Although it reflects differences in the overall and Physics scores, 3DMark 11 indicates relatively little difference in graphics performance betewen the Core i7-3770K and FX-8350. As a result, AMD's desktop flagship already looks like a better value. Of course, we need to see how it fares in real-world games first.
Because we're sticking to the benchmark-only version of the old Aliens vs. Predator title, I wedged the results between the purely synthetic 3DMark and Metro 2033's in-game flyby sequence.
Even at the lowest resolution (the one that'd be most susceptible to a processor bottleneck), AMD's FX is only negligibly slower, on average, than the Intel platform.
Naturally, we know that averages aren't everything though. Stick with us; we're going somewhere with this...
Processor bottlenecks are most common at low resolutions. But nobody games at 1920x1080 using an $800 combination of high-end cards. Scaling up from High to Very High details and full eye-candy in Metro 2033 tips the scales in favor of AMD's FX processor at 4800x900. As we approach 5760x1080, performance becomes marginal, and so we copied a few of the benchmark’s performance graphs to gauge playability more accurately.
- Chasing Bottlenecks To Eyefinity (But Not Beyond)
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Results: 3DMark, Aliens Vs. Predator, And Metro 2033
- Metro 2033, Second By Second
- Results: Battlefield 3, F1 2012, And Skyrim
- Battlefield 3, Frame By Frame
- Skyrim, Frame By Frame
- Power And Efficiency
- Can AMD's FX Keep Up With Its Radeon HD 7970?