Impressed with FX-8350 and the new article at Anand

[Jaydip]

lol a few pages ago I showed a GE title where 930 @ stock is 40% faster than 8350.If AMD can't optimize their own processors in GE titles it should give you a hint about their earth shattering performance.

 

[AtenRa]

lol a few pages ago I showed a GE title where 930 @ stock is 40% faster than 8350.If AMD can't optimize their own processors in GE titles it should give you a hint about their earth shattering performance.

Most probable a driver issue, the review was using the new NVIDIA TITAN GPU. Far Cry 3 exhibits a different performance.

 

[Jaydip]

Or they finally understood people are asking too many questions after seeing those results .Take another http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/marvel-heroes-beta-test-gpu.html where 8350 is actually slower than 1100T.Man they may be good for people with very strict budgets otherwise they are a very poor choice.AMD themselves acknowledged they are out of the high performance CPU race and seems like a right choice to me.

 

[AtenRa]

Take another http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/marvel-heroes-beta-test-gpu.html where 8350 is actually slower than 1100T.

Beta ??? not sure if you are serious. Cherry picking much ??

 

[Jaydip]

And???? it's not cherry picking at all.Is it a "TWIMTBP" title ? nope so the performance is probably unaffected by any external factors.Another GE sponsored beta for you http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/company-of-heroes-2-beta-test-gpu.html If again you say it's beta I really pity for them.They should think twice before stamping the GE branding.Another one http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/neverwinter-dungeons-a-dragons-test-gpu.html 8350 ties with 930

 

[Jaydip]

And now some truly embarrassing ones
http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/sim-city-test-gpu.html (bundled with AMD apus)
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/bioshock-infinite-test-gpu.html (GE title)
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu-v-2.html(another GE title)
http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/starcraft-ii-heart-of-the-swarm-test-gpu.html
Honestly people saying AMD and Intel are in the same performance ballpark are lying to themselves.AMD is extremely competitive with NV in the GPU front but just no match for Intel in the CPU arena.

 

[Chiropteran]

lol a few pages ago I showed a GE title

AMD’s Gaming Evolved program represents our deep commitment to PC gamers, PC game developers, and the PC gaming industry to deliver innovative technologies, nurture open industry standards, and to help the gaming industry create the best possible gaming experience on the world’s best gaming platform—the PC.


Is the 930 not a PC CPU? Maybe if you are accustomed to Nvidia's asinine tactics which involve consciously making a program perform worse on competitor's systems this seems odd, but I see nothing on the Gaming Evolved site to indicate that AMD is trying to make the software run worse on Intel.

I'd be applauding AMD for working on real optimizations, instead of adding features that simply cripple the performance on non-AMD systems.

And now some truly embarrassing ones

You can't find those numbers at an English speaking website? Digging a little deep, aren't we?

If you have to go to some unknown Russian site to prove your point it's blatantly obvious you are cherry picking your benchmarks.

 

[galego]

If his 4-5 games he provided are cherry picked why your 4-5 games are not cherry picked ??

I have given those 4-5 games plus Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield 3, and CoD Black Ops, plus the seven games reviewed by behardware, plus Resident Evil 5. That is a total of 15-16 games.

 

[Jaydip]

AMD’s Gaming Evolved program represents our deep commitment to PC gamers, PC game developers, and the PC gaming industry to deliver innovative technologies, nurture open industry standards, and to help the gaming industry create the best possible gaming experience on the world’s best gaming platform—the PC.


Is the 930 not a PC CPU? Maybe if you are accustomed to Nvidia's asinine tactics which involve consciously making a program perform worse on competitor's systems this seems odd, but I see nothing on the Gaming Evolved site to indicate that AMD is trying to make the software run worse on Intel.

I'd be applauding AMD for working on real optimizations, instead of adding features that simply cripple the performance on non-AMD systems.



You can't find those numbers at an English speaking website? Digging a little deep, aren't we?

If you have to go to some unknown Russian site to prove your point it's blatantly obvious you are cherry picking your benchmarks.

1.Your first point, Tomb raider comes to mind.It just didn't have inconsistent performance across all NV products but it had major ctd bugs as well. 2.This site is referenced quite a lot in the VC&G forum.It is considered a good review source.Very few English sites test so many games.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Most probable a driver issue, the review was using the new NVIDIA TITAN GPU. Far Cry 3 exhibits a different performance.

So when amd loses it is a driver issue but when it wins it is because the CPU is so great??

 

[galego]

If you don't want people taking issue with what you write, perhaps you could curtail the blanket declarations like this one: "For current games, the FX-8350 offers essentially the same gaming performance than i7-3770k but at one fraction of the cost!"

A perfectly valid declaration as noted in lots of forums by people who owns both a FX-8350 and an i7-3770k or those who own one of them and compare their chip with other from some friend.

Toms has a gaming cpu hierarchy chart where the FX-8350 is one tie behind the i7-3770k, and they state that gamers do not notice average gain in performance unless two chips are separated by three or more ties.

And that is all for existent games which, in average, are poorly threaded. All the triple-A game developers participating in a recent Eurogamer poll selected the FX-8350 as the best cpu for future gaming.

 

[AtenRa]

So when amd loses it is a driver issue but when it wins it is because the CPU is so great??

You are smarter than this to understand why I posted that slide.

 

[SPBHM]

[OT] The 440BX probably has a better claim to the status of legend. [/OT]

440BX is legendary, it was a long lasting (used from PII up to P3 Tualatin), OC friendly and very stable chipset. at a time when perhaps Sis and few others were selling not so great chipsets.

For older games: i5.
For modern games: either FX or i5.
For future games: FX.

what is a "modern game"? because on the most recent games the i5 does better,

future games? there is nothing basically to base your opinion.

Most probable a driver issue, the review was using the new NVIDIA TITAN GPU. Far Cry 3 exhibits a different performance.

let's expand

(680)

and the newest game based on the same engine

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A perfectly valid declaration as noted in lots of forums by people who owns both a FX-8350 and an i7-3770k or those who own one of them and compare it with the other from some friend.

There are people who think the moon landings were faked too. Am I supposed to care?

Toms has a gaming cpu hierarchy where the FX-8350 is one tie behind the i7-3770k...

Yes, and do you know what else is in the same tier as the FX-8350? The Core i3-2120 that I got off eBay for 80 bucks for my son's budget build, and the four-year-old Core i7-870. Pretty impressive.

and they state that gamers do not notice average gain in performance unless two chips are separated by three or more ties.

No, that is not what they say. What they say is that they don't recommend an upgrade unless you are going up three tiers, because you might not notice enough difference in performance to make it worthwhile.

(Disclaimer: I used to copy-edit those articles for THG.)

 

[crashtech]

Here are the CPUs enumerated in the second tier of this Tom's "hierarchy" that has been mentioned:

Core i7-980, -970, -960, Core i7-870, -875K, Core i3-3225, -3240, -3220, -3210, -2100, -2105, -2120, -2125, -2130

FX-8350, FX-8320, 8150, 6300, 4300, Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975

To have AMDs flagship in the same list as Intel's third tier CPUs is an embarrassment.

Or maybe it's even more embarrassing to have it in a list of its own products that it was supposed to supercede.

 

[galego]

Yes, and do you know what else is in the same tier as the FX-8350? The Core i3-2120 that I got off eBay for 80 bucks for my son's budget build, and the four-year-old Core i7-870. Pretty impressive.

And do you know what else is in the same tier as the i7-3770k? The EoL Core i5-2300 that I could buy today for less than 70 bucks. Pretty impressive.

No, that is not what they say. What they say is that they don't recommend an upgrade unless you are going up three tiers, because you might not enough difference in performance to make it worthwhile.

(Disclaimer: I used to copy-edit those articles for THG.)

They claim the difference in performance is not worthwhile because the upgrade is somewhat parallel:

I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance.

A change FX-8350 --> i7-3770k implies you would be essentially upgrading to something parallel.

And, as shown before, the FX is less than a 10% behind the i7 under linux.

 

[galego]

future games? there is nothing basically to base your opinion.

Except recent Eurogamer poll (bold from mine):

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

If you want play old games I recommend you the i5 if you want play future games I recommend you the FX.

 

[Enigmoid]

And you know what else is in the same tier as the i7-3770k? The EoL Core i5-2300 that I could buy today for less than 70 bucks. Pretty impressive.

Wait...So that $70 cpu is above the 8350?

 

[Enigmoid]

Except recent Eurogamer poll (bold from mine):

If you want play old games I recommend you the i5 if you want play future games I recommend you the FX.

One source (which you repost in every thread) by people who have an agenda.

Not everything on the internet is true. Not everything people say is true.

(If I found you an article that said the Earth was flat would you believe it?).

More evidence is necessary.

 

[cbrunny]

One source (which you repost in every thread) by people who have an agenda.

Not everything on the internet is true. Not everything people say is true.

(If I found you an article that said the Earth was flat would you believe it?).

More evidence is necessary.

Agenda or not, it will prove itself either to be true or not true in time. To engage in a "who can predict the future better" contest is stupid.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Except recent Eurogamer poll (bold from mine):

If you want play old games I recommend you the i5 if you want play future games I recommend you the FX.

So how many times have you repeated this quote in how many different threads? It is just speculation at best, not to mention these unnamed sources may be involved with AMDs gaming evolved program.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And do you know what else is in the same tier as the i7-3770k? The EoL Core i5-2300 that I could buy today for less than 70 bucks. Pretty impressive.

So Intel's middle-grade, two-year-old CPU is ahead of AMD's current top-of-the-line flagship product. Um, did you think this point supported you in some way? :biggrin:

They're groupings. There will be some variation in performance among the CPUs. It obviously doesn't mean all of the CPUs will be the same speed. It does mean that THG considers the FX-8350 not comparable to Intel's top chips.

However, your claim that "they state that gamers do not notice average gain in performance unless two chips are separated by three or more ties" is 100% BS.

It's also worth pointing out that the only FX chip they recommend at any price level is the FX-4300.

They claim the difference in performance is not worthwhile because the upgrade is somewhat parallel:

Where "somewhat" means anything anyone wants it to mean. And I'll remind you that I don't see anyone saying there's a major difference between the FX-8350 and the top Intel chips. We're just saying that your attempt to pretend there is virtually no difference is nonsense.

And, as shown before, the FX is less than a 10% behind the i7 under linux.

And as shown before, you're full of baloney.

 

[guskline]

galego for someone who posts so much on this thread, is it too much to ask that you simply post the specs of the computers you presently own? I'm waiting!:whiste:

 

[frozentundra123456]

You are smarter than this to understand why I posted that slide.

You said it, I didnt. Just kind of humorous that you dont question the benchmark in favor of AMD but immediately find a flaw in a benchmark that favors Intel.

 

[galego]

Or maybe it's even more embarrassing to have it in a list of its own products that it was supposed to supercede.

From the same source:

Core i7-2600, -2600K, -2700K, -3770, -3770K, -3820, -3930K, -3960X, -3970X
Core i7-965, -975 Extreme, -980X Extreme, -990X Extreme
Core i5-3570K, -3570, -3550, -3470, -3450P, -3450, -3350P, -3330, 2550K, -2500K, -2500, -2450P, -2400, -2380P, -2320, -2310, -2300