PART 4 - Core i5 3570k vs FX-8350 AA Gaming Windows 8 vs Windows 7 Linus Tech Tips
Linus Tech Tips
·Linus Tech Tips
·2013-05-07
·
1,412 words · ~7 min read
0:00
This video is brought to you by CM Storm, preferred choice of mice,
0:03
headsets, and mechanical keyboards of Curse Gaming. Visit
0:09
www.coolermaster-usea.com/team_curse for more details. Guys, welcome to part four
0:13
of our 3570K versus FX8350 gaming
0:16
showdown. I'm going to start with our platforms. We've got a Crosshair 5
0:20
formula with an FX8350 at 4.6 GHz. This
0:23
overclock should be attainable by pretty much anyone running this chip on an
0:27
overclocking ready platform. Uh, but there is some headroom to keep going.
0:31
However, we have an equally conservative overclock on our 3570K running on a
0:36
Maximus 5 formula. This guy's running at 4.2 GHz. Now, they're both running
0:40
Mushkin Blackline memory. There's copperhead heat spreaders on here, but there's nothing special about those.
0:44
It's just regular 1600 MHz memory, and we're running a 128 gig SSD for our boot
0:49
drive, an AX850 for our power supply, and an H100 for our cooler. Now, I
0:55
specifically called out that you needed an overclocking ready platform. This is
0:59
something I wanted to bring up because the cost of the platform, the cost
1:03
difference between these platforms is not sheerely dictated by the cost of the
1:07
chip itself. So, the FX8350 is about $20 cheaper on average than a 3570K.
1:12
However, these two boards actually have a $50 price difference. And if you look
1:17
at what the minimum bare minimum Z77 board costs, it's around $120. Whereas
1:22
you can get a 970A board as long as you're not planning to run a high-end
1:26
dual GPU setup that you need. So even then it supports 8x8x for crossfire
1:31
operation. Um you can get one of those for around 80 bucks. So that's something
1:34
to consider when you look at the performance numbers we're going to show
1:38
you. Methodology wise we're using our usual approach. So our standard card is
1:42
an MSI GeForce GTX 660Ti Power Edition.
1:46
This guy right here. We run it at a standard overclock that we always run
1:50
this card on. You can check out all of our GPU overclocks on any of our video
1:53
card reviews. We are using FRAPs to record average frame rates. However, we
1:58
are aware of the new methodology of measuring frame times. However, there's
2:02
also been I mean it's been an explosive time in GPU benchmarking. Um, and the
2:06
correct tools for measuring frame times actually don't yet exist except with
2:10
some very specialized equipment. So, we're doing what pretty much everyone else is doing, and we're still using
2:14
Fraps to measure frame rates, but expect that to change sometime over the next
2:18
little while as more tools become available. We do use in-game runs, so
2:22
you guys are going to see little messages pop up if you want to see exactly how we benchmark each game. Just
2:27
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
2:31
system stacks up. So, you're going to see four scenarios on each graph.
2:34
Windows 7 with Intel, Windows 7 with AMD, Windows 8 with Intel, Windows 8
2:39
with AMD. We're running anti-aliasing on all of the games this time around. We
2:42
have a separate video where we ran with no anti-aliasing. And we're going to
2:46
start with Far Cry 3. So, in Far Cry 3, the only real change um that happened
2:51
was when we went from Windows 7 to Windows 8, both platforms improved in
2:55
performance, particularly the Intel one went from 15 frames per second minimum
3:00
to 24 frames per second minimum, delivering a much smoother experience,
3:04
while the AMD platform was at 20 plus frames per second minimum on both
3:08
Windows 7 and Windows 8. So, it looks like Windows 8 comes ahead, but the
3:12
actual results in terms of the average frames per second was about the same on
3:16
both cards, giving you about the same gaming experience regardless of which chip you choose. Crisis 3 is pretty much
3:22
nothing to report here, guys. So, the FX8350 and the 3570K perform about the
3:27
same, and they performance doesn't really change from Windows 7 to Windows
3:31
8. In Battlefield 3, we saw a bit of a different story with both of them
3:36
recording about the same average frame rates. So, a little bit higher with the
3:40
8350 edging out the 3570K. Actually, I shouldn't say edging out. It's about,
3:44
you know, 5% performance difference. However, it should be noted, but because
3:48
we're using real runs, the uh margin of error for our tests is a little bit
3:52
higher, although we do run them multiple times to get them as accurate as possible. However, both platforms
3:57
increased in minimum frame rates from 35
4:00
to 43 on the 8350 and from 37 to 51 when
4:05
moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8. So, there was uh there was less less of a
4:09
dip when you run into an intensive scenario on Windows 8 versus Windows 7.
4:14
In Skyrim, there wasn't really much to report. The 3570K gets a clear win here
4:18
versus the 8350, and performance didn't change going from Windows 7 to Windows
4:22
8. It should be noted that our Skyrim benchmark is run with about 18 custom
4:26
mods enabled, and we haven't released our Skyrim benchmarking guide yet, but
4:30
that will hopefully be coming sometime soon. In Dirt 3, this was one of the
4:34
more dramatic changes. Without anti-aliasing, both chips were running
4:37
at an average around 150 frames per second, enabling anti-aliasing on this
4:41
title had them both tanked to around half of what we were seeing previously.
4:45
It should also be noted that they didn't really change in performance from
4:49
Windows 7 to Windows 8. Once again, Witcher 2, we saw performance
4:53
improvements going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in terms of the minimum frame
4:57
rates. So on the AMD platform, we went from 52 to 57 and on the Intel platform,
5:01
we went from 51 to 64. So Witcher 2 ran
5:05
better on Intel, particularly on well,
5:08
not on Windows 7, but on Windows 8, it ran better on Intel, but not on Windows
5:12
7. So that was a very interesting observation. It also took the averages
5:16
and put about a 10% difference in performance between the two chips.
5:20
Whereas on Windows 7, they were much much closer, pretty much within margin
5:24
of error. In Metro 2033, we saw a performance improvement for the 8350 of
5:29
about 10%. And we saw average frame rates for the Intel stay pretty much the
5:34
same. They actually dropped a little bit, but again, margin of error, anything, you know, a few percentage
5:39
points, we should pretty much uh not read too much into. Crisis 2, we didn't
5:44
really see any optimizations go on from Windows 7 to Windows 8. So, that pretty
5:49
much leaves us with Intel being the clear winner for Crisis 2 if you still
5:53
play that game, which I suspect most people do not, but we like to include it
5:58
just because of the old, can it run Crisis? So, there you go, guys. Windows
6:03
8 on the surface looks like the optimal gaming platform whether you go AMD or
6:08
Intel. And I mean, quite frankly, it's up to the individual viewer whether you
6:12
watch a video like this and go, "This performance difference is worth this
6:15
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
6:19
it looks like Windows 8 is the optimal gaming platform. However, there were
6:22
some issues that we encountered running our games on Windows 8, such as the
6:26
requirement to install games for Windows Live before actually installing any
6:30
games, otherwise it causes all kinds of halaloo and games just not launching and
6:34
things like that, and some other random glitchy behavior. It should be noted
6:37
though that with some googling we did get all of the games working. So if you
6:42
want that extra little bit of performance, that's me, then it might be
6:47
the way to go. Thanks for checking out this video. Don't forget to subscribe to Linus Tech Tips for unboxings, reviews,
6:52
and other computer videos.