Is the poor single core performance of the FX-8350 going to hold it back for games 2-3 years in the future?

Maybe Intel is still the way to go for a more "futureproof" CPU despite the increasing threads games are using
9 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about poor single core performance 8350 hold back games years future
  1. Im pretty sure it'll still hold its own in the upcoming years, if u look at the core 2 quads and core 2 duos and the Athlon/Phenom II x2/x4s and look at how long people used and are still using them just fine. U can never really prepare for "futureproofing" as for all u know future games may go backwards and not utilize threads etc as fast as u think so go with what u think is best for now and best for the long run.

    I'd and many would hope future games utilize more cores and that core utilization will make up for the single core/thread performance of the bulldozer/piledriver cpus
  2. This myth needs to be dispelled. The 8350 does not have "poor" single core performance. The Intel i5/i7 IPC is better yes, but the 8350's is not poor by any means.
  3. CooLWoLF said:
    This myth needs to be dispelled. The 8350 does not have "poor" single core performance. The Intel i5/i7 IPC is better yes, but the 8350's is not poor by any means.

    How much worse is a piledriver core vs a haswell core?
  4. - Scroll down to the Cinebench R11.5 single thread the hasewell i7 4770k has a 1.74 and the fx 8350 has a 1.11. In multi thread the i7 gets 8.14 and 8350 gets 6.94, so really its not that much worse and will not be a killer in most to any games that prefer the faster core performance.

    My oc'd x6 gets a similar cinebench multi threaded result as my brother in laws 2600k at stock and similar fx 8350 single thread and id consider my gameplay experience to be just as good as his i7 and 670gtx
  5. Yes. Fewer, faster cores are better than many slower ones.
  6. ask me again in 2-3 years.
  7. Best answer
    Yes, 20-30% is significant. That's the difference between, say, 45 FPS and 31 FPS. Even in well threaded titles, you are still going to have two threads (the main thread and the primary render thread) doing the vast majority of the work, which favors faster/stronger cores. The only way the 8350 looks good in two years is if physics processing advances and stays on the CPU, which is the opposite way developers are going.

    Hence the focus on the APU: even with a discrete GPU, you can still use it as a vector co-processor for things like Physics. This is a much better approach then continuing to throw multiple CPU cores on the die, as it allows the CPU to do what it does best: Handle a few serial threads and handle scheduling.
  8. rgd1101 said:
    ask me again in 2-3 years.

    m so missing a like button here.......
  9. I'd say no...not at all.
    Just because there is a level of threading in even lightly threaded games and other factors that that 20-30% boost doesn't necessarily mean a 20-30% boost in straight preformance...
    The difference in newer games such as Rome 2 and Arma 3, even if highly single core performance dependent...most benches show a 3-5 frames(tops) discrepancy...Older games such as Skyrim and StarCraft 2 favor intel but I highly doubt that it will be the trend..Most developers want there games running on as many different types of hardware as possible and if the power is in the CPU they will make it work. There are no games that won't run on AMD muti-core today and it's in the developers best interest to keep it that way.

    Not to mention Mantle shedding light onto multi-core performance as well as other newer engines(Cryengine) becoming more friendly with it.
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance Games CPUs Core Intel