Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
On the other hand they keep missing some data entries in some charts. Is counting all the entries for a chart that hard? The software used for the charts even resize the images and it's like "hey, look, I messed up something here".
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
20,839
3,174
126
note none of the intel processors look overclocked.

Another note... all of the gpu's tested scale with processors overclocked to 4ghz higher.

Last note... while i think AMD is a great value, i am personally more set on building an intel machine if your budget allows for that, and your not afraid to get dirty in the bios.
 

Rvenger

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
Apr 6, 2004
6,283
5
81
This proves that the FX Piledriver chips are not a big fail like others make them out to be. Power consumption is the biggest issue more than anything IMO.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
http://anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p


Really impressed with how the FX-8350 performed in this article. From a cost and performance standpoint I think it would be really hard to not recommend AMD for a decent gaming rig.


Sorry, but what are you impressed by? The only place it is tied with intel is in GPU limited benchmarks. I suppose you could say it is "good enough" and 100.00 cheaper, but it also uses a lot more power.

The price competitive 3570k was not tested, but based on the 2500K I would say it would beat the 8350 in almost every gaming benchmark as well, and the small initial cost savings of the 8350 would be eliminated over time by the increased power usage.

For sure if you are going multiple GPU, the 3770 is the cpu of choice. If you are spending big bucks for a multiple gpu rig, doesnt make sense to try to save a hundred dollars on a cpu that will bottleneck your gpus.
 

UNhooked

Golden Member
Jan 21, 2004
1,538
3
81
Sorry, but what are you impressed by? The only place it is tied with intel is in GPU limited benchmarks. I suppose you could say it is "good enough" and 100.00 cheaper, but it also uses a lot more power.

The price competitive 3570k was not tested, but based on the 2500K I would say it would beat the 8350 in almost every gaming benchmark as well, and the small initial cost savings of the 8350 would be eliminated over time by the increased power usage.

For sure if you are going multiple GPU, the 3770 is the cpu of choice. If you are spending big bucks for a multiple gpu rig, doesnt make sense to try to save a hundred dollars on a cpu that will bottleneck your gpus.
Impressed by the fact that being an underrated cpu it still comes within -5fps of the big dog cpus. I never expected it to beat intel but coming that close for cpu which costs significantly less wasn't expected.

As per power savings I think it's a moot point if you looking at building a multi gpu build.
 

Pheesh

Member
May 31, 2012
138
0
0
I would try and find benchmarks that included minimum fps in their testing before making a decision. Average FPS doesn't tell you the whole picture and I've seen a few other benchmarks showing lower minimum fps by the 8350 relative to the average.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,691
136
Really impressed with how the FX-8350 performed in this article. From a cost and performance standpoint I think it would be really hard to not recommend AMD for a decent gaming rig.

What I'm really surprised, not to say chocked by, is just how well the G465 holds up. I have one myself, and I would not even remotely have thought it capable of gaming AT ALL... o_O... :eek:... :whiste:...

Perhaps I should pair it with my 7870 and see what its capable of... :p
 

sequoia464

Senior member
Feb 12, 2003
870
0
71
In that the author seemed OK with the A8 which is basically a 4 core FX - I'm just curious about chipsets.

In the comment section the author (Ian) referred to the newer FM2 chipset that the A8 runs on - how much does the AM3+ hinder the FX processors, if at all?

Anyone have any insight on this?
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,685
3,957
136
This proves that the FX Piledriver chips are not a big fail like others make them out to be. Power consumption is the biggest issue more than anything IMO.
Performance wise it's very competitive. Power draw might be an issue for some people tho.

People have to understand that game developers are following couple of trends: game engines are becoming well multithreaded(4 or more threads), game engines are shader bound for the most part as devs push the visual aspect (especially now that we have solid x86 CPU/ GCN GPU combo in next gen consoles) and last but not least engines will become HSA aware as devs will be able to harness GPU processing for Physics calculations more as we move into the future. This practically means that FX8350 is basically future proof for games in next couple of years. Similar is true for any mid range+ (so i5 2400+/FX6200+) CPU out there.
 

jaqie

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2008
2,472
1
0
/me gloats in her own small way.
around two years ago I built my system anew - I got a gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 motherboard and a zosma black edition unlocked to thuban x6, oced to 3.5GHz and running ddr3 at 1600 9-9-9-24. The cpu section of this shows exactly what I researched through at the time (by looking at the x6 1100t) for the $125 I spent on the cpu new retail I got one hell of a performer, especially in FP ops.

I wanted (and needed) the most raw processing power I could get for the money on a very low budget build, and to this day it still holds it's own and then some, especially considering it's price. It even bests the piledriver '8 core' (which I consider 4 fullcore plus 4 halfcore) in some tests at stock speeds. My choice of motherboard also appears to have been just as good seeing as it is tri SLI approved and tri crossfire approved, and does it in x16 x8 x8 mode... I can extend the gaming life of this box with just dropping in some new video cards.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
finally a fellow who understands how I feel
Simple fun gaming can be had on a low resolution, limited detail system for not much money &#8211; for example at a recent LAN I went to I enjoyed 3-4 hours of TF2 fun on my AMD netbook with integrated HD3210 graphics, even though I had to install the ultra-low resolution texture pack and mods to get 30+ FPS. But I had a great time, and thus the beauty of high definition graphics of the bigger systems might not be of concern as long as the frame rates are good.
that an e-350/300/240 apu and hes enjoying it on a netbook, the best formfactor for laptops evar!!!
 

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,851
2,018
136
Gaming tests are only relevant to those with 1440p screens. The results would have shown greater variation between CPUs if 1080p was included in the testing.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
not enough (or a good enough selection of) games/scenarios to draw any conclusion as a CPU test for gaming in my opinion...

the least GPU limited tests show a big advantage for the 2500K over the 8350, like CIv5 with two cards.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
It is interesting to note how much less the CPU matters in these scenarios, so much less that the A8-5600K gets the nod in a single GPU build? Not many here have been recommending such a downmarket CPU to be paired with a high-end card. It grates against common sense, yet there are the benchmarks...
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
not enough (or a good enough selection of) games/scenarios to draw any conclusion as a CPU test for gaming in my opinion...

the least GPU limited tests show a big advantage for the 2500K over the 8350, like CIv5 with two cards.

Well, to be fair, Civ 5 strongly favors intel. But I also think the results would have been less favorable to the FX in general had they included something like 1080p which would have removed the gpu bottleneck, and included a wider variety of games. Overall, in a wide variety of games, the 3570k is a much more well rounded gaming processor and uses less power. Whether it is "impressive" that the FX loses by less than some people would expect, I will leave to each person's interpretation.

I am really trying to stay out of these intel vs amd threads these days, so I am not going to say much more.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,685
3,957
136
It is interesting to note how much less the CPU matters in these scenarios, so much less that the A8-5600K gets the nod in a single GPU build? Not many here have been recommending such a downmarket CPU to be paired with a high-end card. It grates against common sense, yet there are the benchmarks...
That's because 4 Piledriver threads at 3.6+Ghz are enough for highend GPU in today's games. Whether they will be enough for games that will launch in next couple of years is a big question though. When engines start supporting 6 threads I suspect they will fall behind by some margin (which may or may not be significant for crazy people who paired it with 7970 :D).
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
Always seems to be someone that can't stand to see anything said about AMD that's even close to decent.
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
There's a reason I felt no reason to upgrade this Thuban yet, and even got a 7970 for it as a last GPU upgrade. I get upgrading for the hobbyist side of it, but from a practical side I think a middle of the road CPU will be plenty for 99% of gamers.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This proves that the FX Piledriver chips are not a big fail like others make them out to be. Power consumption is the biggest issue more than anything IMO.


Since the first Vishera review came out this is what I've been saying. But for some reason, I guess how bad Bulldozer was, it is still looked at as a bad performer by so many. Performance isn't bad... power consumption is a different story.
 

formulav8

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2000
7,004
522
126
That's the thing, some people it seems think you have to get 500fps at 640x480 resolutions to game on. Middle AMD/Intel cpu's are more than capable of pushing plenty of frames for a good gaming experience. No $300 cpu is needed in most scenarios at all, $300 video cards would be a better buy overall it seems.