Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is the AMD FX 8350 good for gaming - Page 2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 17, 2012 1:28:39 AM

Flomps said:
i wrote if it can. but im not actually really sure about spending 900 quid + on a gpu. i will prbs get the 7970 though. also's is the I7 3770K powerful, as in can it play games on max with no problems


well if you want to invest in another 7970 in the future then youd need a better motherboard thats what i was saying. Id recommend a z77 motherboard that has pcie 3.0 for example this motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
has pcie 3.0 slots at 16x 8x 4x so if you put 7970 in crossfire theyd be running at pcie 30 8x 8x which equals to pcie 2.0 16x 16x. Well for gaming there is a minor difference for an i7 3770k and a i5 3570k but that doesnt justify a the $100 difference. You cant go wrong either way but since your on a budget theres two scenarios you can play out: 1. you can get the i7 3770k with the msi z77a-gd65 motherboard and wait to get a better videocard 2. you can get the i5 3570k with the msi z77a-gd65 motherboard and a decent video card, depending on if its used or new.

I just wouldnt recomend the 8350fx because overtime its going to cost more than an i7 because of the amount of power it consumes= your energy bill.
February 23, 2013 5:54:55 PM

Flomps said:
The FX 8350 has a ton of L2 AND L3 cache, what does that mean

cache are tiny ulra-fast memory slots that save key locations and information that are most used in your computer. places in the OS. it means it will run more advanced OC more smoothly and fast. the diffarence between L3 and L2 is they are differend "depth" in you're OS, example: L3 cache will be something like C:\windows\system32\XOB\knob\data. a L2 cache will look something like c/windows/system32/PCI. cache is pretty important when it comes to PCUs
February 24, 2013 4:18:13 AM

I have a 8350 with a 7770. It's great for gaming. You will get med high setting bf3. I tried wow full ultra max everything full storm wind. No lag. 8350 actually is better than i5 and most of i7 according to this http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Related resources
March 21, 2013 1:06:41 PM

It's funny to see everyone battling on this. Its honestly for what you do. For example, I'm getting and i5-3570K for the sole reason of ArmA 2, DayZ, and ArmA 3. These games perform best on the i5 because hyper threading kills the frames and only gives a small advantage on other games. I'm also getting Dual SLI Zotac GTX 680 4GBs which also is better for ArmA and such. And even comparing AMD and Intel, Intel's coding and physical build is better than the AMDs and also is more compatible with more boards and software. The choice of Nvidials software on GPUs is obvious as its better for my games (ArmA / DayZ). Also running in Dual SLI decreases Temp by 15ºC O.O. Anyways, go with what your gut tells you and what you are using it for. Try to find the software that the applications/games use, and look up multiple (at least 3 or more) reviews on Hardware with games, and hardware vs other hardware. Good Luck ^_^

EDIT: ALSO! The i5-3570K can overclock safely to 5.0 GHz while the i7-3770K can only go to 4.8 GHz ^_^
March 22, 2013 10:00:18 AM

8350rocks said:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaas...

That's the spreadsheet results of the latest benchmarks...


I would like to know what GPU, Motherboard, and how many watts the PSU is.

Its very much possible that the GPU has an affect on it, for example, the i7-3770K with a single GTX 680 4GB can get about 40 FPS on Metro 2033. However when Dual SLI overclocked is used, it goes up to about 70-80 FPS. So please let me know ^_^
a c 210 à CPUs
March 22, 2013 3:25:47 PM

Xfire'd Radeon HD 7870 GHz editions, and later another one was done with GTX 670's in SLI configuration with similar results.

System specs:

AMD FX 8350 Rig
•MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
•16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)
•EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
•16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
•Corsair H100
•ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel 3820 Rig
•ASRock X79 Extreme4m Motherboard
•16 GB Gelid 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 256 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2013 6:19:04 PM

As far as an 8350 being better in multithreaded apps, NOT all the time. Sometimes the 3570k's 4 cores are more powerful that all "8" of AMD's cores. On ANDTECH, they have 40 benchmarks. The i5 win's 25 of them and the 8350 win's 13 of them. I'd go with the i5 because it has better gaming performance. And win's more benchmarks during normal compute tasks. So as far as AMD 8350 being a better "all around" computer, that's hardly true. Personally I much rather have 4 really powerful cores(no other cpu is more powerful, per core, than a 3570k)than 8 weak ones.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 24, 2013 9:16:58 AM

ericjohn004 said:
As far as an 8350 being better in multithreaded apps, NOT all the time. Sometimes the 3570k's 4 cores are more powerful that all "8" of AMD's cores. On ANDTECH, they have 40 benchmarks. The i5 win's 25 of them and the 8350 win's 13 of them. I'd go with the i5 because it has better gaming performance. And win's more benchmarks during normal compute tasks. So as far as AMD 8350 being a better "all around" computer, that's hardly true. Personally I much rather have 4 really powerful cores(no other cpu is more powerful, per core, than a 3570k)than 8 weak ones.


Err...current benchmarks were TL;DR for you?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 11:50:02 AM

rds1220 said:
griptwister said:
Let me tell ya something kid. The FX 8350 works Fine for gaming. The i5 does perform better, but only in single threaded games. Multi threading is the future. The FX performs great in games like FC3, BF3 and even does well in Metro 2033. The FX 8350 spanks the i7 in multi-threading xD


No it really doesn't. In single threaded programs it gets stomped by the I5 plain and simple and you can easily see that in the benchmarks . Everything else you said is compleatly pointless and irrelevant. The future is going to more threads but we are not near that point and games are even further. Games still only use two core and the few that actually do use four cores are few and far between. By the time we hit the point of games actually start using more cores and threads the Piledriver will long be dead and gone. Stop with the future BS and look at the present. The I5 is clearly the better CPU especially for gaming. Like I said if you like buying something that is good enough I don't really care but I don't see the point of buying a CPU no on impulse when you can save up another mere hundred dollars and get the far better I5.


Actually we are near that point. What two popular games were recently released? Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3. Do they support 8 Cores? Yes.

What Consoles are launching this year?
Xbox 720 and the PS4.

Both will be Multi-Core configurations. The PS4 will be an AMD x86 8-core CPU with an AMD GPU (an APU on steroids). What does this mean? Means that games being ported to and from consoles will be multi-core aware and designed to take 8 cores into consideration. Also means that down to the architecture level... these games will be tailored for GCN and not Kepler. The effects and shaders used will be tailored for AMDs architectures.

The PS4 is set to launch during the holidays of this year with many titles available on the onset. Those titles will be ported to the PC. Care to wager as to how "multi-core aware" they will be?
a c 210 à CPUs
March 24, 2013 11:59:20 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
rds1220 said:
griptwister said:
Let me tell ya something kid. The FX 8350 works Fine for gaming. The i5 does perform better, but only in single threaded games. Multi threading is the future. The FX performs great in games like FC3, BF3 and even does well in Metro 2033. The FX 8350 spanks the i7 in multi-threading xD


No it really doesn't. In single threaded programs it gets stomped by the I5 plain and simple and you can easily see that in the benchmarks . Everything else you said is compleatly pointless and irrelevant. The future is going to more threads but we are not near that point and games are even further. Games still only use two core and the few that actually do use four cores are few and far between. By the time we hit the point of games actually start using more cores and threads the Piledriver will long be dead and gone. Stop with the future BS and look at the present. The I5 is clearly the better CPU especially for gaming. Like I said if you like buying something that is good enough I don't really care but I don't see the point of buying a CPU no on impulse when you can save up another mere hundred dollars and get the far better I5.


Actually we are near that point. What two popular games were recently released? Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3. Do they support 8 Cores? Yes.

What Consoles are launching this year?
Xbox 720 and the PS4.

Both will be Multi-Core configurations. The PS4 will be an AMD x86 8-core CPU with an AMD GPU (an APU on steroids). What does this mean? Means that games being ported to and from consoles will be multi-core aware and designed to take 8 cores into consideration. Also means that down to the architecture level... these games will be tailored for GCN and not Kepler. The effects and shaders used will be tailored for AMDs architectures.

The PS4 is set to launch during the holidays of this year with many titles available on the onset. Those titles will be ported to the PC. Care to wager as to how "multi-core aware" they will be?


+1
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 5:40:35 PM

Old thread. I was right, Intel fan boys were wrong. Lol, let's just say, I saw this coming. And the FX 8350 does ROCK!!! The i5 is over priced now...
March 26, 2013 8:24:52 AM

8350rocks said:
Xfire'd Radeon HD 7870 GHz editions, and later another one was done with GTX 670's in SLI configuration with similar results.

System specs:

AMD FX 8350 Rig
•MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
•16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)
•EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
•16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
•Corsair H100
•ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel 3820 Rig
•ASRock X79 Extreme4m Motherboard
•16 GB Gelid 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 256 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870


I know this seems a little blunt, however, I hope that you realize that The different motherboards, fans, SSDs and RAM do make a difference even though you may think it not. If you want true results, get (for example). Same everything except the graphics cards and processors. Do tests with one GPU (ie. one from Nvidia) with both processors and then both processors again with a different one (AMD). Then compare the results and see which one works better, and which one works better with which GPU.
March 26, 2013 8:38:40 AM

griptwister said:
Old thread. I was right, Intel fan boys were wrong. Lol, let's just say, I saw this coming. And the FX 8350 does ROCK!!! The i5 is over priced now...


It's not even that its overpriced. I have to say, AMD processors are great processors and are definitely worth the money. However, they are mostly meant for video editing and extreme multitasking. The physical build of it and the code isn't as good as Intel, but some of the code is better for Video editing. You can honestly go for whatever, and I'm not any kind of fan boy, however I do know facts. If your going for hardcore gaming, and that's all your really using it for, then definitely go for Intel. If you all about video editing, and maybe even some small games, the AMD. However if you want the best of both worlds, or even just playing a game with stuff running in the background, The smarter thing to do would be to invest in an i7 Extreme series (i.e the i7 - 980X / 990X / 3960X / or 3970X) or a better / higher-end AMD processor (i.e the A8 or A10 series).

Its for what your using, not really for what has better core clock or different technologies overall, its for what YOU want to do with YOUR system.

EDIT: Also, most games these days never use more than 2 cores, and at most (maybe ArmA 3) will use 3 cores.
March 26, 2013 8:41:04 AM

8350rocks said:
ericjohn004 said:
As far as an 8350 being better in multithreaded apps, NOT all the time. Sometimes the 3570k's 4 cores are more powerful that all "8" of AMD's cores. On ANDTECH, they have 40 benchmarks. The i5 win's 25 of them and the 8350 win's 13 of them. I'd go with the i5 because it has better gaming performance. And win's more benchmarks during normal compute tasks. So as far as AMD 8350 being a better "all around" computer, that's hardly true. Personally I much rather have 4 really powerful cores(no other cpu is more powerful, per core, than a 3570k)than 8 weak ones.


Err...current benchmarks were TL;DR for you?


I think what hes saying goes along with what i just recently posted.
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 11:14:24 AM

A FX 8350 (or even FX 8320) OC'd, compared to an i7, you would never notice the difference! Most people are racist against AMD because of the single threaded performance... Can you honestly tell me that 60FPS is a bad adverage framerate? Unless you're going to be playing on a 120Hz monitor, there is no need for the extra 20FPS in certain games... In fact, If you have even tried using a FX 8350 you would realize... IT'S NOT A SLOUCH! By no means... I was going to buy an i7 and a z77 MSI gamer's series MoBo... but I decided I'd rather have a better GPU first... Do your research and see that the FX 8350 is an amazing processor... even if it is behind in tech! 8 cores are the future... AMD controls the console market, they're giving out 8 cores for cheap! You're going to see that steamroller is going to be very close to the next market line of intel products... just wait.
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 11:18:15 AM

Oh, and Clock for clock, Intel is faster... but if you overclocked an i7 500Mhz and a 8350 500Mhz, I doubt you'd see a Massive difference. In fact, a noticeable difference. If you even looked at benchmarks... the i7 isn't as far ahead as people would like to believe.
March 26, 2013 11:42:51 AM

I have to say, the aura coming off you is much like a fanboys, no offence ^_^. From my experience of playing computers with AMD and Intel processors, I agree that Hyper-threading doesn't help that much, especially when playing ArmA. However, I see that Clock Speed, Threading, and Brand Name are not factors that much as when you compare the physical aspects.

The AMDs are cheaper due to that their physical aspects are far inferior to the Intel Processors, where as the Intel processor are made with more precision and require more time into them. Also, the coded aspect, which no one regards at all, is also what makes the biggest difference.

AMD's coding is superior to the Intels in the fact of normal everyday, and hardcore video and browser usage. Its more into the, Visual World, as you may say. However, the Intel processors are inferior to the Processing for the Video editing, not by much, and are much more complex and at the same time simplified in the fact of 3D rendering, video, browser, and math usage. AMD does have a far advantage with cores, but likewise, they are truly weaker in the code and physical aspect.

The Clock Speed does come into play, but it is dependent on code, and its basically how fast it can use its OWN code. So you can have a better clock speed and more cores, but if my code is better, I'll probably do better.

The clear victor (if you may) for a universal and gaming use is Intel, but if you are a video editor (i.e Freddie Wong) the victor may be AMD.

As I say many times again, its what you go for.

EDIT: In addition, 5 or 10 frames may not be noticeable, but have you considered lag spikes. For example if 3 bombs go off, a tank shoots, jets fly over, and 20 people are running around me shooting on something with the graphics intensiveness of Metro 2033, those few frames will help you in not seeing any kind of lag spike. ^_^
a c 210 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 11:55:29 AM

GOM3RPLY3R said:
8350rocks said:
Xfire'd Radeon HD 7870 GHz editions, and later another one was done with GTX 670's in SLI configuration with similar results.

System specs:

AMD FX 8350 Rig
•MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
•16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)
•EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
•16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
•Corsair H100
•ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel 3820 Rig
•ASRock X79 Extreme4m Motherboard
•16 GB Gelid 2133MHz DDR3
•Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
•Kingston HyperX3K 256 GB SSD
•HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870


I know this seems a little blunt, however, I hope that you realize that The different motherboards, fans, SSDs and RAM do make a difference even though you may think it not. If you want true results, get (for example). Same everything except the graphics cards and processors. Do tests with one GPU (ie. one from Nvidia) with both processors and then both processors again with a different one (AMD). Then compare the results and see which one works better, and which one works better with which GPU.


I know it makes a small difference, but even then, you can't have the exact same board for AMD and Intel, it isn't physically possible because of the architecture and it's engineering. So eliminating that "variable" in a test like this isn't possible.

I can understand your argument for using the same card per station for the benchmarks, and frankly, there's good scientific logic in that...though for the sake of expediency, The variance between stock clock GPUs is going to be very little in this day and age. If they were OC'ing the GPUs and they OC'ed to different frequencies...then I could sit back and say...well...that isn't exactly fair, or scientific...but that was simply not the case.

The point of the benchmarks was to test max settings on some ridiculously CPU/GPU heavy games that run alot of physics calculations and utilize multiple threads for integer calculations and floating point calculations. It showed that the frame rate decay on the AMD system was drastically less at max settings than it was on either Intel chip. Which is impressive...because that means...theoretically...AMD is better prepared for what's coming, intel is better prepared for what's here.

Knowing that the next gen consoles are on AMD architecture is something to be excited about, that means the possibility to have all 8 cores utilized at once is going to happen in a very short time frame. I can only imagine, something like Uncharted 4 will come along and really tap into the capability of that hardware, or the next Final Fantasy installment on the consoles would be a good one to watch for as well. You're going to see some stupid resolution capability once they really get their claws into the hardware and learn it inside and out.
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:05:37 PM

No fanboy... just tired of morons who have no idea what they're talking about, come on here, and convince someone to buy a different CPU that because some reviewer didn't recommend that specific CPU. It angers me deeply. A company is losing money because people who don't know the difference between a core and a module come on here and bash. You, you know what you're talking about Mr. Gomer lol. I've got no problem with you at all... But for day to day tasks and a few HD Games here and there, people won't notice a difference.

I'm not a fanboy... I just don't like what Intel is doing... how much they're currently over charging... It's insane! lol. The price on the i5 went up again because people were buying the i5 over the i7.

Also, I've seen multiple benchmarks where the FX 8350 gets better FPS in metro. I also have to state that a Drop from 60 FPS to anything below 40 FPS is very noticeable... but the 8350 CPU doesn't really ever drop below 45 FPS. and Intel CPU's experience the same drop in certain games.

There was a test conducted a while back where there was a AMD system and an Intel System. But these people switched labels so that the people would think they were playing on a Intel system, but they were really playing on a AMD system... most of the people chose the supposed intel system... and to their shock it was really the AMD system. Again... people only choose intel for the Brand name and can't say they can tell the difference... unless if they are using the Hexa-core i7
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:18:27 PM

FX-8350 is not a true 8 core cpu is it ? isnt it just a hyper-threaded 4 core cpu ?
a c 210 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:29:37 PM

It has 8 real integer cores that share 4 floating point calculations and each set of 2 integer cores share L2 cache...

So it isn't an 8 core in the sense of intel cores, but it is drastically more powerful than a 4 core processor.
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:31:49 PM

No... 8 Bull Dozer and 8 Pile Driver use 4 modules each with 2 actual cores that share cache. While the i7 carries 4 cores and 4 virtual cores (referred to as threads). There is a difference between a core and a thread... but threads are weaker than actual cores... most of the time.
March 26, 2013 3:56:00 PM

I'm just going to comment on one thing because I have to get on a flight. It's the fact that they are "overpriced" because they are coded and physically built better. It's also common sense that when its trending people raise the price.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 4:42:17 PM

GOM3RPLY3R said:
I'm just going to comment on one thing because I have to get on a flight. It's the fact that they are "overpriced" because they are coded and physically built better. It's also common sense that when its trending people raise the price.


Then why does AMD hold the world record for highest overclock by 1+ GHz? If they were physically built better they would hold that record surely...
March 26, 2013 6:19:04 PM

Flomps said:
rolli59 said:
It is OK but not great the similarly priced I5's are better. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performan...


but wouldnt the fact that amd fx 8350 has 8 (albeit not true) cores mean that it is must better at multithreading and multitasking


Yes its a good CPU, ivy bridge is generally a little faster because of the smaller manufacturing process, higher transistor count, and memory performance. Bottom line it is good enough as a gaming CPU and is a better solution price for performance wise. If it will save you enough to get a better GPU than it's a good option, games are mostly GPU bound at this point, so your best option is to weigh price. You would want to get some decent ram to pair with it for optimal performance, 1866 is the sweet spot and it's only a little bit higher in price than 1600 mhz models for overclocking it's also less of a jump up from 1866 to 2000 than it is from 1600 - 1800 or 1866 so they are good for overclocking.
March 26, 2013 7:02:27 PM

Flomps said:
i have more or less decided im getting it but is it good fo gaming? can it handle games like battlefield 3 etc on medium-high settings. im going to do a lot of multitasking in the background but this is the main thing.

is it any better than the i5 3470 or I5 3570K? i dont care about performance per watt or overall price, just how fast it performs

EDIT: this time for performance per watt and overall price, is it any better then the i7 3770k cpu?


The FX can beat an i7 3770K when its eight-core architecture is fully used. Unfortunately, most current games and even the slow Windows 7 are not designed to use the FX in full, doing that the AMD chip performs a bit poor in comparative tests with Intel chips. Using a different OS or future games (e.g. those ported from the future PS4) the FX will show its true potential (e.g beating the i7 in some tests).

In any case TomsH has a gaming card here

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclo...

that shows that the FX is good enough for gaming even with the current unoptimized (pro-Intel) software.

Note that although the I5 3570K and the i7 3770k are currently one tier above the FX, the difference is not really noticeable, as the guide says: "I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance."
March 26, 2013 8:33:45 PM

juanrga said:
Flomps said:
i have more or less decided im getting it but is it good fo gaming? can it handle games like battlefield 3 etc on medium-high settings. im going to do a lot of multitasking in the background but this is the main thing.

is it any better than the i5 3470 or I5 3570K? i dont care about performance per watt or overall price, just how fast it performs

EDIT: this time for performance per watt and overall price, is it any better then the i7 3770k cpu?


The FX can beat an i7 3770K when its eight-core architecture is fully used. Unfortunately, most current games and even the slow Windows 7 are not designed to use the FX in full, doing that the AMD chip performs a bit poor in comparative tests with Intel chips. Using a different OS or future games (e.g. those ported from the future PS4) the FX will show its true potential (e.g beating the i7 in some tests).

In any case TomsH has a gaming card here

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclo...

that shows that the FX is good enough for gaming even with the current unoptimized (pro-Intel) software.

Note that although the I5 3570K and the i7 3770k are currently one tier above the FX, the difference is not really noticeable, as the guide says: "I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance."


That's probably about right it really doesn't pay off to be a fan boy of either side, the 8350 is just a little under the 3570k there will be a pretty negligible difference,plus performance really comes down to how much work you wan't to put into overclocking. The i7 3770k isn't worth the money for just a gaming rig, the i7 3820 is a better choice for only a little more on the chipset pricing, there's a lot more room for expansion.
a b à CPUs
March 27, 2013 1:59:42 PM

You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k. But it highly depends on WHAT you do, and HOW much you do of it.

And let me get rid of this rumor. Having more cores doesn't make you better at multitasking. It's RAM that lets you multitask because all of your programs are stored in RAM. An i5 3570k's 4 cores are more than capable of running 20 programs at once as long as you have enough RAM to store the programs in. So let me just mark that as BS so people will stop with that crap.

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 27, 2013 2:15:52 PM

ericjohn004 said:
You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k. But it highly depends on WHAT you do, and HOW much you do of it.

And let me get rid of this rumor. Having more cores doesn't make you better at multitasking. It's RAM that lets you multitask because all of your programs are stored in RAM. An i5 3570k's 4 cores are more than capable of running 20 programs at once as long as you have enough RAM to store the programs in. So let me just mark that as BS so people will stop with that crap.

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.


Not to start an argument...

But...overclock.net has a FX-8350 owner's club that includes at least 4 individuals with OC above 5.0 GHz, and there is one guy running a super high end rig that sits currently OC'ed to 5.6 GHz with a custom loop water cooler and 2 radiators + push/pull fans...

Link or it didn't happen right?

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...

The first post has a table of all the settings/mobo/system information/OS/voltage/core temps...

Some of them only OC'ed to 4.2-4.4...some of them are WAY OC'ed...
March 27, 2013 5:38:52 PM

ericjohn004 said:
You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.


Yeah! when the FX has the world record overclocking its eight cores at 8.176GHz and with most overclockers obtaining 5.0-5.5GHz with easiness, the only hope for the i5 is to overclock both at 4.8GHz, giving the Intel chip an extra margin...

ericjohn004 said:

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k.


As this one from an overclockers forum?

Quote:
It is a great chip; better than the i5-3750K in fact.


Or do you mean as the next ones?

Quote:
Overclocked to 4.8GHz the FX-8350’s score rose to 8.25 points , again out-pacing the i5-3570K, even when overclocked to 5GHz.


Quote:
This also saw the FX-8350 better the i5-3570K at stock and when overclocked, again an indication of the Piledriver architecture’s superior multi-threaded performance.


ericjohn004 said:

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.


I have also seen some of those biased benchmarks. For instance, I saw a comparison of a 3570k @ 4.8GHz and a 8350 @ 4.8GHz (I wonder if this one is from where you got the 4.8GHz figure). Well, the 'review' conclusion was:

Quote:
My conclusion is that they are very similar in performance at these speeds, i5 wins Some, FX8350 wins some, out of 6 game benchmarks 3 single GPU benches and 3 crossfire benches , the fx8350 won 3 and the i5 won 3, the I5 wins at 3d mark 11 but the 8350 was even at Heaven.


And it would be a nice tie, except that the benchmark was biased. First, the comparison used software that favoured Intel chips (compiler and architectural optimization for Intel chips) and, second,

Quote:
Both rigs are running corsair vengeance ram 16 GB at 1600mhz


Have you noticed that your i5 has a stock memory bus of 1600MHz but it is of 1866MHz for the FX? By using 1600Mhz memory the reviewer is again favouring the Intel chip by bottlenecking the AMD chip...

What the next? Use a fast SSD on the Intel side some 5200 rpm notebook HDD on the AMD side and run SYSMARK?
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2013 6:27:24 PM

juanrga said:
ericjohn004 said:
You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.


Yeah! when the FX has the world record overclocking its eight cores at 8.176GHz and with most overclockers obtaining 5.0-5.5GHz with easiness, the only hope for the i5 is to overclock both at 4.8GHz, giving the Intel chip an extra margin...

ericjohn004 said:

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k.


As this one from an overclockers forum?

Quote:
It is a great chip; better than the i5-3750K in fact.


Or do you mean as the next ones?

Quote:
Overclocked to 4.8GHz the FX-8350’s score rose to 8.25 points , again out-pacing the i5-3570K, even when overclocked to 5GHz.


Quote:
This also saw the FX-8350 better the i5-3570K at stock and when overclocked, again an indication of the Piledriver architecture’s superior multi-threaded performance.


ericjohn004 said:

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.


I have also seen some of those biased benchmarks. For instance, I saw a comparison of a 3570k @ 4.8GHz and a 8350 @ 4.8GHz (I wonder if this one is from where you got the 4.8GHz figure). Well, the 'review' conclusion was:

Quote:
My conclusion is that they are very similar in performance at these speeds, i5 wins Some, FX8350 wins some, out of 6 game benchmarks 3 single GPU benches and 3 crossfire benches , the fx8350 won 3 and the i5 won 3, the I5 wins at 3d mark 11 but the 8350 was even at Heaven.


And it would be a nice tie, except that the benchmark was biased. First, the comparison used software that favoured Intel chips (compiler and architectural optimization for Intel chips) and, second,

Quote:
Both rigs are running corsair vengeance ram 16 GB at 1600mhz


Have you noticed that your i5 has a stock memory bus of 1600MHz but it is of 1866MHz for the FX? By using 1600Mhz memory the reviewer is again favouring the Intel chip by bottlenecking the AMD chip...

What the next? Use a fast SSD on the Intel side some 5200 rpm notebook HDD on the AMD side and run SYSMARK?


What a fan you are. I've seen plenty of benchmarks. But not the one you mentioned. Just for the simple fact that you think benchmarking sites use "intel" software makes you biased. Theres no such thing as favorable software. The software favors intel because intel is better. I guess in order for the FX to win the FX has to use "unbiased" software. But in your view it would be "FX'" software.

Typically an 8350 clocks to 4.8Ghz. TYPICALLY. You think theres not 3570k's that clock up to 7.whateverGhz?

I love how you use quotes like they are facts when I know I can find twice as many quotes highly favoring intel.

And again, why don't people use Tom's Hardware for their benchmark and review site. Clearly Tom's isn't biased or in bed with any company. And Tom's clearly says the i5 3570k is the better cpu. Even with heavily threaded tasks the 3570k comes close. BTW my 3570k@4.8Ghz scores an 8.1 in Cinebench so I'm sure one clocked at 5.0Ghz would score higher than an 8.25.

Oh, and how about single threaded performance. ANY single threaded performance or programs that don't use 5+ cores. Like SO many programs and 99% of games do. Intel absolutely destroys, and I mean destroys, the 8350. It's not even funny how bad AMD gets beat right there. It's just that bad.

And you think 1866mhz memory really is going to make a CPU perform better? I just upgraded from 1600 to 2133 and I saw a 3% performance increase. 3%! You think that's going to tip the scales in AMD's favor? Get REAL. WAKE UPbounce:! And don't you know an Intel can run 2800Mhz memory just as well as AMD. WHy does it matter what stock frequency is suggested? You making points that don't even make sense.

Let me just say that an FX8350 is a good processor. But for someone to think it some how beats an i5 in overall computing is straight up wrong.

Edit: I love how AMD fans have to find the "right" kind of software to run to get comparative results to an Intel. Cause I guess anything that uses less than 5 cores is favoring Intel. If you gotta have the "right" software for you CPU to perform properly then somethings wrong.

Find me an AMD cpu that can do a 7 second SuperPi 1M score and THEN we can talk. That's what I score and an 8350 can't even get to 10 seconds. Much less 11 or 12.
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2013 10:20:33 PM

What evs... Your both fanboys trying to proclaim who has the bigger pair of balls, Just let the thread die... Insulting each other solves nothing.

Also, the FX 8350 OC'd performs on par with a stock i5 or i7 and It costs less money. You can't go wrong with either CPU. Stop being morons.

And if you plan to do live streaming... the FX 8350 is better than the i7 at that. Stop trashing a CPU you don't own.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:39:58 AM

ericjohn004 said:
juanrga said:
ericjohn004 said:
You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.


Yeah! when the FX has the world record overclocking its eight cores at 8.176GHz and with most overclockers obtaining 5.0-5.5GHz with easiness, the only hope for the i5 is to overclock both at 4.8GHz, giving the Intel chip an extra margin...

ericjohn004 said:

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k.


As this one from an overclockers forum?

Quote:
It is a great chip; better than the i5-3750K in fact.


Or do you mean as the next ones?

Quote:
Overclocked to 4.8GHz the FX-8350’s score rose to 8.25 points , again out-pacing the i5-3570K, even when overclocked to 5GHz.


Quote:
This also saw the FX-8350 better the i5-3570K at stock and when overclocked, again an indication of the Piledriver architecture’s superior multi-threaded performance.


ericjohn004 said:

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.


I have also seen some of those biased benchmarks. For instance, I saw a comparison of a 3570k @ 4.8GHz and a 8350 @ 4.8GHz (I wonder if this one is from where you got the 4.8GHz figure). Well, the 'review' conclusion was:

Quote:
My conclusion is that they are very similar in performance at these speeds, i5 wins Some, FX8350 wins some, out of 6 game benchmarks 3 single GPU benches and 3 crossfire benches , the fx8350 won 3 and the i5 won 3, the I5 wins at 3d mark 11 but the 8350 was even at Heaven.


And it would be a nice tie, except that the benchmark was biased. First, the comparison used software that favoured Intel chips (compiler and architectural optimization for Intel chips) and, second,

Quote:
Both rigs are running corsair vengeance ram 16 GB at 1600mhz


Have you noticed that your i5 has a stock memory bus of 1600MHz but it is of 1866MHz for the FX? By using 1600Mhz memory the reviewer is again favouring the Intel chip by bottlenecking the AMD chip...

What the next? Use a fast SSD on the Intel side some 5200 rpm notebook HDD on the AMD side and run SYSMARK?


What a fan you are. I've seen plenty of benchmarks. But not the one you mentioned. Just for the simple fact that you think benchmarking sites use "intel" software makes you biased. Theres no such thing as favorable software. The software favors intel because intel is better. I guess in order for the FX to win the FX has to use "unbiased" software. But in your view it would be "FX'" software.

Typically an 8350 clocks to 4.8Ghz. TYPICALLY. You think theres not 3570k's that clock up to 7.whateverGhz?

I love how you use quotes like they are facts when I know I can find twice as many quotes highly favoring intel.

And again, why don't people use Tom's Hardware for their benchmark and review site. Clearly Tom's isn't biased or in bed with any company. And Tom's clearly says the i5 3570k is the better cpu. Even with heavily threaded tasks the 3570k comes close. BTW my 3570k@4.8Ghz scores an 8.1 in Cinebench so I'm sure one clocked at 5.0Ghz would score higher than an 8.25.

Oh, and how about single threaded performance. ANY single threaded performance or programs that don't use 5+ cores. Like SO many programs and 99% of games do. Intel absolutely destroys, and I mean destroys, the 8350. It's not even funny how bad AMD gets beat right there. It's just that bad.

And you think 1866mhz memory really is going to make a CPU perform better? I just upgraded from 1600 to 2133 and I saw a 3% performance increase. 3%! You think that's going to tip the scales in AMD's favor? Get REAL. WAKE UPbounce:! And don't you know an Intel can run 2800Mhz memory just as well as AMD. WHy does it matter what stock frequency is suggested? You making points that don't even make sense.

Let me just say that an FX8350 is a good processor. But for someone to think it some how beats an i5 in overall computing is straight up wrong.

Edit: I love how AMD fans have to find the "right" kind of software to run to get comparative results to an Intel. Cause I guess anything that uses less than 5 cores is favoring Intel. If you gotta have the "right" software for you CPU to perform properly then somethings wrong.

Find me an AMD cpu that can do a 7 second SuperPi 1M score and THEN we can talk. That's what I score and an 8350 can't even get to 10 seconds. Much less 11 or 12.


I am not going to argue, but I will chip in here...

What he is talking about, are protocols...

A software setup with data fed in a mostly serial manner favors intel, because intel's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are 90% serial data...which means intel chips break down a serial stream of data faster (single threaded performance). AMD's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are setup to run parallel streams of data (heavily threaded performance), which most software out right now is not designed to feed data to the CPU in this manner. So, data being fed serially to a CPU designed to run parallel streams of executions is inefficient, and favors one designed for that type of data streaming.

For example...

Picture you're at Wal-Mart (or where ever), and there are 8 checkout lanes open...the first lane has a line a mile long, and they will only allow 4 of the other 7 lanes to have a line 1 person long. It doesn't make any sense right? For starters, they're not even using all of the lanes available, and the ones they are, aren't being utilized efficiently.

That's what's happening inside an AMD architecture FX8350 with current software...

With Intel chips right now...it's more like the line at best buy...where you have 1 line a mile long, but the front person has 4 different cashiers to go to when they arrive at the front of the line.

So, having 1 line a mile long doesn't slow them down, they're designed that way...

However, once information is fed in a parallel manner to the CPU...AMD will have all 8 lanes at Wal-Mart open for business and the lines will be distributed equally with people (instructions for the CPU), but Intel will still have the Best buy type line with 4 people running a cash register...except that now there will be 4 or even 8 lines forming into that one line, which makes things slow down because they are not designed to execute like that.

I hope the analogy makes this very complicated architecture discussion make sense.
March 29, 2013 11:21:21 AM

ericjohn004 said:

What a fan you are. I've seen plenty of benchmarks. But not the one you mentioned. Just for the simple fact that you think benchmarking sites use "intel" software makes you biased.


The existence of biased benchmarks artificially favouring Intel chips is well-known

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Nvidia-and-VIA-Quit-...

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/20/nvidia-amd-and-via-q...

ericjohn004 said:

Theres no such thing as favorable software. The software favors intel because intel is better. I guess in order for the FX to win the FX has to use "unbiased" software. But in your view it would be "FX'" software.


No. If Intel chips were always so good as you believe, then Intel would not need to introduce the Cripple_Amd function for deliberately crippling performance on AMD machines:

Quote:
However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string ... If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version.


Analysis shows that Intel has been cheating (and still does) the real performance of their chips up to a 47% in some cases!!

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/vanilla/discussion/297...

http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...

The recent settlement with AMD requires that Intel will not include any "Artificial Performance Impairment" in any Intel product. However, I cannot find any change in the new Intel compiler version that reflects this requirement. And this explain why, when you avoid the Intel compiler you find a big boost on AMD chips. Everyone knows that AMD runs much faster in linux, for instance.

ericjohn004 said:

Typically an 8350 clocks to 4.8Ghz. TYPICALLY. You think theres not 3570k's that clock up to 7.whateverGhz?


The FX overclocks above 4.8GHz with easiness and holds the worldwide record beyond the 8GHz and with its eight cores working.

ericjohn004 said:
BTW my 3570k@4.8Ghz scores an 8.1 in Cinebench so I'm sure one clocked at 5.0Ghz would score higher than an 8.25.


At the time of writing this, your i5 best ever score in Cinebench R11.5 is of a mere 8.55. However, the FX 8350 has a worldwide record of 11.78, whereas the i7-3770k has a record of 12.72. Once again the 'cheaper' FX manages to obtain a 37% more performance than your 'expensive' i5.

ericjohn004 said:

Oh, and how about single threaded performance. ANY single threaded performance or programs that don't use 5+ cores. Like SO many programs and 99% of games do. Intel absolutely destroys, and I mean destroys, the 8350. It's not even funny how bad AMD gets beat right there. It's just that bad.


Yes. Intel performance per core is usually better, but the future of computing is not on faster cores but in multi-core designs and parallelism because of well-known physical limits with single core designs.

When software really uses AMD multi-core architectural advantages, the FX-8350 destroy an i7-3770K (some examples below).

ericjohn004 said:

And you think 1866mhz memory really is going to make a CPU perform better? I just upgraded from 1600 to 2133 and I saw a 3% performance increase. 3%! You think that's going to tip the scales in AMD's favor? Get REAL. WAKE UPbounce:! And don't you know an Intel can run 2800Mhz memory just as well as AMD. WHy does it matter what stock frequency is suggested? You making points that don't even make sense.


First, just because your i5 is not sensible to memory speed does not imply other chips are not. AMD designs are more sensible to memory speeds, specially the APUs.

Second, you are overclocking from stock 1600 to 2133, but my point was about biased reviews underclocking the FX from stock 1866 to 1600.

The i7-3770K gives a mere 3.8% gain from its stock 1600 to 2133 in skyrim, but it loses a 5-16% when underclocking from its stock 1600 to 1333 and 1066... and skyrim is not specially sensible to memory speeds.

The biased review used stock speed on the Intel chips and underclocked the AMD chips. If this is unimportant why did not them make the review in the other way with the AMD chips at stock speeds and the Intel chips underclocked?

ericjohn004 said:

Let me just say that an FX8350 is a good processor. But for someone to think it some how beats an i5 in overall computing is straight up wrong.


Except it has been recently shown that the FX-8350 performs as well as the i7-3770K and even beats the i7 in some tests. Some examples

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDF...

And before you get shocked by seeing a AMD FX beating an Intel i7, let me add that the real potential of the Piledriver architecture is not still being used in those tests, because the bdver2 flag is not still using the BMI, TBM, F16C, and FMA3 capabilities over the original AMD Bulldozer processors.

ericjohn004 said:

Find me an AMD cpu that can do a 7 second SuperPi 1M score and THEN we can talk. That's what I score and an 8350 can't even get to 10 seconds. Much less 11 or 12.


From the wikipedia:

Quote:
Super PI is single threaded, so its relevance as a measure of performance in the current era of multi-core processors is diminishing quickly.


Why do not using something more realist such as wPrime 32M? The world record for FX-8350 is of 4sec 406ms; the record for the i5-2750K is 4sec 437ms. That is a tie, is not?
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 11:22:58 AM

8350rocks said:
ericjohn004 said:
juanrga said:
ericjohn004 said:
You know what a whole lot of people don't think about... The FX8350 comes factory clocked at 4.0Ghz. A 3570k comes factory clocked at 3.4Ghz. And they are both overclockable to around 4.8Ghz. So you can overclock an 8350 +.8Ghz and you can overclock a 3570k +1.4Ghz. So for the i5 you have a whole .6Ghz more room to overclock. So imagine these processors both overclocked with the 3570k having a .6Ghz advantage over the AMD8350 since the 8350 started out at 4.0Ghz and the 3570k started out at 3.4Ghz and that's where they were benchmarked at stock. Even the multithreaded benchmarks will look a whole lot different after both processors are overclocked to 4.8Ghz. And no one can argue otherwise this is just a fact, the 3570k has a .6Ghz advantage over it's stock benchmarks. And if you don't understand that, well, IDK what else I can say.


Yeah! when the FX has the world record overclocking its eight cores at 8.176GHz and with most overclockers obtaining 5.0-5.5GHz with easiness, the only hope for the i5 is to overclock both at 4.8GHz, giving the Intel chip an extra margin...

ericjohn004 said:

I do believe the 8350 has a place as one of the top processors right now. But given the information I just provided, I think overclockers are going to prefer a 3570k.


As this one from an overclockers forum?

Quote:
It is a great chip; better than the i5-3750K in fact.


Or do you mean as the next ones?

Quote:
Overclocked to 4.8GHz the FX-8350’s score rose to 8.25 points , again out-pacing the i5-3570K, even when overclocked to 5GHz.


Quote:
This also saw the FX-8350 better the i5-3570K at stock and when overclocked, again an indication of the Piledriver architecture’s superior multi-threaded performance.


ericjohn004 said:

BTW, I've seen benchmarks of the 8350 vs 3570k overclocked, and let me just say it tips the scales in the i5's favor. Hell, my 3570k overclocked to 4.6Ghz is faster than a 3770k at even video editing and rendering. So the 3570k is no slouch at anything.


I have also seen some of those biased benchmarks. For instance, I saw a comparison of a 3570k @ 4.8GHz and a 8350 @ 4.8GHz (I wonder if this one is from where you got the 4.8GHz figure). Well, the 'review' conclusion was:

Quote:
My conclusion is that they are very similar in performance at these speeds, i5 wins Some, FX8350 wins some, out of 6 game benchmarks 3 single GPU benches and 3 crossfire benches , the fx8350 won 3 and the i5 won 3, the I5 wins at 3d mark 11 but the 8350 was even at Heaven.


And it would be a nice tie, except that the benchmark was biased. First, the comparison used software that favoured Intel chips (compiler and architectural optimization for Intel chips) and, second,

Quote:
Both rigs are running corsair vengeance ram 16 GB at 1600mhz


Have you noticed that your i5 has a stock memory bus of 1600MHz but it is of 1866MHz for the FX? By using 1600Mhz memory the reviewer is again favouring the Intel chip by bottlenecking the AMD chip...

What the next? Use a fast SSD on the Intel side some 5200 rpm notebook HDD on the AMD side and run SYSMARK?


What a fan you are. I've seen plenty of benchmarks. But not the one you mentioned. Just for the simple fact that you think benchmarking sites use "intel" software makes you biased. Theres no such thing as favorable software. The software favors intel because intel is better. I guess in order for the FX to win the FX has to use "unbiased" software. But in your view it would be "FX'" software.

Typically an 8350 clocks to 4.8Ghz. TYPICALLY. You think theres not 3570k's that clock up to 7.whateverGhz?

I love how you use quotes like they are facts when I know I can find twice as many quotes highly favoring intel.

And again, why don't people use Tom's Hardware for their benchmark and review site. Clearly Tom's isn't biased or in bed with any company. And Tom's clearly says the i5 3570k is the better cpu. Even with heavily threaded tasks the 3570k comes close. BTW my 3570k@4.8Ghz scores an 8.1 in Cinebench so I'm sure one clocked at 5.0Ghz would score higher than an 8.25.

Oh, and how about single threaded performance. ANY single threaded performance or programs that don't use 5+ cores. Like SO many programs and 99% of games do. Intel absolutely destroys, and I mean destroys, the 8350. It's not even funny how bad AMD gets beat right there. It's just that bad.

And you think 1866mhz memory really is going to make a CPU perform better? I just upgraded from 1600 to 2133 and I saw a 3% performance increase. 3%! You think that's going to tip the scales in AMD's favor? Get REAL. WAKE UPbounce:! And don't you know an Intel can run 2800Mhz memory just as well as AMD. WHy does it matter what stock frequency is suggested? You making points that don't even make sense.

Let me just say that an FX8350 is a good processor. But for someone to think it some how beats an i5 in overall computing is straight up wrong.

Edit: I love how AMD fans have to find the "right" kind of software to run to get comparative results to an Intel. Cause I guess anything that uses less than 5 cores is favoring Intel. If you gotta have the "right" software for you CPU to perform properly then somethings wrong.

Find me an AMD cpu that can do a 7 second SuperPi 1M score and THEN we can talk. That's what I score and an 8350 can't even get to 10 seconds. Much less 11 or 12.


I am not going to argue, but I will chip in here...

What he is talking about, are protocols...

A software setup with data fed in a mostly serial manner favors intel, because intel's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are 90% serial data...which means intel chips break down a serial stream of data faster (single threaded performance). AMD's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are setup to run parallel streams of data (heavily threaded performance), which most software out right now is not designed to feed data to the CPU in this manner. So, data being fed serially to a CPU designed to run parallel streams of executions is inefficient, and favors one designed for that type of data streaming.

For example...

Picture you're at Wal-Mart (or where ever), and there are 8 checkout lanes open...the first lane has a line a mile long, and they will only allow 4 of the other 7 lanes to have a line 1 person long. It doesn't make any sense right? For starters, they're not even using all of the lanes available, and the ones they are, aren't being utilized efficiently.

That's what's happening inside an AMD architecture FX8350 with current software...

With Intel chips right now...it's more like the line at best buy...where you have 1 line a mile long, but the front person has 4 different cashiers to go to when they arrive at the front of the line.

So, having 1 line a mile long doesn't slow them down, they're designed that way...

However, once information is fed in a parallel manner to the CPU...AMD will have all 8 lanes at Wal-Mart open for business and the lines will be distributed equally with people (instructions for the CPU), but Intel will still have the Best buy type line with 4 people running a cash register...except that now there will be 4 or even 8 lines forming into that one line, which makes things slow down because they are not designed to execute like that.

I hope the analogy makes this very complicated architecture discussion make sense.


That was an excellent way to explain that. I see you know your stuff. I'm not trying to rag on AMD either. I totally get what your saying. I'm just saying that just because software is already designed the way you say it is, that doesn't mean that the software purposely favors Intel. An Intel is just build better for a lot of software that's already out. To me, you should build your CPU based on the software that is currently available. I know AMD is looking forward on this, but to me, if you always have really powerful cores, on a per core basis, you can't go wrong. Because no matter how many cores you have or no matter how heavily threaded something is, all of your cores will be strong so it doesn't matter really. That's why I think AMD should start trying to compete with Intel again on a per core basis.

AMD's are not weak by any means with single threaded tests. It's just that Intel usually wins by about 50%. Which is a fairly large margin. And I think it'll be a good while before all games and programs can use 8+ cores. It's not that far away. I think about 5 years probably, but by then AMD and Intel will have 20 core processors. And whoever has the most powerful cores will end up being the better cpu.

This is why I love my 3570k. I never use more than 4 cores. So for what I'm doing, I have the most powerful CPU on the market. With no other CPU will I get my work done faster than with my 3570k. And even if I do decide to do editing and rendering, my 3570k is only about 20% slower than an 8350 or 3770k and my 30% overclock makes up for that, making me actually faster in rendering than a stock 8350 or 3770k.

This is why it really depends on what you do as to what processor you buy.

a c 210 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 11:36:52 AM

Well, clearly it excels with current software...but keep your eyes on the horizon...things are changing.
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 12:00:14 PM

8350rocks said:
Well, clearly it excels with current software...but keep your eyes on the horizon...things are changing.




8350rocks, let me ask you a question. I hear a lot about how an 8350 is better at multitasking because it has 8 cores. But isn't multitasking really dependant on the amount of RAM you have? For instance, I have 16GB of 2133 G. Skill Ares RAM and a 3570k. I can load 16GB of programs in my RAM and my 3570k will run all of them just fine. I've never had a problem using many programs at once. I use multiple programs all the time.

So does having an 8 core 8350 with 16GB of RAM make you better at multitasking because all those programs have 8 cores to use instead of only 4, meaning that each program should actually perform better? Or will my 4 cores cope with the many programs just as well as the 8350, and no matter how many programs I have they should perform the same? What if the programs are single threaded?

To me the only thing that makes for better multitasking is more RAM. I can see maybe if your rendering on one program and editing on a seperate program, while surfing the internet, listening to music, downloading a movie, and playing a game while all that's happening, maybe the 8350 will handle that better because the programs can distribute themselves over 8 cores instead of 4. But maybe since the 3570k's 4 cores are so powerful they can handle that fine as well. But IDK, that's what I'm asking.

BTW, I don't really multitask that often anyways so it won't matter much anyways.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 12:00:27 PM

That's a great question man...

Think of it like this, when you're multitasking, RAM has an effect on the amount of multitasking you can do, though windows negates this to some degree by putting "page file" on your HDD that is dynamic in size. What that means is that windows opens a file similar to RAM and loads files from it when you don't have enough RAM to load everything into RAM at once. RAM is faster, but your performance loss is only noticeable if you're running something extremely CPU/GPU heavy...like a game in 1440p or hardcore video encoding/rendering.

When you're multitasking, AMD protocols allow your background programs to form a serial line in front of an unused core...so that you're not tapping the resources your foreground program is using.

Now, say you were running 5 fairly intensive things at once...(let's say, streaming web videos, downloading multiple music files, and playing a web game...) Your i5-3570k would be able to execute 2-3 of those (depending on their resource needs) well...the others would be passed off to a virtual core in the background and would run at a considerably slower rate.

Doing the same thing on an AMD 8 core chip, since only 1 of those requires any FP calculations, you could literally tap 5 cores to do all the work simultaneously.
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 12:33:38 PM

8350rocks said:
That's a great question man...

Think of it like this, when you're multitasking, RAM has an effect on the amount of multitasking you can do, though windows negates this to some degree by putting "page file" on your HDD that is dynamic in size. What that means is that windows opens a file similar to RAM and loads files from it when you don't have enough RAM to load everything into RAM at once. RAM is faster, but your performance loss is only noticeable if you're running something extremely CPU/GPU heavy...like a game in 1440p or hardcore video encoding/rendering.

When you're multitasking, AMD protocols allow your background programs to form a serial line in front of an unused core...so that you're not tapping the resources your foreground program is using.

Now, say you were running 5 fairly intensive things at once...(let's say, streaming web videos, downloading multiple music files, and playing a web game...) Your i5-3570k would be able to execute 2-3 of those (depending on their resource needs) well...the others would be passed off to a virtual core in the background and would run at a considerably slower rate.

Doing the same thing on an AMD 8 core chip, since only 1 of those requires any FP calculations, you could literally tap 5 cores to do all the work simultaneously.


Yeah, I never knew that part. I knew what a pagefile was(I have mine set at 800mb because I have 16GB of RAM, is this a good idea to have it set at only 800mb? I have an SSD too so my pagefile won't be that slow, but slower than RAM nonetheless), but I didn't know that if you only had 4 cores and if forground programs were using up all 4 cores then the other programs would get loaded into "virtual cores". I guess these virtual cores your talking about isn't what Hyperthreading is because an i5 doesn't have that. I've never heard of this but very interesting.

Where do you go to learn all these things about how computers work? I'd love to get more information that way I can better understand what I'm talking about as to give more accurate information and for the purpose of knowledge in general. I'm actually JUST now getting into this PC stuff. I only knew what a 3570k was since December of 2012. Pretty much since I got this PC I've been full steam ahead learning everything I can. All this is fairly new to me but all extremely interesting. Since the end of December I've learned how to overclock like hell, I've learned how to build and setup a PC 1st hand, and I've also learned a lot about all the products on the market whether it be CPU's, RAM, SSD's, HDD's, Cooler's Case's, Fan's, PSU's, GPU's, everything. So I'd like to see how much I can learn over the next year or so, maybe I can make a career out of it, no telling.

March 29, 2013 12:43:27 PM

8350rocks said:

I am not going to argue, but I will chip in here...

What he is talking about, are protocols...

A software setup with data fed in a mostly serial manner favors intel, because intel's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are 90% serial data...which means intel chips break down a serial stream of data faster (single threaded performance). AMD's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are setup to run parallel streams of data (heavily threaded performance), which most software out right now is not designed to feed data to the CPU in this manner. So, data being fed serially to a CPU designed to run parallel streams of executions is inefficient, and favors one designed for that type of data streaming.

For example...

Picture you're at Wal-Mart (or where ever), and there are 8 checkout lanes open...the first lane has a line a mile long, and they will only allow 4 of the other 7 lanes to have a line 1 person long. It doesn't make any sense right? For starters, they're not even using all of the lanes available, and the ones they are, aren't being utilized efficiently.

That's what's happening inside an AMD architecture FX8350 with current software...

With Intel chips right now...it's more like the line at best buy...where you have 1 line a mile long, but the front person has 4 different cashiers to go to when they arrive at the front of the line.

So, having 1 line a mile long doesn't slow them down, they're designed that way...

However, once information is fed in a parallel manner to the CPU...AMD will have all 8 lanes at Wal-Mart open for business and the lines will be distributed equally with people (instructions for the CPU), but Intel will still have the Best buy type line with 4 people running a cash register...except that now there will be 4 or even 8 lines forming into that one line, which makes things slow down because they are not designed to execute like that.

I hope the analogy makes this very complicated architecture discussion make sense.


Good, but that is only a part of the whole picture.

The whole picture includes the existence of biased benchmarks favouring Intel chips. See the news about AMD, VIA, and Nvidia abandoning BAPCO, in my other answer.

And it includes also Intel bad practices in its compiler. When the Intel complier founds the 'GenuineIntel' label then it uses the optimal code path, but when the CPU is not from Intel then, the compiler generates the slowest possible version of the code, even if the non-Intel CPU is fully compatible with a better version. This explains why when you use another compiler you see a big boost in the performance of AMD chips. See links and further info in my other answer.
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 1:03:11 PM

juanrga said:
8350rocks said:

I am not going to argue, but I will chip in here...

What he is talking about, are protocols...

A software setup with data fed in a mostly serial manner favors intel, because intel's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are 90% serial data...which means intel chips break down a serial stream of data faster (single threaded performance). AMD's instruction execution protocol for their CPUs are setup to run parallel streams of data (heavily threaded performance), which most software out right now is not designed to feed data to the CPU in this manner. So, data being fed serially to a CPU designed to run parallel streams of executions is inefficient, and favors one designed for that type of data streaming.

For example...

Picture you're at Wal-Mart (or where ever), and there are 8 checkout lanes open...the first lane has a line a mile long, and they will only allow 4 of the other 7 lanes to have a line 1 person long. It doesn't make any sense right? For starters, they're not even using all of the lanes available, and the ones they are, aren't being utilized efficiently.

That's what's happening inside an AMD architecture FX8350 with current software...

With Intel chips right now...it's more like the line at best buy...where you have 1 line a mile long, but the front person has 4 different cashiers to go to when they arrive at the front of the line.

So, having 1 line a mile long doesn't slow them down, they're designed that way...

However, once information is fed in a parallel manner to the CPU...AMD will have all 8 lanes at Wal-Mart open for business and the lines will be distributed equally with people (instructions for the CPU), but Intel will still have the Best buy type line with 4 people running a cash register...except that now there will be 4 or even 8 lines forming into that one line, which makes things slow down because they are not designed to execute like that.

I hope the analogy makes this very complicated architecture discussion make sense.


Good, but that is only a part of the whole picture.

The whole picture includes the existence of biased benchmarks favouring Intel chips. See the news about AMD, VIA, and Nvidia abandoning BAPCO, in my other answer.

And it includes also Intel bad practices in its compiler. When the Intel complier founds the 'GenuineIntel' label then it uses the optimal code path, but when the CPU is not from Intel then, the compiler generates the slowest possible version of the code, even if the non-Intel CPU is fully compatible with a better version. This explains why when you use another compiler you see a big boost in the performance of AMD chips. See links and further info in my other answer.


However it ends up working out is just how it is. Until the software changes the results will still be the same. And I'm sure AMD knows all of this too. If they could figure out a way to make it better I'm sure they will. But as it stands, the benchmark results are what we are left with. I'm sure Intel can find 100 reasons why different software doesn't perform even better on their chips. Blaming poor results on poorly written software, IMO, is a bad excuse for poor performance. Intel seems to find ways to make their chips perform better with different software. If that's what makes their chips perform so well, why should anyone care why? If AMD could do the same, I'm sure they will.

Do you get that point?

Edit: BTW, I know this compiler is probably not used in Tom's Hardware benchmarks or anyone elses. Software like Cinebench 11.5, SuperPi, Passmark8, PCMark7, 3DMark11, Handbrake, 7Zip, Sisoft Sandra, Aida64, Geekbench, Novabench and so on, I'm sure that software doesn't "favor" Intel CPU's even though they win in those benchmarks. Why come up with an example that I have never heard of other that one of the most famous benchmarks that we know should be written correctly and objectivly. You can't tell me software like Passmark8 is written purposely to make Intel CPU's faster. That's just not true.

Again, to say the benchmarks are a problem is looking way too far into it, because in the end, it doesn't matter, one CPU is faster then the other and that's all you can actually see and all you should care about.

a c 210 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 3:49:51 PM

ericjohn004 said:


Yeah, I never knew that part. I knew what a pagefile was(I have mine set at 800mb because I have 16GB of RAM, is this a good idea to have it set at only 800mb? I have an SSD too so my pagefile won't be that slow, but slower than RAM nonetheless), but I didn't know that if you only had 4 cores and if forground programs were using up all 4 cores then the other programs would get loaded into "virtual cores". I guess these virtual cores your talking about isn't what Hyperthreading is because an i5 doesn't have that. I've never heard of this but very interesting.


That's what hyperthreading is, it is essentially passing off background or foreground applications to a "virtual core" which the processor is basically taking a fraction of clock time each cycle to run the threads dedicated to the virtual core. Now, for the sake of hardware, the i5 doesn't have any "virtual cores" in intel speak...however, the 4 cores you have can divide clocktime by % to execute functions you're currently running(the definition of CPU multitasking effectively). This will tap resources you're using elsewhere, though it won't be a largely noticeable difference in your foreground application performance unless you're doing several CPU intensive things at once. So for example...your foreground application may be using 80% of 4 cores, and your background applications may be using 20% of the clocktime per cycle to run their functions, but it's at a highly reduced rate compared to what it would be if that was the primary program running.

Edit: To answer your question about pagefiles, an SSD really eliminates the difference in performance almost entirely, but 800 MB pagefile size is fine with your current RAM.

ericjohn004 said:
Where do you go to learn all these things about how computers work? I'd love to get more information that way I can better understand what I'm talking about as to give more accurate information and for the purpose of knowledge in general. I'm actually JUST now getting into this PC stuff. I only knew what a 3570k was since December of 2012. Pretty much since I got this PC I've been full steam ahead learning everything I can. All this is fairly new to me but all extremely interesting. Since the end of December I've learned how to overclock like hell, I've learned how to build and setup a PC 1st hand, and I've also learned a lot about all the products on the market whether it be CPU's, RAM, SSD's, HDD's, Cooler's Case's, Fan's, PSU's, GPU's, everything. So I'd like to see how much I can learn over the next year or so, maybe I can make a career out of it, no telling.



I have been around computers for a long time, and read everything I can. Furthermore, I was a CECS (Computer Engineering) major in college before changing to game design. So I know how the interior functions work on alot of the hardware...now, I am not always 100% up to speed on the current terminology (the jargon changes over time)...but I can explain it well.

Computers are interesting indeed if you have a technical mind. That's why it can be frustrating for me when people don't understand the amount of vast untapped potential in AMD chips right now. Most people don't understand what's going on in the background that explains why something that has a 4.0 GHz stock clock cannot run some things as fast as a 3.4 GHz stock clock. It really has very little to do with strength of cores...because technically each AMD core is capable of running totally separate calculations from another, though floating point physics calculations are shared, more and more coding designs are putting floating point calculation onto the GPU anyway, so those will be less necessary in the future and the CPU will become more and more required to do the heavy lifting for processing data instructions and running integer calculations, which GPUs are not very good at by design.

Once the 2 are working in perfect harmony, technology will make another leap forward on the scale of the leap from x32 to x64 instructions, or essentially the leap made when the Athlon CPU came out and broke 1 GHz for the first time...

Have you ever noticed, we went from 66 MHz CPUs to 300 MHz CPUs in about 8-10 years then from 300 MHz to 1 GHz CPUs in a matter of ~24 months...but since then...in 12 years...we've only gone to 4.0 GHz? It has taken us 10x longer to increase proportionately the same amount as the last great leap! That next leap forward is about to arrive, we are on the cusp...it will be an interesting time again.
March 29, 2013 6:17:22 PM

If I were you, I would buy the 8350. The i5 is a better choice now, but in the future when consoles come out and developers start optimizing games for multithreaded CPUs, a 8350 will perform better. However, it really shouldn't be a problem now unless you have a mid-low range graphics card like a 7770 or 650. Anything better and I would recommend for you to buy the 8350.
March 29, 2013 8:24:09 PM

ericjohn004 said:

However it ends up working out is just how it is. Until the software changes the results will still be the same. And I'm sure AMD knows all of this too. If they could figure out a way to make it better I'm sure they will. But as it stands, the benchmark results are what we are left with. I'm sure Intel can find 100 reasons why different software doesn't perform even better on their chips. Blaming poor results on poorly written software, IMO, is a bad excuse for poor performance. Intel seems to find ways to make their chips perform better with different software. If that's what makes their chips perform so well, why should anyone care why? If AMD could do the same, I'm sure they will.

Do you get that point?

Edit: BTW, I know this compiler is probably not used in Tom's Hardware benchmarks or anyone elses. Software like Cinebench 11.5, SuperPi, Passmark8, PCMark7, 3DMark11, Handbrake, 7Zip, Sisoft Sandra, Aida64, Geekbench, Novabench and so on, I'm sure that software doesn't "favor" Intel CPU's even though they win in those benchmarks. Why come up with an example that I have never heard of other that one of the most famous benchmarks that we know should be written correctly and objectivly. You can't tell me software like Passmark8 is written purposely to make Intel CPU's faster. That's just not true.

Again, to say the benchmarks are a problem is looking way too far into it, because in the end, it doesn't matter, one CPU is faster then the other and that's all you can actually see and all you should care about.


First, I have have given several reproducible open benchmarks showing how the FX-8350 beats a i7-3770K using available software.

Second, the problem with the biased benchmarks is not related to "poorly written software" or bad programmers, but to cheated code. Read the link on why AMD, Nvidia, and VIA abandoned BAPCO with accusations of Intel bias.

Third, there are biased hardware reviews on the Internet which use all kind of tricks for reducing the performance of AMD chips. You can google it.

Fourth, it is true that you can find software that runs better on Intel chips, but how many of that software uses Intel compiler? The Intel compiler cheats the code: when a non-intel CPU is detected through the GenuineIntel 'flag', the slowest possible version of the code is generated, even if the non-Intel CPU is fully compatible with a better version. Read the link on the court case that AMD won against Intel.

When you use another compiler (one that does not cheat) you see the real performance of AMD chips.

Fifth, I already showed that the best Cinebench score for the FX is on pair with the best score obtained by an i7-3770K and destroys your i5 best score by a wide margin. At the time of writing this, Passmark reports the FX (score: 9159) being on pair with the i7 (score: 9637)

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8...

with both destroying your i5 (score: 7137).

Why you insist on that your Intel i5 is faster than the AMD FX 8350 is a complete mystery for me, except when I consider that the FX offers i7 performance by a percentage of the price of your i5...
March 29, 2013 8:37:42 PM

8350rocks said:

Have you ever noticed, we went from 66 MHz CPUs to 300 MHz CPUs in about 8-10 years then from 300 MHz to 1 GHz CPUs in a matter of ~24 months...but since then...in 12 years...we've only gone to 4.0 GHz? It has taken us 10x longer to increase proportionately the same amount as the last great leap! That next leap forward is about to arrive, we are on the cusp...it will be an interesting time again.


Precisely this is related to the "physical limits" that I mentioned in a previous response to him. The future is not substantially higher clocks but multi-core designs and heterogeneous computing; two ways are being leaded by AMD...

Therefore not only the FX 8350 is good enough for gaming per today requirements, but its innovative eight-core architecture puts in advantage for the near future.
March 29, 2013 10:31:01 PM

I have a FX-8350 and I run games like Far Cry 3 at max settings at above 30fps 1080p.
March 30, 2013 4:47:58 AM

Point here is gaming and i5 3570k till this date has more wins over fx8350 taking the CPU as same.
There is no point of saying which processor can do what in heavily multi-threaded renderings or encoding.
Just check out some Skyrim,Civilization 5,Dawn of war,etc i5 3570k has a good amount of lead.
Crysis 3 does well on fx8350 on the green scenes but rest does well on i5 3570k.In Toms test they were comparable.
For gaming i5 3570k this date is still better than fx8350.
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 7:29:29 AM

drinvis said:
Point here is gaming and i5 3570k till this date has more wins over fx8350 taking the CPU as same.
There is no point of saying which processor can do what in heavily multi-threaded renderings or encoding.
Just check out some Skyrim,Civilization 5,Dawn of war,etc i5 3570k has a good amount of lead.
Crysis 3 does well on fx8350 on the green scenes but rest does well on i5 3570k.In Toms test they were comparable.
For gaming i5 3570k this date is still better than fx8350.


We are discussing the reasons that the benchmarks reflect what they do...not what the current benchmarks say...

Also, take a look at openbenchmarking.org...they run non intel compiler programs and games on both systems and show you what you're REALLY getting into...
!