Upgrade to 8350?

[EchoOne]

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

 

[obsama1]

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

 

[EchoOne]

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?

 

[obsama1]

Yup, that's it. Better to get the 8320 and overclock it.

 

[Sakkura]

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.

 

[EchoOne]

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.

 

[Sakkura]

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.

 

[chase3567]

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

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.

 

[EchoOne]

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

 

[EchoOne]

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.

 

[j2j663]

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.

 

[mohit9206]

yes if you are looking for better multithreaded performance then by all means upgrade to 8320 but not for gaming

 

[chase3567]

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.

 

[lostgamer_03]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html

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.

 

[jerry6]

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

 

[Sakkura]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html

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-warfighter-performance-benchmark,3336-7.html

 

[j2j663]

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.

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.

There are exceptions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warfighter-performance-benchmark,3336-7.html

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.

 

[EchoOne]

There are exceptions.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warfighter-performance-benchmark,3336-7.html

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.

 

[EchoOne]

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.

 

[jerry6]

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 ?

 

[djangoringo]

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...

 

[Sakkura]

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.

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.

 

[lostgamer_03]

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.

 

[EchoOne]

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

 

[EchoOne]

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.