Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

want to upgrade Phenom II x4 965 AMD FX-8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 10, 2013 8:54:59 AM

phenom II x4 965 not OC
Asrock extreme 4 970
10g gskill
7850 2g

thinking about just swapping out for the Fx-8350 , will it enhance my gaming, keep in mind you my phenom is not OC. or for $100 more get a i5-3570K Ivy Bridge and new MOB?
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 9:00:10 AM

The FX8350 is as good as the i5-3570k at anything and better at many things. Yes, you would see something on the order of 20% improvement in nearly everything you do. Yes, it would be worth it. Update your BIOS to newest version and rock the 8350!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2013 9:01:58 AM

Personally I would overclock the Phenom and save youself the money. Those things can hit 4ghz if you're lucky and you will notice the difference. Also buying intel now is a bit silly given that Haswell and a new socket are nearly here. The Phenom may be old tech but it still has loads of life left in it especially now as more and more games are using the extra cores. Cmon you can still have a viable gaming system with a 65nm Core 2 quad Q6600 oc'ed.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 10, 2013 9:17:20 AM

thanks guys for the quick input! As for the OCing Its not unlocked and I would need a after market cooler and probably a new PSU.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 145 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 9:17:47 AM

8350rocks said:
The FX8350 is as good as the i5-3570k at anything and better at many things. Yes, you would see something on the order of 20% improvement in nearly everything you do. Yes, it would be worth it. Update your BIOS to newest version and rock the 8350!


First of all the FX8350 is NOT superior to the i5-3570K for gaming. That's been proved many, many times with the exception of TekSyndicate who have a completely skewed analysis and claim they are the "only" ones who know what they're doing (for example, they said the 8350 + GTX670 got 55FPS in Far Cry 3 but only 25FPS with the i5-3570K.

*Having said that, if you buy the i5-3570K you need a new motherboard. Unless you have Windows 8, you'll have to buy a new copy of Windows because pre-Windows 8 OEM copies (you likely don't have FULL) are not transferrable so that's another $100.

Also, your graphics card is okay, but not the best so you will be GPU-bottlenecked anyway in some games.

So I do recommend the FX-8350 if you think it's worth it. That's about $200 assuming it's compatible with your motherboard. If you bought the i5-3570K + Motherboard (then Windows) you're talking over $400 (probably $500 with tax/shipping).

You can also Google benchmarks to see how much of a difference upgrading from the X4 965 actually makes (this will vary a lot). Games which are more CPU-dependant will obviously see the biggest gains.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 145 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 9:26:51 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.
m
0
l
April 10, 2013 9:38:35 AM

photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.


the plan would be to get the FX now in preparation for a beast gpu later, got to piece it to gether rather then drop 7-$800 at once. would I get bottlenecking with the FX OCd with a 680 or 7970?
m
0
l
April 10, 2013 9:51:41 AM

Duke Nucome said:
norcal21 said:
photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.


the plan would be to get the FX now in preparation for a beast gpu later, got to piece it to gether rather then drop 7-$800 at once. would I get bottlenecking with the FX OCd with a 680 or 7970?


Yes but not big enough to turn away from the AMD FX 8350 unless you all play is Starcraft 2 because of the "Intel Compiler". If you want to try and run all you games @ 120hz/fps then go Intel but if 60fps is good for you then the FX 8350 is a fine choice of processor for running games.


thanks for the insight bro, I dont even have a 120hz monitor so 60hz will do for me..not sure my eyes could really appreciate 120
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 145 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 10:01:19 AM

I'm NOT recommending the i5-3570K. Let me be clear. It would be faster on average (in some cases identical, in others 30% or so faster):
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

But again, we're looking at about $200 for the FX-8350 vs at least $400 for the Intel solution which requires a new motherboard AND copy of Windows.

New graphics card:
NVidia just announced that the 700 series is due in 2014. Would a GTX770 bottleneck your FX-8350? Yes and No. It varies significantly by the game. My rule of thumb with upgrading a graphics card is get one with at LEAST 2x the performance of my current card. I went from an HD3870 to an HD5870, then to a GTX680. My next card will likely be a GTX880.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 10:28:56 AM

norcal21 said:
photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.


the plan would be to get the FX now in preparation for a beast gpu later, got to piece it to gether rather then drop 7-$800 at once. would I get bottlenecking with the FX OCd with a 680 or 7970?


No, the FX8350 currently cannot bottleneck any GPU on the planet...it's not physically possible. They tested it with a 4 way crossfire of HD 7970 cards and the CPU usage was below 50%...

The game chosen was Metro 2033 and the 4 cards were running 3 1920x1280 monitors at 1440p
m
0
l
April 10, 2013 10:33:39 AM

8350rocks said:
norcal21 said:
photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.


the plan would be to get the FX now in preparation for a beast gpu later, got to piece it to gether rather then drop 7-$800 at once. would I get bottlenecking with the FX OCd with a 680 or 7970?


No, the FX8350 currently cannot bottleneck any GPU on the planet...it's not physically possible. They tested it with a 4 way crossfire of HD 7970 cards and the CPU usage was below 50%...

The game chosen was Metro 2033 and the 4 cards were running 3 1920x1280 monitors at 1440p


I'm sure the way to test for cpu bottleneck is when gpu's are not running at 99% or above is it not?

Also I'd say you won't see enough of an increase to justify buying the 8350, BUT steamroller isn't going to be released till 2014, so i guess you should go for it, although buying the 6300 or 8320 wouldn't be a bad idea.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 10:38:07 AM

Duke Nucome said:
8350rocks said:
norcal21 said:
photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

I didn't quickly find any actual gaming benchmarks, but some quick googling and the above chart seem to indicate many games won't benefit significantly. It shows the 8350 as one tier above the X4 965.

When I jumped up from my i7-860 to the i7-3770K (two tiers) with my GTX680 I got between a 5% and 25% boost roughly depending on the game. And of course, the better the graphics card, the more gain you'll get with a better CPU.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, but another option might be to put that money towards a completely new computer in a couple years.


the plan would be to get the FX now in preparation for a beast gpu later, got to piece it to gether rather then drop 7-$800 at once. would I get bottlenecking with the FX OCd with a 680 or 7970?


No, the FX8350 currently cannot bottleneck any GPU on the planet...it's not physically possible. They tested it with a 4 way crossfire of HD 7970 cards and the CPU usage was below 50%...


Cite your sources. Also was that @ triple monitor resolution or 1600P where the load moves from the CPU to the GPU ? The FX Pildriver chips are good budget CPUs but they are not the best.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...

Read the top post, and then the one about 7-8 down(same guy), he shows CPU usage and screen shot of all 4 HD 7970 cards info opened on the screen.

He ran unigine heaven and several other benchmarks to show that it won't bottleneck...and no, it wasn't GPU loaded.

I don't play Minecraft, but he does, and he can run 6 instances of minecraft in the background of the one he's playing...for 7 total
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 10:47:33 AM

Duke Nucome said:

Metro 2033 is easy on the CPU so your claim is redundant.


What about the other 25 titles he has benchmarked with the same results? Like BF3 multiplayer for example? I suppose unigine heaven is easy on your CPU too huh? Oh, wait...that's a graphical CPU benchmark suite...

read his post...it dispels any possible doubts that the CPU would bottleneck anything...period.

BTW, his score beat a OC'ed i7-3770k in unigine heaven on his OC'ed FX8350...just thought I would mention that.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 10:58:22 AM

Duke Nucome said:
8350rocks said:
Duke Nucome said:

Metro 2033 is easy on the CPU so your claim is redundant.


What about the other 25 titles he has benchmarked with the same results? Like BF3 multiplayer for example? I suppose unigine heaven is easy on your CPU too huh? Oh, wait...that's a graphical CPU benchmark suite...

read his post...it dispels any possible doubts that the CPU would bottleneck anything...period.

BTW, his score beat a OC'ed i7-3770k in unigine heaven on his OC'ed FX8350...just thought I would mention that.


It's synthetic and does not represent actual playing of games in where Intel almost always comes out on top. Do you play Unigen ?


Actually, your response is false, Intel typically wins synthetic benchmarks and real world results are usually much closer...because most synthetic benchmarks use ICC (Intel Compiler) which generates less efficient code if the CPU is not intel. This makes it even more impressive when AMD wins synthetic benchmarks because the deck is typically not stacked in their favor.

Heaven is a DX11 benchmark. They make games, but the Heaven suite is a real benchmark for how well your CPU handles DX11 instructions/threads.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 11:34:23 AM

Duke Nucome said:

Intel is better both ways. That said the FX 8350 is a good budget processor but Intel is faster. Either way I am not a fan of canned benchmarks as you can't play them and like you said the metric is BS because of the "Intel Compiler" the same thing that affect real time gaming performance in favor of Intel in some games as does the fact that games like "Per Core" performance in where Intel has AMD beat. AMD FX Piledriver is a good option for people like me that have an AM3/AM3+ motherboard and Phenom II CPU looking to upgrade without spending an arm and a leg on an Intel platform but for all out performance or if you wan 3D or 120hz/fps gaming then Intel all the way. Sorry to be a downer on your fanboy parade but Intel is better than AMD it's a well know fact.


Actually, I am not going to waste my breath rehashing 2 threads that are going on 10k views and have over 300 responses between the 2 of them...but let the facts be known, you are talking about something of which you have no clue. Do some research...intel wins a few things here and there...but AMD wins as many and more...especially stacking up the i5-3570k and the FX 8350...the i7-3770k loses as many benchmarks to the FX 8350 as it wins...you're deluded if you believe anything otherwise. The only benchmark intel blows anything away in is Skyrim.

Also, you might want to read the thread titled, "Is the FX 8350 good for gaming?" and "Intel vs. AMD the why?"
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 1:01:03 PM

Duke Nucome said:
8350rocks said:
Duke Nucome said:

Intel is better both ways. That said the FX 8350 is a good budget processor but Intel is faster. Either way I am not a fan of canned benchmarks as you can't play them and like you said the metric is BS because of the "Intel Compiler" the same thing that affect real time gaming performance in favor of Intel in some games as does the fact that games like "Per Core" performance in where Intel has AMD beat. AMD FX Piledriver is a good option for people like me that have an AM3/AM3+ motherboard and Phenom II CPU looking to upgrade without spending an arm and a leg on an Intel platform but for all out performance or if you wan 3D or 120hz/fps gaming then Intel all the way. Sorry to be a downer on your fanboy parade but Intel is better than AMD it's a well know fact.


Actually, I am not going to waste my breath rehashing 2 threads that are going on 10k views and have over 300 responses between the 2 of them...but let the facts be known, you are talking about something of which you have no clue. Do some research...intel wins a few things here and there...but AMD wins as many and more...especially stacking up the i5-3570k and the FX 8350...the i7-3770k loses as many benchmarks to the FX 8350 as it wins...you're deluded if you believe anything otherwise. The only benchmark intel blows anything away in is Skyrim.

Also, you might want to read the thread titled, "Is the FX 8350 good for gaming?" and "Intel vs. AMD the why?"


Fine if you want to live in a place that AMD wins more performance metrics than Intel does thats great but back here in realty Intel is still on top albeit not by much is you consider the 3570k vs 8350. I am not even going to dig up all the data that has been presented to you by professional reviewers that claim you are full of false information and skewed AMD pride since the inception of the FX 8350.


Go read the threads...seriously...if you don't understand after 7 pages of discussion, you never will.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 1:07:59 PM

Duke Nucome said:
8350rocks said:
Duke Nucome said:
8350rocks said:
Duke Nucome said:

Intel is better both ways. That said the FX 8350 is a good budget processor but Intel is faster. Either way I am not a fan of canned benchmarks as you can't play them and like you said the metric is BS because of the "Intel Compiler" the same thing that affect real time gaming performance in favor of Intel in some games as does the fact that games like "Per Core" performance in where Intel has AMD beat. AMD FX Piledriver is a good option for people like me that have an AM3/AM3+ motherboard and Phenom II CPU looking to upgrade without spending an arm and a leg on an Intel platform but for all out performance or if you wan 3D or 120hz/fps gaming then Intel all the way. Sorry to be a downer on your fanboy parade but Intel is better than AMD it's a well know fact.


Actually, I am not going to waste my breath rehashing 2 threads that are going on 10k views and have over 300 responses between the 2 of them...but let the facts be known, you are talking about something of which you have no clue. Do some research...intel wins a few things here and there...but AMD wins as many and more...especially stacking up the i5-3570k and the FX 8350...the i7-3770k loses as many benchmarks to the FX 8350 as it wins...you're deluded if you believe anything otherwise. The only benchmark intel blows anything away in is Skyrim.

Also, you might want to read the thread titled, "Is the FX 8350 good for gaming?" and "Intel vs. AMD the why?"


Fine if you want to live in a place that AMD wins more performance metrics than Intel does thats great but back here in realty Intel is still on top albeit not by much is you consider the 3570k vs 8350. I am not even going to dig up all the data that has been presented to you by professional reviewers that claim you are full of false information and skewed AMD pride since the inception of the FX 8350.


Go read the threads...seriously...if you don't understand after 7 pages of discussion, you never will.


Why when every major reviewer and PC hardware and tech publication including TH included say you are lying.


Only the biased and well paid ones don't admit AMD wins a lot of the benchmarks...and the great majority of benchmarks shown are within the 10% margin for error of the test meaning they are essentially a draw.

In order for the intel product to be "uneqivocally" better, it would have to beat the FX8350 by 15+ FPS @ 120 FPS avg. There is no time that any benchmarks anyone has provided are ever that far apart...but you don't read the fine print...and many other sites have shown the same benchmarks with the FPS differences in favor of AMD by as much or as little as other sites show them in favor of intel.

THEY ARE EQUAL.

m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 10, 2013 1:25:59 PM

Duke Nucome said:

I like AMD and I could be considered an AMD fanboy but I am also realistic. That said when the 8350 is run side by side next to a 3570k all other parameters being equal the 8350 exhibits a little noticeable stuttering here and there where the Intel chip does not. As a gamer and or digital enthusiast or businessperson if an upgrade to an Intel 2500K or 3570K cost the same as an upgrade to a pile driver you would be stupid not to go with Intel. IMO the upper hand lye with AMD Piledriver not all around faster because they are not but because they offer much more speed for you dollar.


When steamroller arrives...Intel will be watching the rearview mirror and see AMD go flying by...then they will be watching tail lights off in the distance....as AMD flies away with superior MIMD and SIMD that is well on par with Intel. Watch...it's coming!
m
0
l
April 11, 2013 1:31:09 PM

I actually read that insane thread with 10k views, So much good info in there. should really read it.
As for the upgrade in question, Its likely a new OS key would be needed if you went with the Intel/new mobo couple. so i would vote FX 8350 if you had to upgrade. may be worthwhile to wait a bit longer though for the next sets of CPU's/
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 145 à CPUs
April 11, 2013 7:26:24 PM

Let's warp this up:

1) The i5-3570K is superior, on AVERAGE to the FX-8350 for GAMING.

2) The BEST choice for the question asked is the FX-8350 (the i5-3570K would require a new motherboard and Windows as well likely.)

3) The FX-8350 in many games isn't much better than his existing CPU. This is partially due to SINGLE THREAD performance. For games that can use multi-threads better (especially in future games) improvement can jump a lot.

4) Personally, I would WAIT for a better CPU than the FX-8350 if it will be compatible with his current motherboard. There are LOTS of things they can fix, they know the NEED to, and I expect the next $200 part from AMD to be much better (at least I HOPE it is).

Cheers.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
April 11, 2013 8:42:20 PM

Duke Nucome said:
photonboy said:
Let's warp this up:

3) The FX-8350 in many games isn't much better than his existing CPU.

that's right it's allot better.




+1
m
0
l
March 19, 2014 5:00:26 AM

photonboy said:
8350rocks said:
The FX8350 is as good as the i5-3570k at anything and better at many things. Yes, you would see something on the order of 20% improvement in nearly everything you do. Yes, it would be worth it. Update your BIOS to newest version and rock the 8350!


First of all the FX8350 is NOT superior to the i5-3570K for gaming. That's been proved many, many times with the exception of TekSyndicate who have a completely skewed analysis and claim they are the "only" ones who know what they're doing (for example, they said the 8350 + GTX670 got 55FPS in Far Cry 3 but only 25FPS with the i5-3570K.

*Having said that, if you buy the i5-3570K you need a new motherboard. Unless you have Windows 8, you'll have to buy a new copy of Windows because pre-Windows 8 OEM copies (you likely don't have FULL) are not transferrable so that's another $100.

Also, your graphics card is okay, but not the best so you will be GPU-bottlenecked anyway in some games.

So I do recommend the FX-8350 if you think it's worth it. That's about $200 assuming it's compatible with your motherboard. If you bought the i5-3570K + Motherboard (then Windows) you're talking over $400 (probably $500 with tax/shipping).

You can also Google benchmarks to see how much of a difference upgrading from the X4 965 actually makes (this will vary a lot). Games which are more CPU-dependant will obviously see the biggest gains.


the 8350 when running anything in the background runs better. lets not forget most benchmarks are game and OS only. Tek was streaming while benchmarking which is when 8350 beats all i5s. also its all based on instructions which will change with the PS4 release.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 134 à CPUs
March 19, 2014 10:07:58 PM

The biggest increase you will notice, for gaming, will be with a video card upgrade. The 7850 is by no means a bad card. PSU permitting, you could try overclocking your GPU?

Either way, with your motherboard, overclocking your CPU is not recommended. You already have a decent entry-level CPU that suits you fine for pretty much every task; it's not anemic. I would wait until a better option presented itself.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2014 10:13:03 PM

You two do realize this thread is a year old? OP is probably LONG gone and has already upgraded.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 134 à CPUs
March 20, 2014 11:05:49 AM

(loloops.)
m
0
l
!