i7 870 vs. FX 8320

[RCoon]

Starcraft II struggles on any AMD processor, and that is the most serious game I can think of.

This

SCII, Shogun, Civ V all struggle on AMD processors, I've played team monobattles on an 8350 and a 3570K, and the AMD quite clearly does worse in such instances. In general any game that focuses on single core performance and hundreds of units on the map at once (RTS games) will cry for more single thread performance.
A better GPU will not improve your FPS in SCII much at all, rather a heavily clocked CPU will.

I also laughed a little when I saw the passmark comparison for CPU's. I dont think Passmark is a valid benchmark to use if you consider what the OP is asking about. Considering he's talking about 660ti's in SLI.

 

[vega22]

skyrim and most other older dx games will also struggle on the fx8.

dont get me wrong here i aint hatin on amd as for pretty much all other uses i would say they are very competitive but once you start to talk about multi card set ups for gaming there is only 1 way to go.

 

[Durvelle27]

The 8320 is a very capable CPU and OC's pretty easily and would be a nice little upgrade but if your gonna be playing older games/single threaded games intel might be better for you


http://anandtech.com/bench/product/107?vs=698

 

[Dent1]

have you never heard of 'bottleneck'?

Last time i checked graphics cards improve graphics capabilities, not the CPU's
Doesn't matter how good your graphics card is, the Athlon won't magically go faster.

Agreed. But even with my perceived Athlon II X4s "bottleneck". I have no trouble maxing out today's games. Including StarCraft II and BF3. If bottlenecking means playing games without issue then I'm cool with that.

skyrim and most other older dx games will also struggle on the fx8.

Never had an issue with Skyrim.

This

SCII, Shogun, Civ V all struggle on AMD processors, I've played team monobattles on an 8350 and a 3570K, and the AMD quite clearly does worse in such instances.

There always has to be a winner and a loser. If the 8350 does worse, then by default your'e saying the 3570K does poorly too. Should be be comparing two poor contenders?

Also if both AMD's (8350) and Intel's (3570K) high end CPUs do poorly, isn't that a fault of the software not the hardware?

 

[Fourstaff]

Agreed. But even with my perceived Athlon II X4s "bottleneck". I have no trouble maxing out today's games. Including StarCraft II and BF3. If bottlenecking means playing games without issue then I'm cool with that.

Never had an issue with Skyrim.

You are not playing enough Starcraft II multiplayer if you are not lagging on an Athlon II x4 lol. Also, you are not downloading enough mods if you are not lagging in Skyrim with any processor. As long as you are careful with the games you play and the things you do, 8320 will be good enough. But why settle for something good enough now when its clearly not going to be good enough in 3 years time, especially in video production? 6 core X79 now, or wait for DDR4. The long term price difference will not be great, and you will save a lot of time.

There always has to be a winner and a loser. If the 8350 does worse, then by default your'e saying the 3570K does poorly too. Should be be comparing two poor contenders?

Also if both AMD's (8350) and Intel's (3570K) high end CPUs do poorly, isn't that a fault of the software not the hardware?

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. RTS games always require crazy amounts of CPU power, even well coded ones. You have to account for the fact that in some situations the 3570K will pump out just acceptable framerates, and 8320 will provide unacceptable framerates.

 

[RCoon]

There always has to be a winner and a loser. If the 8350 does worse, then by default your'e saying the 3570K does poorly too. Should be be comparing two poor contenders?

Also if both AMD's (8350) and Intel's (3570K) high end CPUs do poorly, isn't that a fault of the software not the hardware?

But the 3570k's single core performance is better, most of the games I play are far more CPU intensive, so I switched from an 8350 to a 3570K. That didnt stop me from running a 780, but in hindsight the GPU was never 100% loaded.
As said above, the AMD may give acceptable frames now, but you can bet on it that it will show its age and performance gap within 2 years time.
If you like to play manshoot and mandrive-and-shoot, then by all means, you'll find the 8320 is more than admirable. But if specific games require a solid single core (shogun 2 is an absolute whore for this kind of behaviour), I wouldnt even look at an AMD CPU. Most SCII players will also feel the same way, they dont even have their graphics turned up to max half the time, because calculations dont need the GPU.

 

[Frick]

As said above, the AMD may give acceptable frames now, but you can bet on it that it will show its age and performance gap within 2 years time.

Shouldn't it be the other way round, with games (hopefully) utilizing more threads? One can only dream I suppose.

 

[Fourstaff]

Shouldn't it be the other way round, with games (hopefully) utilizing more threads? One can only dream I suppose.

Some games, yes. Others which favours strong single core performance (especially RTS ones), the gap will be even more pronounced. It all depends on workload, and this is where things get super muddy. One can pull out some random benchmark and claim victory (like what everyone is doing here).

 

[RCoon]

Shouldn't it be the other way round, with games (hopefully) utilizing more threads? One can only dream I suppose.

I wish that were true, but by the sounds of things to me, the next gen consoles may feature 8 cores, but only use a couple for games, the rest will be used to run the OS and that secondary OS thing the XBone is supposed to have.
Likely games will start being coded for 4 cores instead of 1 or 2.

One can pull out some random benchmark and claim victory (like what everyone is doing here).

I thought that was how everybody justified everything they ever purchased to make themselves feel better? I just buy the one that looks cooler and provides me with more fun.

 

[Aaron95]

This

SCII, Shogun, Civ V all struggle on AMD processors, I've played team monobattles on an 8350 and a 3570K, and the AMD quite clearly does worse in such instances. In general any game that focuses on single core performance and hundreds of units on the map at once (RTS games) will cry for more single thread performance.
A better GPU will not improve your FPS in SCII much at all, rather a heavily clocked CPU will.

I also laughed a little when I saw the passmark comparison for CPU's. I dont think Passmark is a valid benchmark to use if you consider what the OP is asking about. Considering he's talking about 660ti's in SLI.

Oh you laughed did you? I'm not the one who loves their benchmarks so much they forget to look at the price tag. If you wanna spend another $100 before you start seeing a performance boost just to get a pretty little intel logo then go for it.

no aaron it wont, but a faster cpu will stop the gpu from starving of data and the fx8 will not feed the gpu anymore data than the old i7 would.

Oh I see, so you're telling me a faster CPU will allow for higher graphics power. Well you're point is backwards coos right here in the post I was referring to it said that that the graphics cards were the reason the CPU can do well:

So explain why 4 year old Athlon II X4 gets about 80FPS in StarCraft II and plays BF3 online with 64 players on ultra settings without hiccup?

graphic cards.....

And as for your point.. I had a look around and not many people agree:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club/6650#post_18997642

It was hard finding such a review (dual graphics plus 8320) so if any of you guys wanna dis AMD again please provide some proof? laugh at what I give all you want at least im actually trying to do some research. I am open to evidence against what I'm saying but so far I haven't really seen any.


Perhaps we can agree on the idea of holding off until the next gen. of CPUs and maybe DDR4 (how close is it?)
I haven't seen anyone disagree with that.. Also Second hand was another good idea (cant remember who said that ) if you want the intel performance cheap

 

[Eric_Cartman]

Wow this sure did turn into an interesting thread.

Anyway, whoever said AMD struggles with Starcraft II is full of it.

My FX-6300 clocked to 4.4GHz has never once struggled with Starcraft II.

Just because it doesn't get 100FPS doesn't mean it struggles.

The lowest I've seen my FX-6300 get in Starcraft II was 40FPS and that still felt completely smooth and that was with the entire screen filled with units fighting.

Most of the time it easily stays over 60FPS.

It definitely doesn't struggle so I would say the FX-8320 isn't going to struggle either.

Also, it is hilarious that I'm asking about a roughly $300 upgrade and you idiots start suggesting upgrades that cost 5 times as much...x79...idiots...

It must be nice to still be living off mommy and daddy, but some of us don't have an unlimited budget.

 

[brandonwh64]

Wow this sure did turn into an interesting thread.

Anyway, whoever said AMD struggles with Starcraft II is full of it.

My FX-6300 clocked to 4.4GHz has never once struggled with Starcraft II.

Just because it doesn't get 100FPS doesn't mean it struggles.

The lowest I've seen my FX-6300 get in Starcraft II was 40FPS and that still felt completely smooth and that was with the entire screen filled with units fighting.

Most of the time it easily stays over 60FPS.

It definitely doesn't struggle so I would say the FX-8320 isn't going to struggle either.

Also, it is hilarious that I'm asking about a roughly $300 upgrade and you idiots start suggesting upgrades that cost 5 times as much...x79...idiots...

It must be nice to still be living off mommy and daddy, but some of us don't have an unlimited budget.

Naw x79 is def not an ideal upgrade for you. Out of the two CPU's you mentioned I would get the AMD 8320 but if you have a budget for a new mobo/cpu then lean towards say a 4570K

 

[Fourstaff]

Anyway, whoever said AMD struggles with Starcraft II is full of it.

You obviously never played heavy 4v4 games I see. I reached masters league on the back of 7fps so I obviously don't have the right to complain.

If you think FX6300 is good enough for Starcraft II, yes it is for 1v1s and other less complicated battles.

Also, it is hilarious that I'm asking about a roughly $300 upgrade and you idiots start suggesting upgrades that cost 5 times as much...x79...idiots...

Didn't see you are looking for a $300 upgrade (using Ctrl+f), if you should have said before the thread got a life of its own.

So yes, if you are on a $300 upgrade, I would say save your money and wait for the next gen DDR4.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

Also, it is hilarious that I'm asking about a roughly $300 upgrade and you idiots start suggesting upgrades that cost 5 times as much...x79...idiots...

$300 yeah a 8320 and a decent mobo seems to be good. If he can bump it a tad he could get a very good 990fxa board and a 8350 for around $340 to $370. Depending on your taste or how good you want the mobo to be. I am running my 8350 @ 4.4 on a $140 Gigabyte 990fxa-UD3. And mine runs whatever i throw at it with ease. I have played BF3 while crunching WCG @ 100% and it never hiccuped.

Also if he can swing it some better memory wouldn't hurt either.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

BF3 plays fine on amd...

+1

4 gpus here , only two old fives for rendering though and no issues with any game coded well and not clearly using intels compiler bf3 fine crysis3 fine and anything else ive played.

OP

I went from a PII 960T to an fx 8350 oc's easy to 4.8 the rest of the system stayed the same and there is deffinately 20-30% more game going on in most games 150 notes cpu, and a 90-150 pound mobo = 240-300 quids <more of these too

 

[Eric_Cartman]

You obviously never played heavy 4v4 games I see. I reached masters league on the back of 7fps so I obviously don't have the right to complain.

If you think FX6300 is good enough for Starcraft II, yes it is for 1v1s and other less complicated battles.

Sure I have, you've obviously never turned the unit physics down a notch.

 

[Fourstaff]

Sure I have, you've obviously never turned the unit physics down a notch.

Well if you are going to plonk down a few hundred dollars on hardware, might as well buy something which can max your game out, no? You can obviously save some more money and go down a notch, but only if the tradeoff is worth the money. It definitely isn't to me, even if the game runs fine today you will be upgrading earlier with a slower PC. Not saying 8320 is slow, its unsuitable for the purposes of RTS gaming. If you are primarily getting it for the multithreaded processing power with the side advantage of gaming, sure, go ahead. Its a good chip for that purpose.

 

[Vario]

I'd go for a used ivy or sandy bridge system if you find someone upgrading to haswell. I've seen used locked sandys going for around $150 or so if you look around. Many of these can still be pushed up 4 bins of overclocking anyway.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

Well if you are going to plonk down a few hundred dollars on hardware, might as well buy something which can max your game out, no? You can obviously save some more money and go down a notch, but only if the tradeoff is worth the money. It definitely isn't to me, even if the game runs fine today you will be upgrading earlier with a slower PC. Not saying 8320 is slow, its unsuitable for the purposes of RTS gaming. If you are primarily getting it for the multithreaded processing power with the side advantage of gaming, sure, go ahead. Its a good chip for that purpose.

If I have to spend a few hundred dollars more just to push one setting one notch higher that makes no difference in gameplay and almost no difference in graphics, that money is wasted.

 

[GreiverBlade]

i wanted to go 8320 until i found for a little less than the price of a 8320 a X58 mobo who has USB3.0(2 port on the back IO) and 2 Sata III port with a i7-920 (clock at 4.1 from 2.66 under a Macho HR-02) and 12gb tri channel ram ... still its not a good 990FX + 83xx or a shiny I7-4xxxK setup but when budget is in line and as it was a "not so bad upgrade" over a X4 955 i did go with that ...

still im neither Intel or AMD or Nvidia side im "bang for bucks" side ... im all about 2nd hand and it never failed me too hard (only one burnt GTX460 AMP!)

as Vario said a 2nd hand Sandy or Ivy could be good (that remind me i found a seller with a i7-3820 at 150$~ and i saw some X79 mobo under 100$ on a local trade and offer site)