AMD FX 8350 VS Intel Ivy Bridge K series for gaming - interesting perspective

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD FX 8350 VS Intel Ivy Bridge K series for gaming - interesting perspective


new benchmarks posted with overclocks and GTX 670. AMD continues to surprise. Video posted on the bottom of the thread.



The Tek Syndicate did a set of gaming related benchmarks comparing the FX 8350 to Ivy Bridge K series and provided some interesting conclusions. They used fairly realistic scenarios (1080p and 1440p resolutions, maxed out game settings...) rather than usual CPU related benchmarks which showcase lower game settings and have game FPS above 100.

They found that the FX series beats Intels 3570k as well as 3777k a lot of the time in straight up gaming and always when youre streaming while gaming.

Watch the video in the link below and check out the benchmark and discuss. Please do not post childish fanboy posts like...Intel destroys AMD...etc


AMD FX 8350 Rig

  • MSI 990FXA-GD80 Motherboard
  • 16 GB Kingston 2133MHz DDR3
  • Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
  • Kingston HyperX3K 120 GB SSD
  • HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel Z77 Rigs (3570k and 3770k)

  • EVGA Z77 Stinger mini-ITX Motherboard
  • 16 GB ADATA 2133 MHZ DDR3
  • Corsair H100
  • ADATA 256 GB SX900 SSD
  • HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Intel 3820 Rig

  • ASRock X79 Extreme4m Motherboard
  • 16 GB Gelid 2133MHz DDR3
  • Corsair H80 Liquid Cooling Unit
  • Kingston HyperX3K 256 GB SSD
  • HIS ICEQ Radeon 7870

Here are the benchmarks:

AMD FX 8350 -
Crysis 2
  • 1080 - 29.84
  • 1440 - 20.96
Crysis Warhead xsplit
  • 1080 - 26.44
  • 1600x900 - 39.28
  • 720 - 48.28
Crysis Warhead
  • 1080 - 35.64
  • 1440 - 26.772
Black Mesa
  • 1440 - 188.8
  • 1080 - 262.6
Metro 2033
  • 1440 - 20.44
  • 1080 - 36.44
  • 1440 - 42.80
  • 1080 - 75.2
Trine 2
  • 1440 - 36.84
  • 1080 - 58
Intel i5 3570k -

Crysis 2

  • 1080 - 39.520
  • 1440 - 22.760
Crysis Warhead xsplit
  • 720 - 37.120
  • 1080 - 24.920
  • 1600x900 - 31.040
Crysis Warhead
  • 1080 - 26.840
  • 1440 - 18.720
Black Mesa
  • 1080 - 196.320
  • 1440 - 121.120
Metro 2033
  • 1080 - 21.200
  • 1440 - 12.800
Trine 2
  • 1080 - 38.800
  • 1440 - 23.600
Intel i7 3770k -
Crysis 2
  • 1080 - 39.520
  • 1440 - 22.760
Crysis Warhead
  • 1080 - 38.440
  • 1440 - 23.880
Black Mesa
  • 1080 - 197.440
  • 1440 - 111.920
Metro 2033
  • 1080 - 27.480
  • 1440 - 12.960
Trine 2
  • 1080 - 47.280
  • 1440 - 27.840
Intel i7 3820 -
Crysis 2
  • 1080 - 35.64
Crysis Warhead xsplit
  • 720 - 42.88
  • 1080 - 26.00
  • 1600x900 - 36.6
Crysis Warhead
  • 1080 - 26.840
Black Mesa
  • 1080 - 196.320
Metro 2033
  • 1080 - 21.32
Trine 2
  • 1080 - 31.96

Around the Network

The performance seems pretty solid. AMD really needs a solid processor to compete against Intel and this might be good option.

My take:

Ive gamed and benchmarked a lot of machines in the last 2 years. To be exact I did benchmarks on -
AMD Phenom II X4 940 AM2+
AMD Phenom II X4 965 AM3
Intel i7 950
Intel i5 3570k
AMD FX 8120

I used various resolutions and GPUs with all these setups and Ive never been able to make intel stand out and offer better performance than similarly priced AMD. In realistic gaming scenarios at least...when it comes to synthetic scenarios Intel tends to win most of the time.

When it comes to games, they tend to be GPU bound 90% of the time and when not GPU bound they go back and forth in terms of performance. for example, I noticed as well that Metro 2033 ran slightly better on the FX chip than the i5 3570k.

Therefore even without this video my conclusion was that buying an AMD rig for gaming today isn't a bad decision at all. Whether you're doing 3 monitor setups, single 1440p monitor or just 1080p gaming...any realistic gaming scenario...AMD high end rigs can handle them as good as Intels best.

Its just refreshing to see someone in the tech world admit it...

I'll have to keep that in mind for my next pc. Not sure what they'll have in 2-3 years. AMD sure offers better value for money. This time i made the mistake of buying a prebuilt and than swapped video card and power supply. It came with an i3-530. I don't think that is really good for okay for most as most i can play is DX10.

Around the Network
Recently I upgraded from a 965 BE to an i5 3570k. If you have a microcenter near you go ahead and get a 3570k. In gaming I don't notice too big of a difference but its there.

From what I've seen, Intel usually only pulls far ahead on games that are "optimized" for Intel processors. That makes it really hard to weigh real-world performance. The question is,how much should those Intel-favoring benchmarks count?

That's pretty interesting and kind of shows that a lot of what PC websites present doesn't necessarily correspond to what consumers would experience.

Emulators I heard have had an issue and particularly pcsx2. When I went from x4 940 3.6 to i7 4.0. And have the x4 yo my brother.

But I know generally 4.0 ghz is the mostly magic emulator number, and my brother was still on a hypertransport 1.0 board and whoever I increased the over lock on that, it increased dps dramatically. So maybe the board was the bottleneck. My experience at least.

I honestly have a hard time taking these numbers in. I don't know if any of those games asks much of the CPU. So the differences in numbers are weird. Could it be that a combination of AMD CPU and GPU work better together?
That said, here are the things to consider for those considering these products:
1) CPU is largely irrelevant for most games. GPU is much more important. Even current low-end desktop CPU's will serve you well if all you do is play games. In fact, this is true for most tasks. All desktop CPU's are fairly good at doing most things well.
2) AMD offers better performance per dollar. Intel offers better performance per clock cycle.
3) Top of the line AMD CPU's should be compared to i5's. AMD gave up on the high-end market a long time ago. They have no products competing with the i7's.
4) i7 is the way to go if you're going to be asking your computer to crunch a lot of numbers. The synthetic benchmark scores speak for themselves.


It depends on the game you're running and the resolution/image quality settings as to whether AMD or Intel is going to be better.
Generally... StarCraft 2 (Dual-Threaded), Sins of a Solar Empire (Single threaded) really makes AMD chips look antiquated.

Fire up something like Battlefield 3 and it's no longer as clear cut as Battlefield 3 will use as many cores as you can throw at it.
If you go past that crappy 1920x1080 resolution to something like 2560x1600 or 5760x1080 and suddenly the CPU doesn't matter, you are always GPU limited.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most review websites benchmark on a clean system... That means no Applications in the system tray, virus scanners, browsers... You name it, none are running, and they can take a large chunk of performance off.
When you have more free cores, they can be dedicated to those tasks.

Personally, the only way I will go back to AMD is if they offered me an 8 core/16 threaded processor that has greater single core performance than my Core i7 3930K (6 cores, 12 threads).
But budget gamers? Go for it if it means you can get a faster GPU.

---:::}}} Part of the PC Gaming Master Race. {{{:::---