Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade to 8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 24, 2012 7:03:10 PM

Alright so my current setup is

OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
System RAM: 16346 MB
CPU Name: AMD FX(tm)-6100 Six-Core Processor
CPU Speeds: 4.715GHz
Physical CPUs: 1
Virtual CPUs: 6
Video Card Description: AMD Radeon HD 7950
VRAM: 3072 MB
Primary Display Resolution: 5760x1080
Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution: 5760x1080
Microphone: True
Language: English (United States)
Free Hard Drive Space: 332548 MB
Total Hard Drive Space: 953766 MB
Windows Experience Index Rating: 5.9


And i want to know because i run triple monitor,Would upgrading to an fx 8350 benifit me?Is the fx 6100 being a bottleneck? I mean i have it overclocked to 4.7 ghz stable but i see it gets bad performance in gaming but the 8350 and 1080p and above really pulls itself ahead and sits up with the 3770k in games like bf3,MOHW and other high graphics games.I already have the am3+ mobo so idk if i should even consider intel and also i do a fair bit of video rendering with sony vegas 12 and im guessing the 8350 once i would overclock it to 5ghz or a bit lower would really eat through those videos :) 

-EchoOne :sol: 

More about : upgrade 8350

a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 7:29:25 PM

It's not a big upgrade, but if you want to, don't get the FX-8350. Get the FX-8320.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 7:36:55 PM

obsama1 said:
It's not a big upgrade, but if you want to, don't get the FX-8350. Get the FX-8320.


true but is the 8320 just a downclocked 8350?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 8:09:53 PM

Yup, that's it. Better to get the 8320 and overclock it.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
November 24, 2012 8:25:27 PM

EchoOne said:
true but is the 8320 just a downclocked 8350?

Stock clock doesn't really matter when you can overclock.

As for your question about triple monitor - that's going to put an extra toll on your graphics card, not your processor.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 8:27:55 PM

Sakkura said:
Stock clock doesn't really matter when you can overclock.

As for your question about triple monitor - that's going to put an extra toll on your graphics card, not your processor.


I know it stresses my video card but isnt the 6100 bad at gaming anyways? i mean the 8150 and 8350 get better fps in games that it.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
November 25, 2012 8:52:27 AM

EchoOne said:
I know it stresses my video card but isnt the 6100 bad at gaming anyways? i mean the 8150 and 8350 get better fps in games that it.

Yeah, but the main problem with it is low singlethreaded performance. Many games don't really take much advantage of cores beyond 2 or 4, so going from 6 to 8 won't make a big difference for gaming. Simply getting a CPU from the newer generation will make a bigger difference, because each core performs better.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 10:32:33 PM

EchoOne said:
Alright so my current setup is

OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
System RAM: 16346 MB
CPU Name: AMD FX(tm)-6100 Six-Core Processor
CPU Speeds: 4.715GHz
Physical CPUs: 1
Virtual CPUs: 6
Video Card Description: AMD Radeon HD 7950
VRAM: 3072 MB
Primary Display Resolution: 5760x1080
Multi-Monitor Desktop Resolution: 5760x1080
Microphone: True
Language: English (United States)
Free Hard Drive Space: 332548 MB
Total Hard Drive Space: 953766 MB
Windows Experience Index Rating: 5.9


And i want to know because i run triple monitor,Would upgrading to an fx 8350 benifit me?Is the fx 6100 being a bottleneck? I mean i have it overclocked to 4.7 ghz stable but i see it gets bad performance in gaming but the 8350 and 1080p and above really pulls itself ahead and sits up with the 3770k in games like bf3,MOHW and other high graphics games.I already have the am3+ mobo so idk if i should even consider intel and also i do a fair bit of video rendering with sony vegas 12 and im guessing the 8350 once i would overclock it to 5ghz or a bit lower would really eat through those videos :) 

-EchoOne :sol: 

Well I actually upgraded from a FX6100 to FX8350 with a triple monitor setup and it was a BIG upgrade. I'm talkin real world experience not just an opinion that others will give you. Just the fact I could run BF3 on Ultra with a steady 50 fps when I upgraded was telling in itself. I was running on Medium settings before the upgrade on triple monitors and running 60fps.

My overclock stopped at 4.3ghz on my 6100 and on my 8350 I'm at 4.8ghz on OC. I was actually able to unleash my GPU more with the upgrade and was able to OC my SLI more than I had already. Right now with any games I play, my CPU usage never goes above 45%. I pretty much play everything on max with the 8350/SLI 560's combo. BF3 I still don't fully max as you will take dips depending on the situation so I keep my AA at 2x. On Tom's CPU chart the 8350 is a 3 tier upgrade from the 6100, just food for thought.
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 9:44:11 PM

chase3567 said:
Well I actually upgraded from a FX6100 to FX8350 with a triple monitor setup and it was a BIG upgrade. I'm talkin real world experience not just an opinion that others will give you. Just the fact I could run BF3 on Ultra with a steady 50 fps when I upgraded was telling in itself. I was running on Medium settings before the upgrade on triple monitors and running 60fps.

My overclock stopped at 4.3ghz on my 6100 and on my 8350 I'm at 4.8ghz on OC. I was actually able to unleash my GPU more with the upgrade and was able to OC my SLI more than I had already. Right now with any games I play, my CPU usage never goes above 45%. I pretty much play everything on max with the 8350/SLI 560's combo. BF3 I still don't fully max as you will take dips depending on the situation so I keep my AA at 2x. On Tom's CPU chart the 8350 is a 3 tier upgrade from the 6100, just food for thought.

Hell yeah,Im upgrading to the 8350 :)  my friend is buying my 6100 and he is going to SLI 550ti's (hes not a super hardcore gamer) but he does play bf3,minecraft,gta4 and other things. so yeah big upgrade to both of us :)  hes coming from an amd antlong 640
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 9:45:35 PM

Sakkura said:
Yeah, but the main problem with it is low singlethreaded performance. Many games don't really take much advantage of cores beyond 2 or 4, so going from 6 to 8 won't make a big difference for gaming. Simply getting a CPU from the newer generation will make a bigger difference, because each core performs better.

im not worried about single threaded.I do video rendering most of my time and recording gameplay sooo more multitheaded performance will benifit me.
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 11:33:13 PM

1. I apologize for being skeptical but I find it extremely hard to believe that the upgrade from a 6100 to an 8350 turned a machine into BF3 super machine running triple monitors on Ultra settings. I will need to see some real stats.

2. If you are looking to up performance on your triple monitor setup upgrade your GPU. Unless you are already running 2 or more high end GPUs your CPU isn't what is holding you back. And if it is your CPU holding you back on some crazy graphics setup then AMD isn't going to cut it and you will have to move to intel to unlock any more performance.

3. You say you are not worried about single threaded apps but that is what people have told you is the problem with many games and why the upgrade really doesn't help. Games are very poorly threaded so an upgrade from the 6100 to the 8350 isn't going to help games.

4. You are correct in that it will help with rendering time and anything multithreaded. There you will see a noticeable difference in the performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 12:03:25 AM

yes if you are looking for better multithreaded performance then by all means upgrade to 8320 but not for gaming
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 4:59:07 AM

j2j663 said:
1. I apologize for being skeptical but I find it extremely hard to believe that the upgrade from a 6100 to an 8350 turned a machine into BF3 super machine running triple monitors on Ultra settings. I will need to see some real stats.

2. If you are looking to up performance on your triple monitor setup upgrade your GPU. Unless you are already running 2 or more high end GPUs your CPU isn't what is holding you back. And if it is your CPU holding you back on some crazy graphics setup then AMD isn't going to cut it and you will have to move to intel to unlock any more performance.

3. You say you are not worried about single threaded apps but that is what people have told you is the problem with many games and why the upgrade really doesn't help. Games are very poorly threaded so an upgrade from the 6100 to the 8350 isn't going to help games.

4. You are correct in that it will help with rendering time and anything multithreaded. There you will see a noticeable difference in the performance.

Well it happened,sorry if you don't believe it but if I had a I5 and said then you wouldn't want proof. What I said is true and 90% of the people won't by the chip because of intel bias. Because that's right because it's not an intel chip no way could I run ultra correct? Well I do and if really read what I wrote, then you would realize the 6100 bottlenecked my SLI a little bit. So basically if you can unleash GPU's to full potential then you can run Ultra on BF3. Hell I was able to do Ultra with one montior with the 6100 as the CPU paired with them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 12:25:13 PM

I find it amazing that you little Intel boys living in your mommies basenent can see that there is more to the world than gaming , The AMD does quite well where WORK is concerned , but being in the basement playing games you would not know that . Grow up and stop throwing Intel at everyone satisfied with their AMD cpu
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
November 27, 2012 1:16:59 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

It has pretty bad performance I'd say. Biggest upgrade would be getting an intel CPU.

AMD CPUs doesn't just go well with gaming. No matter what some guys say, about "real world performance". That is an opinion, facts and numbers speak the truth.

There are exceptions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warf...
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 2:26:10 PM

chase3567 said:
Well it happened,sorry if you don't believe it but if I had a I5 and said then you wouldn't want proof. What I said is true and 90% of the people won't by the chip because of intel bias. Because that's right because it's not an intel chip no way could I run ultra correct? Well I do and if really read what I wrote, then you would realize the 6100 bottlenecked my SLI a little bit. So basically if you can unleash GPU's to full potential then you can run Ultra on BF3. Hell I was able to do Ultra with one montior with the 6100 as the CPU paired with them.


You must have missed the fact that I rock a 1090T didn't you. I also plan to stick with AMD if they can give us an upgrade path to Steamroller chips. Get off your high horse and post some actual numbers if you want people to take you seriously.

jerry6 said:
I find it amazing that you little Intel boys living in your mommies basenent can see that there is more to the world than gaming , The AMD does quite well where WORK is concerned , but being in the basement playing games you would not know that . Grow up and stop throwing Intel at everyone satisfied with their AMD cpu


Jerry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes AMD can do work, is it very efficient and is it the most powerful, not even close. You have your concepts backwards. AMD is a viable chip for gaming, but if you want to get any work done the obvious choice is Intel.



Yes there are exceptions, there always are. But your chart doesn't show that AMD dominates it shows that you have hit the limits of the GPU and throwing more CPU power at it won't help (explained nicely by the paragraph under the chart). Hence why an i3, a Phenom chip, the new 8350 and Intel's 3960x are all within 4FPS.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 2:37:40 PM


Well i dont play wow and skyrim you can see at lower res it uses less of the cpu but then at the higher res it pulls ahead.Hell look at other benches,It competes with the 3770k and 3570k in most games.And it beats the 3570k in multithreaded apps like video rendering that i do alot of.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 2:43:10 PM

Pretty much,The 8350 is up with gaming with the 3570k.And guess what? everyone looks at the 3570k as a god gaming chip so if the 8350 is up there with the 3570k and 3770k then it has something going for it.Also in multi threaded performance the 8350 is a beast too.Considering i do alot of video rendering and recording (fraps,dxtory) then yes the 8350 is a great choice especially for only around $200 compare to the 3770k that does A TAD better in video rendering as the 8350 for $350 Hell the 8350 beats the 2600k,That counts for something right? i mean hell if i had a board that could upgrade to a 3770k or something then i would but i think with my am3+ motherboard im going to get a decent increase in performance from my little 6100,I mean it does good but i think it the 8350 will be faster in single threaded performance than the 6100 by a bit and in multi threaded it will kill the 6100,the 8350 is a 20% increase from the 8150 so from a 6100 its probabaly about a 30-40%ish increase.and i can overclock it to about 4.7 or 5ghz i personally think it will be a good investment.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 2:47:36 PM

j2j663 said:
You must have missed the fact that I rock a 1090T didn't you. I also plan to stick with AMD if they can give us an upgrade path to Steamroller chips. Get off your high horse and post some actual numbers if you want people to take you seriously.



Jerry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes AMD can do work, is it very efficient and is it the most powerful, not even close. You have your concepts backwards. AMD is a viable chip for gaming, but if you want to get any work done the obvious choice is Intel.



Yes there are exceptions, there always are. But your chart doesn't show that AMD dominates it shows that you have hit the limits of the GPU and throwing more CPU power at it won't help (explained nicely by the paragraph under the chart). Hence why an i3, a Phenom chip, the new 8350 and Intel's 3960x are all within 4FPS.

Call me after you've run a successful business for 30 years , When you have 300+ computers and you can put together machines that cost 300-400 less per unit and get within 10% of the performance what would you chose ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 2:48:54 PM

No, the fx 8350 is a waste, should be dumped into the oblivion, any intel i5 sandybridge or ivybridge will be better or even the 965 be...
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
November 27, 2012 3:02:49 PM

EchoOne said:
Well i dont play wow and skyrim you can see at lower res it uses less of the cpu but then at the higher res it pulls ahead.Hell look at other benches,It competes with the 3770k and 3570k in most games.And it beats the 3570k in multithreaded apps like video rendering that i do alot of.

Resolution doesn't really affect the CPU load. At lower resolution, the load on the GPU (not the CPU) is reduced, allowing the FPS to rise to however much the CPU can deliver. This spreads out the different builds with different CPUs, while at high resolution they clump together because they're limited by the GPU.

j2j663 said:
Yes there are exceptions, there always are. But your chart doesn't show that AMD dominates it shows that you have hit the limits of the GPU and throwing more CPU power at it won't help (explained nicely by the paragraph under the chart). Hence why an i3, a Phenom chip, the new 8350 and Intel's 3960x are all within 4FPS.

You're missing the fact that all the chips from the Pentium G860 to the Core i7-3960X are within ONE FPS, while the 8350 opens up a 3-FPS gap. Hardly a huge difference, but clearly beyond the margin of error.

And I didn't say anything about AMD dominating. Just that Intel doesn't dominate across the board the way you were implying. I do wonder where the Vishera processors would end up in a head to head with Core i3s. The main review only compared the FX 8350 to AMD processors and Core i5s and i7s. Because of pricing, the FX 6300 vs. Core i3-3220 battle seems particularly interesting.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 3:03:31 PM

EchoOne said:
Pretty much,The 8350 is up with gaming with the 3570k.And guess what? everyone looks at the 3570k as a god gaming chip so if the 8350 is up there with the 3570k and 3770k then it has something going for it.Also in multi threaded performance the 8350 is a beast too.Considering i do alot of video rendering and recording (fraps,dxtory) then yes the 8350 is a great choice especially for only around $200 compare to the 3770k that does A TAD better in video rendering as the 8350 for $350 Hell the 8350 beats the 2600k,That counts for something right? i mean hell if i had a board that could upgrade to a 3770k or something then i would but i think with my am3+ motherboard im going to get a decent increase in performance from my little 6100,I mean it does good but i think it the 8350 will be faster in single threaded performance than the 6100 by a bit and in multi threaded it will kill the 6100,the 8350 is a 20% increase from the 8150 so from a 6100 its probabaly about a 30-40%ish increase.and i can overclock it to about 4.7 or 5ghz i personally think it will be a good investment.


You will always favor AMD first, I can see that on your Picture. Intel makes the best CPUs, why not save up Money and buy the new haswell CPU + Mobo with 1150 socket. Buy it when it launches!

I do agree that you will get an increase o performance, because the new FX CPUs has been 15-20% better overall compared to last years FX CPUs.

I just hope you get happy with what you buy. :) 
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:11:39 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
You will always favor AMD first, I can see that on your Picture. Intel makes the best CPUs, why not save up Money and buy the new haswell CPU + Mobo with 1150 socket. Buy it when it launches!

I do agree that you will get an increase o performance, because the new FX CPUs has been 15-20% better overall compared to last years FX CPUs.

I just hope you get happy with what you buy. :) 

Dont get me wrong,I like AMD alot because the price to performance ratio.And if the 8350 is better at video rendering than the 3570k then why pay the same for the 3570k for less performance than the 8350?And theres no way right now im paying more than $220 for a cpu i mean in high res games the 3770k and 8350 are really close in performance.But i might get intel eventually
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:13:57 PM

Sakkura said:
Resolution doesn't really affect the CPU load. At lower resolution, the load on the GPU (not the CPU) is reduced, allowing the FPS to rise to however much the CPU can deliver. This spreads out the different builds with different CPUs, while at high resolution they clump together because they're limited by the GPU.


You're missing the fact that all the chips from the Pentium G860 to the Core i7-3960X are within ONE FPS, while the 8350 opens up a 3-FPS gap. Hardly a huge difference, but clearly beyond the margin of error.

And I didn't say anything about AMD dominating. Just that Intel doesn't dominate across the board the way you were implying. I do wonder where the Vishera processors would end up in a head to head with Core i3s. The main review only compared the FX 8350 to AMD processors and Core i5s and i7s. Because of pricing, the FX 6300 vs. Core i3-3220 battle seems particularly interesting.


I think that if i have an am3+ mobo already i might as well get the 8350.I mean the 8350 is oh no 1-3 fps difference in high res games.And i have 1 7950.So it will help my fps compare to my 6100...But come haswell i think i will make the switch over now that i have a job. :) 
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
November 27, 2012 3:22:34 PM

EchoOne said:
I think that if i have an am3+ mobo already i might as well get the 8350.I mean the 8350 is oh no 1-3 fps difference in high res games.And i have 1 7950.So it will help my fps compare to my 6100...But come haswell i think i will make the switch over now that i have a job. :) 

I would still recommend the 8320 instead, at least if you're okay with overclocking it. It should go as fast as the 8350 and it costs less.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 5:02:08 PM

jerry6 said:
Call me after you've run a successful business for 30 years , When you have 300+ computers and you can put together machines that cost 300-400 less per unit and get within 10% of the performance what would you chose ?


Nice try but I currently spec out all of the machines for my company everything from our Board members who surf the internet and check their email to our planning department who use AutoCAD, Photoshop and GIS very heavily. Since I started they have seen more customization and better price/performance ratio at every level.

I mean if we are going to throw credentials out there...

Just a note, a lot of people on this site have the same if not more experience than either of us so don't try and say that your opinion counts more than anyone else here just because you think you have had a better IT experience than other people, its not going to work.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2012 7:49:44 PM

Blah blah blah , I owned the company , didn't run the it department , but I made the final call on a cost performance basis . Oh and I've been retired for 12 years , so got nothing to prove .
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 9:45:26 PM

EchoOne said:
I think that if i have an am3+ mobo already i might as well get the 8350.I mean the 8350 is oh no 1-3 fps difference in high res games.And i have 1 7950.So it will help my fps compare to my 6100...But come haswell i think i will make the switch over now that i have a job. :) 


If you don't care about dropping the money now for an 8350 then go ahead and get it as you will definitely see improvement over the 6100 in many areas. Personally I am going to wait and see if AMD will keep the AM3+ socket for another generation and probably upgrade if they do.

I will say right now it is very tempting to jump ship over to Intel. AMD is starting to keep up with the multi-threaded apps with the new architecture but it still gets slammed in anything single threaded. AMD slipped up pretty good but Intel hasn't shut the door on them yet so I am intrigued at what could be next for AMD.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 11:27:42 PM

j2j663 said:
If you don't care about dropping the money now for an 8350 then go ahead and get it as you will definitely see improvement over the 6100 in many areas. Personally I am going to wait and see if AMD will keep the AM3+ socket for another generation and probably upgrade if they do.

I will say right now it is very tempting to jump ship over to Intel. AMD is starting to keep up with the multi-threaded apps with the new architecture but it still gets slammed in anything single threaded. AMD slipped up pretty good but Intel hasn't shut the door on them yet so I am intrigued at what could be next for AMD.

Yeah im thinkin about grabbing a 2600k,Only $260 but my only thing that is holding me back is buying a whole new motherboard :( 
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 11:28:52 PM

Sakkura said:
I would still recommend the 8320 instead, at least if you're okay with overclocking it. It should go as fast as the 8350 and it costs less.

Im pretty good at overclocking i mean got a 3.3ghz 6100 to 4.7ghz stable 24/7 :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2012 12:30:48 AM

Picked up my 8350 for 189.00 , at that price could not resist .
m
0
l
November 28, 2012 1:10:59 AM

jerry6 said:
Picked up my 8350 for 189.00 , at that price could not resist .

where at? and hows the performance?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2012 8:35:54 PM

Tiger , performance is great , notice a difference from the 1090 , a bit faster , progs load in a blink , sons games play better and video encoding much faster , I will do side by side comparison between the 8350 and my 1100t doing the same work , see the time difference . That way Ill know if it was worth it . If it saves me over 5-10 minutes/ hours work it's a great investment , at 1-4 minutes/hour saved it's a good investment under 1minute/hour wasted my money
m
0
l
December 2, 2012 11:47:22 PM

jerry6 said:
Tiger , performance is great , notice a difference from the 1090 , a bit faster , progs load in a blink , sons games play better and video encoding much faster , I will do side by side comparison between the 8350 and my 1100t doing the same work , see the time difference . That way Ill know if it was worth it . If it saves me over 5-10 minutes/ hours work it's a great investment , at 1-4 minutes/hour saved it's a good investment under 1minute/hour wasted my money

screw it i just ordered an x79 mobo and now im deciding between a 3930k or 3820.I know both are good but im debating because of price lol
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 3:29:19 PM

I recently upgarded my rig from my old Q6600 build to an FX-8350, I would have gone Intel again but I managed to get the CPU and MOBO from ARIA for only £220! far too good of an offer to resist. My friend has an FX-6100. We both have 990fx chipsets, mine is a GA-990fxe-d3 and his is an Asrock Extreme 3, we both have one 7850 2gb, mine is XFX Core edition and his is MSI Power edition, both run at 880mhz out of the box. We both have 8GB of 1600mhz RAM. The gaming performance difference between the two is noticeable and the 8350 build defiantly keeps up with the Intel builds (2600k and 3570k) I have compared it with much better than the 6100.
m
0
l
December 6, 2012 9:31:27 AM

JRODJonny said:
I recently upgarded my rig from my old Q6600 build to an FX-8350, I would have gone Intel again but I managed to get the CPU and MOBO from ARIA for only £220! far too good of an offer to resist. My friend has an FX-6100. We both have 990fx chipsets, mine is a GA-990fxe-d3 and his is an Asrock Extreme 3, we both have one 7850 2gb, mine is XFX Core edition and his is MSI Power edition, both run at 880mhz out of the box. We both have 8GB of 1600mhz RAM. The gaming performance difference between the two is noticeable and the 8350 build defiantly keeps up with the Intel builds (2600k and 3570k) I have compared it with much better than the 6100.

Thats good :)  but recently on newegg there was a sale for the EVGA X79 SLI motherboard so i jumped on it.Im grabbing the I7 3820 for this time around :) 
m
0
l
!