FX 8350 for gaming

[Ziggy]

Hey guys new to PC gaming trying to get away from consoles. Need processer help like every noob.

FX 8350 good or no. I've seen mixed reviews, but specifically want to know if it will hold up to BF4, ARMA 2/3, DayZ, Skyrim.

If you want a preliminary parts list I've got one ready. Thanks

[Mind]

it do not good idea

[_I_]

for the price diff
get the 4670 /w b85 board
much better per core performance, and most games do not use more than 4 threads
faster cores > more cores

just make sure the ram kit is 1.5v or lower

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

All those games have known performance (stuttering) issues with the AMD FX series of processors.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

Watching a YouTube video is one thing, but actually playing a game where there is a feedback loop (visual to input device) happening in real-time... yeah.... AMD had a good thing going, then the Intel Core 2 Duo came out.

Since the Intel Core 2 Duo release AMD has been asleep at the wheel I'm afraid.

FYI: Half my systems up to the Core 2 Duo were AMD based, now I tend to use their video cards (AMD/ATI Radeon HD 6000 series or greater).

Oh, the Core i5 655K -which beats the AMD FX 8350 in aspects of Skyrim Benchmarking- is only a dual core with HyperThreading, it's not a real quad core i5 processor!

http://ark.intel.com/products/48750/Intel-Core-i5-655K-Processor-4M-Cache-3_20-GHz

And the Pentium G2120 is a Dual-Core ****WITHOUT**** HyperThreading:
http://ark.intel.com/products/65527/

[_I_]

or the top end i3 4340 (dual 3.6) vs the 8350 (oct 4.0)
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/361/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-4340.html
overall performance is within 10% and its about $40 cheaper
and the test is unfair, fx has 4g of 1866 ram, the i3 has 2g of 1600 ram

[LoTekRabbit]

If you want to run next gen games well get the 8350.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_proz.jpg

All the proof you need. It's going toe to toe with a i7 2600k in BF4 because it makes amazing use of multi threading and allows the use of 4+ cores. This will be the case with all next gen games going forward.

People need to stop saying "most games don't use x cores." They are going to and it's starting already with the release of BF4, Watch Dogs recommending 8 cores for Ultra spec, etc. You don't buy something to last you a few months. The point is to have it last you a long time and all of your recommendations fail that test.

The days of single threaded and dual core games are over. You're all recommending vastly inferior CPU's to the OP.

Get the 8350.

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

The AMD FX8350 suffers from resource contention in BF4,... why would anyone recommend it?
For a lower price you can get a much better processor and then put the 'extra' you would have spent on a sytem that drains electicity towards a more powerful video card.

Pros:
+ Faster CPU
+ More powerful video card (GPU)

Cons:
- AMD doesn't get your money (if you count that as a con), unless you buy a Radeon that is.

I'd suggest getting a K series Intel Core i5.

I am not suggesting the lower end Core i3, i5 or even Pentium G2xxx series processors. They are merely 'on par' with the AMD FX 8350 the OP mentioned.

[LoTekRabbit]

Did you even bother looking at the benchmark? It is well known at this point that the FX8350 is a superb processor for BF4 and will continue to do well in future multi threaded games. Stop being so biased.

The i3, etc. is not "on par" with the FX 8350. The FX dominates those CPU's when it comes to true multi threaded games and will continue to do so in upcoming next gen titles.

That's why I recommend it. Because there are actual benchmarks to back up what I'm saying. Clock for clock performance is not as important in these titles as it was for last gen games.

It is literally on par with an i7 2600k...

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

Do you even know how many milliseconds Battlefield 4 spends rendering frames that take over 1/60th of a second to render?

Dude, every game on the market is 'multi-threaded'.

If you load a game in Windows it will typically run in 8 threads, the 'problem' is that not all the threads have perfectly equal workloads, nor can they all scale their workload.

I think you're seriously confused about what a thread is and how the OS task schedule handles them. The game has practically no say at all. Frankly a video driver running in Kernel mode address space has more say about which thread(s) [actually, which cores] to execute code on in a Windows platform.

Instead you need to think in instructions and ILP -both within a singular core, and across multiple cores-, instead of threads and TLP.

[LoTekRabbit]

No I'm not confused. You're acting as if every game is going to magically benefit from multiple cores or HT because of how the task scheduler handles them.

There is a difference between a game not showing any performance benefit between 3 vs 6 cores and one showing a massive difference. A game needs to be specifically programmed to take advantage of it and you're trying to act like it doesn't.

I don't know what you are arguing about. I'm providing you with an actual benchmark showcasing what the CPU is doing in BF4.

BF4 is literally using at a minimum 60% on every core of an octo CPU and it's translating to some big gains for the FX 8xxx series.

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_amd.jpg

This will continue to be the trend in all next gen games.

[Axel]

Nope, not good idea, buy i5 or i7. Games arent able to use 8 cores. And FX8350 single core performance is horrible

[LoTekRabbit]

Opprinnelig skrevet av NopeHD:

Nope, not good idea, buy i5 or i7. Games arent able to use 8 cores. And FX8350 single core performance is horrible

Really?

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_proz.jpg

And have you checked the system specs for Watch Dogs? Ultra configuration recommends an 8 core.

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

It's not a real 8 core processor dude, it's a 4 core processor with CMT.
Much like many Intel Core i7's are 4 core processsors with SMT.

Yes, CMT scales better than SMT, however they are not full cores and that is what future 'next gen' titles will be requiring.

The other main gripe developers have with the AMD FX series (so far) is that while CMT scales better, the performance of each 'core' isn't enough relative to a more modern processor.

If each 'core' is only 70% of a real core, then they would need to scale to over 285% their original performance when CMT is used (making it appear as an 8 core processor).

This required scaling will never happen, and as a result the time spent rendering frames that took over 1/Xth of a second to render will always be higher.

"Time spent rendering frames that took over 1/Xth of a second to render" is a modern way to benchmark games and interactive 3D software versus just 'average frame rate' [which is terrible], as it represents stutter & other factors.

It is not, however, as good as a 2D graph, as a singular score can only represent 'so much information', even if very well designed.

[{AMI}SirMisAlot]

not sure about the 8350 but the 8150 is killer running at 4.5GHZ no issues with any gameplay stutter,jump ect.you guys are cracked AMD is well worth the price differance.Unless you have one of each in front of you to play with you will never tell.

the intel fanboys will say different.but coming from the intel side.I love AMD Not sure if i will ever pay Prem $$$$s again for intel Unless it knocks my socks off fo the price.
saw this on another post

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_proz.jpg

[LoTekRabbit]

I understand that they're not true 8 cores. 4 cores + 4 integral cores.

It should theoretically handle multi threaded apps better than an i7 with HT but thanks to the low IPC (nowhere near as bad as Bulldozer though) an i7 generally outperforms the FX 8xxx series.

But my point is you have people here honestly recommending i3's for gaming over the 8350. If OP is on a budget and wants to play next gen games such as BF4 this is the processor he/she should get not an i3. Those suggestions are wrong and so far (on the first next gen game) the FX 8350 is going toe to toe with fairly decent i7 processors.

There is no reason to believe it will somehow do worse than an i3 in future titles. Buying an i3 for gaming at this point is the worst decision OP can make.

[André Ventura]

Dont listen to them. the 8350 is a very capable processor. the games that u mentioned are multi-threaded. also the 8350 beats the i5.
and its more future proof because soon the games will starting to be optimized for more cores so at that time the 8350 will crush the i5 even more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

And the 8350 is a true 8 cores but shares things like cache and floating points
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/4955/BDArch.png