AMD 3.5 GHz AM3+ FX 8320 8 Core Piledriver

Gbz Goldenboyz

Honorable
Apr 15, 2014
440
0
10,860
What is ur review about thie processoer does it will catch up with intel i5 and does this overheat? does this good for gaming and video edting? my main aim is better gaming does it will satisfy it?
 
Solution
It will satisfy your gaming and editing needs and it doesn't overheat as long as you get something like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. And there are a lot of i5 processors out there, some it beats, some it doesn't. The Fx 8350 is about equal to the i5 4670k in overall performance while it loses in performance /core. The Fx 8320 could be overclocked to those levels, but even without overclocking it's a very good CPU.
It will satisfy your gaming and editing needs and it doesn't overheat as long as you get something like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. And there are a lot of i5 processors out there, some it beats, some it doesn't. The Fx 8350 is about equal to the i5 4670k in overall performance while it loses in performance /core. The Fx 8320 could be overclocked to those levels, but even without overclocking it's a very good CPU.
 
Solution

Henrik Jensen DK

Reputable
Mar 19, 2014
115
0
4,710
AMD CPU's are not competitive at all with Intel.

Check how the FX 8350 competes with other CPUs in Skyrim here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

And read the reviewers conclusion a few pages later:

"AMD remains deeply uncompetitive in primarily single threaded applications such as games without offering the significant benefits in multi-threaded applications you’d expect from a chip boasting eight cores. Peak power consumption remains higher than Intel too and it’s these fundamental issues that mean the FX-8350 just isn’t a competitive CPU. Despite the drop in price, there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition; it seems that while AMD’s changed lots of little things about the FX-8350, the end result remains largely the same."

Check also what this reviewer says about the FX 8350:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

"The overall performance scatter offers some good news for AMD fans: the FX-8350 outperforms both the Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in our nicely multithreaded test suite. As a result, the FX-8350 will give you more performance for your dollar than the Core i5-3570K, and it at least rivals our 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 was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."

Bottom line:
Don't go for an AMD CPU if you can at all afford an Intel chip.
If you can't afford it right now, it's better to save up a few more months so you can get an Intel.

I must stress I don't have any preference at all for either CPU maker.
If it was the other way around I would not hesitate to recommend AMD over Intel.
All I'm trying to do is to be helpful for you so you don't make a decision you will regret in the long run.
 


So they're not competitive even though the review you quoted said they are superior in multithreaded tasks?

A lot of people think the AMD CPUs are worth it because both the XBOX one and PS4 use 8-core AMD processors, making it more likely that games will use multithreading better in the future. I am 100% sure this will happen, but I'm not sure when it will. It might be that it takes so long that the FX-8320/8350 have already become too outdated to be used in gaming.

As said, get an Intel CPU if you can afford it/want to spend more money. AMD is more about bang for your buck than ultimate performance.