[Mauzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil Reply to Mauzen - According* to Passmark CPU bench marks I5-3570k is actually worse than 8320. Oh yea, there's 2 versions of 8320 - 8320 and 8320E ( 95W, lower performance). .

Great, im being dragged even more into that discussion now

Thats because its a synthetic benchmark, getting the theorethical maximum out of a pure CPU test in a certain test scenario (passmark CPU tests are certain mathematic operations, compression, encryption and some other stuff).
The 8320 profits from those tests as it got 8 cores and so can perform more parallel tasks. But barely any game uses more than 3 or 4 cores though, and the single cores of the intel core-i CPUs are MUCH stronger than the AMD fx.
Also, depending on the test, AMDs due to their architecture are faster with integer operations, but slower with floating points. Encryption and compression pretty much are pure integer tasks so the fx-8320 wins there, but floating point operations are much more relevant for games.

So yep, there are certain scenarios in which the 8320 is faster than the 3570, but those scenarios clearly arent games. Why argue with a synthetic score when the actual game benchmarks put the fx-8320 miles behind the i5-3570? This is about a gaming pc!

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil And to Mauzen - If you think that FX-8320 is not enough for gaming, then you must be rocking Intel Xeon E5-2697 with 4 way Titan Z SLI and playing with at least 4k in 3 monitor eyefinity.

I think its reason enough to say its not a good CPU for a gaming pc today, if it cant handle a 4-year-old game like Starcraft 2 properly.
That performance is far behind what youd expect from a new 1000$ PC.


Edit: Im cutting that discussion with [WSF]ThA_Devil in this thread right here, I really cant stand to mess up threads with those discussions going offtopic without any visible end. Ill continue via PM/visitor messages.