Yeah stock 3570k vs stock 8350 maybe, but OC vs OC no way.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

EDIT: Actually, even OC vs OC I bet the 8350 has the best price/performance ratio by a landslide and will be able to easily feed an HD 7970. There very well may be some truth in this article. On the other hand, the PC games (not console ports) currently on the market are becoming more and more CPU limited (NS2, PS2), so this is really where the Single threaded horsepower of the Ivy Bridge shines.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the clock for clock multithreaded performance of the 8-core Piledriver chips is between that of the 3570k and 3770k, and at times matching the 3770k depending on the type of workload.
 
Manaknight said:
I came from the exact same experience, i was pre upgraded to the thuban with expectations of grabbing bulldozer. after the poor launch i got in on the 2600k deal at microcenter and invested that route. I'm probably going to pick up an 8350 to play with on my previous am3+ board though. I do prefer going amd when i can.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did. I got tired of waiting for BD, so immediately when the 990FX motherboards came out I jumped on one, and picked up a Thuban to hold me over.

Never wound up getting a bulldozer for my desktop due to the early reviews, but much later I picked one up for my ESXi server, which has been a very good match.
 
Tsumi said:
If I recall correctly, the clock for clock multithreaded performance of the 8-core Piledriver chips is between that of the 3570k and 3770k, and at times matching the 3770k depending on the type of workload.
Click to expand...

I understand, but would you rather have a CPU that works well with older, modern, and future games or a cpu that works well with only future games?

I am not saying the 8350 doesn't work well with modern games, but the Intel's just perform better 99.99999999% of the time. I cringe at the idea of playing Planetside 2 or Natural Selection 2 on an 8350.

With that being said, I plan to get a Steamroller when they are released anyways because I support AMD.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039820425 said:
That's exactly what I did. I got tired of waiting for BD, so immediately when the 990FX motherboards came out I jumped on one, and picked up a Thuban to hold me over.
Click to expand...

Same, except I already had a Phenom II X4 to "hold me over". I am going to get steamroller whether it is a flop or not.
 
ManofGod said:
The FX 8350 is a fantastic chip and definitely being much better supported. If you do not agree, that is fine but please, leave fanboy crap out of here.
Click to expand...

I have noticed that Intel fanboys troll this AMD forum and post a smackdown on anything posted that constructive about AMD.
I posted a thread a few months back concerning poor transcoding performance for my FX-8120. (turned out to be systems settings)
Got a bunch of posts in the vain of "AMD is junk, deal with it". :rolleyes:
 
Dr. Righteous said:
I have noticed that Intel fanboys troll this AMD forum and post a smackdown on anything posted that constructive about AMD.
I posted a thread a few months back concerning poor transcoding performance for my FX-8120. (turned out to be systems settings)
Got a bunch of posts in the vain of "AMD is junk, deal with it". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I do remember that thread now, I am just glad the problem got resolved. Honestly, at the risk of getting in trouble, trolling around here seems to be much easier to get away with then it used to be.
 
Im most interested in the fact that both PS4 and next xbox will be based on AMD tech. So that means games should start to become more tuned for AMD hardware since alot of games are console ports.
 
I've owned both Intel and AMD over the years. They seems to cycle back and forth as to who is best/better are different thing. As for who is best, well, used to depend on when you looked. Seems AMD fell behind a few years back and has had a hard time getting ahead.. just running with or just a nose back of Intel.. and the problem is being "as good as" once you've been behind isn't enough to convince people it really is.. even when it's best price/performance CPU.

Perception is everything and right now Intel is perceived as best. We see this in fans, coolers, ram, etc. Most buyer's really don't know much and go on what they read on forums.. and too many of the most prolific posters don't know what they are talking about but are believed.

Wife and inlaws are all AMD while my side are a mix of AMD, Intel & Apple. I'm on old gear with i7 920 & 980 which is lucky because both are still good performers. Biggest drawback is no new support. Before the i7 920 I had Athlon II X4 620 @ 3.5GHz. Great system in it's day. I hope AMD gets back on top and forces Intel to lower prices. :D
 
LiquidXEN0N said:
Im most interested in the fact that both PS4 and next xbox will be based on AMD tech. So that means games should start to become more tuned for AMD hardware since alot of games are console ports.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't see this making much of a difference. The only effect I can see is that games will be more multithreaded, but the 3770k's multithreaded performance is either equivalent to or higher than the 8350.

The only way it can make a difference is if there's a HSA library that is easily ported between the consoles and PCs.
 
Tsumi said:
To be honest, I don't see this making much of a difference. The only effect I can see is that games will be more multithreaded, but the 3770k's multithreaded performance is either equivalent to or higher than the 8350.
Click to expand...

I would expect a lot of users to be quite happy to match the performance of an i7 3770k considering the price difference between the two chips.
 
ManofGod said:
All I can think of to say is things that might get me banned or at least infracted. So, I will just leave it at this: enjoy what you have and I will enjoy what I have. I am guessing a typo since there is no 3750K either.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, i didn't even read the first post, my bad.
 
drescherjm said:
I would expect a lot of users to be quite happy to match the performance of an i7 3770k considering the price difference between the two chips.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for the price it is a good chip.

The problem with the many cores, but lower performance per core design that AMD has is that not everything scales with multiple cores, but EVERYTHING scales with faster cores.

So you wind up with a chip that can tie a 3770k in multithreaded code where it does the best, but in all other circumstances falls a little short of the mark.

Multithreading is certainly good for a multitasking desktop environment, but not necessarily for games. Some games exist that multithread well, but the truth is that the underpinnings for many modern games are still in legacy coded engines.

Maybe the software landscape will change over time, but as it stands today a typical user who wants to perform a mix of tasks, including games, is still going to be much better served with a fewer core CPU where each core is faster, than a many core CPU where each core is slower.

That's not to say that the many core approach doesn't have its uses. It's a great rendering/encoding platform, and my FX-8120 is fucking brilliant in my VMWare server. You can't get anything from Intel that does as well for virtualization, with it's may cores and IOMMU support for anywhere near the $200 I paid at Microenter for an FX-8120+Gigabyte GA990FXA-UD3 motherboard.

Unfortunately for AMD, I'm in a rather extreme minority that has a virtualization server in my house.
 
why do these threads exist? best this and best that, fuck it. you bought a chip who fucking cares why?
 
gigatexal said:
why do these threads exist? best this and best that, fuck it. you bought a chip who fucking cares why?
Click to expand...

If you read the thread there is an article where they discuss what AMD console based ports to the PC would do for the adoption of multithreaded gaming. If gaming software becomes greatly multithreaded like Crysis 3 is then AMD could possibly have an advantage over Intel. It wasn't made to start an argument. Just some speculation for fun.
 
xTrident said:
Except when an Intel "fanboi" comes in and says Intel is better in some way that's not okay.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between fanboyism and pointing out the truth. And truth is, the 8350's multithreaded performance is only on par with the 3770k, and falls way behind in single threaded performance.
 
Tsumi said:
There's a difference between fanboyism and pointing out the truth. And truth is, the 8350's multithreaded performance is only on par with the 3770k, and falls way behind in single threaded performance.
Click to expand...

Pointing out the truth can unfortunately come off as being a fanboy though. That's my problem when I saw someone mention this being a forum for discussion...
 
xTrident said:
Pointing out the truth can unfortunately come off as being a fanboy though. That's my problem when I saw someone mention this being a forum for discussion...
Click to expand...

The typical fanboy would just say AMD sucks at everything and leave it at that ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top