Fx 8350 with gtx 980 vs intel i7 4790k with gtx 970

[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.

 

[Bossyfins]

I am going to say one more thing, and then unfollow lol..


an i3 will out perform a 6300 and even a 8350 in some games. Do I recommend it? sometimes. In the price of a 8350, you could get an i5 4440, which beats an 8350. But, this does not mean AMD sucks... AMD still has its place in the market, and what ever decision you go by will be fine. But for me, I still recommend intel...

 

[DubbleClick]

So you posted 4k benchmarks because...?
Out of anandtech, which you used as reference too, I can also see this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

127 vs 83 fps
98 vs 69 fps
164 vs 132 fps
28 vs 12 fps
equal
equal
105 vs 97 fps
25 vs 21 fps
107 vs 96 fps
82 vs 63 fps

10-15% less of the first and you're mostly still above the second. While actually saving $180 and getting superior performance elsewhere too. Where was your argument, again?

Regarding dx12, just because you think it will magically increase everyone's performance, it will in fact not. Just because an I7 5960x exists doesn't mean a 10 year old dell pc will suddenly show similar performance.

 

[NightAntilli]

So you posted 4k benchmarks because...?

Because you said:
"A r9 290x does in no way beat a gtx 970 at higher resolutions either"
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2583796/8350-gtx-980-intel-4790k-gtx-970.html#15544650

Out of anandtech, which you used as reference too, I can also see this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

127 vs 83 fps Irrelevant for 60 Hz monitors and 144 Hz monitors. Only relevant for 120 Hz monitors.
98 vs 69 fps Irrelevant for all monitors. You will notice the drop for both on anything below 120 Hz, but not on any monitor that's 60 Hz.
164 vs 132 fps Irrelevant for all monitors other than 144 Hz.
28 vs 12 fps Without looking this is obviously Bioshock Infinite. The one that yells bug since an FX-4xxx beats an FX-6xxxx and FX-8xxx, like I already pointed out in my last post.
equal
equal
105 vs 97 fps Irrelevant for all monitors
25 vs 21 fps Irrelevant in all cases, when considering anything below 30 fps as being unplayable
107 vs 96 fps Irrelevant for all monitors
82 vs 63 fps Irrelevant for all monitors

See replies in red. The advantage does not warrant the additional money.

10-15% less of the first and you're mostly still above the second. While actually saving $180 and getting superior performance elsewhere too. Where was your argument, again?

My argument still stands. As you can see above, in reality, the difference between 115 or 90 fps or whatever supposed advantage there is, is completely non-existent since any drop below a monitor's refresh rate will be felt. And unless one is consistently above the refresh rate and the other isn't, the weaker one really is not such a big deal.

Regarding dx12, just because you think it will magically increase everyone's performance, it will in fact not. Just because an I7 5960x exists doesn't mean a 10 year old dell pc will suddenly show similar performance.

What? You're talking nonsense. A 10 year old dell PC does not have unused cores. The FX CPUs do. Obviously the i7 will ALSO benefit from DX12, but even with DX11's limitations, the FX CPU is keeping up quite nicely. With DX12 that gap will only get smaller. Why? Because they will both be able to shift the bottleneck to the GPU before the CPU becomes the bottleneck. Demos already show this... And I already posted evidence of even an FX-4170 beating the i7 with the new APIs.

But I'm tired o arguing. Keep your denial.

OP, seriously, your best choice is FX-8350 with GTX 980, period.

 

[Bossyfins]

I dont feel his best choice is an 8350 with a 980...

If the op can find a 4460 with an h97 board, and a 980, he will be happy...

 

[NightAntilli]

I dont feel his best choice is an 8350 with a 980...

If the op can find a 4460 with an h97 board, and a 980, he will be happy...

Actually, you're right. I was talking strictly between the i7 4790k and the FX 8350. The i5 4460 is indeed the better choice.

 

[Bossyfins]

Yes, if we are talking cost to performance to upgradbility,

i5 with h97 board. He can upgrade to broadwell later.

 

[pomps74]

guys guys guys everyone take a deep breath and calm down

 

[ingtar33]

Even IF all 8 cores were equally and fully used (which will not happen in any game ever) the I7 4790k + gtx 970 would still be vastly superior to an fx 8350 (be it at 5ghz) and a gtx 980.
The "best answer" is nothing but bullshit, look at any benchmark you want. And 60hz/1080p is not an advantage for an amd cpu, that makes literally no sense. At higher (!) resolutions the cpu becomes less meaningful, which would make a fx not look as bad compared to an I7 as it actually is at 1080p.

Seriously, this thread hurts..

yes, it does. i'm actually saddened by this thread.

Here is something to check out k? hunt down benches of games with a fx 8 core clocked to say... 4.7ghz... and see if ANY of them have a min fps less then 60 (on a real gpu)

here, i'll save you some time. not a single game fails to hit 60fps.

Now then on to the next part of my comment. 60hz monitors. Anyone spending $$ on an intel while sitting on a 60hz monitor might as well have burned the extra cash they spent on that intel. simply put while it's true a haswell i7 will hit 200fps at 1080p in WoW, the fx8 core will hit 100fps... guess what? both will look 100% identical on a 60hz monitor.

THAT is why your monitor matters when talking about an AMD cpu. If all you have is a 60hz monitor, and you're not afraid to do a little overclocking, you'll NEVER be able to tell the difference between that 8core and an intel. How do i know? because I've yet to find a title my fx8 core can't hit 60fps in. And no, i'm not using a titan or gtx980 either... i've got a 3 year old gpu, the r9-280x aka hd7970. granted i'll need to turn down AA in some titles, but then that's the gpu's limitations not the cpu.

now before you start claiming i'm a fanboy, i actually own an intel i5 laptop and i7 desktop in addition to that fx8 core setup. So how about we check our fanclub membership cards at the door and have a rational conversation. AMD's war cry since piledriver has been "good enough", and for the most part that's been 100% correct. Are there limits to those chips? plenty. Will you be able to tell? if you don't want to overclock ABSOLUTELY. if you're on a great 144hz monitor, ABSOLUTELY. otherwise probably not.

SIDENOTE: DX11 is limited to utilizing 4 cores. this is due to the core count of the xbox360; DX12 will enable up to ALL cores. So yes, AMD cpus will see a nice little pop in performance from DX12... as will intel extreme edition cpus.

 

[Bossyfins]

Agree with above post... DX12 is a nice improvement. Good to see AMD coming a little closer , but they still need to make a new platform that can compete with intel w/o ocing

 

[NightAntilli]

I'm so glad to see someone else that understands.

 

[Bossyfins]

lol.

 

[quandao93]

ok this graph shows nothing. FIrst of all, game wise intel processor still wins in the graph you showed... In gaming, the two processor is obviously not gonna have a huge gap difference. Im talking about overall usage of the processor. I will have a better time with 4790k.... If he has an option of 8350 + 980 or 4790 + 970, Why tf would you go for an weaker processor and an out dated architecture that will not allow you to upgrade in the near future?

 

[McDuncun]

So recommending the 970 over the 980 just because you have to choose between an FX and an i7 is nonsense. The weaker CPU with the stronger GPU is the smarter choice. Anyone who recommends the Intel with the GTX 970 must be biased towards Intel. There is no other conclusion.

"Hahahaha a lot of convincing needed must be..." - Yoda

Dude just by saying that makes you biased towards AMD, Being a fanboy is fine, albeit funny. But using up so much Tom`s H real estate to prove yourself otherwise is....well projecting much?

 

[quandao93]

So recommending the 970 over the 980 just because you have to choose between an FX and an i7 is nonsense. The weaker CPU with the stronger GPU is the smarter choice. Anyone who recommends the Intel with the GTX 970 must be biased towards Intel. There is no other conclusion.

"Hahahaha a lot of convincing needed must be..." - Yoda

Dude just by saying that makes you biased towards AMD, Being a fanboy is fine, albeit funny. But using up so much Tom`s H real estate to prove yourself otherwise is....well projecting much?

This guy is clearly a huge fan boy. LOL. Ive his processor on my desk sitting there. Ive used every generation of AMD, since athlon x2. and as for intel Ive used everything since core 2 duo. This guy sound like he have never own an intel processor. lol.

8350 is a garbage processor, I didnt want to go as far as saying this because it might offend people who are running it. Everything about it is dinosaur architecture. Just because it's advertise 8 cores people think it will outperforms, clearly that is not the case... LOL hyperthreading technology and per core performance clearly does much better in every synthetic benchmarks and gaming benchmarks when compare an 8 core AMD to the i5 4690k.

 

[Bossyfins]

I am going to end on this note, and probably have a moderator control this thread before it gets out of hand..

The 8350 is not GARBAGE. It is still a viable processor. Saying it is garbage only shows you are a fanboy of intel, which by no means is bad.

I also do not recommend AMD cpus because of the performance given by, lets say, the i5 4460. Same cost as 8350, but is much better in gaming..


TLDR

AMD Is good.
Intel Is good

I don't give a hoot what you use. AMD has its place in the market, intel has its place in the market. That's that.

 

[quandao93]

well don't taddle tell please. This guy is comparing a 4790k to an 8350. I am not an "Intel fan boy," I can tell you right now, I have much better experience with all Intel processors, since core 2 duo. I used to suggest people if their on a budget go AMD. My suggestion has changed after the new i5s put it in their place. I have to say its garbage to make a point that it is not worth it at all going 8350 w/ 980 vs 4790k w/970... AMDs still use pins... meaning if you pop out the heatsink and the thermal paste is really sticky, you might have a chance to bend those pins. That is one cons of AMD not upgrading to magnet like intel did.

 

[Bossyfins]

If thats your opinion stick by it. But really, the end decision is AMD has its share, and intel has its share.

 

[quandao93]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

 

[Bossyfins]

Let me clarify my statement. While comparing a 4790k to an 8350 is somewhat weird. BUT, it does not mean AMD is garbage in general.

While I agree that going with an 8350 and a 980 is not worth it, I do not agree with the fact you say an 8350 is garbage. While the 8350 is blown away by the 4790k, it was close to the 4770k.

 

[quandao93]

I will disagree close to 4770k right now lol. 4770k vs 4790k is basically no difference other than overclocking capabilities.

you can compare a 8350 to 4690, but dont compare an evo to a civic please. As I said I have both processors, so I have experience in both, and preparing to build an x99 soon because of their huge drop in price. In my experience of the 8 core, I was very displeased with it.

 

[McDuncun]

I am going to end on this note, and probably have a moderator control this thread before it gets out of hand..

The 8350 is not GARBAGE. It is still a viable processor. Saying it is garbage only shows you are a fanboy of intel, which by no means is bad.

I also do not recommend AMD cpus because of the performance given by, lets say, the i5 4460. Same cost as 8350, but is much better in gaming..


TLDR

AMD Is good.
Intel Is good

I don't give a hoot what you use. AMD has its place in the market, intel has its place in the market. That's that.

That is very true! Comparing the 8350 vs 4460, I`ll take the 8350, comparing with a K-series intel then yes the unlocked intel woudl be better for me!

 

[McDuncun]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

Hey!!!!! The Civic SI was cool car!!!! Don`t be hatin on ma peeps!!

 

[quandao93]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

Hey!!!!! The Civic SI was cool car!!!! Don`t be hatin on ma peeps!!

And I wont disagree with you, but in an analogy, you absolutely do not compare it to an evo. Nawmean?

 

[DubbleClick]

Wow, NightAntilli, you didn't even get it this time. I'll have a hard time making it even more obvious, but I'll try to explain it to you.
Just because directx12, mantle or whatever else API exists, does not translate into you experiencing better framerates if they are not actually used in the software you use. And even if dx12 is used, but the rest of the game is mainly bound to one thread, the performance gain will be minimal too, because your cpu is still hitting a wall on the main thread core.
To sum it up: dx12 will not increase performance, if it isn't used. Dx12 will not increase performance, if it's used but dx9-11 were not the limitation.


For the second part, you mention how these differences are rather meaningless and I agree to a certain extend. However, taking 15% off, they are still above framerates of a gtx 980+fx. And then, while you are saying it's not worth the extra cost, does not make the slightest sense because a fx 8350 + 990fx board + gtx 980 are about $200 more expensive than an I7 4790k, a z97 board and a gtx 970.
With the latter, you get slightly better performance in games (although rather meaningless), superior performance in other tasks, save $200 and save even more because the I7 + 970 consume much les electricity than a fx 8350 with a gtx 980.

Tl;dr: Only advantages for I7 + gtx 970 at 1080p.
Both won't be strong enough for 4k gaming.

 

[McDuncun]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

Hey!!!!! The Civic SI was cool car!!!! Don`t be hatin on ma peeps!!

And I wont disagree with you, but in an analogy, you absolutely do not compare it to an evo. Nawmean?

Hahahahaha dude don`t use words like "nawmean", your too vanilla to pull it off...