FX-8350 CPU bottleneck?

[Erenhardt]

@Aithos,
Thanks for you input, but...
All the AT graphs are 1080p. No one argues that intel isn't faster - it is! But really, who is going to play dual titans in 1080p? Intel is clearly ahead when the CPU is bottleneck. Why would you buy two titans (or 290x) and only use 50% of each? Titan/290x is overkill for 1080p, no one recommends one for that resolution.
Here, from you own links:

Basically no difference. Maybe in power consumption.
But now here comes Mantle. What are the chances that Mantle will be suited to use fx processors better? Going "wide" on rendering may be more beneficial to AMD processors.

Intel CPUs are great, but only when you have money you don't need or you have to upgrade whole platform (and still can take the premium ;P)

They are good for benches too

There was a review on youtube that compared intel to fx with and without fraps recording gameplay. FX suffered almost no performance hit compared to intel.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

There is certainly no denying that when the cpu doesn't matter the 8350 doesn't matter equally as much as Intel options.

Mantle should benefit both equally, since the 8350 needs all eight cores just to keep pace with the lower clocked i5.

That said Mantle is really constrained in scope, and I certainly wouldn't bank on my future plans with it in mind.

 

[Erenhardt]

That said Mantle is really constrained in scope, and I certainly wouldn't bank on my future plans with it in mind.

That statement could be true if one was thinking to buy FX CPU. But if you already have it, no harm in waiting really - at least its how I see it.

 

[guskline]

Well at the moment I have a potential buyer for a combo Mobo/CPU for around 300$ which means I drasticly cust my losses. If I wait, the value of the gear will depreciate and my losses will be greater. That is why I wanted to know what was best at the moment.

If you can get $300 for the 8350 and the mb take it and jump to Intel. I'd get a 4770k/mb combo from MicroCenter.

 

[RiDE]

Look we both know exactly what you are.

Pot calling kettle black... thanks for the laugh.

 

[ChuckFx]

If you can get $300 for the 8350 and the mb take it and jump to Intel. I'd get a 4770k/mb combo from MicroCenter.

Well I wish I could buy from microcenter but I am in Canada so no stores or possibility to ship. And for some obscure reason, we have a good 20-30$ extra on all items even when they ship from US, not counting taxes or shipping. Adding the fact we often don't have the excellent deals US customers have on Amazon and Newegg.com.

An i7 4770k is 349 here. i5 4670k is 249.

From all I could read up until now, I don't see real benefits that justify 100 extra for an i7 even on triple screen.

 

[isawthedevil]

And what exactly am I ???

Amd Rep.How's your Nda by the way?Do you really want me to post confidential files in public?
(do your reports now)

http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead


ps:
you might need to repaint it,its not red enough :awe:
http://imageshack.com/a/img11/2460/jw07.jpg


Uncalled for, off-toic, and insulting. Knock it off, or its vacation time.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[AlNasty]

I tried the 290 in my 8350 rig while waiting for my 4770k stuff to show up. I was not impressed overall with the couple of games I played, as well as benchmarks using the 8350. I did not get a nice smile on my face until I plugged it into the Intel system.

I had tried the GTX 680 in both the 8350 and the 3570k, and the 3570k was hands down a better
performer. The 8350 oc'd I thought gave simular performance, but still less when compared with the 3570k at stock. That said, it is only a bigger improvement to step up to a nice cpu like a 4770k.

I think if you want the most from your new card, and can afford the upgrade...jumping up to a 4770k is the way to go.

 

[icanhascpu2]

Even a 2500K is going to kick a 83xx s ass in most areas.

Unless you're running a special setup, like you need a VM to run on each core, or you have constant things running that make a NEED for more than 4 cores, you will almost always get better performance even out of a 2500K let alone the newer generations.

Running FRAPS isnt going to matter. Set the game for 3 cores and fraps to the last core. There arn't many (none that I know of) game that bottleneck a 2500K even if you have SLI 690s. The FX line isnt for gaming. Its for very large multitasking. and fraps+game is NOT multitasking in this sense. Its just general use.

Also the i5s OC better than the FX, run cooler, run less $ and are just all around better chips. I would know, I have a 965BE. I learned the hard way. The FX line are good chips. The i5 line are simply great ones.

Many games are still one core bound. ALMOST EVERY GAME MADE uses 4 cores or LESS. Most use 2 cores. You might think "Oh well then Ill use those 2 AMD cores and have 6 left over for free!!1" And technically yes, except the tradeoff is the 2 AMD cores are going to bottleneck because individual cores are nowhere near the level at the i5s. If applications/games took advantage of 8 cores, this would be a no-contest and the FX would be king. This is the mistake I personally made when I got my 965BE. The core number isnt useful unless you have actual shit that can utilize it. When you dont you're cripples by the lackluster per-core performance. So when you see benchmarks, ask yourself if its RELEVANT to what YOU are going to be doing, and not just cherrypicked.