Anyone using AMD 8320/8350 getting decent fps?

D34thly

Before I dump my hard earned money into jumping back on to the intel bandwagon and pickup a i7 4770k, are any of you that are using AMD 8350/8320 getting decent fps at all with ultra settings? I'm using two 280x's which are 7970's and getting around 30fps 10 in pvp. I'm about to do a fresh install of windows see if anything was amiss and go from there.

imperialyap_ESO

I run the AMD 8150 with a 7950 on ultra with a few minor adjustments to the video settings. In Cyrodiil, I can get 40-50 fps, although in large zerg battles it'll dip down quite a bit but that's expected. Do you have the game on an SSD? That does help pull out a few extra frames, and especially with the load.

D34thly

Yes I have an SSD though it shouldn't do anything besides help with load times. I don't get it.. It has to be driver related or such. What drivers are you running?

Charg

Dude, get the intel. It's much more reliable for gaming, don't trust AMD with CPU's seriously.

Their cpus is for multitasking not for gaming. Intels cpus are much greater at focuseing all proccessing power on one or two single things, which means they will go full on super work when you are gaming, while a AMD cpu will just jump around at 25% because it's waiting for more stuff to work with.

WylieCoyote1511

imperialyap_ESO wrote: »

I run the AMD 8150 with a 7950 on ultra with a few minor adjustments to the video settings. In Cyrodiil, I can get 40-50 fps, although in large zerg battles it'll dip down quite a bit but that's expected. Do you have the game on an SSD? That does help pull out a few extra frames, and especially with the load.

I have an AMD FX 8350 with a gtx 780 ti and can't get good frames like you.

Drops to 24 sometimes in Daggerfall!!

vital1989

D34thly wrote: »

Before I dump my hard earned money into jumping back on to the intel bandwagon and pickup a i7 4770k, are any of you that are using AMD 8350/8320 getting decent fps at all with ultra settings? I'm using two 280x's which are 7970's and getting around 30fps 10 in pvp. I'm about to do a fresh install of windows see if anything was amiss and go from there.

Week ago bough new pc. I7 4770k asus gtx 780 8gb ram 1600 in town fps 40-60 depend on how many peoples around. Pve is fine 60-75 (75herz monitor vsync on) pvp 25- 35 i speak about moments when alot ppls attack castle and alot enemys defence castle. Settinga ultra, view distance 62. Gpu cpu work on half power even if fps drop low. Windows 7

WylieCoyote1511

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

Audigy

vital1989 wrote: »

D34thly wrote: »

Before I dump my hard earned money into jumping back on to the intel bandwagon and pickup a i7 4770k, are any of you that are using AMD 8350/8320 getting decent fps at all with ultra settings? I'm using two 280x's which are 7970's and getting around 30fps 10 in pvp. I'm about to do a fresh install of windows see if anything was amiss and go from there.

Week ago bough new pc. I7 4770k asus gtx 780 8gb ram 1600 in town fps 40-60 depend on how many peoples around. Pve is fine 60-75 (75herz monitor vsync on) pvp 25- 35 i speak about moments when alot ppls attack castle and alot enemys defence castle. Settinga ultra, view distance 62. Gpu cpu work on half power even if fps drop low. Windows 7

Your system isn't running on full power, because the game doesn't know how to use so much horse power. My I5 isn't fully utilized either, 3 cores around 30% while one sits at 80%.

Don't worry, its an engine problem that hopefully can be fixed with a patch in future. The game doesn't support multi core systems or hyper threating, pretty much everything happens on one core.

If the Dev´s can improve this, then we will also have pvp with 40+ FPS.

zshadez_ESO

8320 running at 4.3ghz and a single 270 at 1200/1500.

~60 fps single monitor 1080 ultra with shadows dropped to med
~45-50 fps all ultra
~35fps ultra with med shadows 3840x1080
~28fps ultra with med shadows 5760x1080

vital1989

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

WylieCoyote1511

vital1989 wrote: »

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

Yeah just noticed that So that's what I'm gonna leave it on.

I just have an issue where I like everything on full and it eats away at me when it isn't.

I will just have to get used to it.

paul.foucherwb17_ESO

im using an 8150 and it rocks

vital1989

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

vital1989 wrote: »

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

Yeah just noticed that So that's what I'm gonna leave it on.

I just have an issue where I like everything on full and it eats away at me when it isn't.

I will just have to get used to it.

I cannot see diference between 62 and 100,only fps lower

D34thly

I recently went from windows 7 ent x64 to windows 8.1 pro x64 and I'm getting 50-75fps outside and 97-100 in dungeons on windows 8.1 while I would rock like 30-40 fps on windows 7. This is with ultra med water reflections and 100 draw. I have no idea why there is a difference since 8 is basically windows 7 with metro, but the difference is huge. btw I decided to install windows 7 again to see if it was just a bloated install of windows 7. I did a fresh install then got latest drivers and hotfixes for amd and hit up eso and had the same performance as before.

Saerydoth

vital1989 wrote: »

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

vital1989 wrote: »

WylieCoyote1511 wrote: »

I put my view distance to 62 and game runs a lot better now!

Don't see much difference between 62 and 100 view distance.

actualy if u choose Ultra settings,its became 62 automatically.

Yeah just noticed that So that's what I'm gonna leave it on.

I just have an issue where I like everything on full and it eats away at me when it isn't.

I will just have to get used to it.

I cannot see diference between 62 and 100,only fps lower

There is a *slight* difference. But I agree that it isn't much, and it certainly isn't worth the cost, even on a 4770k/780ti.

jrgray93

D34thly wrote: »

I recently went from windows 7 ent x64 to windows 8.1 pro x64 and I'm getting 50-75fps outside and 97-100 in dungeons on windows 8.1 while I would rock like 30-40 fps on windows 7. This is with ultra med water reflections and 100 draw. I have no idea why there is a difference since 8 is basically windows 7 with metro, but the difference is huge. btw I decided to install windows 7 again to see if it was just a bloated install of windows 7. I did a fresh install then got latest drivers and hotfixes for amd and hit up eso and had the same performance as before.

Sorry to necro, but this is likely related to this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

Windows 7 does some funky things with AMD FX. Not to mention FX processors have poor per-core performance in comparison to Intel, and ESO stacks heavier load on a single core, much like many poorly-optimized games do.

tomiffseb17_ESO

I made another topic like yours, but im happy this one is back on top again. Running on fx8350 And no, i am not satisfied at all. I can play fine with almost 60 fps all the time, maybe drops to 45-55 in big crowded towns, but when in cyrodiil and caste attack/defense happens i am dropping to 22-28 which is unplayable. I am switched ti win8 aswell, but i cant catch any improvement. Before that i had windows7 but applied the two hotfixes for the FX series. Thoose surely helped a lot, but not with the fps.

Saerydoth

tomiffseb17_ESO wrote: »

I made another topic like yours, but im happy this one is back on top again. Running on fx8350 And no, i am not satisfied at all. I can play fine with almost 60 fps all the time, maybe drops to 45-55 in big crowded towns, but when in cyrodiil and caste attack/defense happens i am dropping to 22-28 which is unplayable. I am switched ti win8 aswell, but i cant catch any improvement. Before that i had windows7 but applied the two hotfixes for the FX series. Thoose surely helped a lot, but not with the fps.

Even the newest AMD-FX processors are about 2 years old now. They also run on an outdated platform (AM3+) which does not support a lot of modern features like PCI-e 3.0. AM3+ is also a dead end, it will not be updated. The IPC on the FX processors is extremely poor (lower than the Phenom 2, the only reason they perform slightly better than the Phenom 2 is due to higher clock speed). They are 25-40% behind the current Intel processors (depending on which one you get).

The new APU's based on Steamroller fare a bit better, and they do run on a modern platform (FM2+), but they are not really designed for performance machines with a dedicated GPU, as they do not have L3 cache. The APU's have their purpose (their integrated graphics is literally 400% ahead of Intel's) in things like laptops, media machines, and budget machines. But for an actual gaming computer with a dedicated GPU, Intel is your only option.

My framerates increased by about 15-20 when I finally bit the bullet and went from an FX-8350 to an i7-4770k. JUST from the CPU change. You have to overclock an FX processor to about 5.5 GHz just to match a stock cheap i3 in things that are not heavily threaded. And even in things that ARE heavily threaded, the absolute best you can ever get even from a heavily overclocked 8350 is to BARELY match (slightly behind) a stock speed i7. And the i7 will still cream the 8350 in anything that is dependent on per-core speed, while running at a significantly lower clock speed, and using 40% less power. And keep in mind that the games that are heavily threaded (where the FX processors perform the best) tend to depend more on the GPU than the CPU anyway.

I know this sucks to hear, and I'm an AMD fan myself. I would love to be able to have an AMD system again...but at this point, I cannot recommend an AMD CPU for anything except a laptop, or a budget/media machine. The AMD GPU's, however, are still VERY competitive with Nvidia. In the GPU arena, AMD tends to beat Nvidia in both performance and price in almost every area except for the extremely expensive $1000 cards. And even then they aren't far behind. If you're willing to spend $1000 on a graphics card and want the absolute best performance you can get, Nvidia still wins there. But you will definitely pay for it. The 780ti beats the R9-290x at 1080p and fairly well matches it at higher resolutions...but the 290x is cheaper.

tomiffseb17_ESO

Cant argue with that, you are right, but still. Never had any problems running games on AMD, and it seems like eso is the first one i ran into this problem. I am not chasing dreams, im not a programmer, probably it isnt easy to change the games engine to utilize more cores then 2, but still, i gotta have some faith in that somewhere in the future

Kosar

i have stayed true to AMD for 2 solid reason. I can abuse them like rented mules and never lose a step--the two systems I have tried OCing with Intel burned out in a few months (from tweaking them, not running standard) and I've literally never had an AMD fizzle out. That's my biggest reason. Second, and no one believes this because of the tech involved, but everyone of my friends builds intel/nvidia machines while I stay true to AMD and I out perform them on every system. I can't speak to anything happening behind the scenes, but i can speak to what i and they see.

currently i'm running 2 crossfired 7950s (OCd for a 12% or so increase in performance) with the AMD 8350 @4.5-5.0ghz and 16gb of 1800mhz ram (that unstably OCs sometimes). normal single player, offlines games, i run 90-120 fps almost always. in eso tho, in "normal" pve areas with decent population running around near me i get around 80-90 fps. in uber low pop areas i've seen 100+ consistently. highly populated pve it fluctuates between 60 and 75. most of the time in cyrodiil i run with about 20 guys and run 50-65 fps with them around 40-60 when we are fighting equal numbers or fewer bad guys and around 30-45 in large scale 3-way battles.

(side note, sorta: that last fps rate has only been happening since the optimization in the update--in fact 30-40 fps previously felt like 20-30 and since the optimization i've question the fps counter because the animations on screen look like it is in fact running more like 40-60 with very, very clean animations. in comparison, when gw2 dipped to 30 fps, it felt like watching molasses and ESO's 30 looks completely watchable. idk how to account for that honestly.)

wth all that said, my best friend is playing with a supposedly better i5 series intel and dual nvidia gtx 760 and i destroy his stats. his always looks choppy and he consistently is 20 fps lower than me...and he hates cyrodiil. i think the only gigantic difference in our machines is i run ssd and he is on a standard hdd. by the numbers i shouldn't be beating him out anywhere i don't think--which is why 99% of people don't believe me when i get involved in these discussion. (side note: I also paid far less for my system, so there is that.)

admittedly, by all tests, statistics, tech, and knowledge, i shouldn't be running nearly as well as i do. things i don't know as much about--like power, heat--could be significantly larger in use and production. i will admit that i don't monitor working conditions very closely in all honestly...and that's directly because of my reason #1 that I stay with AMD, as stated above. abuse doesn't bother them and they don't bother me. i stop watching performance counters and usage monitors as soon as I stabilize a new system.

i do wish AMD would catch up to things like PCIe 3.0 and faster ram, but i honestly can't complain for what I get out of this and how much I paid (2 years ago at that--for a system that is far enough ahead of the curve that I'm solid for awhile).

Saerydoth is absolutely correct about everything he says, and that is why everyone I know goes Intel. I can't argue with any of that except that what I have going for me works and works well.

Elf_Boy

I have an 8350 and gtx 680 (4GB) I have everything maxed out and play at both 1920*1080 AND 5760*1080. I have not felt the rendering lag or slow down at all. (weapon swap and a few other things, yes, but the pretty world slow down, no)

Intel makes some good products, some people forget that just because one thing is good that does not mean something else can ALSO be good.

How much Vram do you have? Thats probably a bigger issue.

Saerydoth

Elf_Boy wrote: »

I have an 8350 and gtx 680 (4GB) I have everything maxed out and play at both 1920*1080 AND 5760*1080. I have not felt the rendering lag or slow down at all. (weapon swap and a few other things, yes, but the pretty world slow down, no)

Intel makes some good products, some people forget that just because one thing is good that does not mean something else can ALSO be good.

How much Vram do you have? Thats probably a bigger issue.

An issue here though, is that AMD is not making any more FX processors. The 8350 is it, there will never be an upgrade to it. It's been out for nearly 2 years now. In the meantime, Intel keeps advancing. Even when the 8350 came out 2 years ago, it was behind the 3770k (the highest end Intel at the time). The 4770k only improved on that and 14nm Broadwell is just around the corner.

Eventually you're going to have to upgrade, and AMD just isn't an option anymore unless you want to get an APU. Don't get me wrong, the APU's are decent for what they are, but they don't really cut it as desktop processors. They are *excellent* choices for when you want to actually use the APU's integrated graphics. Laptops benefit heavily from this, as the APU's integrated graphics perform as well as entry level gaming graphics cards, and they are *significantly* cheaper than having to get a laptop with a dedicated GPU (which you have to do if you go the Intel route). So you can get about 75% of the performance of a high end $2000 laptop for MUCH MUCH cheaper. The APU's are also excellent for media and budget machines. The integrated graphics are about 400% faster than Intel's integrated graphics. But when you throw dedicated GPU's into the picture, the APU's start to fall behind, due to lack of L3 cache and general lack of IPC.

Elf_Boy

Saerydoth wrote: »

Elf_Boy wrote: »

I have an 8350 and gtx 680 (4GB) I have everything maxed out and play at both 1920*1080 AND 5760*1080. I have not felt the rendering lag or slow down at all. (weapon swap and a few other things, yes, but the pretty world slow down, no)

Intel makes some good products, some people forget that just because one thing is good that does not mean something else can ALSO be good.

How much Vram do you have? Thats probably a bigger issue.

An issue here though, is that AMD is not making any more FX processors. The 8350 is it, there will never be an upgrade to it. It's been out for nearly 2 years now. In the meantime, Intel keeps advancing. Even when the 8350 came out 2 years ago, it was behind the 3770k (the highest end Intel at the time). The 4770k only improved on that and 14nm Broadwell is just around the corner.

Eventually you're going to have to upgrade, and AMD just isn't an option anymore unless you want to get an APU. Don't get me wrong, the APU's are decent for what they are, but they don't really cut it as desktop processors. They are *excellent* choices for when you want to actually use the APU's integrated graphics. Laptops benefit heavily from this, as the APU's integrated graphics perform as well as entry level gaming graphics cards, and they are *significantly* cheaper than having to get a laptop with a dedicated GPU (which you have to do if you go the Intel route). So you can get about 75% of the performance of a high end $2000 laptop for MUCH MUCH cheaper. The APU's are also excellent for media and budget machines. The integrated graphics are about 400% faster than Intel's integrated graphics. But when you throw dedicated GPU's into the picture, the APU's start to fall behind, due to lack of L3 cache and general lack of IPC.

What does that have to do with in game performance? What does that have to do with the OP? What does that have to do with my prior statements in reference to the game performance, as measured by FPS?

WylieCoyote1511

Elf_Boy wrote: »

Saerydoth wrote: »

Elf_Boy wrote: »

I have an 8350 and gtx 680 (4GB) I have everything maxed out and play at both 1920*1080 AND 5760*1080. I have not felt the rendering lag or slow down at all. (weapon swap and a few other things, yes, but the pretty world slow down, no)

Intel makes some good products, some people forget that just because one thing is good that does not mean something else can ALSO be good.

How much Vram do you have? Thats probably a bigger issue.

An issue here though, is that AMD is not making any more FX processors. The 8350 is it, there will never be an upgrade to it. It's been out for nearly 2 years now. In the meantime, Intel keeps advancing. Even when the 8350 came out 2 years ago, it was behind the 3770k (the highest end Intel at the time). The 4770k only improved on that and 14nm Broadwell is just around the corner.

Eventually you're going to have to upgrade, and AMD just isn't an option anymore unless you want to get an APU. Don't get me wrong, the APU's are decent for what they are, but they don't really cut it as desktop processors. They are *excellent* choices for when you want to actually use the APU's integrated graphics. Laptops benefit heavily from this, as the APU's integrated graphics perform as well as entry level gaming graphics cards, and they are *significantly* cheaper than having to get a laptop with a dedicated GPU (which you have to do if you go the Intel route). So you can get about 75% of the performance of a high end $2000 laptop for MUCH MUCH cheaper. The APU's are also excellent for media and budget machines. The integrated graphics are about 400% faster than Intel's integrated graphics. But when you throw dedicated GPU's into the picture, the APU's start to fall behind, due to lack of L3 cache and general lack of IPC.

What does that have to do with in game performance? What does that have to do with the OP? What does that have to do with my prior statements in reference to the game performance, as measured by FPS?

This guy has been pasting this AMD stuff everywhere. Getting on my nerves now.