Fx 8350 with gtx 980 vs i7 4790k with gtx 970 [continued]

[furiousss]

hello everyone,

I am looking on to build a new gaming pc. as the topic says, I have come across two different cpu's.
I know that the i7 4790k is far better. but the fx 8350 has 8 cores and would it be useful for future gaming? also whether Fx 8350 with gtx 980 outperform intel i7 4790k with gtx 970 [both are of same price].Any answer would be appreciated. [please don't suggest i5 4690k as it wont match the price and I would have to buy a gtx 970]

thanks in advance.

this is the continuation of my previous thread http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2583796/8350-gtx-980-intel-4790k-gtx-970.html

 

[herrwizo]

the fx 8350 has 8 cores and would it be useful for future gaming?

These cores are not useful even now, so I fail to see how they might become so in the future. Games tend to prefer faster cores to more cores. You will likely change at least 2 motherboards and CPUs until that time comes (IF... at all).

also whether Fx 8350 with gtx 980 outperform intel i7 4790k with gtx 970 [both are of same price].

Depends on whether the particular game is CPU or GPU limited and your resolution. Unless you are aiming for a dual monitor setup or 1440p ultra details where stronger GPU's qualities become evident, you are more likely to get better performance from Intel + 970 all-round. Especially since games tend to be more and more CPU hungry these days.

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

This has been a "debate" of the ages. And no, more cores does not equal better performance.

Even applications that support multithread the i5 is on par, in some cases slightly worse and in some cases slightly better. Take a look for yourself. That just goes to show the power of Intels 4 cores.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1261

You'll be happier with the Intel and the 970 IMO. You'll experience less frame drop which will lead to a smoother gaming experience. The fx 8350 is becoming old news.

 

[furiousss]

please read the full thread if possible.
directx12 is likely to double the performance of fx8350.
http://tpucdn.com/img/15-03-23/100f_thm.jpg
http://tpucdn.com/img/15-03-23/100h_thm.jpg
for full article http://www.techpowerup.com/210960/amd-bets-on-directx-12-for-not-just-gpus-but-also-its-cpus.html

my monitor is 1280x1024 res 60Hz but my sony bravia led tv is 1080p 200Hz.
I live in india. so post according to indian prices.
this is the comparision between fx8350 with gtx 980 build and i7 4790k with gtx 970 build.

after lot of researching, I decided to go with fx8350 and gtx 980.

CPU: FX8350 12.5k @ snapdeal.
GPU: EVGA SC ACX GTX980 decided to global ship from amazon.com for 42k.[price inclusive of customs and shipping charges]
MOBO: ASUS 990fx evo r2.0 @ 10.75k @ snapdeal.

total 65.5k

the i7 line[ for referring]
CPU: i7 4790k @ 21.75k @ snapdeal.
GPU: MSI gaming gtx 970 @ 31.75k @ flipkart.
MOBO: asrock z97 extreme4 @ 13.5k @ flipkart.

total 66k

both costs about the same. in fact, the fx8350 line is cheaper. I think this is good computer.

 

[Onus]

While it is important to point out that your choice doesn't "suck," and you did select a solid motherboard, assuming you will use your TV, which is 1920x1080, I believe you would have gotten better performance with the Intel system. Should you play on your monitor, its low resolution makes even a GTX960 sufficient for UltraMaxOhWOW settings. There, the stronger Intel CPU would keep your minimum frame rates higher, which is often more noticeable to gamers than the maximum or average frame rates.
You will also want a cooler, as the stock AMD cooler is notoriously weak, especially if you decide to overclock (you probably will). Avoid the Hyper212 EVO parrots, and choose from http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2478892/alternatives-hyper-212-evo-budget-cooling.html for a much higher bang/buck choice.

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

If you're basing your decision on what DX-12 is suppose to deliver, I'd wait until it's out and see what the actual results are. If it makes the Fx 8350 work 2x better as you claimed, great - Intel could use some competition in the high-end market. But I'm skeptical and I've read other reports that are not promising the moon and stars like the articles provided.

Regardless, best of luck in your build!

 

[furiousss]

If you're basing your decision on what DX-12 is suppose to deliver, I'd wait until it's out and see what the actual results are. If it makes the Fx 8350 work 2x better as you claimed, great - Intel could use some competition in the high-end market. But I'm skeptical and I've read other reports that are not promising the moon and stars like the articles provided.

Regardless, best of luck in your build!

Thanks. I tend to be different. directx12 uses all cores of fx8350 and also each core can communicate individually with the gpu unlike in directx11 where a single core can communicate with the gpu.
also see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9UACXikdR0

 

[NightAntilli]

The i7 4790k can also handle 8 threads with hyperthreading, so the 8 'cores' is not exactly the advantage of the FX CPU. This i7 CPU is in reality faster than the FX-8350 all around. The thing is, you'll pay almost double the price for at most a 25% increase in minimum framerates with most DX11 games. And with DX12 the difference in gaming between these CPUs will only narrow, because the bottleneck will be shifted to the GPU instead. Even the A8 APUs can do that, so what are the chances that the FX will be a bottleneck?

For right now, the 970 + i7 might seem like the better choice, and it probably is for playing games prior to 2015. But in three years, your 980 will hold its own a lot better than the 970, and the 8350 will probably still be as viable as the i7 for gaming as DX12 optimization continues. Simplified info on DX11 vs DX12:

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified

If you later want to upgrade your TV or get a higher res monitor or whatever, the GTX 980 has you covered. The GTX 980 is a full 20 fps higher than the GTX 970 in games like Ryse. I do think the GTX 980 is overpriced though, so you can go for the GTX 970 also and keep the FX CPU. It'll save you money. You can also consider the R9 290x, although you'll probably need a bigger power supply. The GCN architecture is probably more future proof than Maxwell though, but that's a probability, not a certainty. It's based on this:

Most people buy for 'right now'. I buy thinking 3-5 years ahead. It's the reason I haven't upgraded my HD 6850 yet, because it's still unclear which the current cards will support ALL DX12 features. I'm waiting for the moment I can make a more calculated decision. We're currently also at the last batch of cards that will come at 28nm for both nVidia and AMD. Waiting for the die-shrink is a must for me. And HBM is also coming into the picture, so... I want a mid range card with HBM, which means I'll stick it out another year with my HD6850.

On another note... Your TV, despite being advertised as 200 Hz is probably either 60 Hz or 120 Hz.

 

[pomps74]

i would have taken the intel i7 with the gtx 970 because it is more future proof, as the i7 will last at least 4+ years. The FX line is dead; even AMD said that they wont make a new cpu for AM3+ socket. It might be good now, but take all speculations about DX12 with a grain of salt. Its still in testing and may change by the time it comes out.

 

[furiousss]

you guys are still confusing me a lot.

I wont be upgrading my computer for the next 4+ years. So I need a future proof rig. I think the fx8350 promises on directx12. my old desktop lasted for 8 years without upgrading which has a core 2 duo e4400 @2.0ghz with a waste radeon x300/x550/x1050 gpu which cant even run fifa 7 at lowest settings above 10 fps on 1280 x 1024 res. so most probably I wont upgrade my build for next 5 years.

I still haven't started my build yet. so please provide a best future proof solution or build.

 

[furiousss]

@NightAntilli
YOU SAID:
The GCN architecture is probably more future proof than Maxwell though, but that's a probability, not a certainty. It's based on this:

BASED ON WHAT?

 

[NightAntilli]

Based on the DX12 tiers. If you look at the image, the Radeon GPUs support pretty much everything at the highest tier, while the nVidia cards don't. BUT, this has not been confirmed. It's all conjecture as of now.

 

[Onus]

Both Intel and AMD offer CPUs that are "fast enough," even if one significantly outperforms the other. There is more to future-resistance than performance. Look for solid quality, and durability. For example, the Asus Sabertooth has a five year warranty; most motherboards offer only three. Get WD Black hard drives; they too have a five year warranty, and many others only offer two. If you think you need 1TB, get 2TB. Look for expandability, which means ports you're likely to use. Maybe spend $80-$120 on a solid, durable case instead of $30-$40. Choose more expensive Enermax or Corsair fans instead of cheap Coolermaster or Rosewill.

 

[DubbleClick]

please read the full thread if possible.
directx12 is likely to double the performance of fx8350.
http://tpucdn.com/img/15-03-23/100f_thm.jpg
http://tpucdn.com/img/15-03-23/100h_thm.jpg
for full article http://www.techpowerup.com/210960/amd-bets-on-directx-12-for-not-just-gpus-but-also-its-cpus.html

my monitor is 1280x1024 res 60Hz but my sony bravia led tv is 1080p 200Hz.
I live in india. so post according to indian prices.
this is the comparision between fx8350 with gtx 980 build and i7 4790k with gtx 970 build.

after lot of researching, I decided to go with fx8350 and gtx 980.

CPU: FX8350 12.5k @ snapdeal.
GPU: EVGA SC ACX GTX980 decided to global ship from amazon.com for 42k.[price inclusive of customs and shipping charges]
MOBO: ASUS 990fx evo r2.0 @ 10.75k @ snapdeal.

total 65.5k

the i7 line[ for referring]
CPU: i7 4790k @ 21.75k @ snapdeal.
GPU: MSI gaming gtx 970 @ 31.75k @ flipkart.
MOBO: asrock z97 extreme4 @ 13.5k @ flipkart.

total 66k

both costs about the same. in fact, the fx8350 line is cheaper. I think this is good computer.

I think I have very well explained under what circumstances ONLY the fx 8350 will get such a huge boost - in which case the i7 would too.
That said, summary once again:
1080p gaming: i7 + 970 > fx + 980.
1440p gaming: i7 + 970 >= fx + 980.
4k gaming: fx + 980 > i7 + 970, however both fairly unplayable (under 30 fps mostly).
Anything other than gaming: i7 >(>>) fx.

 

[DubbleClick]

The i7 4790k can also handle 8 threads with hyperthreading, so the 8 'cores' is not exactly the advantage of the FX CPU. This i7 CPU is in reality faster than the FX-8350 all around. The thing is, you'll pay almost double the price for at most a 25% increase in minimum framerates with most DX11 games. And with DX12 the difference in gaming between these CPUs will only narrow, because the bottleneck will be shifted to the GPU instead. Even the A8 APUs can do that, so what are the chances that the FX will be a bottleneck?

For right now, the 970 + i7 might seem like the better choice, and it probably is for playing games prior to 2015. But in three years, your 980 will hold its own a lot better than the 970, and the 8350 will probably still be as viable as the i7 for gaming as DX12 optimization continues. Simplified info on DX11 vs DX12:

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified

If you later want to upgrade your TV or get a higher res monitor or whatever, the GTX 980 has you covered. The GTX 980 is a full 20 fps higher than the GTX 970 in games like Ryse. I do think the GTX 980 is overpriced though, so you can go for the GTX 970 also and keep the FX CPU. It'll save you money. You can also consider the R9 290x, although you'll probably need a bigger power supply. The GCN architecture is probably more future proof than Maxwell though, but that's a probability, not a certainty. It's based on this:

Most people buy for 'right now'. I buy thinking 3-5 years ahead. It's the reason I haven't upgraded my HD 6850 yet, because it's still unclear which the current cards will support ALL DX12 features. I'm waiting for the moment I can make a more calculated decision. We're currently also at the last batch of cards that will come at 28nm for both nVidia and AMD. Waiting for the die-shrink is a must for me. And HBM is also coming into the picture, so... I want a mid range card with HBM, which means I'll stick it out another year with my HD6850.

On another note... Your TV, despite being advertised as 200 Hz is probably either 60 Hz or 120 Hz.

Quick quote out of the article you posted:

It’s not magic

DirectX 12 won’t make your PC or XBox One magically faster.

First off, the developer has to write their game so that they’re interacting with the GPU through multiple cores simultaneously. Most games, even today, are still written so that only 1 core is dedicated to interacting with the GPU.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all times. Directx12 ENABLES the programmer to do bundles draw calls, queue instructions, completely manage memory (in fact, the programmer is forced to with dx12) and more. If developers do not optimize the game itself AND it's gpu usage fairly well, dx12 isn't going to show more than a minimal (due to efficiency) performance increase and isn't helping weaker or especially X core cpu's (fx) any more than other cpu's. Following to what's currently happening, developers tend to make and publish games as quick as possible, using the stronger getting hardware to spend less time on optimization.

Also, that marginal difference between fx and i7 is usually around 20% for 1080p gaming. A gtx 970 is less than 15% weaker (judging by his particular model choices) so the i7 + 970 would give better results than the fx + 8350. True for current games and most likely true for the majority of games coming in the next five years.

By the way, current amd gpu's do not support dx12 feature level 3. The r9 390x is the first gpu which is expected to be fully dx12 compatible. Most (all?) current benchmarks were aimed at showing the reduction in api overhead, by the way. They are not applicable to how the performance increase is going to be in normal games. And for the case of a sole overhead reduction, the i7 is about getting as much percentual framerate increase as the fx 8350. Which would still tier it paired with a gtx 970 above or equal to the fx + gtx 980 combo.

For reference, you may also check 3dmark's draw call benchmark.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/directx-12-im-test-vor-mantle-und-amd-vor-nvidia/#diagramm-3dmark-intel-core-i7-4770k

 

[NightAntilli]

I know all of that already. But the DX11 API requires more CPU time than the DX12 API. Generally the DX11 API takes more time than the game code itself on a single core, and DX12 doesn't. So that alone will reduce the CPU bottleneck, even if the game are programmed for single core in DX12, which most of them won't because of the consoles. The current consoles are one of the reason we get more crappy PC ports since they have to translate everything that was multi-threaded to the heavily single threaded DX11.

As for the 3DMark draw call benchmark, it supports what I've been saying.
Right now, the FX-8370 can have maximum draw calls of approximately 700.000 under DX11 with an R9 290x, and 2.000.000 with a GTX 980. If we turn to DX12, it's almost 14.000.000 for the R9 290x, which is 20 times as much. For the GTX 980 it's almost 12.000.000 under DX 12. That's about 6 times as much (the GPU is the limit here).
If we take the i7 4770k, currently we have around 950.000 under DX11 with an R9 290X, and 2.200.000 with the GTX 980. Turn to DX 12, and we have 17.000.000 for the R9 290x (around ~18 times as much), and 13.700.000 for the GTX 980 (also ~6 times as much).

FX vs i7 is for R9 290x:
DX11: 700.000 vs 950.000
DX12: 14.000.000 vs 17.000.000

FX vs i7 is for GTX 980:
DX11: 2.000.000 vs 2.200.000
DX12: 12.000.000 vs 13.700.000

So yes, the i7 4770k is better, but you also pay double the price for the FX being at most ~25% slower with the amount of draw calls in DX11. But how can you see the FX being a problem for the future when it can do 20 times the amount of draw calls in DX12? Games right now, can not do more than the maximum values found here in DX11. If things supposedly run smoothly on an i7 with at most 2.2 million, what makes you think 12 to 14 million will be a bottleneck?

 

[DubbleClick]

Which would exactly result in the fx 8350 + gtx 970 being better value than the i7 4790k + gtx 970. However, since the discussion is about fx 8350 + gtx 980 vs i7 + gtx 970, the latter would win in value and performance.

Also, nothing makes me think that would be a bottleneck. Even 1m draw calls likely wouldn't be a bottleneck. This is all theoretical and solely to show maximum capacibilities, which still show the i7 ~20-25% ahead of the fx. What exactly framerates are going to look like after it's release with the first dx12 built games is not to be answered yet, there's only probabilities we can speculate about.

 

[pomps74]

Go with the i7 is is more future-proof now. The FX is years old, and it will slowly be unable to maintain games as they advance.

 

[Karadjgne]

The i7 is not more future proof than the FX 8350. The i7 is top end of the lga 1150. The 8350 is top end of the am3+. Seriously doubtful that the next generation of Intel cpu's will remain on the lga1150 board. So how is the i7 'future proof'? It's not upgradable, not transferable, its stuck at the peak of Intel cpu. Just as the 8350 is stuck at the peak of am3+.

Both BF4 and watchdogs make use of multiple cores, using all 8 if they are available, and it's only the 4770k/4790k and 2011's that beat the 8350 in overall performance, so I'd say that it can hold its own.

Is that a trend in games? I don't know, it's impossible to tell. For all we know, there could be games currently under production that make full use of 8 cores, simply because Sony uses 8 core cpus in the PS and want to maximize on that. Dunno.
Be careful about 'aged'. The sandy bridge i5 2500k is still one hell of a good cpu, yet it's aged, hd6990, gtx680, all aged, yet still very good. Just because there is newer, doesn't mean it's better. There have been many 3770k taken to 5.0-5.1GHz on regular air/clc cooling. Show me a 4790k that'll do that.

Nothing wrong with an 'aged' cpu design like the FX8350, quit stepping on it just because it usually comes in second place.

 

[pomps74]

The i7 is not more future proof than the FX 8350. The i7 is top end of the lga 1150. The 8350 is top end of the am3+. Seriously doubtful that the next generation of Intel cpu's will remain on the lga1150 board. So how is the i7 'future proof'? It's not upgradable, not transferable, its stuck at the peak of Intel cpu. Just as the 8350 is stuck at the peak of am3+.

Both BF4 and watchdogs make use of multiple cores, using all 8 if they are available, and it's only the 4770k/4790k and 2011's that beat the 8350 in overall performance, so I'd say that it can hold its own.

Is that a trend in games? I don't know, it's impossible to tell. For all we know, there could be games currently under production that make full use of 8 cores, simply because Sony uses 8 core cpus in the PS and want to maximize on that. Dunno.
Be careful about 'aged'. The sandy bridge i5 2500k is still one hell of a good cpu, yet it's aged, hd6990, gtx680, all aged, yet still very good. Just because there is newer, doesn't mean it's better. There have been many 3770k taken to 5.0-5.1GHz on regular air/clc cooling. Show me a 4790k that'll do that.

Nothing wrong with an 'aged' cpu design like the FX8350, quit stepping on it just because it usually comes in second place.

Hey, broadwell is coming out in the summer and that is a whole new arhitecture for Intel. They said themselves that it will be for the LGA 1150 socket, since Haswell was only the first gen. There will definitley be a new i7, top-of-the-line processor. And when I said future proof, I meant that it is so well-performing that it wouldn't need to be changed for multiple generations, FX is 3 years old and counting, and as new GPU's come out, they will gradually be held back by the FX, while the i7 will let them perform better. By the way, FX is not second place.

 

[Karadjgne]

They also said the performance difference between the Devils Canyon and Broadwells will be smaller than the current difference between Haswell and Devils Canyon, the only difference being slightly better thermal dynamics due to revised architecture, so all its going to do really is run cooler than current cpus. Not what I'd call a huge impact or any real sort of upgrade. No difference really to anyone other than extreme OC. Skylake is supposed to be the next decent jump in performance and a new lga.

And I disagree with your 'future proofing' theory. My lga 1155 Ivy-Bridge i5-3570K is already 3 yrs old, 1 generation and 3 revisions too, and yet I dare you to say it's crap cuz it's older tech, its also a dead end, just like the FX8350 may be, but that honestly doesn't mean a thing. It'll do anything a Haswell, Refresh or DC can do with only a few % less performance. So what. So it's 1-2 fps slower. Big deal. So the fx may be 10-15 fps slower. Who cares. When you are paired with a gtx970 at 1080p 60Hz and dropping 60+ fps, its all the same. No matter if you see 90 or 120fps, you are gonna see 60. And that's all.

 

[nikoli707]

64 man shanghi run thru.... adding a 10-15% more fps to the fx chips minimum and average fps still wont allow it to catch up.

 

[furiousss]

@tea urchin
Current games are written for i5 and other intel cpu's : accepted.
What about future games and directx12?

For the present the i7 4790k with gtx 970 would be the better choice, or say the best.
But what about 2 years later? with the help of directx12 the fx8350 bottleneck with gtx 980 would have gone.
Games are getting badly optimized and starting to recommend more than 4 cores where fx8350 would shine.
Sure, the i7 4790k would manage 8 threads with hyperthreading but at that time the difference between these cpu's would be low.
Again, the gtx980 would be superior to gtx970 in future games.

 

[furiousss]

there is also a possibility that due to directx12 the price of amd cpu's would increase.

In India the r9 290x is priced similar to gtx980.

 

[pomps74]

They also said the performance difference between the Devils Canyon and Broadwells will be smaller than the current difference between Haswell and Devils Canyon, the only difference being slightly better thermal dynamics due to revised architecture, so all its going to do really is run cooler than current cpus. Not what I'd call a huge impact or any real sort of upgrade. No difference really to anyone other than extreme OC. Skylake is supposed to be the next decent jump in performance and a new lga.

And I disagree with your 'future proofing' theory. My lga 1155 Ivy-Bridge i5-3570K is already 3 yrs old, 1 generation and 3 revisions too, and yet I dare you to say it's crap cuz it's older tech, its also a dead end, just like the FX8350 may be, but that honestly doesn't mean a thing. It'll do anything a Haswell, Refresh or DC can do with only a few % less performance. So what. So it's 1-2 fps slower. Big deal. So the fx may be 10-15 fps slower. Who cares. When you are paired with a gtx970 at 1080p 60Hz and dropping 60+ fps, its all the same. No matter if you see 90 or 120fps, you are gonna see 60. And that's all.

Why would you buy a FX-8350 now for future gaming? Its like buying a i7 2600k or i7 3770k now so that you can play games in 5 years. The i7 4790k will maintain games longer, simply because it is newer and has better performance. Even as a quadcore with hyperthreading it still beats the 8350 with eight cores. Almost everything about it is better. If your building a future proof rig, then why go with a CPU that is architectures old? And if he gets a higher resolution monitor, then the i7 will continue to be able to play at it. Newer GPU's will be bottlenecked by the FX, and they won't run at the potential the i7 has.