Max you can get from an FX 8350?

[Rebirth 0]

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

[Jim Young 2,356]

@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

[Rebirth 0]

@

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

Have a nice day - or a good night

[dazz 69]

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

[Rebirth 0]

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

[z06z33 763]

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.

[dazz 69]

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

[mjrhealth 820]

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

[Rebirth 0]

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?

[westman 257]

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

[z06z33 763]

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

[Rebirth 0]

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:

[CryogenicPilot 1]

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.

[Rebirth 0]

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?

[SAAB340 28]

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.