i7 4770 vs FX-8320 (gaming)?

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

Xury87

Honorable
Oct 3, 2013
3
0
10,510
Hello guys!

I'm a student living in France and I would like to buy a gaming PC, its really hard and expensive to get the hardware to assemble the computer myself, and I would like to avoid buying from places like Amazon as they would charge ridiculous price for the postal.

I play games like Batman, LOL, Dota 2, SC HOS, Bioshock and Crysis. With the new PC, im looking to play ultra settings for all of em.

Here are the 2 computer I'm looking at and their respective link in eBay:

Intel Core i7 4770, 8GB RAM, 4GB Nvidia GTX770 Jetstream (Price: 1378 USD)

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Gamer-PC-Intel-Core-i7-4770-8GB-RAM-Nvidia-4GB-GTX770-OC-Jetstream-HDMI-5xUSB3-0-/360741175570?pt=DE_Technik_Computer_Peripherieger%C3%A4te_PC_Systeme&hash=item53fdd98112

AMD FX-8320 8 4,00GHz, 8GB Nvidia Jetstream GTX770 (Price: 1147 USD)

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/GAMER-PC-AMD-FX-8320-8x-4-00GHz-8GB-Nvidia-Jetstream-GTX770-2GB-HDMI-3x-USB-3-0-/141060236311?pt=DE_Technik_Computer_Peripherieger%C3%A4te_PC_Systeme&hash=item20d7d86417

The main difference is the i7 and the AMD, and the 4GB and 2GB 770 GPU. I don't mind getting the 4GB GTX770 but i was wondering if the AMD will do well too, with 200 USD difference, i can get a nice mechanical keyboard and maybe a monitor.

Thanks for your opinions in advance!
 
Solution
logainofhades


In most games, i7 is not really any better at all. Hence why the best gaming cpus for the month all state that past an i5 k series chip, the extra cost isn't worth it.
Sort by date Sort by votes
I would go with AMD (second) build. i7 may perform not more than 5 percents better than fx-8320 but it costs much more. You almost won't feel any FPS difference between them. 2GB VRAM is enough too for this gen and upcoming gen games (bf 4, GTA V). Even if some pages say that recommend for BF4 is 3 GB VRAM, it can't be true.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I recommend the 8320, mainly because of two reasons. 1. It can be overclocked 2. It offers remarkable performance for the price. The i7 won't benefit you very much in gaming, especially once you start overclocking. The minimal performance you may gain when using the i7 just is not enough to justify the $150+ price difference. The 8320 will trade blows with an i5 if you OC it to the performance levels of the 8350 (not hard to do, possible on the stock cooler.) Also, the 8320 costs at least $50 less. Awesome value. 2GB vs 4GB won't matter too much for 1080p gaming. I do not recommend the AMD route because of "Next Gen Consoles" and "Games will be better optimized for AMD". That's all BS and marketing. I recommend it because of the awesome price/performance ratio.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In most games, i7 is not really any better at all. Hence why the best gaming cpus for the month all state that past an i5 k series chip, the extra cost isn't worth it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


No price involved, the I7 is better. Period. If he were to want VALUE, then the 8320 makes sense.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


An i7 is not $100 more than an i5 better. You would get more gaming performance from using that $100 on a better gpu than what an i7 could ever give you. The OP mentioned that with the price difference, by going with the FX 8320, they could buy other things they would like to have.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


+1 $100 goes a long way toward a better GPU...especially with HD 7970s under $300 right now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have seen Benchmarks of BF4 multiplayer using 2.5GB GFX RAM and 9 GB Ram.

FX8 series is good, i have ordered one. if you use your PC for running Vmware workstation running multiple Virtual Servers, go with the AMD.
Also i beleive devs are going to be using the full 8 Cores soon enough, also consider the heavy CPU overhead of recording High resolution gaming footage would be better suited for the AMD.





 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Even if 8 threads were used (and actually are for most applications bar games) the i7 would still be superior. At a $1200 budget, I can't recommend a fx chip, not for games. You hear of people getting a considerable fps boost switching to intel every day, especially with a gtx 770 or higher.
Considering you're probably not going to use the iGPU, you could also get a xeon e3-1231v3 or simply an i5 4590. While amd's strength is their value, I'd say even there the i5 comes ahead of.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


And yet even an i3 outperforms an FX-8350 in Battlefield 4.
Considering EA was in partnership with AMD for BF4, I'm not surprised they recommend this. Although the actual "recommended system specs" for BF4 was an Intel i5/i7 quad-core or an AMD Phenom X6/FX-6000. Yet Phenom X6 and FX-6000 CPUs fall behind significantly in BF4 except when using Mantle.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The first would be due to memory leak. VRAM can be very high... but much like how Windows will use more memory the more it has, games will use more VRAM if they have access to it even if it's not needed.

My friends with GTX 680 (2GB) and R9 280X (3GB) both play on same settings, but my buddy with the 680 has VRAM usage around 1.8GB while my friend with 280X has up to 2.3GB usage. Their performance is extremely close with the 280X pulling ahead some, though BF4 is an AMD optimized game when it comes to GPUs.


In terms of system memory usage, BF4 should never be using more than around 3-4GB by itself. If the application alone is using 9GB, that's because of a memory leak issue. Why on earth would it need to load up half the game during a multiplayer match? That's like the entire campaign. A single map is only around 1GB, plus the engine and game assets... shouldn't be using anywhere near 9GB.

For virtualization you may be right, I'm not sure. I have no idea how various parts perform for that.

Many games already do use 8 threads, but that's not enough to make an AMD FX-8350 perform the same as an i5 or an i7. Because even if it can use those other threads, that doesn't mean that the game will perform better. CPUs affect framerates by how long they take to process the information needed for the next frame. So at the end of the day, higher single-threaded performance will still be better until you get to the point where the CPU doesn't have enough total horsepower and needs more cores (for instance if an i5-4690K was getting pushed to near 100% usage, that's where having more cores would help). Because higher single-threaded performance means each individual task is completed faster, which will result in less delay in the frame being pushed out.

A game would need to be able to distribute load almost perfectly evenly across 8 threads for an FX-8350 to perform similarly to an i5-4690K. If this were the case, it would outperform the i5 if it was very CPU demanding since the 8350 has more theoretical processing power than the 4690K... it's just extremely unlikely for a game to effectively utilize that, since this power is only really evident when all 8 cores are running under full load such as during video rendering.

As for streaming, the i7 will do just fine. Especially since you can use OBS to livestream using the Intel HD Graphics instead of the CPU cores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
f48fd9u-960.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom