Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Wow 8350 isnt so bad

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 23, 2013 2:11:10 AM

Blasphemy! that's I7 whips 4 u amd fanboy!
Score
0
January 23, 2013 2:16:26 AM

I wholeheartedly agree. My 8350 is so glorious.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 2:17:14 AM

LOLwut? the amd 8350 beating i5/i7s in gaming haha. nice find btw

maybie i should of got a 8320 instead of my 6300 :/ 
Score
0
January 23, 2013 2:49:55 AM

Wait....this is just based on integrated graphics performance. Of course. AMD ROCKS at INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. But I would like to say I want to see this with a dedicated gpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 2:57:57 AM

linkgx1 said:
Wait....this is just based on integrated graphics performance. Of course. AMD ROCKS at INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. But I would like to say I want to see this with a dedicated gpu.


Didnt you watch the video? they were using a amd 7870 with all the tests...
Score
0
January 23, 2013 4:13:08 AM

linkgx1 said:
Wait....this is just based on integrated graphics performance. Of course. AMD ROCKS at INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. But I would like to say I want to see this with a dedicated gpu.

What? The FX series cpus don't have integrated graphics.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 4:15:38 AM

tonync_01 said:
What? The FX series cpus don't have integrated graphics.

I think there is a joke here about how bad intel's integrate graphics.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 4:57:53 AM

So what's wrong with everyone else's benchmarks if this one is accurate?

Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:03:37 AM

twelve25 said:
So what's wrong with everyone else's benchmarks if this one is accurate?


Everyone is just intel fan boys? haha who knows.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:06:31 AM

good vid but maybe a little unclear. around 2.27 he starts mentioning architectural differences and points out L2 cache specifically for 8350. honest mistake I guess in not mentioning dedicated L2's for Intel.

and in warhead 1080p he mentions 24.92 frames for 3570K while the vid shows 37.12 fps, another honest mistake probably ;) 

I do believe that AMD does gets too bad a press. I'll hold on to my high hopes for "Steamy".
good share EchoOne
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:10:45 AM

satyamdubey said:
good vid but maybe a little unclear. around 2.27 he starts mentioning architectural differences and points out L2 cache specifically for 8350. honest mistake I guess in not mentioning dedicated L2's for Intel.

I do believe that AMD does gets too bad a press. I'll hold on to my high hopes for "Steamy". good share EchoOne



Oh yea thats why i choose the am3+ socket over the lga 1155 socket. i have too also have high hopes for steam roller. :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:18:03 AM
a c 79 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:28:04 AM

stantheman123 said:
Oh yea thats why i choose the am3+ socket over the lga 1155 socket. i have too also have high hopes for steam roller. :D 

good for you. you might have already seen this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-...
but whats worth noting is that the decoder which cores in each module share in Bully has been duplicated in Steamy. This means the cores would have to wait for lesser durations to cycle tasks. lets hope Haswell-Steamy would be more neck to neck, more balanced than how it has been till now.
Score
0
January 23, 2013 5:37:15 AM

linkgx1 said:
Wait....this is just based on integrated graphics performance. Of course. AMD ROCKS at INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. But I would like to say I want to see this with a dedicated gpu.

Maybe he was talking about the old AMD A4 dual cores

LOL
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:42:55 AM

lostgamer_03 said:


I think we can conclude that the video isn't reliable, because every benchmark on the internet says otherwise.


I think if you are selective in what you test you can prove anything. There are plenty of apps where the AMD chips do beat Intel and plenty of games that are 95% GPU anyway.

Score
0
a c 100 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:48:46 AM

stantheman123 said:
Didnt you watch the video? they were using a amd 7870 with all the tests...


I'm personally all for AMD being competitive, but if that's true, than those tests are invalid.

There's a reason that when testing graphics cards you use a Xeon and when testing processors you use an extremely powerful card; you get bottlenecks otherwise, and that's going to cause havoc with results. Do this again with a 7970, or a pair of them, get the same results, and I'll start cheering.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 23, 2013 6:23:24 AM

Makes me wish I had gotten the 8320 or the 8350, would've been able to keep MB for steamroller too.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 6:36:42 AM

DarkSable said:
I'm personally all for AMD being competitive, but if that's true, than those tests are invalid.

There's a reason that when testing graphics cards you use a Xeon and when testing processors you use an extremely powerful card; you get bottlenecks otherwise, and that's going to cause havoc with results. Do this again with a 7970, or a pair of them, get the same results, and I'll start cheering.


Do you run a pair of 7970s? I think more people are running cards in the 7850-7870 range. Who cares if the 3570K gets 20 more fps with a card I will never own?

Yes it isolates the processor, but it also creates results that mean nothing to the average user.

I want to see a review where it just lists the maximum quality settings at popular resolutions that one can use and still maintain 60fps. It's kind of pointless to see a benchmark showing 20fps for one CPU and 28 for another because that just means neither are acceptable. It's not a win if both lose.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 6:50:45 AM

twelve25 said:
I think if you are selective in what you test you can prove anything. There are plenty of apps where the AMD chips do beat Intel and plenty of games that are 95% GPU anyway.


Not true. Shogun 2 is a highly demanding CPU game, just look in the benchmarks.

The fact is that i5-3570k is better than gaming.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 7:00:20 AM

should i believe this one guys benchmarks or EVERYWHERE ELSES?

hmmmm.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 8:59:07 AM

satyamdubey said:
good for you. you might have already seen this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-...
but whats worth noting is that the decoder which cores in each module share in Bully has been duplicated in Steamy. This means the cores would have to wait for lesser durations to cycle tasks. lets hope Haswell-Steamy would be more neck to neck, more balanced than how it has been till now.


No i dont think ive seen that link before. nice find.

If steamroller could be competive with haswell that would be amazing. however id be happy if its on par with ivy bridge
Score
0
January 23, 2013 9:03:45 AM
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:12:33 AM

bemused_fred said:
+1

I think I'll take these many, MANY reputable, professional sites over that one Yahoo in that video.


i have to agree.

I still think the i5 3570k is the faster gaming cpu and will contiune to recommend to my friends and just in general people i know
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:19:27 AM

So Intel marketing+Fanboys+Biased Reviews=???
Score
0
January 23, 2013 9:28:56 AM

For gaming in most of the games at 1920*1080 or higher there won't be any noticeable difference between the two processors,but with CPU bound games like Civilization 5,Start craft2 and some others i5 3570k is faster by a good margin.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:34:19 AM

"So Intel marketing+Fanboys+Biased Reviews=" a fun thread where some intel users are subtly rooting for AMD and some AMD users are saying they'll suggest Intel to their friends. where are the fanboys? :pt1cable: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:39:48 AM

satyamdubey said:
"So Intel marketing+Fanboys+Biased Reviews=" a fun thread where some intel users are subtly rooting for AMD and some AMD users are saying they'll suggest Intel to their friends. where are the fanboys? :pt1cable: 


This^ Everyone here seems pretty normal. i dont really see any fanboys in this thread. I just see the i5 3570k as a faster cpu. As i said before. just because i have a amd cpu does not mean ill tell my friends "LOL AMD FTW"
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:41:06 AM

its true, all us current intel users would like nothing more than for amd to take a real run at intel. i would buy amd over intel in a heartbeat, just for competitions sake.

unfortunately, currently, im a sell out for performance
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 9:54:16 AM

Yea i bought amd really to help them out and really to see how amd performs. i knew i was buying a cpu slower than a i5. But i accepted that. and went out and got it. at stock it bottlenecked my 7970ghz. but when overclocked its pretty decent. still though i wouldnt tell anyone to get a amd cpu unless your on a strict budget or you already have a am3+ mobo.

Its not like amd is trash. but its just that intel is faster
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 10:07:47 AM

It's important that people stay reasonable and collectively ensure that "competition" never dies. monopoly kills quality.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 10:24:56 AM

That video is so flawed it hurts my head. How on earth could 3820 outperform 3770K by such a margin in some games... The only advantage it has is the number of PCIe lanes and 2MB extra L3 cache which is irrelevant for both (single GPU) gaming and streaming.
Also the 8350 is a power hog and goes vastly underutilized in majority of desktop workloads.
Score
0
January 23, 2013 12:24:15 PM

Alright before this goes any farther i just wanna clear up...this video just shows a few games where the 8350 accels but it wont beat my i7 3820 in gaming but im impressed with the
8350 this guy is usually very reliable as a source now i would recomend the 8350 for a budget gaMing and video editing...for just gaming yeah the 3570k but for a high end gaming and video editing etc i wouldvrecomend the i7 3820 and 3770k but i posted this because i found it interesting the 8350 accualy can do some work but no way beats the i7's but im not a danboy...i came from an fx 6100 4.7 ghz to this 3820 and damn... Biiig upgrade but its nice to see amd giving a good chip for only about 200 dollars...
Score
0
January 23, 2013 12:30:57 PM

Also in alot of benchmarks they use gmames that use like 1-2 cores like skyrim and starcraft and they show a horrid resolution...use some 2560x1600 and max settings bf3,crysis2,mohw,gta4 or games that use the cores properly and not games that use a few cores.im not a fanboy but lets do realistic comparisons hell even most people with these cpus are using 1920x1080 or higher..but i like both amd and intel...this is just my opinion
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 12:35:44 PM

of course this depends if quicksync is good enough for encoding for your tastes or not. the quality on quicksync is above that from transcoding with hardware acceleration from nvidia or amd. quicksync is also the fastest way to transcode, by a great margin.

for your average user needing to re-encode, quicksync is the way to go. i would say only people doing official releases that absolutely require the best quality would need a cpu software transcoding.
Score
0
a c 100 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:20:28 PM

twelve25 said:
I think if you are selective in what you test you can prove anything. There are plenty of apps where the AMD chips do beat Intel and plenty of games that are 95% GPU anyway.


twelve25 said:
Do you run a pair of 7970s? I think more people are running cards in the 7850-7870 range. Who cares if the 3570K gets 20 more fps with a card I will never own?

Yes it isolates the processor, but it also creates results that mean nothing to the average user.


So basically what you're saying is benchmarks shouldn't actually see what the parts can do, because they should test selectively to produce altered results.

Here's the thing though - most of the people spending $200 on a processor have the money to spend more on the graphics card; if they don't, then they should be spending less on the processor and more on the graphics card. Remember the old rule of thumb about "spend twice on the gpu what you do on the cpu"?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2013 5:40:53 PM

DarkSable said:
So basically what you're saying is benchmarks shouldn't actually see what the parts can do, because they should test selectively to produce altered results.




That's not really what I said. In the first message you quoted, I was simply pointing out that the results depend on what you test. If you test CPU heavy games that don't use more than 2-4 threads, then of course Intel comes out on top. If you test games that tax the GPU more, then AMD and Intel come out neck and neck. If you test something that hits all 8 cores, like heavy multiplayer and streaming, then AMD wins.


And I'm all for testing out the limits, but people need to step back to reality when discussing real world builds. If the FX-8350 can get 70fps with a 7970 and you only have a 7850, then does it matter if the i5-3570 gets 90fps with a 7970? Both CPU are going to easily exceed the GPU limited 40fps your 7850 will get.

I'm just saying don't take extreme GPU and CPU torture tests and then act like they apply for non-extreme builds. And it might be nice to see some benchmarks showing what settings more common mid-priced builds can expect in certain games.





Here's the thing though - most of the people spending $200 on a processor have the money to spend more on the graphics card; if they don't, then they should be spending less on the processor and more on the graphics card. Remember the old rule of thumb about "spend twice on the gpu what you do on the cpu"? said:
Here's the thing though - most of the people spending $200 on a processor have the money to spend more on the graphics card; if they don't, then they should be spending less on the processor and more on the graphics card. Remember the old rule of thumb about "spend twice on the gpu what you do on the cpu"?


If you ONLY game, sure. Everyone has slightly different needs. I went 1:1 for my own build because I also edit photos and do some video conversions.
Score
0
January 23, 2013 5:54:44 PM

Whats funny is that with my 7950 i came from a 6100 to a i7 3820 and my average fps increased by like 5-10 fps depending on the game but then my minimum fps went up from like 40 in bf3 to 50 fps so yeah the i7 will beat amd due t faster single threaded but in multi threaded the i7 2600k and 8350 are pretty close
Score
0
a c 100 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 6:00:32 PM

twelve25 said:
I'm all for testing out the limits, but people need to step back to reality when discussing real world builds. If the FX-8350 can get 70fps with a 7970 and you only have a 7850, then does it matter if the i5-3570 gets 90fps with a 7970? Both CPU are going to easily exceed the GPU limited 40fps your 7850 will get.
"Real world builds..." This is back in reality. There's zero point in buying a high-end processor and then overclocking it when you would get the exact same performance with a cheaper processor because your graphics card is bottlenecking you. In the real world, most people with high end processors* also have a high end graphics card.

It matters MUCH more what a CPU can do when paired with a good graphics card, because that's the likely usage scenario. Yours might be different, but most people (and by that I mean your majority of people using 7850s and 7870s) aren't going to have high end processors, because they aren't willing to spend that much money on a computer - they're going to have a processor appropriate to the card, such as a quad core Phenom II.

(*Who care about the gaming performance of said processors)


twelve25 said:
I'm just saying don't take extreme GPU and CPU torture tests and then act like they apply for non-extreme builds. And it might be nice to see some benchmarks showing what settings more common mid-priced builds can expect in certain games.
I agree with you on those benchmarks, but mid-priced builds aren't going to be using high-end processors in most cases; they're going to be using Phenoms, 4300s, perhaps an i5-3330 or i3.

The reason high end CPUs are tested in conjunction with high end GPUs is so that the data IS accurate to real life... and a person worried about which processor gives the most bang for the buck in gaming isn't going to be buying a processor that bottlenecks on the graphics card they're using.


twelve25 said:
If you ONLY game, sure. Everyone has slightly different needs. I went 1:1 for my own build because I also edit photos and do some video conversions.
Which is why a lot of us recommend AMD for productivity builds. But now you're throwingn another ball into the quart - you're saying most people have 7870s, and then you're saying that you have one with a high end processor because you do video conversions. That's atypical though; like I was saying, although the 7870s may very well be common, the people with them aren't usually also running i5's and 8k chips.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 23, 2013 6:15:34 PM

I run with a 7850 and i5 :p 
But thats cuz the games I want to play are severely CPU limited and single threaded
Cursed world of tanks
Score
0
January 23, 2013 7:47:31 PM

From the research I've done, the 8350 is *not* a terrible chip, it's just not as capable as the i5 3570K in most gaming situations. It's biggest draw back is worse single core performance, but in the right situation it can be a good option. It's also much less power efficient, but in a desktop platform this isn't a major concern for most people.

My biggest concern is that Intel continues to pull away from AMD in speed and efficiency, while bridging the gap in integrated graphics, especially with Haswell coming this June. The last I heard about Steamroller is that it's not expected until 2015, and at the rate AMD is losing money ($1.18 billion in 2012), I'm not sure it will survive long enough to produce it :( 
Score
0
January 23, 2013 10:53:58 PM

dcointin said:
From the research I've done, the 8350 is *not* a terrible chip, it's just not as capable as the i5 3570K in most gaming situations. It's biggest draw back is worse single core performance, but in the right situation it can be a good option. It's also much less power efficient, but in a desktop platform this isn't a major concern for most people.

My biggest concern is that Intel continues to pull away from AMD in speed and efficiency, while bridging the gap in integrated graphics, especially with Haswell coming this June. The last I heard about Steamroller is that it's not expected until 2015, and at the rate AMD is losing money ($1.18 billion in 2012), I'm not sure it will survive long enough to produce it :( 

Yeah well you gotta think,INTEL wont let AMD go out of business...That would be a monopoly...They cant have that.Besides AMD has the GPU and APU's for laptops and those kick some ass...And 2015?? where di you hear this...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 24, 2013 12:50:06 AM

If you look at the steam harware survey (not conclusive by all means but good for showing what gamers use) AMD has kept pretty good market share in the GPU side and ha kept actaully almost constant market share in CPU side.
I hear steamroller is latethis year (in the APU's) and AM3+ in early 2014
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2013 12:57:37 AM

I dont think amd will go out business. Sure there cpus are not the fastest. but there still decent and lots of people still choose amd cpus. also Dont forget about there gpus.

Fastest single gpu. 7970 ghz anyone? haha. Amd is a good company imo. There gpus are amazing there cpus just need some more Thinking and revising and they would be awesome
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
January 24, 2013 1:27:29 AM



I agree. Sorry but I'm not buying this video. You aren't going to tell me this guy is right when every other benchmark across the computer industry says otherwise. Sorry but this video is not a reliable source.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 24, 2013 1:48:31 AM

rds1220 said:
I agree. Sorry but I'm not buying this video. You aren't going to tell me this guy is right when every other benchmark across the computer industry says otherwise. Sorry but this video is not a reliable source.


What would be nice is if several other eputable sites wold try and replicate the results and be finaly able to prove/disprove their findings
I see this somewhat simialr ot the TechReport Latency testing.
Score
0
January 24, 2013 2:37:23 AM

Thought you might want to know I went from a 8350 to a 3750k and so far there is no difference other than the intel handles my 16 gb of Ram WAAYY better, as for video and photo editing of course 8 cores beat out intel but game wise, the intel is much more efficient power, and per core wise.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2013 2:37:45 AM



He tested games and scenarios, like different resolutions and streaming, that we hardly ever see in most web reviews. Also, those reviews all seem test the same games. If 10 review sites all test the same games, you would expect them all to be similar.

Im just amazed how intellectually lazy your post is lostgamer_03. The video review address your issues over and over again in the video. You just ignored his points and resubmitted old evidence that doesn't address his issues. Got to come up with something better than that.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2013 2:41:08 AM

neon neophyte said:
should i believe this one guys benchmarks or EVERYWHERE ELSES?

hmmmm.



Except that isn't the question. He did things we haven't seen from most reviews. And most reviews seem to use the same games and the same methodology. Which naturally produces the same basic results.

He may or may not be correct, but the web reviews we have seen so far do not refute his conclusions.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2013 2:46:15 AM

bemused_fred said:
+1

I think I'll take these many, MANY reputable, professional sites over that one Yahoo in that video.


Reputable isn't the same as accurate. History is replete with examples of reputable people being wrong. They all use the similar games and methodologies. The review poses intriguing questions.
Score
0
!