Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Thoughts on AMD FX-8350????

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 8:56:23 AM

the fx 8350 is good chip for its price its showing its colour in newer games such as farcry 3,medal of honor warfighter etc etc.its on par with i5s and in some newer games just 1-5 fps behind fx 8350.

pros:-
1)great multitasker
2)higher frequency
3)8 cores(but no use of that much but will be better for fututre)
4)great performance in multi threaded apps in some toughes i7 3770k levels

cons:-
1)higher powerconsumption
2)single threaded performance
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 8:57:21 AM

Yeah, so you think itd be fine in a gaming pc build
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:01:46 AM

yes it will be.:)  good luck :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:02:53 AM

Yeah it's a little faster than i5 on highly-threaded non-gaming stuff, a little slower in games and significantly higher power consumption. I used to always disregard the third point, but I did the math on it and I'd actually be saving £30-40 a year in electricity costs for the power difference, so it really does add up.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:04:37 AM

Im in a position where the amount of power i use does not affect my living costs
Score
0

Best solution

a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:09:40 AM

fx 8350 performance in newer games:-

farcry 3 :- http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...

medal of honor warfighter:- http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...




Share
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:11:19 AM

Yeah as games move towards supporting more cores, then FX-8000 series will be moreso boss, and wanna go to my link to my other thread??
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:14:12 AM

yeah.and many game developers are moving to multithreaded software so it would be better and will be my choice.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:17:23 AM

yeah its prob whats gonna be in my gaming pc build even tho lots of people tell me get the i5 get the i5, lol
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:20:58 AM

lol they are fanboys.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:22:47 AM

usually are, I prefer AMD for the price but am not a fanboy, I like both
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:29:24 AM

late man
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:29:42 AM

"later
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:30:16 AM

yeah even i but fanboys just keep saying that "buy intel its superb in gaming yeah oooh yeah" even amd fanboy will do the same.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:33:23 AM

You can see here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/far-cry-3-performance-ben...

FX8350 delivering almost identical performance to the i3. But keep in mind that the top three CPUs have clearly eliminated CPU bottleneck (which has moved entirely to the GPU) while the FX8350 begins to reduce performance (even if just by a tiny bit). So the FX8350 is doing fine here, but may be limiting performance (albeit barely limiting it at all). If a 20% faster graphics card was used here, you'd see a performance increase as a result on the top 3 models, but not on the FX8350.

So moving forward, the FX8350 may end up bottlenecking next-gen graphics hardware more. On the other side of the argument, as people have pointed out, next-gen games are also likely to make better use of many cores in cases where games are both CPU-intensive and highly-threaded.

So CPU-intensive and highly-threaded - FX8350.
CPU-intensive and poorly-threaded - i5.
GPU-intensive - i5 (but keeping in mind that the FX8350 is only constraining performance very slightly in FC3)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 16, 2013 9:37:47 AM

yeah I still think I will probably stick with it, the only other thing Id do is cut cost a lil in other places in my build and get an i7, well maybe cut more than a lil, lol
:ange: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:41:46 AM

well many peoples are using a hd 7990,hd 7970 ghz and gtx 680 and gtx 690 with fx 8350 they are not getting any bottleneck.

i dont believe in that benchmark honestly the fx 8350 is on par with i5s in many other sites and in toms its performing less then i3 wtf?my friends fx 4100 performs the same as i3 2100 in farcry 3 my fx 6100 beats both.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:42:45 AM

Well I wouldn't recommend i7 unless you've got some non-gaming stuff that's really important to you. i5 is the best way to go with Intel. FX8350 is between i5 and i7 for non-gaming stuff and a bit below i3 and i5 in CPU-intensive games. Have a browse through the CPU section in the forums and take a look at people's experiences with the FX8350.

I saw a lot of stuff a month or two back (I haven't really bothered with this forum section in a couple of months) about stuttering/stop-start performance in games with FX8350, but that might have been resolved now (it might not even have been the CPU's fault). People were saying something about poor resource contention and SMT on the FX8350, but not sure what they're talking about, it's a bit over my head!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:44:32 AM

sunnk said:
well many peoples are using a hd 7990,hd 7970 ghz and gtx 680 and gtx 690 with fx 8350 they are not getting any bottleneck.

i dont believe in that benchmark honestly the fx 8350 is on par with i5s in many other sites and in toms its performing less then i3 wtf?my friends fx 4100 performs the same as i3 2100 in farcry 3 my fx 6100 beats both.


Because the top three have clearly eliminated CPU bottleneck so performance is being determined entirely by the GPU. It obviously doesn't mean the top three have exactly the same capabilities. Do you understand bottlenecking?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:49:44 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Well I wouldn't recommend i7 unless you've got some non-gaming stuff that's really important to you. i5 is the best way to go with Intel. FX8350 is between i5 and i7 for non-gaming stuff and a bit below i3 and i5 in CPU-intensive games. Have a browse through the CPU section in the forums and take a look at people's experiences with the FX8350.

I saw a lot of stuff a month or two back (I haven't really bothered with this forum section in a couple of months) about stuttering/stop-start performance in games with FX8350, but that might have been resolved now (it might not even have been the CPU's fault). People were saying something about poor resource contention and SMT on the FX8350, but not sure what they're talking about, it's a bit over my head!



i dont think so its below i3 in cpu intensive games :heink:  . my fx 6100 beats i3 in games its true in real world performance my fx 6100 is far better i m not a fanboy but telling the truth.mostly i dont believe in benchmark if u r upgrading any u should ask a person who has used it i m pretty happy with my fx chip and the fx 8350 will be about 35 - 40% better then mine in overall performance.i m sure that fx 8350 will perform same as i5 in games and very well in apps.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 9:53:07 AM

My experiences with AMD is that taken against its prior line up the FX 8350 is a massive step forward over the FX 8150 and 1100T, it comprehensively beats its predecessor flagships to sit at the top of any high end AMD setup. It is fitting to compair the new flagship to its predecessors so as to come to the conclusion that Vishera is a step in the right direction.

PROS:

Improved single and multithreaded performance, general computing performance improvement over prior flagships.

Impressive memory overclocking HTT scale well up to 2600Mhz and beyond with almost no voltage needed, AIDA 64 hit 20GB/s rates which is about on par with Intel i7 920-950 on the old 1366 which is a massive IMC improvement.

FX 8350 achieves a base clock bump of 400mhz over the 8150 while lowering peak power consumption by around 60-70w over the old Zambezi flagship, that is higher clocks at lower power all on the exact same process.

Gaming performance around or on par with a i5, Computing and highly threaded performance that is similar to a i7. Overall performance is about on par with a i7 950.

10-20% faster than the 8150 and 1100T across the board.

CONS:

About 2 Generations behind Intel.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:04:08 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Because the top three have clearly eliminated CPU bottleneck so performance is being determined entirely by the GPU. It obviously doesn't mean the top three have exactly the same capabilities. Do you understand bottlenecking?


yeah i know the term "bottleck" but i think u dont know what is performance and i dont think u have ever owned any fx line cpus thats why u think fx 8350 will start bottlecking other generations gpus.i love the way noobs say go for intel .
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:05:25 AM

+1 to sarinaide on the improvements - if we see this much progress again with Steamroller (and no progress from Haswell and Broadwell) then Intel will have some serious competition on their hands. And it is indeed like Lego :-)

As for sunnk's experiences and mistrust of benchmarks, I think it's good to learn from experiences, though maybe not when it comes to quantified results. Learn about things like reliability, the difference 120Hz refresh rate makes (or doesn't make), the visual fidelity of FXAA etc from people's experiences (or maybe screenshots for that last one). For performance numbers, people's experiences are A far too subjective and B not guaranteed to be unbiased.

EDIT: And give the "noob" and "fanboy" comments a rest. You're simply making yourself appear childish and immature.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:17:07 AM

sam_p_lay said:
+1 to sarinaide on the improvements - if we see this much progress again with Steamroller (and no progress from Haswell and Broadwell) then Intel will have some serious competition on their hands. And it is indeed like Lego :-)

As for sunnk's experiences and mistrust of benchmarks, I think it's good to learn from experiences, though maybe not when it comes to quantified results. Learn about things like reliability, the difference 120Hz refresh rate makes (or doesn't make), the visual fidelity of FXAA etc from people's experiences (or maybe screenshots for that last one). For performance numbers, people's experiences are A far too subjective and B not guaranteed to be unbiased.

EDIT: And give the "noob" and "fanboy" comments a rest. You're simply making yourself appear childish and immature.


well i think u have learned those things only from years.i know about all that things the fxaa mainly depend on gpu so its out of question.

EDIT:- yeah i m a child of 14 yrs maybe 15 i m behaving like kids because i m but many of the members in toms are kid and they are more intelligent then u and u r behaving like a noob.ok u r well experienced even u r addict u r regular to forums then why dont u have a medal?no one selects u as a best answer?its becuz u have never given a right answer and they have never been satisfied.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:20:58 AM

well i think u have learned those things only from years.i know about all that things the fxaa mainly depend on gpu so its out of question.

EDIT:- yeah i m a child of 14 yrs maybe 15 i m behaving like kids because i m but many of the members in toms are kid and they are more intelligent then u and u r behaving like a noob.ok u r well experienced even u r addict u r regular to forums then why dont u have a medal?no one selects u as a best answer?its becuz u have never given a right answer and they have never been satisfied. said:
well i think u have learned those things only from years.i know about all that things the fxaa mainly depend on gpu so its out of question.

EDIT:- yeah i m a child of 14 yrs maybe 15 i m behaving like kids because i m but many of the members in toms are kid and they are more intelligent then u and u r behaving like a noob.ok u r well experienced even u r addict u r regular to forums then why dont u have a medal?no one selects u as a best answer?its becuz u have never given a right answer and they have never been satisfied.


I could absolutely tear you apart for that idiocy (look at my points/posts ratio for evidence of all my best answers) but I won't because you're a child (who isn't sure if they're 14 or 15 apparently). It also appears English isn't your first language, so I'll allow you some leeway for misunderstanding.

FXAA was one of three examples of things totally unrelated to CPUs used to illustrate a point. The point being that benchmarks are empirical data. They are measured, quantified results. Not the claims of an AMD fanboy child. FXAA was an example of something where benchmarks don't tell the whole story. CPU performance is an example of something where benchmarks do tell the whole story.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:24:52 AM

From what I tested and compared against AMD's prior line up, bear in mind that I compare AMD againsts its previous generations it is very easy to suggest a FX 83XX or FX 63XX over prior parts. AMD took the exact same process and nutured it better, some metal level tweaks and the resultant was a vastly improved product.

+ Aida64 and MaxXmem scores improved by around 40% showing a definite IMC improvement, while it is around 30% off where Intel currently are, all things considered and what AMD have to work with that is a significant step up, was particularly impressed with Memory scaling where faster RAM bore significant improvements. What was more impressive is that a Vishera running DDR1600 was capable of beating a Bulldozer and Thuban running at 2133mhz such is the difference in performance.

+ Multi GPU scaling is also improved, this is in no turn down to the 7-10% IPC improvement generally the CPU at baseclocks handled the 7950's and 670's thrown at it pretty well showing up around 12%-17% improvement over Zambezi.

+ Overclocking, Memory clocking Vishera destroys Zambezi on frequency clocking hitting 5.2ghz is very easy on higher end coolers or custom cooling. The world record for 8 cores overclocked sits around 8.7ghz which is just simply phenominal :D  on 2 Cores I believe scores in excess of 10ghz has been set which is testiment to the deeper pipelines these CPU's possess allowing higher frequencies.

+ Power consumption a 4.2ghz 8350 will consume less power than a FX4170 and 6200 with extra cores, this is probably down to the mature 32nm process.

Score
0
January 16, 2013 10:25:58 AM

I like my 8350 it does what I need it to do. I use my machine mostly for gaming. Last night was doing
Tests with bf3. I usually run on medium settings when I play online on 3 screen setup. Cranked up the settings to Ultra textures with high settings, hbao, x16 with motion blur.
I was able to run 45-60 fps on 64man maps at 6090x1080. I'm using the 8350 at 4.8ghz with x2 2gb 560s in sli with core clock at 945 up from the 850 out the box.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:26:41 AM

OP, these are worth a look for examples of FX8350 in a range of games:

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

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

You'll see examples of games where there's no difference at all (or no difference worth mentioning at least) and of other games where the Intel CPUs have a clear lead. Hopefully that will help you make your decision. I'd say either option is a solid bet.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2013 10:33:22 AM

I recomend for gaming rigs, the i5 3570k or 3450 alternatively the FX 8350. While in theory the i5 is a better chip this down to stronger single x86 performance the FX 8350 doesn't fall that far behind, but shines in integer workloads and highly threaded applications. The FX 83XX manages to sit snug with the i5 in most gaming synthetics for that is a good alternative.

In our testing one area where AMD is excelling is in SMT technology, AMD's CMT is more productive than Intel's HT and this in coming years will bear dividends as AMD targets heterogeneous computing which is a very exciting element.

Steamroller with a completely new die process will see on guestimation around 15-20% IPC improvements equating to around 30%+ general performance over the Vishera parts along with lower power consumption and another tweak to IMC's no less down to tweaked latencies. AMD invested heavily towards Steamroller so lets hope it is the part that brings AMD right up to Intel's tail lights.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2013 6:02:11 AM

sam_p_lay said:
I could absolutely tear you apart for that idiocy (look at my points/posts ratio for evidence of all my best answers) but I won't because you're a child (who isn't sure if they're 14 or 15 apparently). It also appears English isn't your first language, so I'll allow you some leeway for misunderstanding.

FXAA was one of three examples of things totally unrelated to CPUs used to illustrate a point. The point being that benchmarks are empirical data. They are measured, quantified results. Not the claims of an AMD fanboy child. FXAA was an example of something where benchmarks don't tell the whole story. CPU performance is an example of something where benchmarks do tell the whole story.



misunderstanding wtf u r a noob thats it :D  :kaola:  :sol:  :lol:  your best answers evidence is your number of post? :heink:  well where is the medal then? u havent got 10 best answers only u r a ---------b nothing above that pls before making your posts right u should have evidence and there are most of the fake benchmarks too it will be better to use fx series chip then comment against it.btw which cpu u have?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2013 9:06:19 AM

sunnk said:
misunderstanding wtf u r a noob thats it :D  :kaola:  :sol:  :lol:  your best answers evidence is your number of post? :heink:  well where is the medal then? u havent got 10 best answers only u r a ---------b nothing above that pls before making your posts right u should have evidence and there are most of the fake benchmarks too it will be better to use fx series chip then comment against it.btw which cpu u have?


Points/posts RATIO. Do you know what a ratio is? Grow up you stupid little boy.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2013 9:12:00 AM

To clarify, I have 10,000 points more than you despite only 400 more posts. That means I get more points from my posts, i.e. more best answers. I don't know if badges/medals/whatever are the same thing (I honestly don't care about showing off awards - that's for immature little boys) but I did get a graphics badge/medal/whatever and a Windows one a few months back. Other users mentioned to me that my medals had disappeared, but I've never paid any attention to medals, ranks etc so it really doesn't bother me.

Now you're making a total fool of yourself and you're wasting my time. Continue to embarrass yourself if you wish and demonstrate to the Tom's community that you're a fool to be totally ignored and not taken seriously. Your best course of action is to abandon your current account and create a new one, because nobody will respect you after this.

And I have an i7. I've never owned an FX8350, because that would be a downgrade. It would be a stupid thing for me to buy. Now you can go and tell everyone how your crappy low-end FX6100 beats i7s. Go ahead - you've already recked your reputation, you may as well continue. I'm done wasting time on you.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 27, 2013 2:12:55 AM

Best answer selected by patrick47018.
Score
0
January 27, 2013 2:59:00 AM

fx 8350 dominates the 3570k in everything but its only a few fps behind in gaming. careful about reading benchmarks on toms hardware there intel based and therefor not accurate, they dont call this site intel squad for nothing.
Score
0
January 27, 2013 3:00:35 AM

The FX-8350 doesn't actually have 8 cores, it's 4 capable of splitting into 8.

The FX series are structured to have 4 "Bulldozer" modules, all 4 have a resource "dump", with L2 cache, FPUs, etc... And each Bulldozer module has 2 cores.

Basically if you're running a high thread/low per core performance application, in this kind of program, the dumps share the resources equally between the pair of cores it serves, so it can adress the high thread needs by giving up per core performance(each core doesn't get as much resources because it's split)

Similarly, if you're gaming, it'll consolidate the resources into a single core, to give better per core performance, but deactivate the 2nd core(lack of resources) for a total of 4 active cores, with 4 deactivated.

In other words, it's glamorized Hyper-Threading, AMD just redefined what a core is.

Also in gaming the FX-8350 is only a few FPS behind the i5-3570k, and the FX-8350, debateably, can overclock better. Also the FX-8350 wins in other aspects.

The real loss for AMD is that they only support gen 2 transfer speeds(bottlenecks down the road), and require external controllers for USB3(USB3 is much slower compared to Z77 native USB3).
Score
0
January 27, 2013 3:14:10 AM

darkspartenwarrior said:
The FX-8350 doesn't actually have 8 cores, it's 4 capable of splitting into 8.

The FX series are structured to have 4 "Bulldozer" modules, all 4 have a resource "dump", with L2 cache, FPUs, etc... And each Bulldozer module has 2 cores.

Basically if you're running a high thread/low per core performance application, in this kind of program, the dumps share the resources equally between the pair of cores it serves, so it can adress the high thread needs by giving up per core performance(each core doesn't get as much resources because it's split)

Similarly, if you're gaming, it'll consolidate the resources into a single core, to give better per core performance, but deactivate the 2nd core(lack of resources) for a total of 4 active cores, with 4 deactivated.

In other words, it's glamorized Hyper-Threading, AMD just redefined what a core is.

Also in gaming the FX-8350 is only a few FPS behind the i5-3570k, and the FX-8350, debateably, can overclock better. Also the FX-8350 wins in other aspects.

The real loss for AMD is that they only support gen 2 transfer speeds(bottlenecks down the road), and require external controllers for USB3(USB3 is much slower compared to Z77 native USB3).



wrong, all fx have true cores, 8350 have 8 physical coers, they just share recsources like the decoder and FP they still have 8 physical cores
Score
0
January 27, 2013 4:08:58 AM

For $30 more, I would go with an Intel Core i5 3570K quad core processor. Added OSX compatibility (Hackintosh) plus it's faster clock-for-clock all around.

However, if you're dead set on an AMD processor or if you're stuck on the AM3+ platform (already own an existing motherboard), the FX-8350 is not a bad choice. It comes a lot closer to the i5 than I originally expected so going Piledriver is not a bad idea.
Score
0
!