FX 8350 or i7 4770k

[ANIR0X2K00L]

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.

 

[whyso]

Repeating the word "nonsense" all the day is not going to change facts. From a link given before:

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon. This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop.

I have not given you one benchmark showing 5%. I have given you benchmarks showing 6-10%. I did because you claimed no advantage. Now you change your argument to no advantage on the average, but then two comments: I don't care about the average if I am playing one of those benchmarked games and you don't offer anything to support your average figure.

The thread I posted is from 27 February 2013. Yes computers advance fast but not that fast. What they said about HT continue being valid today.

About power consumption I recommend you again the same: read what was said.

Congrats for wikipedia skills. Thumbs down for reading comprehension.

Full Quote

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon.[1] This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop. Intel is migrating to a memory architecture similar to the Opteron's for the Intel Core i7 family of processors and their Xeon derivatives.

Which happened several years ago.

And I have given you benchmarks showing 0-2%. (Note this is bulldozer) (Your links are messed up)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/page3

A link to a short discussion on this same forum about this same point is hardly conclusive.

Anyway here is another article from toms

Between the i3 and the pentium G2020 (both ivy). Clockspeed difference is 2.9 ghz vs 3.3 ghz. Perfomance difference is 159-121= 38/121=31% better for the i3. Clockspeed difference is only 3.3/2.9=14% better for the i3 so the deficit (31-14=17%) is coming from HT.

 

[Derrick Bailey]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

 

[tadej petric]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

Bf 3 isnt CPU dependent at all (it only needs 2 cores) in single player and it uses 4 MAX at mp. Not good test for CPU pref. Civ 5 and total war would be better.

 

[logainofhades]

8350 is better than the i7 for a gaming rig when constrained by budget. If money is no object and you can afford the best of the best, then the i7 is a no brainer. For those that are more budget constrained, it would be better take the money saved by going with the 8350 and spending it on a much superior graphics card than what would be allowable with an i7 build. Budget dictates everything. People can argue over performance of the cpu's and show all the benchmarks on the internet all they want. They don't mean squat if the budget is only so much. Any current CPU is just fine for the OP to make it through what he needs it for. For a gaming rig, that has to last a long time without an upgrade, more money on a better GPU makes much more sense as those tend to get outdated much faster than a CPU will. Even the old core 2 quads are still pretty capable in most titles after all this time. An 8350 is just as capable of lasting just as long.

 

[juanrga]

Repeating the word "nonsense" all the day is not going to change facts. From a link given before:

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon. This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop.

I have not given you one benchmark showing 5%. I have given you benchmarks showing 6-10%. I did because you claimed no advantage. Now you change your argument to no advantage on the average, but then two comments: I don't care about the average if I am playing one of those benchmarked games and you don't offer anything to support your average figure.

The thread I posted is from 27 February 2013. Yes computers advance fast but not that fast. What they said about HT continue being valid today.

About power consumption I recommend you again the same: read what was said.

Congrats for wikipedia skills. Thumbs down for reading comprehension.

Full Quote

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon.[1] This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop. Intel is migrating to a memory architecture similar to the Opteron's for the Intel Core i7 family of processors and their Xeon derivatives.

Which happened several years ago.

And I have given you benchmarks showing 0-2%. (Note this is bulldozer) (Your links are messed up)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/page3

A link to a short discussion on this same forum about this same point is hardly conclusive.

Anyway here is another article from toms

Between the i3 and the pentium G2020 (both ivy). Clockspeed difference is 2.9 ghz vs 3.3 ghz. Perfomance difference is 159-121= 38/121=31% better for the i3. Clockspeed difference is only 3.3/2.9=14% better for the i3 so the deficit (31-14=17%) is coming from HT.

Modern Opteron 6200 models have better scaling than modern Xeon E7.

Your benchmarks are from a computer builder who sell computers with slow ram. In a part of the their site they claim that they don't support AMD stock speeds because (sic) 1866 RAM is not reliable. What? The benchmarks I provided are from people not involved in selling computers or stuff as that.

Even intel chips, which are rather insensible to ram speed give about a 2% increase in average performance when going from 1600 to 2133. For AMD this is larger.

Percentages are relative values and would not be added. The difference at same clock is not 17% but less than 15%. Both chips differentiate on HT, AVX support, and different memory speeds.

HT is also chip dependant. An 3770k HT provides less than a 9% performance increase over a 3570k on crysis 3, which is heavily threaded, whereas the increase is larger for i3. And HT can affect negatively performance in several applications.

 

[whyso]

Repeating the word "nonsense" all the day is not going to change facts. From a link given before:

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon. This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop.

I have not given you one benchmark showing 5%. I have given you benchmarks showing 6-10%. I did because you claimed no advantage. Now you change your argument to no advantage on the average, but then two comments: I don't care about the average if I am playing one of those benchmarked games and you don't offer anything to support your average figure.

The thread I posted is from 27 February 2013. Yes computers advance fast but not that fast. What they said about HT continue being valid today.

About power consumption I recommend you again the same: read what was said.

Congrats for wikipedia skills. Thumbs down for reading comprehension.

Full Quote

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon.[1] This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop. Intel is migrating to a memory architecture similar to the Opteron's for the Intel Core i7 family of processors and their Xeon derivatives.

Which happened several years ago.

And I have given you benchmarks showing 0-2%. (Note this is bulldozer) (Your links are messed up)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/page3

A link to a short discussion on this same forum about this same point is hardly conclusive.

Anyway here is another article from toms

Between the i3 and the pentium G2020 (both ivy). Clockspeed difference is 2.9 ghz vs 3.3 ghz. Perfomance difference is 159-121= 38/121=31% better for the i3. Clockspeed difference is only 3.3/2.9=14% better for the i3 so the deficit (31-14=17%) is coming from HT.

Modern Opteron 6200 models have better scaling than modern Xeon E7.

Your benchmarks are from a computer builder who sell computers with slow ram. In a part of the their site they claim that they don't support AMD stock speeds because (sic) 1866 RAM is not reliable. What? The benchmarks I provided are from people not involved in selling computers or stuff as that.

Even intel chips, which are rather insensible to ram speed give about a 2% increase in average performance when going from 1600 to 2133. For AMD this is larger.

Percentages are relative values and would not be added. The difference at same clock is not 17% but less than 15%. Both chips differentiate on HT, AVX support, and different memory speeds.

HT is also chip dependant. An 3770k HT provides less than a 9% performance increase over a 3570k on crysis 3, which is heavily threaded, whereas the increase is larger for i3. And HT can affect negatively performance in several applications.

You need to support you scaling claim with some benchmarks.

Slow RAM? Every computer they sell comes with 1600 mhz ram (I actually respect them more for not trying to tell me I 'need' expensive ram for my computer). (I can't load your benchmarks). Their review showed that ram speed has little effect on bulldozer. It has been shown multiple times that faster ram is really nothing more than a money grab (toms, anandtech, have done articles on this). 2% is insignificant. Your margin of error from mobo and the silicon lottery are going to have a larger effect.

Margin of error from mobo (look at Asus maximus V formula and Asrock extreme 6). Again 2% is what, 1fps?

They are tested with the same memory, i3 supports AVX.

The i5 shows less performance gain because as the number of cores increase, scaling efficiency goes down.

 

[juanrga]

Repeating the word "nonsense" all the day is not going to change facts. From a link given before:

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon. This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop.

I have not given you one benchmark showing 5%. I have given you benchmarks showing 6-10%. I did because you claimed no advantage. Now you change your argument to no advantage on the average, but then two comments: I don't care about the average if I am playing one of those benchmarked games and you don't offer anything to support your average figure.

The thread I posted is from 27 February 2013. Yes computers advance fast but not that fast. What they said about HT continue being valid today.

About power consumption I recommend you again the same: read what was said.

Congrats for wikipedia skills. Thumbs down for reading comprehension.

Full Quote

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon.[1] This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop. Intel is migrating to a memory architecture similar to the Opteron's for the Intel Core i7 family of processors and their Xeon derivatives.

Which happened several years ago.

And I have given you benchmarks showing 0-2%. (Note this is bulldozer) (Your links are messed up)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/page3

A link to a short discussion on this same forum about this same point is hardly conclusive.

Anyway here is another article from toms

Between the i3 and the pentium G2020 (both ivy). Clockspeed difference is 2.9 ghz vs 3.3 ghz. Perfomance difference is 159-121= 38/121=31% better for the i3. Clockspeed difference is only 3.3/2.9=14% better for the i3 so the deficit (31-14=17%) is coming from HT.

Modern Opteron 6200 models have better scaling than modern Xeon E7.

Your benchmarks are from a computer builder who sell computers with slow ram. In a part of the their site they claim that they don't support AMD stock speeds because (sic) 1866 RAM is not reliable. What? The benchmarks I provided are from people not involved in selling computers or stuff as that.

Even intel chips, which are rather insensible to ram speed give about a 2% increase in average performance when going from 1600 to 2133. For AMD this is larger.

Percentages are relative values and would not be added. The difference at same clock is not 17% but less than 15%. Both chips differentiate on HT, AVX support, and different memory speeds.

HT is also chip dependant. An 3770k HT provides less than a 9% performance increase over a 3570k on crysis 3, which is heavily threaded, whereas the increase is larger for i3. And HT can affect negatively performance in several applications.

You need to support you scaling claim with some benchmarks.

Slow RAM? Every computer they sell comes with 1600 mhz ram (I actually respect them more for not trying to tell me I 'need' expensive ram for my computer). (I can't load your benchmarks). Their review showed that ram speed has little effect on bulldozer. It has been shown multiple times that faster ram is really nothing more than a money grab (toms, anandtech, have done articles on this). 2% is insignificant. Your margin of error from mobo and the silicon lottery are going to have a larger effect.

Margin of error from mobo (look at Asus maximus V formula and Asrock extreme 6). Again 2% is what, 1fps?

They are tested with the same memory, i3 supports AVX.

The i5 shows less performance gain because as the number of cores increase, scaling efficiency goes down.

I am still waiting you to support your argument against the wiki with some benchmark.

Slower RAM than the stock RAM designed for that chip. If $8 is expensive for you...

2% is for Intel chips, whose are insensitive to ram speed as said above... I already gave you 6-10% for AMD CPUs and for APUs it can be up to 22%.

Running an APU with slower ram is at least curious and reflect the tone of the site that you cited. It is still more curious when your site offers as excuse that 1866 RAM is not reliable...

Yes the i3 support AVX. I already explained to you before that AVX is one of the differences.

Testing with same memory does not say anything when each chip support different official speeds.

HT offer between -5% (downgrade) to 10% on an i7. It is not magic sauce.

 

[chrisafp07]

Please explain how an AMD CPU will give you an advantage over another x86 brand CPU when they start porting games over from the next gen consoles. Be as detailed as possible. A single picture of an outdated meme is not acceptable. This is an open internet 1 question essay quiz. Feel free to read the entire wikipedia article on x86 architecture as well since it is probably like reading Egyptian hieroglyphs to AMD fan boys who only know how to run around and shoot in Call of Duty and test their frame rates.

Exam 2: please explain how the Intel Ivy Bridge architechture does not use tri-gate or 3D transistors yet even though they do. Also open internet, but pay particularly close attention to the tri-gate transistor section of the wiki article on multigate mosfet devices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multigate_device#Tri-gate_transistors

Also, feel free to use any article ever written by anyone on Ivy Bridge CPUs.

And, yes, AMD will come out with this tech soon... maybe in 5 years which is about right if history is any indication. Also, please don't hurt yourself or anyone around you when the AMD consoles are sent back to the factory to be repaired breaking the red ring of death record set by the Xbox 360 fat. Just count to 10 very slowly, taking deep breaths in between each number and then go run a benchmark on your 8350 to make yourself feel better.

Why are you so mad at AMD? You are so bias that you really have no credibility and no name. Stop hating on a cpu maker just because you bought another. You cannot hide the fact that the 8350 really is competitive with the best, in all criteria: Gaming, Editing, Rendering, streaming. Keep trying though.

 

[whyso]

Repeating the word "nonsense" all the day is not going to change facts. From a link given before:

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon. This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop.

I have not given you one benchmark showing 5%. I have given you benchmarks showing 6-10%. I did because you claimed no advantage. Now you change your argument to no advantage on the average, but then two comments: I don't care about the average if I am playing one of those benchmarked games and you don't offer anything to support your average figure.

The thread I posted is from 27 February 2013. Yes computers advance fast but not that fast. What they said about HT continue being valid today.

About power consumption I recommend you again the same: read what was said.

Congrats for wikipedia skills. Thumbs down for reading comprehension.

Full Quote

In a variety of computing benchmarks, the Opteron architecture has demonstrated better multi-processor scaling than the Intel Xeon.[1] This is primarily because adding an additional Opteron processor increases memory bandwidth, while that is not always the case for Xeon systems, and the fact that the Opterons use a switched fabric, rather than a shared bus. In particular, the Opteron's integrated memory controller allows the CPU to access local RAM very quickly. In contrast, multiprocessor Xeon system CPUs share only two common buses for both processor-processor and processor-memory communication. As the number of CPUs increases in a typical Xeon system, contention for the shared bus causes computing efficiency to drop. Intel is migrating to a memory architecture similar to the Opteron's for the Intel Core i7 family of processors and their Xeon derivatives.

Which happened several years ago.

And I have given you benchmarks showing 0-2%. (Note this is bulldozer) (Your links are messed up)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Breaking-the-Hype-of-High-Frequency-RAM-142/page3

A link to a short discussion on this same forum about this same point is hardly conclusive.

Anyway here is another article from toms

Between the i3 and the pentium G2020 (both ivy). Clockspeed difference is 2.9 ghz vs 3.3 ghz. Perfomance difference is 159-121= 38/121=31% better for the i3. Clockspeed difference is only 3.3/2.9=14% better for the i3 so the deficit (31-14=17%) is coming from HT.

Modern Opteron 6200 models have better scaling than modern Xeon E7.

Your benchmarks are from a computer builder who sell computers with slow ram. In a part of the their site they claim that they don't support AMD stock speeds because (sic) 1866 RAM is not reliable. What? The benchmarks I provided are from people not involved in selling computers or stuff as that.

Even intel chips, which are rather insensible to ram speed give about a 2% increase in average performance when going from 1600 to 2133. For AMD this is larger.

Percentages are relative values and would not be added. The difference at same clock is not 17% but less than 15%. Both chips differentiate on HT, AVX support, and different memory speeds.

HT is also chip dependant. An 3770k HT provides less than a 9% performance increase over a 3570k on crysis 3, which is heavily threaded, whereas the increase is larger for i3. And HT can affect negatively performance in several applications.

You need to support you scaling claim with some benchmarks.

Slow RAM? Every computer they sell comes with 1600 mhz ram (I actually respect them more for not trying to tell me I 'need' expensive ram for my computer). (I can't load your benchmarks). Their review showed that ram speed has little effect on bulldozer. It has been shown multiple times that faster ram is really nothing more than a money grab (toms, anandtech, have done articles on this). 2% is insignificant. Your margin of error from mobo and the silicon lottery are going to have a larger effect.

Margin of error from mobo (look at Asus maximus V formula and Asrock extreme 6). Again 2% is what, 1fps?

They are tested with the same memory, i3 supports AVX.

The i5 shows less performance gain because as the number of cores increase, scaling efficiency goes down.

I am still waiting you to support your argument against the wiki with some benchmark.

Slower RAM than the stock RAM designed for that chip. If $8 is expensive for you...

2% is for Intel chips, whose are insensitive to ram speed as said above... I already gave you 6-10% for AMD CPUs and for APUs it can be up to 22%.

Running an APU with slower ram is at least curious and reflect the tone of the site that you cited. It is still more curious when your site offers as excuse that 1866 RAM is not reliable...

Yes the i3 support AVX. I already explained to you before that AVX is one of the differences.

Testing with same memory does not say anything when each chip support different official speeds.

HT offer between -5% (downgrade) to 10% on an i7. It is not magic sauce.

Against the wiki? The wiki doesn't say anything about modern opterons having better scaling? That problem was already fixed.

Its supported RAM, not required RAM.

I think your 6-10% is for one best case senario. Its not the average case (and no your link does not work). Apus are irrelevant to the argument as we are talking about FX.

Sorry, didn't realize that the pentium didn't support AVX. But avx is rarely used (if at all) in games (Sandy vs pre sandy or bulldozer vs phenon 2 don't seem to show any speedup due to AVX support).

Support--keyword there, not require. And this is pretty much an artificial limited as you can drop is faster (or slower) ram with generally no problems.

HT almost never decreases performance in modern applications or games (for a few scientific type applications it can as seen in the scientific anandtech review of xeon processors but it can easily be turned off). HT can easily be over 10% in some applications.

 

[juanrga]

Against the wiki? The wiki doesn't say anything about modern opterons having better scaling? That problem was already fixed.

Its supported RAM, not required RAM.

I think your 6-10% is for one best case senario. Its not the average case (and no your link does not work). Apus are irrelevant to the argument as we are talking about FX.

Sorry, didn't realize that the pentium didn't support AVX. But avx is rarely used (if at all) in games (Sandy vs pre sandy or bulldozer vs phenon 2 don't seem to show any speedup due to AVX support).

Support--keyword there, not require. And this is pretty much an artificial limited as you can drop is faster (or slower) ram with generally no problems.

HT almost never decreases performance in modern applications or games (for a few scientific type applications it can as seen in the scientific anandtech review of xeon processors but it can easily be turned off). HT can easily be over 10% in some applications.

I take your lack of support as you have no support for your claims against opterons.

It is not just "supported RAM" but stock speed RAM. Ivy 'supports' 800 MHz RAM still you are not suggesting all the tests of i5/i7 Ivy to be run with 800 MHz ram and in fact most (all?) reviews use stock 1600 or even overclocked to 1866 or higher. You only want AMD chips to run slower memory than the stock one.

One thing is what you think and other what you can prove. The links works for me. I am not using APUs in the argument, merely mentioning APUs.

Which is the point on repeating the 10% HT gain in some applications, after I said you that exactly that about HT?

 

[8350rocks]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

Bf 3 isnt CPU dependent at all (it only needs 2 cores) in single player and it uses 4 MAX at mp. Not good test for CPU pref. Civ 5 and total war would be better.

Actually in 64 man MP maps...it will load 6 cores on my 8 core CPU. But I suppose if you only have 4 cores you wouldn't know that

 

[8350rocks]

FYI: CPUs don't fight each other and clock speed doesn't mean squat. If you knew how to read, you would notice that the words "single core performance" were used. A 960 (not a 920) is only around 3% slower core for core compared to an 8350. That 3% could be more than made up for with a 1 GHz overclock.

Here is a website where CPUs do theoretically face off and this page is on the 960 vs the 8350:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-960-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Overall performance (CPU using all cores): 8.3 vs 7.4 or around 10 to 15%
Single core performance: 8.1 vs 7.8 or around 3 to 5%

That website also lists the I7-3770S (NOT K), as one of the greatest CPUs of all time...So maybe you should take what they say with a grain of salt, huh?

Nobody wants to take a crack at the essay questions? The only response is "AMD's best consumer CPU ever, so far, is better... why? Um, here is a benchmark of Crysis 3 in 720p with no AA on... oh, and the new consoles are using AMD chips. Why is that relevant? I have no idea. And they are cheaper. Anything else I say is a blatant lie. I'll just parrot what some blogger posted about the CPU while I myself have absolutely no proof or even any understanding as to why the new consoles having AMD chips in them matters. It sounds like we're on to something, though."

Nobody can argue with someone illogical and unwilling to listen to an intelligent conversation. I can provide you tons of information...but if you're not too savvy about electrical diagrams/schematics, and flow charts...then you won't really grasp what I have to say anyway, so why would I waste my breath? You'll just argue that I am lying to you; and say some site, like CPUBoss.com, that makes up benchmarks to determine how CPUs would do if they "faced off" without ever actually benchmarking the 2 against each other "has it right".

I'll tell you this: sure, many devs will recommend AMD as the more future proof. The only reason for that is they rarely change their motherboard or socket. That is it. And, with new DDR4 SDRAM coming out very soon, the AM3+ platform is gone as well. Note the 3 in AM3 as in DDR3. The only time they change sockets and thus motherboards is to accommodate new RAM tech. DDR4 SDRAM is expected to become the new standard in personal computers by next year. This means, regardless if you purchase an 8350 or a 4770k, your PC will not be upgradable past 2015. That AM3+ motherboard will last about as long as the 1150 Intel platform: 2 generations. If you bought an AM3+ PC back in 2009, you could have upgraded your CPU several times while an Intel PC would have required a new motherboard almost every time. But, each of those upgrades were trivial; maybe 10 to 15% per upgrade. If you truly want a "future proof" PC, you will need to buy it in the, well, future. But, that is only less than a year from now.

Actually...nothing is future proof. No one was ever asked about future proof gaming CPUs. That question was never posed to developers in that article at all. They asked, what gaming CPU going forward would be the best performance for upcoming games in the short term. That answer, not surprisingly for those paying attention, was the AMD. FYI: I am in the gaming industry...most developers don't like Intel...at least most of the ones I know. Intel is typically arrogant, and doesn't listen to feedback, where AMD does. If Intel wants to win the gaming developers over, they need to listen to feedback...but they don't...so AMD will come roaring back while intel sails slowly off into chapter 11 paradise.

Further in the future, both companies will start to phase out the motherboard as we know it and put most of the components on a single chip or SOC. This explains the rumors of Intel doing away with removable sockets and selling the CPU and motherboard as a unit. They will most likely be sold like GPUs where there is still a lineup of different spec'd CPUs and vendors like Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, AsRock, etc. will make a custom board with the CPU permanently soldered on it.

How far in the future are you talking? 40 years? 140 years? I don't foresee CPUs being sold from them completely in a format other than LGA, unless they change architecture from x86 or go to some other far better and more efficient architecture that requires a different format.

SoCs are currently in LGA format, why would they change that?

Better question would be, why would AMD change that? Intel would love to shaft you out of money for every upgrade they can.

 

[8350rocks]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

Bf 3 isnt CPU dependent at all (it only needs 2 cores) in single player and it uses 4 MAX at mp. Not good test for CPU pref. Civ 5 and total war would be better.

Actually in 64 man MP maps...it will load 6 cores on my 8 core CPU. But I suppose if you only have 4 cores you wouldn't know that

Your 8 cores are really only 4 cores and 4 modular cores hence the 3770k competes and beats it. Anyway amds architecture is so inefficent the old 45nm phenoms are better performance per watt then some amd fx cpus how embarrassing. By the way loading 6 'cores' out of 8 on yours means its like 2-3 cores on an intel system.

Wrong. Completely wrong...AMD has 8 integer cores...4 shared FPUs. BF3 using 6 cores on my CPU means it would be using all 4 intel cores + more. You can't equate intel technology to AMD equivalently anymore...it's not anywhere near the same, and your menial understanding of it leads you to make false statements.

 

[tadej petric]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

Bf 3 isnt CPU dependent at all (it only needs 2 cores) in single player and it uses 4 MAX at mp. Not good test for CPU pref. Civ 5 and total war would be better.

Actually in 64 man MP maps...it will load 6 cores on my 8 core CPU. But I suppose if you only have 4 cores you wouldn't know that

Your 8 cores are really only 4 cores and 4 modular cores hence the 3770k competes and beats it. Anyway amds architecture is so inefficent the old 45nm phenoms are better performance per watt then some amd fx cpus how embarrassing. By the way loading 6 'cores' out of 8 on yours means its like 2-3 cores on an intel system.

Wrong. Completely wrong...AMD has 8 integer cores...4 shared FPUs. BF3 using 6 cores on my CPU means it would be using all 4 intel cores + more. You can't equate intel technology to AMD equivalently anymore...it's not anywhere near the same, and your menial understanding of it leads you to make false statements.

Well we did i5 bench with BF3 MP last week with my friends. 4th and 3rd core werent loaded at all (just 5-15%) and 2nd was on about 80%. And it was intense battle. I can see using 3rd core possible but not 4th one (BF 3 MP).

 

[8350rocks]

Bottom line is an FX-8350 and i5 are good processors for gaming. As more cores are utilized in gaming the difference in the cpu's will come down to what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure what these cpu's can do just youtube Battlefield 3 & fx-8350 or battlefield & i5. My FX-8350 plays Battlefield 3 Maxed

Bf 3 isnt CPU dependent at all (it only needs 2 cores) in single player and it uses 4 MAX at mp. Not good test for CPU pref. Civ 5 and total war would be better.

Actually in 64 man MP maps...it will load 6 cores on my 8 core CPU. But I suppose if you only have 4 cores you wouldn't know that

Your 8 cores are really only 4 cores and 4 modular cores hence the 3770k competes and beats it. Anyway amds architecture is so inefficent the old 45nm phenoms are better performance per watt then some amd fx cpus how embarrassing. By the way loading 6 'cores' out of 8 on yours means its like 2-3 cores on an intel system.

Wrong. Completely wrong...AMD has 8 integer cores...4 shared FPUs. BF3 using 6 cores on my CPU means it would be using all 4 intel cores + more. You can't equate intel technology to AMD equivalently anymore...it's not anywhere near the same, and your menial understanding of it leads you to make false statements.

Well we did i5 bench with BF3 MP last week with my friends. 4th and 3rd core werent loaded at all (just 5-15%) and 2nd was on about 80%. And it was intense battle. I can see using 3rd core possible but not 4th one (BF 3 MP).

64 man maps?

 

[8350rocks]

8350rocks most intel ivy bridge 4 core cpus beat the fx8350. I think ivy bridge vs pile driver is the biggest gap in performance per watt in the history of intel vs amd battle. Its really embarrassing fx8350 takes more then an i7 3960x power consumption while 3770k takes less then an fx4300 and even an a10 apu cpu. I think linus did a test and you only really need 2 cores for bf3.

Benchmarks or it never happened. Support your fallacies.

Show me where a FX8350 loses to "most IB 4 cores"...pure performance FPS in modern games. I could care less about perf/watt. At $0.11 kw/hr I am not at all concerned about the $0.89 it costs me monthly.

 

[8350rocks]

Ok, first of all...the following programs are already known to be highly intel favored...so if you're going to try using one of these as an example...you need to do your homework.

Secondly, You posted 3 specific cases and said they apply broadly across every program...let's see some real numbers.

These are highly singlethreaded special cases:

Any AAC encoding program (RAY or iTunes, etc.)
Skyrim
Civilization 5
Star Craft 2
A large chunk of MMORPGs

Now, go fish for some benchmarks that haven't been identified as clear outliers for the last 6 months or more.

Then talk to me about your argument of "superiority".

 

[8350rocks]

Those are the examples I am talking about being outliers...

What you're doing is like me saying that since the FX8350 destroys every intel CPU @ handbrake, encryption and WinRAR that it's unilaterally better. It's not better at everything, I know this and you know this.

However, Intel is not better at everything...it's better at some lightly threaded and single threaded applications.

So...pull out something that isn't one of those I listed.

BTW: Comparing the FX8350 to an i3 is insulting.

 

[8350rocks]

The i7-3770k is not a low end CPU. It's the most powerful Quad Core they make.

If you're going to continue to make ridiculous statements and not back them up with facts and then insult AMD baselessly...this conversation is over. Go back under your troll bridge.

 

[tadej petric]

Just for 8350rocks (Im so kind, I know (hehe))
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=677
And i5 vs 8350
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701
And i7 3770k vs 8350 (which is what should OP be more interested about)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551
And lower cored (than 8350) Intel ex vs 8350
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=443

Have fun!

 

[FAMDUCK]

Two days ago, Tom's released an updated CPU "hierarchy" chart for gaming and AMD does not have a single CPU in the top tier. The 8350 finally makes an appearance in tier 2 along with the first gen Intel Core i5 and i7 980 and below. So, basically according to Tom's, every Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 and a few first gen i7's are better gaming CPUs than anything AMD has ever made. The funny part is that this is a list based on the best value, and despite the fact that Intels are much more expensive, they are still worth the price difference... well, according to Tom's Hardware that is.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

Another CPU ranking list is linked to from the above article. It is the CPU performance charts. These tests do not focus mainly on gaming. Instead, each CPU is tested in many different applications. There isn't one application where an AMD is even in the top 5. In the first test, cinebench, the 8350 is 33rd on the list. It is even slower than a 6 core AMD. In 3DMark11, it is a bit better, at #15. That time it was able to beat the i3's and the older i5's and i7's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/benchmarks,140.html

So, the 8350 is good, but not the best. In anything. Not even gaming. Thanks for clearing that up, Tom's.

If you have the money, get an Intel.

If you don't have the money, get an older Intel.

If you are really broke and take the bus to work, get the AMD.

That is my opinion.

 

[tadej petric]

64 man maps?

30v30. ''Only'' 60.

 

[tadej petric]

And some more benchie fire

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-21-Mafia-II,3176.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html
And probably the most important
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3176.html?prod%5B5754%5D=on&prod%5B5755%5D=on&prod%5B5877%5D=on

This benchies are outdated but it dosnt change a thing. Its not like with GPUs where drivers change the picture monthly.

 

[whyso]

My opinion?
i3 vs 8350--8350 all the way, can be overclocked and most of the singlethread deficit can be made up. In lightly threaded applications it will lose but it will destroy the i3 in heavily threaded games.

i5 vs 8350--i5, both overclocked the i5 will win more than it will lose. Price is higher but consumes less power. If a mid range gpu is used there will be no (or very little for the most part) perceivable difference between the two.

i7 vs 8350--i7 is better but the cost makes it not worth it, if you are using as a rendering farm or heavy work get the i7

Things to note. An overclocked 8350 will use a lot more power than a i5/i7. You will need a 100-150 watt larger power supply if you plan to overclock. The 8350 because of its power draw requires a fairly good mobo (el cheapo boards have problems powering it).

 

[Derrick Bailey]

Well now it comes down to who do you believe, Toms Hardware or Anandtech. Look at the benchmarcks that tadej petric posted.