is the 8350 really that bad? (if not overclocked?)

hello. i recently got the gigabyte gtx 770 4gb and im playing Dota 2 on 1920x1080 on high settings
, combined with the fx 8350.
my friend has a 2nd generation i5 something like 2550k ( cant recall the exact name) combined with a gigabyte 7950.
He has almost steady 150 fps in dota 2,
while i get 90-120. On same video settings.
Is the 8350 really so underpowered? :(
71 answers Last reply
More about 8350 bad overclocked
  1. Same game settings?

    CPU's are about the same - http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
  2. same settings yes.. i also have better RAM (if it makes any difference).
  3. Different games work better with different cards. He also getting the best of you in other games?
  4. For one it seems the game has a built in fps limit of 120 -> http://www.playdota.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1190923 and http://www.techspot.com/review/785-free-to-play-games-benchmarks/page3.html

    Also given the techspot benchmark it seems the R9 280 (aka 7950) may be better at playing dota 2 than the GTX 770 considering the R9 280X is faster than the GTX 780. Although the FPS limit can cause slight fluctuations in your FPS he probably changed the FPS limit.
  5. There could be other factors for the difference also such as memory used, video cards being different and other stuff running in the back ground. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while the systems maybe comparable there are enough differences to account for some variance. Heck even then you have to consider that some games run better from one video card to another.
  6. and i got huge problem in diablo3 as well. but some games run great ,some others dont. is it true that some games depend more on the cpu rather than the gpu ?
  7. caqde said:
    For one it seems the game has a built in fps limit of 120 -> http://www.playdota.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1190923 and http://www.techspot.com/review/785-free-to-play-games-benchmarks/page3.html

    Also given the techspot benchmark it seems the R9 280 (aka 7950) may be better at playing dota 2 than the GTX 770 considering the R9 280X is faster than the GTX 780. Although the FPS limit can cause slight fluctuations in your FPS he probably changed the FPS limit.


    im talking about those cards
    http://
  8. neieus said:
    There could be other factors for the difference also such as memory used, video cards being different and other stuff running in the back ground. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while the systems maybe comparable there are enough differences to account for some variance. Heck even then you have to consider that some games run better from one video card to another.


    the only thing that runs in the background is steam, battle.net and the nvidia experience
  9. FX 8350 isn't really as strong as the i5 in gaming, at least in more single threaded heavy games. FX 8350 might not be able to keep up with newer i3s and pentiums in some cases. I believe dota is a game that is a more single threaded game which would explain the fps. It's not really a big deal past 60fps in my opinion. If you have 60 Hz monitor, you might get the annoying screen tearing in most games.
  10. Calnin said:
    FX 8350 isn't really as strong as the i5 in gaming, at least in more single threaded heavy games. FX 8350 might not be able to keep up with newer i3s and pentiums in some cases. I believe dota is a game that is a more single threaded game which would explain the fps. It's not really a big deal past 60fps in my opinion. If you have 60 Hz monitor, you might get the annoying screen tearing in most games.


    this sounds logical. i play planetside2, wildstar on ULTRA decently. we havent compared the fps in those games though.
    i know its not big deal, but i've paid much more and i get lower performance and this is disappoints me. you understand :p
  11. With a 770 and an 8350 I doubt you're getting any bottlenecking in Dota 2.

    His advantage is likely just down to settings or driver optimisation.

    Nothing wrong with your hardware though, should be no need to worry. In general the i5 will perform better in the majority of games but we're talking minimal fps gains, nowhere near the difference you're seeing there. As I said likely down to settings, or perhaps even the amount of tasks running in the background (with an 8350 this should be no issue, but it can detract from performance if you're running a lot of other tasks).
  12. i7Baby said:
    Same game settings?

    CPU's are about the same - http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-8350


    cpuboss is a click bait site, if you want real comparison between the two check out reviews, other than that yes fx 8350 is a lot slower, no matter how far you oc it, i7 will be faster in everything,that holds specially true for i=online games where strong single threaded performance is mostly needed and the fx just doesn't have it, my new pentium ae system @4,7 ghz runs circles around my fx 8350 @5,0ghz in all online games, if you have a choice always go intel
  13. Actually there are some games that will gain noticeable fps between the i5 vs the fx 8350. Some of the more recent ones don't really show that as much, but games prior to the past half year to year do have some difference in fps. Only a few games show where the fx 8350 keeps up with the i5 or passes it (assuming all else equivalent of some sort). The fx 8350 won't bottleneck anything, but there is a benefit to having a stronger single thread cpu in some things is basically what I'm saying.
  14. so i guess the latest 4th generation i5s are much more stronger.. i regret getting the amd now :S
  15. Unless you have a 120-144 hz monitor. There is no real difference in performance at the frame rate you are playing at, turn on vsync to remove frame tearing, if necessary, and you'd be at 60fps, if you're using a 60Hz monitor.

    Between the i5 vs fx 8350, it's stronger in applications that would benefit more from multiple cores and multitasking. It's still a good processor especially for its price. The i5 is stronger in single threaded applications. It's a trade off. If you ever do any kind of video editing, live streaming, or 3d rendering, the 8 core would do better in those aspects.
  16. im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(
  17. JussiSavolainen said:
    im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(


    Having a look on their forums I found people with i5-2500k's getting 10-11 FPS that had 780Ti's so..... Yeah.... Seems Diablo III performance issues are common regardless of how powerful a CPU you have....

    EDIT: for more fun you can also find people with OC 4770K's having the same issue
  18. If you're getting 10-12 fps in d3 with nothing around then that's a problem, but if there is a lot going on in the game, then it's the game. Almost all of blizzard's games as far as I know aren't very well optimized. It's engine sided as far as I'm aware.
  19. caqde said:
    JussiSavolainen said:
    im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(


    Having a look on their forums I found people with i5-2500k's getting 10-11 FPS that had 780Ti's so..... Yeah.... Seems Diablo III performance issues are common regardless of how powerful a CPU you have....

    EDIT: for more fun you can also find people with OC 4770K's having the same issue


    oh glad to hear that.. i mean im glad im not the only one..
  20. caqde said:
    For one it seems the game has a built in fps limit of 120 -> http://www.playdota.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1190923 and http://www.techspot.com/review/785-free-to-play-games-benchmarks/page3.html

    Also given the techspot benchmark it seems the R9 280 (aka 7950) may be better at playing dota 2 than the GTX 770 considering the R9 280X is faster than the GTX 780. Although the FPS limit can cause slight fluctuations in your FPS he probably changed the FPS limit.


    The 280x is not faster than the 780! Its at the same level as the 770.
  21. Calnin said:

    The 280x is not faster than the 780! Its at the same level as the 770.


    For that game (Dota 2) it is.. If you would read the whole thread you may have understood that.... Not that it really matters as most cards get good enough FPS in that game to begin with. But for most concerns yes the 780 is faster than the 280x. But it seems at least at the time of that benchmark (Feb 2014) that the 280x was a tad bit faster than the 780 in Dota 2.
  22. Well his cpu has better single thread performance. That's why his fps is so much higher. It's definitely not the gpu's both gpu's should easily handle that game at highest settings. I don't think Dota 2 is thread very well because it doesn't really have to be. That's why his pc run's the game so much better. For example, my friend has a i7 3770 and a hd 6850 1gb card, I have a FX 6350 overclock to 4.5ghz and a R9 270x 2gb card. When we play WoW i get between 60-90 fps on ultra. His setup even though he has a lot weaker gpu he gets between 80-115fps both our rigs have 1080p monitors. WoW doesn't used more then 2 cores so his pc wins.


  23. about the max_fps thing , you were right. I could set it from console to 200.
    But still mine performs worse!
    But anyway
  24. The 8350 is slower in games that don't use many cores/threads. Dota 2 is an example of that. You can expect it to be slower. I only skim-read this thread, but which motherboard do you have? You could try overclocking a little if it's capable.

    The GPU on the other hand makes little difference in this instance.
  25. JOOK-D said:
    The 8350 is slower in games that don't use many cores/threads. Dota 2 is an example of that. You can expect it to be slower. I only skim-read this thread, but which motherboard do you have? You could try overclocking a little if it's capable.

    The GPU on the other hand makes little difference in this instance.


    i have the GA-970A-UD3 and i also have a coolermaster hyper 212 evo.
    so i can overclock a little right?? i have never done it again, dont know how and if its possible
  26. JussiSavolainen said:
    JOOK-D said:
    The 8350 is slower in games that don't use many cores/threads. Dota 2 is an example of that. You can expect it to be slower. I only skim-read this thread, but which motherboard do you have? You could try overclocking a little if it's capable.

    The GPU on the other hand makes little difference in this instance.


    i have the GA-970A-UD3 and i also have a coolermaster hyper 212 evo.
    so i can overclock a little right?? i have never done it again, dont know how and if its possible


    You have probably the best 970 motherboard for overclocking, so I'd say you'd be good up to around ~4.5GHz motherboard-wise. That depends on what temperatures/voltages your CPU needs to get there, though.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard Follow the principles in this guide. It's intended for ASUS motherboards but the same things apply to yours.
  27. JOOK-D said:
    JussiSavolainen said:
    JOOK-D said:
    The 8350 is slower in games that don't use many cores/threads. Dota 2 is an example of that. You can expect it to be slower. I only skim-read this thread, but which motherboard do you have? You could try overclocking a little if it's capable.

    The GPU on the other hand makes little difference in this instance.


    i have the GA-970A-UD3 and i also have a coolermaster hyper 212 evo.
    so i can overclock a little right?? i have never done it again, dont know how and if its possible


    You have probably the best 970 motherboard for overclocking, so I'd say you'd be good up to around ~4.5GHz motherboard-wise. That depends on what temperatures/voltages your CPU needs to get there, though.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard Follow the principles in this guide. It's intended for ASUS motherboards but the same things apply to yours.


    are you sure mate? because i bought it only for 90 euros.. it was one of the cheapest..
  28. JussiSavolainen said:
    JOOK-D said:
    JussiSavolainen said:
    JOOK-D said:
    The 8350 is slower in games that don't use many cores/threads. Dota 2 is an example of that. You can expect it to be slower. I only skim-read this thread, but which motherboard do you have? You could try overclocking a little if it's capable.

    The GPU on the other hand makes little difference in this instance.


    i have the GA-970A-UD3 and i also have a coolermaster hyper 212 evo.
    so i can overclock a little right?? i have never done it again, dont know how and if its possible


    You have probably the best 970 motherboard for overclocking, so I'd say you'd be good up to around ~4.5GHz motherboard-wise. That depends on what temperatures/voltages your CPU needs to get there, though.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1348623/amd-bulldozer-and-piledriver-overclocking-guide-asus-motherboard Follow the principles in this guide. It's intended for ASUS motherboards but the same things apply to yours.


    are you sure mate? because i bought it only for 90 euros.. it was one of the cheapest..


    Without stepping up to the 990FX boards, yes. :)

    It has an 8+2 power phase, and it's heatsinked. Should be good for 4.5GHz IMO. Might be able to push it a little further, but the Hyper 212 EVO might hold you back (only got to 4.4GHz with my 8320 and the same cooler).

    http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database It's there in the first table under gigabyte.

    That would give you a decent performance boost anyway, especially in those games that use only a few cores.
  29. ill read some guids and try to get it to 4.5 cuz i got huge room temperature. thanks a lot :)
  30. own personal benchmarks, both @ 4.2GHz
    Intel 3570K (MSI Z77A-GD65 Gaming) vs AMD FX-8350 (ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0)

    GTX 770 4GB - G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2400 8GB - SATA 6GBs 7200RPM - @ 1920x1080p (Ultra Settings / highest available in game menus)

    BENCHMARKS

    Tomb Raider
    ⦁ 3570K @ 4xMSAA - Max FPS: 46 / Avg FPS: 37.1
    ⦁ 3570K @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 60 / Avg FPS: 43
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 4xMSAA - Max FPS: 42.7 / Avg: 32.3
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 62 / Avg: 39.6

    Hitman Absolution
    ⦁ 3570K @ 8xMSAA - Max FPS: 42.7 / Avg FPS: 32.7
    ⦁ 3570K @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 100 / Avg FPS: 56.4
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 8xMSAA - Max FPS: 104 / Avg: 33.7
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 78 / Avg: 61

    Dirt 3
    ⦁ 3570K @ 8xMSAA - Max FPS: 91 / Avg FPS: 109.6
    ⦁ 3570K @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 106 / Avg FPS: 129.5
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 8xMSAA - Max FPS: 90 / Avg: 107
    ⦁ FX-8350 @ 2xMSAA - Max FPS: 104 / Avg: 127

    3DMark Advanced

    Ice Storm (Maxed Settings)
    ⦁ 3570K - Score: 153222
    ⦁ FX-8350 - Score: 151269

    Fire Strike (Maxed Settings)
    ⦁ 3570K - Score: 3943
    ⦁ FX-8350 - Score: 3981

    with the price differences I'd say this makes this AMD a much better buy
  31. For single-player stuff, you're never really going to see a difference. Those AAA titles don't tend to put that much strain on the CPU to see a real difference.

    I went from an 8320 @ 4.5GHz to a Xeon 1230v3 @ 3.7GHz (equivalent to somewhere between an i7 3770 and i7 4770) and the main place I see the difference, in gaming at least, is online. Single player games still run pretty similarly, except the ones that were always dire on the FX (I'm looking at you, Saints Row 3).
  32. the fx8350 is a great card, like others have suggested it might be down to your monitors refresh rate or down to the how the game utilises different gpu's
  33. JOOK-D said:
    For single-player stuff, you're never really going to see a difference. Those AAA titles don't tend to put that much strain on the CPU to see a real difference.

    I went from an 8320 @ 4.5GHz to a Xeon 1230v3 @ 3.7GHz (equivalent to somewhere between an i7 3770 and i7 4770) and the main place I see the difference, in gaming at least, is online. Single player games still run pretty similarly, except the ones that were always dire on the FX (I'm looking at you, Saints Row 3).


    JOOK-D, it's very hard to beat this into people's heads around here. Mutliplayer and singleplayer are completely different beasts when it comes to CPU workload. Everyone pulls gaming benchmarks left and right without realizing that they're all singleplayer.
  34. VenBaja said:
    JOOK-D said:
    For single-player stuff, you're never really going to see a difference. Those AAA titles don't tend to put that much strain on the CPU to see a real difference.

    I went from an 8320 @ 4.5GHz to a Xeon 1230v3 @ 3.7GHz (equivalent to somewhere between an i7 3770 and i7 4770) and the main place I see the difference, in gaming at least, is online. Single player games still run pretty similarly, except the ones that were always dire on the FX (I'm looking at you, Saints Row 3).


    JOOK-D, it's very hard to beat this into people's heads around here. Mutliplayer and singleplayer are completely different beasts when it comes to CPU workload. Everyone pulls gaming benchmarks left and right without realizing that they're all singleplayer.


    :lol: I know. Just dropped it in here in case anyone's interested.
  35. I feel like min fps is probably more important than max fps. Just so people would know where frame rate would dip down to. Some people might expect the average to be what it should be stable all the time.
  36. lol why are we talking about games that are already over 50 fps? Run a benchmark on each system. That 8350 is much better at certain task and weaker at others. It depends on the software and your hardware. Did you force the memory speeds to be correct? Are you up to date on your drivers? Has fap time infected your system with any unknown processes? Dota 2 is not a measurable benchmark for performance. Its a semi good looking game, thats it.
  37. JussiSavolainen said:
    im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(


    Its not your cpu, I have a stock 8320 and IT NEVER Falls that low in diablo 3. That game barely stresses the cpu. You have issues somewhere else. Don't always look at your cpu when something is wrong.
  38. intels are better for gaming...plus his cpu costs more than you...you should be happy you are getting more than enough of playable fps.
    anyways after 60 fps its not even visible to human eye!!!
  39. The 60fps depends monitor to monitor. If you have 120/144Hz monitor, then the difference would probably be there.
  40. @probal malakar I know that over 60 fps its not noticeable. But if i dont have max frames on dota2, im worried about more demanding games..
    @adventmind then why only in diablo? and many said its a common issue
  41. ==-
    JussiSavolainen said:
    Is the 8350 really so underpowered? :(

    I know it's too late since you already made the wrong choice, but you REALLY should have bought the 4-core version, the 4350. It costs half as much, stocks 200 MHz faster, and overclocks like a muhh fucckah. I've pushed mine to 5GHz stable, with thermoelectric (active) cooling.

    I bought three of them (well, one of them — two were by people who take my advice). But we're all real happy with the 4350, and I feel like singling the praises of that chip to strangers in the street.

    8 cores? Who uses more than 4 cores for anything but transcoding porn? OTOH, I don't know anything about games (except second life), so maybe games actually use 8 to feed your fast graphics card.

    faye kane ♀ girl brain
  42. JussiSavolainen said:
    im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(


    I'm not surprised, that game is very poorly optimized. I have a keyboard with an LCD display that I use to monitor my system resources while gaming. In heavy battles with 4 players all doing their thing, my first CPU core will shoot up to 100% usage, while my other 3 cores stroll about at 20-30% utilization, causing pretty big lag spikes.

    This is on a 4.4GHz i5-4670k. Blizzard REALLY needs to optimize their games.
  43. faye__kane said:
    ==-
    JussiSavolainen said:
    Is the 8350 really so underpowered? :(

    I know it's too late since you already made the wrong choice, but you REALLY should have bought the 4-core version, the 4350. It costs half as much, stocks 200 MHz faster, and overclocks like a muhh fucckah. I've pushed mine to 5GHz stable, with thermoelectric (active) cooling.

    I bought three of them (well, one of them — two were by people who take my advice). But we're all real happy with the 4350, and I feel like singling the praises of that chip to strangers in the street.

    8 cores? Who uses more than 4 cores for anything but transcoding porn? OTOH, I don't know anything about games (except second life), so maybe games actually use 8 to feed your fast graphics card.

    faye kane ♀ girl brain


    haha nice!
    I would never recommend that cpu for gaming but as long as you are happy. :p
    A lot of applications don't really use that many cores but games are starting to use more then 4 cores nowadays. So the extra cores will benefit him with gaming. He still haven't mention what motherboard he has so overclocking may be out of the picture. You also never know when you gotta transcode that porn yo! It's always handy to know that your cpu is powerful enough to transcode that porn if you ever have a desire to do so.
  44. faye__kane said:
    ==-
    JussiSavolainen said:
    Is the 8350 really so underpowered? :(

    I know it's too late since you already made the wrong choice, but you REALLY should have bought the 4-core version, the 4350. It costs half as much, stocks 200 MHz faster, and overclocks like a muhh fucckah. I've pushed mine to 5GHz stable, with thermoelectric (active) cooling.

    I bought three of them (well, one of them — two were by people who take my advice). But we're all real happy with the 4350, and I feel like singling the praises of that chip to strangers in the street.

    8 cores? Who uses more than 4 cores for anything but transcoding porn? OTOH, I don't know anything about games (except second life), so maybe games actually use 8 to feed your fast graphics card.

    faye kane ♀ girl brain


    wait, wait, wait, you sure you need a tec for 4350 @5.0ghz? I got my old fx 8350 up to 5,2ghz on custom loop, going with clc you could really save some power? but the problem is fx series only strength's is in its multithread performance and integer math, unfortunately when it comes to single threaded workloads, which require strong FPU's the fx simply cannot do that, no matter how far they are clocked, now with games that can use more than 4 cores you get some nice performance from these fx but still lacking, main problem being minimum fps that you get, i for one know that i would be kicking and screaming if id chosen that 2 module cpu instead of my temporary intel pentium
  45. ok this is during a team fight




    the video settings



    My system is :
    Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 rev 1.2
    AMD FX 8350
    Gigabyte GTX 770 4gb
    Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz 2x4gb
    Corsair CX600 Builder
    Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo
    Kingston SSDnow v300 120gb


    you can zoom the picture from the bottom right of the pictures
  46. The amd fx 8350 is a an awesome processor at 4 ghz and having 8 cores. I do not think the fps you get are caused because of your cpu. I think it is caused by your gpu. Which gpu you have?
  47. JussiSavolainen said:
    im getting 10-12 fps on diablo3 in big fights.. im pretty sure its cuz of the CPU .. i dont understand why it has to be so bad :(



    10-12??? I have an FX 6300 and radeon 7870 with 6 gb of ram and the same mobo as you and i play diablo3 in 1920x1080 at 100% max settings. I have v-sync on because my monitor is 60hz and I've never once seen the game drop a single frame below 60. On that note, since diablo isn't really that demanding of a game compared to most others these days, i'll just say that i play most every other game from dayz, to arma 3, battlefield 4, watchdogs, all on max settings at 1920x1080 between 30 and 60 fps, which is fine for me, maybe not for some of you frame rate enthusiasts out there. My point is, I don't think that for the particular games you mentioned, esp diablo3, that your hardware is any problem at all. Just my opinion of course.
  48. What is your CPU temps in games? Could be throttling causing poor performance.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gtx Gigabyte Intel i5 CPUs