[Tom's] CPU Bottlenecking with 7970 CF - 3770k vs. 8350

[Idontcare]

Ya but those prices are for no name garbage.

I wouldn't trust a $35 PSU or use a $30 case and $40 dollar motherboard GTFO lmao

Console price and also console performance!

That being said I agree IDC about frame rates and if you will even notice and while in game with 80 vs 100 fps.

(I realize the original qualms here were motivated by a misunderstanding regarding the base currency)

I don't know about $40 for a mobo, but $35 for a good PSU and $30 for a case are actually not hard to be had if you don't mind biding your time and dealing with MIR.

I've been picking up those 430W and 500W Corsair "builder series" PSU's over on Newegg for $19.99 shipped w/MIR and $29.99 shipped w/MIR respectively. And they are good PSUs. They've even had the 720W models up for $59.99 shipped w/MIR recently.

Likewise with the cases, if you bide your time they will randomly stick decent cases like the Antex Three Hundred Illusion on sale for $30 shipped w/MIR.

 

[Makaveli]

(I realize the original qualms here were motivated by a misunderstanding regarding the base currency)

I don't know about $40 for a mobo, but $35 for a good PSU and $30 for a case are actually not hard to be had if you don't mind biding your time and dealing with MIR.

I've been picking up those 430W and 500W Corsair "builder series" PSU's over on Newegg for $19.99 shipped w/MIR and $29.99 shipped w/MIR respectively. And they are good PSUs. They've even had the 720W models up for $59.99 shipped w/MIR recently.

Likewise with the cases, if you bide your time they will randomly stick decent cases like the Antex Three Hundred Illusion on sale for $30 shipped w/MIR.

That is actually a very good price for that PSU i'm surprised to be honest good deal.

As for cases while i like that Antex I tend to be abit more picky and don't really look at case under $90 so another good deal there.

However being in canada those are US prices Newegg.ca tends to be abit more expensive.

Me personally am not a huge fan of MIR had bad experiences in the past.

Your post does however show you can get decent quality components brand name so FX1 does have a good point and I stand corrected.

I haven't done any recent builds so general pricing in my head is still back in 2010 numbers

 

[SPBHM]

I believe CF is not working as it should in F1 2012 with the FX8350 setup in Toms review. In the same benchmark (same settings) with the FX8350 @4GHz and HD7950 @ 1GHz (1500MHz memory) I get 80fps average and 63fps minimum.
Rest of the system is ASUS M5A97 R2.0, 2x 4GB 2133MHz Kingston ram, 1TB Seagate HDD SATA3. Win 8 64bit and Cat 12:10.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg7/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-f1-2012.html

here with a 7970 OC and 4GHz they got 70/54 (while the i5 achieved much higher results with the same card), so it looks like the CPU limit...

now I think the F1 benchmark result can be affected by thing like, the camera option you used the last time you played...

also is basically the AI racing, so there is always some small variation...

but this game feels perfect at around 60FPS.

 

[blackened23]

Truth is that with AMD you can build a PC as so.

6 Core AMD £90
Motherboard £40
Ram £30
PSU £35
Case £30
GPU £150 (7870 2GB)

£375 for a PC that can quite honestly play games at VERY good settings.

Thats console Prices!

Just to compare an intel 3930k i7 costs £455!!!!

As the article points out, the most you can save with an AMD 8350 is like 150$ at most. Maybe.

Totally not worth it. In other words, totally not worth it from the value angle - intel seems like the better choice at nearly every price point. I don't know if things are vastly different in EU, but I doubt it.

 

[Abwx]

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg7/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-f1-2012.html

here with a 7970 OC and 4GHz they got 70/54 (while the i5 achieved much higher results with the same card), so it looks like the CPU limit...

No difference between the 8150 and 8350..??...
Not very credible , Hardware.fr say otherwise and get 20%
higher min framerate than this hardwareheaven.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-14/amd-fx-8350-retour-amd.html

 

[SPBHM]

yes, it's unexpected but, hardware.fr didn't use the built in benchmark...

 

[Ferzerp]

As the article points out, the most you can save with an AMD 8350 is like 150$ at most. Maybe

People suggesting a slower performing part like to ignore platform cost and only fixate on the cost of the individual part.

$150 vs $250 they have an argument, but a CPU doesn't work without the rest of the computer, and once it becomes $800 vs $900 (or $1900 vs $2000 for the kind I tend to build), that argument looks silly.

 

[Abwx]

Surely but they did find an average 13.5% better perfs in games for the 8350 , wich is about it in F1 2012 , but still hardwareheaven is the only site that seems to put it in par with the 8150.

 

[SPBHM]

Surely but they did find an average 13.5% better perfs in games for the 8350 , wich is about it in F1 2012 , but still hardwareheaven is the only site that seems to put it in par with the 8150.

if you look on the second graph by HH, during the start, when things are the same the 8350 looks faster, as I said, I think this benchmark can have some significant variations because of how the AI acts, still, not many F1 2012 CPU tests available to compare, and hardware.fr didn't use the benchmark (" Nous mesurons le framerate durant le départ du GP d'Abu Dhabi.")...

but it's clear that if the FX is significantly slower with a single card, CF is not going to help (using 1080p)

 

[UaVaj]

This review is incomplete. where is bf3?

 

[SPBHM]

This review is incomplete. where is bf3?

BF3 MP is to hard to use, and BF3 SP is 100% useless to compare CPUs

 

[frozentundra123456]

This review is incomplete. where is bf3?

Not only that, I would have liked to see a lot more different games.

 

[moonbogg]

BF3 MP is to hard to use, and BF3 SP is 100% useless to compare CPUs

Just because no two benchmarks are exactly the same doesn't mean there isn't decently reliable ways to do it. I think reviewers need to sack up and bench the damn online games since thats what people actually care about.

 

[Dark Shroud]

People suggesting a slower performing part like to ignore platform cost and only fixate on the cost of the individual part.

$150 vs $250 they have an argument, but a CPU doesn't work without the rest of the computer, and once it becomes $800 vs $900 (or $1900 vs $2000 for the kind I tend to build), that argument looks silly.

AMD motherboards are also cheaper than Intel's so a $150 savings is doable.

This is the cheapest ATX motherboard that has a USB3 header.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($129.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $214.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-01-24 23:34 EST-0500)

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg7/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-f1-2012.html

here with a 7970 OC and 4GHz they got 70/54 (while the i5 achieved much higher results with the same card), so it looks like the CPU limit...

HardwareHeaven results are with a single GPU, Toms system produces almost the same fps with CrossFire. Even if F1 2012 is CPU limited at 1080p, it would be GPU limited at 5760x1080.

 

[boxleitnerb]

And the fps would be dramatically lower. To be GPU limited just for the sake of a GPU limit is nonsense. fps is what matters.

 

[AtenRa]

fps is what matters.

Yeap, for 99% of gamers (that is with 1080P or above and 60hz monitors) the FX8350 will get you that 60fps in 99% of current games(even in Skyrim).

 

[Fx1]

As the article points out, the most you can save with an AMD 8350 is like 150$ at most. Maybe.

Totally not worth it. In other words, totally not worth it from the value angle - intel seems like the better choice at nearly every price point. I don't know if things are vastly different in EU, but I doubt it.

Sorry HUH?

What part of saving like 20% of the overall system cost on 1 component doesnt sound like its not worth it?

Also Planetside 2 and BF3 64 player are going to play much better on a 6 core AMD than some i3 dual core. Not forgeting the AMD is a black edition CPU and will overclock nicely.

Also given next gen consoles are running AMD tech id wager that when these 8 threaded games come to market AMD might be in a very good position to take advantage in 3D PC gaming. Just about every game will be running AMD GPU and CPU and x84 64bit.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Yeap, for 99% of gamers (that is with 1080P or above and 60hz monitors) the FX8350 will get you that 60fps in 99% of current games(even in Skyrim).

Depends what you play. You cannot make that judgement for others, so your 99% figure is irrelevant.
As for Skyrim:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-8350-CPU-256473/Tests/FX-8350-Test-Vishera-Piledriver-1031473/2/
That's not even with view distance mods/tweaks that require quite a bit CPU power.

 

[AtenRa]

Depends what you play. You cannot make that judgement for others, so your 99% figure is irrelevant.
As for Skyrim:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-8350-CPU-256473/Tests/FX-8350-Test-Vishera-Piledriver-1031473/2/
That's not even with view distance mods/tweaks that require quite a bit CPU power.

99% of gamers have 1080P or bellow Monitors, if you can game at 1080p @ 60fps or above with FX8350 then you can game at lower res as well.

As for Skyrim link you provided,
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-8350-CPU-256473/Tests/FX-8350-Test-Vishera-Piledriver-1031473/2/

They tested without AA/AF making it more CPU limited than what you will actually play the game. Even with that settings, FX8350 gets 49fps minimums, I dont suppose you believe you will have any probs playing with that fps. Skyrim is a single game, rest of 99% of games will get more than 60fps with the FX8350.

 

[BrightCandle]

Because of the discrete costs of the GPUs and the high percentage they make up its actually quite hard to work out what the trade off point actually is for maximum performance at minimal cost. It will certainly depend on the game. But for the grand majority of the games I suspect for a given price point 2x cards is a better upgrade than an Intel CPU and motherboard.

You might for example find system costs of 2x 670 + 3770k verses 2x 680 + 8350 an interesting comparison, but only because the performance benefits of the 680's is questionable compared to the 670s. Neitherless I suspect we would see the intel rig win where SLI worked and in heavily CPU bottlenecked games. But its this sort of comparison that needs to be made to consider the value difference.

The Toms test is not trying to establish the best performance per dollar, its trying to determine the limits of the hardware. If any when it does value testing it will use similar priced machines.

 

[AtenRa]

The article has great value because it highlights the fact that if you are getting two high end cards with an AMD cpu, then you are wasting your money in a big way. A lot of people don't know that, they buy an AMD cpu and then wonder whats wrong with their drivers when their two 7950's don't perform like they should.

Really ???

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

FX8350 single HD7970 GHz Edition

FX8350 CF HD7970 GHz Edition

FX8350 single HD7970 GHz Edition

FX8350 CF HD7970 GHz Edition

FX8350 single HD7970 GHz Edition

FX8350 CF HD7970 GHz Edition

And it seams that CF is not working as it should in F1 2012 for both AMD and Intel.(see in the link above)

 

[boxleitnerb]

99% of gamers have 1080P or bellow Monitors, if you can game at 1080p @ 60fps or above with FX8350 then you can game at lower res as well.

As for Skyrim link you provided,
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-8350-CPU-256473/Tests/FX-8350-Test-Vishera-Piledriver-1031473/2/

They tested without AA/AF making it more CPU limited than what you will actually play the game. Even with that settings, FX8350 gets 49fps minimums, I dont suppose you believe you will have any probs playing with that fps. Skyrim is a single game, rest of 99% of games will get more than 60fps with the FX8350.

Enabling AA/AF do NOT increase fps. Will you ever understand that? In the tested scenario, you will NEVER get more fps than that, only less.

And who is to say this is a worst case scenario? So your claim that the FX8350 can maintain 60fps in Skyrim is wrong.

Additionally, there are enough games out there where the FX can't maintain 60fps. As I said - it depends on what you play.

 

[AtenRa]

Enabling AA/AF do NOT increase fps. Will you ever understand that? In the tested scenario, you will NEVER get more fps than that, only less.

I have NEVER said that you will get more fps enabling AA/AF but you becoming more GPU limited and then CPU performance is getting less relevant. So if FX8350 gets 58fps and i5 3570K get 93fps, enabling AA/AF you will get closer results making the CPU difference less important.

Whats so hard to understand ???

 

[dastral]

An i3 is a dual core part! vs a 6 core part? Seriously dont compete do they

Seriously ? you do realize i3 is a 2+2 while FX is a 3+3 right ?
Hardware hyperthreading (AMD style) will always be more efficient than software hyperthreading (Intel Style).
But they do compete, and the performance will probably depend on how well threaded the games are.