58 replies to this topic

[ninjitsu]

Anybody looking to buy an AMD FX 8350, it's got a pretty good sale going on.

http://www.newegg.co...-_-19113284-L0D

$20 off with promo code 74JULY157

Edited by ninjitsu, 01 July 2014 - 09:24 AM.

[xWiredx]

Cue seventy more cases of low FPS in MWO in 3...2...1...

[ninjitsu]

xWiredx, on 01 July 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Cue seventy more cases of low FPS in MWO in 3...2...1...

I didn't say anything about it being good. Just that it's cheap.

[Catamount]

The 8350 is a fine processor for most multithreaded apps especially for the price; it's just a poor gaming processor.

[Lordred]

Runs great if you have a motherboard which allows for 1CpM

[Zuesacoatl]

xWiredx, on 01 July 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Cue seventy more cases of low FPS in MWO in 3...2...1...

leave it to an Intel fan Boi to spew crap Like this. I run an 8350 with 16 gb of ram on an asus Saber tooth and an 8770 and I never drop below 80fps while being ultra high and custom user configuration for ultra high graphics.

[Fang01]

8350 works great for me. Havent even turned the clocks up

[Catamount]

80fps minimum on an 8350? Color me skeptical, no matter how much that "custom user config" cut out or how well it uses those modules. I don't start seeing IB and Haswell post minimums like that until the mid 4 range (and perhaps not even then), so unless that 8350 is running at like 7ghz on LN2, then frankly, it simply sounds to me like someone doesn't watch their minimums very closely.

I'm a blatant AMD fanboy, but I'm not going to tell people that the 8350 is a good chip for MWO, because it isn't. For not much more, there are a number of i5 models that do far better.

[WarGruf]

Meh, My FX8350 runs at 4.7Ghz underwater with an R9 270x. The game is a playable 60fps dipping to 40(ish) with Maxed detail 1920x1080, AA off, V-sync on, Damage glow on.

That is in a Sabertooth FX 990 R2.0 and installed on a SSD that runs over 1400Mb/s read / write. Perhaps with an R9 290x or Geforce Titan 80fps is possible, but the game has a lot of room for improvement with AMD gear...

Oooooh, just incase. The new AMD Beta driver 14.6RC made quite a bit of difference on my PC, I am seeing a lot less fps dips than with the 14.4 driver..

[Goose]

Zuesacoatl, on 01 July 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

… I never drop below 80fps while being ultra high and custom user configuration for ultra high graphics.

Log files or it didn't happen …

[Bront]

If I can play the game on an old i7 1.6 ghz laptop CPU, this should be just fine for a low to mid range desktop, and with a decient video card and ram, should run the game very well at 1080P, possibly with all the settings turned up.

Now, you're kind of peaking your performance there, and for more money you can probably do better which will last longer, but if money's tight, it's not a bad option.

[Alreech]

Catamount, on 01 July 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

The 8350 is a fine processor for most multithreaded apps especially for the price; it's just a poor gaming processor.

That depends on the game.

PC Games Hardware, a German Computer Journal has done a big review of different CPUs in the latest issue.
They noticed a big difference between the FX 8350 and the new Intel CPUs... in 780p.
When changing the resolution to Full HD (1080p) almost all CPUs deliver the same fps, depending on the GFX Card.

The notable exceptions are games like Diabolo and F1 racing

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

When my friends come to me asking for a budget build, I usually recommend the 8350 or 8320 or even the FX 6300 as the processor. They might not be the best for gaming, but at their price points (especially during sales), they are certainly one of the best values for gaming.

Personally, however, I run an i7 4790K.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 03 July 2014 - 10:31 AM.

[ninjitsu]

$20 promo code has expired, now it's $10 off.

[Goose]

Alreech, on 03 July 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

The notable exceptions are games like Diabolo and F1 racing …

So, the CPU bound games notice?

When most people say "gaming" now'n days, they basically mean something Source Engine, which could almost mutliplayer on a Pentium 4, but cared about the graphics card. These people are oblivious to the concept of "CPU-bound" games, but come in here and say things like "just turn off the anti-alising and you'll be fine" …

[Odins Fist]

I COMPLETELY skipped the FX-series AMD CPUs..

Why..??

Single thread apps suffer, and the RTS games I run with friends.

FX-CPUs struggle at really high clocks to keep up with Intel CPUs that are clocked FAR lower.

By far lower I mean on the order of 1000MHZ, and that is NO exaggeration.

[Catamount]

Alreech, on 03 July 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

That depends on the game.

PC Games Hardware, a German Computer Journal has done a big review of different CPUs in the latest issue.
They noticed a big difference between the FX 8350 and the new Intel CPUs... in 780p.
When changing the resolution to Full HD (1080p) almost all CPUs deliver the same fps, depending on the GFX Card.

The notable exceptions are games like Diabolo and F1 racing

That's not because the 8350 is a good gaming CPU; that's because most games can run without much of a bottleneck on bad CPUs. The problem is that some games do not.

So if you're going to get a gaming rig, why not just get a good gaming CPU in the first place? An i5 is not meaningfully different in price.

[DocBach]

$149 at Tigerdirect until the 7th.

[Alreech]

Goose, on 03 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

So, the CPU bound games notice?

When most people say "gaming" now'n days, they basically mean something Source Engine, which could almost mutliplayer on a Pentium 4, but cared about the graphics card. These people are oblivious to the concept of "CPU-bound" games, but come in here and say things like "just turn off the anti-alising and you'll be fine" …

The CPU Bound Games they tested were Starcraft 2 (not Diabolo) and F1 Racing.
Both Games showed no difference by GPU - a GTX 780 Ti achieved the same fps as a GTX 750 Ti.

In F1 the FX 8350 achieved 62 fps at minimum, that's more than enough. (Intel i4770k 86 fps)
In Starcraft 2 the FX 8350 achieved 7 fps, the i7 4960x astounding.... 13 fps. That's unplayable, with both CPUs. (Physic Settings: Extreme)

The GPU bound games in the test have been Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4.
Obviously MWO is CPU bound, so the hint of PGI to turn down resolution and AA if MWO runs with fps below 30 isn't helpful.

Catamount, on 03 July 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

That's not because the 8350 is a good gaming CPU; that's because most games can run without much of a bottleneck on bad CPUs. The problem is that some games do not.

So if you're going to get a gaming rig, why not just get a good gaming CPU in the first place? An i5 is not meaningfully different in price.

Depending on the Game there will be no big difference between a FX 8350 and an i4770k.

You are right that in a new rig the price isn't much higher, but if you want to upgrade from a Phenom II or Athlon X4 and have a FX capable mainboard the FX8350 is much cheaper.

[ninjitsu]

So you guys have seriously derailed this thread. There's already an AMD cpu thread going right now.