Discussion WOW was going to upgrade my son 8370 w/my 1600 till I saw this video....

[funboy6942]

He is still rocking my old cpu for many years, and I was going to upgrade my 1600 to a 2600, till I watched the video below pitting his/my 8370 against a 2600 and WTH, whats the point?!?!?! The fx 8370 isnt dead yet! It actually holds its own being about the same or just a few fps behind, so there really isnt a point in upgrading him yet, and another video I watched at 720p the 1600 killed the 8370, but at 1440p and beyond the 8370 stomps all over my 1600 and makes me think maybe I should go back to a 8370 and forgo the 2600 all together seeings how it will be better in higher resolutions then a 1600 and a 2600, whodathunkit???

 

[Markfw]

Have you looked at the 3000 series yet ? They stomp the 2700x and the like . A 3700x will wipe the floor with all you have mentioned.

 

[Hitman928]

Considering the 8370 in the video drops well below 30 fps in multiple parts of that video (sometimes even below 20 fps) while the 2600 stays above 30 fps, I'd say it's a worth upgrade for those games, even at 4K.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The top comments nailed it funboy, the test were bad and he should feel bad.

 

[Furious_Styles]

The top comments nailed it funboy, the test were bad and he should feel bad.

Agreed. Don't be fooled by one crap youtube video, there's plenty of websites that have done more in-depth testing.

 

[Ranulf]

I've been surprised by how well my 8350 has held out the past two years or so but no, I'd rather have the 2600 than a 8350/70.

 

[Thunder 57]

The top comments nailed it funboy, the test were bad and he should feel bad.

I didn't respond to this because I thought it might be trolling. I'm not about to waste my time arguing against such a thing. Then I saw this post and read the comments on YT. All I can say is wow, you either believed a nonsense video or you wanted to crap on AMD. Not sure which, don't care, you're argument is invalid.

Anyone one pick a 2600 over an 8570. Half the power, more performance. There is a reason AM4 is selling so much that it's hard to get some varieties. I'm sure you can find AM3+ anywhere.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I just want to say I get flack from people thinking buying a 2600 is a better value than a 3600 on other forums. I point out that the 3600 beats the 2700x in gaming. Obviously the extra two cores come in handy for rendering. I still have a 3570k running @ 4.4ghz, sadly (lost 100mhz) the old silicon has deteriorated a bit over the years. It can wipe the floor with that old AMD junk prior to Ryzen. I do mean junk.

This current system was my old test system, it had a R3 1200 prior to the 3600. BF5 runs buttery smooth with my ancient 970. My 3570K put up very respectful frame rates but would drop a bunch of frames making the game play choppy and not all that smooth.

More than 10 years of embarrassment for AMD and finally Ryzen.

I do appreciate forum members here putting people in their place when they express delusional opinions or beliefs on inferior or outdated CPU's.

 

[Thunder 57]

I just want to say I get flack from people thinking buying a 2600 is a better value than a 3600 on other forums. I point out that the 3600 beats the 2700x in gaming. Obviously the extra two cores come in handy for rendering. I still have a 3570k running @ 4.4ghz, sadly (lost 100mhz) the old silicon has deteriorated a bit over the years. It can wipe the floor with that old AMD junk prior to Ryzen. I do mean junk.

This current system was my old test system, it had a R3 1200 prior to the 3600. BF5 runs buttery smooth with my ancient 970. My 3570K put up very respectful frame rates but would drop a bunch of frames making the game play choppy and not all that smooth.

More than 10 years of embarrassment for AMD and finally Ryzen.

I do appreciate forum members here putting people in their place when they express delusional opinions or beliefs on inferior or outdated CPU's.

I can tell you that a 3570k wasn't the best even for BF1. I upgraded to a 2600X, and it is much smother in areas that previously struggled, even highly overclocked. Oddly enough though in this case an 8350 probably would have done better than a 3570k. In just about everything else though, forget it.

 

[Schmide]

Should of stopped at the third cord of that song. Sadly I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Still have a couple FX in the basement, but that video made me feel sad.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I can tell you that a 3570k wasn't the best even for BF1. I upgraded to a 2600X, and it is much smother in areas that previously struggled, even highly overclocked. Oddly enough though in this case an 8350 probably would have done better than a 3570k. In just about everything else though, forget it.

There are cases where 8350 becomes GPU limited just about as fast as any other tech, at least true for RDR2 using Vulkan API; but yeah, software optimization is everything, without it, it's just a piece of worthless junk. Windows 10 uses so many threads now while doing its things, it's not even funny (cant believe there are still laptops being sold with only 4T; W7/8/8.1 were more forgiving in this regard). 16c/32t cpus are no longer overkill if you like to multi task a lot. Interesting times ahead and hopefully DDR5 makes it to market in 2021.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It’s pretty simple he’s comparing a high end but garbage cpu vs a now old(ish) low end cpu.
Of course there isn’t much difference. Spend the extra $100 and buy something more modern.
This is comparable to people who want to upgrade the cpu on a 6 year old machine. No matter what you do the performance gain is going to be marginal and likely not worth the cost unless the new cpu is dirt cheap which typically doesn’t happen since what is left costs more because there are fewer of them.

Above is talking about the 83xx vs 1600

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I just want to say I get flack from people thinking buying a 2600 is a better value than a 3600 on other forums. I point out that the 3600 beats the 2700x in gaming. Obviously the extra two cores come in handy for rendering. I still have a 3570k running @ 4.4ghz, sadly (lost 100mhz) the old silicon has deteriorated a bit over the years. It can wipe the floor with that old AMD junk prior to Ryzen. I do mean junk.

This current system was my old test system, it had a R3 1200 prior to the 3600. BF5 runs buttery smooth with my ancient 970. My 3570K put up very respectful frame rates but would drop a bunch of frames making the game play choppy and not all that smooth.

More than 10 years of embarrassment for AMD and finally Ryzen.

I do appreciate forum members here putting people in their place when they express delusional opinions or beliefs on inferior or outdated CPU's.

I can relate to this. Game performance is easy to benchmark but hard to explain. We all have different expectations. I am not an ultra quality guy and not a FPS junky. To me medium setting and it running smooth most of the time is great.
I was still gaming on a Q9650 pretty happily. Only thing it had trouble with was BF5. Single player would have been fine but I don’t but games like that for single player.
I also don’t think it is weird for someone to say the game ran too slow for them.
I don’t understand the ultra resolution guys. Generally speaking i find it hard to see a difference on a static image ultra vs medium. No way am I noticing a difference while playing.

 

[Paul98]

He is still rocking my old cpu for many years, and I was going to upgrade my 1600 to a 2600, till I watched the video below pitting his/my 8370 against a 2600 and WTH, whats the point?!?!?! The fx 8370 isnt dead yet! It actually holds its own being about the same or just a few fps behind, so there really isnt a point in upgrading him yet, and another video I watched at 720p the 1600 killed the 8370, but at 1440p and beyond the 8370 stomps all over my 1600 and makes me think maybe I should go back to a 8370 and forgo the 2600 all together seeings how it will be better in higher resolutions then a 1600 and a 2600, whodathunkit???

Massively GPU bound on nearly all those tests, showed nearly nothing on the CPU side. You did see at least one time when the 8370 was CPU bound and at that point, the 2600 was faster.

 

[chrisjames61]

He is still rocking my old cpu for many years, and I was going to upgrade my 1600 to a 2600, till I watched the video below pitting his/my 8370 against a 2600 and WTH, whats the point?!?!?! The fx 8370 isnt dead yet! It actually holds its own being about the same or just a few fps behind, so there really isnt a point in upgrading him yet, and another video I watched at 720p the 1600 killed the 8370, but at 1440p and beyond the 8370 stomps all over my 1600 and makes me think maybe I should go back to a 8370 and forgo the 2600 all together seeings how it will be better in higher resolutions then a 1600 and a 2600, whodathunkit???

If you think an 8370 is anywhere near equal a 2600 your are delusional. I have an 8370 running at 4.7 GHz with a CHVFZ and rigs with the following cpu's: 2600, R5 3400G, 1700 and last but not least a 1600. They all wipe the floor with the 8370. Not to mention my 3600. Your benchmarks seem to be shaky tbh.

 

[amd6502]

Agreed. Don't be fooled by one crap youtube video, there's plenty of websites that have done more in-depth testing.

Not really, the video contains what seem to be well over a dozen (maybe a few dozen) varying tasks, and it shows that the 2600 does offer significantly better performance for quite a few of these tasks; it is more consistent too, less stutter etc.

For some other tasks, the 8370 holds up amazingly well (eg EA did a great job optimizing for the 8c BD in their BF series games). For some it's somewhat behind, and for a few games it bombs. But people should get an idea why it is that many are quite happy with their 8c dozers. It sure makes for quicker kernel compiles and (assuming you have enough RAM) very smooth multitasking. Firefox going multithread has also done good things for the ageing FX and A series quads. I'm not sure why some of these games bomb so badly, but would wager that it's p*** poor optimization (meaning anti-optimization).

I would say the 1600 would be a considerable upgrade. But if choosing btwn a new 2600 or 3600 I would go with the 3600 or 3600x. You've got quadruple the FPU/core and quadruple the L3.

 

[Furious_Styles]

Not really, the video contains what seem to be well over a dozen (maybe a few dozen) varying tasks, and it shows that the 2600 does offer significantly better performance for quite a few of these tasks; it is more consistent too, less stutter etc.

For some other tasks, the 8370 holds up amazingly well (eg EA did a great job optimizing for the 8c BD in their BF series games). For some it's somewhat behind, and for a few games it bombs. But people should get an idea why it is that many are quite happy with their 8c dozers. It sure makes for quicker kernel compiles and (assuming you have enough RAM) very smooth multitasking. Firefox going multithread has also done good things for the ageing FX and A series quads. I'm not sure why some of these games bomb so badly, but would wager that it's p*** poor optimization (meaning anti-optimization).

I would say the 1600 would be a considerable upgrade. But if choosing btwn a new 2600 or 3600 I would go with the 3600 or 3600x. You've got quadruple the FPU/core and quadruple the L3.

Are we re-writing history here? Those CPUs simply were not good when released (they are competitive with the 1156 gen) and while stuff might still be playable they are still are pretty lackluster. The main point here is if the guy in the video is going to show 4k (@ Ultra) with a 2070. That is most of the video and 100% useless info for CPU performance.

 

[maddogmcgee]

8370 might be ok for an office pc etc but so is a pentium.

 

[Magic Carpet]

8370 might be ok for an office pc etc but so is a pentium.

I am still using an uc/uv'ed Thuban for office duties and it performs admirably on anything that is well multi-threaded (that includes Windows 10 & Chrome) but in less threaded tasks I can definitely feel its slowness compared to my 4790K, but I can live with that. Ideally, you want it balanced between power efficiency, total cores and perf per core; not going extremes either direction. Right now I see that in AMD 3700x and i9 9900 (non-k). Price is secondary to me, really.

 

[Arkaign]

Thuban actually has more resources per core vs FX. IIRC FX 8xxx is 8x INT, 4x FPU, with some compromised cache and design issues. Thuban is 6x INT, 6x FPU I remember being way more impressed using a highly clocked 1045T than an FX 6300 I got from MC as a basic office build.

 

[killster1]

yes if you dont mind stuttering then the 8370 seems OK. it drove me a little crazy to even watch the video with the constant stutter every 30 seconds? I agree with everyone else sure why upgrade to a budget cpu from a high end when a real upgrade is just 200$ sell off the other two cpu's (no idea what they are worth but surely 100$ together) ???

 

[Nereus77]

My 2c: Get a 3600 instead of a 2600
7nm > 12nm
7nm >>>> 32nm

 

[rancherlee]

Had a 8320 @ 4.5ghz and now have a R1600 @ 4.0 and I game at 1440p with setting that jive well with 75hz Freesync. I can tell you that the R1600, even at stock 3.2ghz, NEVER performed worse in a game than the old 8320. Quite a few games where the 8320 kept pretty close but under heavy stress would see far lower FPS and GPU use would drop under 99%. Currently running a RX470 GPU, but even with the old 7950 the 8320 wouldn't keep up in some games (Tomb Raider series)

 

[amd6502]

Had a 8320 @ 4.5ghz and now have a R1600 @ 4.0 and I game at 1440p with setting that jive well with 75hz Freesync. I can tell you that the R1600, even at stock 3.2ghz, NEVER performed worse in a game than the old 8320. Quite a few games where the 8320 kept pretty close but under heavy stress would see far lower FPS and GPU use would drop under 99%. Currently running a RX470 GPU, but even with the old 7950 the 8320 wouldn't keep up in some games (Tomb Raider series)

Sure, Zen's perceptron (neural net predictor) did a great job adapting to code that isn't optimized for its core. The piledriver FX didn't have that. These were ~ 1.67 Billion transistor 8c/8t monothreading speed demons (2 ALU/core) and more recently they're pitted against things like the 1600, which is 2/3-rd's of 4.8B transistors (both the SR and Orochi die contain server logic which add to these figures)---so it definitely is going to struggle quite a bit.

 

[funboy6942]

well I went and got a 3600x off ars forum for a great price, so I ditched the idea of the 2600 and went right for the throat. As for my sons pc running the 8370, he is still going to run on that for a bit more for I found a new RX580 on ebay for under 100 shipped, so he will now run 2 of them on his system, and since he plays like skyrim and destiny 1&2, and minecraft, with some vr games in there, crossfiring 2 rx580's and only costing me 100 to do so, vs having to get him another motherboard, ram, would of been more then what I just paid for the one card, and Im going to sell off my 1600 to make up for some of the cost of the 3600x, for when he decides to play more graphic intense games, it will be time for me to upgrade to amd 4xxx or 5xxx when ever that comes to be and prices are down, and he can then get this, which at that time will be much better then what he is rocking now.