AMD fx8350, How many years it can play games.?

[BallaTheFeared]

There is no way to know how threaded games will become, even if games start to use eight threads, and as a result 4 real and 4 fake the advantage will be between 20-25% most likely (this assumes all eight threads are loaded). i5 -> i7 is a 40% price increase.

IMO i7 is not worth it for gaming, because first and foremost just like with FX, games are not taking advantage of 4+ cores often (very rare, like 2-3 games) and the difference between the i5 and i7 in those games is very small. However the cost of the i7 is 40% greater than that of the i5.

i5 has been the gamer chip since it came out, it is quite popular for this one specific reason around forums like this.

 

[Chiropteran]

FX8350 is already wastly behind in games.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ntel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-16.html

Oh no, only 291 fps in low-detail dirt

I don't think anyone cares about that other than you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

My PhII still is playable in everything I've played (I don't play FPS games generally, though). I imagine an FX8350 should last at least three years. If games become better threaded, which has a decent chance of happening since the low IPC eight core AMD CPU's are in the next gen consoles, then it could do even better and last even longer.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Used to have people tell me i was stupid for buying a Q6600 G0 to replace a e6750 back in 2008,first game i played that made good use of quad cores was Unreal Tournament 3 and i found a considerate fps boost when i paired it with my old gtx280.

Today the Q6600+oc is still a considerable cpu and well you know the rest,that being said the fx8350 could be future proof,but considering its slower by far per core,its better to go with a core i5.

 

[Arian1]

thanks guys
thank you very much for a lot help.
is there any way to close post like select best answer, or something like that.

 

[denden42]

thanks guys
thank you very much for a lot help.
is there any way to close post like select best answer, or something like that.

only if u r the TS

 

[jacktesterson]

thanks guys
thank you very much for a lot help.
is there any way to close post like select best answer, or something like that.

No

 

[AtenRa]

Im sure both FX8350 and Core i5 will be able to play games for more than 3 years.

 

[PPB]

You will be ok for a couple of years. Dont worry.

 

[Leyawiin]

My PhII still is playable in everything I've played (I don't play FPS games generally, though).

Same here. My Phenom II X4 is four years old this summer and @4.0 Ghz its still fine at 1920x1200 with most games on highest or very nearly highest settings when paired with a GTX 670. While it may not be as fluid in some games I'm still waiting for that upgrade "choppiness" that used to tell me its time to spend some money back in the early to mid 2000s.

 

[MrRamon]

I'm sure it will last 5years. My main is still a AMD FX-55 with 3850 agp. Plan on upgrading next year

 

[jhu]

depends on the game. my 286 plays leisure suit larry just fine!

 

[escrow4]

Enough for the next 2yrs at least. I'm using an FX 6300 now and its sufficient. Yes its not as fast as Intel and yes there is a slight difference, but in the end that FX plus a 970 mobo cost me just above the price of a new Haswell i5, plus games now are increasingly multithreaded, which is where the FX series shines.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Used to have people tell me i was stupid for buying a Q6600 G0 to replace a e6750 back in 2008,first game i played that made good use of quad cores was Unreal Tournament 3 and i found a considerate fps boost when i paired it with my old gtx280.

Today the Q6600+oc is still a considerable cpu and well you know the rest,that being said the fx8350 could be future proof,but considering its slower by far per core,its better to go with a core i5.

Yes, the UE3 Engine, which is used in many other games, uses all cores.

Still playing Unreal Tournament III, online. North American servers

 

[toyota]

Used to have people tell me i was stupid for buying a Q6600 G0 to replace a e6750 back in 2008,first game i played that made good use of quad cores was Unreal Tournament 3 and i found a considerate fps boost when i paired it with my old gtx280.

Today the Q6600+oc is still a considerable cpu and well you know the rest,that being said the fx8350 could be future proof,but considering its slower by far per core,its better to go with a core i5.

UT3 does almost nothing with a quad core. I remember someone making that claim way back then and my E8500 with just 2 cores easily beat a Q6600. even just one core of the E8500 could average well over 60 fps in that game too.

 

[Arian1]

Enough for the next 2yrs at least. I'm using an FX 6300 now and its sufficient. Yes its not as fast as Intel and yes there is a slight difference, but in the end that FX plus a 970 mobo cost me just above the price of a new Haswell i5, plus games now are increasingly multithreaded, which is where the FX series shines.

what you think when will u upgrade..?

 

[escrow4]

what you think when will u upgrade..?

Currently, 2yrs minimum. Next upgrade will be the GPU not the CPU. The vast bulk of games still need GPU grunt at 1080p and above not CPU grunt, unless you like to play MMO's and multiplayer shooters (BF3).

 

[NostaSeronx]

Once the GPUs take over the compute front... forever.

 

[el etro]

You want to have more future-proof hardware? Go with the i7 4770k.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

UT3 does almost nothing with a quad core.

Next time i fire it up i'll post you a screen shot of Task Manager and the load on the cores.

 

[BigChickenJim]

It really depends on what you consider a "playable" FPS and what kind of games you play. If you are talking 30 FPS averages then I'd say you're good for at least a few years, especially because games are becoming increasingly more reliant on the GPU and less reliant on the CPU. You may even be able to skate a little further than that if games continue down the road to full multithreading. The FX CPUs Achilles' heel has always been their weak single-thread performance; as long as the market continues to move away from that kind of design you should be in good shape.

That said, if you can afford the price jump and are looking for maximum longevity, Intel may be a better bet.

 

[NostaSeronx]

The FX CPUs Achilles' heel has always been their weak single-thread performance; as long as the market continues to move away from that kind of design you should be in good shape.

Isn't that the Achilles' heel for all AMD CPUs? Bad software support equals bad hardware performance.

 

[BigChickenJim]

Isn't that the Achilles' heel for all AMD CPUs? Bad software support equals bad hardware performance.

I don't disagree. However, AMD's CPU performance is undeniably improving as games move towards full multithreading. They won't beat Intel any time soon (or ever, if we're honest), but they are still the sweet spot for budget gaming builds.

 

[toyota]

Next time i fire it up i'll post you a screen shot of Task Manager and the load on the cores.

it does not matter what you show, it is almost no faster than a dual core on the same architecture and speed.

 

[AtenRa]

UT3 does almost nothing with a quad core. I remember someone making that claim way back then and my E8500 with just 2 cores easily beat a Q6600. even just one core of the E8500 could average well over 60 fps in that game too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2352/4 (hell, thats from 2007:awe