[NEED OWNERS OF PILEDRIVER]Is this Build Enough for 3 years?

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

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


Tis true, as far as I know, but with current hardware options you've presented you will do better with the 8350/6300.
 

Kamen_BG

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
1,580
1
20,160
177
Well to be honest, the AMD loses in most games right now due to poor optimisation. So if you're going to play lots of Indie games and other non AAA titles, go with the Intel.
The thing is however that both future consoles are rumored to use AMD Bulldozer CPU's which means that in the future, the desktop Bulldozers should become very good at gaming.
Gaming now - Intel/ Potential Future Proofing - AMD.
 

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


No benchmarks, No links of any sort, with nothing but opinion. Any indie game that is "poorly optimized," won't challenge this system's build even in your hypothetical. The fact are that a 8350 at stock will beat the 3470 every time, and once its overclocked there is no comparison.
 

hotshot2797

Honorable
Feb 4, 2013
379
0
10,790
1


I really wanted to go with Intel, but after this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc&list=UUNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg

I changed.
 

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


GL on that. I can assure you there is no comparison between an 8350 and a 3470 though. 8350 @ 4.5ghz vs 3570k @ 4.5ghz is winning or breaking even. It is impossible for a 3470 with its locked multiplier to compete.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
We could look at benchmarks.







Now I have to tread carefully here because there is a big time AMD fanboy in this thread. Notice the pics I posted. The 3470 did as well as the 2500k, 3960, x6, and 8150. (sorry, this review didn't have the new 8320/50 in it, but games shouldn't be much higher. There are two thoughts. One is to buy whichever is cheaper. Why spend more if you get the same results basically right? But I'd like you to look at the last pic one more time, the one of Crysis warhead. Notice how much lower the 8150 scores. AMD CPUs have the odd issue where sometimes they just don't score as high as other CPUs. I'd rather spend similar money and get constant high results, then spend the money and do as well 90% of the time. Seeing as the Intel machine is the cheaper one, and performs constantly better, I'd get that one. But I'm sure someone here will disagree.

Queue his entrance music....
 

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


LOL

You're comparing bulldozer vs piledriver; The 3470 did as well as those other intels @ 1680x1050 (left out of the 1920x1080 by mistake of course) and on a crysis warhead benchmark lmao. It is also very likely that even the release bulldozer could outclass the 3470 once overclocked, as it was likely running @ stock(Either way it is irrelevant as there is a big difference between 8150 and 8350) And again LOL @ AMD fanboy. Did I mention LOL? Why don't you read this whole thread and look at the ACTUAL processor in question with the ACTUAL benchmarks of that processor (which I coincidentally have provided) before you call me an AMD fanboy whilst linking irrelevant bulldozer benchmarks. It would work out better than the gotchya posts, as if this is a Republican/Democratic convention for you to sell snake oil promises. But alas, since you chose another route, I will try to clarify a few things.

Max Payne AMD 8350@4.5ghz


Max Payne Intel i5-3570k@4.5ghz


BF3 AMD 8350@4.5ghz


BF3 Intel i5-3570k@4.5ghz


AMD Heaven


Intel Heaven


Better yet, have a look at the source for a better understanding http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

and while you're at it check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc&list=UUNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg

If a 8350@4.5 is matching an i5-3570k@4.5 fps, game after game, what makes you think a 3470 locked at stock is a good choice again? Not to mention all the future games are going to be running on... you guessed it, future engines, which... you guessed it, will inevitably be optimized for more cores. But the 3470 must outperform the amd processor, in games and in multi-tasking, and in bread-making, or else the world wouldn't spin.

Try harder dude :lol:

-Prax, off to bed :hello:

PS: To the OP, either build is fine, but the AMD will perform much better in all fronts, despite any bad arguments that may creep up whilst I sleep. GL with your build, and whatever decision you ultimately arrive upon.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
As expected... (cute charts you listed, to bad they contain almost no info. One CPU per chart and no link as to where they came from?)

Hotshot, This is something you'll need to decide for yourself. The other guy is trying to confuse you by saying you can OC the AMD or there is a big difference between the 8150 and the 8350. In thermal/power draw or CPU tasks I agree. But gaming isn't one of them. Lets look at the 8350 review.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5



Slower in Skyrim. Ties with Diablo 3.



Slower in Dragon Age.



Slower in Dawn of war as well. This one is important. Reason being the 8350 is close to 60FPS. If your system isn't as good as the one Anand was using it might fall below 60.



WoW is another important one. This time that lowly 3470 scored above 120FPS. When you run 3D it cuts your frame rates in half as each eye gets its own frames. This means you can run wow in 3D at 60FPS, but you can't with the 8350. The 3470 also scores higher in SC2. So the 8350 got one tie and how many loses? I would show you OC'd numbers but Anand's article doesn't show any.

Remember also that gaming is mostly a GPU thing. Yes with some exceptions. OCing a CPU isn't going to magically push the 8350 to the top of the pack. Again, seeing as the performance is better constantly with Intel AND its the cheaper option, I'd go that route.

Edit: Before someone gets the bright idea of claiming Anand did give OC'd numbers, he didn't give any OC'd gaming numbers. Push that clock speed up as much as you won't, you aren't going to go from 90FPS to 120.
 

nate1492

Honorable
Nov 23, 2012
44
0
10,530
0
If you're willing to spend 190 on the AMD, just shell out 215 for the i5 3750k. You want a future proof rig, AMD isn't the way to go, whatever someone is guessing about consoles 'making the cpu better'. Rumor is that the next gen console won't even touch the PC hardware from 2 years ago.
 

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


Still running stock clocks, still linking gimicky 1680x1050 resolutions benchmarks, still not reading. I did give you the source to the graphs, which has good follow-up from the forum users there, along with a youtube video specifically talking about REAL world application of these two setups, not playing around with resolutions to skew the results. If you fit this unusual world setup then go with the intel processor. If you have a 1920x1080 monitor(Like 90% of the market), and bench those numbers @ 1920x1080, the results take a 360, and when you overclock the 8350, it compounds itself. Why do you think they used the resolution they used? Just cus? You are linking unrealistic, nonsense. Go on newegg and show me how many monitors you see @ 1680x1050. The gimicky resolution game, as that youtube video brought up, is meant to skew the results of the real-world 1920x1080 resolutions these systems will be running on, and these benchmarks are case and point. At 2:41A.M. I need to get off of this puter, nice talking to you sir, we'll have to just agree to disagree unless you can find real world benchmarks @ a proper resolution. I have, and they equalize, or the 8350 beats the i5 3570k.
 

rdc85

Honorable
Apr 29, 2012
2,943
0
13,460
218
Never tried by own hand the PD (they haven't been sold at here)

but from I know, I'm agree with Praxeology...

the reason ? (he already said quite much up there)

just note, u need to O.C. if u are going with PD... (they really good at there)
 

rdc85

Honorable
Apr 29, 2012
2,943
0
13,460
218
Let's stop for a bit...

Try read up the links 4745454b gives.. (anandtech)

it quite good and had lot's of info there..

edit:

Here the point IMO.

One thing's here the PD it tested at it's stock clock (If i'm not miss read somewhere) so if it O.C.-ed it will different...

PD will par on par with i5, in single threaded intel still win, in multi amd wins

in game it will depends on the games (like some prefer nvidia over amd or likewise)

in power consumption. intel beat amd (they had better fabrication)

if i need to choose I will get unlocked i5 (-K series),

but between 3470 and 8350 I'll choose 8350...

 

Praxeology

Honorable
Dec 16, 2012
397
0
10,860
25


And to just close on my main point which you seemed to grasp; The plain proof of how intel fan boys try and skew the results by the resolution shenanigans.
Graph 1 @ 800x600 Graph 2 @ 1920x1080. Conclusion? Intel has better single core performance, Amd has better multi-core performance. But if fps is the same, and price is cheaper, and the future will only incorporate more cores...? Pinapples!

Boy those FX processors suck lol amd



Owait... So I can have the same fps, and better multi-tasking/future as more game engines incorporate more cores? At a FX6300 134.99$ 6core? lol intel :lol:


SO THAT'S WHY ANANDTECH CHOSE THAT RESOLUTION! IT VERIFIED THEIR ORIGINAL OPINIONS, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT? :pt1cable:
 

patricksmash

Honorable
Feb 1, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
Why is everyone debating the processor but no-one has mentioned the fact that these two builds completely ignore an SSD and power draw.

These are arguably 2 of the most important things when it comes to a build in normal circumstances. Booting/Loading screens/general responsiveness these will all be improved with an SSD an it is likely all of these benchmarks will have been carried out with one installed.

Secondly AMD CPUs are known for drawing huge amounts of power over the standard TDP of intel processors. It's all well and good the 8350 beating the i5-3570K in some benchmarks but if it draws nearly 3 times as much power its hardly a fair fight is it.

There is just no coding support, especially in the gaming industry, for doing 2 loads of optimisations. Obviously gaming producers favour Intel friendly compliers.

Nothing more we can say really.... Get rid of that plate of spinning rust and get an SSD
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
Power consumption is important. If you somehow OC a 8350 to catch a 3470, you can bet the 8350 is going to be using a LOT more power then 77W.

Now for your Video card question. Are all of those in your budget? This is possibly the first time in history I'm a fan of Nvidia's cards. The GTX670 is just a touch slower then the 680. Both cards normally run under 200W. Between the three you listed I'd probably get the GTX670. I would consider the 7970 as its a beast as well but you didn't list it. Is there anything video wise we need to know about? multimonitor or 3D?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY