Performance gain of a 8350 over a AMD FX-9590?

M

Mak54291

Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
583
I'm looking for a greater loading time in games.

Also, how good it can be overclock with watercooling?
 
Yea sorry. I have.

And if I have ssd. It's all about waiting for better ssd if I understand well?
 
9590 is slightly faster. But your wording implies you're asking if you should get the 8350?
 
teh_chem said:
9590 is slightly faster. But your wording implies you're asking if you should get the 8350?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing...

They're the exact same chip, the 9xxx series are effectively factory overclocks. I don't know if overclocking the 8xxx chips has gotten more difficult since the 9xxx chips were introduced, but even my older FX-8120 could do 4.6 GHz at 1.45v. I haven't seen an 8320 that couldn't do the same. I normally ran my 8320 at 4.8 GHz/1.45v when it was my main desktop chip.

If you already have one or the other I wouldn't bother upgrading anyway. I went from the FX-8320 to my current i7 4930k setup. The only game where I've noticed any real difference is Kerbal Space Program. The i7 can handle higher part counts before it gets laggy, but the performance improvement definitely isn't worth the price over the 8320. CPU's just aren't the bottleneck right now.
 
A slight clock speed increase won't change loading times by much if at all.
Gaming performance won't change much either.
Those 9 series cpus are already essentially factory overclocked 8350 cpus so you won't be able to overclock one much.

Here are some reviews for reference. These are gaming performance pages. Note the small overall difference between the 9 series and the 8350.

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/513...et-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-high

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_5.html#sect0

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html
 
If you want to speed up that 8350 for gaming shut down tw cores and bump the clock speed. That would be the easiest solution. I have a 9370 and an 8350. They are essentially the same CPU. My 8350 though is a bit of a dog and needs 1.476v for 4.64G. The 9370 on the other hand is a nice CPU runs 4.8 with 1.428v P95 stable and I've hit 6.0 with cold water. BUT and this is a biggie. I have seen a few 9xxx CPUs that weren't that easy to clock. They would run stock but they're hot as H**l and some even got fed up and returned them. You'll be playing the same lottery as you did buying the 8350 IMO. Some are good and some ... well they do what they were sold to do.
 
I also suggest if you want an upgrade get the i5.. I upgraded from a Phenom II x2 b555( i guess any upgrade from this makes a difference) And its a huge difference. I like the i5 and it is great for my gaming needs. As for video editing... I don't do none of that so doesnt matter to me.
 
You are not going to notice any difference in game loading times with an i5 or a new fx cpu. Some people are stupid. Sorry...I should say post incorrect shit.
 
If you want loading performance, then get a better storage solution. Most modern processors are capped in load speed because of the hard disk.

This means SSD's as well.

Something like the Mushkin scorpion deluxe pci-e SSD's will get that next level of performance for you. There are a few other options around at this time but none as good as the Mushkin card right now in terms of price/performance.

The changes from a 8350 to a 9590, stock performance is different, which favors the 9590 by around 19% in single thread and 17% in mutithread. It is all based on clock speed.

Overclocked, they are the same. Expect the 9590 to be higher binned. (it won't be a dud as it will be able to do 5ghz) Vs the 8350 which with proper cooling and good board usually doesn't have a problem hitting 5ghz.

I have a 8320 and I can bench at 5.2ghz. Some others on here with phase change are running higher there is a thread about it.
 
Ill say the obvious just in case..

if you have a ssd and a hard drive the games have to be on the ssd to gain the speed.

So if you have an ssd now and expect better loading speed you won't really get it.
 
SSD will go a long way here. Depending on amount ram that can also make a difference.
The problem is that the cpu upgrade is hardly worth it unless you run certain things (not games).
 
Why are we still talking about CPUs at this point?

What data speed is your current SSD pushing in MBps?

Hate to think you have it plugged in a SATA2 port...
 
JHefile said:
Ill say the obvious just in case..

if you have a ssd and a hard drive the games have to be on the ssd to gain the speed.

So if you have an ssd now and expect better loading speed you won't really get it.
Click to expand...

While I LOVE SSDs and could never go back to a regular spinning drive for my main OS and programs, SSDs do not have the performance boost you think they do once the game is loaded. IF you have enough ram to keep the game from thrashing due to caching, there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. Anandtech did a nice piece about it a while back.
 
ccityinstaller said:
While I LOVE SSDs and could never go back to a regular spinning drive for my main OS and programs, SSDs do not have the performance boost you think they do once the game is loaded. IF you have enough ram to keep the game from thrashing due to caching, there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. Anandtech did a nice piece about it a while back.
Click to expand...

OP specifically asked about loading times.

@OP - how about a full list of system specs.
 
ccityinstaller said:
While I LOVE SSDs and could never go back to a regular spinning drive for my main OS and programs, SSDs do not have the performance boost you think they do once the game is loaded. IF you have enough ram to keep the game from thrashing due to caching, there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. Anandtech did a nice piece about it a while back.
Click to expand...

Actually I was saying ssd is great for loading and i know once in game it don't do much unless another load map comes up.
 
Loading files doesn't invoke much CPU power at all, even if the files are compressed or encrypted. I haven't seen consumer level software with files so heavily compressed or encrypted that it made even the slightest difference. I also haven't seen a CPU so slow to affect loading times in more than a decade, even then it was dealing with the overhead of a particular RAID setup.

As everyone else said, if you want better load times upgrade your hard drive setup not your CPU.
 
Overclocking helps overall performance but you won't notice it as much as an ssd drive. Watercooling over air overlooking just allows you to push your processor harder, but it either way it stills depends on your ambient temperature. What games are you experiencing slow load times?
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Loading files doesn't invoke much CPU power at all, even if the files are compressed or encrypted. I haven't seen consumer level software with files so heavily compressed or encrypted that it made even the slightest difference. I also haven't seen a CPU so slow to affect loading times in more than a decade, even then it was dealing with the overhead of a particular RAID setup.

As everyone else said, if you want better load times upgrade your hard drive setup not your CPU.
Click to expand...

itsukisama said:
Overclocking helps overall performance but you won't notice it as much as an ssd drive. Watercooling over air overlooking just allows you to push your processor harder, but it either way it stills depends on your ambient temperature. What games are you experiencing slow load times?
Click to expand...


Seems both of you need to learn how to read, not so much with captnumb as he used vague terms by saying to upgrade your hard-drive setup. The OP said he has an SSD.

Only real way to improve loading speeds is either a better SSD or a PCI-E based drive, preferably the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top