Jump to content

MOBO Choice - I need help (First build)

jjwilson4
 Share
Posted

The final computer build I want to build will be:

 

Here is the link to the end goal build:  http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/Nx6QMp

 

The storage is a 250gb ssd samsung 

 

At the moment I'm only going to have one GPU.  I just added to the second to calculate the watt usage.

 

The motherboard is the main problem as the current one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F5R9O46/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=20ZSRNBNCUIB8&coliid=I1OFSWAXZU5413#productDetails), but the main problem is I want to know if it's overpriced and would getting something like this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00AQ9CF8K/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=20ZSRNBNCUIB8&coliid=I1M93UODG493B9#productDetails ) would provide all of the same features but at a lower price.  Overall, I would want a motherboard that has all of the features that I need it to have and to be reliable, but a cheap price would be optimum.  The computer build is just going be some gaming, as I need an improvement from my old Xbox 360, but I want something that I can upgrade over time, so it doesn't become so outdated.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

The final computer build I want to build will be:

 

Here is the link to the end goal build:  http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/Nx6QMp

 

The storage is a 250gb ssd samsung 

 

At the moment I'm only going to have one GPU.  I just added to the second to calculate the watt usage.

 

The motherboard is the main problem as the current one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00F5R9O46/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=20ZSRNBNCUIB8&coliid=I1OFSWAXZU5413#productDetails), but the main problem is I want to know if it's overpriced and would getting something like this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00AQ9CF8K/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=20ZSRNBNCUIB8&coliid=I1M93UODG493B9#productDetails ) would provide all of the same features but at a lower price.  Overall, I would want a motherboard that has all of the features that I need it to have and to be reliable, but a cheap price would be optimum.  The computer build is just going be some gaming, as I need an improvement from my old Xbox 360, but I want something that I can upgrade over time, so it doesn't become so outdated.

 

Thanks

try this

Hi friend.Who are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author

I want a full atx motherboard as in the future I want to be able to upgrade it the system to 2 graphic cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I want a full atx motherboard as in the future I want to be able to upgrade it the system to 2 graphic cards.

#1, you want Intel.  At any price point, Intel is the superior gaming CPU.  #2, you want Intel if you want to eventually move up to dual GPUs because a single FX processor will bottleneck dual GPUs in some games.

 

This is the bare minimum I would recommend getting:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/CwYdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/CwYdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC) <-- If at all possible, get an i5-4670k.  NOT i5-4690k!!!

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z87X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£63.63 @ Amazon UK)

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory  (£57.53 @ Ebuyer) <-- Better, cheaper RAM.

Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£39.45 @ Amazon UK) <-- Do you also need an HDD?

Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 280 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card  (£143.39 @ Ebuyer) <-- Much better GPU, don't even consider R9 270X.  The minimum for 2015 is 3GB of VRAM, which the 280 has.

Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case  (£43.48 @ Aria PC)

Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  (£46.99 @ Amazon UK) <-- Much better PSU.

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit)  (£71.60 @ Amazon UK)

Total: £597.27

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-22 00:48 GMT+0000

 

This is a much more powerful build from day one, as well as being much more upgrade-ready.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I want a full atx motherboard as in the future I want to be able to upgrade it the system to 2 graphic cards.

sorry it was the cheapest usb 3.0 header one I could find because that is what your case has (usb 3.0)

Hi friend.Who are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

#1, you want Intel.  At any price point, Intel is the superior gaming CPU.  #2, you want Intel if you want to eventually move up to dual GPUs because a single FX processor will bottleneck dual GPUs in some games.

 

This is the bare minimum I would recommend getting:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/CwYdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/CwYdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC) <-- If at all possible, get an i5-4670k.  NOT i5-4690k!!!

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z87X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£63.63 @ Amazon UK)

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory  (£57.53 @ Ebuyer) <-- Better, cheaper RAM.

Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£39.45 @ Amazon UK) <-- Do you also need an HDD?

Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 280 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card  (£143.39 @ Ebuyer) <-- Much better GPU, don't even consider R9 270X.  The minimum for 2015 is 3GB of VRAM, which the 280 has.

Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case  (£43.48 @ Aria PC)

Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  (£46.99 @ Amazon UK) <-- Much better PSU.

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit)  (£71.60 @ Amazon UK)

Total: £597.27

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-22 00:48 GMT+0000

 

This is a much more powerful build from day one, as well as being much more upgrade-ready.

intel is not the superior because I can find a faster CPU from AMD which might be cheaper sure it might be the superior in gaming for I use i5 but still

 

for example AMD FX-8370 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K same speed the AMD has twice the amount of cores and is 125.00 USD's cheaper I rest my case.

Hi friend.Who are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

intel is not the superior because I can find a faster CPU from AMD which might be cheaper sure it might be the superior in gaming for I use i5 but still

 

for example AMD FX-8370 vs. Intel Core i7-4790K same speed the AMD has twice the amount of cores and is 125.00 USD's cheaper I rest my case.

Cores and Mhz don't mean anything.  Its all about architecture and IPC. You also recommended that guy a mATX motherboard with only 3+1 VRM Phase design, without heatsinks.  That thing won't even run the FX8 at stock!  Don't make recommendations without knowing what you are talking about, this is other people's money we are dealing with.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors making them unplayable(at least by my standards), sometimes even dropping to 15-20fps when the action starts.

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

H93GZC3.png

----

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

5aJTp.png

---

arma3_1920.png

---

bf4mp_1920.png

---

civ_1920.png

---

csgo_1920.png

---

crysis3_1920_2.png

---

fc3_1920.png

---

starcraft_1920.png

---

gta4_1920.png

---

rome2_1920.png

---

witchercpu_1920.png

This one above is Witcher 2.

-Source

 

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.

 

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

TDLx2vT.png

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

lNd4Usb.png

 

 

2obWCLw.png

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

power_load.png

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.

x264-power-peak.gif

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5(which is more realistic being as most FX8 users don't OC to 4.7Ghz).  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E(kWh/day) = P(W) × t(h/day) / 1000(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost($/day) = E(kWh/day) × Cost(cent/kWh) / 100(cent/$)

 

-Source

 

 

You should really read through the link above, it is a great and detailed read. Here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

This video is the most meticulous head to head comparison of the FX8 and i5.  Its lengthy, but it is the most comprehensive and in-depth review of the FX8 and i5-4670k in a myriad of scenarios pitted against each other.  Single player, multiplayer, 1080p, 1440p, power consumption, min/max/avg framerates, daily tasks, rendering, editing, streaming, mid level GPUs, high level GPUs, multi-threaded games, single core games, this video covers it all.

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  You can squeeze by on a 6+2, but you aren't going to get as consistent results as an 8+2, also overclocking results drop with the 6+2.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.  I'm not arguing that the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, but the ancillary components needed end up making it cost the same as a locked i5.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/HxP68d

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/HxP68d/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€46.95 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €207.77

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:44 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€32.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €237.67

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:45 CET+0100

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/mPMpgs

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/mPMpgs/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($36.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($105.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Not a good motherboard, but the least expensive that I recognized.

Total: $323.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:51 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($74.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Total: $346.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:06 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($217.35 @ Aquila Technology)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($61.02 @ Wiseguys)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $428.32

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:07 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($141.96 @ Newegg Canada)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($30.98 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($98.50 @ Vuugo)

Total: $271.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.99 @ Amazon UK)

Total: £164.19

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:01 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£101.50 @ Amazon UK)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£24.97 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £190.01

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:02 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.08 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€84.28 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €263.03

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€165.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€40.09 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.09

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€127.99 @ Amazon Espana)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.30 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€85.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €261.12

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:05 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $200 equals $200 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Cores and Mhz don't mean anything.  Its all about architecture and IPC. You also recommended that guy a mATX motherboard with only 3+1 VRM Phase design, without heatsinks.  That thing won't even run the FX8 at stock!  Don't make recommendations without knowing what you are talking about, this is other people's money we are dealing with.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors making them unplayable(at least by my standards), sometimes even dropping to 15-20fps when the action starts.

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

H93GZC3.png

----

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

5aJTp.png

---

arma3_1920.png

---

bf4mp_1920.png

---

civ_1920.png

---

csgo_1920.png

---

crysis3_1920_2.png

---

fc3_1920.png

---

starcraft_1920.png

---

gta4_1920.png

---

rome2_1920.png

---

witchercpu_1920.png

This one above is Witcher 2.

-Source

 

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.

 

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

TDLx2vT.png

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

lNd4Usb.png

 

 

2obWCLw.png

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

power_load.png

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.

x264-power-peak.gif

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5(which is more realistic being as most FX8 users don't OC to 4.7Ghz).  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E(kWh/day) = P(W) × t(h/day) / 1000(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost($/day) = E(kWh/day) × Cost(cent/kWh) / 100(cent/$)

 

-Source

 

 

You should really read through the link above, it is a great and detailed read. Here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

This video is the most meticulous head to head comparison of the FX8 and i5.  Its lengthy, but it is the most comprehensive and in-depth review of the FX8 and i5-4670k in a myriad of scenarios pitted against each other.  Single player, multiplayer, 1080p, 1440p, power consumption, min/max/avg framerates, daily tasks, rendering, editing, streaming, mid level GPUs, high level GPUs, multi-threaded games, single core games, this video covers it all.

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  You can squeeze by on a 6+2, but you aren't going to get as consistent results as an 8+2, also overclocking results drop with the 6+2.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.  I'm not arguing that the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, but the ancillary components needed end up making it cost the same as a locked i5.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/HxP68d

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/HxP68d/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€46.95 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €207.77

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:44 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€32.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €237.67

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:45 CET+0100

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/mPMpgs

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/mPMpgs/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($36.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($105.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Not a good motherboard, but the least expensive that I recognized.

Total: $323.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:51 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($74.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Total: $346.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:06 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/88knQ7/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($217.35 @ Aquila Technology)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($61.02 @ Wiseguys)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $428.32

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-13 01:07 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($141.96 @ Newegg Canada)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($30.98 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($98.50 @ Vuugo)

Total: $271.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.99 @ Amazon UK)

Total: £164.19

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:01 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£101.50 @ Amazon UK)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£24.97 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £190.01

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 12:02 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.08 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€84.28 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €263.03

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€165.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€40.09 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.09

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:04 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€127.99 @ Amazon Espana)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (€47.30 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€85.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €261.12

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:05 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $200 equals $200 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

ok ok I was what I told him was looking for the cheapest one for usb 3.0 headers which was what is case had and his amazon and PCpartpicker list were UK so I changed from USD to pounds was the only reason countrys were recomended on this also you should make a thread about intel include some tech-quickie stuff and talk about intel

cpu's then do one for AMD CPU's. I would read it.

Hi friend.Who are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

ok ok I was what I told him was looking for the cheapest one for usb 3.0 headers which was what is case had and his amazon and PCpartpicker list were UK so I changed from USD to pounds was the only reason countrys were recomended on this also you should make a thread about intel include some tech-quickie stuff and talk about intel

cpu's then do one for AMD CPU's. I would read it.

You can start by reading everything I posted above.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

The computer build is just going be some gaming, as I need an improvement from my old Xbox 360, but I want something that I can upgrade over time, so it doesn't become so outdated.

the FX CPU is old and outdated already especialy if you are looking for a strong CPU for gaming...an intel i5-4440 and a cheap H81 or B85 motherboard is a much better pick in that regard.

| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 4.89ghz - 1.21v  |  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  |  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI RTX 3080Ti Ventus 3X OC  |  RAM: 32GB T-Force Delta RGB 3066mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Quest 2 VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author

I was then just wondering would you be able to recommend me the best computer for about £600 (including the OS), as I'm not allowed to spend anymore money on a gaming computer.  I would want to spend more but the parents do not understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Faceman I appreciate you educating people on the difference between AMD and Intel CPU's. There is a misunderstanding about the true power that both of them contain, and the value associated with it. I do however disagree with you that intel beats AMD at every price point.  The reason I disagree with you is simply that building a system is a balancing game around a budget.  AMD has great pricings and deals that under situations offer a better deal. For example I can get a FX 6300 and capable MOBO for under $100. That is less then a comparable i3 normally costs outright.  I agree that the i3 for just gaming is a better processor, but to say that it is always better is ignorant. Prices flux, and peoples budgets and needs flux.

 

@jjwilson4 As for this guys needs I would say look into an ASUS M5A97 MOBO. I have had great experiences with them.  If you are looking for more headway to upgrade in the future, switch to the LGA 1150 socket of intel CPU's. There is more choices for upgrades and better features. If you can budge on a few other things and reach for an i5, do it.

Edited by NoFrownClown

My Build | CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core | CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i | Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH Z170 S ATX LGA1151  | Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4-2400 Memory | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB & 250GB, Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM, HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB 7200RPM | Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB 100 Million Edition | Case: NZXT H440 (Black/Green) | Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

@NoFrownClown

 

I think the biggest mistake that many people make, is only to look at the cost of the single CPU, not at the cost of CPU + motherboard + CPU-Cooler. (The complete intel package can often be bought - not everywhere in the world though - for the same price as AMD, while still getting similar performance even in many multi-threaded programs, and usually much better performance in games) But even that has been discussed to death in over a dozen threads during the last couple weeks...

[Main rig "ToXxXiC":]
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K | MB: ASUS Maximus VII Formula | RAM: G.Skill TridentX 32GB 2400MHz (DDR-3) | GPU: EVGA GTX980 Hydro Copper | Storage: Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD + Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD (+NAS) | Sound: OnBoard | PSU: XFX Black Edition Pro 1050W 80+ Gold | Case: Cooler Master Cosmos II | Cooling: Full Custom Watercooling Loop (CPU+GPU+MB) | OS: Windows 7 Professional (64-Bit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

@DirkW

 

I agree with that. system building is such a balancing game, and very dependent on the person.  Their location can drastically change the pricing of the components based on what stores are near, therefore what in store deals they can get that other people can't. In my area I can get some great bundles for Intel and AMD. I luckily have a Microcenter near by that has there CPU + MOBO + RAM bundle going on all the time, but I have friends who don't have one anywhere close to them and are stuck with Best Buy (Builders worst nightmare. *Shiver*).

My Build | CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core | CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i | Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH Z170 S ATX LGA1151  | Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4-2400 Memory | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB & 250GB, Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM, HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB 7200RPM | Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB 100 Million Edition | Case: NZXT H440 (Black/Green) | Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I would definitely avoid using a 760G board especially the cheap ones 

it will either throttle or simply burnout 

the H81 or even one of the ~100.00 z97 boards a i5 4450 or 4550 is a far better value 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

@Faceman I appreciate you educating people on the difference between AMD and Intel CPU's. There is a misunderstanding about the true power that both of them contain, and the value associated with it. I do however disagree with you that intel beats AMD at every price point.  The reason I disagree with you is simply that building a system is a balancing game around a budget.  AMD has great pricings and deals that under situations offer a better deal. For example I can get a FX 6300 and capable MOBO for under $100. That is less then a comparable i3 normally costs outright.  I agree that the i3 for just gaming is a better processor, but to say that it is always better is ignorant. Prices flux, and peoples budgets and needs flux.

 

@jjwilson4 As for this guys needs I would say look into an ASUS M5A97 MOBO. I have had great experiences with them.  If you are looking for more headway to upgrade in the future, switch to the LGA 1150 socket of intel CPU's. There is more choices for upgrades and better features. If you can budge on a few other things and reach for an i5, do it.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is flux and variables unique to every person's situation, but for the vast majority of regions, an i3 with an H81 motherboard is going to cost less, and perform better than an FX6, while providing an upgrade path. I'm not even taking into account power consumption which will add up.

 

So, lets do some math.  Even including your local microcenter prices.

 

There is a bundle for an in-store FX6300 + GA-78LMT-USB3 for $89.  You could go with that, then realize a week later that you are throttling badly in games, because you have insufficient VRM design for even stock operation.

The next step up is: FX6300 + 970A-G46 AM3+ for $119.  This one is better, but still just 4+1 VRM phase design.  It will work for stock, but overclocking will be rough, and you still run the risk of throttling.

The ideal bundle is the FX6300 + M5A97 R2.0 for $129.  This is a 4+2 VRM phase design, w/ Heatsinks.  It will run the FX6 at stock without issue, and allow for overclocking. 

 

I'm not including taxes, which we can roughly estimate an additional $6-9 depending which state you're in.  Plus $5-10 more per year in energy cost. If you want to overclock, you're adding in an extra $20-$30 for an entry level CPU cooler, bringing the price well above an i3...while still falling behind in terms of performance.

 

Now, lets look at it from Intel's side for an i3.. while still using Microcenter pricing to be fair.  Depending on the store location, you can get an i3-4130 or i3-4160 for just $99.  I would personally opt for the i3-4130 so that you can use an H81 motherboard, which is only $30 for the least expensive one, that will have USB3.0, and 2 DIMMs.  This is all you need for an Intel system.  It ends up costing the same if you use Microcenter pricing.

 

If you want to use PcP pricing,

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/NKYBvK

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/NKYBvK/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($108.97 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($42.98 @ Newegg) <-- There are less expensive options, I chose one in the middle.

Total: $151.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-22 18:04 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/g6VCLk

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/g6VCLk/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($96.69 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($63.99 @ SuperBiiz) <-- This is the least expensive, halfway passable motherboard.  You really want to spend $10 more to get 8+2 Heatsinked VRMs.

Total: $160.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-22 18:06 EST-0500

 

Some places, you just don't have access to these prices, or there are awesome deals that pop up which will make the FX6 less expensive, likely by a very small margin.

 

This doesn't change that you will end up getting worse performance than an i3.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

@Faceman

 

If you are directly comparing the i3 4130 as the price competitor for the FX 6300 I don't feel the FX 6300 is worse performance. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The i3 has better per core performance which does give it an edge is certain game titles, but not a noticeable advantage across all games that OP may be playing. The 6300 offers more cores that can help if he wants to record some games, multi-task, and other core advantaged operations. Also the 6300 is great with overclocking.  

 

Linked here is a Tom's Hardware article with the best gaming CPU's for the Money this month. It gives a quick explanation why they put the 6300 over the i3 4160. Once again, this is based off of what OP wants to do. 

My Build | CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core | CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i | Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH Z170 S ATX LGA1151  | Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4-2400 Memory | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB & 250GB, Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM, HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB 7200RPM | Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB 100 Million Edition | Case: NZXT H440 (Black/Green) | Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

One thing I noticed into your setup is the graphics cards, are you going to get both of these graphics cards at the same time, or is down the road? If it is right now, I'd use the extra cash onto the GTX 970 instead, as that is much better than the R9 280.

CPU: i7 5820k @4.5Ghz | Mobo: MSI X99A SLI Plus | RAM: 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4 Quad Channel | GPU: GTX 970 @ 1579 Mhz | Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 | OS: Windows 10

Storage: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB | PSU: Corsair TX750 | Display: Samsung SyncMaster 2233 & SyncMaster SA350 | Cooling: Cooler Master Seidon 120M

Keyboard: Razer Lycosa | Mouse: Steelseries Kana | Sound: Steelseries Siberia V2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

@Faceman

 

If you are directly comparing the i3 4130 as the price competitor for the FX 6300 I don't feel the FX 6300 is worse performance. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The i3 has better per core performance which does give it an edge is certain game titles, but not a noticeable advantage across all games that OP may be playing. The 6300 offers more cores that can help if he wants to record some games, multi-task, and other core advantaged operations. Also the 6300 is great with overclocking.  

 

Linked here is a Tom's Hardware article with the best gaming CPU's for the Money this month. It gives a quick explanation why they put the 6300 over the i3 4160. Once again, this is based off of what OP wants to do. 

This build is just for gaming, and he wants it to last.  Also, he is in the U.K. so throw out your Microcenter pricing.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/mv7Bcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/mv7Bcf/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  (£74.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £137.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-23 00:01 GMT+0000

 

Vs. Intel Option

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rHHkJx

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rHHkJx/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  (£78.79 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: Asus H81M-PLUS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£40.99 @ Scan.co.uk) <-- There are 30 pound motherboards that will work too.

Total: £119.78

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-23 00:06 GMT+0000

 

That review from Tom's is based on just the price of processor, failing to include price of motherboard and cooling.  Just the price of an adequate AM3+ motherboard alone makes it cost more than an i3. Lets not forget that he wants this build to last.  That means perform better from day one, and be upgrade ready.  Check and check for the i3.

 

The i3 beats the FX6 in virtually every game, even when the FX6 is overclocked to 4.5Ghz, which would make it cost much more than an i3.  The i3 sometimes even beats the FX8 and 9 depending on the game.  The i3 can record, and can multi-task.  Don't act like it can't, it can, and it can well.  The only area where the FX6 beats the i3 is in content creation.  Highly parallel and repetitive tasks that need more threads. This is a gaming build.

 

 

"Budget Multi-Core Gaming Alternative

The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4160 offers slightly more performance in your favorite titles, you'll have a difficult time telling the difference. Meanwhile, the FX-6300 costs less, sports an unlocked ratio multiplier and features six integer cores that improve performance in threaded desktop applications"

 

"Budget Gamer's Pick

Intel's Haswell-based CPUs are very capable in games, though we're increasingly seeing dual-core Pentiums lagging behind in our favorite titles. Conversely, benchmark data makes it clear that the company's Hyper-Threading technology is effective in helping improve the performance of Core i3 CPUs in those same blockbusters. Although a locked multiplier limits overclocking to a few-megahertz bump in BCLK frequency, we still consider Intel's Core i3-4160 to be a good starting point for gamers who might upgrade to a faster LGA 1150-based processor in the future."

 

What desktop applications make use of all 6 threads?  Very few.  The ones that do, are content creation programs.  This is a very niche place where all cores/threads are utilized, and the OP says this is for gaming, not content creation.  Also, the vast majority of things a person does on their computer is single threaded.  From Word, to iTunes, its single threaded.  It runs so much faster on Intel than FX.  I have used both, and there is a noticeable difference.  It is snappier on Intel.

 

So, the performance difference in many games is very slim, with the i3 pulling head by an unnoticeable amount(according to them) But, what happens when you play a game like Skyrim, Civilization, Platetside2, ARMA2/3, DayZ, Starcraft, any MMO, etc.. it is going to struggle on an FX no matter how high it is overclocked. The vast majority of games are GPU bound, but 1 out of 5 games is going to want those strong cores, which is what Intel provides.  That 5th game is going to run MUCH better on an i3 than any FX processor.  The i3 also affords you an upgrade path to an i5 or i7.

 

 

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

I'm sorry you bought an FX8, and paired it with an expensive CPU Cooler making it cost the same as an unlocked i5 which destroys the FX8 in every game, but you have to stop telling people to buy FX unless their specific needs and situation calls for it.  This is not one of those situations.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

We just keep throwing the same information back and forth....So anyway,

 

@jjwilson4 

 

like has been said across all of these comments. If you are looking for more upgrade room change your CPU to an i3 and look into an H97 MOBO. Especially if you are looking into Dual GPU's you will want to upgrade your CPU down the line anyway. As for your current build I still suggest looking into a M5A97 MOBO from Asus for a better MOBO as per your original request about your MOBO choice.

My Build | CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core | CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i | Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH Z170 S ATX LGA1151  | Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR4-2400 Memory | Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB & 250GB, Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM, HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB 7200RPM | Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB 100 Million Edition | Case: NZXT H440 (Black/Green) | Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified | OS: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro (64-bit) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory

×