that's a lot for anyone who actually works a job and/or has a family or gf.
And that the FX will be obsolete way before due to poor performance. Not to mention the 2500K whoops it as well massively.
Some of us did it. My overclocked 2500k at 4.4Ghz in most games beat the 4.6Ghz 8350 in pure fps. If you search there are some comparisons.I'd like to see what the 8350 will overclock to and compare it to an I5-2500k processor. I've had an i5-2500k processor since they came out and it has been overclocked to 4.5 ghz (stupidly easy to do) since I got it. I have yet to find a game that stumbles with the i5/GTX460 combo and it isn't even considered new tech. I game at 1080-1440 and haven't really found anything that pushes the envelope yet in terms of software requirements.
If you go down the same course that we will never see multithreaded games, maybe. But it has already started to be proven that current games run perfectly fine on FX, trust me, I owned an 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core variants, they do perform well and often I forget which PC I am running at times.
LOL at the 2500k whooping an 8350, as you should know they trade blows and AMD will beat it in multithreaded workloads hands down. I believe the 2500k will eventually become the underperformer once these console wars begin. Anything Intel 4c/8t will stay on top though.
Please don't bother bringing up power consumption. I am not talking about that and could care less about 50 watts while I am gaming.
It is a classic catch-22 though in terms of logic versus fallacy of logic.
If one argues that the cost associated with the power-consumption delta is irrelevant then one must concede so too is the price differential between the two processors and as such one would opt to purchase the more expensive and higher performing processor.
You either argue that one doesn't care about the smallish price differences and thusly one should logically opt to purchase the 3770k to maximize the ROI of their multi-GPU investment, or you can argue that the price delta is a big deal and as such the cost of electricity in running the 8350 versus the 3770k is of material significance and one ought to buy the 3770k to lower their TCO.
In either case, the conclusion is the same though - the 3770k is what one should buy to pair with their multi-gpu setup if the choice is limited to exclude S2011 options.
If you go down the same course that we will never see multithreaded games, maybe. But it has already started to be proven that current games run perfectly fine on FX, trust me, I owned an 8 core, 6 core, and 4 core variants, they do perform well and often I forget which PC I am running at times.
LOL at the 2500k whooping an 8350, as you should know they trade blows and AMD will beat it in multithreaded workloads hands down. I believe the 2500k will eventually become the underperformer once these console wars begin. Anything Intel 4c/8t will stay on top though.
Please don't bother bringing up power consumption. I am not talking about that and could care less about 50 watts while I am gaming.
Assuming you pay 11cents per Kw/H and not 30 or 40. Not to mention more heat/noise. And that the FX will be obsolete way before due to poor performance. Not to mention the 2500K whoops it as well massively. And thats in close to the same price range. (Today it would be a 3570K).
There is just no excuse to get a FX, besides the irrational.
The charts prove you otherwise as soon as the GPU limitation is removed.
You also quickly forget that those loads you talk about usually needs to be very highly scalable. Else it quickly goes terrible wrong for the FX CPUs again. So yes, the FX does well in a tiny niche of products. Just a shame people dont do that. There is a reason why AMDs CPU division is down to a 750mio$ quarterly revenue.
And funny enough, those applications that the FX does most poorly in, are those that are most realtime dependent.
I doubt that is true. The FX will probably age fairly well as software tends to become more multithreaded. And since we're talking gaming, with AMD's console wins there is a very good chance that we'll see more multithreaded games in the future, not less.
I am not saying the FX is a better choice, chances are it isn't. But I don't think it is a worse choice, at least not for the reasons you say. How much power difference are we talking about on an FX8350 vs. a 2500k or 3570k in gaming? Do you think a game that uses one - four threads (as many, many games do) is going to be closer to the max TDP on an eight core FX chip that has half or more of its cores basically unused or Intel quad?
Again, I'm not saying AMD will be better, but I think the power use difference in gaming isn't nearly what some of you make it out to be... especially when we figure the whole system draw with two GTX580's or 7970's. In the grand scheme of things, especially with multicard, I doubt there is a very large difference.
The way I see it, Intel makes more well rounded CPU's. Intel blows AMD away in single threaded performance. Intel generally are better with power use. But as this article shows, and as someone who is still quite happily gaming on a Thuban CPU, I think most people would have a hard time telling the difference between an FX and i5 in *most* games at the settings you actually play at in real life.
Assuming you pay 11cents per Kw/H and not 30 or 40. Not to mention more heat/noise. And that the FX will be obsolete way before due to poor performance. Not to mention the 2500K whoops it as well massively. And thats in close to the same price range. (Today it would be a 3570K).
There is just no excuse to get a FX, besides the irrational.
If anything it will age even more terrible. Since with age its lack of performance will shrine through even more. At least today people can hide behind "enough" FPS. More threads will not save the FX, if it even happens.
There will probably be some games that do struggle on the FX in the future. But then again I think there will also be games that struggle on i5 once the new consoles really have a foothold.
I think with AMD getting in all three major consoles that throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the gears. I don't think we can any longer use blanket statements that state Intel's current CPUs will automatically age better than AMD's current chips. Lightly threaded games may struggle on FX due to the lower IPC. On the other hand a game that is truly built for multithreaded use may run out of resources on an i5 before an FX.
I waited on the "console" argument. How many threads does the PS3 and Xbox360 support? How many did we get in games?
Its a moot argument until results are shown. Because history is against it.
And even then, the poor performance of the cores wont do it good either. Because unlike doing perfect scalable tasks. You got more serial code involved and it will slow it down massively. Lookup Amdahls law.
I agree. Unfortunately, the 3570k was NOT one of the cpus tested in the article.I just can't share your viewpoint OP. Considering the price is actually fairly similar to intel offerings such as the 3570 as mentioned? Why 8350?
Way to know your audience :biggrin:
I waited on the "console" argument. How many threads does the PS3 and Xbox360 support? How many did we get in games?
Its a moot argument until results are shown. Because history is against it.
In that too 60Fps is more than playable.
The whole point was not to mention if intel is better than AMD, we know it is. The point was AMD FX-8350 isn't a bad cpu after all. So basically if you are going the AMD route you aren't losing too much except for maybe in Civilization. In that too 60Fps is more than playable.
The whole point was not to mention if intel is better than AMD, we know it is. The point was AMD FX-8350 isn't a bad cpu after all. So basically if you are going the AMD route you aren't losing too much except for maybe in Civilization. In that too 60Fps is more than playable.
In this specific benchmark scene, it doesn't mean you can hold a steady 60+ in Civ5.