Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best AMD Processor For Gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 29, 2013 8:43:28 PM

I just compare all AMD Processors and FX 8350 is d best.
I want to do gaming on my PC. So is it best choice? 8 cores for gaming?
Or quad or hexa core is good choice for just gaming?
And hey I can afford it, no money problem.

More about : amd processor gaming

a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 8:45:48 PM

Yes, the 8350 is the best AMD for gaming.
Score
0
May 29, 2013 8:50:54 PM

elemein said:
Yes, the 8350 is the best AMD for gaming.


What about Intel's i7 3770k?
Which one is best for gaming?
Score
0
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 29, 2013 8:52:25 PM

3770k costs a lot more so this doesn't seem to be a fair competition.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 8:53:16 PM

The i5 3570k still has an edge in gaming over the FX8350. The i7 sometimes preforms better in games, sometimes it doesn't. Some games don't like hyper threading. The performance gain from the i5 to the i7 is not worth it.

That being said, the i5/i7 is also more expensive.

Intel: Go with i5 3570k
AMD: Go with the FX8350
Score
0
May 29, 2013 8:57:07 PM

fatboytyler said:
The i5 3570k still has an edge in gaming over the FX8350. The i7 sometimes preforms better in games, sometimes it doesn't. Some games don't like hyper threading. The performance gain from the i5 to the i7 is not worth it.

That being said, the i5/i7 is also more expensive.

Intel: Go with i5 3570k
AMD: Go with the FX8350


I was considering i5 3570 processor first. But AMD has 8 core processor. And 8 MB L2 cache. Which one os better. And price doesnt matter
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 8:59:09 PM

yogesh_gamer said:
fatboytyler said:
The i5 3570k still has an edge in gaming over the FX8350. The i7 sometimes preforms better in games, sometimes it doesn't. Some games don't like hyper threading. The performance gain from the i5 to the i7 is not worth it.

That being said, the i5/i7 is also more expensive.

Intel: Go with i5 3570k
AMD: Go with the FX8350


I was considering i5 3570 processor first. But AMD has 8 core processor. And 8 MB L2 cache. Which one os better. And price doesnt matter


For games, overclocked 3570k
Score
0
May 29, 2013 9:00:43 PM

maxalge said:
yogesh_gamer said:
fatboytyler said:
The i5 3570k still has an edge in gaming over the FX8350. The i7 sometimes preforms better in games, sometimes it doesn't. Some games don't like hyper threading. The performance gain from the i5 to the i7 is not worth it.

That being said, the i5/i7 is also more expensive.

Intel: Go with i5 3570k
AMD: Go with the FX8350


I was considering i5 3570 processor first. But AMD has 8 core processor. And 8 MB L2 cache. Which one os better. And price doesnt matter


For games, overclocked 3570k


I don't want to overclocked Processor. So which one is better without overclocking? And hey FX is 4 ghz. Where as i5 is just 3.3 ghz.
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 9:00:49 PM

Many games don't utilize more than 2 cores, a few will use 4. The 8 cores on the AMD cpu goes to waste in gaming. Now for hardcore movie editing, etc. the 8 Cores will dominate the i5, but then the i7 steps in however at a much higher price.

The 3570k per core performance handily beats the 8350. Multithreaded apps, (as previously stated) such as high end video software favors having more cores.


EDIT: Since you don't want to overclock, the 3570k and 3570 are identical, just the "k" version is overclockable. In that case, the i5 wins at base clocks if I'm not mistaken.
Share
May 29, 2013 9:05:23 PM

fatboytyler said:
Many games don't utilize more than 2 cores, a few will use 4. The 8 cores on the AMD cpu goes to waste in gaming. Now for hardcore movie editing, etc. the 8 Cores will dominate the i5, but then the i7 steps in however at a much higher price.

The 3570k per core performance handily beats the 8350. Multithreaded apps, (as previously stated) such as high end video software favors having more cores.


EDIT: Since you don't want to overclock, the 3570k and 3570 are identical, just the "k" version is overclockable. In that case, the i5 wins at base clocks if I'm not mistaken.


Base clock of FX 8350 is 4 Ghz and dat of i5 3570 is 3.4 Ghz. I don't want to play old games. I want to play latest games. And all required quad core processors. And i want 3 years of gaming on my new pc. And maybe after one year games will require more cores? Waiting for reply
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 9:12:02 PM

I honestly can't tell you if games will start utilizing more than 4 cores in the next few years.

As of right now though, the 3570 at 3.3 GHz is superior to the 8350 at its stock clock in gaming. They trade blows in production software. The "k" version will allow you to overclock in a few years to help keep up. The 8350 is already unlocked and overclockable. So really, both of them will last a while in gaming. It will take a several years before the 3570 and 8350 become the bottlenecks for highend graphic cards.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 29, 2013 9:14:32 PM

Clock-to-clock performance on FX cpus is lower than on Ivy bridge ones. But in the future, many games will utilize 8 core cpus due to next-gen consoles using the same type of processor ( rights? ), therefor FX8350 will be more future-prof compared to LGA1155 CPUs. The same thing happened with Phenom II x4 CPUs. They were decent for gaming at launch but got nominated as best CPU for gaming at 100$ price range in 2013 by Tom.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 9:17:07 PM

Madn3ss795 said:
Clock-to-clock performance on FX cpus is lower than on Ivy bridge ones. But in the future, many games will utilize 8 core cpus due to next-gen consoles using the same type of processor ( rights? ), therefor FX8350 will be more future-prof compared to LGA1155 CPUs. The same thing happened with Phenom II x4 CPUs. They were decent for gaming at launch but got nominated as best CPU for gaming at 100$ price range in 2013 by Tom.


While this is likely true, it isn't necessarily due to that fact. The console and PC cpu's while identical in architecture, are still very different. It just makes porting games easier, since the programming needed to port will be minimal compared to current gen consoles.
Score
0
May 29, 2013 9:21:27 PM

fatboytyler said:
I honestly can't tell you if games will start utilizing more than 4 cores in the next few years.

As of right now though, the 3570 at 3.3 GHz is superior to the 8350 at its stock clock in gaming. They trade blows in production software. The "k" version will allow you to overclock in a few years to help keep up. The 8350 is already unlocked and overclockable. So really, both of them will last a while in gaming. It will take a several years before the 3570 and 8350 become the bottlenecks for highend graphic cards.


Madn3ss795 said:
Clock-to-clock performance on FX cpus is lower than on Ivy bridge ones. But in the future, many games will utilize 8 core cpus due to next-gen consoles using the same type of processor ( rights? ), therefor FX8350 will be more future-prof compared to LGA1155 CPUs. The same thing happened with Phenom II x4 CPUs. They were decent for gaming at launch but got nominated as best CPU for gaming at 100$ price range in 2013 by Tom.


fatboytyler said:
Madn3ss795 said:
Clock-to-clock performance on FX cpus is lower than on Ivy bridge ones. But in the future, many games will utilize 8 core cpus due to next-gen consoles using the same type of processor ( rights? ), therefor FX8350 will be more future-prof compared to LGA1155 CPUs. The same thing happened with Phenom II x4 CPUs. They were decent for gaming at launch but got nominated as best CPU for gaming at 100$ price range in 2013 by Tom.


While this is likely true, it isn't necessarily due to that fact. The console and PC cpu's while identical in architecture, are still very different. It just makes porting games easier, since the programming needed to port will be minimal compared to current gen consoles.


At least hexa core processors may require for future gaming, And this is what i am saying. And hey ya right. Aur next consoles are 8 cores
Score
0
Anonymous
May 29, 2013 9:23:51 PM

Intel 4 cores really beat 8 cores of an amd processors. But if you want a multi-threading like video rendering or other stuff using threads like compressing files. Definitely go with lot of cores. But if you only focus in gaming 3570K is the best choice.

3570K will last in future games. No worry of that. You only need to have the best GPU to get best experience in gaming and to last the future that you were talking about.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 9:24:21 PM

You also have to take into consideration that the next gen CPUs by intel are all Quad core once again. Really until Intel starts cranking out the everyday 6 Core CPU then many games won't start supporting it fully. And the majority of high end effects are dependent upon the GPU almost entirely.
Score
0
May 29, 2013 9:26:29 PM

And hey i also want to purchase a GTX Graphics card. Either 660 or 660 ti. (Not decided yet)
So gaming on which processor will be extreme? Future gaming also matters.
Which one is best combination?
Score
0
May 29, 2013 9:28:00 PM

Thanks guyz. But plz dont mention i5 3570k, Remove d K. i dont want to do overclocking.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 29, 2013 9:32:08 PM

3570K will be called an ancient one after 4-5 years upon release on gaming area. Just bought high end graphics card to get more amazing effects.
But if you consider 8350 the most like the thread title you create :lol:  an AMD Processors. 8350 will be good choice. Just add more cooler so it last long hours of gaming...
Score
0
Anonymous
May 29, 2013 9:33:26 PM

yogesh_gamer said:
Thanks guyz. But plz dont mention i5 3570k, Remove d K. i dont want to do overclocking.


You can use overclocking in the future.
Score
0
Anonymous
May 29, 2013 9:40:17 PM

yogesh_gamer said:
And hey i also want to purchase a GTX Graphics card. Either 660 or 660 ti. (Not decided yet)
So gaming on which processor will be extreme? Future gaming also matters.
Which one is best combination?


660 ti would be a wiser choice. because if you will buy gtx 660 it will be like gtx g50 ti boost OC edition by ASUS

They have a very large price range between gtx 650 ti boost and gtx 660
Score
0
July 8, 2013 2:08:00 AM

Anonymous said:
3570K will be called an ancient one after 4-5 years upon release on gaming area. Just bought high end graphics card to get more amazing effects.
But if you consider 8350 the most like the thread title you create :lol:  an AMD Processors. 8350 will be good choice. Just add more cooler so it last long hours of gaming...


you if u guys dont know , here is what the fx 8350 is all about - its a 4core cpu with glorified hyper threading and each of them share 4mh of cashe thus its 4 cores plus 4weaker cores inside the cores .... its a native 4core but glorified hyper threading and thats y its called a 8core lol like this even for the i3 the windows shows 4 cores ... almost the same concept
Score
0
July 8, 2013 4:59:15 AM

The FX-8350 outperforms both the Core i5-3470 and the 3570K on multithreading. As a result, the FX-8350 will give you more performance for your dollar than the Core i5-3570K, and it at least rivals the value favorite from Intel, the Core i5-3470.

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance is generally acceptable. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of video encoding. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of the objections.
Score
0
July 8, 2013 5:11:25 AM

Viykrant Baruah said:
Anonymous said:
3570K will be called an ancient one after 4-5 years upon release on gaming area. Just bought high end graphics card to get more amazing effects.
But if you consider 8350 the most like the thread title you create :lol:  an AMD Processors. 8350 will be good choice. Just add more cooler so it last long hours of gaming...


you if u guys dont know , here is what the fx 8350 is all about - its a 4core cpu with glorified hyper threading and each of them share 4mh of cashe thus its 4 cores plus 4weaker cores inside the cores .... its a native 4core but glorified hyper threading and thats y its called a 8core lol like this even for the i3 the windows shows 4 cores ... almost the same concept


There is one big difference is the transition from Bulldozer to Piledriver cores—or, to put it more precisely, from Bulldozer to Piledriver modules. These "modules" are a fundamental structure in AMD's latest architectures, and they house two "tightly coupled" integer cores that share certain resources, including a front-end, L2 cache, and floating-point unit. Thus, AMD bills a four-module FX processor as an eight-core CPU, and we can't entirely object to that label.
Score
0
January 31, 2014 2:04:15 AM

The AMD FX-8350 Is really good for gaming, however, for a little more, you can get the intel core i5 4670 which is better.
Score
0
February 5, 2014 7:37:42 AM

yogesh_gamer said:
elemein said:
Yes, the 8350 is the best AMD for gaming.


What about Intel's i7 3770k?
Which one is best for gaming?


He said AMD, that's intel :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2014 9:21:43 AM

Not everyone will agree with Tom's recommendations, but a good start is to look here:

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

I do think that the FX 8320 beats the Core i5 under one specific scenario.. when you get the former very cheap. Microcenter had them on sale for $99. At this price, it beats anything.

Score
0
February 12, 2014 12:04:11 AM

yogesh_gamer

A lot of others have chimed in, but I wanted to give it to you straight up: In terms of price/performance: AMD can't be beat. 8 cores (AMD's architecture is different than Intel's, so they are configured different on the silicon chip) for under $200. It's also unlocked by default. With Intel's unlocked processor, you pay a premium for the "k."

More cores give you more performance across the board. True, the Intel Ivy Bridge architecture is superior to AMD's with efficiency and overall performance, but we come to the price issue...an 8350 in most respects performs the same as the i5 for cheaper. For gaming, if you've got a good graphics card, the CPU becomes somewhat less of an issue when you are comparing the AMD part and the Intel i5. I am talking about real-world, not benchmarks on paper.

As far as graphics, go for the 660 Ti (good midrange card). It's got more processing power than the 660.
Score
0
February 12, 2014 3:55:55 PM

sirstinky said:
yogesh_gamer

A lot of others have chimed in, but I wanted to give it to you straight up: In terms of price/performance: AMD can't be beat. 8 cores (AMD's architecture is different than Intel's, so they are configured different on the silicon chip) for under $200. It's also unlocked by default. With Intel's unlocked processor, you pay a premium for the "k."

More cores give you more performance across the board. True, the Intel Ivy Bridge architecture is superior to AMD's with efficiency and overall performance, but we come to the price issue...an 8350 in most respects performs the same as the i5 for cheaper. For gaming, if you've got a good graphics card, the CPU becomes somewhat less of an issue when you are comparing the AMD part and the Intel i5. I am talking about real-world, not benchmarks on paper.

As far as graphics, go for the 660 Ti (good midrange card). It's got more processing power than the 660.


what about FX9590 is has good architecture compar to intel i7 or i5?
Score
0
February 12, 2014 4:59:37 PM

If you are comparing the FX 9590 to the Core parts, then it's a completely different story. The Core i7 is faster than the 9590, and the i5 keeps up with it in games. Compared to the 3.5 GHz i7-4770k, the 9590 isn't as good.

In my opinion, the 9590 is sort of novelty, almost like the Bugatti Veyron, sort of a test of what's possible. It has a 5 GHz clock, a first for any stock CPU. That said, it's ridiculously over priced, it generates too much heat, uses too much power, and requires a separate heat sink to keep it cool (you have to buy it as an added expense). And the performance trade off is minimal. In terms of value for your dollar, the 8350 is still a way better deal. It's the same basic architecture of the 9590 (Piledriver) same core count, but the 9590 is clocked to 5 GHz, which is why it gets so hot and needs more juice. You can overclock the 8350 and get pretty close to 5 GHz without a lot of trouble.

I would get the Intel and AMD 8350 over the 9590.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2014 4:16:33 AM

Note how 8350 is priced about the same as a mid-tier Core i5 CPU from Intel (around $200). The FX 8350 may be slightly better at running heavily multithreaded applications that spread the load evenly among all threads. The Core i5 will be faster when the speed of a single thread is what bottlenecks everything else. The moral is that there is no free lunch.

My personal view is that single thread performance is still very important on the desktop overall and the Intel CPUs also use less power, so the Core i5 is logical choice here. However, if you insist on building an AMD system, then going with FX 8350 will not lose you a lot. You may even save a few bucks if you buy the FX8320 and overclock to FX 8350 level of performance.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2014 4:31:45 AM

shwetanshu said:
Viykrant Baruah said:
Anonymous said:
3570K will be called an ancient one after 4-5 years upon release on gaming area. Just bought high end graphics card to get more amazing effects.
But if you consider 8350 the most like the thread title you create :lol:  an AMD Processors. 8350 will be good choice. Just add more cooler so it last long hours of gaming...


you if u guys dont know , here is what the fx 8350 is all about - its a 4core cpu with glorified hyper threading and each of them share 4mh of cashe thus its 4 cores plus 4weaker cores inside the cores .... its a native 4core but glorified hyper threading and thats y its called a 8core lol like this even for the i3 the windows shows 4 cores ... almost the same concept


There is one big difference is the transition from Bulldozer to Piledriver cores—or, to put it more precisely, from Bulldozer to Piledriver modules. These "modules" are a fundamental structure in AMD's latest architectures, and they house two "tightly coupled" integer cores that share certain resources, including a front-end, L2 cache, and floating-point unit. Thus, AMD bills a four-module FX processor as an eight-core CPU, and we can't entirely object to that label.


One interesting observation is that if you compare with AMD FX 8350, which uses 32nm technology, and a Sandy Bridge Intel Core i5 which also uses the 32nm manufacturing, in some ways both are similar. The die size is about the same for both near 300mm squared and the transistor count is also at around 1.2B for both. This sort of suggests to me that the complexity and sophistication of both of these CPUs is about the same. However, AMD chose the path of building a microarchitecture that maximizes the number of integer cores, while Intel goes with the architecture that accomplishes more IPC. The AMD FX did start to fall behind Intel as they're effectively two generations behind. In some way, you can argue that AMD took a totally wrong turn at the fork, and now can't reverse its actions. It's still impressive that they can sort of hang around with the Intel CPUs, for the money spent that is. AMD understands this. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD announced a completely new replacement for the Bulldozer-derived architectures a couple of years from now. (because it takes time)

In the end, my personal belief is that for a typical desktop system, including gaming, you're better off with the one that has the best performance for single thread because a lot of applications are coded in a way that they demand the best single-thread performance while heavily multi-threaded apps will still do just as fine due to fast cores. Some people think that you need a dedicated core per thread, which is wrong. The operating system will switch the threads on a limited number of cores just fine using software switching, and the faster cores will make up for the costs of doing it. Of course, this can be accomplished faster if switching is done in hardware, as in hyperthreading.







Score
0
February 25, 2014 1:36:58 PM

If price isn't a problem then why even look at an AMD? I am building a computer with the
AMD FX-8350 because of price and I want my new PC before 2015, im still runn a AMD Phenom II X4 830 2.80 GHz. The i7-4770K is the best CPU for your buck, its 300 bucks, ya that is spendy, but it is the best for the amount you pay, there are better, more expencive ones, but look at most posts from other people building computers and every one is using this CPU. If you got the cash and are gonna overclock get the i7-4770K, if ya got the cash but don't want to overclock get the i7-4770, if you don't got the cash, like me, get the AMD FX-8350.
Score
0
April 8, 2014 10:03:26 PM

Not bad but when they did the Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646I74770 more powerfull than the 3770k, they didn't reach the power of the 8350 amd


yogesh_gamer said:
elemein said:
Yes, the 8350 is the best AMD for gaming.


What about Intel's i7 3770k?
Which one is best for gaming?


Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2014 11:49:41 PM

Before today i would have said that the intel is always the way to go for higher end but after reading about dx12 today it is very apparent that higher core count is gonna reign supreme in the near future and the systems with more core are gonna do great. so fx 8000 and i7 look like the only things to invest in. Especially after reading about how much better core use dx12 will have. If even half of what they are saying is true its gonna be awesome
this talks about the xboxone but it is directly related to higher core count.
https://games.yahoo.com/news/game-changing-double-xbox-...
Score
0
April 15, 2014 6:19:36 PM

Me and my friend have exactly the same set up with the only difference being I have a fx 6300 of to 4.4ghz and my friend an fx 8 series (can't remember the exact model but he runs it stock at 3.9 ghz think) for games like cod ghosts and bf4 on ultra there is a difference of about 3-8 fps through out the whole game. I'm getting roughly 50-65 with an average of 60fps on both. The 6300 piledriver is a fair bit cheaper allowing for a decent ssd to aid with your os and some games but I also find that the amd chips benefit hugely from a faster ram, I'll list my whole set up below, it cost about £600 in Feb of this year. The hex core is all you need for at least the next 5 years as the next gen consoles use 2 of their 8 cores to run the os in the background and upto 4 for games with the other 2 spared from background applications etc this isn't needed on the pc as windows isn't as harsh on the cores with background operations compared to the specialised os' from Sony and Microsoft for their consoles. I also have a friend that works for Sony in Amsterdam and worke on kill zone shaddowfall, even he says the os on the ps4 is stupidly thirsty for cpu power. Stick with an fx6, the 6300 works great for me but there are others in that lineup too :) 

Fx6300 piledriver of 4.4ghz
8gb corsair vengeance 1866mhz ram (can also be oc'd)
Amd m5a97 rev 2.0 motherboard
Corsair 120gb ssd
Seagate barracuda 1tb hdd
Msi r9 270x twin frozr 4gb gpu oc gamer edition
Corsair h80i cpu cooler
Score
1
June 3, 2014 3:35:45 PM

yogesh_gamer said:
elemein said:
Yes, the 8350 is the best AMD for gaming.


What about Intel's i7 3770k?
Which one is best for gaming?

Well yes of course it's better because it's Intel but the 8350 is the best AMD.
Score
0
June 9, 2014 5:14:42 PM

Im running an 8320 oced to 4.7ghz with two 780 classifieds and i have more than enough cpu so if it were me i would go amd take the extra cash to get a better or second graphics card
Score
0
June 16, 2014 8:09:53 PM

most of my results have Intel's 3570k a few frames per second faster than the FX-8350. Tomb Raider & Hitman: Absolution both have the 8350 ahead by 10+fps in a couple results and they are both newer & more graphically demanding games. the 3DMark tests were the same; mostly 3570 ahead by a couple frames but not always.
looks like AMD may be the way to go for the future so far but i'd go for the cheaper of these two if i was shopping and that puts AMD ahead almost every time.
Score
0
June 25, 2014 12:39:45 AM

well im just saying if you go with a 9590 its almost as powerful as a 4960X (the i7 extreme but for 1/5th of the price) so if money doesn't matter id be going with that.
one thing I know is a few next gen games will utilize 4+ cores and use multithread so the AMD 9590 or 8350 would be perfect.
also consider the Pentium G3258 its unlocked and I have the G3220 and I can play heaps of games (and its only 80 dollars!!)
Score
0
June 25, 2014 3:14:36 AM

The FX9590 is nice if you want Stable Push Button Overclocking. Get the right Mobo. Then a high end air cooler.The
Right power supply. A 1200 watt is recommended but you can get by on less. A case with good High airflow.a good kigh end video card. No muss no fuss. Instant 4,7 Ghz. But it is a hot banana. But if you want to you can take an 8320 or an 8350 to 5.1Ghz. A lot of people have done it. You have to do the work and get the right chip. Etc Etc. Remember Amd recommends Liquid Cooling and it should be a good one. When it gets hot you will probably need some AC.The recommrnded max core temp is the same as the 8350. 61.1 Degrees Celsius.



Score
0
June 26, 2014 3:12:10 PM

yogesh_gamer said:
I just compare all AMD Processors and FX 8350 is d best.
I want to do gaming on my PC. So is it best choice? 8 cores for gaming?
Or quad or hexa core is good choice for just gaming?
And hey I can afford it, no money problem.


Just please remember you have "OVERHEAD" that the power your going to need "above & beyond" the game its self like the "OS" & ANY "background process or services" ... They to must also be considered. So add cores, RAM, & channel ability on MB to handle all that too...
Score
0
June 26, 2014 10:27:40 PM

The 8350 is the best AMD. But if money isn't an issue go Intel, the 4790k just came out and it squashes everything.
Score
0
June 27, 2014 12:07:18 AM

8350 is a great for gaming dude! amd is more bang for the buck but intel for overall performance!

Score
0
July 1, 2014 2:18:09 AM

@absolutezero311

AMD's aren't so much higher speed ram loving, but more of the lower CAS timing ram, eg you get a CAS12 2100Mhz ram and a CAS9 1866Mhz ram, the FX series will love the lower CAS over the higher speed, but its the opposite for AMD's A series (which i haven't seen mentioned in this thread) they prefer higher CAS because they use the ram as video ram which has higher timings, myslef though, i whole heartedly agree with you, the FX6300 is more than enough and very well priced.

i am currently upgrading my computer (10months of un-employment and then having to catch up after you get work isn't fun for someone who loves their computer)

this is what it will end up looking like (note: pc parts in Australia are bullshit over priced, and also only bought the R9 270X cause thats all i could afford at the time and my GT630 had blown up)

http://www.pccasegear.com/sc/CL7

but i also say this when it comes to Intel vs AMD, now don't misunderstand me, i don't hate intel, just every intel i have owned has been utter crap and died within 6 to 8 months without even over clocking, but my amd's on the other hand, well, once i have finished making my new computer i am going to revive my 2 older ones, my last computer PhenomII X2 560 BE( oc'd to 3.9Ghz for its whole life, would have been 4Ghz but my mobo couldn't handle it) and also my Athlon X64 single core that got hit by lightning (well the house got hit and shorted alot of things out) and still ran for 2 more years before i retired it! so yeah AMD is boss mode in my eyes!
Score
1
July 1, 2014 12:28:06 PM

the AMD FX 8350 is their flagship cpu for a reason I have mine overclock to 4.51 and know folks that got it 4.8 stable the thing flys at 4.51 and is amazing i had the ADM Phenom II X4 830 and it was good but im getting 2x to 3x the fps in my games and video editing. If you read up on the best AMD cpus this is the best there are ones that have a higher clock speed but the are hard to keep from over heating to me this says they are unstable inlease you are to use a water block. To me and from what I have read ever where the AMD FX 8350 is still the best AMD cpu to date even being 2 years old.
Score
1
July 2, 2014 6:17:43 AM

i5 beats fx8350 in every way. Go with i5 if you have the $. Even though its lower clocked its faster cause it uses a 22nm architechture. The amd gobbles a lot more power and heats up a lot more while being more inefficient.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2014 2:19:29 AM

PfundZ said:
i5 beats fx8350 in every way. Go with i5 if you have the $. Even though its lower clocked its faster cause it uses a 22nm architechture. The amd gobbles a lot more power and heats up a lot more while being more inefficient.


This is not true. The 8350 edges out the i5 in lots of modern day games now as well as being $40 cheaper.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2014 10:28:52 AM

fatboytyler said:
PfundZ said:
i5 beats fx8350 in every way. Go with i5 if you have the $. Even though its lower clocked its faster cause it uses a 22nm architechture. The amd gobbles a lot more power and heats up a lot more while being more inefficient.


This is not true. The 8350 edges out the i5 in lots of modern day games now as well as being $40 cheaper.


Even then the 8350 is still a no go as the xeon 1230v3 + h97 mobo is equal/cheaper in price than a 8350 + good mobo + proper cpu cooler AND also significantly more powerful even with a maximum overclock on the 8350.
Score
0
July 6, 2014 3:49:39 PM

maxalge said:
fatboytyler said:
PfundZ said:
i5 beats fx8350 in every way. Go with i5 if you have the $. Even though its lower clocked its faster cause it uses a 22nm architechture. The amd gobbles a lot more power and heats up a lot more while being more inefficient.


This is not true. The 8350 edges out the i5 in lots of modern day games now as well as being $40 cheaper.


Even then the 8350 is still a no go as the xeon 1230v3 + h97 mobo is equal/cheaper in price than a 8350 + good mobo + proper cpu cooler AND also significantly more powerful even with a maximum overclock on the 8350.


you guys do realize, you still are comparing the old 32nm architecture of the FX series to the newer 22nm architecture, and also to top it all off, this thread here is meant to have been about AMD gaming cpu's only, and yet sadly all the intel fanboys starting their rants in here, they just see the word AMD and gotta put their 2 cents in where its not needed or wanted!

also matey to add a burn to you, that processor you linked is meant to be an entry based server processor, designed for home use, the FX- Series aren't meant to be server processors because of their power draw!
Score
0
!