Wow, this is a real classic! It's the retro computing at its best! 🤣

Agreed! They don't make em like that anymore 😉

tayyare, borgie83 - Is "System Specs" supposed to be retro-only? I don't think it says that in the forum description? 😀

Matching MSI motherboard and graphics card (I assume because I see red details)? Looks nice!
Btw what does that Fx-8350 equate to? I've been on blue lands since the Core2Duo era, and AMDs recent processors have been too lackluster to sway me, so I have no idea of how powerful that processor is.

alexanrs wrote:

Matching MSI motherboard and graphics card (I assume because I see red details)? Looks nice!
Btw what does that Fx-8350 equate to? I've been on blue lands since the Core2Duo era, and AMDs recent processors have been too lackluster to sway me, so I have no idea of how powerful that processor is.

Its 4.0 GhZ with an eight core processor.

Mike wrote:

Its 4.0 GhZ with an eight core processor.

Yeah, but given that Intel has stronger single threaded performance, you can't really equate them in performance with raw clock numers or core count. Specially Bulldozer-derived processors since I believe no one trully extracted the full potential of the weird parallelism scheme they have. This probably reaches the performance of an i5 for gaming, I'm just curious to know which.

Stiletto wrote:

tayyare, borgie83 - Is "System Specs" supposed to be retro-only? I don't think it says that in the forum description? 😀

I think it should be divided into two different trees or it will become mixed and confused.

An FX8350 is slower than a Core i5 2500k of a few generations ago in games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/5

Stiletto wrote:

tayyare, borgie83 - Is "System Specs" supposed to be retro-only? I don't think it says that in the forum description? 😀

Indeed, and in addition to that, the title of the post clearly says "New Computer". I was just having some harmless fun. 😈
D

Scali wrote:

An FX8350 is slower than a Core i5 2500k of a few generations ago in games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/5

Unless of course you don't play your games in VGA without details just to see how fast your processor is in unrealistic situations, in which case it takes the power of two 7970 in crossfire to begin to see a relevant difference, as proven by the same website.

The games selection is a bit old, and it depends on the game, but for a 960 I believe (from what I have read on that article) most games will be GPU limited and this CPU is more than adequate. I believe a 980 would already be enough to be dragged down by the processor, perhaps even the 970, but definitely not a 960. Overall this looks like a decently balanced machine.

sunaiac wrote:

Scali wrote:

An FX8350 is slower than a Core i5 2500k of a few generations ago in games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/5

Unless of course you don't play your games in VGA without details just to see how fast your processor is in unrealistic situations, in which case it takes the power of two 7970 in crossfire to begin to see a relevant difference, as proven by the same website.

It depends. Some games will run a lot better on the i5 2500k, some others won't. Better may mean that you're getting 130FPS instead of 80FPS, so maybe it's not a big deal, but you aren't looking at the minimums, you're looking at averages. Witcher 3 runs better on FX-8xxx CPUs than it does on an i5 2500k and it even competes really well with the latest i5 and i7 CPUs. It's still a really good CPU, especially for other tasks like video encoding and stuff (and it is also 3 years old by now).

sunaiac wrote:

Scali wrote:

An FX8350 is slower than a Core i5 2500k of a few generations ago in games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/5

Unless of course you don't play your games in VGA without details just to see how fast your processor is in unrealistic situations, in which case it takes the power of two 7970 in crossfire to begin to see a relevant difference, as proven by the same website.

The point of measuring the CPU performance is to remove the GPU bottleneck.
FX8350 is slow, period.
Just because you don't see the difference in all situations doesn't mean it isn't there.

F2bnp wrote:

It's still a really good CPU, especially for other tasks like video encoding and stuff (and it is also 3 years old by now).

It isn't.
It's a high-end CPU being sold at bargain basement prices.
Compare the transistor count and TDP of the FX8350 with even an i5 2500K and you'll see that these CPUs are technically in completely different leagues (the FX8350 is rated at 125W TDP vs 95W for the 2500K, while the 2500K even has an integrated GPU included in that TDP). The FX8350 needs far more transistors and draws far more power to deliver the same level of performance as the outdated Intel i5 2500K.
But yes, sell it cheaply enough and anything can be 'good value for money'. Technically it's not a 'really good CPU', not even remotely. It's terribly outdated and inefficient.
It wasn't a good CPU when it was introduced 3 years ago, and it's far worse today (current i5s are faster and TDP has gone down to 65W).

Scali wrote:

The point of measuring the CPU performance is to remove the GPU bottleneck. FX8350 is slow, period. Just because you don't see t […]
Show full quote

sunaiac wrote:

Scali wrote:

An FX8350 is slower than a Core i5 2500k of a few generations ago in games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/5

Unless of course you don't play your games in VGA without details just to see how fast your processor is in unrealistic situations, in which case it takes the power of two 7970 in crossfire to begin to see a relevant difference, as proven by the same website.

The point of measuring the CPU performance is to remove the GPU bottleneck.
FX8350 is slow, period.
Just because you don't see the difference in all situations doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm lost, were you talking about performance of the CPU or behaviour in game ?
The 8350 is slower than a 2500K in low thread count applications, it's faster in high thread count applications.
Those CPU behaviour in game is most of the time the same since the games are mainly GPU-bound, and when not will depend if the game is correctly threaded or not.
You seem to be mixing stuff here, and seem to try to use a specific point to make a generality.
Kinda like saying a 486 isn't faster than a 386, a pentium is twice as fast as a 486, and an ISA card is as fast as a mid range VLB one.
If you see what I mean.

sunaiac wrote:

I'm lost, were you talking about performance of the CPU or behaviour in game ?

The performance of the CPU obviously.
Take a GPU slow enough, and your CPU performance doesn't matter. Which says nothing about your CPU of course.
It's like testing tyres in a brake test, but braking from 0.001 kph.

sunaiac wrote:

it's faster in high thread count applications.

Nope. Common misconception from people with no clue about CPUs and software. They think "moar threads == moar coars".
In many cases, the Core i5 2500 will perform as well, if not better than the FX8350 even in heavily multithreaded scenarios.
This is because you can run multiple threads on each core. Having fewer, but faster cores can still result in better performance.

Come on, Mike just built his new PC, let him be and enjoy it 😀

philscomputerlab wrote:

Come on, Mike just built his new PC, let him be and enjoy it 😀

He probably had a good deal on the PC price-wise, so the fact that it's not exactly the fastest machine around shouldn't keep him from enjoying a PC with good value for money.
Anyone buying AMD isn't expecting much in terms of performance anyway. They're shopping in a different price bracket.

Scali wrote:

The performance of the CPU obviously. Take a GPU slow enough, and your CPU performance doesn't matter. Which says nothing about […]
Show full quote

sunaiac wrote:

I'm lost, were you talking about performance of the CPU or behaviour in game ?

The performance of the CPU obviously.
Take a GPU slow enough, and your CPU performance doesn't matter. Which says nothing about your CPU of course.
It's like testing tyres in a brake test, but braking from 0.001 kph.

Then the "Unless" that started my sentence should have been a clue that I did agree that the 8350 was slower than the 2500K in those situations.
There's a lot of websites explaining words, you'll find one yourself ?

Scali wrote:

Nope. Common misconception from people with no clue about CPUs and software. They think "moar threads == moar coars". In many ca […]
Show full quote

sunaiac wrote:

it's faster in high thread count applications.

Nope. Common misconception from people with no clue about CPUs and software. They think "moar threads == moar coars".
In many cases, the Core i5 2500 will perform as well, if not better than the FX8350 even in heavily multithreaded scenarios.
This is because you can run multiple threads on each core. Having fewer, but faster cores can still result in better performance.

Except the 8350 is faster than the 2500K in highly multithreaded applications. All the ones tested when the CPU came. All of them.
Once again, facts with hard evidence. Not what you'd like reality to be.
As for your attempt to "explain life to the lower lifeforms around you", I'm far from impressed, but find it funny given the quantity of lies you continuously gratify us with.
But I'm very happy to learn that a core can run multiple threads. Who'd have thought ?