• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD FX 8320's performance in games. Is it that bad?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My FX 9370 is quite happy undervolted. If the VRM's are too hot, he could always try and drop the voltage a notch or two to save a few watts.
 
It's either weak power supply, lack of SSD, or maybe buying a better motherboard with an 8-phase power system.
 
Probably the HD/lack of SSD as already mentioned. I have an FX 8350, and R9 270, and only 6GB RAM and have no problems with spikes in Battlefield 4 or any other games. Running at 1680 x 1050 on Windows 8.1.
 
I agree that it must be the motherboard as the FX really needs a solid one to work well. I'm using a FX 8350 with HD 7850 @ 1080P and no spikes in BF4 either. Ah but I oc'd both and I have a SSD too
 
most games don't load the CPU anything near as much as something like prime95, maybe it's defective or it was designed for 45W CPUs,
 
As many have said, use a fan to cool the VRMs, also disable Turbo and manually OC to 3.8GHz with the lower Voltage possible and disable the VRM PWM in BIOS.

That should take care any Throttling due to VRMs, if that is the problem and not something else.
 
SlowSpyder said:
My FX 9370 is quite happy undervolted. If the VRM's are too hot, he could always try and drop the voltage a notch or two to save a few watts.
Click to expand...

my 8350 is undervolted ( just) while running @ 4600mhz. I cant tell you about games because mine is an esxi server but it does heavy multithread AVX/FMA based workloads everyday.

if it is power delivery maybe see if there is some vdroop settings he can change.
 
I'm using a R9 280 3GB Dual-X with a X4 750k at 1080p and can play most games on High/Ultra without issue.

Something seems wrong here.

Do you have specific examples? Has the driver been reinstalled? That 8320 should run at 4.0-4.2 GHz or so on the stock cooler with no voltage bump
 
davie jambo said:
Yeah it is

About the same level as an i5 2500k
Click to expand...


Not really.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=698 There's some games down @ the bottom.
0nIkCAb.jpg

Note that the SB chip is running 700Mhz lower.With a mild overclock (4.2 or so) It surpasses 8320.

Umm..I would normally suggest overclocking the snot out of the 8320,
However your mobo would probably explode.
There's only a few motherboards I would recommend for AMD:
Sabertooth 99fx,m5a99 series,Ofc Crosshair V (really the only board)
Biostar TA99fxe..I suppose you could try Giga ud5 or better..but..eh.
 
 
Plenty of benchmarks show the i5 2500k much more than 5% faster than an 8350, much less than an 8320 which is clocked slower. It depends on the game, gpu, resolution, etc.
Obviously if you are gpu bottlenecked, the cpu will make little difference, but in most cpu limited games, an i5, even an old one like the 2500k is significantly faster than an 8320.

In any case, it seems like the 8320 should handle the games the op mentioned, although the low resolution would lend to cpu bottlenecking.
 
Just my two cents... I've had an 8320 for quite a while now and still have yet to find it's performance lacking at stock clocks. I've recently played COH2 and Far Cry 3 on it and it does great paired with GTX 770 4GB. I've messed with overclocking it a little bit and was able to get to 4.5Ghz on air cooling, but it ran pretty hot.
 
Folk on the internet always say that AMD cpus are not good , then post some benchmarks. I actually believed it and went from an FX8350 to i7 3770K. Did not notice a huge increase in frames ... in fact it was single digits

Anyway I recently built an i5 pc for a friend and compared it against the FX8350

Thief on i5 was 51.1 (highest settings) and on the FX it was 43.9. That was the biggest difference

Tomb Raider was 63.9 on the i5 and 60 on the FX

Rubbish gaming CPU ? I don't think so
 
davie jambo said:
Folk on the internet always say that AMD cpus are not good , then post some benchmarks. I actually believed it and went from an FX8350 to i7 3770K. Did not notice a huge increase in frames ... in fact it was single digits

Anyway I recently built an i5 pc for a friend and compared it against the FX8350

Thief on i5 was 51.1 (highest settings) and on the FX it was 43.9. That was the biggest difference

Tomb Raider was 63.9 on the i5 and 60 on the FX

Rubbish gaming CPU ? I don't think so
Click to expand...
Remember that people like to exaggerate a lot when it comes to their favorite brand 😉. Best is to test things out yourself and see the real difference if there is any.
 
USER8000 said:
The OP is using an R9 280 at 1366X768.

Both Skyrim and BF3 should be running fine at such a low resolution - the system is overpowered if anything.

What PSU is the OP using??
Click to expand...

If it is hardware related, it has to be the PSU, in fact, I might venture it is a "solid gear" PSU as the specs of the cpu + mobo sound like a tigerdirect combo.

The motherboard, despite being 4 phases, is perfectly fine for the CPU.
What version of catalyst is he using?
Finally, are the issues playing single player or multiplayer?
A R9 295X2 will choke playing minecraft multiplayer if the internet connection is slow. If he is playing using wireless, tell him to get a longer ethernet cable.

To put it simple, there is absolutely no way that system at that resolution should be struggling. That system is perfectly capable of high-very high settings at 1080p. There is something not part of the core system that is causing the issue.


Alex
 
inf64 said:
Remember that people like to exaggerate a lot when it comes to their favorite brand 😉. Best is to test things out yourself and see the real difference if there is any.
Click to expand...

Yeah I actually prefer intel cpus but the boy up there said that FX8320 "is not a good CPU for gaming" Which is complete and utter nonsense
 
ShintaiDK said:
Thats not correct is it:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-15.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
Click to expand...

I don't see any game close to 50% in those links unless you play at 720p - but then again, the 8350 is still fast enough here too.

Gaming is fine for 95% of people on a 8350.

50% of stats are made up on the spot 🙂
 
Anyway, back to the original topic. I just wanted to mention that you can be CPU limited with less than 100% CPU usage, if one thread is maxed out. I suggest downloading something like MSI afterburner to monitor gpu usage. If you are getting slowdowns with less than 90 to 100 percent gpu usage then you are CPU or I/O limited, or something is overheating.

Edit: as ruiz said, I would also think the slowdowns are internet related, except you mentioned skyrim. Are most of the slowdowns during on-line play?
 
Last edited:
thebigbolgna said:
I don't see any game close to 50% in those links unless you play at 720p - but then again, the 8350 is still fast enough here too.

Gaming is fine for 95% of people on a 8350.

50% of stats are made up on the spot 🙂
Click to expand...

If you look at the shogun 2 results in Shintai's first link, the 8350 is getting less than 30 fps ave and less than 20 minimum, and the 8320 is clocked 10% lower still, so I think a CPU bottleneck at least in that game is entirely plausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top