Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[Idontcare]

For current games, the FX-8350 offers essentially the same gaming performance than i7-3770k but at one fraction of the cost!

You forgot to add the rest of the home shopping network high-pressure sales pitch

So buy now! Hurry, supplies are limited! Our operators are standing by, ready to take your order! Call now! Plus if you call within the next 30 minutes we'll double, yes that's right folks I said DOUBLE, your S&H charges, you can only lose here if you don't make the call!

 

[galego]

Not a 100% confirmation, but rather close

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Microprocessor_Sockets_in_Next_Two_Years.html

It is Excavator which, almost sure, will require a new AM4 socket.

 

[Vesku]

Why would it require a new AM4 socket? Most likely won't need to be supporting DDR4, yet.

From the inquirer link: "The firm not only confirmed that Socket AM3+ users can expect at least one more chip, almost certainly one based on the Steamroller architecture, it said that all of its future processors "in a few years time" will be socket compatible."

Granted, even having a direct statement from someone at AMD doesn't equate to a guarantee. We've been down that sad road before.

Edit: Oh misread your Excavator sentence, sorry galego. I'd probably phrase it that when DDR4 becomes mainstream PC is when we'll see AM4 if ever.

 

[galego]

how about mentioning the i5 also offers, the same performance?
and there are plenty of current games where the i5/i7 clearly surpasses the FX...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/neverwinter-performance-benchmark,3495-9.html

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Far%20Cry%203%20%20Blood%20Dragon/test/fc3%20%20proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/RPG/The Elder Scrolls V Dragonborn/test/tes 5 proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Dead Island Riptide/di proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/Company of Heroes 2/test/coh 2 proz.jpg

and about crysis 3, let's not forget this one:

http://pclab.pl/art52489-9.html

or this one:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

the eurogamer article is pure speculation with nothing to support it, I've seen many console game devs that looked totally disconnected from PC hardware world.

for gaming, at the best cases for the 8350 the i5 is always near, but when it comes to the best cases for the i5, the 8350 can be far behind, when you consider the platform cost, and the other characteristics, there is not way to conclude the 8350 is a better gaming CPU (and I'm not saying the 8350 is not good or good enough) imho...

For current games Toms has a hierarchy cpu gaming cart where clearly says you will not note a real performance gain when going from a FX-8350 to an expensive i5/i7. I don't know the ru site.

The pclab site obtains the same conclusion about crysis 3 than the German review cited in the Eurogamer article: the FX is faster than the i5 and the i7 in "Jungle". They note that the game has been optimized for Intel and that the FX is able to catch the Intel chips thanks to multi-threading "and not that which was prepared in a special way for AMD FX".

http://pclab.pl/art52489-13.html

Interesting the last part of the pclab review of crysis 3, where they also ask if the FX will be more efficient than four-core Intel chips for future games. It seems evident that the answer is "yes" and that is the reason which all triple-A developers recommend the FX-8350 as the best gaming cpu.

About the eurogamer article: Good that you have "seen many console game devs that looked totally disconnected from PC hardware world" because they asked to PC developers. The name of one of them is given in the text.

 

[guskline]

Not a 100% confirmation, but rather close

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2208525/amd-sticks-with-socket-am3-for-steamroller

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...Microprocessor_Sockets_in_Next_Two_Years.html

It is Excavator which, almost sure, will require a new AM4 socket.

As the Steamroller keeps getting delayed, it's likely that it will also require a new socket. Meanwhile Intel is shortly releasing the Haswell.

 

[frozentundra123456]

For current games Toms has a hierarchy cpu gaming cart where clearly says you will not note a real performance gain when going from a FX-8350 to an expensive i5/i7. I don't know the ru site.

The pclab site obtains the same conclusion about crysis 3 than the German review cited in the Eurogamer article: the FX is faster than the i5 and the i7 in "Jungle". They note that the game has been optimized for Intel and that the FX is able to catch the Intel chips thanks to multi-threading "and not that which was prepared in a special way for AMD FX".

http://pclab.pl/art52489-13.html

Interesting the last part of the pclab review of crysis 3, where they also ask if the FX will be more efficient than four-core Intel chips for future games. It seems evident that the answer is "yes" and that is the reason which all triple-A developers recommend the FX-8350 as the best gaming cpu.

About the eurogamer article: Good that you have "seen many console game devs that looked totally disconnected from PC hardware world" because they asked to PC developers. The name of one of them is given in the text.

Sorry to confuse the issue with real data instead of conjecture and undocumented statements, but here is a wide variety of games tested with a wide variety of processors.
I will let the reader judge which processer is better overall for gaming.

PC Lab end of the world test.

 

[SPBHM]

For current games Toms has a hierarchy cpu gaming cart where clearly says you will not note a real performance gain when going from a FX-8350 to an expensive i5/i7. I don't know the ru site.

The pclab site obtains the same conclusion about crysis 3 than the German review cited in the Eurogamer article: the FX is faster than the i5 and the i7 in "Jungle". They note that the game has been optimized for Intel and that the FX is able to catch the Intel chips thanks to multi-threading "and not that which was prepared in a special way for AMD FX".

http://pclab.pl/art52489-13.html

Interesting the last part of the pclab review of crysis 3, where they also ask if the FX will be more efficient than four-core Intel chips for future games. It seems evident that the answer is "yes" and that is the reason which all triple-A developers recommend the FX-8350 as the best gaming cpu.

About the eurogamer article: Good that you have "seen many console game devs that looked totally disconnected from PC hardware world" because they asked to PC developers. The name of one of them is given in the text.

expensive i5? what? Toms Hierarchy?
I'm not a big fan of gameGPU, but at least they are making an effort and testing many newer games, and the results are clear enough I guess, and it shows a difference, their tests are posted on this forum quite often, so click on the links and have fun,

on crysis 3, have you noticed something?
on the level the 8350 does amazingly well, the Intel CPUs are much closer than on the other level where the 8350 does poorly... again, for me it's another instance that shows the i5 as a winner, even on Crysis 3.

and again, the eurogamer article shows nothing, it's basically "PS4 have (a slow) 8 core CPU, so 8 cores is better!" even the writer says this:

"CPU power is probably the least of the concerns the PC platform has, compared to the PlayStation 4 at least. After all, the AMD Jaguar cores in the next-gen consoles were designed to compete with Intel's low-power Atom architecture, created with tablets and low-power laptops in mind. Even with eight of them, today's quad-core and octo-core desktop processors outright own them in terms of processing power."

 

[guskline]

galego: Have you ever posted the specs of your computer like I asked?

 

[galego]

Meanwhile Intel is shortly releasing the Haswell.

Yes, with an impressive average performance gain of about 5%

http://wccftech.com/intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k-review-live-china/

except in gaming:

What is even worse for Haswell in this state is that at stock, the Core i7-4770K barely improves gaming performance representing only 1% improvement over the 3770K.

 

[galego]

"CPU power is probably the least of the concerns the PC platform has, compared to the PlayStation 4 at least. After all, the AMD Jaguar cores in the next-gen consoles were designed to compete with Intel's low-power Atom architecture, created with tablets and low-power laptops in mind. Even with eight of them, today's quad-core and octo-core desktop processors outright own them in terms of processing power."

True, the CPU "cores" were designed for that. The PS4 APU HSA was designed to compete with high-end gaming PCs, as said in the dozens of interviews and tech presentations.

 

[bononos]

And my point was that for similar levels of performance most people will choose the cheaper alternative, over something that'll cost less in the long run, when talking about outright purchase, hence the upfront cost argument!
....
Did you not figure in the cost of motherboard into this equation ?

And why is it so difficult to accept that the total cost is the number that matters?

Are Intel mbs $100 more expensive over AMD ones? (Replying to your assertion that the 8350 is $200 cheaper than the 3770).

 

[AtenRa]

AMD FX8320 = $174,99 + 10% off promo (until 5/15) = $157,49

Core i5 3570K = $219,99

Difference = $62,5

I can put that money in to a WaterCooling kit(or high-end AIR Cooler) and OC the FX8320 to 4.6GHz easily when Core i5 3570K will stick to 3.5GHz (4 cores) with the default cooler due to throttling.

or add a 64-90GB SSD,

or get a better GPU

or faster and more ram

or another HDD

or a bigger/better Monitor

Nobody cares if after 3-5 years they will spend $40-60(due to higher power usage) more going for the FX when they will enjoy more speed/fps or have a better monitor for all those years.

 

[toyota]

AMD FX8320 = $174,99 + 10% off promo (until 5/15) = $157,49

Core i5 3570K = $219,99

Difference = $62,5

I can put that money in to a WaterCooling kit(or high-end AIR Cooler) and OC the FX8320 to 4.6GHz easily when Core i5 3570K will stick to 3.5GHz (4 cores) with the default cooler due to throttling.

or add a 64-90GB SSD,

or get a better GPU

or faster and more ram

or another HDD

or a bigger/better Monitor

Nobody cares if after 3-5 years they will spend $40-60(due to higher power usage) more going for the FX when they will enjoy more speed/fps or have a better monitor for all those years.

 

[guskline]

True, the CPU "cores" were designed for that. The PS4 APU HSA was designed to compete with high-end gaming PCs, as said in the dozens of interviews and tech presentations.

galego: Your computer specs PLEASE!:biggrin:

 

[Sleepingforest]

Agreed. I mean, if you're going to post about the FX while it's on sale, you might as well make a comparison of the 8350's highest price on Newegg ($220) vs the i5-3570K's lowest price ($215) according to Camelegg.

 

[boxleitnerb]

The review is fine. The majority of games today are limited by the GPU far more than the CPU, and a balanced review should show as such.

A review that goes out of it's way to find CPU limited games instead of testing a fair sample of popular games gives a very deceptive message.

No it is not. It's not about balance, it's about what makes sense in a CPU review. To show benchmarks where no differences exist, doesn't help anyone in choosing their gaming CPU since those cases are irrelevant for that choice.

It's those scenarios where the CPU does indeed matter that are of interest. Those do exist, you know. How else can you tell what CPU is better when you ignore cases where it is properly used?

It's not like 4 games are a "fair sample". 15-20 games would be. Ian should have tested more games and ditched the 580s. Why were they included, that makes no sense at all. Why not test SC2 HotS, Shogun 2, BF3 MP, Crysis 3 etc.?

 

[Rvenger]

galego: Your computer specs PLEASE!:biggrin:

Good luck with that.

 

[Rvenger]

Agreed. I mean, if you're going to post about the FX while it's on sale, you might as well make a comparison of the 8350's highest price on Newegg ($220) vs the i5-3570K's lowest price ($215) according to Camelegg.

This makes no sense. Launch pricing is irrelevant if you are comparing it to the lowest competition price.

 

[toyota]

Crysis 3 is very cpu dependent in areas with all the grass and I cant maintain 60fps even on low settings with my 2500k at 4.4. my gpu usage drops way down and I get the exact same framerate at 1280x720 as I do at 1920x1080 in those areas.

 

[UNhooked]

So whats the general consensus? FX is indeed a good CPU and more future proof

 

[AtenRa]

I have clearly posted that this price is on sale until 5/15, also the 3570K was at $229,99. As far as a can tell, every single American (US) can buy from the egg so, at this price the FX8320 is the best bang for buck CPU.

 

[Sleepingforest]

This makes no sense. Launch pricing is irrelevant if you are comparing it to the lowest competition price.

And I believe that as well. Abnormal pricings should not be the standard for comparison. But AtenRa is using the price of an 8320 on sale and comparing it to the standard price of an i5-3570K (which often has a $15 giftcard deal to bring it down to $200 or so).

 

[toyota]

I have clearly posted that this price is on sale until 5/15, also the 3570K was at $229,99. As far as a can tell, every single American (US) can buy from the egg so, at this price the FX8320 is the best bang for buck CPU.

that is not what i was rolling my eyes about. you do realize that for gaming even the stock 3570 is going to match the oced 8350 that you saved money on just to buy a cooler to get that extra speed. lol your cpu will use almost as much power as an entire 3570 pc with a gtx660. an 8350 is fine but if building a gaming pc from scratch then 3570 is the better choice.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This makes no sense. Launch pricing is irrelevant if you are comparing it to the lowest competition price.

True, but it is also unfair to compare a limited time discount to a regular price of another product. I am referring to the 10% off, not sure if the 179.00 is the regular price now or also a limited time deal.

It also brings back the illogical argument that price difference is important but that the money spent on higher power consumption can be conveniently ignored.

 

[crashtech]

It also brings back the illogical argument that price difference is important but that the money spent on higher power consumption can be conveniently ignored.

It's also illogical to buy things on credit and eventually pay more for them in the future, but most people do it. Paying more for future electricity is very similar to paying future interest. Live now, pay later.