AMD is getting better than INTEL ???? Future GAMING ******************

[Hitman_4761]

So, as you might have heard that AMD FX8350 comes with 8 core !!which is good for movie editing and modeling
where as Intel i5 4670K has 4 core !! and is good for gaming

the main fact is that the present games don't require more than 4 core and the single core performance of FX is lower than I5 that is why I5 is better in gaming ..

but if you look at the future , you will see that more demanding games will be developed such as crysis 3 and need for speed

my question is that should i buy I5 or FX
i want my computer to manage next 5 years !!
and Fx is lower in prize

looking at the future i think there will be more games that require more than 4 core

IS FX really better choice for the future

 

[logainofhades]

Crysis 3 definitely does like the HT of an i7. If not wanting to overclock, I say Xeon 1230 v3 with a less expensive B85 of H87 board. The price difference between it and the 4670k, with z87 board, would be quite similar if not a bit cheaper due to board price differences. \

Edit*- Looking at prices, the 4670k seems to have gone up. The 1230v3 solution would be cheaper. Even if you wanted to do a multicard setup, which would require z87, there is only like $10 difference between the two CPU's right now.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.30 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H87 Pro4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($93.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $338.28
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-04 13:51 EST-0500)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($234.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($129.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $364.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-04 13:51 EST-0500)

 

[ewok93]

I'm not sure why I thought of Crysis 3. The i7 is much better than the 8320 there. But my point is, get what you need.

 

[logainofhades]

I would only recommend the FX 8320, if your budget dictated it, to allow for a better GPU. Otherwise, 4670k if you want to overclock, Xeon 1230 v3 if you don't.

 

[AshyCFC]

+1 to logain.

The simple fact is AMD can only compete on price, not on performance except in specific scenarios.
I don't mind that AMD compete on price as it keeps the market healthy.

Right now for gamers the 4670K is the king of the market, though it's cousin the xeon 1230 v3 is also up there with the recent price changes. The 4770k and 4930K etc are all a bit excessive for gaming right now in my opinion but for streaming/rendering very good.

The FX-8 series do have redeeming qualities in that when streaming It's been noted they can keep up with i5's and to an extent i7's.

If I had the choice of FX-8350 or i5 4670K the 4670K wins 100% of time UNLESS it meant I had to purchase other parts that are weaker to get the i5.

even then i'd ignore the 8350 and get the 8320.

 

[GObonzo]

can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.

 

[logainofhades]

You can pick up OEM sandy bridge chips for around that price. 😛

 

[RobCrezz]

can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.

Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...

 

[VenBaja]

can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.

Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...

The other thing to remember is that everyone has different limits on what they're willing/able to spend. For me, spending an extra $100 on a better CPU is not a big deal. It's still well within my budget. Some people can't or don't want to spend money on the better Intel options, and some just want the best, no matter what the cost.

 

[RobCrezz]

can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.

Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...

The other thing to remember is that everyone has different limits on what they're willing/able to spend. For me, spending an extra $100 on a better CPU is not a big deal. It's still well within my budget. Some people can't or don't want to spend money on the better Intel options, and some just want the best, no matter what the cost.

Yeah, you are right. I was just pointing out that sometimes a little more initial outlay can be cheaper in the long run (although not always).

 

[AshyCFC]

i don't get this arguement on initial outlay.

You can get an i5 locked + $50mobo that can outperform the 8350 + more costly mobo

If I had more money I would have gone Intel...

 

[AnEwG]

but if you look at the future , you will see that more demanding games will be developed such as crysis 3 and need for speed

both which run faster on Intel, even though they scale, because of Intel's stronger cores.

i don't get this arguement on initial outlay.

You can get an i5 locked + $50mobo that can outperform the 8350 + more costly mobo

If I had more money I would have gone Intel...

May I ask what do you have right now and why are you displeased with it?

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

if you look at thief benchmarks, a game that was released a couple of days ago for pc and consoles, all of the benchmarks show intel beating amd even the i3 beats the fx-8350, i always see people saying 8 cores is the future because consoles use 8 cores but that doesn't seem right after seeing many benchmarks, here are thief benchmarks

To be honest those benchmarks will be irrelevant this month.. see for yourself. I think the OP poses a VERY good question. The gaming environment is changing. With OpenGL and DirectX also saying that they're moving to closer to hardware support we could see Mantle-like effects across the board in all new games.

Don't be too surprised if the FX-8350 overtakes the i7-4770K in Thief sometime this month.

http://techreport.com/news/26080/thief-wont-support-mantle-and-trueaudio-until-next-month

 

[AnEwG]

With mantle support what would really matter is the GPU not the CPU. If he has a GPU with mantle support then he may notice performance improvement regardless of the platform he is using (AMD/Intel), probably more with the AMD CPU, for which the game is not properly scaled.

 

[imran27]

Compare a $180 CPU to a $600-$1000 CPU and say that the $180 CPU is crap its shit..definitely true, against a $600 and above CPU its gotta be crap since you are paying so much money not for wasting it, you pay for performance.
Better would be to compare $180 AMD CPU to an intel CPU of same or similar price (tolerance of $5 may-be).

The FX 8-core CPUs do perform very good in gaming, though not as good as the i7 (that's a minimum of $350, double of FX-8350 so expect a double performance from an i7 as compared to an FX-8350). But if you're told to buy a CPU+MB and a budget of $350 then you wouldn't get anything better than FX-8 cores.

 

[vmN]

When did anyone compare a $180 CPU to a $600-1000 CPU?
You wont get double performance going form a fx 8350 to a 4770k

Thsi $350 would be better than the fx 8 core in gaming. (We are not looking into coolers, GPUS and all that)
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $349.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-12 04:43 EDT-0400)

 

[imran27]

Against an FX-8 core CPU the only Intel CPU that I would go would be any i7, I personally won't prefer to downgrade from an 8-core to a quad-core, performance of 4670k is just slightly better than 8350 in most cases, but in many other cases 8350 is better by a better margin. Also, isn't it good to have extra cores so that you can efficiently do multitasking and multi-threaded workloads.

I don't know about others but I will not buy FX-8xxx if I don't want a great MT performance, if I want great performance at or less than 4-threads then definitely it's 4670k, else it is FX-8350 or any of the Haswell i7 processor.

And I guess OP said future gaming which means using as many threads as available, so FX-8xxx or i7.
And to the one who said that why would developers optimize for more threads if majority of the people have quads, answer is performance, they'll do it for performance.

 

[vmN]

A 4670k is just as future-proof as a fx 8350.

developers wont develop games for performance.

Developers will try to get the biggest playerbase(Get as many people to be able to play with reasonable FPS and quality, meaning you will have to optimize it for the general computer).

 

[AshyCFC]

Vmn is right devs want dollar $$$s as for what I own anewg it's an fx-8320 and I like it.

 

[HEXiT]

Against an FX-8 core CPU the only Intel CPU that I would go would be any i7, I personally won't prefer to downgrade from an 8-core to a quad-core, performance of 4670k is just slightly better than 8350 in most cases, but in many other cases 8350 is better by a better margin. Also, isn't it good to have extra cores so that you can efficiently do multitasking and multi-threaded workloads.

I don't know about others but I will not buy FX-8xxx if I don't want a great MT performance, if I want great performance at or less than 4-threads then definitely it's 4670k, else it is FX-8350 or any of the Haswell i7 processor.

And I guess OP said future gaming which means using as many threads as available, so FX-8xxx or i7.
And to the one who said that why would developers optimize for more threads if majority of the people have quads, answer is performance, they'll do it for performance.

when you gonna get it through your head. the fx cpu's are 4 moudule cpu's not 8 core. they have 8 compute cores but only 4 fp units which makes them no better than a quad core hyperthreading cpu. the 2600k fairs very well against the 8350 cpu as it has hyperthreading so no it doesnt have to be an i7 haswell...