Amd fx 8350 or 8320 perfomance in Planetside 2?

Bluething · Sep 12, 2013

I was going to get a new CPU for my pc to replace my amd fx 4100 and I was wondering whats the performance difference in these 2 CPU's in Planetside 2 and is it worth going from and amd fx 8320 to a amd fx 8350 or should I just get the 8320?

Zero Cool · Sep 12, 2013

Bluething :

Planetside 2 is a very CPU intensive game. That being said, the 8350 and 8320 are essentially the same processors, only the 8350 is clocked 500mhz higher. If it were me, I would go with the 8320 and overclock it to 4.0Ghz to match the 8350 and save $40. If you don't plan on overclocking then I would definitely go with the 8350. Hope this helps!

photonboy · Sep 12, 2013

Warning:

The buzz on the Internet is that the FX-8320 and FX-8350 are binned appropriately so if you get an FX-8320 it may not be able to overclock to the same frequency as an FX-8350.

That makes a lot of sense to me. My GPU was a binned version.

Is this worth a $40 difference? That's for you to decide.

If you compare stock clocks the FX-8320 appears to be about 8% lower in many games. The truth is I can't really give a recommendation other than to state what appear to be the facts and let you decide.

Zero Cool · Sep 12, 2013

Don't worry about binning if you just want to overclock a 8320 to 4Ghz... Its turbo frequency is 4Ghz. If you're looking to get to 4.7-5.0Ghz, then you're obviously much more likely to do so with an 8350.

photonboy · Sep 13, 2013

Zero Cool :

I found it confusing that many games were 8% lower performance yet the 8320 was listed as 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) with the 8350 as 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo).

I thought a CPU Turbo'd automatically. So the 8320 and 8350 under load should have been hitting 4.0 and 4.2GHz respectively. That's only 5% difference; even if the game were massively CPU-dependent that doesn't make sense.

The only thing I could conclude was perhaps the 8320 doesn't allow as many cores to Turbo as the 8350. I can't confirm that though.

I also just saw a 12% difference in World of Warcraft between the two.

Any ideas on the issue I noted?

Zero Cool · Sep 13, 2013

photonboy :

That's a good question. I know that AMD's Turbo Core works by upping the frequency of certain cores while keeping the TDP at 125w. I also know that 1/2 of the cores need to be active (4 in this case) before this process happens. As for why 2 seemingly identical processors, with the exception of a 5% turbo frequency difference, would perform 12% apart in World of Warcraft; I think I know.

Turbo Core isn't always active when playing a game. Therefore, at some points there is a 12.5% frequency difference (the difference between 3.5 and 4.0), while at others it's only 5% (4.0 vs 4.2 while Turbo Core is active). Warcraft doesn't utilize the 4 cores required for Turbo Core to activate so the 12% difference in the benchmark seems very accurate.

In other games, where 4 cores are utilized, the difference is obviously smaller than 12% because at times (but not always), the processors active cores are only clocked 5% apart.

Since overclocking causes all cores to run at the same frequency, regardless of TDP and core usage, I would assume that the benchmarks would be much closer on a 8320 overclocked to 4.0 and a 8350 overclocked to 4.2 (with Turbo Core shut off of course).

Hopefully this explanation makes sense!

photonboy · Sep 14, 2013

Zero Cool :

photonboy :

That's a good question. I know that AMD's Turbo Core works by upping the frequency of certain cores while keeping the TDP at 125w. I also know that 1/2 of the cores need to be active (4 in this case) before this process happens. As for why 2 seemingly identical processors, with the exception of a 5% turbo frequency difference, would perform 12% apart in World of Warcraft; I think I know.

Turbo Core isn't always active when playing a game. Therefore, at some points there is a 12.5% frequency difference (the difference between 3.5 and 4.0), while at others it's only 5% (4.0 vs 4.2 while Turbo Core is active). Warcraft doesn't utilize the 4 cores required for Turbo Core to activate so the 12% difference in the benchmark seems very accurate.

In other games, where 4 cores are utilized, the difference is obviously smaller than 12% because at times (but not always), the processors active cores are only clocked 5% apart.

Since overclocking causes all cores to run at the same frequency, regardless of TDP and core usage, I would assume that the benchmarks would be much closer on a 8320 overclocked to 4.0 and a 8350 overclocked to 4.2 (with Turbo Core shut off of course).

Hopefully this explanation makes sense!

Totally makes sense.

However, it's a pretty poor design then if the CPU could run a game better but just doesn't. I guess that's part of the reason Intel CPU's are ahead right now. Despite having more CPU cores, the AMD chips aren't managing them well.

What's the point of having eight cores, not using half of them (game not needing), and then not increasing the frequency on the ones you are using?

Search

Amd fx 8350 or 8320 perfomance in Planetside 2?

Bluething

Distinguished

Zero Cool

Zero Cool

Distinguished

photonboy

Titan

Zero Cool

Distinguished

photonboy

Titan

Zero Cool

Distinguished

photonboy

Titan

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page