Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[monstercameron]

Your earlier post of BF3 is singleplayer therefore your gpu limited scenario has less value.

Intels are the Ferraris, AMD BD/PD are the mobile trailers.

Maybe the car make analogy doesn't fit, what if we think about it interms of car engines, horsepower vs. Torque. Intel has low down grunt in the lower rpm range but and has power higher up in to power band...like a 350 Chevy vs a Honda vtech or Mazda rotary. To outperform the chevy, the rotary engin's driver has to be damn good - optimized, multithreaded code.

 

[Enigmoid]

There is a minimal difference of 3 FPSs between the two reviews. The difference in resolution is very minimal as well. As stated before different drivers, or OS, or memory can do a change. For instance, changing drivers BF3 can go from 61 FPSs to 75 FPSs on the same hardware (that is a difference of 14 FPSs with everything else the same).

Also I don't get your point about the gigabyte card, one can test (and one can buy) the card that one want.

The gigabyte card is NOT a stock card (ie it runs slightly faster than a regular 660). The 660 (non-OC version) would get 63 fps in that test.

1920 x 1080 is ~19% more pixels than 1680 x 1050. I would expect about 10% less performance.

63-10% = 58 fps.

Memory makes no difference for most games (excluding F1--only game I know of which seems memory dependent).

BF3 runs on windows and I can guarante you that you will not notice any difference between home premium, professional and ultimate in gaming performance.

 

[toyota]

There is a minimal difference of 3 FPSs between the two reviews. The difference in resolution is very minimal as well. As stated before different drivers, or OS, or memory can do a change. For instance, changing drivers BF3 can go from 61 FPSs to 75 FPSs on the same hardware (that is a difference of 14 FPSs with everything else the same).

Also I don't get your point about the gigabyte card, one can test (and one can buy) the card that one want.

nonsense. I have gone through tons of drivers and there is no driver that will take a plain 660 from 61 to 75 fps. and that is 1680 there so again your other review showing the 8350 being able to push the 660 to 70 fps while the 3570 can only get 45 fps was 100% BS. EVERY other review out there proves it.

 

[guskline]

does it really matter at this point?

Only in that the poster continues to debate the 8350 vs 3770k/3570k and it would be nice to know if he owns or even has used either cpu. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but along with IDC, Atena and other posters on this thread who actually own both the 8350 and 3770k at least they come at it with some actual experience using the comparison cpus. Does that mean you cannot post about a cpu/gpu etc without owning it? Of course not! However, when a poster continues to discuss a specific cpu etc ad naseum, isn't it legit to ask if they either own it (cpu) or have had experience with it other than reading reviews?

To be more specific, from my two rigs below, whether using the GTX 670, 2 GTX 670s in SLI or my single GTX680, the 3770k rig benches faster than the 8350 rig in every game I've tested. That being said the 8350 DOES give me nice fps so I concur with the OP's contention that it is not a bad cpu

 

[galego]

The gigabyte card is NOT a stock card (ie it runs slightly faster than a regular 660). The 660 (non-OC version) would get 63 fps in that test.

1920 x 1080 is ~19% more pixels than 1680 x 1050. I would expect about 10% less performance.

63-10% = 58 fps.

Memory makes no difference for most games (excluding F1--only game I know of which seems memory dependent).

BF3 runs on windows and I can guarante you that you will not notice any difference between home premium, professional and ultimate in gaming performance.

It is irrelevant if the gigabyte card conforms 100% to the reference card or is an tweaked/improved card. The gigabyte card can be both purchased and tested.

Changing memory speed from 1600 MHz to the stock speed can improve the gaming performance of a FX chip by about 2-5%.

An operative system with or without the Microsoft FX hotfixes installed can vary the gaming performance of an FX chip between 2-10%. A 5% gain is not uncommon.

Different drivers, OS, memory, reference vs tweaked card... can explain perfectly 3-10FPs between one review and other.

I am not going to waste more time on this.

nonsense. I have gone through tons of drivers and there is no driver that will take a plain 660 from 61 to 75 fps.

I did not say that the graphic card was a 660. I was merely pointing how a change of driver on the same card can vary 14 fps in BF3.

 

[Enigmoid]

It is irrelevant if the gigabyte card conforms 100% to the reference card or is an tweaked/improved card. The gigabyte card can be both purchased and tested.

Changing memory speed from 1600 MHz to the stock speed can improve the gaming performance of a FX chip by about 2-5%.

An operative system with or without the Microsoft FX hotfixes installed can vary the gaming performance of an FX chip between 2-10%. A 5% gain is not uncommon.

Different drivers, OS, memory, reference vs tweaked card... can explain perfectly 3-10FPs between one review and other.

I am not going to waste more time on this.

I did not say that the graphic card was a 660. I was merely pointing how a change of driver on the same card can vary 14 fps in BF3.

The 660 getting 70 fps is stock. The gigabyte version is OC. You must compare stock vs stock.

RAM makes absolutely no difference in BF3 performance (outside of 2% margin of error).

Hotfixes make no difference in gaming performance (other than the dirt racing games which seem memory bound).

No difference.

There are only one set of OS's that can run BF3 and that is windows. Toms did a review of windows 8 vs 7 for gaming and their results were

Aside from those couple of idiosyncrasies, performance under Windows 8 is indistinguishable from Windows 7. Any speed-up or slow-down would be almost impossible to identify during game play, and we expect compatibility issues to get patched quickly by game developers.

Home premium/professional/ultimate (or enterprise) show no differences between them in gaming performance.

Drivers can make a difference but that large of a difference? Doubt it.

 

[bgt]

To be more specific, from my two rigs below, whether using the GTX 670, 2 GTX 670s in SLI or my single GTX680, the 3770k rig benches faster than the 8350 rig in every game I've tested. That being said the 8350 DOES give me nice fps so I concur with the OP's contention that it is not a bad cpu

Maybe the Nvidia cards prefer the 3770K over the FX, I don't know. But with me its just the other way around. The 8350 shows slightly better fps with the OCed 7950 than my 3770K in games or tests. But the difference is unnoticeable in real game activity so its irrelevant.

 

[USER8000]

People do realise that reviews don't always test the same sections of the games.

Maybe the Nvidia cards prefer the 3770K over the FX, I don't know. But with me its just the other way around. The 8350 shows slightly better fps with the OCed 7950 than my 3770K in games or tests. But the difference is unnoticeable in real game activity so its irrelevant.

IIRC,there was some noise about Nvidia drivers tending to be more CPU intensive,compared to the AMD ones.

 

[galego]

People do realise that reviews don't always test the same sections of the games.

Yes. Moreover, some reviewers run only timedemos where a game plays a pre-defined section, whereas in other reviews there is real world gameplay recorded. You can find massive differences of up to 60 fps.