Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I would say yes its worth the upgrade.
Im afraid if I buy the 8350 and swap out my 1100t that I will just be dissappointed with gaming performance, as so many were when they did the same with the 8150 last year. But its still early.
You know I might retract what I said. Ive been looking at some different gaming benchmarks and I am kind of liking what I am seeing. LOL, I know all that stuff I said, but it does look to be a lot better than the 8150 for gaming, matching the 2500k in a lot. So for $200 it might be a good little upgrade.
Im still researching, but man it looks tempting. Though Im wondering if I would really need Windows 8 or if it would work fine on WIndows 7?
This is correct. The single core performance is at best marginally better than that of the 1100t. That means that most games will not see a significant performance boost because of an upgrade.
The things the new FX series chips excel at are things that are optimized for multiple threads/cores. Things like Zip File compression and synthetic benchmarks.
Games however are mostly singlethreaded with some modest optimization for multiple threads. Such applications do not benefit from the extra cores and they certainly don't benefit from the slow singlethreading performance of the FX series.
In games, you're better off with an Intel chip for now. Seeing as how you are entirely based on AMD, I suggest sticking with what you have until you feel you need to upgrade. Most games aren't CPU intensive enough to make much of a difference if you wait till next year but upgrading to the most recent Piledriver chips is basically useless for games.
lol when you say I am 'entirely based on AMD', I hope you mean that I currently have an AMD socket MB and thus would need an AMD proc to upgrade on that MB, and not that I am only going to upgrade to an AMD platform. lol, ofcourse it looks as though my next upgrade will be an Intel, but considering how inexpensive the FX8350 is and that if fits on my MB, I am seriously thinking picking one up. Unlike the 8150, overall I think it is superior to the 1100t.
What I meant is pretty much that, yeah. In order to get the latest Intel chip you'd have to pay an additional $120 something for a motherboard on top of the already more expensive processor whereas if you upgraded to Piledriver it's a simple matter of buying the latest chip and at most performing a BIOS update.
@Soulwatch, with current console technology, most developers have little reason to optimize for more cores because they've already done what they could in that regard during this console lifecycle.
BF3 and GW2 were both developed with PC's in mind and as such made greater effort to optimize for that specific set of advantages.
So yes, you are likely to see greater improvement but across the board that improvement won't likely come until the new consoles drop (and no, I don't mean the Wii U) sometime in late 2013, early 2014 (by most estimates).
Sure it sucks that that's the situation, but it's the way it is.
Factoring that fact in, you can expect AMD to release Steamroller sometime around the same time and you can expect them to increase performance while maintaining the threaded advantage they have.
Since that's the case, it doesn't make sense to upgrade to Piledriver if gaming is the focus if you have a sufficient platform already (the hexacore 1100t). If Battlefield 3 and GW2 are the exceptions and mainstream games aren't likely to take full advantage of a platform like Piledriver until after Piledriver has become obsolete, it just doesn't make sense to upgrade.
As an owner of three Phenom II X6 1100Ts and a single FX-8120, there is a big difference even between those two, FX-8320 ($180, clocks the same as FX-8350), takes that step further with even more instruction sets compilers dont fully support yet, higher frequencies, improved cache, etc.
Step aside from your 'synethic benchmarks' and get a taste of reality.
Why do we buy these processors?
Batch Video Encoding
Batch Audio Encoding
Compiling Software
Linux
Lower power consumption compared to previous generation while running the same software
Smoother response of OS and applications due to programs being able to get their own dedicated cores alloted to them by the OS
Image Manipulation
Distributed Computing Projects
Realtime Video Recording of PC Games
Virtual Machines
Server Software (Use your desktop to run virtual machines of all the servers you need, no need to buy additional hardware)
3D modeling and rendering applications
And in the current present state with various things getting multicore accelerated, such as the upcoming OpenCL Java, more helps.
If you feel your current processor is fast enough, why would you buy a new processor? if you think your processor isn't fast enough, it's cheap, it's there, go for it.
But I have a question about the FX procs and Windows 8. Ive heard that FX users will need a Windows 8 upgrade to take full advantage of these procs. Is this true? And if I stuck with Windows 7, would that hinder performance? Any advice on this would be appreciated, even from you stickycrab, ;). So thanks.
Also, lets say I didnt change MB and stuck with an 880G chipset AM3+ MB. Would an 800 series chipset give less performance than a 900 series? Ive never seen any performance increase from 700 to 800 so was wondering about the 990 specifically.
Btw I am getting new MB so I can SLI two GTX 570s and the reason I am not going Intel is so I can still use my 1100t until I decide on upgrading to the FX8350. I figured upgrade GPU first then do the CPU. Going the Intel route right now was little too much and I wouldn't be able to change GPU yet, so I am sticking with AMD for now.
Considering the OP didn't mention any other use than Gaming I'm just dealing with what I've been presented. The OP hasn't mention that he does any of those functions; all he's mentioned has been gaming.
Yes, Bulldozer and Piledriver do mutlithreaded tasks better than an i7 3770K in some cases and that's a good thing.
But they aren't better for most games and that's a fact. As a gamer, I don't do any of the things you listed on a regular basis, certainly not regular enough to hobble my single-threading ability.
Have you upgraded to the FX-8350 yet?
If so, how do you like it over the 1100t?
No I have not. Im still weighing my options till my next upgrade. My system still runs great now, so I don't really see a rush to upgrade. I still don't have an SSD, so I am certainly looking into doing that before I do anything else. But I figure in 2013 I will upgrade, CPU, Mobo, and GPU. For now however I have not done anything. You can see the current system I am using for gaming on my profile page.
I was only looking at the FX8350 because I wouldnt have to change MB. If I am going to do a total upgrade, Intel looks to be the route to go. But again I don't buy into the hype. I have looked at many benchmarks, and when you are talking a CPU for High Res gaming, that is 1080 or higher, the differences between different CPUs is very minimal. Alls you need is a mid range CPU coupled with a high end GPU. So in that case my 1100t OC'd is still very adequate and I still would not see a big jump in FPS, even if I bought an Intel. And as a matter of fact the i7 is most certainly out of the picture. If you go look at gaming benchmarks for 1080 gaming, really the only two CPUs I would consider are the FX8350 and the i5 3750k, with the i5 having a slight advantage overall, but I think the 8350 beats it in a lot of categories, 'GAMING' that is, I don't really care about other benchmarks. Anyway there is no need to spend over $300 if your strictly building a 'gaming' PC. Like I said a $200 - 230 is all you need, and couple that with a high end, +$300 GPU and you will get the same performance as you would get with a better CPU. Strictly speaking at HD res, which is 1080 or higher. At lower res CPU is more a limiting factor.
And I don't buy into that Intel is way better than AMD stuff. I have looked at many benchmarks, 'GAMING' that is, and the FX 8350 really holds its own and in my opinion beat out CPUs like the 2500k and 3570k in many of the games that I play. But don't get me wrong Intel overall is the way to go, but there is nothing wrong with getting an FX8350. If you have an am3+ mb and are looking for a cheaper upgrade with similar results than buying a 3570k and a new MB, then the 8350 is the way to go. An FX 8350 might even have some redeeming qualities down the road when programs become more and more multithreaded. But Im still sticking with my 1100t a little longer. No rush to upgrade when I have no performance issues with any game. Better to wait and get the next gen of CPUs. The 1100t is still only two years old.