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

[toyota]

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

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/unreal tournament 3 demo test _10160771017/15797.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/unreal tournament 3 demo test _10160771017/15798.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/unreal tournament 3 demo test _10160771017/15799.png

are you posting that to argue or agree? it backs up what I said. even at a stupidly low 1024x768 there is little overall difference depending on which map. at normal res there would be ZERO difference. again my E8500 was faster than a Q6600 in that game because the extra speed mattered more than having 2 more cores. clock for clock there would be no difference at 1280 on most maps and no difference at all at 1680. and that also backs up what I said about even just once core getting well over 60fps. so he did not notice a considerable boost at all unless he was playing at 800x600 and looking at the framerates the whole time.

 

[AtenRa]

are you posting that to argue or agree? it backs up what I said. even at a stupidly low 1024x768 there is little overall difference depending on which map. at normal res there would be ZERO difference. again my E8500 was faster than a Q6600 in that game because the extra speed mattered more than having 2 more cores. clock for clock there would be no difference at 1280 on most maps and no difference at all at 1680. and that also backs up what I said about even just once core getting well over 60fps. so he did not notice a considerable boost at all unless he was playing at 800x600 and looking at the framerates the whole time.

UT3 does almost nothing with a quad core.

I just show you that 4 cores does produce more fps no matter if you only need a single core to have more than 60fps.

 

[toyota]

I just show you that 4 cores does produce more fps no matter if you only need a single core to have more than 60fps.

look at the context. he was saying he saw a considerable difference. a quad core would not make noticeable difference at all in normal settings and even at low res there is little overall difference.

 

[AtenRa]

@ toyota
I was only replying to your post,
The fact is that Unreal Engine III was able to scale to 4 threads in 2007. I sure hope Unreal Engine 4 will scale to 8 threads in 2014.

 

[Shamrock]

Just to throw this out. I have an AMD Phenom II 955 BE, that I've been rockin' since 2009. Yes, it will even play Skyrim @1920x1200 4xAA/4xAF, will play RFactor 2 at same res.

But I have upgraded my video card once since 2009. AMD Sapphire 7850 OC.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Shamrock, the thing is most people who tell you that AMD sucks for gaming have never owned and Phenom II or even a FX system. For them 190 fps is much better visually than 170 fps.
My FX is a great gaming cpu IMO, never let me down in any game @1080 res

 

[frozentundra123456]

Shamrock, the thing is most people who tell you that AMD sucks for gaming have never owned and Phenom II or even a FX system. For them 190 fps is much better visually than 170 fps.
My FX is a great gaming cpu IMO, never let me down in any game @1080 res

Nobody is saying amd cpus are inadequate for gaming. However, there are plenty of games where the difference between an i5 or i7 and the 8350 is significant in the 50 fps range at 1080p. To imply that the CPU doesn't matter because both get very high frame rates in just incorrect.

 

[FalseChristian]

The FX 8350 is a great CPU. It's as fast as an i5 2500K and more future-proof with having 8 cores as opposed to 4. My i5 2500K overclocks better, though.

 

[toyota]

The FX 8350 is a great CPU. It's as fast as an i5 2500K and more future-proof with having 8 cores as opposed to 4. My i5 2500K overclocks better, though.

the 2500k will beat it now and overall with upcoming games too. its the same nonsense that people claimed about the Phenom X6. plus the 8350 is not really 8 real cores anyway.

 

[Durvelle27]

20 years

bwahahaha

 

[FalseChristian]

the 2500k will beat it now and overall with upcoming games too. its the same nonsense that people claimed about the Phenom X6. plus the 8350 is not really 8 real cores anyway.

His GPUs are what will make the most difference in games unless he plays at CPU-limited
resolutions like 1600x900. The FX-8350 isn't as fast as my i5 2500K at low resolutions but who games at CPU-limited resolutions anyways?

Enlighten me. I always want to learn more about computers. If the FX -8350 doesn't have 8 true cores like my i5 2500K has 4 true cores what the hell are they then?

 

[toyota]

His GPUs are what will make the most difference in games unless he plays at CPU-limited
resolutions like 1600x900. The FX-8350 isn't as fast as my i5 2500K at low resolutions but who games at CPU-limited resolutions anyways?

Enlighten me. I always want to learn more about computers. If the FX -8350 doesn't have 8 true cores like my i5 2500K has 4 true cores what the hell are they then?

well you can look up the topics on Bulldozer/Piledriver as its been discussed to death about it being 8 real cores or not. basically the 8350 has 4 modules with 2 "cores" in each module. its way better than HT but still not considered to be that same has a complete core.

 

[Arkaign]

well you can look up the topics on Bulldozer/Piledriver as its been discussed to death about it being 8 real cores or not. basically the 8350 has 4 modules with 2 "cores" in each module. its way better than HT but still not considered to be that same has a complete core.

Yeah. Imho part of the issue is that there are only 4 FPU schedulers, so anything FPU heavy will act more like a quad-core than a true 8 core unit, even if you break things down to solely 128-bit FPU instructions.

This was well proven, I saw benches of an 8150 with half the 'cores' disabled, only the first core of each module, and it was compared against a 4100 in normal mode at matching clocks. The 8150 'true' quad was dramatically better than the 4100, which showed the tangible penalties to the CMT design.

 

[aigomorla]

i bet u within 99.9999999% degree, your GPU will fail b4 your CPU does when determining how long will my cpu last.

 

[sequoia464]

Yeah. Imho part of the issue is that there are only 4 FPU schedulers, so anything FPU heavy will act more like a quad-core than a true 8 core unit, even if you break things down to solely 128-bit FPU instructions.

This was well proven, I saw benches of an 8150 with half the 'cores' disabled, only the first core of each module, and it was compared against a 4100 in normal mode at matching clocks. The 8150 'true' quad was dramatically better than the 4100, which showed the tangible penalties to the CMT design.

This is interesting to me. Curious as to the power draw when 4 cores are disabled. Did they do any testing on the power that you remember?

 

[Arkaign]

This is interesting to me. Curious as to the power draw when 4 cores are disabled. Did they do any testing on the power that you remember?

I don't remember I don't believe so though.

 

[sequoia464]

I don't remember I don't believe so though.

Thanks anyway, I'll do some searching and see if I can find something on it.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah. Imho part of the issue is that there are only 4 FPU schedulers, so anything FPU heavy will act more like a quad-core than a true 8 core unit, even if you break things down to solely 128-bit FPU instructions.

This was well proven, I saw benches of an 8150 with half the 'cores' disabled, only the first core of each module, and it was compared against a 4100 in normal mode at matching clocks. The 8150 'true' quad was dramatically better than the 4100, which showed the tangible penalties to the CMT design.

That. Most benchmarks were done on Windows 7. Windows 8 scheduler treats FX differently and parks "half-cores" quite regularly resulting in better performance in <= 4 thread workloads. IDC or somebody else could bench their FX and check that, as well as power consumption.

 

[bgt]

Well, I am absolutely stunned people claim the 2500 is faster @stock than a 8350. I switched from a 2500 to a 8350 and never wanted to go back anymore. The 2500 became a drag when Windows got more and more programs on it. Also doing a lot of zipping and unzipping&multitasking @ the same time made me change to a stronger chip, the 8350. Never regretted it. Bought a 3770K after that but that was hardly any change.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, I am absolutely stunned people claim the 2500 is faster @stock than a 8350. I switched from a 2500 to a 8350 and never wanted to go back anymore. The 2500 became a drag when Windows got more and more progras on it. Also doing a lot of zipping and unzipping&multitasking @ the same time made me change to a stronger chip, the 8350. Never regretted it. Bought a 3770K after that but that was hardly any change.

Maybe they actually looked at the multitude of benchmarks that show exactly that.

 

[shady28]

Well, I am absolutely stunned people claim the 2500 is faster @stock than a 8350. I switched from a 2500 to a 8350 and never wanted to go back anymore. The 2500 became a drag when Windows got more and more progras on it. Also doing a lot of zipping and unzipping&multitasking @ the same time made me change to a stronger chip, the 8350. Never regretted it. Bought a 3770K after that but that was hardly any change.

I agree. I picked up the FX-8320 for running multiple VM sessions for a test/dev setup. It is quite a bit better at that sort of thing than the i5-2500S (2.7Ghz) processor that is in the base 27" iMac.

When you run Visual Studio on a VM while running an application in another VM that is talking to a database in a 3rd VM, 4 cores just doesn't hack it without hyper-threading which of course the i5 doesn't have.

 

[aigomorla]

Gaming is NOT VM!
Why we bringing VM into this?

And i VM on a server which has a boat load of cores + ram.

Which Gaming doesnt need... it needs a boat load of VRAM and fast GPU Cores more then CPU cores.

Its completely the opposite of what the OP is asking for.

 

[PPB]

I think he just ment that with the 8320 he can do both alright (gaming and running VMs), he might even run them at the same time

 

[Rangerjr1]

FX8350 is already wastly behind in games.

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

Kind of cherry picking games here, Skyrim with 720p? Ofcourse intel is going to be better.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Kind of cherry picking games here, Skyrim with 720p? Ofcourse intel is going to be better.

May not be the best benchmark, but Intel is ahead in almost any other game you look at as well, except gpu limited ones.