- Joined
- Nov 1, 1998
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FRONTPAGE AMD's Piledriver FX-8350 Gaming Comparison
- Thread starter Overclockers.com
- Start date
A good overview though I'd feel it would be more thorough if it pointed out the big issue that fuels the often misguided AMD v. Intel arguments. Performance in games that are CPU bound via poor development. I'm speaking of games such as World of Tanks, X3 and Planetside 2 to name a few. Games where the raw single core power of processors such as the 3570 and 3770 result in AMD processors looking terrible. I'm not sure about Civilization 5 because I don't play it, but perhaps it's a good example of this as well.
Put more simply. AMD is using 8 cores to cumulatively do, and sometimes slightly better, than what Intel is doing with 4 cores. You guys use some fairly well made games for your benchmarking but what about the hoard of games where the AMD processors show their true weakness? Those games can open up near 50% performance gaps between 8350's and 3570's.
Either way, it's a good overview of why this issue is not what the ignorant majority like to suggest it is.
Put more simply. AMD is using 8 cores to cumulatively do, and sometimes slightly better, than what Intel is doing with 4 cores. You guys use some fairly well made games for your benchmarking but what about the hoard of games where the AMD processors show their true weakness? Those games can open up near 50% performance gaps between 8350's and 3570's.
Either way, it's a good overview of why this issue is not what the ignorant majority like to suggest it is.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
Agreed Hicksimus multi core chips have been out far too long for game developers to not be fully utilizing all cores available.
But that's the world as it is most don't utilize more than 2 cores let alone 8.
The amd chip is holding in there better than I thought it would.
But the performance per clock is still behind the intel curve by a fair margin.
Considering most 3770ks can hit at least 4.5ghz typically stopping in the 4.7-4.8 range things could get even more lopsided in a head to head.
But that's the world as it is most don't utilize more than 2 cores let alone 8.
The amd chip is holding in there better than I thought it would.
But the performance per clock is still behind the intel curve by a fair margin.
Considering most 3770ks can hit at least 4.5ghz typically stopping in the 4.7-4.8 range things could get even more lopsided in a head to head.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Am I the only one seeing the typos in the images?
I only see one 3770k result and no indication of clocks...
Other than that, great read as usual Hokie.
I only see one 3770k result and no indication of clocks...
Other than that, great read as usual Hokie.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
3770K clocks are listed in the chart listing the systems and in the conclusion (it's 4.0 GHz, the results were pulled from the 7970 DirectCUII review). It was only run at one speed.
What typos? I'll need some time (like not today) but I could go through and fix them.
What typos? I'll need some time (like not today) but I could go through and fix them.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
I see like 4 different 8350 graphs and a single 3770k one...don't quite get it.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
There is one 3770K result, run at 4.0 GHz. There are four FX-8350 results. The two immediately above the 3770K are stock & overclocked FX-8350 runs using the same driver as the 3770K (Catalyst 12.8), denoted as AMD FX-8350 and FX-8350 @ 4.9 GHz.
Then I thought there wasn't enough data and since AMD had recently released Catalyst 12.11, I ran those stock & overclocked to see what gains there were; those are the other two results. Those are denoted AMD FX-8350 - Cat 12.11 and FX-8350 @ 4.9 - 12.11
Thanks! ...and agreed.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gotcha!
Thanks for clarifying. Kind of a compliment to the fx chip for the untrained eye...12.11 3770k results should be there too, but perhaps it was too much testing to be done?
Thanks for clarifying. Kind of a compliment to the fx chip for the untrained eye...12.11 3770k results should be there too, but perhaps it was too much testing to be done?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
I plan on doing that but will be lucky to get it done even this month. Wasn't worth holding the article that long. Honestly, if untrained eye actually reads the words that go with the graphs - especially the final thoughts - it would be difficult to come to that conclusion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
Yeah of course...I bet most folks would read it, if they cared about it.
If not, the standard fanboi might nitpick stuff and keep the tunnel vision anyhow.
Major props, most trustworthy cpu/gpu reviews are found here in my opinion.
If not, the standard fanboi might nitpick stuff and keep the tunnel vision anyhow.
Major props, most trustworthy cpu/gpu reviews are found here in my opinion.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Location
- MN, USA
Nice review.
Am I the only one that noticed that it says 'Intel Sandy Bridge' but it's an Ivy Bridge CPU in the first table?
Am I the only one that noticed that it says 'Intel Sandy Bridge' but it's an Ivy Bridge CPU in the first table?
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Location
- New Zealand
What if you do a price/performance of the FX-8320? You can change the multiplier up to the FX-8350 frequency. With the 8320 the AMD price advantage would be greater.
True. That would be the same with any lesser chip with the same specs though. Not only that, you wouldn't be comparing flagship to flagship CPU's, so why not throw a 3570K in the mix to see how that does against the 8320/8350 in gaming. Seeing as how 4+ cores are not used and its IPC/clockspeed that rules, that should make the comparison even more interesting.
In fact, I have a 3570K and will have a 7970 sitting in that machine soon enough, so maybe I will test and see what happens there...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Location
- New Zealand
True. That would be the same with any lesser chip with the same specs though. Not only that, you wouldn't be comparing flagship to flagship CPU's, so why not throw a 3570K in the mix to see how that does against the 8320/8350 in gaming. Seeing as how 4+ cores are not used and its IPC/clockspeed that rules, that should make the comparison even more interesting.
In fact, I have a 3570K and will have a 7970 sitting in that machine soon enough, so maybe I will test and see what happens there...
The reason i ask if that here in NZ you can pick up an FX-8350 for around $290NZD, an FX-8320 for $250NZD and then Intel.
$460NZ for a 3770k. The price difference is quite huge = to go Intel it costs 60% more!
The 3570 non-k is about the same price as an FX-8350 but wheres the fun in a locked multiplier?
Would be interested in that as a benchmark - I'll keep my eye out on the news!
Similar threads
