Which setup is better for BF4?

[Big-Mac]

(i7 4770 non-K + B85) or (i5 4670K OC 4.5Ghz + Z87)?
Price about the same.
PS: I don't care all the features from z87 over b85.

 

[vmem]

the i5, overclocked

 

[logainofhades]

Overclocked i5 would be faster if you can get one to go that high. 4670k's, from my understanding, overclock poorly compared to a 2500k and 3570k.

 

[vmem]

4670k's, from my understanding, overclock poorly compared to a 2500k and 3570k.

True, but I thought that after taking into account the speed-bump of Haswell over Sandy and Ivy bridge, the end-performance is very similar

 

[cin19]

Here is the Battlefield 4 Benchmark Introduction
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/

You can see the i7 does the great job that has high frame rates and lower usage. So I will get the i7 4770 non-K + B85, assume you get the good GPU.

 

[logainofhades]

i7 4770 non k is a waste of money when you can get a 1230/1240/1245 v3 for less. I would never consider a locked i7. If it isn't a k series, get a Xeon of one of those model numbers. Forgot to mention earlier, that GPU would matter more than CPU. You could go Xeon and B85 and put a little more into GPU.

 

[Big-Mac]

i7 4770 non k is a waste of money when you can get a 1230/1240/1245 v3 for less. I would never consider a locked i7. If it isn't a k series, get a Xeon of one of those model numbers. Forgot to mention earlier, that GPU would matter more than CPU. You could go Xeon and B85 and put a little more into GPU.

correct, e3 1245 v3 is $20-30 cheaper. why xeon is cheaper than i7 when offering the same speed?

 

[Big-Mac]

Here is the Battlefield 4 Benchmark Introduction
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/

You can see the i7 does the great job that has high frame rates and lower usage. So I will get the i7 4770 non-K + B85, assume you get the good GPU.

um... according to your link, for 1080p gaming with hd7970, i5 4670(83,99,120) turns out a better performance compare to i7 4770(74,92,121).

 

[vmem]

^ it is why I suggested the i5... hyper-threading (offered by the i7) gives you almost nothing in terms of gaming. and if you had the i5, you could overclock it for more performance that the fps readings in that chart

 

[logainofhades]

i7 4770 non k is a waste of money when you can get a 1230/1240/1245 v3 for less. I would never consider a locked i7. If it isn't a k series, get a Xeon of one of those model numbers. Forgot to mention earlier, that GPU would matter more than CPU. You could go Xeon and B85 and put a little more into GPU.

correct, e3 1245 v3 is $20-30 cheaper. why xeon is cheaper than i7 when offering the same speed?

Intel sells more i7's to people and the OEM's than they do Xeons. They purposely charge more for the CPU they make more of. Basic supply and demand economics really. Most people wouldn't even think of a Xeon. Only enthusiasts with a budget minded sense would even think to look at such an option and we are small in number.

 

[Darkresurrection]

what's your graphic card?

 

[Darkresurrection]

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

 

[Darkresurrection]

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/ bf4 single player .... bf4 multiplayer: http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/ fx 8350 beats i5 4670k also you can overclock your 200$ fx 8350 to 4.5 and compete with i7 4770k in single player campaign

 

[vmN]

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

 

[logainofhades]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

 

[Darkresurrection]

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

 

[vmN]

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

 

[Darkresurrection]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

 

[vmN]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

I do agree, if you only are going to game, then the Fx 8320 will suit you better.
You recommend the jetengine?
He can be fine with a r9 280x or 760-770 if he will be recording/streaming.

 

[Darkresurrection]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

I do agree, if you only are going to game, then the Fx 8320 will suit you better.
You recommend the jetengine?
He can be fine with a r9 280x or 760-770 if he will be recording/streaming.

I think r9-290x or nonx is economical, the one without x is 400$ and it beats gtx 780, isn't it worth it!?

 

[vmN]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

I do agree, if you only are going to game, then the Fx 8320 will suit you better.
You recommend the jetengine?
He can be fine with a r9 280x or 760-770 if he will be recording/streaming.

I think r9-290x or nonx is economical, the one without x is 400$ and it beats gtx 780, isn't it worth it!?

I'm just saying I wouldn't stand the sound of that beast.
Define beats,
nVidia have shadowplay, CUBA cores much more.
AMD have mantle, which I personally havent seen any stats or how much it will increase anything.

 

[Darkresurrection]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

I do agree, if you only are going to game, then the Fx 8320 will suit you better.
You recommend the jetengine?
He can be fine with a r9 280x or 760-770 if he will be recording/streaming.

I think r9-290x or nonx is economical, the one without x is 400$ and it beats gtx 780, isn't it worth it!?

I'm just saying I wouldn't stand the sound of that beast.
Define beats,
nVidia have shadowplay, CUBA cores much more.
AMD have mantle, which I personally havent seen any stats or how much it will increase anything.

Common man a beast has to roar sometime 😉 ....but really the sound is below the standard allowed, once in the chassis, nothing can be heard, and cuda doesn't do any good for gaming

 

[vmN]

You can get an FX 8320 and R9 290 for about the same cost as a 4770k and a 7950.. That FX combo > i7 combo.

if i were you, I wouldn't waste my money on any i5 or i7, grab yourself an fx 8350+ m5a99fx pro + r9-290x or non x version ... battlefield 4 runs better on fx cpus, both single player and multi player...fx 8350+ r9 290x> i7 4770k+ gtx titan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls

We can both agree that the CPU wont do much with battlefield.
Battlefield doesn't run better with fx series.
Battlefield is optimized for AMD GPUs not CPUs.
Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?

fx cpus do better look at those benchmarks...cuda? we are talking about gaming gentleman, not engineering and those stuff...

There arent the big difference between fx 8320 and i7-4770k, because the game use 8 threads, then it doesn't matter if the CPU have 8 cores or 4 cores. Unless BF4 suddenly will use +50% on each core, then AMD will have a lead, but come on, that wont happend.

Well thank you sir for clarifying that yourself, i7 4770k is almost twice as expensive as fx 8350, and the difference is 7fps...this is stupidity to go i7, instead he can save the money to buy r9-290x or r9-290...

I do agree, if you only are going to game, then the Fx 8320 will suit you better.
You recommend the jetengine?
He can be fine with a r9 280x or 760-770 if he will be recording/streaming.

I think r9-290x or nonx is economical, the one without x is 400$ and it beats gtx 780, isn't it worth it!?

I'm just saying I wouldn't stand the sound of that beast.
Define beats,
nVidia have shadowplay, CUBA cores much more.
AMD have mantle, which I personally havent seen any stats or how much it will increase anything.

Common man a beast has to roar sometime 😉 ....but really the sound is below the standard allowed, once in the chassis, nothing can be heard, and cuda doesn't do any good for gaming

I know, what I ment with "Also why would anyone use all dat cuda power for battlefield 4?", is that it will go to waste IF you only plan on gaming,

 

[logainofhades]

R9 290 trades blows, often matching or beating, with the GTX 780 and Titan and is $100 less than a GTX 780. Just read the review on it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-5.html

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600473898%20600451269&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&CompareItemList=48%7C14-202-043%5E14-202-043-TS%2C14-130-942%5E14-130-942-TS&percm=14-202-043%3A%24%24%24%24%24%24%24%3B14-130-942%3A%24%24%24%24%24%24%24

 

[Darkresurrection]

r9 290> gtx 780
1: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/4
2: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/5
3: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/6
4: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/7
5: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/8