FX 8350 or i5 4670k? BF4

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

Hello guys. I was wondering if I should buy FX 8350 or i5 4670k for Battelfield 4.

 

[rgd1101]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

 

[Sakkura]

Tom's benchmark of the beta indicated the Core i5 would be substantially better. But the release version might be different.

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

 

[Gaidax]

They are the same in the end there, difference is unnoticeable.

I suggest I5, just because it supports older games better.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

i know on mysysetm the beta was all over the place in terms of fps now i get easily 100 fps in 64 player conquest with dips min the 80s

 

[rgd1101]

techspot benchmarking with single player. That why I said multilayer benchmark is needed.

 

[rgd1101]

i know on mysysetm the beta was all over the place in terms of fps now i get easily 100 fps in 64 player conquest with dips min the 80s

what about single player? so we can see how it compare, thanks.

 

[Sakkura]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

i know on mysysetm the beta was all over the place in terms of fps now i get easily 100 fps in 64 player conquest with dips min the 80s

what about single player? so we can see how it compare, thanks.

I actually just started playing the single player last night and i was using about 10-15% less cpu and a little less ram usage but the fps were basically the same

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

i know on mysysetm the beta was all over the place in terms of fps now i get easily 100 fps in 64 player conquest with dips min the 80s

what about single player? so we can see how it compare, thanks.

I actually just started playing the single player last night and i was using about 10-15% less cpu and a little less ram usage but the fps were basically the same

What would you recommend? FX 8350 and 250GB ssd or i5 4670k and 120GB SSD. I'am gonna do some editing too. I will play BF4.

 

[TechDude58]

I don't know about the I5, but I have a FX-8350 with CF 7970. I just recently upgraded to Win 8.1 and I'm getting frames between 80-120. All ultra with 150% res scaling, X2 MSAA and Low AA post. It dips to about 50 sometimes on "hectic" times but quickly goes back up. Thats on a 64 player server btw.

EDIT: I also tried it on Win7. It absolutely horrible, I was getting an average of 45fps.

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

I don't know about the I5, but I have a FX-8350 with CF 7970. I just recently upgraded to Win 8.1 and I'm getting frames between 80-120. All ultra with 150% res scaling, X2 MSAA and Low AA post. It dips to about 50 sometimes on "hectic" times but quickly goes back up. Thats on a 64 player server btw.

EDIT: I also tried it on Win7. It absolutely horrible, I was getting an average of 45fps.

Well, I will play on R9 290X crossfire.

 

[Gaidax]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

Well, what do you think about this build? Anything I need to change?

3x 1080p monitors - thin bezel
2x R9 290X Crossfire
AMD FX-8320
Hyper 212 evo
SEAGATE Barracuda® 1TB
FRACTAL DESIGN Define R4 Black Pearl
Kingston HyperX 16gb 8x2 1600mhz
Coolermaster v1000w gold
Samsung 250GB evo
Windows 8.1
ASUS M5A99X EVO R2.0 motherboard

 

[06yfz450ridr]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

290x crossfire you will proably see a cpu bottleneck. which i would lean towards the i5 but i need to investigate more on that theory .

 

[06yfz450ridr]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

Well, what do you think about this build? Anything I need to change?

3x 1080p monitors - thin bezel
2x R9 290X Crossfire
AMD FX-8320
Hyper 212 evo
SEAGATE Barracuda® 1TB
FRACTAL DESIGN Define R4 Black Pearl
Kingston HyperX 16gb 8x2 1600mhz
Coolermaster v1000w gold
Samsung 250GB evo
Windows 8.1
ASUS M5A99X EVO R2.0 motherboard

honestly witht he money you are spending go 1600p for your monitor. 3 monitors made me dizzy haha

 

[JustNeedSomeHelp]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

290x crossfire you will proably see a cpu bottleneck. which i would lean towards the i5 but i need to investigate more on that theory .

No way it will be a CPU bottleneck. I will OC my FX 8320 at 4.0 without any voltage increase. Then it will be as fast as FX 8350 only 90 dollars cheaper.

 

[zaneusb]

Hi
I have a 8350 @ 4.7 with a sabertooth r2 mobo and a gtx 660 ti and I'm getting about 70 fps with my gpu bottlenecking my cpu. I have everything on ultra except aa. I really do love the 8350. I can get it 5 but I need a better cooler. I'd go with it.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

still need more benchmark done. But would think FX 8350 if you playing on 64 player game.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
Looks like it got same performance, and R9 290X "owns" GTX 780.

The CPU benchmark there is practically useless, because they tested singleplayer. Multiplayer is what really stresses the CPU.

Their reasons for sticking to singleplayer are understandable though, multiplayer benchmarking is difficult.

Well, I could save 55 dollars if I go with FX 8350. And I will also be editing abit. I could buy a 250GB SSD instead of a 120GB :/.

If that is the case then go FX-8350 all the way!

290x crossfire you will proably see a cpu bottleneck. which i would lean towards the i5 but i need to investigate more on that theory .

No way it will be a CPU bottleneck. I will OC my FX 8320 at 4.0 without any voltage increase. Then it will be as fast as FX 8350 only 90 dollars cheaper.

4.0 is stock speed for the 8320s turbo vs 4.2 for the 8350. The 8320 will not clock as high as well.

Once my second 7970 arrives i will test to see if i have a bottleneck. More gpu bounds games i say not. In more cpu intensive games i think it will a little depending on how high its overclocked

Also the 8320 is only 30-40 less not 90. If you care about high overclocks you need liquid cooling and the 8350