Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-8350 vs i5 and i7 gaming benchmarks...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 14, 2013 4:48:09 PM



And...? That benchmark uses none of the heavy rendering games the other one does...when you compare games that require heavy CPU load and lots of rendering the 8350 blows away the i7-3770k
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 1:40:35 PM

You do realize when this Chip first came out most AMD MoBo chipsets were not properly utilizing RAM with a bandwidth over 1600 MHz, where as Intel chipsets were utilizing the full 2133 MHz most tested with right?

Now the AMD MoBo chipset issues have been remedied and the new results showing what the CPU is REALLY capable of are questioning the status quo...

Intel having +25% memory bandwidth was a HUGE advantage.
a c 258 4 Gaming
a c 301 À AMD
a c 788 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 2:39:35 PM

I am not taking anything away from the FX8350 (own one) but in majority of games it trails the I5 and the I7, when it really takes of all the respectable hardware sites will highlight it. Sites like Toms hardware, Anandtech, VR Zone, Guru3d and so on.
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 2:41:30 PM

Well, I am telling you...the FX-8350 didn't get the fanfare it should have to start...the MoBo chipsets weren't up to speed for the new 2133 MHz ddr3 RAM yet...
a c 258 4 Gaming
a c 301 À AMD
a c 788 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 2:54:26 PM

My link for the Crysis 3 test is from March 5th 2013. The Ivy bridge only supports 1600MHz and FX 1866MHz and nobody at a respectable site is going to try to make one look good at the expense of the other. Remember as well most computer users (well over 90%) do not overclock or let alone tweak for use of high speed ram.
FX8350 is a very good CPU option for its price that nobody can take from it.
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 4:55:49 PM

Most of the testers did not know the MoBo chipsets had old BIOS, AMD only recently, without much mention corrected the issue.

If that MoBo in the test was not brand spanking new built in the last 60 days, it wouldn't have been able to accomodate the proper frequency on the RAM either.
a c 258 4 Gaming
a c 301 À AMD
a c 788 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 5:30:40 PM

8350rocks said:
Most of the testers did not know the MoBo chipsets had old BIOS, AMD only recently, without much mention corrected the issue.

If that MoBo in the test was not brand spanking new built in the last 60 days, it wouldn't have been able to accomodate the proper frequency on the RAM either.


My brand new top of the line 990FX board from a major manufacturer is running on BETA BIOS since it is having Issues with the FX8350 and proper release for it is not out yet. Same board set a record over 8GHz in overclocking contest.
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 18, 2013 6:52:34 PM

rolli59 said:
8350rocks said:
Most of the testers did not know the MoBo chipsets had old BIOS, AMD only recently, without much mention corrected the issue.

If that MoBo in the test was not brand spanking new built in the last 60 days, it wouldn't have been able to accomodate the proper frequency on the RAM either.


My brand new top of the line 990FX board from a major manufacturer is running on BETA BIOS since it is having Issues with the FX8350 and proper release for it is not out yet. Same board set a record over 8GHz in overclocking contest.


Yes, for CPU speed...NOT RAM...the issue isn't the CPU...it's the Bandwidth the RAM can use. You can install 2133 MHz in your board and it will run it...if you install it in an older board, it will only use 1600 MHz of your 2133 MHz available...which means your RAM would bottleneck your CPU, as your CPU could technically run faster than your RAM could allow it to access the stored information...

Make sense yet?
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 19, 2013 11:56:06 AM

Maybe not for average applications, but 2133 MHz+ will allow your CPU to use it's full performance, and as the article states, some of the RAM didn't even use more than 1600 MHz...showing my point about the memory Bandwidth.
May 7, 2013 7:42:21 PM

8350rocks said:
Maybe not for average applications, but 2133 MHz+ will allow your CPU to use it's full performance, and as the article states, some of the RAM didn't even use more than 1600 MHz...showing my point about the memory Bandwidth.


I'm sorry but rolli really just owned you on your own thread, in which you made to really try and prove me wrong. Also, tek syndicate is really the only one that made the 8350 win that much. Keep in mind, they fail to show settings, they fail to have constant mobos (that are as similar as possible), RAM, SSDs, clock speeds, and what about the other games that are also CPU hogs: BF3, ArmA 2 & 3, also FPSs, and games like WoW and LoL. Your source is only that of a failed test, and is only a fraction of the whole benchmark spectrum.

At this point I can tell no-one of what you say is from a valid source, and given that and your name, YOU. ARE. A. FAN. BOY. You literally give no consideration to Intel, I actually love both parties, but in that category of gaming, I told the dead truth.
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2013 5:49:06 AM

at both of you, try it out yourself and stop using other peoples tests to see what's better yourself. Even(most likely) if the tests are right you're talking about 2 fps difference and when there is much bigger difference 100(fx) vs 120(i5) you wouldn't even notice.

Edit: I see rolli59 has both. Did you test both with exactly the same systems(except the mobo of course)?
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2013 5:59:10 AM

GOM3RPLY3R said:
8350rocks said:
Maybe not for average applications, but 2133 MHz+ will allow your CPU to use it's full performance, and as the article states, some of the RAM didn't even use more than 1600 MHz...showing my point about the memory Bandwidth.

(Quoted trolling deleted by moderator)


You're wrong they have used the exact same setup except the mobo. They have tested arma 2. And because you havn't tested it yourself you can't say they didn't use the same setting, they could have lied too on other benchmarks.
May 8, 2013 6:58:44 AM

L Helps said:
GOM3RPLY3R said:
8350rocks said:
Maybe not for average applications, but 2133 MHz+ will allow your CPU to use it's full performance, and as the article states, some of the RAM didn't even use more than 1600 MHz...showing my point about the memory Bandwidth.
(Quoted trolling deleted by moderator)


You're wrong they have used the exact same setup except the mobo. They have tested arma 2. And because you havn't tested it yourself you can't say they didn't use the same setting, they could have lied too on other benchmarks.


They didn't use the same brand mobo, ram different, ssds and hdds are different. Other wise, that's the only benchmark that 8350rocks hours by, and theres no explanation on what settings they used, making it an unfinished and unsuitable benchmark. Tek Syndicate is great, but they just suck sometimes.
!