PDA

View Full Version : My 2 cents on the AMD FX-8350



lostsoul62
09-11-2012, 01:01 PM
We all know about the power of the i5 and the i7. If you take the AMD FX-8350 and say the i7 2600 and build the 2 computers. I think that 99% of users couldn't tell the difference nor would they ever need the power of the i7. So I'll save $200 and build myself the AMD FX-8350 and have all the power I will need and feed my ego with the 8 cores and overclocking. What do think?

wratterus
09-11-2012, 01:12 PM
AMD boards have (on average) been noticeably cheaper for years now, so this can be taken into account too. If you had $200 to spend on a board, you get much more bang for your buck feature and connectivity wise going AMD than Intel, so this brings the price down further. We still go AMD for >90% of our builds.

icow
09-11-2012, 01:41 PM
To be fair most users won't notice the difference between say a i3 or FM2 chip and an i7.

wratterus
09-11-2012, 01:43 PM
Oh, I should have said putting a cheap SSD and an i3 rather than an i7 and a mechanical drive will make more 'noticeable' difference for the majority of users.

Chilling_Silence
09-11-2012, 02:00 PM
^^ I'll second that notion of using the money on a SSD instead :D

pctek
09-11-2012, 02:13 PM
This is what I'd look at:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3142.html?prod[5759]=on&prod[5877]=on

But of course, budget comes into it too, so if that matters, then yes, go for AMD.

psycik
09-11-2012, 02:54 PM
I really like the amd Ax chips - (A6/A8/A10) - more of an equivalent of the i3/5/7 as they include a GPU component.

Means you can get a pretty cheap system up and running with just a motherboard and matching cpu. No shelling out for a dedicated graphics card.

CYaBro
09-11-2012, 03:08 PM
We've mostly stayed away from AMD recently as we started getting a few dead CPUs and also seemed to have more failures of AMD mainboards.
Haven't had any issues with Intel systems so far.

dugimodo
09-11-2012, 04:35 PM
I haven't gone AMD since my Athlon x2 days back when intel make dual cores that didn't seem any faster than their single cores. Once the Core 2 CPUs hit I went intel and never went back. I have nothing against AMD and would still own one in theory but in practice AMD and inTel at the same price perform fairly similarly and intel currently just has more upgrade potential so I keep going back to inTel.

A big part of my decision revolves around gaming though - my main PC is built for it and inTel dominates at the performnce end of the scale. Because of that whenever I get a secondary machine for any reason I tend to stick to the same platform. I've found if you own 2 or more PCs it's very helpful to be able to swap parts around freely.

Paul.Cov
09-11-2012, 10:11 PM
I really like the amd Ax chips - (A6/A8/A10) - more of an equivalent of the i3/5/7 as they include a GPU component.

Means you can get a pretty cheap system up and running with just a motherboard and matching cpu. No shelling out for a dedicated graphics card.

This mirrors my own experience, albeit only with my own (one) build, using an ASUS board, with inbuilt graphics.

I added a GPU, but was frankly very, very impressed with what the motherboard alone could do with its own inbuilt graphics processor.
It does a good job, with minimal heat issue, on a heatsink without active cooling.

In fact, it gave better, faster and cooler performance than the gear it replaced, which had it's own dedicated grpahics card.

If I were content to use only games that were 2 years out of date (and a fraction of the price) I'd be fine with the inbuilt mobo graphics alone, and could shave about $1000 off the costs of a dedicated graphics card and the price of old vs new games (old being only 2 yrs after release).

Far cheaper to upgrade CPU and MOBO (with graphics) every few years than to do the whole lot, plus RAM and GPU every 4 or 5 years.

Slankydudl
09-11-2012, 10:29 PM
if ur budget is a problem then get a lower grade intel and not feel like such a chump.

mikebartnz
10-11-2012, 01:01 PM
if ur budget is a problem then get a lower grade intel and not feel like such a chump.
Writing that I can only assume you know what it is like to be a chump.

icow
10-11-2012, 01:09 PM
A chump with a CPU worse than the 8350.

Slankydudl
10-11-2012, 01:14 PM
If you get the intel then in future you can upgrade to a better one... If you get the amd then you will have to upgrade to an amd. Anywas this cpu is realy only usefull for extreme overclockers that dont care about actual performance but instead the figures, its just not worth buying it when a oc 2600k will easily out perform it and this is suppose to be the cutting edge of amd tech.

icow
10-11-2012, 01:35 PM
I wouldn't be so sure about that if I was you. 8350 > 2600k in BF3. Every other game the CPU's are 5 or so frames either side of each other for both min and max frame rates. The exception to this is Civ 5 (and Sleeping dogs?) where the 2600k wins by 10+ fps. This shows that most games still only have 4 thread optimization. You see the 8350 beat the 2500k and 2600k in other benchmarks which do take advantage of CPU power. Such as Truecrypt AES and AIDA SHA. The 2600k obviously pulls ahead in anything single threaded (I think everyone knows by now that AMD can't make a cpu with decent single threaded performance to save themselves), but the 8350 can keep up with the 2600k basically everywhere else. Sure you might be getting slightly better performance in some areas like photoshop or whatever but where can I still buy one of those and when was it ever sold at a RRP of $199US? (granted all the stores selling the 8350 at that price in NZ had sold out when I last checked). I'm pretty sure the 2600k never dropped below $400NZ. If you buy a 8350 you have a CPU which you will be able to keep for a large period of time as even more programs start to take advantage of 4+ threads. IMO it's the cpu to buy if you are after a mid range CPU.

Slankydudl
10-11-2012, 01:41 PM
but the 2600k is the old generation of intel cpus and is more or less on par with the latest amd cpu....

Agent_24
10-11-2012, 01:48 PM
AMD for me all the way... costs less, works just as well for gaming because it's the graphics card that matters anyway.

icow
11-11-2012, 11:23 AM
but the 2600k is the old generation of intel cpus and is more or less on par with the latest amd cpu....

And this matter because? The 8350 can compete with the current gen midrange Intel cpus as well at a better price point.

Slankydudl
11-11-2012, 11:42 AM
SO AMD's top of the line cpu can compete with mid range intel cpu's, that is not exactly a selling point.

Agent_24
11-11-2012, 12:20 PM
SO AMD's top of the line cpu can compete with mid range intel cpu's, that is not exactly a selling point.

It is when they're cheaper

icow
11-11-2012, 01:11 PM
It's at a lower price point than the cpu's it can compete against... Just because it is there *best* product doesnt mean it must compete with the *best* product from rival cpu manufactures. Who in there right mind would compare the 8350 to something like a 3770k...