4770K, FX 8350 or FX 9370

[Neel90]

I m going to build an ultimate Gaming machine. Its kind of my lifetime dream and I want it to last at least 5-6 yrs (I mean I will be able to play all the games published in next 5-6 years without any hardware upgrade). My total budget is around 100k (in INR).

My first and main confusion though whether to go with a AMD processor or an intel one. I have shortlisted 3: 4770K, FX 8350 and FX 9370. Please tell me which one shall I go with.

Also I would like to get a full list of components from some experienced people. just keep in mind my 100k budget is for a precessor, mobo, gpu, ssd, hdd, ram, cabinet, cooler.
Thanks in advance

 

[ProWilma]

i7 4770k. Better efficiency, better per core performance, better architecture, can be overclocked very well if you have adequate cooling. It also consumes less power if you care about that. Overall from benchmarks, the core i7 is just faster than anything from AMD.

 

[Gaidax]

5-6 years? That's a huge stretch, all of those processors are good, but I don't think they would last 6 years to be honest... I think in like 4 years from now you would want something new.

I suggest I7-4770K personally, since it's pretty much better than anything AMD has now, get a decent cooler and Z series motherboard and you can overclock it later on like after 3 years to give you more breathing room before upgrade.

As for full list, I'm sure people will jump on and do it soon, I'm at work here 😛

 

[vmN]

first you would never buy a 8350 or anything above that. It's simply a overclocked version of 8320.
The closest you would get to 6 years without the need to upgrade would be with 4770k, but that is not guaranteed.

 

[CTurbo]

"ultimate gaming machine" and AMD don't go in the same sentence. The only question you should be asking yourself is if you should spend the extra 6000IR on the i7 4770k over the i5 4670k.

I think a 4770k + Z87 platform can last 5-6 years if you upgrade your video card at least once during that time. Maybe twice depending on what you choose to start out with.

 

[PrankDudeTb]

I m going to build an ultimate Gaming machine. Its kind of my lifetime dream and I want it to last at least 5-6 yrs (I mean I will be able to play all the games published in next 5-6 years without any hardware upgrade). My total budget is around 100k (in INR).

My first and main confusion though whether to go with a AMD processor or an intel one. I have shortlisted 3: 4770K, FX 8350 and FX 9370. Please tell me which one shall I go with.

Also I would like to get a full list of components from some experienced people. just keep in mind my 100k budget is for a precessor, mobo, gpu, ssd, hdd, ram, cabinet, cooler.
Thanks in advance

I would definetely go for an AMD R9 290X for the GPU any day with your budget but the intel I7 will beast alongside that.

 

[Neel90]

"ultimate gaming machine" and AMD don't go in the same sentence. The only question you should be asking yourself is if you should spend the extra 6000IR on the i7 4770k over the i5 4670k.

I think a 4770k + Z87 platform can last 5-6 years if you upgrade your video card at least once during that time. Maybe twice depending on what you choose to start out with.

But isn't this what AMD does? they make gaming processor. From what I read in various forums and also my personal experience with AMD athlon II and intel dual core(they were launched at the same time and had almost similar price) I had the immpression that intel is better in terms of stability n multitasking n all, but when it comes to gaming, AMD produces the real beasts. Am I missing something here?

 

[AlexanderHUN]

i7 4770k hands down.

 

[CTurbo]

But isn't this what AMD does? they make gaming processor. From what I read in various forums and also my personal experience with AMD athlon II and intel dual core(they were launched at the same time and had almost similar price) I had the immpression that intel is better in terms of stability n multitasking n all, but when it comes to gaming, AMD produces the real beasts. Am I missing something here?

Yes. Above $200, AMD cannot even almost compete with Intel. AMD does not make anything that even comes close to the i7 4770k in gaming. AMD's strength is in budget gaming. Their 6 core FX cpus are priced at Intel's dual core i3s. Their 8 core FXs are priced at Intel's quad core i5s. Intel still holds a 40-50% stronger single thread advantage. That's why AMD needs twice as many core to keep up.

 

[paitjsu sadff]

AMD and 8 core CPU's are doin thremendous in Battlefield 4 and crysis 3 cause those games a coded heavily multithreading
and with PS4 and Xbox360 being 8 cores AMD CPU the next generation of games will all be developped that way so it's
reasonable to think AMD hardware will perform better in many games in the near future...i would go with FX-8320 and good
cooler for overclock.

BENCHMARK:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb.jpg

 

[vmN]

AMD and 8 core CPU's are doin thremendous in Battlefield 4 and crysis 3 cause those games a coded heavily multithreading
and with PS4 and Xbox360 being 8 cores AMD CPU the next generation of games will all be developped that way so it's
reasonable to think AMD hardware will perform better in many games in the near future...i would go with FX-8320 and good
cooler for overclock.

You do realize when games start to fully utilize 8 threads even a 8320 wont be sufficient.
How can people be so mistaken, thinking the hardware on a console would affect the PC games dev view on how to code their software.
For gaming you just need a high-end CPU.
We are far from the "near"-future you mention.
The FX is a "low"-high-end CPU.

 

[VenBaja]

AMD and 8 core CPU's are doin thremendous in Battlefield 4 and crysis 3 cause those games a coded heavily multithreading
and with PS4 and Xbox360 being 8 cores AMD CPU the next generation of games will all be developped that way so it's
reasonable to think AMD hardware will perform better in many games in the near future...i would go with FX-8320 and good
cooler for overclock.

You do realize when games start to fully utilize 8 threads even a 8320 wont be sufficient.
How can people be so mistaken, thinking the hardware on a console would affect the PC games dev view on how to code their software.
For gaming you just need a high-end CPU.
We are far from the "near"-future you mention.
The FX is a "low"-high-end CPU.

Not to mention, any enthusiast desktop CPU will blow the console CPUs out of the water. So who cares whether they use AMD or Intel hardware?

 

[paitjsu sadff]

Hey Vmn i will not argue with you man, the graph you posted shows that clearly the FX-8350
works just as well (within 2fps it can be margin of error) as the intel core i7-4960X (wich is a 6 core BTW)
in battlefield 4 when coupled with a high-end GPU...and by r9 290x you are talking HIGH-END right? anyway...
difference beetween both CPU : 989$+tax not to mention you could also save another 100$ or so on the board.

A 200$ CPU that can achieve that kind of performance can defenetly not be bashed on.

But the graph you showed are based on single player, the one's i posted, i dont know if you looked
at them, but anyway, those are based on MULTIPLAYER map siege of shangai and clearly they show
AMD not very far behind the most powerful i7s ans AHEAD of the i5s and budget i7s in BF4 and CRYSIS 3,
and BTW the consoles available on the market DO have an effect on how the games are coded, to make sure
they run GREAT on them...and then the games are ported to PC! anyone who worked in the business of video games KNOWS that...

 

[VenBaja]

Hey Vmn i will not argue with you man, the graph you posted shows that clearly the FX-8350
works just as well (within 2fps it can be margin of error) as the intel core i7-4960X (wich is a 6 core BTW)
in battlefield 4 when coupled with a high-end GPU...and by r9 290x you are talking HIGH-END right? anyway...
difference beetween both CPU : 989$+tax not to mention you could also save another 100$ or so on the board.

A 200$ CPU that can achieve that kind of performance can defenetly not be bashed on.

But the graph you showed are based on single player, the one's i posted, i dont know if you looked
at them, but anyway, those are based on MULTIPLAYER map siege of shangai and clearly they show
AMD not very far behind the most powerful i7s ans AHEAD of the i5s and budget i7s in BF4 and CRYSIS 3,
and BTW the consoles available on the market DO have an effect on how the games are coded, to make sure
they run GREAT on them...and then the games are ported to PC! anyone who worked in the business of video games KNOWS that...

The OP wants the best, and in your own BF4 multiplayer benchmark the 8350 is 17fps slower than even the 4770k. Also, console games are designed to run great on consoles, that is, to run great on inferior Jaguar CPU's that are clocked significantly lower than most desktop CPUs. Which means, no matter what mid to high end desktop CPU you choose, it will blow away any console port.