Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

With games moving to utilizing more cores on a CPU, does this mean AMD will become more useful as a product in gaming?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Intel
  • Battlefield
  • CPUs
  • Tom's Hardware
  • AMD
  • Games
  • FPS
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 27, 2013 7:01:27 AM

So Battlefield 4 was recently released and some CPU bench marks were release in an Article on this site: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph... If you notice that the AMD FX-8350 Stock keeps up pretty well with the i7 and i5 in terms of average FPS (~6-7) and would hardly be noticeable at that high of FPS, unless you were gaming in 3D where your FPS is cut in half, but does not have as big of a gap between the average FPS and Minimum FPS. So i am wondering, since AMD tends to have its power/power spread among more cores compared to Intel with less cores but more performance per core, if games start changing over to utilizing more cores as BF4 (and some other games have as well), will AMD be a viable competitor in the gaming CPU community and be well worth the investment?

More about : games moving utilizing cores cpu amd product gaming

a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 7:25:08 AM

it depend on your budget, go with the FX 8350 for best bang for the buck.
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 8:42:43 AM

rgd1101 said:
it depend on your budget, go with the FX 8350 for best bang for the buck.


I agree with you on that. The i5-2500k is about $30 more, and you get a slight increase in Average FPS, but the minimum is a bit lower than the FX-8350. Now that minimum is brought above the FX-8350 after OC the i5-2500k, but i would be interested in how the FX-8350 would benchmark after OC because it is arguable the best AMD OC CPU. What makes me kinda cringe is the i7-3960X because it is 5 times more expensive than the FX-8350 and 4.4 times more expensive than the i5-2500k, and as demonstrated, OC the i5 made it produce VERY similar numbers to the Stock i7, which i would call a waste of money that could be spent on a very nice GPU (Like the GTX Titan they used for all CPU tests; or 7xx or 690).

Anyone have any speculation why a game that utilizes more cores will make AMD look like a competitor to Intel in the long run?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 9:03:46 AM

Well bulldozers problems are addressed in piledriver (6300 or 8350 are piledriver and 6100 and 8150 or something like that is the older bulldozer type ). Id say yes the future is moving towards multi core optimization.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 9:20:36 AM

if you going for the 6 core, i7 4930k or 3930k, about half the price of the 4960.
The weak point on Fx 8350 is that "Per module we see two integer CPU-cores which both share a floating point unit." http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_proces...
Share
November 27, 2013 9:44:31 AM

rgd1101 said:
if you going for the 6 core, i7 4930k or 3930k, about half the price of the 4960.
The weak point on Fx 8350 is that "Per module we see two integer CPU-cores which both share a floating point unit." http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_proces...


My only follow up to that article is that it hits on a point that is already well known, AMD has a lower per core performance to Intel. But, with games moving to use more cores, is AMDs move to more cores vs less cores and more per core performance going to make High end Intel CPUs look like overpriced silicon? BF4 can use 6 cores if i remember correctly, but it does not get much improvement from Intel's i5 (4 core) to Intel's i7 (6 core), making it perhaps not a worthwhile investment. CPUs around the same price point between Intel and AMD (i5 compared to FX-8350), there is a slight increase for the investment of ~$30. So the move to using 6 cores in a game, and perhaps it is the i7's architecture holding it back from making a significant jump from the i5, but AMD might have been smart in its architecture investing in the future. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 9:51:09 AM

the amd chips are great and half the price of the i7. If you have money and a preference then choose what u like as both will game well. I do think wwith games being developed better around amds they start to shine more and more each year
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 11:26:34 AM

pc software don't usually written for cores, but threads. and even a single cores can run mulit-threads program(although poorly).

I think the reason Intel haven't move to 6 cores/12 threads for all i7 is they haven't see a need for it to compete with AMD.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 12:38:15 PM

Go with AMD FX 8350 if you want to future proof a little bit, in most AAA tittles fx 8350 performs as well as i5 4670k at a lower price range, and yes it has got a big head room for future games if you look at these benchmarks you can make your mind easier
1: http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi... (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
2: http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performa... (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
3: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... (crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
4: http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
5: http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c... ( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
6: http://www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchm... (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
7: http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-ghosts-benchmark-c... (COD ghost Identical performance)
8: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8...
and a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 12:49:22 PM

I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 12:57:00 PM

Now the Interesting part is that Unreal Engine 4 is said to enjoy up to 8 cores, the new Capcom engine which is written for the next game consoles is optimized for multi core cpus upto 8 cores, the new UBISOFT engine which will be used in watch dogs is heavily threaded, http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga... . Regardless both cpus are great, but if I wanted to choose one again, I would go with fx 8350 again, this cpu is a beast really, like i5 3570k or i5 4670k, they are all great CPUs, now it is just the matter of preference, I prefer FX-8350
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 12:59:11 PM

rgd1101 said:
I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350

lol yeah, in some of those links you can see i3 beats i7-4770k as well, that is due to this fact that these games are pretty well optimized to work well on all kinds of hardware, and make use of their resources, but compare fx 8350 to i7 4770k or i5 4670k
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 1:05:20 PM

rgd1101 said:
I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350


I did see that case in BF4 Official Win7 and 8.1, but that is because the additional multithreading that was added beefed up the usability of the lower 4300, 6300, and i3. The same could be said about the i7s if you compare the i3 to them. More or less, why should i pay more than i need to for a processor if i am not going to get much benefit out of it in the future? With the higher priced intels, you are not getting much return for your investment. To me, that is money that could be better spent on a GPU or monitor setup. But as he was mentioning, for building a system that will work well, it seems multithreaded CPUs is the way to go for gaming and perhaps other applications, which i guess AMD was counting on in the future, and seems to be pushing with some of the new PC games as well as Console games for this generation of PS4 and Xbox1 using 6 cores for games and 1&2 for the OS.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 1:21:23 PM

Slatteew said:
rgd1101 said:
I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350


I did see that case in BF4 Official Win7 and 8.1, but that is because the additional multithreading that was added beefed up the usability of the lower 4300, 6300, and i3. The same could be said about the i7s if you compare the i3 to them. More or less, why should i pay more than i need to for a processor if i am not going to get much benefit out of it in the future? With the higher priced intels, you are not getting much return for your investment. To me, that is money that could be better spent on a GPU or monitor setup. But as he was mentioning, for building a system that will work well, it seems multithreaded CPUs is the way to go for gaming and perhaps other applications, which i guess AMD was counting on in the future, and seems to be pushing with some of the new PC games as well as Console games for this generation of PS4 and Xbox1 using 6 cores for games and 1&2 for the OS.


Indeed my uncle got i7-4770k+r9-280, the same day i got my fx 8350+r9-290, both systems cost the same, It took us a week to bench games and I was 15-20 fps ahead of him in every single game we tested ( games tested, MOH warfighter, BF3, BF4, Metro Last light, Crysis3, Crysis2 dx 11 patch, Bioshock Infinite)
here are some of our results at 1080p guys
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Any how, I think you made an excellent choice, play hard mate :) 


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 1:24:59 PM

Slatteew said:
rgd1101 said:
I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350


I did see that case in BF4 Official Win7 and 8.1, but that is because the additional multithreading that was added beefed up the usability of the lower 4300, 6300, and i3. The same could be said about the i7s if you compare the i3 to them. More or less, why should i pay more than i need to for a processor if i am not going to get much benefit out of it in the future? With the higher priced intels, you are not getting much return for your investment. To me, that is money that could be better spent on a GPU or monitor setup. But as he was mentioning, for building a system that will work well, it seems multithreaded CPUs is the way to go for gaming and perhaps other applications, which i guess AMD was counting on in the future, and seems to be pushing with some of the new PC games as well as Console games for this generation of PS4 and Xbox1 using 6 cores for games and 1&2 for the OS.


That why I would recommend FX8350 on budget build.
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 1:38:28 PM

rgd1101 said:
Slatteew said:
rgd1101 said:
I don't know some of the links show an i3 work just as well as the 8350


I did see that case in BF4 Official Win7 and 8.1, but that is because the additional multithreading that was added beefed up the usability of the lower 4300, 6300, and i3. The same could be said about the i7s if you compare the i3 to them. More or less, why should i pay more than i need to for a processor if i am not going to get much benefit out of it in the future? With the higher priced intels, you are not getting much return for your investment. To me, that is money that could be better spent on a GPU or monitor setup. But as he was mentioning, for building a system that will work well, it seems multithreaded CPUs is the way to go for gaming and perhaps other applications, which i guess AMD was counting on in the future, and seems to be pushing with some of the new PC games as well as Console games for this generation of PS4 and Xbox1 using 6 cores for games and 1&2 for the OS.


That why I would recommend FX8350 on budget build.


To some degree, it is difficult to call it a budget build because if the CPU is not a bottleneck and performs exactly or almost the same as something at least 2x its cost, then i would refer to it as an optimization build over budget build. Optimizing cost to performance. So as i said before, paying less for a comparable CPU allows you to buy a GPU that can far outperform something using the same total budget, as darkresurrection demonstrated with his comparison of the same budget but his uncle got an i7 and he got FX-8350, allowing for the better graphics card, resulting in much higher FPS. overall a more optimal buy. If you buy a CPU that is not being totally optimized, then you are just wasting money, plain and simple. You could say AMD users have been doing that for years, but with the slow change over to 4 and 6 core threaded applications, they will definitely draw closer in competition it appears and be much more cost effective overall.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 27, 2013 1:44:11 PM

like you said the CPU is not the bottleneck, his uncle should have got a i5 and the r9 290.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2013 1:59:19 PM

The FX8350 is certainly good value, but it's cheap for a reason. Also, despite AMD CPUs always being cheaper and mostly better value than Intel CPUs, 75% of people have Intel CPUs, there's a reason for that too.

If the FX8350 is cheaper and better or equivalent performance (in every respect) to an I5, why doesn't everyone buy it instead of an I5 or I7? There's also a reason AMD are dropping out of the high-end CPU market, because they can't compete with Intel, no matter how cheap and good value they make their high end CPUs.

Regarding games using more cores, the problem is, the FX has 8 week cores vs the 4 strong cores of the I5.

The results below;

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

clearly show, that an AMD optimised and sponsored game, which is designed to utilise 8 cores, still performs notably worse on a power hungry 125W 8-core AMD FX-8350 @ 4GHz, compared to a 2 generations old I5-2500k @ 3.3GHz, let-alone the more recent 3570k or 4570k, which only use 75W. In fact, the FX-8350 is closer to the performance of a previous generation dual core 55W I3-3220 than the I5. The current generation I3-4340 has 20% more performance than the previous I3, so it would likely match the 8-core FX-8350 in BF4, whilst still only consuming 55W and being $60 cheaper. Wouldn't this be better value?

There are also advantages of stronger single cores, not everything in windows utilises multiple cores, you don't want single threaded apps running slow, because the cores are weak.

I'm not saying the FX isn't good value, but there's a reason most people choose not to buy it and why Intel can charge more for their CPUs and still sell more.
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 2:17:37 PM

leeb2013 said:
The FX8350 is certainly good value, but it's cheap for a reason. Also, despite AMD CPUs always being cheaper and mostly better value than Intel CPUs, 75% of people have Intel CPUs, there's a reason for that too.

If the FX8350 is cheaper and better or equivalent performance (in every respect) to an I5, why doesn't everyone buy it instead of an I5 or I7? There's also a reason AMD are dropping out of the high-end CPU market, because they can't compete with Intel, no matter how cheap and good value they make their high end CPUs.

Regarding games using more cores, the problem is, the FX has 8 week cores vs the 4 strong cores of the I5.

The results below;

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

clearly show, that an AMD optimised and sponsored game, which is designed to utilise 8 cores, still performs notably worse on a power hungry 125W 8-core AMD FX-8350 @ 4GHz, compared to a 2 generations old I5-2500k @ 3.3GHz, let-alone the more recent 3570k or 4570k, which only use 75W. In fact, the FX-8350 is closer to the performance of a previous generation dual core 55W I3-3220 than the I5. The current generation I3-4340 has 20% more performance than the previous I3, so it would likely match the 8-core FX-8350 in BF4, whilst still only consuming 55W and being $60 cheaper. Wouldn't this be better value?

There are also advantages of stronger single cores, not everything in windows utilises multiple cores, you don't want single threaded apps running slow, because the cores are weak.

I'm not saying the FX isn't good value, but there's a reason most people choose not to buy it and why Intel can charge more for their CPUs and still sell more.


That all is EXACTLY where the CPU market is at the moment, but things are changing with multithreaded applications using 4 and 6 cores was my point, and BF4 is actually threaded for 6 cores, not 8 (Unless i missed a post somewhere, if i did please link). But i am looking for down the road, when more cores WILL be utilized. With it being a relatively new movement, not everything is optimized atm because of software. Gotta have the software to utilize the hardware. I also was complimenting the i5 on being a great value, slight increase in performance for a modest ~$30. More things than just games could also be on the move to using 4 or more cores, giving dramatic boost to those that spread more power out among more cores. There certainly are some great Intel chips though, just many of them seem to be overkill for gaming.

Regarding the TDP of each, those are what it is designed for spec wise. Now when actually running the hardware, it can be very different especially when OCing. When OCing, Intel chips can have higher TDP than AMD chips, depending on how much it is OCed of course. 2 other big factors are efficiency of the PSU (to determine how much power is actually being used) and how well your motherboard is at distributing that power.

To sum up, my post was more about seeing where multithreading is going in the future, and what would be the best investment for the future. Something to buy now, but will be good 4 or 5 years from now still.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 28, 2013 12:34:12 AM

leeb2013 said:
The FX8350 is certainly good value, but it's cheap for a reason. Also, despite AMD CPUs always being cheaper and mostly better value than Intel CPUs, 75% of people have Intel CPUs, there's a reason for that too.

If the FX8350 is cheaper and better or equivalent performance (in every respect) to an I5, why doesn't everyone buy it instead of an I5 or I7? There's also a reason AMD are dropping out of the high-end CPU market, because they can't compete with Intel, no matter how cheap and good value they make their high end CPUs.

Regarding games using more cores, the problem is, the FX has 8 week cores vs the 4 strong cores of the I5.

The results below;

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

clearly show, that an AMD optimised and sponsored game, which is designed to utilise 8 cores, still performs notably worse on a power hungry 125W 8-core AMD FX-8350 @ 4GHz, compared to a 2 generations old I5-2500k @ 3.3GHz, let-alone the more recent 3570k or 4570k, which only use 75W. In fact, the FX-8350 is closer to the performance of a previous generation dual core 55W I3-3220 than the I5. The current generation I3-4340 has 20% more performance than the previous I3, so it would likely match the 8-core FX-8350 in BF4, whilst still only consuming 55W and being $60 cheaper. Wouldn't this be better value?

There are also advantages of stronger single cores, not everything in windows utilises multiple cores, you don't want single threaded apps running slow, because the cores are weak.

I'm not saying the FX isn't good value, but there's a reason most people choose not to buy it and why Intel can charge more for their CPUs and still sell more.


The link that you have provided us with is the beta version of bf4 not the final product, Tomshardware never ran the final product benchmark of bf4 for almost obvious reasons, but hardwarepal has done this you can see the link, in my previous posts. within all current games AMD FX8350 performs equal or better than your so called beast i5 4670k, Today you see more and more people choose FX 8350 over i5 3570k or i5 4670k, because it is cheaper, it is competitive, it is future proof so there is no reason not to, AMD didn't need to release any CPU for 2013, FX 8350 is more than enough for any scenario to compete with i5-4670k. In the long run FX-8350 will be far better than any i5, as it happened in crysis 3, and yet crysis 3 only used 60% of the power of FX-8350 in which FX 8350 was better than i7-3770k and 80% of i5-3570k was used in that game, can't wait to see the day fx 8350 reaches its 85% usage and i5-3570k or 4670k are both out of resources. Then the same scenario that happened on FX-8350 in single player scenario will happen to i5 in multi threaded scenario... currently the era of single threaded crap is over, we are in the middle of the way, both cpus are acting the same way, the future? I have no doubt FX 8350 will outperform all current i5s
m
0
l
November 28, 2013 2:33:33 AM

just wanna say this thread is very constructive, keep it going guys
a lot of information, just want to appreciate all your comments, thx a lot for everybody ;) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 28, 2013 5:49:39 PM

Also mentioned already, keep in mind, software that is being written from scratch now, will only get better and better on multi core processors, NO DOUBT. just think about it, sure everyone knows that individually the intel core is stronger, but the single core is, some say has, reached is *realistic* limit. Now we need to focus on running mulitiple cores next to eachother optimally, so they work well together - and AMD certainly has he leg up on that, multitasking on AMD CPU's is already outperforming the intel multitasking
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 28, 2013 7:04:00 PM

Beezy said:
Also mentioned already, keep in mind, software that is being written from scratch now, will only get better and better on multi core processors, NO DOUBT. just think about it, sure everyone knows that individually the intel core is stronger, but the single core is, some say has, reached is *realistic* limit. Now we need to focus on running mulitiple cores next to eachother optimally, so they work well together - and AMD certainly has he leg up on that, multitasking on AMD CPU's is already outperforming the intel multitasking


Intel do make mutlicore processor, and the 4 core with HT is comparable to 8 cores AMD offering. I think what AMD need is to get their own version of HT or improved their core performance, then they can charge their CPU for much higher price.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 28, 2013 8:11:54 PM

rgd1101 said:


Intel do make mutlicore processor, and the 4 core with HT is comparable to 8 cores AMD offering. I think what AMD need is to get their own version of HT or improved their core performance, then they can charge their CPU for much higher price.


yeah and its at that point you really start considering the cost/performance ratio...
m
0
l
December 2, 2013 9:56:01 PM

People tend to focus too much of frame rate compared to overall computer performance.
Most games are GPU limited rather than CPU for frame rates, but what about load times? Do you like waiting 5 minutes to get into a game?

Buy the best of each component that you can afford so you have a good overall system rather than a huge assed bottle neck somewhere in it.
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 11:08:14 AM

By the time games can utilize 8 cores for gaming, there are going to be better CPU and GPU architectures out that won't even compare to the processors now. It is impossible to future proof with pc's. Buy the best components that will fit your budget and in another year you'll find yourself upgrading.
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 11:48:56 AM

I have both a systems in my house(my brothers 4670k/7970 and my 8350/7950) and I can really say the only game that his performs glaringly better in is skyrim. In fact in most games I tested they were just about equal. One game that was a huge surprise was the secret world on my 965 be I got about 20-28 frames. With my 8350 its just about a smooth 55 and on my bros system some odd reason it actually does worse 35-45. Now obviously I wasnt using some crazy professional testing method, but in general I found the 8350 to be a very comparable processor to the i5.

Reading back on topics like this and even some now people's two arguments for why the 8350 isnt a viable option, always seem to be either the power draw, or the fact that games are not going to be optimizied for more cores any time soon. I agree with Beezy gaming engines are really getting a refresh on optimization and we are really seeing a bunch of new engines being written from scratch. IMHO I think we have hit a slight plateau in tech advances, I think tech will advance much more laterally for the next few years (as we see with the new 700/r9 series and also haswell) especially cpu scaling if nothing else. I feel that we wont all be on mars and have 50 core processors before games utilize 8 cores. Considering there are already games out there that can utilize 6+ cores. Of course thats my opinion and i could be way off.

I really feel like we are right at an in-between point but if BF 4 is any indication of this mythical future everyone was talking about, then Id say the "future" is now, games will utilize more cores and do so more efficiently . Lol all that to say, yes I do think that the 8350 already is viable and will continue to become more so at its price point.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 19, 2014 7:41:09 AM

Also, another couple things to mention is DX 12, the next API to come out, (the same API that will be used in the consoles) is being written from scratch around CORE optimization. Doesn't make intel any worse, obviously, but it levels out the playing field as most apps, programs, and games are still designed around one or two cores. The day we see Operating Systems built around (from scratch) cores, then well see the same as a standard for everything else. Obviously we are getting better with nm structure (intel) and this means more transistors and more power, but this kind of tech built on silicon is reaching its end. Eventually we are going to need to layer chips on top of each other, and use a material that can stand to get hotter (this is way down the road) -this is the wall i was referring too, the rest lies in the software end.

either way, i only wanted to comment because i noticed the 'problem' with the AMD chips as mentioned above is the single FPU (floating point unit) on each module, while there are two APU's (arithmetic/logical units or threads). Interesting enough, take a look at the benchmark i posted below, and see how the AMD holds its own just fine in floating point math (beating the i5, just about matching the i7). What makes everybody bring that point up is a comment made by some intel folks who stressed the importance of floating point calculation in day to day tasks. truth is it doesnt make the difference they want it to.

4 modules = 8 threads = 8 "cores", so this was AMD's means to compete with HyperThreading on intels. and i would say it does so brilliantly and depending on the use (people do more than just gaming) the 8350 is a much better choice over the i5 4670k (ill leave the i7 our of this because the i5 is meant to compete with the 8350). Comparing to the i7 would be unfair, but even then the FX 8300 series chips can hold their own and trade blows!

Take a look at these benchmarks i ran with my FX 8320 at stock (it runs at 3.5Ghz even though it says "4.0ghz"). i used Performance Test 8.0 full version. i picked baselines with similar specs otherwise (RAM and GPU + SSD etc).



Whats obvious is the FX 8320 is better than the i5 4670 in every way other than gaming (i.e single core performance, where intel trumps). the integer score is through the roof, leaving even the i7 behind in a dust cloud (this is good for programs that can utilize RAW processor power- im thinking about heavy renderers and video editors, especially 3D animation.) Also SSE instructions, an intel creation, is for video encoding and processing (i.e important to video editors), even THAT runs better on the AMD than it does the intel (again, not mentioning the i7 here because i don't consider double the cost worth it for a couple extra SSE instruction sets).

So unless you need every drip drop out of your PC games, then the AMD will suffice for gaming, and excel in other departments greatly (not to mention serious multi-tasking, but this should go without saying). As a graphic designer, and 3D modeling enthusiast, the FX 8320 made perfect sense (and at $99.99 brand new at micro center who would argue?). The price to performance ratio for my case is incredible and im so very satisfied. Ive never had any problems playing ALL games on ultra with very playable framerates (skyrim, Bioshock, Metro 2033, Crysis 3, and other heavy titles). Paired with my HD 7870 Ghz, a modest little GPU.
m
1
l
!