Which of these would be better for a gaming rig?

[paulsterio]

The OP is asking for opinions and this is mine.  If he wanted data he just had to Google it. 

 

Then you're clearly selling snake oil. I can't go out and say "I think the 4670K is the better CPU", that doesn't help the OP in any meaningful way, how does you THINKING something is better make it better? It doesn't. 

 

You're just making unsubstantiated claims. 

 

 

Lol I've thrown a shitload of evidence here on this forum why a 5GHz 8350 won't come close to an i5@stock and you're just a guy who would buy something worse for the same price which would mean you are just a brainless amd fanboy. You paid like almost 400$ for your MB & 8350 while you could have much more for your money going with the cheapest z87 board + 4670k. The 8350 is a quadcore with floating point computing and an 8core for integer calcs. Integer performance isn't important these days, it's just all about FP.

Stop that "new games 8cores use" nonsense, those ones are gpu bound where it just doesn't matter a fuck which cpu you have or it comes with Mantle. Most games are massively cpu bound relying on per core performance where extra cores are useless.

8350's are just outdated 2008 junk, useless for streaming/recording or rendering if we can use intel quicksync in OBS or cuda acceleration and with much more frames in a game.

@OP Since you have 770's in SLI I would definitely recommend an i5 4670 that's up to 100% faster -> http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

Keep in mind in that test the i5 will perform the same as an i7 because none of those games can take advantage of more than 4 threads.

 

Thank you, finally a reasonable response.

[Emil Matthias Pedersen]

I would chose the first one

[PuNkPoEtS]

Which of these pairs do you guys think would be better for gaming. The RAM being used is 8GB Corsair Vengeance Pro 1866MHz

 

Intel Core i5 4670k overclocked to 4.2GHz, Quad Core 6MB Cache and a 2GB EVGA GTX 770 SC ACX 1111MHz

 

or

 

AMD FX 8350 Black 4.0GHz, 8 Core 16MB cache and a 3GB XFX Radeon R9 280X Boost, 850MHz

 

 

While the AMD pair does have bigger numbers (and is cheaper) I'm not sure how this translates to performance and any input will be appreciated.

I will also take into consideration the technologies that each pair offers and how they compare (e.g. Shadow Play, Mantle, Cuda Cores etc)

 

 

firstly i would only get the 8320/8350 IF you are going to be streaming/rendering alot if not i would get either the FX-6300/6350 as it has the same performance but with 2 less cores but also alot cheaper so with the change you can upgrade to a r9 290

[StormtrooperStu]

Intel vs AMD, will this fight never end.

 

Lets hear from someone who has used both.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8

[StormtrooperStu]

Then you're clearly selling snake oil. I can't go out and say "I think the 4670K is the better CPU", that doesn't help the OP in any meaningful way, how does you THINKING something is better make it better? It doesn't. 

 

You're just making unsubstantiated claims. 

 

 

Not just my thoughts.  Watch the video above, then email him and tell him he is a liar.

[Faa]

Not just my thoughts.  Watch the video above, then email him and tell him he is a liar.

You can't judge cpu's when the gpu is the limiting factor aka the bottleneck which Jay did. You cant judge gpu's either when the cpu is the limiting factor. You have CPU bound games and GPU bound games. 95% of this forum doesnt even know how to determine when the cpu or gpu is the bottleneck other than just randomly guessing. (99% gpu load all time -> gpu bottleneck ----------- below 99% gpu load -> cpu bottleneck)

Jay based his opinions on his experience in BF3/BF4 with both platforms, he didn't give any details of how much difference there was, he didn't even try to push 2x 780's to 99% in BF3 and eventually benchmark it like that - he's just trying to say that Intel is an awful choice for your price and AMD is the way to go. What he basically did is; running furmark on an intel cpu & furmark on an amd cpu with the same gpu -> results are exactly the same aka gpu bound. Pointless review really, there just too many games that are cpu bound: Almost all RTS/MMO games (even with a 1000$ cpu you'll sit at 20-30fps), borderlands 2, Arma2/3 including Dayz, Planetside 2, BF3 (especially if you use 2x 780's to obtain a stable 120fps at ultra - 650ti isn't hard to feed to 99%) and so much more I can't think of right now.

We don't have AMD vs Intel fights for years anymore other than a few stupid fanboys claiming AMD is just as good as Intel or even better. Logan gave nearly all amd fanboys a reason to fight by fabricating the results, full of errors & misinformation, results that make nowhere sense (gpu bound and we see 350% fps difference) and so on. These days everyone just pretends they know their stuff & facts and that's why we see mixed opinions/wrong facts flying everywhere.

[StormtrooperStu]

You can't judge cpu's when the gpu is the limiting factor aka the bottleneck which Jay did. You cant judge gpu's either when the cpu is the limiting factor. You have CPU bound games and GPU bound games. 95% of this forum doesnt even know how to determine when the cpu or gpu is the bottleneck other than just randomly guessing. (99% gpu load all time -> gpu bottleneck ----------- below 99% gpu load -> cpu bottleneck)

Jay based his opinions on his experience in BF3/BF4 with both platforms, he didn't give any details of how much difference there was, he didn't even try to push 2x 780's to 99% in BF3 and eventually benchmark it like that - he's just trying to say that Intel is an awful choice for your price and AMD is the way to go. What he basically did is; running furmark on an intel cpu & furmark on an amd cpu with the same gpu -> results are exactly the same aka gpu bound. Pointless review really, there just too many games that are cpu bound: Almost all RTS/MMO games (even with a 1000$ cpu you'll sit at 20-30fps), borderlands 2, Arma2/3 including Dayz, Planetside 2, BF3 (especially if you use 2x 780's to obtain a stable 120fps at ultra - 650ti isn't hard to feed to 99%) and so much more I can't think of right now.

We don't have AMD vs Intel fights for years anymore other than a few stupid fanboys claiming AMD is just as good as Intel or even better. Logan gave nearly all amd fanboys a reason to fight by fabricating the results, full of errors & misinformation, results that make nowhere sense (gpu bound and we see 350% fps difference) and so on. These days everyone just pretends they know their stuff & facts and that's why we see mixed opinions/wrong facts flying everywhere.

 

Look, I get it, Intel vs AMD. Intel wins.

I just don't think AMD is as far behind as people think.

 

The reason I went for the 8350 is the face that the new consoles use more than four cores to fun their games and I could not afford an i7 at the time.

 

That is all.  Owners of FX chips seem to be very happy with them, if they were as bad as people make out I think owners would be more annoyed than they are. 

[paulsterio]

Look, I get it, Intel vs AMD. Intel wins.

I just don't think AMD is as far behind as people think.

 

The reason I went for the 8350 is the face that the new consoles use more than four cores to fun their games and I could not afford an i7 at the time.

 

That is all.  Owners of FX chips seem to be very happy with them, if they were as bad as people make out I think owners would be more annoyed than they are. 

 

Yes they are, the FX 8350 is like equivalent to an i7 920 overclocked to 4.0 GHz, that's like technology from 5 years ago, so yeah, AMD are actually years behind. In fact, their 8350 can't even beat out a 2500K, so like, it's nowhere near as good as Intel processors, to think otherwise would be delusional. 

 

All modern processors will deliver a decent experience, believe it or not. It doesn't mean that it's good value, however. 

[BobekCZ]

I don't prefer AMD, but with the mentle, the 280x will perform really well..Depends if you just want play games or use some editing programs, than I'd prefer Intel..

[totjup5]

Pretty similar, but I would go with the first one.

[totjup5]

Yes they are, the FX 8350 is like equivalent to an i7 920 overclocked to 4.0 GHz, that's like technology from 5 years ago, so yeah, AMD are actually years behind. In fact, their 8350 can't even beat out a 2500K, so like, it's nowhere near as good as Intel processors, to think otherwise would be delusional.

All modern processors will deliver a decent experience, believe it or not. It doesn't mean that it's good value, however.

Maybe try checking out some current benchmarks before giving out false information.

[harrynowl]

As a pure gaming rig the i5 is generally a better option, but for productivity the FX8350 generally does a better job.

[AHaskin14]

Which of these pairs do you guys think would be better for gaming. The RAM being used is 8GB Corsair Vengeance Pro 1866MHz

 

Intel Core i5 4670k overclocked to 4.2GHz, Quad Core 6MB Cache and a 2GB EVGA GTX 770 SC ACX 1111MHz

 

or

 

AMD FX 8350 Black 4.0GHz, 8 Core 16MB cache and a 3GB XFX Radeon R9 280X Boost, 850MHz

 

 

While the AMD pair does have bigger numbers (and is cheaper) I'm not sure how this translates to performance and any input will be appreciated.

I will also take into consideration the technologies that each pair offers and how they compare (e.g. Shadow Play, Mantle, Cuda Cores etc)

First option, don't hype yourself up over mantle just yet with Gsync, Shadowplay, Physx, and temps all on Nvidia's side. And dont stop with just 4.2 Ghz on that i5, you can push it up to 4.4-4.7 with adequate cooling and a good chip. EVGA is a great brand but an MSI Twin Frozr IV will stay cooler. In the end, choose the blue and green.

[inverterx]

Lol I've thrown a shitload of evidence here on this forum why a 5GHz 8350 won't come close to an i5@stock and you're just a guy who would buy something worse for the same price which would mean you are just a brainless amd fanboy. You paid like almost 400$ for your MB & 8350 while you could have much more for your money going with the cheapest z87 board + 4670k. The 8350 is a quadcore with floating point computing and an 8core for integer calcs. Integer performance isn't important these days, it's just all about FP.

Stop that "new games 8cores use" nonsense, those ones are gpu bound where it just doesn't matter a fuck which cpu you have or it comes with Mantle. Most games are massively cpu bound relying on per core performance where extra cores are useless.

8350's are just outdated 2008 junk, useless for streaming/recording or rendering if we can use intel quicksync in OBS or cuda acceleration and with much more frames in a game.

@OP Since you have 770's in SLI I would definitely recommend an i5 4670 that's up to 100% faster -> http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

Keep in mind in that test the i5 will perform the same as an i7 because none of those games can take advantage of more than 4 threads.

How are you going to talk about the 4670/3570, and then link benchmarks for an i7 3770k? Are you kidding? You're telling that guy that his opinion Isn't  a source of credible evidence, yet you're guessing that the i5 will preform the same as the i7.

The Piledriver series came out Late 2012, Also, Calling another product "junk" makes you a fanboy. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors

BF4 Makes use of all 8 Cores. 

CUDA Acceleration has nothing to do with the cpu, Stop talking about GPU's when they have nothing to do with processors. 

And then you try to compare prices, While throwing in one of the most expensive motherboards for AMD and giving the intel some random 90 dollar motherboard.

If OP didn't want to overclock, he could have easily used the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130637&Tpk=MSI%20970A-G46%20AM3%2b%20AMD%20970%20Sata%206Gb%2fs%20USB%203.0%20ATX%20A And been better off, IF he wasn't overclocking. Also he could use the reduced price to get a better GPU.

Please stop being a hypocrite and calling other people "fanboys" over and over when you, yourself, look highly suspicious.

[maazster]

Both as good as each other, i would just flip a coin.

[toms94z71]

Both as good as each other, i would just flip a coin.

when it comes to things like this I usually let what has the best price or the best warranty be the deciding factors.

[maazster]

when it comes to things like this I usually let what has the best price or the best warranty be the deciding factors.

Well i would get the Intel+Nvidia build, Intel give you a three year garuntee with their CPUs (dunno about their overclocking policies) and EVGA, from what i know, have the best R&D. Interms of performance the Intel CPU does beat the AMD one (lets see what mantle does) and the 770 and the 280X are equal (280X does overclock a bit better than the 770 from what i know from the 7970 plus again lets see what mantle has to offer) But the s770 model your looking at would out perform the 280x.

[toms94z71]

Well i would get the Intel+Nvidia build, Intel give you a three year garuntee with their CPUs (dunno about their overclocking policies) and EVGA, from what i know, have the best R&D. Interms of performance the Intel CPU does beat the AMD one (lets see what mantle does) and the 770 and the 280X are equal (280X does overclock a bit better than the 770 from what i know from the 7970 plus again lets see what mantle has to offer) But the s770 model your looking at would out perform the 280x.

Intel with a Nvida 780ti by EVGA is what I plan on for my build.

[maazster]

Intel with a Nvida 780ti by EVGA is what I plan on for my build.

EVEN BETTER

[StormtrooperStu]

Yes they are, the FX 8350 is like equivalent to an i7 920 overclocked to 4.0 GHz, that's like technology from 5 years ago, so yeah, AMD are actually years behind. In fact, their 8350 can't even beat out a 2500K, so like, it's nowhere near as good as Intel processors, to think otherwise would be delusional. 

 

All modern processors will deliver a decent experience, believe it or not. It doesn't mean that it's good value, however. 

 

That's weird, because I had an i7 940 with 12gb ram and my new 8350 beats the snot out of it in every way.

 

Perhaps I should have kept the i7.

[paulsterio]

That's weird, because I had an i7 940 with 12gb ram and my new 8350 beats the snot out of it in every way.

 

Perhaps I should have kept the i7.

 

If you could have gotten that i7 940 up to around 4.20 GHz, then you probably should have kept it because clock for clock, the Nehalem i7s are still better than the 8350. 

 

E.g. if you look at the single-core Cinebench benchmarks on Anandtech, the lower clocked i7 965 beats the higher clocked 8350, so in terms of IPC, the AMD chip is like 5 years behind Intel. Yes, the 8350 will win back in things that are heavily threaded, however, for gaming, which is pretty IPC based rather than core count based, I would say that a move from an i7 940 to an 8350 is more of a sidegrade rather than an upgrade. 

 

For video editing and the like, yeah, 8350 is better. 

[paulsterio]

Please stop being a hypocrite and calling other people "fanboys" over and over when you, yourself, look highly suspicious.

 

Firstly, I know this was to @Faa, but I feel like you're being unfair on him.

 

Anybody who recommends an AMD processor right now is a fanboy, just like anybody who recommended a Pentium 4 over an Athlon 64 back in the day was an Intel fanboy. 

 

Yes, it's one thing to say "I like AMD, I know they aren't as good, but I am happy with what I am getting". Sometimes I do that too, like with hard drives, I know there might be no stats to show that WD is better than Seagate, but WD works well for me, I like them, so I'll continue to buy them and say that they are my personal preference. However, if someone comes to me and asks me whether they should buy Seagate or WD, I would say that they are both reputable brands, there isn't any evidence that any is better and for me, I have always used WD and they have worked well. 

 

The problem with AMD fanboys is that they blindly think that the 8350 is actually competitive with the 4670K and 4770K when it is just simply not. Yes, if you have an 8350 and like it, that's great, enjoy your rig, but don't force misinformation down someone else's throat.

[KayNine]

I prefer the first option mainly because the GeForce series have more features than their competition, plus the 4670K is an amazing processor for gaming. This is great if you want to record your favorite moments.

 

EIther way, both options are totally amazing.  I only chose the Intel CPU and the Nvidia side because of Shadowplay.

[Faa]

How are you going to talk about the 4670/3570, and then link benchmarks for an i7 3770k? Are you kidding? You're telling that guy that his opinion Isn't  a source of credible evidence, yet you're guessing that the i5 will preform the same as the i7.

As I've said: Keep in mind in that test the i5 will perform the same as an i7 because none of those games can take advantage of more than 4 threads.

 

The Piledriver series came out Late 2012, Also, Calling another product "junk" makes you a fanboy. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors

 

So? Phenom has more IPC than piledriver: http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

It's old junk IPC wise. 

 

CUDA Acceleration has nothing to do with the cpu, Stop talking about GPU's when they have nothing to do with processors. 

 

You're clearly misunderstanding. There are just alternatives to cpu rendering such as cuda/opencl/intel quicksync and theyre much faster than the CPU. If he doesn't want to overclock there are plenty of non K i5's and 50$ intel boards so he's still not cheaping out.

 

 

BF4 Makes use of all 8 Cores.

Yeah and? Still isn't a valid point. Using those cores doesnt mean it's taking advantage of them. You should learn how threads & processes work; old games can even use 8 cores such as WoW (can use up to 40). BF4 has like 48 threads probably 6 or 8 are just the engine and you cant split one of the 6 threads over a 2nd core.

 

And then you try to compare prices, While throwing in one of the most expensive motherboards for AMD and giving the intel some random 90 dollar motherboard.

If OP didn't want to overclock, he could have easily used the http://www.newegg.co...s USB 3.0 ATX A And been better off, IF he wasn't overclocking. Also he could use the reduced price to get a better GPU.

Please stop being a hypocrite and calling other people "fanboys" over and over when you, yourself, look highly suspicious.

 

You're not wanting to face the facts and your attitude pretty much explains who's the hypocrite or the fanboy. If he doesnt want to overclock he can go with non K and the cheapest LGA1150 board it's a better price/performance value.

[Prathamesh Patil]

if your rig is only goin to be used for gaming then i would save some money and go for the second option(AMD)
If using for gaming as well as heavy work loads like heavy video rendering, photoshop, adobe premiere etc and have that extra money the i would definately got for first option(Intel)