WEBVTT 00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:04.960 This video is brought to you by CM Storm, preferred choice of mice, 00:00:03.360 --> 00:00:08.160 headsets, and mechanical keyboards of Curse Gaming. Visit 00:00:09.160 --> 00:00:16.720 www.coolermaster-usea.com/team_curse for more details. Guys, welcome to part four 00:00:13.040 --> 00:00:18.320 of our 3570K versus FX8350 gaming 00:00:16.720 --> 00:00:23.920 showdown. I'm going to start with our platforms. We've got a Crosshair 5 00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:25.680 formula with an FX8350 at 4.6 GHz. This 00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:29.679 overclock should be attainable by pretty much anyone running this chip on an 00:00:27.279 --> 00:00:33.120 overclocking ready platform. Uh, but there is some headroom to keep going. 00:00:31.519 --> 00:00:38.000 However, we have an equally conservative overclock on our 3570K running on a 00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:41.680 Maximus 5 formula. This guy's running at 4.2 GHz. Now, they're both running 00:00:40.160 --> 00:00:46.960 Mushkin Blackline memory. There's copperhead heat spreaders on here, but there's nothing special about those. 00:00:44.239 --> 00:00:52.000 It's just regular 1600 MHz memory, and we're running a 128 gig SSD for our boot 00:00:49.840 --> 00:00:57.520 drive, an AX850 for our power supply, and an H100 for our cooler. Now, I 00:00:55.199 --> 00:01:01.760 specifically called out that you needed an overclocking ready platform. This is 00:00:59.520 --> 00:01:05.280 something I wanted to bring up because the cost of the platform, the cost 00:01:03.600 --> 00:01:10.400 difference between these platforms is not sheerely dictated by the cost of the 00:01:07.600 --> 00:01:15.040 chip itself. So, the FX8350 is about $20 cheaper on average than a 3570K. 00:01:12.880 --> 00:01:19.920 However, these two boards actually have a $50 price difference. And if you look 00:01:17.360 --> 00:01:25.040 at what the minimum bare minimum Z77 board costs, it's around $120. Whereas 00:01:22.720 --> 00:01:28.640 you can get a 970A board as long as you're not planning to run a high-end 00:01:26.479 --> 00:01:32.880 dual GPU setup that you need. So even then it supports 8x8x for crossfire 00:01:31.119 --> 00:01:36.880 operation. Um you can get one of those for around 80 bucks. So that's something 00:01:34.960 --> 00:01:40.320 to consider when you look at the performance numbers we're going to show 00:01:38.159 --> 00:01:46.079 you. Methodology wise we're using our usual approach. So our standard card is 00:01:42.400 --> 00:01:47.920 an MSI GeForce GTX 660Ti Power Edition. 00:01:46.079 --> 00:01:51.520 This guy right here. We run it at a standard overclock that we always run 00:01:50.240 --> 00:01:55.840 this card on. You can check out all of our GPU overclocks on any of our video 00:01:53.520 --> 00:02:00.079 card reviews. We are using FRAPs to record average frame rates. However, we 00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:04.000 are aware of the new methodology of measuring frame times. However, there's 00:02:02.240 --> 00:02:08.800 also been I mean it's been an explosive time in GPU benchmarking. Um, and the 00:02:06.640 --> 00:02:12.480 correct tools for measuring frame times actually don't yet exist except with 00:02:10.879 --> 00:02:17.120 some very specialized equipment. So, we're doing what pretty much everyone else is doing, and we're still using 00:02:14.800 --> 00:02:20.160 Fraps to measure frame rates, but expect that to change sometime over the next 00:02:18.720 --> 00:02:23.840 little while as more tools become available. We do use in-game runs, so 00:02:22.800 --> 00:02:28.640 you guys are going to see little messages pop up if you want to see exactly how we benchmark each game. Just 00:02:27.520 --> 00:02:33.280 go ahead and click that, check it out, and then you can run your game the same way that we do and find out how your 00:02:31.760 --> 00:02:37.280 system stacks up. So, you're going to see four scenarios on each graph. 00:02:34.879 --> 00:02:40.959 Windows 7 with Intel, Windows 7 with AMD, Windows 8 with Intel, Windows 8 00:02:39.120 --> 00:02:44.239 with AMD. We're running anti-aliasing on all of the games this time around. We 00:02:42.480 --> 00:02:48.480 have a separate video where we ran with no anti-aliasing. And we're going to 00:02:46.080 --> 00:02:53.120 start with Far Cry 3. So, in Far Cry 3, the only real change um that happened 00:02:51.440 --> 00:02:58.400 was when we went from Windows 7 to Windows 8, both platforms improved in 00:02:55.599 --> 00:03:02.640 performance, particularly the Intel one went from 15 frames per second minimum 00:03:00.800 --> 00:03:06.640 to 24 frames per second minimum, delivering a much smoother experience, 00:03:04.239 --> 00:03:10.400 while the AMD platform was at 20 plus frames per second minimum on both 00:03:08.720 --> 00:03:14.959 Windows 7 and Windows 8. So, it looks like Windows 8 comes ahead, but the 00:03:12.879 --> 00:03:18.000 actual results in terms of the average frames per second was about the same on 00:03:16.640 --> 00:03:23.879 both cards, giving you about the same gaming experience regardless of which chip you choose. Crisis 3 is pretty much 00:03:22.080 --> 00:03:29.840 nothing to report here, guys. So, the FX8350 and the 3570K perform about the 00:03:27.200 --> 00:03:34.480 same, and they performance doesn't really change from Windows 7 to Windows 00:03:31.760 --> 00:03:38.720 8. In Battlefield 3, we saw a bit of a different story with both of them 00:03:36.480 --> 00:03:43.280 recording about the same average frame rates. So, a little bit higher with the 00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:46.640 8350 edging out the 3570K. Actually, I shouldn't say edging out. It's about, 00:03:44.799 --> 00:03:50.959 you know, 5% performance difference. However, it should be noted, but because 00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:53.760 we're using real runs, the uh margin of error for our tests is a little bit 00:03:52.400 --> 00:04:00.959 higher, although we do run them multiple times to get them as accurate as possible. However, both platforms 00:03:57.760 --> 00:04:05.040 increased in minimum frame rates from 35 00:04:00.959 --> 00:04:07.360 to 43 on the 8350 and from 37 to 51 when 00:04:05.040 --> 00:04:11.360 moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8. So, there was uh there was less less of a 00:04:09.599 --> 00:04:15.760 dip when you run into an intensive scenario on Windows 8 versus Windows 7. 00:04:14.080 --> 00:04:20.720 In Skyrim, there wasn't really much to report. The 3570K gets a clear win here 00:04:18.400 --> 00:04:24.880 versus the 8350, and performance didn't change going from Windows 7 to Windows 00:04:22.880 --> 00:04:28.240 8. It should be noted that our Skyrim benchmark is run with about 18 custom 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:31.919 mods enabled, and we haven't released our Skyrim benchmarking guide yet, but 00:04:30.320 --> 00:04:35.440 that will hopefully be coming sometime soon. In Dirt 3, this was one of the 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:39.280 more dramatic changes. Without anti-aliasing, both chips were running 00:04:37.199 --> 00:04:43.680 at an average around 150 frames per second, enabling anti-aliasing on this 00:04:41.360 --> 00:04:48.080 title had them both tanked to around half of what we were seeing previously. 00:04:45.680 --> 00:04:51.759 It should also be noted that they didn't really change in performance from 00:04:49.199 --> 00:04:55.440 Windows 7 to Windows 8. Once again, Witcher 2, we saw performance 00:04:53.759 --> 00:04:59.199 improvements going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in terms of the minimum frame 00:04:57.199 --> 00:05:05.600 rates. So on the AMD platform, we went from 52 to 57 and on the Intel platform, 00:05:01.440 --> 00:05:08.639 we went from 51 to 64. So Witcher 2 ran 00:05:05.600 --> 00:05:11.120 better on Intel, particularly on well, 00:05:08.639 --> 00:05:14.400 not on Windows 7, but on Windows 8, it ran better on Intel, but not on Windows 00:05:12.880 --> 00:05:18.960 7. So that was a very interesting observation. It also took the averages 00:05:16.960 --> 00:05:22.479 and put about a 10% difference in performance between the two chips. 00:05:20.320 --> 00:05:26.960 Whereas on Windows 7, they were much much closer, pretty much within margin 00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:32.240 of error. In Metro 2033, we saw a performance improvement for the 8350 of 00:05:29.600 --> 00:05:36.000 about 10%. And we saw average frame rates for the Intel stay pretty much the 00:05:34.639 --> 00:05:41.680 same. They actually dropped a little bit, but again, margin of error, anything, you know, a few percentage 00:05:39.039 --> 00:05:46.400 points, we should pretty much uh not read too much into. Crisis 2, we didn't 00:05:44.320 --> 00:05:51.600 really see any optimizations go on from Windows 7 to Windows 8. So, that pretty 00:05:49.680 --> 00:05:56.000 much leaves us with Intel being the clear winner for Crisis 2 if you still 00:05:53.360 --> 00:06:00.560 play that game, which I suspect most people do not, but we like to include it 00:05:58.400 --> 00:06:06.080 just because of the old, can it run Crisis? So, there you go, guys. Windows 00:06:03.440 --> 00:06:10.479 8 on the surface looks like the optimal gaming platform whether you go AMD or 00:06:08.479 --> 00:06:14.319 Intel. And I mean, quite frankly, it's up to the individual viewer whether you 00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:16.800 watch a video like this and go, "This performance difference is worth this 00:06:15.759 --> 00:06:21.120 number of dollars to me." We're not going to make that decision for you. We're going to let you go do that. But 00:06:19.440 --> 00:06:24.560 it looks like Windows 8 is the optimal gaming platform. However, there were 00:06:22.880 --> 00:06:28.240 some issues that we encountered running our games on Windows 8, such as the 00:06:26.160 --> 00:06:32.479 requirement to install games for Windows Live before actually installing any 00:06:30.319 --> 00:06:36.080 games, otherwise it causes all kinds of halaloo and games just not launching and 00:06:34.560 --> 00:06:39.280 things like that, and some other random glitchy behavior. It should be noted 00:06:37.840 --> 00:06:44.759 though that with some googling we did get all of the games working. So if you 00:06:42.080 --> 00:06:48.960 want that extra little bit of performance, that's me, then it might be 00:06:47.520 --> 00:06:55.680 the way to go. Thanks for checking out this video. Don't forget to subscribe to Linus Tech Tips for unboxings, reviews, 00:06:52.319 --> 00:06:55.680 and other computer videos.