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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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
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..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.. even haswel
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


This guy knows what he is talking about.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I should better do as developer, cs student and particularly system builder.

Either way, since when are a fx 8350 + gtx 980 the same price as an I7 4790k + gtx 970? The fx 8350 is $180, you need a $180 motherboard to get a somewhat reliable overclock and a $80+ cooler. The gtx 980 is $500+, which together adds up to $940.
The I7 4790k is $330, add $110 for a sli and oc-able motherboard and $300-$350 for a gtx 970. Optional would be a $30 cooler. That's about $800 total instead of $940 for: better gaming performance at 1080p, equal to better gaming performance at 1440p, slightly less at 4k and better cpu and hard drive performance in every aspect.
And that doesn't even factor in electricity cost, because you can calculate $50 or more per year extra on the fx build if it's used a couple hours a day.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


He lives in india, prices are different.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And dx12 has what relation to 8 fx cores?
Vulcan?

As a side note, please stop selecting or unselecting "best answers" without the OP requesting so. This option is given to choose a solution if a thread died but no solution has been chosen bt the thread opener.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I unselected the answer because not only was it not chosen by the OP, but it was also incomplete. And also, a thread does not 'die' on the same day it was created obviously so I'm fully warranted to unselecting an answer. I didn't select a new one, which the other person did. It's also very funny that the answer by ingtar33 which was selected by the OP, was unselected despite being superior. Intel fanboyism is going rampant...

In any case, as it was stated before by someone else, depending on the resolution and refresh rate, one is a better choice than the other. Anything higher than 1080p, and the GTX 980 is the superior choice. Hell even the R9 290x is a superior choice than the GTX 970 at anything above 1080p. And unless you have a monitor that its refresh rate is higher than 75 Hz, the difference between the FX and the i7 will barely be felt.

And aside from that. The FX-8xxx CPUs WILL become useful in the near future due to DX12 and Vulkan. I can only leave this here and let people draw a conclusion themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9UACXikdR0
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Which is why I said selecting as well as unselecting.
Also, his answer was in no way superior to mine, except in being overloaded with false information.



That has been me who mentioned it. Also, there's countless benchmarks to state otherwise. A fx 8350 does on average keep up 50-75% of the framerate of an i7 4790k.
The biggest issue with the fx cpu's is minimum framerates and stutter issues anyway, though. I barely see a day without stuttering issue or low fps complaints here with fx cpu's, even overclocked. On the other hand, those do barely arise with intel cpu's. Amd has no market for gaming rigs right now, other than extremely low budget ones, that's a fact.
A gtx 970 on the other hand is barely 10-15% behind a gtx 980, which doesn't change with resolutions. A r9 290x does in no way beat a gtx 970 at higher resolutions either, from what I can see (http://www.tomshardware.de/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-gtx-980-roundup-vergleichstest,testberichte-241658-19.html).



And you really think that any dev team would bother changing to dx12 in the next few years? You may have missed what happened with like all previous versions. A considerable amount of games still uses dx9 as interface.
Also, that aside, the new API benefits wouldn't be exclusive to amd cpu's. The fx 8350 is never going to beat an i7 4790k in anything not artificially loaded with amd64 instructions - ever.
Also, youtube videos, please...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You did`nt say anything about P-to-P my son, you should try to keep track of what you say yourself, before you start correcting people...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Good point, but do you agree that getting a card now that does support it can`t hurt. I mean it`s better to look forward then to stick to old tech just because it works well now...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes. And not only will it utilize all of them, they can all individually communicate with the GPU, where as now, only a single one can, which is why single core performance was/is so important with DX11. That will change with DX12 and Vulkan. But apparently some people don't get that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@McDuncun:

I know, I didn't even mean to sound funny, it was a honest question. He's deliberately picking up statements of me and trying to prove them wrong but not even argumenting against them. He hasn't brough up a single point of evidience for his claims (well, since they are particularly impossible) but yet calls out others for "fanboyism".

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
At the end of the day, 8350 is garbage. I actually have a fried 8350 on my desk right now. Stupid dinosaur architecture with socket pins.. the only thing AMD did right is the clip that holds their stock heatsink... LOL. Its a fact that 4690k an i5 quad beats everything 8350 has to offer. Oh and trust me, im not a fan boy. I simply have overall much better experience with intel ever since core 2 duo . I have had athlon, phenom. phenom 2 965, phenom 2 x6, FX 8350. THey have all fail to disappoint me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@DubbleClick
Because there are many things that you do not think about and apparently don't understand, and you want to prove me wrong rather than trying to understand. So here we go again...

FX CPUs have lower minimums? Even though they do, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

GRID: 53 vs 58, both dropped below 60 but stuck above 50. No major difference. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.
58_54_core_i7_4770k_vs_amd_fx_8350_with_gtx_980_vs_gtx_780_sli_at_4k.png


Bioshock Infinite: Min of both unplayable, both average above 60 but are below 75. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.
58_56_core_i7_4770k_vs_amd_fx_8350_with_gtx_980_vs_gtx_780_sli_at_4k.png


Dirt: Again. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.
58_57_core_i7_4770k_vs_amd_fx_8350_with_gtx_980_vs_gtx_780_sli_at_4k.png


http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


So lower minimums... That is somewhat true. But WHY? Because with DX11, only ONE core can communicate to the GPU at the same time. Considering that the FX CPUs have weaker cores, and that one core has to send ALL the data to the GPU, the FX CPUs will struggle a bit more at times causing the larger drops. With DX12 and Vulkan, where each core can communicate to the GPU independently, this will no longer be an issue. Mantle even showed this, where the FX-4170 had a higher minimum framerate than an i7 4770k. Since you like Tomshardware results so much;

AMD FX 8350 + AMD R9 290x(Mantle) - Min FPS 55.2 Avg FPS 77.6
AMD FX 4170 + AMD R9 290x(Mantle) - Min FPS 38.8 Avg FPS 58.7
Intel Core i7-4770k + AMD R9 290X(Direct X) Min FPS 37.4 Avg FPS 56.7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-mantle-performance-benchmark,3860-4.html


I don't know what other 'evidence' you need, although you're probably only wanting to acknowledge 'evidence' that suits your biased view.

Speaking of other evidence, yes the R9 290x beats the GTX 970 at higher resolutions in a significant amount of games. Even the R9 290 sometimes does. Anandtech:
67902.png


67901.png


And if you're arguing about minimum framerates, the R9 290x can even compete with the GTX 980 at high resolutions:
67904.png


67891.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga

And CPU limitations are still quite insignificant, even in DX11. This is one of the worst examples:
70816.png


When an FX-4xxx beats not only an FX-8xxx, but also the i5 4690, you know something weird is going on. This is the exception, not the rule, and it's easily solved by setting the affinity in task manager of the FX CPUs to 4 cores converting it into a virtual FX-4. Most situations are like this, where even though the minimum is lower, it doesn't matter AT ALL:
70815.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera/5

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you have a motherboard that already supports FX 8350 I would go with that if it's only for gaming, but if your going to do any rendering or gaming + streaming or recording I would go with the 4790k. The truth is I went from fx 6300 with HD 7950 gpu to 4790k with the same gpu and I can only tell a huge difference was in rendering or gaming + recording when it comes to just playing games 8350 should be more than enough gpu matters more then the cpu. The only reason why I went with the 4790k was not for gaming, but I do alot of editing as well at first I was going to go with the fx 9590, but I would need to buy a new board anyway's plus the high TDP was a huge turn off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom