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

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

furiousss

Reputable
Jul 9, 2014
129
0
4,710
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.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Definitely I7 4790k + gtx 970. A LOT less stutters, higher minimum and most likely higher average and maximum framerates too.

And no, the fx 8350 eight "cores" will not become useful in the future (it's a cpu, not aging wine), since the I7 4790k is a better cpu in every single aspect there is.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
I am not sure why you do not want a i5-4960k recommendation.

Questions you need to ask yourself as a gamer.
1) What type of games do I play? FPS gamers have different needs than RTS or MMORPGs. Monitor refresh rate is huge for fps gaming.
2) What resolution do I want to play at? If you are looking for 1080p resolution then a good AMD card or a GTX960 will work fine. If its 4k resolution then you want a SLI 970 solution or one of the beefier cards.
3) Are you doing anything else but gaming? If gaming is your primary purpose then you truly are wasting your money on a better processor.

Good luck with your purchases.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


you speak like you never owned a 8350



Listen, it comes down to your monitor. If you have a 60hz monitor, then you'll never know you're on a fx8 core, and frankly you'll find your experience on the 8 core when doing things like running VMware to be superior to that when you're on a quad core i7.

Still you'll need to overclock the 8350, if you can clock it up to say 4.7ghz or so (most can make it there with little effort) you'll never know you're on an AMD. (if you're on that 60hz monitor) In fact if you're on a 4k monitor, you'll think you're on the intel. As those amd 8 cores do moderately better in 4k at stock settings then do intel i7s at 4k (no idea why this is, you gotta see the benches to believe it).

That said if you're playing on a 144hz monitor, no ammount of overclocking will make the AMD chip look as good as an intel.

So simple answer - 60hz monitor + overclocking AMD cpu = 8350/980 better combo; any other situation the i7/970 will be a better combo.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If you are playing on a 1080p monitor then anyone would here would recommend this combo. The i5-4690k is a better processor. Don't be fooled on the AMD marketing of "8 Cores" or even the clock speed. What you need is performance and that AMD processor is dated. I am not saying it is a poor choice (please don't hurt me AMD fanboys) but it is pretty old.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


970s can overclock to be as fast as a stock 980. 980s arent worth the money man.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Okay first of all, that is as far from the truth as I am from a Justin Bieber concert on the moon! Please don`t say things like that! It`s simply not true...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Once again depends on what you are doing but since your first post said gaming then go with the 4790k and GTX 970. You won't be sorry.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


For gaming, the fx 8350 is not a good choice. Almost no games benefit from the other 4 cores, and each core is less efficient then on any recent intel CPU. I am currently saving to move over to intel, even though the FX 8350 makes more sense with my situation (my cpu is super old), where my current motherboard supports it. I would rather save that money and get a current i5, intel is just that much better for games at the moment.

Would it work? yes, but as everyone else here is trying to say, its not optimal. If you are buying a new motherboard anyway, there is absolutely no reason to go AMD.

Also, you need to decide if you are going to be using 4k or not, I am currently doing 4k on a 970, and I have to turn a lot of stuff off in most games to make it work. You will want two 970s at a minimum to do 4k regardless of the processor you choose.

As for the 8 core argument, by the time games start effectively utilizing 8-core CPUs, there will be mainstream intel ones available, and by that time you will probably be looking for a new CPU anyway. The only valid argument for the 8350 is if you are doing heavy multithreaded tasks like using Solidworks or something.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote




Sorry buddy, get your facts straight. Price to performance not worth at all.
http://techgage.com/article/taking-it-to-the-limit-overclocking-nvidias-geforce-gtx-970-980/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Good; yes.
Best... no.

The reason is that few games can use more than 2-3 cores.
The extra threads of the FX-8350 will largely go unused.
So will the hyperthreads of the i4-4790K compared to a i5-4690k.
This article might explain:
http://techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming.php

------------Stock rant on 8 core FUD--------------

I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
Most games today only use one or two cores.
Here is a set of tests on the effect of many cores on FPS:
http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/report-despite-claims-most-pc-games-are-still-unable-to-take-advantage-of-more-than-4-cpu-cores/
The conclusion is that PC games are unable to take advantage of more than 4 cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is one.
It is more important that the cores be fast.
AMD hates that because their cores are much less efficient than intel's. Perhaps 30% slower per clock.
That is also a motivation for mantle, a technology that improves the efficiency of graphics drivers.
Mantle is most important for slow chips, but is irrelevant for $200 class intel cpu's.
Just because you see activity on windows task manager across all cores, do not assume your job is using all those threads.
What you are seeing is windows spreading the activity across all available threads.
Then there is "Amdahl's law" which limits how many threads can be useful, depending on the speed of the main thread.
Today, a I5-4690K is as good as it gets for gaming.
I see many reviews from pleased users switching from a FX-8350 to a i5-4690K.
I see none who are pleased switching from a i5-4690K to a FX-8350.
The only reason for a i7 4790K compared to a i5-4690K is if the $100 difference is not important to you.
For your $100, you will get a better binned chip and some extra L3 cache.
The extra hyperthreads will not be very useful to the gamer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


This man knows what he is talking about.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


that's nice but the price exceeds very much. this was the reason I didn't want an i5 4690k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom