i7-4790K Haswell vs A10-7850K Kaveri

surihtanil

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2010
91
0
18,630
0
Which would you pick? This is for gaming, high-end gaming, as well video editing.

The M/B will be Republic of Gaming for either board.

The GPU R9 285, 16GB Ram, SSD, Full Tower(good cooling) monitor uncertain, probably larger than 22".

I am pretty sure its the i7 and its night and day, but I want some feed back. If nothing else will this i7 serve me well? Is the $200 - $300 extra I may sink into the Intel really worth it? I don't want to start a argument between Intel and AMD guys but would like to hear some legit comments from guys who know their stuff! :)

I will be purchasing one of these CPU's next week. While money isn't a big certain $500 is pushing it for a CPU and M/B but I want quality.
 
The posts above have covered the massive performance difference between these CPUs.
What I would point out though is that there is plenty in between as an option.
On the AMD side you have the FX series CPUs which are much faster than the A10.
Then Intel has a range of Core i5 and i7 CPUs all cheaper than the Core i7 4790k.

If you are going to over clock, you can get plenty out of the Core i5 4690K.
If not over clocking, the a Core i7 4790 might be a bit cheaper, or one of the non-K series Core i5 CPUs.

On your choice of graphics card, you can expect medium to high detail settings in high end games at 1920x1080 resolution.
The R9 280X is a little more expensive but I think it is a better choice with 3GB of VRAM.
If you can stretch the budget to an R9 290 or GTX 970, these are much better again.

The GTX 970 is rated at 145W so a 500W power supply would be plenty.
The R9 280X and R9 290 are rated at 250W, so a 600W supply would be a better choice.
 

Vexillarius

Reputable
Aug 23, 2014
1,434
0
5,960
385
The A10 is an APU, a relatively weak CPU with a relatively powerful integrated GPU. It's completely pointless if you're getting a dedicated GPU, and AMD's CPU architecture is way behind Intel regardless. It's great for certain budget builds, but compared to the i7 it's night and day alright.

You could consider the FX-8350 if you want to save a few bucks or really like AMD. It's not fantastic for gaming but for editing it's actually pretty good because you'll be able to fully utilize all 8 cores. The i7 is still a lot faster though, and it's pretty much the best gaming CPU you can get at the moment.
 
The posts above have covered the massive performance difference between these CPUs.
What I would point out though is that there is plenty in between as an option.
On the AMD side you have the FX series CPUs which are much faster than the A10.
Then Intel has a range of Core i5 and i7 CPUs all cheaper than the Core i7 4790k.

If you are going to over clock, you can get plenty out of the Core i5 4690K.
If not over clocking, the a Core i7 4790 might be a bit cheaper, or one of the non-K series Core i5 CPUs.

On your choice of graphics card, you can expect medium to high detail settings in high end games at 1920x1080 resolution.
The R9 280X is a little more expensive but I think it is a better choice with 3GB of VRAM.
If you can stretch the budget to an R9 290 or GTX 970, these are much better again.

The GTX 970 is rated at 145W so a 500W power supply would be plenty.
The R9 280X and R9 290 are rated at 250W, so a 600W supply would be a better choice.
 
Umm I would go for a 290x GPU and I yes get the $300 intel or $180 amd Fx8350 get water cooler with that extra $100 and overclock that thing. (pretty sure your going to go for better cooling on the Intel too which will cost more also).

The better question is who told you go for the A10 cpu ignore them. That's the cpu you would get for a youtube, daily usage value build not a gaming computer.

Fyi I favor the AMD overclock (or factory clock it and save the money) but the choice is yours. The intel is the faster cpu but it has the higher cost.
 

surihtanil

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2010
91
0
18,630
0
Thanks for the replies! Some I agree with completely, but I would like to point out I begin to question the knowledge of some posters. No offense but when posting R9 285 is not good for gaming or needs upgraded? That's misguided information, why post? It doesn't even relate to the topic at hand. I did research on the cards before purchasing it and paid off.

I run all games such as Dragon Age Inquisition, Dayz, BF4, Total War Attila without any real issue on higher settings. I also received a really great deal when I bought the 285 priced far better than others in its class. Its rated somewhere between the GTX 960 and GTX 970. Trust me its a quality little GPU and running my games without issue but I feel my CPU is holding this PC back from taking the next step.

Is it really worth me upgrading a R9 285? The card is on par with GTX 960 and just slightly behind the GTX 970. I feel one doesn't need the latest GPU on the market to successfully run video games in a quality setting.

I have always been AMD fan. I have owned about 8 AMD computers and built 4 of them myself. I currently have a i5 Intel sitting besides my 965 which I enjoy but honestly my AMD machine has always kept the same frame rates in all games as the Intel. Even when both computers had almost identical components other than M/B and CPU. This is why I posted this queston to get some opinions.

If I get a AMD CPU and don't buy Kaveri it will be a Quad Athlon. I am not a fan of the FX series the FX series uses a different socket from the Athlon and Kaveri. I plan to use FM2+ if I do purchase AMD.
 


I think the responses were assuming these are all new parts.
The R9 285 isn't bad, and it is almost as good as a GTX 960, but it is a long way behind the R9 290 or GTX 970.
If you already have the graphics card then it isn't currently worth upgrading.
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
229
It appears you accidentally selected a wrong solution.

Anyway, if you're into gaming You should really look into I5's. The I7 4790k doesn't offer much over an I5 4690k, the only difference you might see is caused by the clock speed (which you can get on par). Then again, with a r9 285, you wouldn't see a difference and even a fx 6300 would fare "okay'ish" after an overclock (although there's no way I could recommend that since an I5 4460+b85 board are cheaper and tons better).
if you really want to stick with amd, it will give you subpar performance. A fx 6300+oc will certainly have games playable. But when getting a fm2+ cpu, you could have as well bought a r9 260 and forget about smooth gaming all together.
 

Gaidax

Honorable
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
11,660
123
Is that even a question, A10 is shit CPU-wise, if you are already have dedicated GPU, then A10 is pointless, since the whole point of A10 is to have a very good integrated graphics, which you won't use.

That I7 is superior to pretty much anything AMD has right now, however if you are such a huge fan, I guess you can land FX-8350, it will save you couple of bucks and those aren't bad, although generally definitely no match for that I7, except in very specific cases.

Buying Athlon should be out of question really, it's a shit low-end CPU which needs a lot of work and setup to turn it into slightly less shit mid-range CPU.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS