Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade from an FX4170

Tags:
  • AMD
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2013 1:27:16 AM

Hi all, I'm wondering if upgrading from an AMD FX4170 to an FX8350 would be worth it for gaming performance.
I mainly use my PC for gaming, and my current specs are;
AsRock 970 Extreme 3 MoBo
AMD FX4170@stock
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3
Sapphire Radeon 7870GHz Edition
Silverstone Strider Plus 750w
Around 3 terabytes combined HDD space

So, basically, would the performance gained by upgrading to 8350 be worth it?

Thanks :) 

More about : upgrade fx4170

a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 1:40:52 AM

yes it will be worthwile upgrade.you will get more performance with fx 8350 along with hd 7870
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 1:50:07 AM

Depends what games you play, and Yes the upgrade is good if you can afford it.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 1:59:56 AM

Personally, I would save and get an 8320 with a cheap cooler and OC it. They're practically identical. (Not counting clock-speed or coolers.O
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 2:05:53 AM

Thanatos Telos said:
Personally, I would save and get an 8320 with a cheap cooler and OC it. They're practically identical. (Not counting clock-speed or coolers.O

My board is pretty crap when it comes to overclocking :/ 

m
0
l
April 2, 2013 2:11:33 AM

Lucas Gill said:
Thanatos Telos said:
Personally, I would save and get an 8320 with a cheap cooler and OC it. They're practically identical. (Not counting clock-speed or coolers.O

My board is pretty crap when it comes to overclocking :/ 



Perhaps just wait for the next generation of AMD CPU's if you're patient enough. If you can't OC the FX-8350 well, you may not see much of a difference in gaming performance if the games you play are single-threaded.

edit: However, with multi-threaded tasks/games you will definitely see an improvement. Also, if your current CPU is bottlenecking, the 8-core chip may eliminate that.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 2:16:34 PM

Actually the FX8350 will be about a 30-40% increase in gaming performance, not only are you going from bulldozer to piledriver, but you're also doubling the number of cores you have. The 8350 is a very sound investment. I would recommend it completely.
m
0
l
April 2, 2013 6:33:26 PM

Alrighty, sounds like everyone thinks the FX8350 will be a worth while upgrade, thanks for the replies everyone :) 
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 9:16:16 PM

No problem, please share some solution love to one of us.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 9:44:59 PM

8350rocks said:
Actually the FX8350 will be about a 30-40% increase in gaming performance, not only are you going from bulldozer to piledriver, but you're also doubling the number of cores you have. The 8350 is a very sound investment. I would recommend it completely.


40%?!?!? Where did you find that number?

I'd say you are looking more like 10% in most cases. It's going to be a very small upgrade for most games. FX-4170 performs roughly the same as the Fx-4300 (it's bulldozer, but it's 4.2Ghz stock) and in nearly all benchmarks, the fx-4300 is only a small margin behind the fx-8350. Games just really don't use more than 4 cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2013 11:45:31 PM

twelve25 is wrong. And 8350rocks means up to 40% in gaming improvements. IMO, I'd save myself some money and buy a FX 8320, but I guess since you don't plan on OCing, go for the FX 8350. It's only 200Mhz faster and operates at 4.0GHz when it's not set to power mode.

To answer your question, Yes. It if very much worth it.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 3, 2013 7:10:21 AM

twelve25 said:
8350rocks said:
Actually the FX8350 will be about a 30-40% increase in gaming performance, not only are you going from bulldozer to piledriver, but you're also doubling the number of cores you have. The 8350 is a very sound investment. I would recommend it completely.


40%?!?!? Where did you find that number?

I'd say you are looking more like 10% in most cases. It's going to be a very small upgrade for most games. FX-4170 performs roughly the same as the Fx-4300 (it's bulldozer, but it's 4.2Ghz stock) and in nearly all benchmarks, the fx-4300 is only a small margin behind the fx-8350. Games just really don't use more than 4 cores.


No, the FX4170 is bulldozer, the FX4300 is piledriver, so the FX4300 is 15% better at single threaded applications to start off...add the fact that you have more Cache on the FX8350 (twice as much in fact)...and you are gaining another 15-20% efficiency from being able to hold more instructions in your cache.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-FX-4300

Have a look at that benchmark comparison.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 11:14:50 AM

8350rocks said:
twelve25 said:
8350rocks said:
Actually the FX8350 will be about a 30-40% increase in gaming performance, not only are you going from bulldozer to piledriver, but you're also doubling the number of cores you have. The 8350 is a very sound investment. I would recommend it completely.


40%?!?!? Where did you find that number?

I'd say you are looking more like 10% in most cases. It's going to be a very small upgrade for most games. FX-4170 performs roughly the same as the Fx-4300 (it's bulldozer, but it's 4.2Ghz stock) and in nearly all benchmarks, the fx-4300 is only a small margin behind the fx-8350. Games just really don't use more than 4 cores.


No, the FX4170 is bulldozer, the FX4300 is piledriver, so the FX4300 is 15% better at single threaded applications to start off...add the fact that you have more Cache on the FX8350 (twice as much in fact)...and you are gaining another 15-20% efficiency from being able to hold more instructions in your cache.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8350-vs-AMD-FX-4300

Have a look at that benchmark comparison.


Piledriver is 15% faster at same clock speed, but the 4170 has a 11% higher clock speed than the 4300. That puts the performance difference somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-5%.



Your cpuboss link shows synthetics. Synthetic benchmarks use all cores, but games will not use more than 4. If you had a game that could use all 8 cores, then yes, it would be a huge upgrade.

Here's some real game benchmarks:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

Even Crysis 3 and Fary Cry 3, which are some of the most multi-core friendly games, only shows a few FPS gain when using a GTX680: http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...

Personally, I don't think moving from 55 to 64 fps in far cry 3 as a worthwhile upgrade for $200.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 11:16:26 AM

griptwister said:
twelve25 is wrong. And 8350rocks means up to 40% in gaming improvements. .


I'd love to see the benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 3, 2013 11:37:10 AM

twelve25 said:
griptwister said:
twelve25 is wrong. And 8350rocks means up to 40% in gaming improvements. .


I'd love to see the benchmarks.


The difference in FPS in Batman AC at 1280x800 resolution with no AA (more CPU bound) is 31 FPS that's a 34% improvement...in the other games, the results are similar. Of course when you run it at higher settings on a capable card the gap closes.

The thing is though, he isn't using a GTX680/HD 7950 class GPU...so he is naturally going to be more CPU bound in a lot of games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 11:45:38 AM

Forgive me if I laugh at using an 8350 with a card that can only do 30fps in Arkham city and then laugh harder at using such an odd combo to make claims about performance differences.


m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 3, 2013 12:10:49 PM

twelve25 said:
Forgive me if I laugh at using an 8350 with a card that can only do 30fps in Arkham city and then laugh harder at using such an odd combo to make claims about performance differences.




The Tahiti based HD 7870 is no slouch...it's not a HD 7950/7970...nor should it be...but it will be a decent card, and the FX8350 will pair well with it.

If you laugh at anything, it should be that, at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of argument.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 12:42:26 PM

twelve25 said:
Forgive me if I laugh at using an 8350 with a card that can only do 30fps in Arkham city and then laugh harder at using such an odd combo to make claims about performance differences.




Simple mathematics. 4 + 4 = 8

So that means even though we should be seeing about a 50% improvement in performance, we aren't. Simply because that's how things work in the PC world, You add 2 GPUs, but you hardly ever see perfect scaling. Are you going to say that 680 SLI is horrible because the game you love to play isn't well optimized for the second GPU? No! Same thing goes for the 8 core CPU, not all games are well optimized for the (other 4 cores in an) 8 core. Another thing is, The CPU won't make the framerate drop as dramatically as you're thinking, The CPU only limit's the FPS... and in certain points, it may drop, but, it's an 8 core, and it is enough for day to day usage and high setting gaming (even ultra in a few games). Another thing... look at how good AMD can run a game using all 8 cores and how bad an i7 can run a game with HT enabled...

Soo... What was it you were saying about the Arkham City and the HD 7870? Honestly, it would play Batman at about 40 FPS on average is my guess. Again, you're saying things with no proof for your claims.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://techreport.com/review/22573/amd-radeon-hd-7870-g...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 12:53:51 PM

8350rocks said:
twelve25 said:
Forgive me if I laugh at using an 8350 with a card that can only do 30fps in Arkham city and then laugh harder at using such an odd combo to make claims about performance differences.




The Tahiti based HD 7870 is no slouch...it's not a HD 7950/7970...nor should it be...but it will be a decent card, and the FX8350 will pair well with it.

If you laugh at anything, it should be that, at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of argument.


There's no way they used a Tahiti 7870 and only got 30fps in Arkham city. You didn't mention the card before, but that's just not possible. I got over 30 fps at 1680x1050 in arkham city on a 5770.

I'm arguing to prevent the OP from spending $200 and ending up with essentially the same performance in most games. And it's you guys (or are you both the same guy) that aren't providing any real game benchmarks involving these CPUs - I listed links to several.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 1:02:08 PM

twelve25 said:


Thanks. One more link showing only 10fps between the 8350 and the 4170. 60 vs 70fps and both vsync capable. Not even CLOSE to 40%.



Again, it's not using all eight cores. You however proved the performance increase of the FX 4300 over the 4170. Get a clue yet?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 3, 2013 3:03:11 PM

twelve25 said:
8350rocks said:
twelve25 said:
Forgive me if I laugh at using an 8350 with a card that can only do 30fps in Arkham city and then laugh harder at using such an odd combo to make claims about performance differences.




The Tahiti based HD 7870 is no slouch...it's not a HD 7950/7970...nor should it be...but it will be a decent card, and the FX8350 will pair well with it.

If you laugh at anything, it should be that, at this point, you're just arguing for the sake of argument.


There's no way they used a Tahiti 7870 and only got 30fps in Arkham city. You didn't mention the card before, but that's just not possible. I got over 30 fps at 1680x1050 in arkham city on a 5770.

I'm arguing to prevent the OP from spending $200 and ending up with essentially the same performance in most games. And it's you guys (or are you both the same guy) that aren't providing any real game benchmarks involving these CPUs - I listed links to several.


The OP is using a tahiti 7870...I don't know what review you were talking about...?

Edit: I figured it out, you thought I said they got 31 FPS...no...at low settings, in the review you posted, BAC had a difference between the FX8350 and FX4300 of 122 FPS (8350) to 91 FPS (4300)...the DIFFERENCE between the 2 was 31 FPS, or a 34% increase by going to the 8350.

I am simply trying to help the guy fix his issue...the FX4170 isn't bad...though some games are brutal on machines that are bottlenecking...(Crysis 3 for example among others)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 3:21:24 PM

1. lucas made his decision yesterday, why is this thread still going?
2. twelve25 stated that he doesn't believe the cost of $200 is worth the increase in a few games, it's his opinion.
3. yes in some games the increase from FX-4 to FX-8 can be 34% although I personally find increasing your FPS past 91 silly. As always, a little research can go a long way in making a decision.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
April 3, 2013 4:46:00 PM

The 8350 will be a massive upgrade over the 4170...
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 3, 2013 4:56:21 PM

dirtyferret said:
1. lucas made his decision yesterday, why is this thread still going?
2. twelve25 stated that he doesn't believe the cost of $200 is worth the increase in a few games, it's his opinion.
3. yes in some games the increase from FX-4 to FX-8 can be 34% although I personally find increasing your FPS past 91 silly. As always, a little research can go a long way in making a decision.


Some people (not naming names) just like to argue...I am beginning to determine which ones they are though.

I agree FPS over 90 is a bit much, and anything over 60 is probably excessive.

m
0
l
!