# Why is the fx-8350 So Underrated for 4k Gaming?



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

So I've been recently talking in a lot of forums and discords about potentially upgrading my current rig slightly, which currently has an fx-8350 CPU and a GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. My original plan was to potentially upgrade to a 2700x, however right now I don't have too much of a reason for it, as I am already getting really good performance at 4k. But one thing I've constantly noticed is for some reason, many people greatly underestimate the power of the 8350. Even on a thread about overclocking it, many people just said "don't bother, get a Ryzen", while in many other places, people were either super confused about my config, or even outright refused to believe me when I said I was getting great performance. I've seen people saying that "gaming at 4k would be impossible" while providing random YT videos as "prove", and when I tried to say that it can't be impossible as I've been doing it since October, they simply refused to believe me, and that's just one example. Someone else even started talking about the lawsuit, and that somehow was suppose to be "proof" of it being bad? So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme, and why do some people go so far as to deny my performance just to keep on believing it's "really bad" or something?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 5, 2019)

4K is GPU bottlenecked more than CPU.  CPU at 4K mostly impacts minimum FPS.

The reason why people scoff at FX-8350 is because of benchmarks.  CPUs have come a long way since those benchmarks too.

If it works for you, fine, don't change it.


----------



## Naito (Feb 5, 2019)

If you feel the upgrade is not warranted at this stage, simply don't go ahead with it. With Ryzen 2 just around the corner, may as well wait anyway...


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 5, 2019)

yes the FX has a bit of bad press but its mostly uncalled for, apart from it being outdated the 8350 is a great cpu  its not going to match intel in gaming but it still runs games good, ive even useds mine for VR and it handles it just fine. id bet a lot of the bad or neg comments come from people whos never used one. i have a 2700x and its in a different ball park to the 8350 but i still have a softspot for ye old FX .


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme, and why do some people go so far as to deny my performance just to keep on believing it's "really bad" or something?




Ignorance, superficiality, false sense of superiority, sever lack of knowledge, etc. There are a lot of reasons, ignore them and move on.

Also, it's easier to look at a fancy chart and draw all your conclusions from that.


----------



## 27MaD (Feb 5, 2019)

Simply , if you are satisfied with the FX-8350 performance , just don't upgrade it.


----------



## Joss (Feb 5, 2019)

High resolutions is the ideal scenario for the fx-8350: the GPU is taxed because has to work hard to produce _*each*_ frame and so speed is not a concern.
With high refresh rate/high FPS the fx-8350 starts to bottleneck because it can't keep up.



avrona said:


> So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme


Because most people don't reason, they prefer simple explanations like "Piledriver bottlenecks". It's easier to live in comfortable and simple truths.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Feb 5, 2019)

Because FX was utter garbage with IPC worse than Phenom II


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

Durvelle27 said:


> Because FX was utter garbage with IPC worse than Phenom II


Well it clearly can't be that bad when I get great performance with it, at least when it's bundled with a 1080 Ti.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme, and why do some people go so far as to deny my performance just to keep on believing it's "really bad" or something?


Short answer? Ignorant special-snowflakes will always special-snowflake.


Durvelle27 said:


> Because FX was utter garbage with IPC worse than Phenom II


Case in point..

If you are currently getting CPU performance that meets your needs, then a GPU is a more logical upgrade.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

cause thre are 45W CPUs that can run faster ? Ryzen 1200 is a better CPU than FX8350. If it is decent for 4K only,then it means it's generally poor cause it can only not be a botttleneck in an extremely GPU bound scenario,where even high end GPUs struggle.It still bottlenecks Vega 64 by a big margin though,so I do not know what you mean by "underrated".



Vya Domus said:


> Ignorance, superficiality, *false sense of superiority, sever lack of knowledge*, etc. There are a lot of reasons, ignore them and move on.
> 
> Also, it's easier to look at a fancy chart and draw all your conclusions from that.


week by week you're breaking yet another record in condescending to people who are not you.
and it's "severe".


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> cause thre are 45W CPUs that can run faster ? Ryzen 1200 is a better CPU than FX8350. If it is decent for 4K only,then it means it's generally poor cause it can only not be a botttleneck in a GPU bound scenario.It still bottlenecks Vega 64 by a big margin though,so I do not know what you mean by "underrrated".


Try reading the OP again and ask yourself; "Why did my response fail to be useful or add anything meanful to the discussion?"


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

Converesely, I can't see how the point made by the OP has any usefulness at this point in time.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> week by week you're breaking yet another record in condescending to people who are not you.


Irony.


----------



## Jose Jeswin (Feb 5, 2019)

Dear Avrona, i have been running an fx 8350 from december 2012 onwards....its a gem of a cpu...runs like a dream on my everyday pc...the only problems i have ever faced are the high temperatures...its decent for 4k gaming..keep it for as long as you can..





my dusty fx 8350..


ps. I am keeping it till it dies..


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Converesely, I can't see how the point made by the OP has any usefulness at this point.


Because it explains exactly what I mean by people thinking it's underrated while it's really not?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> Converesely, can't see how the OP has any usefulness at this point.


Then why did you make a comment? Instead of making a useful comment, you chose to troll. Well done.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 5, 2019)

4k doesnt need any more CPU power than 720p does*
You're mistaking GPU performance for CPU performance

When people speak of a CPU bottleneck, they're talking about either adding more CPU dependant features, or higher max FPS

A wet potato might manage 60FPS, but you're gunna need something better to manage 144FPS


*Unless certain graphics elements are CPU drawn, which is rare these days


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Then why did you make a comment? Instead of making a useful comment, you chose to troll. Well done.


I don't feel like explaining why I make any comment to you and I don't think I ever have to.
Explain to me why I should now.
A s.1366 i7 or Sandy Bridge i5 would still be faster than fx8350,I fail to see any point in starting  threads about i7 920/2500k in 2019. People moved on to faster and more power efficient parts.That's it.Do you accept my explanation ? Or do I need to work harder to satify your ego ? You're the troll here.


----------



## londiste (Feb 5, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 4K is GPU bottlenecked more than CPU.  CPU at 4K mostly impacts minimum FPS.
> The reason why people scoff at FX-8350 is because of benchmarks.  CPUs have come a long way since those benchmarks too.


This. Running 4K with 1080Ti (assuming High/Ultra settings) you are likely very GPU-limited. CPU is sufficient and you have no problems. That is a perfectly normal and valid use case.

At the same time, benchmarks do continue showing FX performance being rather severely limited. There are not many sites that keep FX-series on the CPU performance graphs but GameGPU is one of them. For example few of their last tests:
https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/anthem-demo-test-gpu-cpu
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/resident-evil-2-biohazard-re2-1-shot-demo-test-gpu-cpu
Text is in Russian but graphs and selections on graphs are either in English or straightforward enough.

Neither argument is wrong.
- In GPU-limited situations - like your 4K - FX is fine.
- In more CPU-limited situations - like GameGPU's CPU graphs at 1080p - FX series shows its age.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 5, 2019)

the FX8350 beats all other cpus in the argumenting benchmark by a mile . to be honist if it gets the job done do it matter ?...


----------



## 95Viper (Feb 5, 2019)

Get back on topic.
Take your back and forth bickering to PMs.
Thank You.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I don't feel like explaining why I make any comment to you and I don't think I ever have to.
> Explain to me why I should now.
> A s.1366 i7 or Sandy Bridge i5 would still be faster than fx8350,I fail to see any point in starting  threads about i7 920/2500k in 2019. People moved on to faster and more power efficient parts.That's it.Do you accept my explanation ? Or do I need to work harder to satify your ego ? You're the troll here.


See PM response. The OP was not asking for input on whether or not the CPU in question is good enough. They asked;


avrona said:


> So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme, and why do some people go so far as to deny my performance just to keep on believing it's "really bad" or something?


That's why I called you and one other user out. You're both trolling the OP. Let it go.


----------



## qubit (Feb 5, 2019)

If you're happy with a 60fps target in your games, then I reckon the 8350 is probably ok, especially so if you game on a 60Hz 4K monitor, as you're not gonna see more than that anyway. The bottleneck here is gonna be the GPU, even with a 1080 Ti.

The bottom line is if you're happy with your CPU, don't change it. Who cares what anyone else thinks of it?


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 5, 2019)

In AAA games at 4K with high graphics sure the 8350 can keep the GPU fed but when you play CPU bound games on older APIs like DX9-11, it will really tank. I owned an FX8300 which i ran at 5 Ghz for a lot of its life and honestly while playable it was a sub-60 experience in many games I play including Warframe. 

The reason people bash Piledriver is because it really _is _poop. Zen is light-years better. With CPU's like 1600 for £130 I wouldn't even consider paying anything for an FX now.

Just depends on what game your playing I guess. If you're happy just ignore people who bash it xD


----------



## Mussels (Feb 5, 2019)

Regarding one of the links above:

FX 8350 1080p






Ryzen 3 at 1080p





i5 2500k (stock) 1080p





My ryzen 7 2700x at 1080p





If you had a 1080p 60hz screen, anything faster than a 1300x/2500(k or not) goes to waste in this title. If 40FPS is enough for you (especially if thats all your GPU could achieve) then the 8350 is sufficient.

The FX 8350 makes it clear it wont go above 40FPS in this title (at the settings they used, at least) and that is where the bottleneck comes in


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

qubit said:


> If you're happy with a 60fps target in your games, then I reckon the 8350 is probably ok, especially so if you game on 60Hz 4K monitor, as you're not gonna see more than that anyway. The bottleneck here is gonna be the GPU, even with a 1080 Ti.
> 
> The bottom line is if you're happy with your CPU, don't change it. Who cares what anyone else thinks of it?


Agreed.

@avrona
Allow me to offer some perspective that might compare to your situation. My current PC is a Dell T3500 with a Xeon X5680(3.33ghz). I upgraded my GPU to an RTX2080 from a GTX1080. The upgrade was a big improvement. However, the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU in some instances. Granted, I'm not doing 4k. My displays are dual 1440p. The next upgrade will be to a newer CPU, but for now it works very well. We both are using CPU's that are dated but functional and do what we need them to. If you were to make the jump to a 2080 or 2080ti, you are likely to see the same kind of bottlenecking in similar ways. It's clear that a CPU upgrade is in your game-plan, but a GPU will benefit you more in the immediate future.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> In AAA games at 4K with high graphics sure the 8350 can keep the GPU fed but when you play CPU bound games on older APIs like DX9-11, it will really tank. I owned an FX8300 which i ran at 5 Ghz for a lot of its life and honestly while playable it was a sub-60 experience in many games I play including Warframe.
> 
> The reason people bash Piledriver is because it really _is _poop. Zen is light-years better. With CPU's like 1600 for £130 I wouldn't even consider paying anything for an FX now.
> 
> Just depends on what game your playing I guess. If you're happy just ignore people who bash it xD


Well I play games like R6 Siege, For Honour, Overwatch, Minecraft, Anno 1800 and they all run great, so it can't be that bad.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 5, 2019)

*ArbitraryAffection*

what type of poop do you mean, the soft bird type or the hard dog type on a frosty morrning, it really do make a difference


----------



## phill (Feb 5, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 4K is GPU bottlenecked more than CPU.  CPU at 4K mostly impacts minimum FPS.
> 
> The reason why people scoff at FX-8350 is because of benchmarks.  CPUs have come a long way since those benchmarks too.
> 
> If it works for you, fine, don't change it.



This is my answer as well.  You don't need to waste time or money into more hardware if something is working for you how you need it to work.  There is little to no point.  Yes efficiencies might be better, it might be a bit faster and all such things and more, but why do it if it serves no direct bonus at all for you?

I've still loads of older spec'd hardware at home, I have no reason nor want to throw it out or sell it because it's there for a purpose and it does what I need it to do.  

I guess people always like chasing for the latest and greatest but as we've seen over time, that this can not always be the best thing, not needing to point at any one thing in my head as it steers away from the purpose of the thread I feel  
I actually am trying to find a FX-8350 boxed or in the tin if I can find one somewhere for my Crosshair 5 Formula board....


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Well I play games like R6 Siege, For Honour, Overwatch, Minecraft, Anno 1800 and they all run great, so it can't be that bad.


you'd have to have a point of reference.like take a current gen i3 and compare it.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Feb 5, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Regarding one of the links above:



Another interesting result from those graphs, it looks like (with that one demo and at those particular settings Ultra/1080p) that the GTX 970 is the fastest graphics card that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck.  The frame rates were 27/35 for all three tested CPUs.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Well I play games like R6 Siege, For Honour, Overwatch, Minecraft, Anno 1800 and they all run great, so it can't be that bad.


Depends on what your definition of running great is. In my experience it was quite poor. As I said it depends on the games you're playing. A lot of the games I play are quite CPU heavy and somewhat single-threaded so the FX really tanks.



xtreemchaos said:


> *ArbitraryAffection*
> 
> what type of poop do you mean, the soft bird type or the hard dog type on a frosty morrning, it really do make a difference


fresh cat poop.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Depends on what your definition of running great is. In my experience it was quite poor.


Amen to that.If only we could see more reasonable people around TPU understand that fact.
At current state of thing I wouldn't even call a 4c/4t kaby/coffee lake good enough for gaming,let alone an 8350.Though I have seen people say that 4c i5s/i3s are obsolete while praising fx8 at the same time,which is ridiculous.There's still more games that will bottleneck a gpu cause of the lack of single threaded performance than those that would run out of resources on a fast 4 core/4t,though the main focus should be on the fact that there are there's plenty of both.
For some 30 fps is fine. For me it's nauseating.


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 5, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> fresh cat poop.



But you're supposedly not a catgirl anymore?


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Depends on what your definition of running great is. In my experience it was quite poor. As I said it depends on the games you're playing. A lot of the games I play are quite CPU heavy and somewhat single-threaded so the FX really tanks.
> 
> 
> fresh cat poop.


Well seeing how it's a 60Hz monitor, I would consider 60FPS great, which it reaches easily.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> I fail to see any point in starting threads about i7 920/2500k in 2019. People moved on to faster and more power efficient parts.That's it.Do you accept my explanation ? Or do I need to work harder to satify your ego ? You're the troll here.


YOU fail to Realize that people still happy Running Older but Capable Hardware and just want to get the best out of their hardware.

I Personally hate it when People act as a kill joy when failing trying to help people with older equipment
Seems like Certin people here like to troll bait and respond to each other  NOT GOOD FOR THE FORUMS


----------



## Mathragh (Feb 5, 2019)

I'm also running an FX CPU with a 4k screen and I'm in the same boat. CPU is fine and I'd also definitely upgrade my GPU first, especially since mines a bit weaker than yours still.

Regarding your question about people; it's not about your CPU specifically, or even tech. For some people it's just very hard to think nuanced, it's either black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. It's a hobbled way of looking at the world, but also somewhat efficient as long as there are enough people that do keep trying to fill in the nuance where it's needed the most.
Luckily you're still free to make your own nuanced decision regarding your own CPU, so you can pick what's best for you specifically at this time ^^


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Well it clearly can't be that bad when I get great performance with it, at least when it's bundled with a 1080 Ti.


I'd be willing to bet, that even at 4K, that 1080Ti will gain FPS when paired with a modern AMD or Intel CPU.

But yeah, you create a 'perfect storm' for that (slow) CPU(s) to be successful gaming at 4K. Otherwise, as those have said here before, it was a slug compared to Intel. And for those that game at 1080p (which is still a majority by far today) Intel spanked the CPU around the yard. But yeah, that CPU is so old and slow, I would bet money says you see at least a couple/few % improvement with a modern Intel or Zen based AMD CPU. You'd probably get gains overclocking even. A 1080 Ti is a beast to feed, even at 4K UHD.



avrona said:


> Because it explains exactly what I mean by people thinking it's underrated while it's really not?


MOST users running this CPU don't pair it with a flagship GPU nor run 4K resolution. So for those running at normal resolutions, like 1080p, its a detriment to performance placing a glass ceiling on nearly all titles at that res. So to be clear, it performs just fine at 4K because the CPU isn't the bottle neck. Lower that res and the CPU snuffs out that GPU. 

That out of the way, who cares what anyone else thinks!!! If it is serving your purpose, that is what matters. But don't be fooled into thinking that CPU is great now... it wasn't when it was new.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 5, 2019)

Even at 4k which with a single 1080ti would be a massive gpu bottleneck it still hurts framerate especially minimum framerate. 

I don't know what you are calling "great" performance, but as someone with a few 1080tis even my low power 6700T demolishes it in performance. Quite a few games offering 10-20fps higher minimums. Add a second gpu in the gap only increases. Even for cpus of the time a 2700k pretty handily performed better. That being said I am comparing a 9370@5ghz not an 8350 so in theory it should be performing better.


----------



## spectatorx (Feb 5, 2019)

Recently i did an upgrade from fx-6300, which already was temporary downgrade from fx-8320, to ryzen 7 2700x. There is small amount of games i play at 4k, if i do most of the time they are older or indie games so i can't tell you much about 4k. That's mainly because of gpu which is r9 380 4GB. With some games i'm able to get playable framerate at 2560x1440 but most of the time i play at 1920x1080 so i'm using all most popular/trending gaming resolutions with 16:9 aspect ratio. While i was using fx cpus i felt they are overall pretty good cpus but i could have something better, when ryzen cpus came out i knew i will finally have something reasonable to switch to and so i did.
Usually when i upgrade cpu or gpu i do bigger comparison between generations, this time was the same. I tested both cpus with two benchmarks (3dmark time spy and 7-zip) and few games. In case of games i kept the same resolution and image quality settings for both cpus. Rainbow six siege, ac origins and odyssey, rise of the tomb raider and few more. Here you can see the comparison. In description you can find time stamps to particular game, benchmark sections:









Now i'm waiting for high-end navi gpu and i will grab it probably in power color red devil (golden sample maybe) version. Plan to play at 2560x1440 in most games, i know 4k will not be a single gpu thing for next few gpu generations so i do not aim towards it. If i will be able to play some games at that resolution, i will, if not, well, no big issue to me.


----------



## Bones (Feb 5, 2019)

The OP also said nothing about upgrading the GPU and frankly I don't see why the question asked is irrelevant.

He asked why is it the FX-8350 (Or really any of the FX line) is considered bad. Comparisons to other cards with the same CPU or comparisions with the same card vs other CPU's may show some difference but based on the indication they are sticking with the 1080, as long as the OP is happy with it, that's what matters.

Now, I am assuming the real question they meant to ask is if we think they should upgrade to a 2700X or not.
My answer to that is if it's doing all you want it to as is, keep it for now but if not, go for it.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Well it clearly can't be that bad when I get great performance with it, at least when it's bundled with a 1080 Ti.



That's like saying driving a Porsche makes you a better race car driver then driving a Kia sedan.  Your skills are a race car driver dont change (most likely sub-par) just the vehicle doing the heavy lifting improves and allows you to go faster.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

I would upgrade or wait for zen 3 for a real upgrade, In terms of 4k it depends what you play since my 6600k @ 4.5ghz 1.27v had bottlenecked my 1080ti ftw3 which undoubtedly my 6600k would be faster in gaming, sure my 6600k worked excellently but since moving to a 4c8t @ 5ghz I've noticed my minimum frame rates have improved and games like far cry 4 / 5 seem to run much more smoother than before, It's not underrated really since Ryzen is a massive step up over the FX series and offers far better value than dated tech.
Then again as Ford said, if it works well for you don't change it.
On another note, you made a thread asking about what to upgrade, people suggested the ryzen and you said no since your "FX" is good enough, you then said your power supply won't need changing unless you "had to" so I'm not sure whether you're trolling here too.


----------



## hat (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> So I've been recently talking in a lot of forums and discords about potentially upgrading my current rig slightly, which currently has an fx-8350 CPU and a GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. My original plan was to potentially upgrade to a 2700x, however right now I don't have too much of a reason for it, as I am already getting really good performance at 4k. But one thing I've constantly noticed is for some reason, many people greatly underestimate the power of the 8350. Even on a thread about overclocking it, many people just said "don't bother, get a Ryzen", while in many other places, people were either super confused about my config, or even outright refused to believe me when I said I was getting great performance. I've seen people saying that "gaming at 4k would be impossible" while providing random YT videos as "prove", and when I tried to say that it can't be impossible as I've been doing it since October, they simply refused to believe me, and that's just one example. Someone else even started talking about the lawsuit, and that somehow was suppose to be "proof" of it being bad? So why is underestimating the 8350 such a common theme, and why do some people go so far as to deny my performance just to keep on believing it's "really bad" or something?



Bulldozer, Piledriver etc was a flop. Intel chips at the time smoked it, and it didn't even really beat its predecessor, at least in gaming (or any other application that depends on strong per core performance). But, how bad was it indeed? They're usable chips, they're not terrible. And, as others have pointed out, at 4k, the bottleneck shifts to the GPU. 4k is much harder on a video card than 1920x1080, or even 2560x1440.

Also, in recent years, many PC gamers are gaming beyond 60hz. A lot of us are at 120hz, 144, 165... Bulldozer can't do this. Basically, Bulldozer looks okay at 4k because it's only so fast to give up to a certain FPS, provided the video card can handle it. This gap between Bulldozer and even the latest Intel CPUs narrows as the screen resolution goes up because increasing resolution is increasing the workload on the video card. The screen resolution doesn't matter much to the CPU, if it can do 60FPS at 1920x1080, it will do 60FPS at 4k provided the video card is capable of delivering 60FPS at 4k. If we had video cards 10x faster than what we currently have, you would see a much bigger gap between Bulldozer and modern CPUs, because the video cards would then be able to push a lot more FPS at 4k, and the Bulldozer wouldn't be able to crank out the frames for the GPU to render fast enough while other CPUs can.

Another part is *minimum* FPS. A lot of benchmarks don't show this. You'll get an *average* FPS, which doesn't tell you what the highest FPS was, or what the lowest FPS was. 50 *average* FPS looks okay on paper, but when you're actually playing a game, you might see FPS beyond 60 when not much is going on, but then when the action heats up and you're in the 20s because your CPU can't keep up, that's not good. This is probably an exaggerated example, but this is what happens. If you're really concerned with performance, try to find benchmarks that show *minimum* FPS, so you'll know what you're getting when worst comes to worst. This is another reason why people don't like Bulldozer. The minimums it delivers aren't as good as other chips.

It's really not that terrible, though. Sure, there's better processors available, but if it works for *you*, that's what matters most.


----------



## xkm1948 (Feb 5, 2019)

It wasn't bad (well minus the few design bugs in the initial 8150). It does what it is told to do during its era. However when you factor in the competition at that time from Intel, FX is definitely bad value: slower in both gaming and professional workloads.

I hope there wont be threads about " Hey Pentium D is not that bad comparing to Athlon64 X2", or "Cyrix MII is totally underrated" and etc. and in the forseable future when next gen AMD GPU comes out "GCN was underrated"



FX is history and just let it go.  Be glad RyZen is super competitive.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> It wasn't bad (well minus the few design bugs in the initial 8150). It does what it is told to do during its era. However when you factor in the competition at that time from Intel FX is definitely bad value: slower in both gaming and professional workloads.
> 
> FX is history and just let it go.


Agreed, I sold off my 8350 and gigabyte m-atx am3+ board to move to skylake, even with just a 6600k it was a noticeable increase when I gamed at 1080p60 at the time, minimums increased a lot with a 4.5ghz OC on my 6600k.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I'd be willing to bet, that even at 4K, that 1080Ti will gain FPS when paired with a modern AMD or Intel CPU.
> 
> But yeah, you create a 'perfect storm' for that (slow) CPU(s) to be successful gaming at 4K. Otherwise, as those have said here before, it was a slug compared to Intel. And for those that game at 1080p (which is still a majority by far today) Intel spanked the CPU around the yard. But yeah, that CPU is so old and slow, I would bet money says you see at least a couple/few % improvement with a modern Intel or Zen based AMD CPU. You'd probably get gains overclocking even. A 1080 Ti is a beast to feed, even at 4K UHD.
> 
> ...



It surely would gain FPS, but it wouldn't make much of a difference as my monitor is a 60Hz one, and I'm reaching that already.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> It surely would gain FPS, but it wouldn't make much of a difference as my monitor is a 60Hz one, and I'm reaching that already.


Rubbish, what's the minimum framerate on it like? Because even my 6600k @ 4.5 will crush that 8350 like It did to my fx 8350 @ 4.4 and the minimums improved going to the 6600k even and I gamed at 4k60 on my 6600k + 1080ti ftw3 till I upgraded to a 4c8t to only see framerates improve further, that FX is holding the 1080ti back really.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Rubbish, what's the minimum framerate on it like? Because even my 6600k @ 4.5 will crush that 8350 like It did to my fx 8350 @ 4.4 and the minimums improved going to the 6600k even and I gamed at 4k60 on my 6600k + 1080ti ftw3 till I upgraded to a 4c8t to only see framerates improve further, that FX is holding the 1080ti back really.


So what that it's holding it back if the performance is still great?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> It surely would gain FPS, but it wouldn't make much of a difference as my monitor is a 60Hz one, and I'm reaching that already.


So...in the end, it works because of the exclusive situation you are in. Its not a great chip...it isnt under rated... you just use it in a situation where your needs dont outweigh its (limited) abilities. Play at 1080p and its loads slower than an intel around that time, nonetheless modern amd and Intel would smash it. 

Also, average fps isnt the end all.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> *So...in the end, it works because of the exclusive situation you are in*.*Its not a great chip...it isnt under rated... you just use it in a situation where your needs dont outweigh its (limited) abilities*.


you're ignorant for pointing out the objective truth and not sticking with the op's personal use scenario and subjective perception.
stop trolling this thread Sir.


----------



## Bones (Feb 5, 2019)

Don't forget when you say Bulldozer was a failure when it came out that's actually about the Zambezi version of Bulldozer.

The later Vishera versions were better, in some cases much better and an example of that is when playing media files. Zambezi had alot of problems including stutter, I had that happen with mine but a Vishera doesn't have that issue meaning it is an improved chip. 
I'm not saying it's miles better but it does work well enough to avoid such issues.

The OP has a 8350 Vishera chip so any issues as mentioned shouldn't exist based on the hardware alone. 

@ the OP - You can grab this little proggy and get even more from your chip: https://community.hwbot.org/topic/86180-the-stilts-amd-quotextremequot-tools-collection/
Get the Bulldozer conditioner proggy 1.03B, it's what does the trick.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> So what that it's holding it back if the performance is still great?


You're not listening, if it's excellent and so perfect for your needs why consider upgrading or making a thread on upgrading then making this thread? It's dated, I sold my am3+ platform system to move to skylake, even that was a stupidly large difference and it was a 4c4t CPU even. 
You'll find your average / minimum 0.1% lows will all improve and with modern titles it's becoming more necessary than ever.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 5, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> you're ignorant for pointing out the objective truth and not sticking with the op's personal use scenario and subjective perception.
> stop trolling this thread Sir.


lol, I can only be me. Hahahlolol


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 5, 2019)

1.  Mostly the same reason, Sandy bridge gets the same treatment .... it's old and folks tend to think CPUs advance at the same rate as GPUs.... that being said, in TPUs testing, the FX was 90% as fast as 3770k in 3D mark and 86% as fast in PC Mark.  In the 3 games TPU tested, it was 70% as fast, 75% as fast and 97% as fast as the 3570k.  So yes, outta the gate, the FX wasn't all that impressive to begin with .... there's no getting around that.

2.   As has been said, with most games being bottlenecked by the GPU, we really don't know just how good the CPU is for gaming.    It's like concluding the Porsche is no faster than a Yugo because you are both going 55 mph on the highway during rush hour traffic.  Take that out of the equation and ....

3.  8700k is 5.2% faster than 7700k .... and that's pretty much what we see generation to generation.  So assuming that's the average generational boost, that's 23% 4 generations later.  Go back to these 3 games tested above and that's 59%, 61% and 79% as fast as an 8700k.  These are the test results, they re not subject to interpretation.   In an age of confirmation bias, folks tend to look for sources that confirm their preconceived notions.  Folks who think it's better than those numbers indicate will ignore those test results; folks who think it's worse will ignore them to.  Until recently, you could bypass a GPU bottleneck by gong SLI / CF but AMD doesn't have a horse in the race in last few generations and nVidia is nerfing SLI at all resolutions but 4k to keep folks from buying 2 mid level cards instead of their flagship model's.   So with 2600k thru 8700k we could remove that bottleneck with SLI (avg 70% / as much as 100% thru most of that period).    As nVidia's competing only with itself, I don't see as they have any impetus to put any effort into SLI or other technologies which might ease that bottleneck.  

3.  So yes, there is a definite significant difference in gaming performance between CPUs, we just won't see it because we no longer have any means to bypass the GPUs limitations.  But yes, it's very easy to look at a simple, chart and draw your conclusions from factual test results .... in truth, nothing else matters.  When you are limited by your GPU bottleneck, it doesn't matter much if your CPU can't keep up.  Remove that bottleneck and you are in a different world,  Take that Porsche and Yugo on the highway when it's not limited by rush hour traffic and  the Hugo loses sight of the Porsche in less than a minute.

4.  What's good enough for one user may not be good enough for another.  Each user's perspective is good only for their individual situation.  If you are playing on 60 fps monitor and yu are content at your settings, you can't expect someone with a 165 Hz monitor to be just as content.  When I'm on my way to a job site, in rush hour traffic, I use the SUV ... when I', out for an open toad drive, the Porsche comes out of the garage. 

5.  In TPUs 22 game test suite, if i counted right, at 2160p, the 1080 Ti manages:

(1) Game in 90s (fps)
(2) Games in 80s (fps)
(8) Games in 70s (fps)
(4) Games in 60s (fps)
(3) Games in 50s (fps)
(4) Games in 40s (fps)

If you go here and you're happy with how your CPU measures up with their 7700k, then what's to talk about ?  It is what it is.  "Alternative Facts" or what the impoact is in other user situations don't matter and have no impact on what's sitting on your desk.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X/27.html

But if a day comes when you are running 144 hz under ULMB, anything under 70 fps will be unacceptable.  The 10xx series delivered an average  52% performance (71% average in games that scale) improvement @ 2160p.  In TPUs 1080 test, 5 of the 16 games in their test suite didn't support SLI.

So yes, any component that is underwhelming in one instance is perfectly viable in another.  My son's had been playing on a 2600k (4.8 Ghz) and upgraded his GFX card to a 1070 (from twin 560 Ti SLI) and monitor to 144 hz, AU Optronic IPS, 3 ms (real) screen after getting his 1st college degree.    But now... the CPU has more of an impact which is noticeable but by no means overtly so.. He  has another year left till he completes the second, and he's planning on upgrading the rest of the build at or before then as the 2600k is starting to show its age.

Of course we are talking about living with what you have because budgets don't allow for a new build.  If building new, I'd never recommend anything olde than one generation from current.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Feb 5, 2019)

dunno about underated had an fx 8350 and swapped it out for an i5 2500k which i found to be better at the time.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 5, 2019)

Every CPU has a scenario in which it excels at much like there is a home for every dog.  You have found the perfect scenario for your setup which everyone should aspire too instead of buying a 2080ti and 9900k because reasons.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Bulldozer through Excavator (or PileDriver, whatever was last) were trash chips.  The big caveat is that they are only trash when compared to their respective  contemporaries.  This comes full circle to first statement in that each CPU has a scenario it excels in.  The spice of life is figuring out.

Like everyone else said, if your performance satisfies you, then don't upgrade.  Don't worry about what everyone else thinks about your setup because they aren't paying for your new one or using your current one.  You are. 

Also,  don't ever chase average or maximum FPS.  You really want to target your minimum FPS as close as you can to your monitors refresh rate.  Your going to start wasting money if you chase average or maximum.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Regarding one of the links above:
> 
> FX 8350 1080p
> 
> ...



This right here was a good gauge of single thread ipc improvement for AMD(600MHz Less), a Ryzen 3 yields the same performance as a 2500k yet costs less around launch and is not a dead platform.

I'll return to testing in a year or so


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> You're not listening, if it's excellent and so perfect for your needs why consider upgrading or making a thread on upgrading then making this thread? It's dated, I sold my am3+ platform system to move to skylake, even that was a stupidly large difference and it was a 4c4t CPU even.
> You'll find your average / minimum 0.1% lows will all improve and with modern titles it's becoming more necessary than ever.


Again, so what that it's dated if it still does really well? And  I will have to upgrade eventually, I know that, but I'll only do it when I really need to, as right now the frame rate is excellent.


----------



## hat (Feb 5, 2019)

Then be happy with what you have.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

hat said:


> Then be happy with what you have.


Never said I'm not.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Never said I'm not.



I have the same platform, don't worry about the AMD Haters here.

We have the FX club plus @storm-chaser is trying to push a quad right now.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> I have the same platform, don't worry about the AMD Haters here.


Well if that's implying people like me here are a "hater" I've owned a 8350 FYI, The FX series was a complete and utter failure, skylake came out with DDR4 + crushes it in single thread and offers lower power consumption and good enough multi thread and will outperform the FX series in gaming, face it it's a terrible launch and it done terribly, Ryzen however has done amazingly and isn't the same low performing power sucker



avrona said:


> Again, so what that it's dated if it still does really well? And I will have to upgrade eventually, I know that, but I'll only do it when I really need to, as right now the frame rate is excellent.


Well if you actually stopped trolling you can put a new CPU / motherboard / ram / psu on that upgrade list, you literally made a thread asking what to upgrade and said no to all of those, want to upgrade to a 2080ti / more storage then? What's the point if it's doing fine and why did you start that thread and this one?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Again, so what that it's dated if it still does really well?


Again, you are trying to apply your specific use case (which it does fine in) to a generality... literally in one specific case where the cpu doesnt even matter you are basing your argument on. Were happy its working for you... that doesnt mean it's a good cpu however.

...that's OK..for you and those few pairing a 9 y.o cpu with a last gen flagship GPU running 4k.  Again...1% of steam users are in 4k.....wonder how many of that 1% runs fx....and then on top of that an expensive arse gpu....

I guess were saying to put it in perspective...but you arent having that and just keep speaking in vague generalities which doesnt apply to the cpu as it's a slug outside of your little one off world. 

What's funny is...I dont see amd haters here. I see people being honest an trying to put things in perspective for the boy. Be happy with it!! Nobody is saying otherwise, but just gain some perspective on WHY it's ok for your uses and why it's not for most. 

Your threads are... weird. Really feels like trolling at this point reading your upgrade thresd and seeing this....


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> This right here was a good gauge of single thread ipc improvement for AMD(600MHz Less), a Ryzen 3 yields the same performance as a 2500k yet costs less around launch and is not a dead platform.
> 
> I'll return to testing in a year or so


Wow much wow! A ryzen 3 can perform the same as a CPU launched back in the first quarter of 2011, a somewhat 6~ years difference between the two launches, don't get me wrong ryzen offers great value ryzen isn't a dead platform, but the FX platform is definitely dead and it's not worth using unless it does what you need it to do.



EarthDog said:


> Again...1% of steam users are in 4k.....wonder how many of that 1% runs fx....and then on top of that an expensive arse gpu....


Well count me out since I didn't dream of putting my 1080ti on a dated platform it made more sense to put in my X58 platform than AM3+ crap, I put my 1080ti with my 6600k and that was bottleneck enough even at 4.5ghz, I have a friend running a 1080ti with a FX 9590 who also games at 4k60 and he swapped it out for a 2700x and was happy to see frame rates improve across the board.



EarthDog said:


> What's funny is...I dont see amd haters here. I see people being honest an trying to put things in perspective for the boy.
> 
> Your threads are... weird. Really feels like trolling at this point reading your upgrade thresd and seeing this....


This pretty much summaries this thread, a mod should just lock it off to prevent any more trolling, he asked what to upgrade in another thread and literally made this thread implying his CPU is fine........


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Wow much wow! A ryzen 3 can perform the same as a CPU launched back in the first quarter of 2011, a somewhat 6~ years difference between the two launches, don't get me wrong ryzen offers great value ryzen isn't a dead platform, but the FX platform is definitely dead and it's not worth using unless it does what you need it to do.
> 
> 
> Well count me out since I didn't dream of putting my 1080ti on a dated platform it made more sense to put in my X58 platform than AM3+ crap, I put my 1080ti with my 6600k and that was bottleneck enough even at 4.5ghz, I have a friend running a 1080ti with a FX 9590 who also games at 4k60 and he swapped it out for a 2700x and was happy to see frame rates improve across the board.
> ...



You misconstrued my thought on Ryzen...


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Well if that's implying people like me here are a "hater" I've owned a 8350 FYI, The FX series was a complete and utter failure, skylake came out with DDR4 + crushes it in single thread and offers lower power consumption and good enough multi thread and will outperform the FX series in gaming, face it it's a terrible launch and it done terribly, Ryzen however has done amazingly and isn't the same low performing power sucker
> 
> 
> Well if you actually stopped trolling you can put a new CPU / motherboard / ram / psu on that upgrade list, you literally made a thread asking what to upgrade and said no to all of those, want to upgrade to a 2080ti / more storage then? What's the point if it's doing fine and why did you start that thread and this one?


It's sad that the only way you can rationalise what's going on here is by calling it "trolling". I'm not trolling FYI, just telling the truth which you just can't seem to swallow. Also if I had the money to upgrade I would've already, but I don't so I can't, and even when I finally have to upgrade, I won't upgrade the PSU as there's no point.


----------



## Bones (Feb 5, 2019)

The OP was asking why is FX so underrated, it's the thread title guys.

They did mention about asking around about what would be a possible upgrade, then eluded to what they have is OK for now. I can understand the answers some have given along with some arguements/counter arguements about it in the way the opening post was done.

I've already given an answer to the question as asked in the thread title so after this, I'm out.

Yeah, I too believe this one needs locking down before things go nuclear here.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Also if I had the money to upgrade I would've already, but I don't so I can't,


So why make a thread asking what to upgrade if you don't even have the money to? Plus a new PSU will be needed *when* you upgrade.....


----------



## xkm1948 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> Never said I'm not.


 
Good. Now time to wrap up this discussion and close it down


----------



## king of swag187 (Feb 5, 2019)

Its mainly because 4K is very GPU dependant, but even at 4K you're still bottlenecked with that god awful CPU. Its funny that even a 2500K will beat a 8350 now a days, and a 2600K will surely beat both.
Not really understanding what you mean by "underrated" however.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> So why make a thread asking what to upgrade if you don't even have the money to? Plus a new PSU will be needed *when* you upgrade.....


It won't be needed as my system won't be using more than 550 W, and also I explained why I made that thread in it:




avrona said:


> Well it's not the only part of a PC, and also more as future-proofing, because despite that combo still running great now, it may not soon, so it may be better to upgrade now or wait a few years more.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 5, 2019)

I think historically there are many reasons the FX8350 isnt a popular CPU. There is also _one reason _it actually isnt that horrible.

The bad;
- Motherboards with weak VRM. Many gamers encountered a failing rig because they cheaped out on boards and there was insufficient guidance to make them buy a better one. On Intel that is quite different and alreafy was at the time. This is an experience ppl are not going to forget anytime soon.

- For a mainstream res like 1080p, but also on higher resolutions, you are simply not getting optimal performance. Fx never offered that in any use case. Good is not the same aa optimal, and in many peoples eyes, a CPU isnt supposedto hold a GPU back. The FX does do that. And even with a res like 4K you will see higher FPS on a 1080ti backed by an Intel CPU.

The good: 
- FX actually _aged quite well. _Games are no longer as heavily single threaded as they used to be. But; a vast majority never saw this and has moved on long ago.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> This pretty much summaries this thread, a mod should just lock it off to prevent any more trolling



"utter garbage", "trash", "crap"

Who is exactly trolling here, OP or the rest of you all ?


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> "utter garbage", "trash", "crap"
> 
> Who is exactly trolling here ?


The person who made this thread, you must be blind. 
This thread needs to be locked to prevent salty fanboys throwing a fit, point is the FX series had terrible IPC, performance to watt, and he's paired it with a 1080ti, he then makes a thread asking what to upgrade next and if you haven't seen his system specs do so, the only thing that would even be worthwhile would be the FX cpu I doubt he has the cash for the 2080ti, and that'd bottleneck like hell on that FX CPU, I think you're failing to comprehend some basic facts.


----------



## DR4G00N (Feb 5, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> I have the same platform, don't worry about the AMD Haters here.
> 
> We have the FX club plus @stormchaser is trying to push a quad right now.


I don't think anyone's hating on AMD too much. The FX chips are just pretty poor performers overall relative to other cpu's of the same age. I have an 8300 which I used in my daily for a bit, would I use it again if I had to? No. I'd rather pick my $20 6 core Xeon instead.


----------



## Zombiekiller413 (Feb 5, 2019)

I gave my son my old 8350 system last year and it still games just fine.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> "utter garbage", "trash", "crap"
> 
> Who is exactly trolling here, OP or the rest of you all ?


Prove everyone else wrong and show off an FX 8350 against a 6600k for example, we'll see particularly in single threaded games that FX getting hammered, it's no troll, if it's good for his use case he shouldn't make a thread to get all salty about the fact people told him to upgrade the dated mediocre FX CPU.
Face it, only fanboys here are getting salty and defensive over it, the ryzen CPUs are a FAR better upgrade and offer the best price to performance without pulling a ton of electricity and bottlenecking your system especially with a 1080ti......


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

king of swag187 said:


> Its mainly because 4K is very GPU dependant, but even at 4K you're still bottlenecked with that god awful CPU. Its funny that even a 2500K will beat a 8350 now a days, and a 2600K will surely beat both.
> Not really understanding what you mean by "underrated" however.


By underrated I mean people greatly underrating its performance, like I said in the title, some even outright claiming I lie about my own performance.


----------



## erocker (Feb 5, 2019)

Wouldn't any CPU at that performance level be considered "underrated" for 4K since those that typically game at 4K would use a more modern, better performing processor?


----------



## natr0n (Feb 5, 2019)

People like to bash simple.

While not being the most power efficient the FX line work well for 4k.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 5, 2019)

natr0n said:


> People like to bash simple.
> 
> While not being the most power efficient the FX line work well for 4k.



It works well in 4k because it is not the limiting factor.  No one is denying that.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 5, 2019)

See... fine = good enough. And good enough is subjective.

Just because it isnt optimal, doesnt mean fine is bad. 


avrona said:


> By underrated I mean people greatly underrating its performance, like I said in the title, some even outright claiming I lie about my own performance.


Please...stop.

We arent under rating it here. Were telling you why you are ok with it and TRYING to put some perspective around it. It's a solid cpu in a non cpu dependent situation...congrats!


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Prove everyone else wrong and show off an FX 8350 against a 6600k for example, we'll see particularly in single threaded games that FX getting hammered



First of all, I know the answer the question I posed, I was being ironic. Secondly I don't care, can't you see that you and a couple of others are the only people on here on some sort of vendetta trying to prove something ?

I didn't even mentioned the bloody things and you jumped immediately at me telling me to "prove everyone else wrong". Why ? Just for the sake of it ? You are the troll on here.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> First of all, I know the answer the question I posed, I was being ironic.


Want a medal or something?


Vya Domus said:


> Secondly I don't care, can't you see that you and a couple of others are the only people on here on some sort of vendetta trying to prove something ?


It's called a forum, people share ideas. 


Vya Domus said:


> I didn't even mentioned the bloody things and you jumped immediately at me trying "prove everyone else wrong". Why ? Just for the sake of it ? You are the troll on here.


Well you seem to know something I don't, how about contribute to the thread instead of making off topic statements?


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

erocker said:


> Wouldn't any CPU at that performance level be considered "underrated" for 4K since those that typically game at 4K would use a more modern, better performing processor?


That's not really underrated in the typical sense. I use it for 4k gaming and it's completely fine, but people are greatly underrating its performance at 4k, like I said in the OP, some even going as far as using the lawsuit as "proof" of it being bad.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> It's called a forum, people share ideas.



Which makes your suggestion that this thread should be closed for "trolling" even more absurd.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> how about contribute to the thread instead of making off topic statements?



I've been more on topic than all your comments. I've directly addressed the questioned posed by the OP from my very first comment on here, refer to it. You are the one going off track by "trying to prove someone wrong" as far I am concerned.



Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Want a medal or something?



Sure why not. Shall I give you an address to know where to send it ?


----------



## siluro818 (Feb 5, 2019)

This is such a pointless thread xD


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Please...stop.


Yes, you should. Avrona came here to asking for insight as to why people are so negative about a CPU that is decently performing and they get a bunch of elitist fanboy nonsense. EarthDog, you are not one of the people this was expected from.

@avrona 
Who you should consider perspectives from seems clear.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (Feb 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Sure why not. Shall I give you an address to know where to send it ?


Sure, I'll write "Ignorance is bliss" on it for you.
Now blanking this fool living in la-la land, @Solaris17 would you mind closing this thread? It's pointless.


----------



## 64K (Feb 5, 2019)

There are games that are going to be limited by a 8350 anyway, 4K or not. I understand that the burden is on the GPU at 4K but even so. I always try to find balance with my rigs and I would upgrade the platform to Ryzen if it were me. 

My rig is imbalanced as well imo. I should have bought a 1080 Ti in retrospect but I had no idea that Nvidia was going to pull this stunt with the $1,200 2080 Ti at the time.


----------



## qubit (Feb 5, 2019)

Yeah, it's probably best to close this thread now.

@avrona the upshot is that you have a low performance CPU which happens to work well enough for your particular use case. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't go claiming all the time that the CPU is "excellent", because it just isn't. It was a dog when it came out and it's even more of a dog now.

Look, my 2700K is a top performing gaming CPU - for its time. Although its performance demolishes your one, it's still showing its age when playing modern games and shooting for 144fps, which it often can't achieve. Therefore, for my use, it needs upgrading now. I'd get the 9900K if money wasn't an issue right now.

You also say that the frame rates are excellent, but they're not, because the Intel competition _of the same era_ puts out a lot more fps. The situation is way worse when compared to a 9900K. Does it consistently stay above 60fps in the games and settings that you play at 4K? In that case, it's sufficient for you and that's about all you can say about it. People are telling you the truth.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Sure, I'll write "Ignorance is bliss" on it for you.



I'm telling ya it wont stick, it will have an anti-oxymoron coating on it.


----------



## avrona (Feb 5, 2019)

qubit said:


> Yeah, it's probably best to close this thread now.
> 
> @avrona the upshot is that you have a low performance CPU which happens to work well enough for your particular use case. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't go claiming all the time that the CPU is "excellent", because it just isn't.
> 
> You also say that the frame rates are excellent, but they're not, because the Intel competition puts out a lot more fps. Does it consistently stay above 60fps in the games and settings that you play at 4K? In that case, it's sufficient for you and that's about all you can say about it. People are telling you the truth.


I never claimed it's excellent, it's far from the best CPU nowadays, I was just saying that it is good when partnered with some high-end card like a 1080Ti.


----------



## qubit (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> I never claimed it's excellent, it's far from the best CPU nowadays, I was just saying that it is good when partnered with some high-end card like a 1080Ti.


No, it's still not "good". It's good enough for you, which is very different. Run that card at 1080p and it will seriously bottleneck it - even my 2700K bottlenecks my GTX 1080 at 1080p and it's a lot faster than yours. Heck, that AMD CPU probably does at 4K too, but it doesn't matter so much with a 60Hz monitor. You've got a 60Hz 4K monitor, right?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 5, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> Sure, I'll write "Ignorance is bliss" on it for you.
> Now blanking this fool living in la-la land, @Solaris17 would you mind closing this thread? It's pointless.


What made it toxic was the comments made by you and a few others that clearly show your bias. Instead of insisting the thread be closed because we're not being complicit to your perspective, why don't you leave and unwatch the thread. Or are you so entitled that you can't agree to disagree and let it go?


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 5, 2019)

I do believe that most people who bash FX never owned one. I have even seen a post that stated that Phenom 2s  were faster and having owned both I cannot agree with that statement. I can even attest that you can get over 100 FPS on AAA games that support crossfire or SLI with the 8300 series. Every FX chip can be overclocked like crazy (without changing the voltages). I used mine with 2 HD 7950s and had no issues playing Project Cars in VR. Yes Ryzen is faster but not miles faster.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Feb 5, 2019)

im done ive a headache, im off to play fallout 4 vr for some real life .. FX it is what it is.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 5, 2019)

this thread is turned into a slice of equal attention cake for fx owners fast.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> I was just saying that it is good when partnered with some high-end card like a 1080Ti



As Qubit pointed out, in that specific case where the 8350 is not the limiting factor.  The problem is when the 8350 becomes the limiting factor.  Which honestly, is about every other situation.  Time has been good to it as Vayra pointed out because games are becoming less dependent on a single high speed thread.  Therefore, it has aged (somewhat) better than say a 2000 series i5.

I had a 1100T until my upgrade to the 4770K.  My next one will likely be a Zen2.  If you can keep your use case where the 8350 will excel, you do not need to upgrade.



cucker tarlson said:


> this thread is turned into a slice of equal attention cake for fx owners fast.



That is clearly not what this is about.  I want to add some sort of advice but I can't write it out without it sounding derogatory, so I won't.


----------



## sixor (Feb 5, 2019)

it was not bad but any intel i3 beats it so that is a problem, i prefer the fastest cpu to make the cpu work a lot, 

happy with my ivy bridge 3570k 4.5ghz


----------



## Joss (Feb 5, 2019)

One of the reasons for the FX to be underrated is poor overclock guides.
Take the minimum FPS which is an Achilles heel of the Piledriver architecture: the solution is to overclock the CPU NorthBridge and the Hyper Transport. But how many guides mention this and how to go about it? In fact I read time and again that the CPU NB _makes no difference_ in performance.
There's a good thread about that here: https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-...your-old-fx-give-better-game-performance.html


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 5, 2019)

avrona said:


> I never claimed it's excellent, it's far from the best CPU nowadays, I was just saying that it is good when partnered with some high-end card like a 1080Ti.



It may be good in your perspective but when compared to any other CPU either from AMD or from Intel, it has low IPC, high power consumption and even at 4K you _are losing FPS _the 1080ti can provide on any other CPU. It has been like this ever since it released and all that 4K really does is slightly hide that away because sub 60 FPS isnt all that uncommon at this res.

The card you partner it with is irrelevant, as is the res you use it on. Its still the same CPU with the same problems.


----------



## bogmali (Feb 5, 2019)

Thread has ran its course......and the fact that some of you choose to hijack it and continue your (personal and off-topic) arguments even after you were warned. Infractions to follow


----------

