Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rebirth

Max you can get from an FX 8350?

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. I'm trying to build a new rig for FSX and I could use your help. Didn't wanna open a new topic, so I'll "storm" you with my questions here

 

8350:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
7909, 300000, 16, 36, 26.363
8350@4.6ghz:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
8248, 300000, 18, 38, 27.493

 

 

First of all, this is the max you can get from an FX 8350?

Or is it due to GPU?

 

I know that according to benchmarks Ivys/SBs outperform AMD's FX series, but still there aren't many AMD system owners that share their experience.

 

Is Intel the only way?

 

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

@Rebirth - I split your post off from the FSMark11 Guide as I think you'll get a better response to your questions by posting it in the main forum.  I am trying to keep the FSXMark11 thread related solely to FSXMark11 benchmarks.  Thanks.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@

Thank you Jim. Probably I'll get some answers here.

Have a nice day - or a good night :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For FSX, I5 3570K or 2500K. Or wait a couple of weeks to see what Haswell brings to the table

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not many people tried the latest FX series, or the just avoid them.

So you suggest 3570k compared to 3770k?

Most people say haswell is the solution but I don't know how safe it is to buy one straight away.

The problem is I don't have a desktop at all at the moment :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not many people tried the latest FX series, or the just avoid them.

So you suggest 3570k compared to 3770k?

Most people say haswell is the solution but I don't know how safe it is to buy one straight away.

The problem is I don't have a desktop at all at the moment :S

I run an Fx8350 and couldn't be happier with a slight overclock of 4.5ghz I get 30 fps all the time in the NGX with rex and orbx pnw with an h60 my temps are around 45c underload and I would recommend getting an aftermarket cooler if your gonna overclock and if you want to go to 5ghz Id get atleast an h100 which is my next upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not many people tried the latest FX series, or the just avoid them.

So you suggest 3570k compared to 3770k?

Most people say haswell is the solution but I don't know how safe it is to buy one straight away.

The problem is I don't have a desktop at all at the moment :S

 

I haven't tried FX, but did try a Phenom II X4 & X6. Single threaded performance of Bulldozer / Piledriver is just marginally better so it's still not the best option for an FSX dedicated rig.

 

Look at Gundamnitpete's results cause that's what you can expect:

 

 

 

8120:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

6126, 300000, 13, 30, 20.420

8350:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

7909, 300000, 16, 36, 26.363

8350@4.6ghz:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg

8248, 300000, 18, 38, 27.493

 

The 8120 runs at 3.1GHz. Then the 8350 runs at 4GHz, which explains the extra 6FPS.

At 4.6GHz the avg FPS is a bit lower than expected, it should have scored some 29FPS, probably because it was actually running at 4.2GHz in the first run due to Turbo kicking in, but all in all that's what you can expect from Phenoms / FX. 

Note that an overclocked 8120 would perform almost identically to an overclocked 8350 since there are basically no IPC gains really.

 

Now compare those results with Intel's I5 / I7 and see how those score almost the same at the same clocks, both overclock pretty much the same and both are almost twice as fast as AMD's Phenoms / FX.

 

That's why I recommended an I5. It's by far the best value chip for FSX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haveteh FX 6300 @ 4.56 can get to 4.62 but gets a bit hot there on air. Couldnt be happier runs FSX fine.Big improvement over the 1090t@4.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haveteh FX 6300 @ 4.56 can get to 4.62 but gets a bit hot there on air. Couldnt be happier runs FSX fine.Big improvement over the 1090t@4.1

Thats good news :) I know this fps hunt can get quite silly but do you know your avg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Dazz , Fx8350 @4.6 is slower than a Old I5-760 @4.44ghz

And that one is not fast compared to Sandy or Ivy Bridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Dazz , Fx8350 @4.6 is slower than a Old I5-760 @4.44ghz

And that one is not fast compared to Sandy or Ivy Bridge

Yes but the fx isn't $300 either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed and that was actually my initial question. Is the difference in graphics/fps/smoothness that great, that it worths the extra money?

Secondarily, now we have the Haswells in the game and also Steamrollers in the near (?) future.

It becomes more and more confusing :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the low down on why AMD is slower than Intel in a majority of programs currently on the market. It has nothing to do with MHz.

 

The current high-end AMD chips have four (4) modules with one (1) nteger core and/or two (2) floating point cores. So, any game or app that uses floating point calculations shows better performance on AMD. This is why Crysis 3 performs better on AMD. However, Intel is still stronger in pure integer processing (and IPC) because the majority of current games and apps use normal integer calculations... Games and apps like FSX.
 
So, this is why Intel currently leads the pack if we cut through all the hyperbolic marketing and fan-talk.
 
The tables may turn since the new consoles not only will use x86 architecture, but also multiple cores AND possibly floating point calculations in future games. 
 
The beauty is if this does happen, we can all just upgrade our CPUs and mobos to whatever brand does the best and reuse all of our other components, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the informative reply.

So let's say I'm goin for an intel CPU.

Considering I don't have a desktop at the moment, should I wait for a Haswell platform (is it safe, cause of bugs and other issues, to do this during mid June = quite early?) or get the 3770k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current high-end AMD chips have four (4) modules with one (1) nteger core and/or two (2) floating point cores.

Wrong, wrong wrong. It's the other way around. Amd's cores shares the floating point resources between 2 cores so it can do LESS floating point calculations per core.

 

In the long run it makes sense for AMD to do that as they rather use the gpu for floating point calculations as the gpu is very specialised for that. That's what we are starting to see in the new consoles with the unified memory adress space for the CPU and GPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the informative reply.

So let's say I'm goin for an intel CPU.

Considering I don't have a desktop at the moment, should I wait for a Haswell platform (is it safe, cause of bugs and other issues, to do this during mid June = quite early?) or get the 3770k?

I'd wait till after the new intel chips come out as the older gen will be cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, wrong wrong. It's the other way around. Amd's cores shares the floating point resources between 2 cores so it can do LESS floating point calculations per core.

Are you sure?

 

Regardless, the underlying point is both Intel and AMD have different architectures even though they share common factors. There is no reliable (or truthful) way to do a 1:1 comparison anymore like we could do in the past. It's almost apples and oranges at this point even though Intel clearly wins in a majority of games and apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure?

 

Regardless, the underlying point is both Intel and AMD have different architectures even though they share common factors. There is no reliable (or truthful) way to do a 1:1 comparison anymore like we could do in the past. It's almost apples and oranges at this point even though Intel clearly wins in a majority of games and apps.

Yes I'm sure. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/2

There are a few things (the decoders, the L1 instruction cache, less execution ports on the integer core as well as the shared floating point unit) that make AMDs 'new' architecture less efficient clock for clock compared to its own 'old' and Intels current architectures in a workload like FSX.

 

Different architectures are just that, different. They will always have their own weak and strong workload scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm first tests of the Haswells (4770k) don't seem that encouraging right?

 

The temperatures are far worse compared to the Ivys :(

 

Maybe go for a 3770k based rig? Too early to judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im about to start putting my sons new PC together it will be intel, not his choce but mine, my next upgarde if AMD get there act together wil be AMD, it works fine for me and many others I am happy with teh performance in FSX. Its teh smoothest I have ever had it Still get dips in YSSy but that is because I usually have 105 Ai planes in teh air,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fx 6300 not bad CPU for most things and got i5 3570k also. Figure, amd CPU easier to upgrade and cost is less. The single thread performance on fx6300 is about 60% of what I5 3570k is. Still, get six core to run other things I multi-task. AMD has 5.0 ghz stock CPU they are designing hoping ithe fx 8770k would hopefully reduce the need to OC as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites