FX8350
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
So why isn't the FX-8350 good for gaming?
I have asked many different people and they all say the i3-6100 will be the smarter choice.
>inb4 upgrade path, I won't be upgrading for a year or two
>>343418230
personally i would get fx8250. No reason to get intel when amd does the job. Your money should be on the graphics card anyway
>>343418673
fx8350, typo
>>343418230
I got the 8320 2 years ago and its still going strong. Haven't OC'd it at all.
Pretty good for 120 dollars, back then.
>>343418230
most programs can't use 8 cores
if you plan on emulating or playing CPU intensive games, get an intel, otherwise an 8350 should be serviceable
>>343420438
How would VR games be on a system with a FX-8350 and a GTX 970?
Would the FX-8350 hold me back?
>>343418230
its bullshit OP
nvidia shilling thats all
Games barely even use cpu these days anyway, get a good gpu.
>>343420872
Don't know much about that, but I don't think so. I honestly don't recommend VR yet though, it's almost entirely shovelware, especially on PC.
>>343421269
>nvidia shilling
>intel CPUs
you're a special kind of retard, aren't you?
>>343421269
I'll be using it with a GTX 970, so no worries.
It won't bottleneck will it?
>>343418230
They are kinda old now, but they work just fine on games. Just be sure to install the Intel Compiler Patcher to unfuck all your executable (the intel compiler screws with the performance of other cpu vendors).
i3 is better than any AMD cpu.
But i recommend getting i7 these days, cpu intensive games NEED i7 for smooth gameplay.
>>343421541
I've got an 8320 and an R390. I had a slight bottleneck with Vermintide when it first came out, but I overclocked the CPU from 3.5Ghz to 4Ghz and have had no bottlenecks since.
As someone who's owned an 8320 that was OC to match a stock 8350 let me give you some insight. AMD CPUs are like a used car off a weird lot. It gets the job done, but it isn't smoothe or consistent. The 8350 only truly performs well with games that take advantage of more than 4 cores,which are very few,and even when they do an Intel 4 core still performs just as well. Thats because Intel is the brand new car from the dealership. FX CPUs run hot, give inconsistent performance, and of course you have to deal with the garbage am3+ which is going nowhere fast. Intel is MUCH cooler,consistantly reliable for all tasks, and unlike AM3+ their mobos are actually future ready.
>>343420438
this would have been true 2 weeks ago,but dolphin now works MUCH better with amd and PCSX2 still is a piece of shit no matter which cpu brand you have
>>343422451
yeah to be fully honest I have a 4300 and dolphin runs just fine so really it shouldn't be a problem. but it seems OP is more interested in VR.
I have a 8350 and I can't complain about it all too much, it's cheap and does its job. It's not like you can get anything better for a AM3+ motherboard anyway.
If you have to make a choice, go Intel.
>AMD CPU
>Fucking ever
Jesus
>>343418230
>tw warhammer
>value $0.99
>>343418230
AMD processors suck compared to Intel ones for gaming because they have poorer IPC. Now, if games used 8 cores, then the 8350 would win out... however, because most games only use 2 cores (yes, really) and sometimes 4, the processor with the highest amount of IPC (instructions per clock, basically "how much performance do I get out of one Hz") wins out.
Because most games only use 2-4 cores, getting extra cores does not help; instead, you should find whatever processor is the most powerful on a single-thread, dual-thread, and quad-thread basis, and that will be the best for gaming.
>>343423876
>>343424095
not OP but I refuse to support Intel in anyway shape or form.
>>343424383
>why is this processor shit?
>because x, y, z
>I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I DONT SUPPORT INTEL AT ALL
better throw away your wireless card or anything x86 that was developed by intel
>>343424383
thank you for sharing :3
>>343424383
Then you probably shouldn't be using a processor based on an instruction set that they developed, you pea-brained autist. x86-64 is an AMD-made extension on the x86 instruction set, which comes from the 8086. Guess where the 8086 comes from? Intel.
>>343418230
just buy a 4690k/6600k
>tfw STILL rocking a phenom 955
>DX12 is coming big way with its support for all cores
>Intel 6+ core CPUS are expensive as fuck
>AMD only has the shitty fx's
Fuck do i do
>>343425014
Gee you don't fucking say? What I"m saying is i refuse to support Intel products. I could give a fuck less if AMD is using the same design from Intel processor,Why? Because AMD is not fucking INTEL.
>>343424095
>because most games only use 2 cores (yes, really) and sometimes 4
You sound unsure of what you are talking about here. Lemme help you out.
In truth... DirectX 11 just dumps most of it's workload onto the first core. It doesn't really do shit with the other cores. Pic related. Even tho it's a graph by amd, this is also true about intel processors.
AMD was ahead of it's time when it made 6+ core processors. They thought people will go past DX11 and make something that uses good use of all the other cores. But sadly it didn't happen.... so AMD had to do it themselves. AMD made Mantle. And it wasn't popular but it forced other companies to want to compete and thus Vulkan was born. Microsoft was finally feeling the pressure and don't want to be seem as left behind... so they made DX12.
Vulkan and DX12 is based off Mantle. Now the hugest different between DX11 and these new technologies is that the new ones actually make use of all the cores you have instead of just the first core. It spreads out the workload onto each core. This is low level API. That is why AMD pushed very hard for DX12.
It is true that most games currently still on DX11 only use 1 core. And also why DX12 is called the game changer. As more and more new games switch to DX12, you'll see amd processors actually going toe to toe with Intel.
AMD is a fairly good choice for processors. Still best bang for your buck. Don't listen to ignorant haters.
OP here,
So have AAA games been adopting multi core use?
>>343426520
GTA V and Witcher 3 are cpu intensive
>tfw still using q9550 from 2008, albeit with a moderate overclock
>still enough to max 99% of games unless it's terribly unoptimized
I ditched my FX 8300 for an i3 4170 and noticed 5-10 FPS gains in every game i played except Battlefield 4 where FPS stayed the same. No reason to go AMD now when Intel CPU's create less heat and have insane IPC and upgrade paths.
