AMD Fx 8350 or core i5 4670k for nextgen games ???

[sabutoros]

iam building my first ever gaming rig !!
i have finalized on these two rigs ... iam really confused to choose which one of the two will run the nextgen games better .....

the rigs are :

gpu: zotac gtx 760 AMP 2gb ddr5
processor: core i5 4670k 3.4ghz LGA1150
motherboard: Asus Z87-A
Ram: 2X4 gb corsair vengeance ddr3
PSU : corsair GS600W (600watts)
hardisk : 1tb seagate
aircooler: coolermaster hyper evo 212


OR


gpu: zotac gtx 760 AMP 2gb ddr5
processor :
AMD FX-8350 4ghz
motherboard :
Asus M5A99FX Pro
Ram : 2X4 corsair vengeance ddr3
psu: corsair vengeance GS600W
harddisk:
1tb seagate
Air cooler : cooler master hyper evo 212

which of the two rigs will be better ???
i want to play watch dogs on ultra ......
the game needs a 8 core processor for that...... so going for a fx 8350 with a nvida gpu over a i5 4670k better ??

and if i go for the fx 8350 rig ....then its corresponding motherboard asus M5A99FX only supports
PCIe X16 2.0 but the gpu card is 3.0 ......
so will it reduce performance on using 3.0 card on a PCIe X16 2.0 ????

and is a 600W psu enough ??

and i also heard that the nextgen games will be multithreaded ones rather than single threaded one....
so is really getting a fx8350 over a i5 4670k preferable?

sorry for these many questions being asked 😀 ! iam totally new to this.....

thanks in advance

 

[Darkresurrection]

Fredrick, if the games are running fine on the quad core amd's as well as the Intel's it means it is balanced well over 4 threads which is shown by dual and tri core phenoms at same clocks not doing as well as quads.

In the past we would have games using 3 or fewer fat threads where higher IPC helps but since the IPC disparity does not make a large difference shows the games are well threaded.

Saying the game is not CPU bound or badly threaded because the Intel's, 8 core and quad core amds are comparable with poor analysis is simply a strawman argument

You were saying FX-8350 was a better choice. I've never said that Intel CPUs crushes AMD's, just that the PS4/Xbone APU being 8 core does not automatically make the FX-8350 better.

If the games were well threaded then the FX-8350 and FX-6300 these games would show a clear advantage over FX-4170 or FX-4300. The only game among those benchmarks that shows that is Crysis 3.

well, fanboyism is still alive!!! and excuse me can't one overclock fx 8350 to 5ghz where haswell fails to go above 4.3 ghz because it is damn hot (according to tomshardware)!!! where AMD wins you say, it is not CPU bound!! when AMD smokes i7-3770k regarding price performance things as well, you say slightly better on the contrary it is funny where i7-3770k gives 70fps in a game and fx 8350 gives 64 fps you call it a colossal victory :lol:

I've never quoted any benchmarks, I've just analyzed the ones you linked to. The only one where FX-8350 was clearly better was Crysis 2.

The Tomb Raider shows a 2 ghz difference in clock speed making a difference of between 1 and 3 fps. I'd say that suggests the game is CPU bound, but if you have a different explanation I'd love to hear it.

As for fanboyism, did you miss my previous post where I said that FX-6300 was a good choice if money was an issue? I'd say that the benchmark shows the FX series can still keep up with the i5 and i7, but they don't show it to be superior to them.

well everyone is familiar with these statements of yours, your words are so old and I am sorry that even my grand dad can't stop laughing at the moment, but it is a shame you can't hit ultra settings with the i5-4670k and you are bound to play high settings, and this engine is going to be used for upcoming Ubisoft's engine, it is a shame that Epic games says in order to see the full potential of unreal engine 4 you are going to need something like fx 8350 or i7-3770k and never mention the i5, the sad part is that we are going to the future and not the past , so bear with it fx 8350>i5 4670k

As for the Ubisoft and Epic comments, I disregard those as hype from the publisher (remember Activision saying CoD Ghost NEEDING 6 GB RAM?).

when it comes to parallel computing, it does not matter if your CPU is stronger single threaded or not, even if your CPU is three times stronger single threaded, when it comes to parallel computing it can't keep up, it is like the situation fx owners faced for old games, 2 cores were being used and the rest were not working (parked), now when it becomes multi-threaded each core is allocated for a specific task, one for AI, one for physics etc...so the old sample of single threading wont do the trick, what will happen is that you see 4 cores are being used to their 20 percent and the game is lagging like crazy,this is where fx 83-- and i7 will shine , so what has been announced by ubisoft really makes sense

 

[mauller07]

You were saying FX-8350 was a better choice. I've never said that Intel CPUs crushes AMD's, just that the PS4/Xbone APU being 8 core does not automatically make the FX-8350 better.

If the games were well threaded then the FX-8350 and FX-6300 these games would show a clear advantage over FX-4170 or FX-4300. The only game among those benchmarks that shows that is Crysis 3.

I said in the long run with newer games being made more highly multithreaded because of the ps4 and xboxone that the 8350 is a better choice, even now games are becoming more highly threaded with many more lighter threads and fewer heavy threads which shows in the cpu benchmarks where the amd quad cores and over are comparable by a few fps to the intel quads with their higher IPC.

With those other games not showing a clear advantage, to compare the threading of the game you need to look at the dual to quad performance differences as well. if their is a clear differences then the engine is threaded up to however many cores the last processor has that has a large jump in performance and to compare how heavy the threads are you can tell if the threads are all balanced by comparing processors with different IPC levels and if there is no large difference then the threads are well balanced since the higher IPC processor has no advantage.

now inversely, if the application is not well threaded then the jumps will be made up to a certain number of cores and then the processors with higher IPC and clock speed then come out on top which is shown by a lot of older and some current games which use 1 - 3 heavy or unbalanced threads, just look at Planetside 2, that games a mess atm because of the poor multithreading and use of DX9.

 

[Fredrik Aldhagen]

when it comes to parallel computing, it does not matter if your CPU is stronger single threaded or not, even if your CPU is three times stronger single threaded, when it comes to parallel computing it can't keep up, it is like the situation fx owners faced for old games, 2 cores were being used and the rest were not working (parked), now when it becomes multi-threaded each core is allocated for a specific task, one for AI, one for physics etc...so the old sample of single threading wont do the trick, what will happen is that you see 4 cores are being used to their 20 percent and the game is lagging like crazy,this is where fx 83-- and i7 will shine , so what has been announced by ubisoft really makes sense

No... A 4 core CPU will not see only 20% usage. It will be fully utilized, just not running as many parallel threads as the FX-8350. What you're suggesting is like saying a single GPU will only see 20% usage when playing a game optimized for SLI or Crossfire.

 

[Darkresurrection]

You were saying FX-8350 was a better choice. I've never said that Intel CPUs crushes AMD's, just that the PS4/Xbone APU being 8 core does not automatically make the FX-8350 better.

If the games were well threaded then the FX-8350 and FX-6300 these games would show a clear advantage over FX-4170 or FX-4300. The only game among those benchmarks that shows that is Crysis 3.

I said in the long run with newer games being made more highly multithreaded because of the ps4 and xboxone that the 8350 is a better choice, even now games are becoming more highly threaded with many more lighter threads and fewer heavy threads which shows in the cpu benchmarks where the amd quad cores and over are comparable by a few fps to the intel quads with their higher IPC.

With those other games not showing a clear advantage, to compare the threading of the game you need to look at the dual to quad performance differences as well. if their is a clear differences then the engine is threaded up to however many cores the last processor has that has a large jump in performance and to compare how heavy the threads are you can tell if the threads are all balanced by comparing processors with different IPC levels and if there is no large difference then the threads are well balanced since the higher IPC processor has no advantage.

now inversely, if the application is not well threaded then the jumps will be made up to a certain number of cores and then the processors with higher IPC and clock speed then come out on top which is shown by a lot of older and some current games which use 1 - 3 heavy or unbalanced threads, just look at Planetside 2, that games a mess atm because of the poor multithreading and use of DX9.

when it comes to parallel computing, it does not matter if your CPU is stronger single threaded or not, even if your CPU is three times stronger single threaded, when it comes to parallel computing it can't keep up, it is like the situation fx owners faced for old games, 2 cores were being used and the rest were not working (parked), now when it becomes multi-threaded each core is allocated for a specific task, one for AI, one for physics etc...so the old sample of single threading wont do the trick, what will happen is that you see 4 cores are being used to their 20 percent and the game is lagging like crazy,this is where fx 83-- and i7 will shine , so what has been announced by ubisoft really makes sense

No... A 4 core CPU will not see only 20% usage. It will be fully utilized, just not running as many parallel threads as the FX-8350. What you're suggesting is like saying a single GPU will only see 20% usage when playing a game optimized for SLI or Crossfire.

so wait for reckless, irresponsible console ports to witness that with your own eyes

 

[mauller07]

so wait for reckless, irresponsible console ports to witness that with your own eyes

For the game code it will be fine, its the fat hodge of directx being slapped on top badly that causes problems 😛 but if the games highly threaded its not as bad but this is what mantle aims to solve.
thin abstraction layer to hardware with all the rendering and memory management done by the application instead of in the driver like they do on consoles.

 

[ultimate gamer dbz]

fx 8350 always better than a i7 3770k. but a 8350 and 4770k are the same only a little difference in fps.

 

[ultimate gamer dbz]

well,guys just wait for the game to be released then we will see eveything and which one is better

 

[vmN]

fx 8350 always better than a i7 3770k. but a 8350 and 4770k are the same only a little difference in fps.

eh wat?

 

[aakarshan]

8350 can get beat when gets hand to hand with i5 4670k anyday.

 

[vmN]

You might actually have to explain why, as 4670k is a far better choice for almost everything.

 

[aakarshan]

Look games will take 4-6 years to utilize more then 4 cores because currently half of the PC gamers are dual cores and 30% are quad core and 20% are 8 core.

 

[aakarshan]

i5 4670K >>>>8350

 

[jacobian]

Just buy what's faster right now. What games are going to need in future is just a speculation. If you want to sleep well, just buy a i7-4770 for $100 more.

 

[vmN]

Well, you can do your best to predict what would become the standard in the future.
No doubt one day a CPU with 8 cores will be the standard, but that would then be 8 stronger cores, than piledriver currently have.
AMD is also not a '8 core' processor, it's a 4 modules(CMT). It's pretty much like hyper-threading.(SMT)
A modules have 4 ALUs (2 for each 'core'), meanwhile haswell have 4 ALU per core(2 per thread). Haswell just have a 256bit SIMD integer ALU(If I remember correctly) where AMD still is using 128bit.

 

[jacobian]

1+2. This is where you forget that the 8350 can run 8 lighter threads in parallel that would normally run on the console where as the quad core intels can only run 4 in parallel so
3. because of this the IPC advantage goes out the window as many lighter threads can be executed simultaneously when a highly threaded game is run, just look at the cpu charts for more modern games such as metro and bf4, the 8350 and very expensive intels which use hyper threading and 6 cores are very very close if not tied.

By the time you figure out how to take advantage of 8 cores, your program really does not depend on the core count. When you start the program, you query the OS for the number of cores you have. If you have four cores, you start four "worker" processes. If you have 16 cores, you start 16 worker processes. Hardcoding the game to always use 8-threads would be plain stupid. But let's assume for a moment that they did hardcode 8-threads. This shouldn't be a big problem for a 4-core CPU. The operating system will simply switch the threads on the limited number of cores. This operation is done in software, but it's relatively inexpensive. This is how 15 years ago a web server could service simultaneously many dozens of clients while running on one CPU (with one core). If the CPU has hyperthreading, the switching will be done in hardware, which will be even faster.

Also note that today we have many games that use just a few cores, like only one or two. This was not done because the developers intended to "optimize" for two core CPUs. The problem is that a lot of algorithms are very hard to parallelize. Some things have to be done in sequence point. In fact, it can be that one thread is running the entire game logic, and the second thread handles audio processing. Yes, you're "using" two cores here, but the second thread doesn't really need the processing prowes of the entire core. The entire game can still be bottle-necked by the thread that's most CPU intensive. In such cases, the single thread performance capability is still very important.

Coding things to get executed in parallel has always been hard. Some science applications lend nicely to parallel computing, for example simulations, when you need to run many in parallel, or say media encoding, but many others do not. So I personally have always been a firm believer in having few cores that are as fast as possible on the desktop machines.

 

[vmN]

First of all it would be stupid to parallelizing threads, unless it's rather heavier work, as it will give a huge latency.

 

[Fredrik Aldhagen]

fx 8350 always better than a i7 3770k. but a 8350 and 4770k are the same only a little difference in fps.

...and what exactly are you basing this statement on? In most games benchmarks I've seen the difference between a quad core Ivy Bridge and a 8 core Piledriver has been pretty marginal. The decision comes to paying more up front with an Intel, or paying more in the long run (due to higher power consumtion) with an AMD.

AMD is also not a '8 core' processor, it's a 4 modules(CMT). It's pretty much like hyper-threading.(SMT)
A modules have 4 ALUs (2 for each 'core'), meanwhile haswell have 4 ALU per core(2 per thread). Haswell just have a 256bit SIMD integer ALU(If I remember correctly) where AMD still is using 128bit.

No, the AMD modules are something completely different from hyperthreading. Modules are 2 genuine cores that happen to share some resources. Hyperthreading is a method for a single core to better utilize its resources.

 

[vmN]

I said it's pretty much, as for those who haven't had the time to look into the architecture.
AMD modules share everything else than ALUs.
The share the entire front-end and FPUs.

Hyper-threading share the entire-front end too.

 

[Guest]

Look games will take 4-6 years to utilize more then 4 cores because currently half of the PC gamers are dual cores and 30% are quad core and 20% are 8 core.

and why exactly do you think developers will wait and see how many users run quad cores and how many run dual cores? the consoles are using 8 threads....devs are lazy (well i am a dev who is pretty lazy)...a lazy port of a game engine from the consoles to the pc is much more likely....battlefield 4 and crysis 3 devs know very well abt the statistics you gave...yet they support 8 threads....capable software gives birth to capable hardware and vice versa...devs dont want to halt technological advancements....all you need is properly optimized games which are the order of the coming days...

 

[Guest]

Just buy what's faster right now. What games are going to need in future is just a speculation. If you want to sleep well, just buy a i7-4770 for $100 more.

a perfect solution...

 

[vmN]

Please hold your incorrect information for yourself..

First BF4 use 2-4 mainthreads, the reason why a I3 and fx 4300 can still hold up(will have a lower lowest FPS)

Spoiler

Developers wants money, so the need to make their game playable by the most. So the try to optimize it for what most of their playerbase have.

 

[Guest]

Please hold your incorrect information for yourself..

First BF4 use 2-4 mainthreads, the reason why a I3 and fx 4300 can still hold up(will have a lower lowest FPS)

Spoiler

Developers wants money, so the need to make their game playable by the most. So the try to optimize it for what most of their playerbase have.

bf4 is an optimized game...it adjusts to the cpu specs...here, have a look at this:

PS: i request you to be a little more polite in your accusations...

 

[vmN]

BF4 in open beta with fraps running?

Do you even know what I'm meaning with mainthreads?

 

[Guest]

Developers wants money, so the need to make their game playable by the most. So the try to optimize it for what most of their playerbase have.

imo, thats not the correct method of "optimization"...this method SHOULD soon change...

 

[Guest]

Do you even know what I'm meaning with mainthreads?

yes i do...i aint a complete noob after all...