760G chipset enough for 8350?

Treey · Mar 22, 2013

I don't really need to overclock until I can get a 990FX mobo, but I just wish it is stable.

Edit: More specifically AsRock 960-GS3.

rgd1101 · Mar 22, 2013

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/960GM-GS3%20FX/?cat=CPU
not supported

Treey · Mar 22, 2013

rgd1101 :

I know, but I was thinking with a BIOS update or something.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

I doubt it. I think Piledriver chips need 9-series boards. Do you already have both?

rgd1101 · Mar 22, 2013

then wait until they offer an bios update for it.

rgd1101 · Mar 22, 2013

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/359788-28-990fx-chipset-8350

this one work 760G and 8350
http://uk.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3Plus/M5A78LMUSB3/#specifications
http://uk.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3Plus/M5A78LMUSB3/#CPUS

Treey · Mar 22, 2013

hapkido :

I don't, no. I am sitting at a P2 965 right now, but I'm having some problems with it so I feel like switching to an 8350 would be a safe bet.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

First, what problems are you having with your Phenom?

Second, if you're buying new and need a new motherboard anyway, I would consider moving to an i5 instead. What do you use your PC for?

Treey · Mar 22, 2013

hapkido :

It's hot as hell. Undervolted slightly with a Kühler 620 and still runs at 65 degrees at max load running the large FFT test on Prime95.

I'd not go to i5, as the 8350 is the superior processor at the moment. Also, it has eight cores which will come in handy when I stream, and for new games which utilize the 8 cores of the PS4 and probably also the new Xbox.

bryonhowley · Mar 22, 2013

Treey :

Well I would go with the 8350 also. I listened to all of the hype and went with a i5 3570K with my 2013 build and gained absolutely NOTHING! A FX-8350 will work for everything you want and then some.

I have two AMD rigs a FX-8120 and FX-8350 and both of them can keep up with this i5 3570K and cost a lot less to build to boot.

Sakkura · Mar 22, 2013

Treey :

That doesn't really make sense. 65 degrees isn't *that* hot. Core i5s are in many ways considered superior to the FX 8350. You don't need 8 cores for streaming, and new games on the consoles will not be coded the same way they are on the PC, so there's no guarantee that 8-core processors will be utilized properly by games (though things should move in that direction).

8350rocks · Mar 22, 2013

Well I would go with the 8350 also. I listened to all of the hype and went with a i5 3570K with my 2013 build and gained absolutely NOTHING! A FX-8350 will work for everything you want and then some.

I have two AMD rigs a FX-8120 and FX-8350 and both of them can keep up with this i5 3570K and cost a lot less to build to boot.

This.

That doesn't really make sense. 65 degrees isn't *that* hot. Core i5s are in many ways considered superior to the FX 8350. You don't need 8 cores for streaming, and new games on the consoles will not be coded the same way they are on the PC, so there's no guarantee that 8-core processors will be utilized properly by games (though things should move in that direction).

Check out these benchmarks before you go touting i5's

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaasTkdGJmNmpNMGowa0hqX3VUNS1ZZEpaUlE#gid=0

Plus, with the new console's (XBOX720/PS4) using all AMD hardware straight out of a PC, the 8 cores WILL get utilized MUCH better in the near future...and many more console games will get ported to PC as well, since development will synergize between the 2.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

Sakkura :

Not only is 65C not that hot, it's not hot at all for full load PC parts. Just got done playing a few rounds of BF3 and my i5 topped out at 66C and my 5850s at 70C and 71C. That's well below thermal max.

I also agree that I wouldn't build a PC based on what parts consoles have. All three console makers went AMD because it made financial sense for their goals -- partly because Intel doesn't have a good GPU solution, and partly because IBM is way behind in the consumer game now. If you're buying/building a console or laptop, an AMD APU/CPU makes a lot of sense. If you're building a gaming PC with a discrete GPU where the CPU doesn't need to handle graphics, Intel is years ahead.

Regardless, these "next-gen" consoles are going to have less power than $500 laptops will in two years. Don't buy PC parts based on what you think may happen. Don't buy something out of perceived loyalty or because you want the underdog to succeed. Buy what is good now. In most cases, Intel makes better CPUs at nearly every price point right now.

8350rocks · Mar 22, 2013

hapkido :

This isn't bad advice

I also agree that I wouldn't build a PC based on what parts consoles have. All three console makers went AMD because it made financial sense for their goals -- partly because Intel doesn't have a good GPU solution, and partly because IBM is way behind in the consumer game now. If you're buying/building a console or laptop, an AMD APU/CPU makes a lot of sense. If you're building a gaming PC with a discrete GPU where the CPU doesn't need to handle graphics, Intel is years ahead.

Regardless, these "next-gen" consoles are going to have less power than $500 laptops will in two years. Don't buy PC parts based on what you think may happen. Don't buy something out of perceived loyalty or because you want the underdog to succeed. Buy what is good now. In most cases, Intel makes better CPUs at nearly every price point right now.

This is just fallacy. Intel makes no chip for $200 or less that is even in the same ballpark as an AMD chip. PERIOD. Furthermore, if you want to compare $300-500 chips to $170-180 chips then go right ahead...but you're not comparing dollars or sense!

In addition...Intel is not so superior as you seem to think. Have a look:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaasTkdGJmNmpNMGowa0hqX3VUNS1ZZEpaUlE#gid=0

For my money, winning quite a few and losing some...I will take that for 1/2 the money.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

bryonhowley :

8350rocks :

First, you're an idiot for building a new PC every year expecting outrageous performance gains.

Second, why would you think a console port... a game designed on parts worse than entry-level gaming PCs have... will perform better on 4-module AMD CPUs vs. much, much faster 4-core Intel chips.

You're partly right, if it's a console port, nothing is going to touch any PC CPU with 4 or more threads. No consoles will ever touch PC performance ever again. There used to be a time where they could build faster systems for cheaper. That time is gone. Now any user with a phillips head screwdriver can build a system that will stomp all over consoles that haven't even been released yet for less than $500.

However, benchmark after benchmark show Intel's CPUs are faster than AMD's in a given price-range. They are way ahead right now. I really do hope AMD releases something monumental that overtakes Intel, but they're just trying to keep up right now. You could pick specific use-cases where an 8-thread AMD outpaces a 4-thread AMD, but those are more-or-less animolies, and they use much, much more power doing so. If you're gaming, and even if you're not, your money is probably better spent on getting an Intel CPU.

I'm not a fanboy by any means. My last CPU was AMD because it made more financial sense to me. I'm just pointing out, right now, they're simply not good buys unless you're looking for integrated graphics or want to experiment overclocking cheaply.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

8350rocks :

hapkido :

This isn't bad advice

I also agree that I wouldn't build a PC based on what parts consoles have. All three console makers went AMD because it made financial sense for their goals -- partly because Intel doesn't have a good GPU solution, and partly because IBM is way behind in the consumer game now. If you're buying/building a console or laptop, an AMD APU/CPU makes a lot of sense. If you're building a gaming PC with a discrete GPU where the CPU doesn't need to handle graphics, Intel is years ahead.

Regardless, these "next-gen" consoles are going to have less power than $500 laptops will in two years. Don't buy PC parts based on what you think may happen. Don't buy something out of perceived loyalty or because you want the underdog to succeed. Buy what is good now. In most cases, Intel makes better CPUs at nearly every price point right now.

This is just fallacy. Intel makes no chip for $200 or less that is even in the same ballpark as an AMD chip. PERIOD. Furthermore, if you want to compare $300-500 chips to $170-180 chips then go right ahead...but you're not comparing dollars or sense!

In addition...Intel is not so superior as you seem to think. Have a look:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaasTkdGJmNmpNMGowa0hqX3VUNS1ZZEpaUlE#gid=0

For my money, winning quite a few and losing some...I will take that for 1/2 the money.

The i5-2500k I bought for $220 over two years ago will match any processor AMD has out right now.

The only CPU AMD has out right now that can even match Intel in price/performance is their A4 series Piledriver chips -- and that's just because you can overclock them. Anything above $130 and they get stomped at any price.

8350rocks · Mar 22, 2013

hapkido :

8350rocks :

The i5-2500k I bought for $220 over two years ago will match any processor AMD has out right now.

The only CPU AMD has out right now that can even match Intel in price/performance is their A4 series Piledriver chips -- and that's just because you can overclock them. Anything above $130 and they get stomped at any price.

You are sadly mistaken...check the benchmarks I posted...FX8350 > i5-3570k

Also, the A4 series is the weakest APU they offer, and is not even on the same ground as an FX4300...the A10 is not bad though...but it's still integrated HD 7660 graphics

Piledriver architecture is in the FX series of chips, and it does quite well. Especially considering I can buy a FX8350 for ~$170-180...and it destroys your i5-2500...and the 3rd gen too. Against an i7 it wins most, and loses some, but I will take that for that price point.

hapkido · Mar 22, 2013

8350rocks :

hapkido :

You are sadly mistaken...check the benchmarks I posted...FX8350 > i5-3570k

Also, the A4 series is the weakest APU they offer, and is not even on the same ground as an FX4300...the A10 is not bad though...but it's still integrated HD 7660 graphics

Piledriver architecture is in the FX series of chips, and it does quite well. Especially considering I can buy a FX8350 for ~$170-180...and it destroys your i5-2500...and the 3rd gen too. Against an i7 it wins most, and loses some, but I will take that for that price point.

Sorry, meant FX 4000 series, not A4.

Please, post those benchmarks where a piledriver beats an i7 IB in most. Or where a piledrive even beats an i5 SB in most. Your random google doc doesn't count -- something with a source and where actual tests were run.

Treey · Mar 23, 2013

Sakkura :

Treey :

That doesn't really make sense. 65 degrees isn't *that* hot. Core i5s are in many ways considered superior to the FX 8350. You don't need 8 cores for streaming, and new games on the consoles will not be coded the same way they are on the PC, so there's no guarantee that 8-core processors will be utilized properly by games (though things should move in that direction).

You do realize that 62c is the highest safe temp for Phenoms, right?

And it does gain a huge FPS boost from having more cores when streaming, trust me.

8350rocks · Mar 24, 2013

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs-3770k-vs-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks

Have at it

hapkido · Mar 24, 2013

8350rocks :

Tek syndicate... how did I know you were going to go there? I'll rip it apart later, but their benchmark results are always contrary to every other site. They're obviously very pro AMD. That's fine, and I enjoy their youtube videos, but they are the only ones even trying to claim AMD makes even equal gaming CPUs.

8350rocks · Mar 24, 2013

hapkido :

Nobody else has benchmarked Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 that I have seen...good solid benchmarks no less...those games are designed for 8 cores btw...

Sakkura · Mar 24, 2013

8350rocks :

That's very derpy, given that Tom's Hardware - the site you're posting on - has benchmarked both of those games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performance-benchmark,3379-7.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

The FX-8350 doesn't quite keep up with a Core i3-2100 in Far Cry 3. It does better in Crysis 3, which is probably the most threaded major game that currently exists, but still trails the Core i5-3550 slightly (lower minimum framerate, identical average).

8350rocks · Mar 24, 2013

Sakkura :

Their benchmark is on Medium settings, teksyndicate is on Ultra settings, perhaps the higher graphic settings better utilize the cores on the AMD CPU as opposed to the better single threaded performance from the intel shining through with fewer floating point calculations and less rendering.

It actually makes sense considering that the higher he turns up the resolution in the teksyndicate review, the more the AMD chips really shine...and even begin to distance themselves from the intel chips.

I should have mentioned the criteria there, but I was referring to Ultra settings on the benchmark...

Note that he did not use anything less than a top end CPU on the tests because of the Ultra settings...and the Metro2033 Benchmark is run in 1440p as well as 1080p

Sakkura · Mar 25, 2013

Higher resolution and settings should not increase the load on the CPU. In fact, with the GPU progressively bottlenecking performance, the load on the CPU should fall as you increase the settings and resolution.

That's why CPUs are often benchmarked at rather low settings and resolution.

760G chipset enough for 8350?

Honorable

Don't

Honorable

Distinguished

Don't

Don't

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Splendid

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Share this page