• 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.

should I abandon the AMD ship? (Updated)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Look at the Dead Rising 3 benchmarks and picture that next year with some titles. The difference is night and day in some games, especially minimum FPS. AM3+ is dead in the water and an 8350 just falls apart against a Haswell i7.
 
If you have the upgrade bug, go for it, with an 8350 or 8370E. But, if the OCed FX-6300 hasn't been a space heater problem, nor has been a performance problem in your games, don't expect miracles from any new CPU, nor for good value from just a CPU upgrade. 4.6GHz is respectable OC, enough that I can't see an i5 being worth it, unless you've been really bummed out with the FX's performance.

A truly worthy upgrade would need maybe an i7-4790k, and some OCing on top of that. But, then you're out $450, maybe a little more, with Broadwell right around the corner. For your money, sticking it out with the FX for a little longer is the best thing to do, IMO.
 
Honestly test your rig with crossfire first; see what happens; with the prices of 8350 dropping with the new cpus coming......you could always wait for the prices to settle pick up 8350 cheaper and sell 6300 most likely making your upgrade to 8350 only like 80 dollars or less 🙂
 
There is zero reason to get the 8350. It would only be a sidegrade.

I would say like others, wait and see. If you do find yourself CPU limited, specially after the CF setup. Then its time for a proper CPU upgrade. But then I think you should wait to Skylake in summer 2015.
 
ShintaiDK said:
There is zero reason to get the 8350. It would only be a sidegrade.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it just hit me...

Latest Vishera revision can hit 4.8 to 5.0 GHZ, so that's 200 to 400 mhz more, two extras cores. Not bad for 100 bucks (if he sells the cpu currently in use)
 
Gikaseixas said:
Maybe, but it just hit me...

Latest Vishera revision can hit 4.8 to 5.0 GHZ, so that's 200 to 400 mhz more, two extras cores. Not bad for 100 bucks (if he sells the cpu currently in use)
Click to expand...

So he get what, 4-8% for 100$? Thats utterly terrible.

Then he can just as well use 300$ on 30-50% faster ST.
 
escrow4 said:
Look at the Dead Rising 3 benchmarks and picture that next year with some titles. The difference is night and day in some games, especially minimum FPS. AM3+ is dead in the water and an 8350 just falls apart against a Haswell i7.
Click to expand...


I looked through the thread, I don't see Dead Rising 3 benches. Can you post them or point them out?
 
ShintaiDK said:
So he get what, 4-8% for 100$? Thats utterly terrible.

Then he can just as well use 300$ on 30-50% faster ST.
Click to expand...
It will be better than that, given the OP lists some games that can use the extra cores, but still not up to the level of an OCed Devil's Canyon i7, and not even OCed i5 for a few of the games. I would also question whether it would be $100. Usually more like $150, even if he successfully sells the FX-6300.
 
Cerb said:
It will be better than that, given the OP lists some games that can use the extra cores, but still not up to the level of an OCed Devil's Canyon i7, and not even OCed i5 for a few of the games. I would also question whether it would be $100. Usually more like $150, even if he successfully sells the FX-6300.
Click to expand...

Yep. But how many games do we actually have that shows a benefit of 8 cores vs 6? Being on AMD and performance gaming is really dead end.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Being on AMD and performance gaming is really dead end.
Click to expand...

Lies, i have a FX 8350 so i know first hand how well it plays. It's a proper gaming cpu, not as good as Intel ofcourse but you would enjoy playing on it i bet. Side by side you can't tell the difference.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Yep. But how many games do we actually have that shows a benefit of 8 cores vs 6? Being on AMD and performance gaming is really dead end.
Click to expand...

There aren't a lot of games that takes advantage of more than 2-3 cores, Half-Life 2 and games based on the Source engine as well as Battlefield 3, 4 and BC2 with Frostbite uses multicores nicely but the majority of games out there are single threaded, Guild Wars 2 is very apparent with that.

I don't regret going from an FX 8320 (previously Phenom II X6 1090T) to an i7 3770K.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Yep. But how many games do we actually have that shows a benefit of 8 cores vs 6? Being on AMD and performance gaming is really dead end.
Click to expand...

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever read.

Especially since AMD components power all 3 major game consoles (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo). I mean seriously, it's time for the dunce cap. I doubt anyone takes what you say seriously -- because it is nearly always so far from the truth.

dunce-cap1.jpg
 
Last edited:
MiddleOfTheRoad said:
That is probably the dumbest statement I've ever read.

Especially since AMD components power all 3 game consoles. I mean seriously, it's time for the dunce cap.
Click to expand...

There's a dunce cap lying around for those who think console makers chose AMD solutions exclusively because of their performance too.
 
Sweepr said:
exclusively because of their performance too
Click to expand...

Yes they did
Nvidia and Intel did not have a better solution, the best performing part came from AMD. While not PC like gaming, both PS4 and Xbox One are extremely enjoyable as a gaming devide, thanks to AMD. I know it hurts AMD haters but it's a fact
 
ShintaiDK said:
There is zero reason to get the 8350. It would only be a sidegrade.

I would say like others, wait and see. If you do find yourself CPU limited, specially after the CF setup. Then its time for a proper CPU upgrade. But then I think you should wait to Skylake in summer 2015.
Click to expand...

this
 
Sometimes it is worth spending more money to get that "warm fuzzy" feeling that you have the best. This drives many spending choices, and each person should have his/her own price-point for what they are willing to spend to feel like they have the best. It's why many people purchase name brand drugs, when the equivalent generic costs 1/10th of the price. You want the best. So we can sit here and argue actual performance all day, but I think for some buyers, it doesn't really matter, because it's an internal experience about what they know is sitting inside the computer case, regardless of actual performance.
 
Sweepr said:
There's a dunce cap lying around for those who think console makers chose AMD solutions exclusively because of their performance too.
Click to expand...

AMD has a competitive advantage for their price / performance ratio -- that's why they've been scoring so many design wins recently. Are there faster components available? Probably, but they come at a considerably higher price. Intel can't do integrated graphics as well as AMD, either. That made them especially attractive to the console makers.
 
MiddleOfTheRoad said:
That is probably the dumbest statement I've ever read.

Especially since AMD components power all 3 major game consoles (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo). I mean seriously, it's time for the dunce cap. I doubt anyone takes what you say seriously -- because it nearly always so far from the truth.
Click to expand...
And of course we're talking about consoles, right? Oh, no, we're not. And of course those CPUs have useful features non-AMD CPUs don't have, that could make a difference, right? Oh, wait, no, they don't.

AMD's CPUs are dead ends. They have nothing but maybe minor speed bumps until some time in 2016, and that's if they're on time with a brand new CPU design. If Intel had gotten the console CPUs, would you consider suggesting someone with an i5-3470 upgrade to an i7-3770, due to being the same brand?
 
KingFatty said:
Sometimes it is worth spending more money to get that "warm fuzzy" feeling that you have the best. This drives many spending choices, and each person should have his/her own price-point for what they are willing to spend to feel like they have the best. It's why many people purchase name brand drugs, when the equivalent generic costs 1/10th of the price. You want the best. So we can sit here and argue actual performance all day, but I think for some buyers, it doesn't really matter, because it's an internal experience about what they know is sitting inside the computer case, regardless of actual performance.
Click to expand...

agree 100%

i had the FX 8350 when i bought my 4770K, there was no need to get it as performance was more than enough but i wanted that fast, cool and highly efficient chip from the blue guys 🙂
 
Gikaseixas said:
Yes they did
Nvidia and Intel did not have a better solution, the best performing part came from AMD.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, perhaps not in the APU form that console makers were probably interested because of power consumption, integration and cost reasons.

While not PC like gaming, both PS4 and Xbox One are extremely enjoyable as a gaming devide, thanks to AMD. I know it hurts AMD haters but it's a fact
Click to expand...

Who cares about hundreds of benchmarks when we have your subjective impressions saying FX macthes Haswell, huh? Whoever disagress must be a hater. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top