the truth about the FX-8350
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
CPUs
- Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
i have noticed, especially after the new forums have gone up, a ton of AMD fan boys invading the forum and proclaiming the FX-8350 as a better gaming CPU then the i5-3570. Not just a better value then the i5-3570 but a flat out better gaming CPU and an equal to the i7-3770. This has gotten so out of hand that many of the old forum CPU members have either left or stay away from the CPU forum. In fact tom's new CPU forum has become the GPU forum, nothing more then fan boys trolling and using scorch earth tactic (if brand A is great therefore brand B must suck or vice versa) to defend their position.
I have both an AMD/ATI and Intel/Nvidia set up so I have hats in each camp but frankly the camp names are meaningless to me. I pay for the best performance I feel my money gets me regardless of name.
The FX-8350 is a good CPU that offers good to very good gaming performance that few people would ever be able to tell apart from an intel i5 without benchmarks tools. That said it is not better in gaming performance as the i5 nor is it offering i7 performance. Lets look at actual facts from professional review sites, sites that pay their reviewers rather then get paid for their reviews.
1. tom's has always recommended the i5 over the FX-8 in best gaming CPU for your money. in fact the hierarchy chart has the FX-8 in the i7-870/970 ballpark
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
2. in tom's recent gaming shoot out the FX-8350 proved itself capable but not on par with the i5-2500k
http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/2/371198/original/Averag...
3. lets look at some the recent PC games just released
in simcity the FX-8 is capable but not on par with the i5
![]()
in tomb raider you see no difference
![]()
crysis 3 has the FX-8 and i5 neck and neck
![]()
as does far cry 3
![]()
4. the anandtech benchmark for the FX-8 and Intel i7-3770
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03....
the FX-8 puts up a good fight but looses in most benchmarks
on newegg the AMD FX-8350 is $15 cheaper then the i5-3570k. If the extra $15 can go into a better GPU then the FX-8350 makes sense as a better CPU. If the extra $15 is meaningless to the buyer then the i5-3570 is the better gaming CPU.
I have both an AMD/ATI and Intel/Nvidia set up so I have hats in each camp but frankly the camp names are meaningless to me. I pay for the best performance I feel my money gets me regardless of name.
The FX-8350 is a good CPU that offers good to very good gaming performance that few people would ever be able to tell apart from an intel i5 without benchmarks tools. That said it is not better in gaming performance as the i5 nor is it offering i7 performance. Lets look at actual facts from professional review sites, sites that pay their reviewers rather then get paid for their reviews.
1. tom's has always recommended the i5 over the FX-8 in best gaming CPU for your money. in fact the hierarchy chart has the FX-8 in the i7-870/970 ballpark
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
2. in tom's recent gaming shoot out the FX-8350 proved itself capable but not on par with the i5-2500k
http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/2/371198/original/Averag...
3. lets look at some the recent PC games just released
in simcity the FX-8 is capable but not on par with the i5

in tomb raider you see no difference

crysis 3 has the FX-8 and i5 neck and neck

as does far cry 3

4. the anandtech benchmark for the FX-8 and Intel i7-3770
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03....
the FX-8 puts up a good fight but looses in most benchmarks
on newegg the AMD FX-8350 is $15 cheaper then the i5-3570k. If the extra $15 can go into a better GPU then the FX-8350 makes sense as a better CPU. If the extra $15 is meaningless to the buyer then the i5-3570 is the better gaming CPU.
More about : truth 8350
It does put up a good fight, and it's a pretty good value. I'm not a fan of either, I just don't understand why I have seen several people on this website say that the fx 8350 doesn't even compare to an i3. If AMD is so bad then why are their processors used in the worlds most powerful super-computer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)
swilczak said:
It does put up a good fight, and it's a pretty good value. I'm not a fan of either, I just don't understand why I have seen several people on this website say that the fx 8350 doesn't even compare to an i3. If AMD is so bad then why are their processors used in the worlds most powerful super-computer?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)
that is also an unfair remark by intel fanboys as the AMD fx-8 is clearly a better gaming CPU and alll around CPU then the intel i3.
Related resources
- AMD FX8350 vs Intel i5-3570k I want the hard truth. Video Rendering and Multi-tasking. - Forum
- The Truth about Corsair PSUs - Forum
- Truth about Powerplans and hidden performance? - Forum
- Truth about CPUs supported RAM - Forum
- I want the hard truth about my mobo. - Forum
I do think that you mean to write something good, but benchmarks are benchmarks are benchmarks.
I've been Intel for a long time, treading up through the pentiums, first gen i3's for both mobile and desktop, and having a collection of Xeon's at my disposal for my workstation.
I would like to say I'm in the same boat as you, having both of best worlds, but I don't game on my Xeon, that sir is reserved for my processing fantasies.
I think mainly people are saying that AMD is generally cheaper in this timeframe because with Haswell coming out, an upgrade from the current 1155 IB or SB's will mean that not only will they have the purchase out a new CPU, but also a new motherboard, no doubt which will take time to reveal which board is the best to OC/game/etc. This was partially what affected my decision
I always say that the 2500/3570 can beat and are better than the 8350, that is of no doubt.
1) But considering that I saw Haswell coming, which would no doubt cost me much more in the future, should I stay with AMD, knowing that they will still be using AM3+ boards for a while and I can wait for the next 3-4 years and see what's happening? Not only did this factor into my decision, but who ws giving me my 8350 and board for half off. $330 for both and I get them for a mere $157? The devil ain't stupid, and the devil is also impatient.
2) The benchmarks you posted were those that I've seen a thousand times over before deciding. Can the eyes truly tell a difference between a 1-4 fps difference? Certainly not. And to most people is the $20 worth it? Well that's their decision. As long as I can have my C# visual apps processed faster than Thor's rainbow. It would be much more interesting had you posted bench's that showed the vast sums in difference of "min fps" between the 8350 and the 3570k. Certainly would raise my eyebrow and made for a great discussion.
I've seen quite a few games where the i5 musters the min fps by 20+ increase over the 8350.
3) I've only ever seen comments saying that the 8350, when overclocked can be equivalent to an 3770. The overclocking ability of the FX series have impressed me, whether Crap - bezi or Vishera as the AMDs always live up to. Hell at only a increase of 500Mhz on my 8350 ... my cinebench is on crack cocaine.
4) For the moment, from your benches, it doesn't hurt me one bit to suffer a 1-4 fps difference in FC3 or Crysis3 by having an 8350. I would rather wait just to see if Haswell is worth it, or save money and invest in AMD's future releases.
In the end, I will always recommend the 3570k.
I have always done so in these forums, when specified for gaming.
I will always recommend the 8350 if you game just as hard as you would on a 3570k, but with the needs of a programmer or Cad'er or photoshopper.
Just as I will recommend a Xeon for those who want nothing to do with games but are pure engineers in CAD/applications/a 32-thread freak.
You will always have your religions, be it AMD or Intel.
But just thoughts, or spewing from my mouth.
I've been Intel for a long time, treading up through the pentiums, first gen i3's for both mobile and desktop, and having a collection of Xeon's at my disposal for my workstation.
I would like to say I'm in the same boat as you, having both of best worlds, but I don't game on my Xeon, that sir is reserved for my processing fantasies.
I think mainly people are saying that AMD is generally cheaper in this timeframe because with Haswell coming out, an upgrade from the current 1155 IB or SB's will mean that not only will they have the purchase out a new CPU, but also a new motherboard, no doubt which will take time to reveal which board is the best to OC/game/etc. This was partially what affected my decision
I always say that the 2500/3570 can beat and are better than the 8350, that is of no doubt.
1) But considering that I saw Haswell coming, which would no doubt cost me much more in the future, should I stay with AMD, knowing that they will still be using AM3+ boards for a while and I can wait for the next 3-4 years and see what's happening? Not only did this factor into my decision, but who ws giving me my 8350 and board for half off. $330 for both and I get them for a mere $157? The devil ain't stupid, and the devil is also impatient.
2) The benchmarks you posted were those that I've seen a thousand times over before deciding. Can the eyes truly tell a difference between a 1-4 fps difference? Certainly not. And to most people is the $20 worth it? Well that's their decision. As long as I can have my C# visual apps processed faster than Thor's rainbow. It would be much more interesting had you posted bench's that showed the vast sums in difference of "min fps" between the 8350 and the 3570k. Certainly would raise my eyebrow and made for a great discussion.
I've seen quite a few games where the i5 musters the min fps by 20+ increase over the 8350.
3) I've only ever seen comments saying that the 8350, when overclocked can be equivalent to an 3770. The overclocking ability of the FX series have impressed me, whether Crap - bezi or Vishera as the AMDs always live up to. Hell at only a increase of 500Mhz on my 8350 ... my cinebench is on crack cocaine.
4) For the moment, from your benches, it doesn't hurt me one bit to suffer a 1-4 fps difference in FC3 or Crysis3 by having an 8350. I would rather wait just to see if Haswell is worth it, or save money and invest in AMD's future releases.
In the end, I will always recommend the 3570k.
I have always done so in these forums, when specified for gaming.
I will always recommend the 8350 if you game just as hard as you would on a 3570k, but with the needs of a programmer or Cad'er or photoshopper.
Just as I will recommend a Xeon for those who want nothing to do with games but are pure engineers in CAD/applications/a 32-thread freak.
You will always have your religions, be it AMD or Intel.
But just thoughts, or spewing from my mouth.
This is where the information is coming from:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
i don't know anything about this i3 vs fx-6 discussion so i won't talk about it.
you are one of the trolls who does nothing but spew fanboy posts to justify his AMD purchase that I mentioned above. you have done nothing to help these boards or people looking for facts. You make links to hack sites begging for page views by creating fake benchmarks. Hopefully your time here is limited.
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
i don't know anything about this i3 vs fx-6 discussion so i won't talk about it.
you are one of the trolls who does nothing but spew fanboy posts to justify his AMD purchase that I mentioned above. you have done nothing to help these boards or people looking for facts. You make links to hack sites begging for page views by creating fake benchmarks. Hopefully your time here is limited.
Thanks for the flames...always makes for an interesting day.
I don't make links to "hack sites" at all...openbenchmarking.org is a hacksite? osnews.com is a "hacksite"? Techreport.com is a "hacksite"?
I suppose pureoverclock and overclock.net are "hack sites" as well?
I am not giving anyone bad information, I am giving sound advice. Just because it flys in the face of the "intel is king" mantra around here (there are a LOT of Intel fanboys in here too, btw)...does not mean it isn't accurate. The FX-8350 is more than a $170 paper weight, and it's GREAT for gaming...I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between an AMD machine and a comparable intel machine if you sat down and watched them both. Someone did such an experiment as a matter of fact and swapped the labels between AMD and Intel, and most people picked the AMD system and were SHOCKED that AMD was that good. I wish I could find the link.
Furthermore, I am not trying to justify my purchase, I would wholeheartedly buy it again, whether you or anyone else in here approves, I care not...I am happy with my purchase. Though, I would rather see budget gamers get a system that will meet their criteria AND their budget, rather than skimp on something more necessary than a specific branded CPU because it is "3 FPS MOAR POWER!!!" You can't sit there and tell me you can tell a 3 FPS gap, I have never met anyone that could...most people can't tell a 20 FPS difference if the minimum frame rate is more than 30-40 FPS anyway...the difference between 60 and 40 is imperceptible to 90%+ of the world...so why make an enormous spectacle over it?
The haughty attitude of the intel nuts in this forum is a bit unsettling, frankly...and I don't plan on going anywhere. If anything, you should all be supporting the little fish in the pond, because if they go away...guess what? You only THOUGHT Intel was proud of their chips, if they're the only one....? How does a $500 i5-3570k sound? Not too good right? You know they would do it too.
So, I can't understand why you guys haven't even gone out and OBJECTIVELY looked at the facts, and done some digging of your own to find the REAL truth. You know all those benchmark sites you guys post links to...if you read them, they'll tell you margin for error is about 5-10% because they're using the same part numbers and make/model parts...but not the EXACT same part for these benchmarks. If you took any i5-3570k benchmark in a game and ran it against a FX-8350...I guarantee you the spread between those 2 on 90%+ of the games you always post about is LESS than the margin for error.
Additionally, EVEN ON THIS SITE, it says in the CPU hierarchy chart, if you're not moving at least 2-3 tiers up, it isn't even worth it because the difference in performance is not enough to realize the difference. Will some program show you a screen spitting out a slightly higher number? Sure! Will you PERSONALLY, be able to tell the difference? Nope.
So get off your high horse.
Edit:
BTW, Intel putting a flag into their compiler to "rook" AMD chips out of performance with more efficient code for intel chips isn't a hack news site talking either, you can google the court case, Intel had to pay AMD hundreds of millions in damages and they have been dragging their feet about changing the code. If you don't believe me, look up the court case yourself, you can find it easily.
Also, that isn't the first lawsuit AMD won against Intel for trade violations and illegal business practices...Intel is an unethical company with a long track record for it.
darkspartenwarrior
March 31, 2013 7:57:00 PM
Me watching FX-8350 vs 3570k debates as a 3930k owner/user.
http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif
It's like watching two sports teams not from your city compete, you don't have to waste energy cheering for one side and you can just sit back and watch the two sides kill each other.
http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif
It's like watching two sports teams not from your city compete, you don't have to waste energy cheering for one side and you can just sit back and watch the two sides kill each other.
I5/I7 Sandy/Ivy trumps any AMD processor at the same clock. This is neither "Fanboy" dribble nor some fantasy to justify purchase. This is common knowledge.
These CPU's are judged by stock frequency in almost every benchmark I see where the AMD crowd proclaim the FX 8350 somehow even measures up to any I7. To me this is retarded. You don't buy an unlocked CPU to let it sit stock. Especially when you basically could ram any Sandy/Ivy Intel up to 4.2-4.5 ghz w/o ever touching voltages or increasing temperature output. There are CPU's that have nearly identical overclocking potential on mainstream after market coolers and should therefore be judged on a clock for clock basis.
So ya, go ahead! Look at those benchmarks and tell me they are equals when comparing a 3.5 Ghz Intel to a 4.0 ghz AMD. Now put both of those processors at 4.0 ghz and watch Intel take a big giant turd all over the FX.
These CPU's are judged by stock frequency in almost every benchmark I see where the AMD crowd proclaim the FX 8350 somehow even measures up to any I7. To me this is retarded. You don't buy an unlocked CPU to let it sit stock. Especially when you basically could ram any Sandy/Ivy Intel up to 4.2-4.5 ghz w/o ever touching voltages or increasing temperature output. There are CPU's that have nearly identical overclocking potential on mainstream after market coolers and should therefore be judged on a clock for clock basis.
So ya, go ahead! Look at those benchmarks and tell me they are equals when comparing a 3.5 Ghz Intel to a 4.0 ghz AMD. Now put both of those processors at 4.0 ghz and watch Intel take a big giant turd all over the FX.
bigj1985 said:
I5/I7 Sandy/Ivy trumps any AMD processor at the same clock. This is neither "Fanboy" dribble nor some fantasy to justify purchase. This is common knowledge.These CPU's are judged by stock frequency in almost every benchmark I see where the AMD crowd proclaim the FX 8350 somehow even measures up to any I7. To me this is retarded. You don't buy an unlocked CPU to let it sit stock. Especially when you basically could ram any Sandy/Ivy Intel up to 4.2-4.5 ghz w/o ever touching voltages or increasing temperature output. There are CPU's that have nearly identical overclocking potential on mainstream after market coolers and should therefore be judged on a clock for clock basis.
So ya, go ahead! Look at those benchmarks and tell me they are equals when comparing a 3.5 Ghz Intel to a 4.0 ghz AMD. Now put both of those processors at 4.0 ghz and watch Intel take a big giant turd all over the FX.
Intel has 10 times the amount of employees, they make ten times as much money and they hold 80% of the market, so of course Intel is better, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Considering how small AMD is, they do a really good job trying to keep up with Intel. I've always been the type of person who likes to support the smaller companies over the big ones. I never shop at Walmart ever, even though it would be really convenient for me to do that, I just don't want to give my money to a company that is trying to take over the world. Other people don't care and they only buy from Intel, or they only shop at Walmart and that's fine.
bigj1985 said:
I5/I7 Sandy/Ivy trumps any AMD processor at the same clock. This is neither "Fanboy" dribble nor some fantasy to justify purchase. This is common knowledge.These CPU's are judged by stock frequency in almost every benchmark I see where the AMD crowd proclaim the FX 8350 somehow even measures up to any I7. To me this is retarded. You don't buy an unlocked CPU to let it sit stock. Especially when you basically could ram any Sandy/Ivy Intel up to 4.2-4.5 ghz w/o ever touching voltages or increasing temperature output. There are CPU's that have nearly identical overclocking potential on mainstream after market coolers and should therefore be judged on a clock for clock basis.
So ya, go ahead! Look at those benchmarks and tell me they are equals when comparing a 3.5 Ghz Intel to a 4.0 ghz AMD. Now put both of those processors at 4.0 ghz and watch Intel take a big giant turd all over the FX.
Ok, so OC your 3570k to 4.8 if you want, then compare it to a 8350 @ 5.6 GHz...since you want to talk OC potential now...the 8350 @ 5.6 has a 8.5 in Cinebench...
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
1: No one here cares about Linux.
2: No one uses ICC; hence why EVERY GAME installs some version of the MSVC runtime on install. [Seriously, I did a check a few weeks back; every single game in my 40+ game library was compiled with some form of MSVC++]
3: As has been beat to death in the AMD thread above, the FX series, if ever loaded to 100%, is faster then Intels chips. But it is very, very hard for a SINGLE program to use all that processing power [not easy to get 8 threads running in parallel without causing some other bottleneck first]. So Intel ends up ahead the majority of the time. [Crysis 3 with every graphical option set is the ONLY situation I've seen where the 8350 reliably comes ahead.]
gamerk316 said:
1: No one here cares about Linux.
2: No one uses ICC; hence why EVERY GAME installs some version of the MSVC runtime on install. [Seriously, I did a check a few weeks back; every single game in my 40+ game library was compiled with some form of MSVC++]
3: As has been beat to death in the AMD thread above, the FX series, if ever loaded to 100%, is faster then Intels chips. But it is very, very hard for a SINGLE program to use all that processing power [not easy to get 8 threads running in parallel without causing some other bottleneck first]. So Intel ends up ahead the majority of the time. [Crysis 3 with every graphical option set is the ONLY situation I've seen where the 8350 reliably comes ahead.]
1. Linux is gaining a lot of ground, game developer's are already porting major titles to Linux (Valve/Steam is a great example).
2. A LOT of synthetic benchmarks use ICC, I will concede a great many games run MSVC++, likely most if not all of them. Which is a neutral compiler and benefits both parties equally.
3. Yes, right now Intel is better in many games, the newest offerings though are seeing a point where the advantage is not enough to sweat over, and the next few releases will further exascerbate my point...(see GTA5 coming in September as well as the console ports this holiday season).
8350rocks said:
1. Linux is gaining a lot of ground, game developer's are already porting major titles to Linux (Valve/Steam is a great example).
Valve, who's engine was originally written in OpenGL, making a port trivial to do. Lets see some other dev port a major DX title over. Or at least something created in the last 5 years...
Quote:
2. A LOT of synthetic benchmarks use ICC, I will concede a great many games run MSVC++, likely most if not all of them. Which is a neutral compiler and benefits both parties equally.The major irony here, is ICC compiles significantly faster for AMD then MSVC, GCC, or any other compiler out there. [There was a link that proved this back in the PD thread]. So the argument against ICC is moot, because even WITHOUT the best optimizations, its still faster then MSVC with optimizations.
Quote:
3. Yes, right now Intel is better in many games, the newest offerings though are seeing a point where the advantage is not enough to sweat over, and the next few releases will further exascerbate my point...(see GTA5 coming in September as well as the console ports this holiday season).GTA is a horrid example, as all their PC ports have been crap. Kinda kills your argument.
Secondly, the root issue hasn't changed: Game engines are not designed to run multiple, high workload, parallel threads, which limits the effect of multi-core CPU's. As a result, most games get GPU limited long before the CPU becomes a factor.
gamerk316 said:
Valve, who's engine was originally written in OpenGL, making a port trivial to do. Lets see some other dev port a major DX title over. Or at least something created in the last 5 years...
Ok, Linux ports...let's see...ID games ports everything to Linux, and there are programs to run windows compatible games on Linux software in addition to hard coded ports.
gamerk316 said:
The major irony here, is ICC compiles significantly faster for AMD then MSVC, GCC, or any other compiler out there. [There was a link that proved this back in the PD thread]. So the argument against ICC is moot, because even WITHOUT the best optimizations, its still faster then MSVC with optimizations.
And it compiles even faster for intel chips, significantly faster than it does for AMD, so MSVC++ does not favor one or the other brand, and it will compile at roughly the same rates for either chip. That means that it will compile EQUALLY for both...instead of heavily favoring one over the other. This my friend is called "fair".
gamerk316 said:
GTA is a horrid example, as all their PC ports have been crap. Kinda kills your argument.Secondly, the root issue hasn't changed: Game engines are not designed to run multiple, high workload, parallel threads, which limits the effect of multi-core CPU's. As a result, most games get GPU limited long before the CPU becomes a factor.
Oh really, I can tell you that they are being designed currently to do that...want to guess what I do for a living? My degree was in Game Design...and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement. Unfortunately due to a signed NDA and legal penalties, I cannot discuss much more than that.
Take a look at CryEngine, ICE, and Unreal4 engines...they are all designed to run on 4+ Cores...they will also happen to be the "under the hood muscle" for about 60-70% of most games for the next 4-5 years...
8350rocks said:
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
i don't know anything about this i3 vs fx-6 discussion so i won't talk about it.
you are one of the trolls who does nothing but spew fanboy posts to justify his AMD purchase that I mentioned above. you have done nothing to help these boards or people looking for facts. You make links to hack sites begging for page views by creating fake benchmarks. Hopefully your time here is limited.
Thanks for the flames...always makes for an interesting day.
I don't make links to "hack sites" at all...openbenchmarking.org is a hacksite? osnews.com is a "hacksite"? Techreport.com is a "hacksite"?
I suppose pureoverclock and overclock.net are "hack sites" as well?
I am not giving anyone bad information, I am giving sound advice. Just because it flys in the face of the "intel is king" mantra around here (there are a LOT of Intel fanboys in here too, btw)...does not mean it isn't accurate. The FX-8350 is more than a $170 paper weight, and it's GREAT for gaming...I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between an AMD machine and a comparable intel machine if you sat down and watched them both. Someone did such an experiment as a matter of fact and swapped the labels between AMD and Intel, and most people picked the AMD system and were SHOCKED that AMD was that good. I wish I could find the link.
Furthermore, I am not trying to justify my purchase, I would wholeheartedly buy it again, whether you or anyone else in here approves, I care not...I am happy with my purchase. Though, I would rather see budget gamers get a system that will meet their criteria AND their budget, rather than skimp on something more necessary than a specific branded CPU because it is "3 FPS MOAR POWER!!!" You can't sit there and tell me you can tell a 3 FPS gap, I have never met anyone that could...most people can't tell a 20 FPS difference if the minimum frame rate is more than 30-40 FPS anyway...the difference between 60 and 40 is imperceptible to 90%+ of the world...so why make an enormous spectacle over it?
The haughty attitude of the intel nuts in this forum is a bit unsettling, frankly...and I don't plan on going anywhere. If anything, you should all be supporting the little fish in the pond, because if they go away...guess what? You only THOUGHT Intel was proud of their chips, if they're the only one....? How does a $500 i5-3570k sound? Not too good right? You know they would do it too.
So, I can't understand why you guys haven't even gone out and OBJECTIVELY looked at the facts, and done some digging of your own to find the REAL truth. You know all those benchmark sites you guys post links to...if you read them, they'll tell you margin for error is about 5-10% because they're using the same part numbers and make/model parts...but not the EXACT same part for these benchmarks. If you took any i5-3570k benchmark in a game and ran it against a FX-8350...I guarantee you the spread between those 2 on 90%+ of the games you always post about is LESS than the margin for error.
Additionally, EVEN ON THIS SITE, it says in the CPU hierarchy chart, if you're not moving at least 2-3 tiers up, it isn't even worth it because the difference in performance is not enough to realize the difference. Will some program show you a screen spitting out a slightly higher number? Sure! Will you PERSONALLY, be able to tell the difference? Nope.
So get off your high horse.
Edit:
BTW, Intel putting a flag into their compiler to "rook" AMD chips out of performance with more efficient code for intel chips isn't a hack news site talking either, you can google the court case, Intel had to pay AMD hundreds of millions in damages and they have been dragging their feet about changing the code. If you don't believe me, look up the court case yourself, you can find it easily.
Also, that isn't the first lawsuit AMD won against Intel for trade violations and illegal business practices...Intel is an unethical company with a long track record for it.
8350rocks said:
gamerk316 said:
Valve, who's engine was originally written in OpenGL, making a port trivial to do. Lets see some other dev port a major DX title over. Or at least something created in the last 5 years...
Ok, Linux ports...let's see...ID games ports everything to Linux, and there are programs to run windows compatible games on Linux software in addition to hard coded ports.
gamerk316 said:
The major irony here, is ICC compiles significantly faster for AMD then MSVC, GCC, or any other compiler out there. [There was a link that proved this back in the PD thread]. So the argument against ICC is moot, because even WITHOUT the best optimizations, its still faster then MSVC with optimizations.
And it compiles even faster for intel chips, significantly faster than it does for AMD, so MSVC++ does not favor one or the other brand, and it will compile at roughly the same rates for either chip. That means that it will compile EQUALLY for both...instead of heavily favoring one over the other. This my friend is called "fair".
gamerk316 said:
GTA is a horrid example, as all their PC ports have been crap. Kinda kills your argument.Secondly, the root issue hasn't changed: Game engines are not designed to run multiple, high workload, parallel threads, which limits the effect of multi-core CPU's. As a result, most games get GPU limited long before the CPU becomes a factor.
Oh really, I can tell you that they are being designed currently to do that...want to guess what I do for a living? My degree was in Game Design...and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement. Unfortunately due to a signed NDA and legal penalties, I cannot discuss much more than that.
Take a look at CryEngine, ICE, and Unreal4 engines...they are all designed to run on 4+ Cores...they will also happen to be the "under the hood muscle" for about 60-70% of most games for the next 4-5 years...
If you want people to take you seriously, rather then just the posting of an AMD fanboy, I strongly suggest you read the link below.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Proper-Capitalization
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
i don't know anything about this i3 vs fx-6 discussion so i won't talk about it.
you are one of the trolls who does nothing but spew fanboy posts to justify his AMD purchase that I mentioned above. you have done nothing to help these boards or people looking for facts. You make links to hack sites begging for page views by creating fake benchmarks. Hopefully your time here is limited.
Thanks for the flames...always makes for an interesting day.
I don't make links to "hack sites" at all...openbenchmarking.org is a hacksite? osnews.com is a "hacksite"? Techreport.com is a "hacksite"?
I suppose pureoverclock and overclock.net are "hack sites" as well?
I am not giving anyone bad information, I am giving sound advice. Just because it flys in the face of the "intel is king" mantra around here (there are a LOT of Intel fanboys in here too, btw)...does not mean it isn't accurate. The FX-8350 is more than a $170 paper weight, and it's GREAT for gaming...I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between an AMD machine and a comparable intel machine if you sat down and watched them both. Someone did such an experiment as a matter of fact and swapped the labels between AMD and Intel, and most people picked the AMD system and were SHOCKED that AMD was that good. I wish I could find the link.
Furthermore, I am not trying to justify my purchase, I would wholeheartedly buy it again, whether you or anyone else in here approves, I care not...I am happy with my purchase. Though, I would rather see budget gamers get a system that will meet their criteria AND their budget, rather than skimp on something more necessary than a specific branded CPU because it is "3 FPS MOAR POWER!!!" You can't sit there and tell me you can tell a 3 FPS gap, I have never met anyone that could...most people can't tell a 20 FPS difference if the minimum frame rate is more than 30-40 FPS anyway...the difference between 60 and 40 is imperceptible to 90%+ of the world...so why make an enormous spectacle over it?
The haughty attitude of the intel nuts in this forum is a bit unsettling, frankly...and I don't plan on going anywhere. If anything, you should all be supporting the little fish in the pond, because if they go away...guess what? You only THOUGHT Intel was proud of their chips, if they're the only one....? How does a $500 i5-3570k sound? Not too good right? You know they would do it too.
So, I can't understand why you guys haven't even gone out and OBJECTIVELY looked at the facts, and done some digging of your own to find the REAL truth. You know all those benchmark sites you guys post links to...if you read them, they'll tell you margin for error is about 5-10% because they're using the same part numbers and make/model parts...but not the EXACT same part for these benchmarks. If you took any i5-3570k benchmark in a game and ran it against a FX-8350...I guarantee you the spread between those 2 on 90%+ of the games you always post about is LESS than the margin for error.
Additionally, EVEN ON THIS SITE, it says in the CPU hierarchy chart, if you're not moving at least 2-3 tiers up, it isn't even worth it because the difference in performance is not enough to realize the difference. Will some program show you a screen spitting out a slightly higher number? Sure! Will you PERSONALLY, be able to tell the difference? Nope.
So get off your high horse.
Edit:
BTW, Intel putting a flag into their compiler to "rook" AMD chips out of performance with more efficient code for intel chips isn't a hack news site talking either, you can google the court case, Intel had to pay AMD hundreds of millions in damages and they have been dragging their feet about changing the code. If you don't believe me, look up the court case yourself, you can find it easily.
Also, that isn't the first lawsuit AMD won against Intel for trade violations and illegal business practices...Intel is an unethical company with a long track record for it.
8350rocks said:
gamerk316 said:
Valve, who's engine was originally written in OpenGL, making a port trivial to do. Lets see some other dev port a major DX title over. Or at least something created in the last 5 years...
Ok, Linux ports...let's see...ID games ports everything to Linux, and there are programs to run windows compatible games on Linux software in addition to hard coded ports.
gamerk316 said:
The major irony here, is ICC compiles significantly faster for AMD then MSVC, GCC, or any other compiler out there. [There was a link that proved this back in the PD thread]. So the argument against ICC is moot, because even WITHOUT the best optimizations, its still faster then MSVC with optimizations.
And it compiles even faster for intel chips, significantly faster than it does for AMD, so MSVC++ does not favor one or the other brand, and it will compile at roughly the same rates for either chip. That means that it will compile EQUALLY for both...instead of heavily favoring one over the other. This my friend is called "fair".
gamerk316 said:
GTA is a horrid example, as all their PC ports have been crap. Kinda kills your argument.Secondly, the root issue hasn't changed: Game engines are not designed to run multiple, high workload, parallel threads, which limits the effect of multi-core CPU's. As a result, most games get GPU limited long before the CPU becomes a factor.
Oh really, I can tell you that they are being designed currently to do that...want to guess what I do for a living? My degree was in Game Design...and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement. Unfortunately due to a signed NDA and legal penalties, I cannot discuss much more than that.
Take a look at CryEngine, ICE, and Unreal4 engines...they are all designed to run on 4+ Cores...they will also happen to be the "under the hood muscle" for about 60-70% of most games for the next 4-5 years...
If you want people to take you seriously, rather then just the posting of an AMD fanboy, I strongly suggest you read the link below.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Proper-Capitalization
Previously, I thought you may have been trolling...
I am now certain you are trolling...
QuickSHADOWMAN
April 2, 2013 5:45:05 PM
8350rocks said:
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
This is where the information is coming from:http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1211204-SU-1210227RA...
Note the popular John the Ripper benchmark against all the intels
This is also a point of speculation as well:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remov...
This has some curious results as well:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
So, it appears...that there are multiple sources for benchmarks, and many that can be produced will show both sides more or less equal.
Having said that, earlier today, I witnessed someone knowingly give a budget gamer advice to buy an i3 over a FX6300 simply because it was intel and "intel is better at game benchmarks". Now, that is a flat out issuance of bad advice, and I cannot sit back and allow some poor sap to spend $130 on an i3, when he could get FAR more processor for the money.
I concede on a build over $1100-1200 you can't argue against intel...but for budget gaming builds...I can't sit back and argue for them knowing that 70%+ of budget gamers have monitors that wouldn't allow them to realize the performance difference between 107 and 109 FPS as they would never realize the performance gain anyway.
i don't know anything about this i3 vs fx-6 discussion so i won't talk about it.
you are one of the trolls who does nothing but spew fanboy posts to justify his AMD purchase that I mentioned above. you have done nothing to help these boards or people looking for facts. You make links to hack sites begging for page views by creating fake benchmarks. Hopefully your time here is limited.
Thanks for the flames...always makes for an interesting day.
I don't make links to "hack sites" at all...openbenchmarking.org is a hacksite? osnews.com is a "hacksite"? Techreport.com is a "hacksite"?
I suppose pureoverclock and overclock.net are "hack sites" as well?
I am not giving anyone bad information, I am giving sound advice. Just because it flys in the face of the "intel is king" mantra around here (there are a LOT of Intel fanboys in here too, btw)...does not mean it isn't accurate. The FX-8350 is more than a $170 paper weight, and it's GREAT for gaming...I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between an AMD machine and a comparable intel machine if you sat down and watched them both. Someone did such an experiment as a matter of fact and swapped the labels between AMD and Intel, and most people picked the AMD system and were SHOCKED that AMD was that good. I wish I could find the link.
Furthermore, I am not trying to justify my purchase, I would wholeheartedly buy it again, whether you or anyone else in here approves, I care not...I am happy with my purchase. Though, I would rather see budget gamers get a system that will meet their criteria AND their budget, rather than skimp on something more necessary than a specific branded CPU because it is "3 FPS MOAR POWER!!!" You can't sit there and tell me you can tell a 3 FPS gap, I have never met anyone that could...most people can't tell a 20 FPS difference if the minimum frame rate is more than 30-40 FPS anyway...the difference between 60 and 40 is imperceptible to 90%+ of the world...so why make an enormous spectacle over it?
The haughty attitude of the intel nuts in this forum is a bit unsettling, frankly...and I don't plan on going anywhere. If anything, you should all be supporting the little fish in the pond, because if they go away...guess what? You only THOUGHT Intel was proud of their chips, if they're the only one....? How does a $500 i5-3570k sound? Not too good right? You know they would do it too.
So, I can't understand why you guys haven't even gone out and OBJECTIVELY looked at the facts, and done some digging of your own to find the REAL truth. You know all those benchmark sites you guys post links to...if you read them, they'll tell you margin for error is about 5-10% because they're using the same part numbers and make/model parts...but not the EXACT same part for these benchmarks. If you took any i5-3570k benchmark in a game and ran it against a FX-8350...I guarantee you the spread between those 2 on 90%+ of the games you always post about is LESS than the margin for error.
Additionally, EVEN ON THIS SITE, it says in the CPU hierarchy chart, if you're not moving at least 2-3 tiers up, it isn't even worth it because the difference in performance is not enough to realize the difference. Will some program show you a screen spitting out a slightly higher number? Sure! Will you PERSONALLY, be able to tell the difference? Nope.
So get off your high horse.
Edit:
BTW, Intel putting a flag into their compiler to "rook" AMD chips out of performance with more efficient code for intel chips isn't a hack news site talking either, you can google the court case, Intel had to pay AMD hundreds of millions in damages and they have been dragging their feet about changing the code. If you don't believe me, look up the court case yourself, you can find it easily.
Also, that isn't the first lawsuit AMD won against Intel for trade violations and illegal business practices...Intel is an unethical company with a long track record for it.
I used to use Intel CPU's then bought a machine that had AMD in it, and at that time I really didn't understand this whole argument of who is better. When I learned about the unfair trade practices, I made my choice for AMD. I am just Joe Sixpack, and at the end of the day want to enjoy myself. In some things I want the better performance, but above all else, I want fair play. When someone cheats to win, that is not fair play, so AMD will get my $$. Back in the 1800's, when someone cheated, they ended up in Boot Hill. Today we need to have a corporate Boot Hill, and maybe unfair trade practices will be something to be feared to use. I may be pipe dreaming, but it sure would make the business community a little nicer to the consumer. Just my two cents.
dirtyferret said:
8350rocks said:
Previously, I thought you may have been trolling...
I am now certain you are trolling...
I see you are now trying to take over another thread with your trolling and flames. Enjoy your ban as the mods have been alerted.
You are insinuating that I was flaming you? That's hilarious...somehow, I don't think I'll be going anywhere...
You were the one doing both of those activities..
8350rocks said:
Ok, Linux ports...let's see...ID games ports everything to Linux, and there are programs to run windows compatible games on Linux software in addition to hard coded ports.Note the trend: OpenGL stuff gets ported to Linux, which uses OpenGL.
*shock*
gamerk316 said:
And it compiles even faster for intel chips, significantly faster than it does for AMD, so MSVC++ does not favor one or the other brand, and it will compile at roughly the same rates for either chip. That means that it will compile EQUALLY for both...instead of heavily favoring one over the other. This my friend is called "fair".
So I take it you view TressFX as "unfiar" as well, since it gives AMD chips a competitive advantage?
Guess what? Its Intels Compiler, that Intel developed, at their own cost. They can do whatever they want with it. But hey, if you put "fairness" over performance, thats cool. Just don't complain when performance suffers as a result.
gamerk316 said:
Oh really, I can tell you that they are being designed currently to do that...want to guess what I do for a living? My degree was in Game Design...and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement. Unfortunately due to a signed NDA and legal penalties, I cannot discuss much more than that.Funny, considering most NDA's I've signed over the years allow you talk in general terms, as long as the design itself isn't compromised.
Secondly, "and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement" is blatantly false, simply for economic reasons (you cut out 90% of the possible market).
gamerk316 said:
Note the trend: OpenGL stuff gets ported to Linux, which uses OpenGL.
*shock*
You're going to be skeptical no matter what I say, just the same as you are anytime you post a comment in response to anything I say.
gamerk316 said:
So I take it you view TressFX as "unfiar" as well, since it gives AMD chips a competitive advantage?
That's a proprietary 3d rendering technology...it's something developer's can choose to use in their game or not...a compiler is a basic function that generates code required for anything. They're NOT the same thing.
gamerk316 said:
Guess what? Its Intels Compiler, that Intel developed, at their own cost. They can do whatever they want with it. But hey, if you put "fairness" over performance, thats cool. Just don't complain when performance suffers as a result.Yes, just as TressFX is AMD's own proprietary technology...Nvidia can cry over it all they want, it won't change anything.
gamerk316 said:
Funny, considering most NDA's I've signed over the years allow you talk in general terms, as long as the design itself isn't compromised.Secondly, "and I can only tell you that NOTHING in the studio is being developed for less than 4 cores, and some of them will recommend 4 core + HT or 6 cores with a 4 core minimum requirement" is blatantly false, simply for economic reasons (you cut out 90% of the possible market).
The NDA I signed is in regards to design and IP, and I am really not going to get specific into something involving IP as it's all a very "gray area" relatively.
Also, you're not cutting out 90% of the possible market, the latest information we have shows a 55% penetration of 4+ core processors and by the time we release, we project that number to be much closer to 65-70% penetration. Also, as the project I am working on is Dynamic in nature and will be a fully maintained venture for years to come, we are aiming for the higher end of the segment because everything is moving that way already.
Additionally, we expect that the demographic our company is aiming for...(mature adults that fall into the solidly middle class segment)...will already own hardware sufficient to run the software, or better by the time we release. Will it be playable on a 2 core processor? Sure...will it be anywhere near the performance of a 4+ core? We expect not...but that's what low settings and small resolutions are for...
Related resources
- SolvedTruth about a Gigabit Switch? Forum
- The truth about this gpu! Forum
- Solvedthe truth about 3D & AMD gpu's... Forum
- Truth about Intel HD 2nd 3rd gen graphics..yes is that awful heres why... Forum
- Truth About PCI Express Bandwidth Usage- Nvidia Tesla / Quadro Setup Forum
- The truth about cheap and bad power supplies Forum
- Wha's the truth about the SSD's dilemma ? Forum
- The shocking truth about the price of consoles. Forum
- Wondering truth about Asus Motherboard M4A78LT-M? PLEASE SOMEONE HELP! Forum
- SolvedQuestion about FX-8350 Forum
- SolvedHELP - about fx-8350 and Asus GTX 780 Ti [NEWBIE] Forum
- The hard truth about Freecom Hard Drive Dock Pro (voltage problem?) Forum
- Gigabyte not telling the truth about mobo quality? Forum
- The TRUTH about GPU temperatures Forum
- TSMC lies about yields, Dirk tells the truth Forum
- More resources
!