CPUs. CHECK IT OUT!
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
CPUs
- Intel i5
-
AMD
Last response: in CPUs
I need helpz
August 21, 2014 10:03:32 AM
Silba
August 21, 2014 10:10:27 AM
I need helpz said:
Due to the recent news of the AMD CPUs price drop would it be worth it to get the FX 8350 or higher (eg. FX 9000 series) rather than a i5 4670k? Main purpose: Gaming
GPU: R9 290
8350 is a good all rounder and destroys the i5 and i7 series processors for anything that is programmed to use more than 4 cores. Unless you have application specific needs for more cores, then the i5 is boss
-
Reply to Silba
m
0
l
Related resources
- New build, out of the loop on CPUs - Forum
- Teamed cpus, how do i check? - Forum
- Changed out CPUs, now computer will power up but not boot - Forum
- Is there a way to change out cpus without using a SDC band? - Forum
- Please check out my entry level build. - Forum
DribbleJerp
August 21, 2014 10:12:00 AM
the FX-8350 will do just fine with any game out there with the GPU and a good MOBO. if you want more juice just overlock it. most new games nowadays require an 8-core processor not a small quad-core or even hexa-core.
i have an FX-8320 with sapphire r9 270 vapor-x and an asrock 970 extreme3 MOBO and i have no problems with anything
i have an FX-8320 with sapphire r9 270 vapor-x and an asrock 970 extreme3 MOBO and i have no problems with anything
-
Reply to DribbleJerp
m
0
l
-
Reply to TechyInAZ
m
0
l
DribbleJerp said:
the FX-8350 will do just fine with any game out there with the GPU and a good MOBO. if you want more juice just overlock it. most new games nowadays require an 8-core processor not a small quad-core or even hexa-core.i have an FX-8320 with sapphire r9 270 vapor-x and an asrock 970 extreme3 MOBO and i have no problems with anything
What do you mean by require? Because their are NO games that require OCTO core cpus.
-
Reply to TechyInAZ
m
0
l
DribbleJerp said:
the FX-8350 will do just fine with any game out there with the GPU and a good MOBO. if you want more juice just overlock it. most new games nowadays require an 8-core processor not a small quad-core or even hexa-core.i have an FX-8320 with sapphire r9 270 vapor-x and an asrock 970 extreme3 MOBO and i have no problems with anything
just when did games all of a sudden require an 8 core processor???
-
Reply to aldan
m
0
l
^The people above me, what do you think you saying? No proof nothing?
FX 8 series will destroy an i7! Lol
FX 8 is just a quad core with 8 physical cores, but there're 2 cores in each module and 4 such modules, each of which gets equal resources and so the performance of 2 cores in not actually separate but rather combined. Not an ideal gaming CPU w/o OCing.
Even under application specific needs, FX 8 doesn't get anywhere close to i7, and OC the i5, then FX really struggles on be in the race.
Second one, please name 1 game other than BF4 which utilizes more than 4 cores? Most, or almost any game today doesn't use more than 4 cores. And FYI FX is not 8 core search on net about it, its a quad performance CPU with 8 physical cores, as I explained.
EDIT: I was referring to DribbleJerp and Silba's posts respectively.
FX 8 series will destroy an i7! Lol
FX 8 is just a quad core with 8 physical cores, but there're 2 cores in each module and 4 such modules, each of which gets equal resources and so the performance of 2 cores in not actually separate but rather combined. Not an ideal gaming CPU w/o OCing.
Even under application specific needs, FX 8 doesn't get anywhere close to i7, and OC the i5, then FX really struggles on be in the race.
Second one, please name 1 game other than BF4 which utilizes more than 4 cores? Most, or almost any game today doesn't use more than 4 cores. And FYI FX is not 8 core search on net about it, its a quad performance CPU with 8 physical cores, as I explained.
EDIT: I was referring to DribbleJerp and Silba's posts respectively.
-
Reply to MeteorsRaining
m
1
l
DribbleJerp said:
the FX-8350 will do just fine with any game out there with the GPU and a good MOBO. if you want more juice just overlock it. most new games nowadays require an 8-core processor not a small quad-core or even hexa-core.i have an FX-8320 with sapphire r9 270 vapor-x and an asrock 970 extreme3 MOBO and i have no problems with anything
What? Somehow I just do not believe this is entirely accurate.
To the OP, its a tough thing to try and talk anyone out of an i5, they are pretty much the sweet spot for price and performance in the gaming world, and they will do the job for several years to come.
-
Reply to jitpublisher
m
0
l
DribbleJerp
August 21, 2014 11:02:59 AM
-
Reply to DribbleJerp
m
0
l
DribbleJerp said:
for one the ps4 doesnt have 8 cores for nothing and i know i read that the new game called Evolve is recommended to run on 8 cores. forget specifics about virtual and fake cores blah blah blah but thats what i read. i guess its all based on what you like most but iv gone the AMD wayThose are console games, designed for xbox and ps4 which only have 8 core models. PC games are a different story.
-
Reply to TechyInAZ
m
0
l
DribbleJerp said:
for one the ps4 doesnt have 8 cores for nothing and i know i read that the new game called Evolve is recommended to run on 8 cores. forget specifics about virtual and fake cores blah blah blah but thats what i read. i guess its all based on what you like most but iv gone the AMD wayThose are console games, designed for xbox and ps4 which only have 8 core models. PC games are a different story.
-
Reply to TechyInAZ
m
0
l
DribbleJerp
August 21, 2014 12:57:21 PM
Heh, lol. Even i3s sometimes beat the FX-8350 in games that can use 8 cores, and the i3s have up to 2x the performance of the FX-8350 in games that use only a few cores (most). i5s are complete future-proof beasts compared to anything in the FX line.
The reason AMD cut their prices again is *shocker* because the FX CPUs are now getting old and weaker than they ever were. The still maintain solid (above 60 fps) performance in games that use all their cores, but even then they lose to the i3s and i5s.
http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.hardcoreware.ne...
There's no FX CPU in the world that won't bottleneck an R9 290.
There's no FX CPU in the world that won't bottleneck a GTX 760 in some games.
The reason AMD cut their prices again is *shocker* because the FX CPUs are now getting old and weaker than they ever were. The still maintain solid (above 60 fps) performance in games that use all their cores, but even then they lose to the i3s and i5s.
http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.hardcoreware.ne...
There's no FX CPU in the world that won't bottleneck an R9 290.
There's no FX CPU in the world that won't bottleneck a GTX 760 in some games.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Silba
August 23, 2014 2:15:58 PM
MeteorsRaining said:
^The people above me, what do you think you saying? No proof nothing?FX 8 series will destroy an i7! Lol
FX 8 is just a quad core with 8 physical cores, but there're 2 cores in each module and 4 such modules, each of which gets equal resources and so the performance of 2 cores in not actually separate but rather combined. Not an ideal gaming CPU w/o OCing.
Even under application specific needs, FX 8 doesn't get anywhere close to i7, and OC the i5, then FX really struggles on be in the race.
Second one, please name 1 game other than BF4 which utilizes more than 4 cores? Most, or almost any game today doesn't use more than 4 cores. And FYI FX is not 8 core search on net about it, its a quad performance CPU with 8 physical cores, as I explained.
EDIT: I was referring to DribbleJerp and Silba's posts respectively.
I wasnt specifically talking about games but i stand by my point - Anything designed to use more than 4 cores WILL run better on any cpu with more than 4 cores. A true core is always better than a fake hyperthreaded core
-
Reply to Silba
m
0
l
Silba said:
I wasnt specifically talking about games but i stand by my point - Anything designed to use more than 4 cores WILL run better on any cpu with more than 4 cores. A true core is always better than a fake hyperthreaded core
That makes the assumption that all cores are the same. They're not.
Intel and AMD have dramatically different ideas about what constitutes a "core". Simplest way to explain it is that an Intel core, if you somehow magically chopped it off from the CPU, would be a fully functional CPU itself. An AMD core, however, would require 2 cores and other shared resources to make one functioning CPU, as the FX CPUs operate in CMT clusters
Intel cores are much stronger individually than AMD cores, by a ratio of more than 2 to 1.
That's one reason why i5s beat the FX-8350 even in games that can use 8 cores, like Watch Dogs or BF4. It's not a wide margin, due to GPU bottlenecking setting a hard cap at 82 fps, but it does display the disparity.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/827/bench/CPU_01....
http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.hardcoreware.ne...
In Watch Dogs (an 8 core game remember), an i7 had to be clocked down to 2.4Ghz for an FX-8350 to match it. I don't remember the source for that, but it's somewhere on Techspot if you want to look for it. Obviously the i7 is double the cost, so that's to be expected, but I'm simply using it to point out that more cores does not automatically equal 'better', not even in games that can use all of them.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Just some imp points about 'true' 8 core FX 8350:
The AMD FX-8350 has 4 modules with 2 cores in each module. Each 2 cores in the module will share resources. Yes, there are 8 cores in total, but they are not separate, and are not hyper-threading. This is a good cost saver for AMD.
4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.
The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.
Instead, FX shares certain parts of what we’d expect to find as dedicated resources in a typical execution core, including instruction fetch and decode stages, floating-point units, and the L2 cache.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
The AMD FX-8350 has 4 modules with 2 cores in each module. Each 2 cores in the module will share resources. Yes, there are 8 cores in total, but they are not separate, and are not hyper-threading. This is a good cost saver for AMD.
4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.
The problem with the FX CPUs is that it is a modular design. Every two physical CPUs shares a single FPU (Floating Point Unit). If both CPUs must use the FPU in each module, then one core basically needs to wait and do nothing until the other core is done using the FPU. Therefore, the FPU itself is a performance bottleneck.
Instead, FX shares certain parts of what we’d expect to find as dedicated resources in a typical execution core, including instruction fetch and decode stages, floating-point units, and the L2 cache.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
-
Reply to MeteorsRaining
m
0
l
If I remember correctly, the FX series alternate their modules, so a game that can use 4 cores is really using 4 modules. Each module makes use of its only FPU and one of its two integer cores, meaning in a quad-core game, the FX-8000 series is not at half capacity, but really at 75% capacity.
It's been a while since I checked the Wiki page, but if I'm recalling that correctly then the FX 8000 series won't get double performance going from a 4-core game to an 8-core game, but rather a mere 25% increase. The same as how the FX 6000 series gets a 25% increase going from a 3-core game up to a 6-core game.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's been a while since I checked the Wiki page, but if I'm recalling that correctly then the FX 8000 series won't get double performance going from a 4-core game to an 8-core game, but rather a mere 25% increase. The same as how the FX 6000 series gets a 25% increase going from a 3-core game up to a 6-core game.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Silba said:
I need helpz said:
Due to the recent news of the AMD CPUs price drop would it be worth it to get the FX 8350 or higher (eg. FX 9000 series) rather than a i5 4670k? Main purpose: Gaming
GPU: R9 290
8350 is a good all rounder and destroys the i5 and i7 series processors for anything that is programmed to use more than 4 cores. Unless you have application specific needs for more cores, then the i5 is boss
Why then do they have to sell them so cheap? Is it because amd have enough money already?
-
Reply to leeb2013
m
0
l
Its cheap. AMD can push CPUs that have a lot of cores, for a low cost using things such as modules.
A few years back AMD put their chips on games using 6-8 threads, Intel said they would need strong single core performance. AMD bet wrong, but their price/performance cant be beat in the entry level-mid range market.
A few years back AMD put their chips on games using 6-8 threads, Intel said they would need strong single core performance. AMD bet wrong, but their price/performance cant be beat in the entry level-mid range market.
-
Reply to Gam3r01
m
0
l
leeb2013 said:
Silba said:
I need helpz said:
Due to the recent news of the AMD CPUs price drop would it be worth it to get the FX 8350 or higher (eg. FX 9000 series) rather than a i5 4670k? Main purpose: Gaming
GPU: R9 290
8350 is a good all rounder and destroys the i5 and i7 series processors for anything that is programmed to use more than 4 cores. Unless you have application specific needs for more cores, then the i5 is boss
Why then do they have to sell them so cheap? Is it because amd have enough money already?
AMD is actually struggling for money at the moment; they've run up a 2.5 billion dollar debt.
What Silba said is not totally true - The FX-8350 has an entirely different architecture than Intel CPUs, and as such it's not just a simple comparison of 'which is faster'. The FX series holds up better in certain things, but the i5 is still quite far ahead of the FX-8350 even in games that use 8 cores.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
syedqaiser
August 23, 2014 10:01:03 PM
syedqaiser
August 23, 2014 10:07:50 PM
-
Reply to syedqaiser
m
0
l
MeteorsRaining said:
Whosoever wins, i5 or FX 8, just a single concrete note: DO NOT GET FX 9 FOR GAMING, ITS CRAP.Yep. Literally the same as the (very reasonably priced) FX-8320, except overclocked to the point of near-catastrophic-failure, and they somehow think it's fair to charge more than double the price for that.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Silba
August 24, 2014 5:09:37 PM
Rationale said:
leeb2013 said:
Silba said:
I need helpz said:
Due to the recent news of the AMD CPUs price drop would it be worth it to get the FX 8350 or higher (eg. FX 9000 series) rather than a i5 4670k? Main purpose: Gaming
GPU: R9 290
8350 is a good all rounder and destroys the i5 and i7 series processors for anything that is programmed to use more than 4 cores. Unless you have application specific needs for more cores, then the i5 is boss
Why then do they have to sell them so cheap? Is it because amd have enough money already?
AMD is actually struggling for money at the moment; they've run up a 2.5 billion dollar debt.
What Silba said is not totally true - The FX-8350 has an entirely different architecture than Intel CPUs, and as such it's not just a simple comparison of 'which is faster'. The FX series holds up better in certain things, but the i5 is still quite far ahead of the FX-8350 even in games that use 8 cores.
Very informative @Rationale thanks for that i didn't know this was how it worked
My sources (from memory) must be a bit out dated or just plain wrong about cores.@Leeb2013 AMD is just different, they tend to use GHz and Cores as marking strategies while intel uses brute force of individual cores and hyperthreading to be superior (superior in the sense of e-peen bragging rights). You get what you pay for and there really isn't anything the 8350 can't run at playable frame rates although the time will come if developers don't hurry up and learn to utilize more cores properly
-
Reply to Silba
m
0
l
Don't forget that the FX chips are 2 years old now. You could say older in a sense, since they are what the original Bulldozer should have been in 2011, and were mainly a hurried fixup to that flawed initial release. The fact they are still even included as possible alternatives to the newest intel chips is somewhat complimentary to them.
In any case, I actually think the upcoming FX 8370E look ok for these aging fogies. I am guessing that the 8370E will not overclock as high, given it is a 95w tdp, but that is the kind of efficiency I would accept for the 8 core piledriver, and it has nice clocks out of the box too (higher than the 8350 and its 125w tdp). When I see 125w tdp, I lose interest. You can imagine how I react when I see 220w or whatever the 9 series is...I think the largest tdp I had in a cpu was 110w tdp in my Athlon 64 x2 4800+.
So, my pick for an AMD machine would be the FX 8370E. For intel, quite simply the latest top i5. K version if you plan on overclocking.
In any case, I actually think the upcoming FX 8370E look ok for these aging fogies. I am guessing that the 8370E will not overclock as high, given it is a 95w tdp, but that is the kind of efficiency I would accept for the 8 core piledriver, and it has nice clocks out of the box too (higher than the 8350 and its 125w tdp). When I see 125w tdp, I lose interest. You can imagine how I react when I see 220w or whatever the 9 series is...I think the largest tdp I had in a cpu was 110w tdp in my Athlon 64 x2 4800+.
So, my pick for an AMD machine would be the FX 8370E. For intel, quite simply the latest top i5. K version if you plan on overclocking.
-
Reply to sapperastro
m
0
l
DribbleJerp
September 9, 2014 2:49:49 PM
DribbleJerp said:
If you plan on maxing out performance and graphics on games get either an i7 or AMD FX-8320 or 8350. yeah yeah people dont believe me but look on steam. to play the newest and best games they recommend either an i7 or AMD FX-8320 or 8350. not some little i5 lolEvery one of those games that recommends an i7 or FX-8000 actually runs better on an i3 than it does on an FX-8350. Like Thief, for example. Everyone knows the recommended specs are a load of crap in most games, and Intel is nearly always ahead of AMD.
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/787/bench/CPU_01....
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Devouringbowl57
October 8, 2014 9:59:03 PM
i5 4670k is better for a wider variety of games. Many games are not built to handle more than 4 threads and amd single core performance is not good. If you were to play exclusively bf4 then go with the fx-8000/9000 series, but if you want to play open world games like Skyrim or Watchdogs go with the intel. If you do end up going with AMD do not get a 9000 series cpu: they are power hungry and should only appeal to people who do video encoding or any sort of intense video editing. For intel go with a i5 4690k it has lower heat and better oc'abilty than a 4670k plus its the same price.
-
Reply to Devouringbowl57
m
0
l
Related resources
- Solvedcheck it out please first build need expertise Forum
- SolvedWhen is the next gen of CPUs from AMD and Intel coming out? Forum
- SolvedAre there CPUs that can run 1.6V RAM out of the box? Forum
- SolvedCheck out my gaming rig please! Forum
- SolvedCheck this build out Forum
- SolvedCheck Out My Gaming PC Build! Forum
- SolvedCheck out this build. Opinions! Forum
- Solvedany new cpus coming out in 2014 Forum
- SolvedCheck This Build Out Forum
- SolvedCheck This Build Out Forum
- SolvedFirst time build, can someone check it out? Forum
- SolvedWill i need more case fans and does this build check out Forum
- When are next gen Intel CPUs coming out? Forum
- SolvedHELP! I think someone is ****HACKING ME ****** what should I DO??? Check out this LOG Forum
- SolvedCheck out my new build please Forum
- More resources
!