Intel I7 3770 vs. 8350 Vishera for gaming

[JD1993]

I'm trying to find out which is a better processor for gaming. I have two monitors so most times I'd have quite a few things open at once. Which one has a better performance?

 

[Novuake]

Wildly an idiot, that makes sense I guess... NOT. Cheers dude, have fun and let me know how well those "AMD OPTIMIZED" games run... GOnna have SUCH a great laugh...

 

[Jamal Nazzal]

Consoles do not even run on x86 or x64...

Assumptions of the ignorant are a dangerous thing.
If you have no understanding of architectures and/or programming, then you start thinking AMD will perform better thanks to its console presence. That assumption is outright wrong.

But hey, keep fooling yourself.

YOU IGNORAMUS!!! Next GEN consoles are fully x86 and have 8 cores. Go back under the bridge troll. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not assuming anything, I'm stating actual fact.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/21/4452488/amd-sparks-x86-transition-for-next-gen-game-consoles

Are you a programmer? Do you understand coding?

While that is interesting and a good read. You do realize that not a SINGLE game developer writes for just one system except when literally endorse by AMD or NVidia, like with PhysX titles.

To benefit from a SPECIFIC CPU and its characteristic more effectively you need to manually CODE a game line by line. However there are hundred of acceleration tools out there known as automated compilers, these are and will ALWAYS be optimized for SINGLE CORE performance FIRST and foremost. Since the AMD lacks in single core performance so badly, do you really think anyone will bother manually coding a game they produce with millions of millions of lines of code?


Most of that article is conjecture ANYWAY until the "next-gen" games are out and have proven whichever is correct.

"Winning the console battle" is an empty victory as Nvidia BASICALLY withdrew from the "fight" because of a non-existent profit margin.
However for AMD their annual turn over will be higher, which will help keep them afloat in their troubled financial state.

Lol, okay. Believe what you want. You're pretty much wrong on the x86 argument and you're trying to change the subject with your delusional rant. The FX 8350 is a good investment in right now's gaming market. End of discussion. And yes, I do understand coding. I am a beginner, but I know that x86 optimization and development for 8 cores will transfer over to PCs because I happen to know 5 Devs that would tell you the same.

you are right case is closed, the FX-8350 wins the debate. from now on Novuake's replies will only be to rescue his sinking pride.

 

[Novuake]

This is just TOO MUCH.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I'm trying to find out which is a better processor for gaming. I have two monitors so most times I'd have quite a few things open at once. Which one has a better performance?

For gaming dont bother getting the I7 for gaming, get an I5 3570K and enjoy the same frames as the I7. Unfortunately AMDs gaming performance is lacking these days for any game that is moderately CPU intensive.

crysis 3 and a few other games do make use of the extra threads provided by hyperthreading. the performance gain is very minimal though. Better in creases are seen in the i3's hyperthreading. Any scaling beyond 4 cores/threads at the moment provides minimum returns, games are so variable in the load they place on the cpu at any one time, its hard for a game to load up 8 cores/threads to even 80%. Something like video encoding or rendering is where more cores make more sense as they are more or less a fixed function algorithm thats happening with minimal variation.

 

[voice051]

The i7-3770k is obviously a better choice for the high end spectrum. However this doesn't shine through all the time because most games are more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The price for intel is very high considering the performance it adds for the majority of games to date. Simply put, I'm sorry if you're an AMD fanoy, but if you look at games that are not CPU intensive and don't utlitize 4 cores or more, you can clearly see the fx4100 does not lag far behind the fx-8150 and the fx-4300 does not lag far behind the fx-8350 (when talking around 60fps, the difference may be 5-7 frames in most games). Don't you think the price gap between a fx-4300 and 6 core fx-6300 would be larger than $10 if the performance gaps were big for gaming and it could be marketed as such?

Therefor you see huge gaps between the i7-3770k and fx-8350 when using multiple gpu's and playing games cpu intensive such as battlefeild 4 multiplayer and crysis 3 on ultra settings. You wont see these gaps in games that heavily rely on the GPU instead and are not CPU intensive (games the even run fine with i3's compared to i5's).

For the AMD fanboy who is ranting like crazy now because this posted, please realize I run a 7970 with a fx-4300. I almost need a quad core for gaming, but I don't buy into more cores at the same or less clock because most games simply weren't dev'd for 8 cores. It will be awhile, but the strategy will pay off and go in AMD's favor I feel (PS4 and Xbox One already bought into APU's sharing system ram and perform decent). I believe money is spent better in a GPU for gaming so long as you have a decent CPU. My valley benchmark score with my i7-3770k paired with my 7970 was 2200, where as paired with my fx-4300 its 2000, that's without overclocking and with stock cooling for both the GPU and CPU (gpu is a dual fan though). I would take my fx-4300 and 7970 over a i7-3770k and 7870 (not a tahiti one) anyday (and I would pocket $150). If all I played was BF4 though, I would surely see less performance pairing with my fx-4300.

So the i7-3770k is better, but I see intels chase for performance per core not paying off. Core per core they are clearly a better performer than amd. The market has adjusted for this already, its why AMD must underprice intel, its not as if theres some ungodly secret only AMD people get, its that they haven't adjusted and the market has.

I think the drive for APU's, better value GPU's, and lower price/more cores will pay off for AMD in the end because of the way games and developers are going. I imagine by 2015, a $150 APU will be a great selection for PC gamers in the entry level segment (especially when you see where the next kevari APU is going), so good the many console gamers may switch to PC if the technology and pc mfg's can market desktop builds to consumers (NOTE: PC software revenue barely lags behind console sw rev as of 2013, and is forecasted to pass it by 2015).

So intel may outperform per core, but unless you are chasing only the highest of settings and max performance, who cares, its too overpriced. Was the winner of the PS3, Xbox and Wii era PS3 or Xbox 360? No, wii console revenue won and also the nintendo DS SOLD LIKE CRAZY when the wii and ds were graphically inferior to their competition. Does everyone have a 7970, a titan, or always play max settings at 120fps at 2560x1600..............HELL NO. Winning = MAX REVENUE, NOT BEST PERFORMANCE. Go ask AMD and intel how much they give a shit about fanboy wars, he reality is they care about their bottom line, so do we. Consumers are looking for the best performance per dollar, and thats where AMD is succeeding.

 

[JOOK-D]

The i7-3770k is obviously a better choice for the high end spectrum. However this doesn't shine through all the time because most games are more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The price for intel is very high considering the performance it adds for the majority of games to date. Simply put, I'm sorry if you're an AMD fanoy, but if you look at games that are not CPU intensive and don't utlitize 4 cores or more, you can clearly see the fx4100 does not lag far behind the fx-8150 and the fx-4300 does not lag far behind the fx-8350 (when talking around 60fps, the difference may be 5-7 frames in most games). Don't you think the price gap between a fx-4300 and 6 core fx-6300 would be larger than $10 if the performance gaps were big for gaming and it could be marketed as such?

Therefor you see huge gaps between the i7-3770k and fx-8350 when using multiple gpu's and playing games cpu intensive such as battlefeild 4 multiplayer and crysis 3 on ultra settings. You wont see these gaps in games that heavily rely on the GPU instead and are not CPU intensive (games the even run fine with i3's compared to i5's).

For the AMD fanboy who is ranting like crazy now because this posted, please realize I run a 7970 with a fx-4300. I almost need a quad core for gaming, but I don't buy into more cores at the same or less clock because most games simply weren't dev'd for 8 cores. It will be awhile, but the strategy will pay off and go in AMD's favor I feel (PS4 and Xbox One already bought into APU's sharing system ram and perform decent). I believe money is spent better in a GPU for gaming so long as you have a decent CPU. My valley benchmark score with my i7-3770k paired with my 7970 was 2200, where as paired with my fx-4300 its 2000, that's without overclocking and with stock cooling for both the GPU and CPU (gpu is a dual fan though). I would take my fx-4300 and 7970 over a i7-3770k and 7870 (not a tahiti one) anyday (and I would pocket $150). If all I played was BF4 though, I would surely see less performance pairing with my fx-4300.

So the i7-3770k is better, but I see intels chase for performance per core not paying off. Core per core they are clearly a better performer than amd. The market has adjusted for this already, its why AMD must underprice intel, its not as if theres some ungodly secret only AMD people get, its that they haven't adjusted and the market has.

I think the drive for APU's, better value GPU's, and lower price/more cores will pay off for AMD in the end because of the way games and developers are going. I imagine by 2015, a $150 APU will be a great selection for PC gamers in the entry level segment (especially when you see where the next kevari APU is going), so good the many console gamers may switch to PC if the technology and pc mfg's can market desktop builds to consumers (NOTE: PC software revenue barely lags behind console sw rev as of 2013, and is forecasted to pass it by 2015).

So intel may outperform per core, but unless you are chasing only the highest of settings and max performance, who cares, its too overpriced. Was the winner of the PS3, Xbox and Wii era PS3 or Xbox 360? No, wii console revenue won and also the nintendo DS SOLD LIKE CRAZY when the wii and ds were graphically inferior to their competition. Does everyone have a 7970, a titan, or always play max settings at 120fps at 2560x1600..............HELL NO. Winning = MAX REVENUE, NOT BEST PERFORMANCE. Go ask AMD and intel how much they give a shit about fanboy wars, he reality is they care about their bottom line, so do we. Consumers are looking for the best performance per dollar, and thats where AMD is succeeding.

Old thread.

 

[Darkresurrection]

The i7-3770k is obviously a better choice for the high end spectrum. However this doesn't shine through all the time because most games are more gpu intensive than cpu intensive. The price for intel is very high considering the performance it adds for the majority of games to date. Simply put, I'm sorry if you're an AMD fanoy, but if you look at games that are not CPU intensive and don't utlitize 4 cores or more, you can clearly see the fx4100 does not lag far behind the fx-8150 and the fx-4300 does not lag far behind the fx-8350 (when talking around 60fps, the difference may be 5-7 frames in most games). Don't you think the price gap between a fx-4300 and 6 core fx-6300 would be larger than $10 if the performance gaps were big for gaming and it could be marketed as such?

Therefor you see huge gaps between the i7-3770k and fx-8350 when using multiple gpu's and playing games cpu intensive such as battlefeild 4 multiplayer and crysis 3 on ultra settings. You wont see these gaps in games that heavily rely on the GPU instead and are not CPU intensive (games the even run fine with i3's compared to i5's).

For the AMD fanboy who is ranting like crazy now because this posted, please realize I run a 7970 with a fx-4300. I almost need a quad core for gaming, but I don't buy into more cores at the same or less clock because most games simply weren't dev'd for 8 cores. It will be awhile, but the strategy will pay off and go in AMD's favor I feel (PS4 and Xbox One already bought into APU's sharing system ram and perform decent). I believe money is spent better in a GPU for gaming so long as you have a decent CPU. My valley benchmark score with my i7-3770k paired with my 7970 was 2200, where as paired with my fx-4300 its 2000, that's without overclocking and with stock cooling for both the GPU and CPU (gpu is a dual fan though). I would take my fx-4300 and 7970 over a i7-3770k and 7870 (not a tahiti one) anyday (and I would pocket $150). If all I played was BF4 though, I would surely see less performance pairing with my fx-4300.

So the i7-3770k is better, but I see intels chase for performance per core not paying off. Core per core they are clearly a better performer than amd. The market has adjusted for this already, its why AMD must underprice intel, its not as if theres some ungodly secret only AMD people get, its that they haven't adjusted and the market has.

I think the drive for APU's, better value GPU's, and lower price/more cores will pay off for AMD in the end because of the way games and developers are going. I imagine by 2015, a $150 APU will be a great selection for PC gamers in the entry level segment (especially when you see where the next kevari APU is going), so good the many console gamers may switch to PC if the technology and pc mfg's can market desktop builds to consumers (NOTE: PC software revenue barely lags behind console sw rev as of 2013, and is forecasted to pass it by 2015).

So intel may outperform per core, but unless you are chasing only the highest of settings and max performance, who cares, its too overpriced. Was the winner of the PS3, Xbox and Wii era PS3 or Xbox 360? No, wii console revenue won and also the nintendo DS SOLD LIKE CRAZY when the wii and ds were graphically inferior to their competition. Does everyone have a 7970, a titan, or always play max settings at 120fps at 2560x1600..............HELL NO. Winning = MAX REVENUE, NOT BEST PERFORMANCE. Go ask AMD and intel how much they give a shit about fanboy wars, he reality is they care about their bottom line, so do we. Consumers are looking for the best performance per dollar, and thats where AMD is succeeding.

Old thread.

well lemme tell ya one thing, if you are a guy who is made of cash go i7 3770+ gtx 780ti, if not get an fx 8350,end of the story, in current gen games fx 8350 has done an outstanding job already, in all current AAA tittles fx 8350 has beaten all i5 cpus, I can link them one buy one, in bf4, bf3, COD black ops 2, COD ghosts, MOH warfighter, crysis 3 etc... AMD hast performed better or equal to i5 4670k let alone i5 3570k, I had the same argument with my uncle he finally let Intel fan boys convince him to buy i7 4770k+r9 280x, I bought fx 8350+ r9-290, we ran a test and my rig beat the day light out of his by 20-30 fps in all games, when I max out metro last light or crysis 3, he buries his head in his hand and laughs at his ignorance

 

[JOOK-D]

Sorry Darkresurrection but there are many benches against that, especially the BF series. However I'm not looking to get into this argument as this is an old thread that doesn't need to be 'resurrected'. All I will say is over 60 FPS = overkill on 60Hz monitor.