Yoann Craniumz

There is nothing to fanboy over.  This is not a point of contention, this is proven that Intel is the vastly superior option for gaming, even an i3 is plainly beating an FX8 in the vast majority of games.  How can you deny that?  It is shown from multiple credible sources.  The only thing to fanboy over is AMD.  Are you saying you are completely oblivious to the performance and cost metrics in all of those scenarios?  If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, don't come at me with baseless conjecture.  I've done the research, others who are better respected and held in higher regard have done the research.  Its there, readily available for anyone to see.  There is unequivocal dissent towards the FX processors because they are just not strong enough.  They were seen as a failure when they were first released, and nothing has changed since then.
 
This forum needs a new version of a captcha.  If you can successfully read that below graph, and point out which value is greater, than you are smart enough to comment on this forum.  Are you smart enough to comment on this forum?  Can you even read a bar graph?
 

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, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 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 because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  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.
 
For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
 
I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.
My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.
 
The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
 

It is becoming more and more common to see games requiring more than a single thread. Around a year ago, a dual core intel processor made more sense than a multi core FX processor.
However, with the advancement in video games, developers are now leveraging more cores in games.
Such as, Farcry 4, Crysis 3, Call of Duty AW, BF4 and many others.
TLDR;
Stop recommending Pentium guys.

Subjective experience>Objective experiments... Ffs. The risk from vaccines are lower than the disease. Because I was ill from eating a snicker doesn't mean that those around me shouldn't be allowed to eat it. Also, with respect to the parent child property argument, if a child dies from a preventable disease because the parent did not WANT to give the child the adequate treatment, they are nothing short of murderers.

What is the problem? The human eye can only see 3 GB of VRAM anyways. 2.4 GB is more cinematic though.

This is not Comcast doing this.
 
This is a guy who works in a Call Center FOR Comcast that changed it.
Basically the same as a clerk at McDonalds that calls you an asshole.
Just someone that deals with you but has no ties to the company itself.
 
Has no reflection on Comcast besides they have an asshole customer service rep.

Hes saying that they are misleading people with the big "8gb"

Right and the AMD r9 295x2 has 8GBs of vram http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202108.

It pisses me off seeing people insult the card. It hasn't officially been announced and no official benchmarks have been released yet. We don't even know its pricing. It may not be a powerful card but price to performance is what us important for mid range gpu's. Want something more powerful, get a 970 or 980.

Get rid of coal power first(and/or other highly poluting form of power generation), then think about getting rid of nuclear.

Sweden is also a good example.

That CPU will absolutely bottleneck a high end GPU like the 970.  Even an FX8 bottlenecks the 970.
 
Should you still buy the 970?  Yes, because most games are GPU bound, but you will need to upgrade your CPU and motherboard to Intel sooner or later if you want to get the most out of your GPU and be able to play all games.
 
 
You.  Leave now.

Nearly 2015... The lowest end gtx and r7 pretty much beat the highest end from those days.

Wait he paid their funeral? 0_o

Probably just different revision of the cards.
 
Damn i miss Elric. Hope he get better soon. :( 

No because the quality of a game isn't judged by it's delivery platform.

Origin really isn't that bad. 

Again with the doctrine, not it isn't. Stop repeating this aging line. It's like saying AMD drivers are bad or Nvidia overheats all the time. 
You can't just keep repeating the same arguments for years without checking if it's still relevant.
 
On 4 cores, Haswell CPU's do more than AMD does on "8". And they have a higher overclockability.
 
You say you don't want shit in your topic, but your actions speak otherwise. You want this to turn into  a shitfest.

You're misinformed.  Its not your fault, propaganda and marketing is a strong tool.  I agree that an i5-4440 is the best option, but to tell someone to buy an FX6 over i3 for a game like Planetside2 is negligent.  Bellow is my spiel on why the FX is so bad, if you look at the graphs, and follow the links to the benchmarks, PS2 is shown there, and you can see the i3 doing double the minimum frame rates of an FX6.
 
 
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. 
 

No offence but:
 

 
But i do agree, Racing games are great on a controller. 
 
That's why I bought a controller for my PC

Well guys I've been doing my own research & analysis of the performance of AMD & Intel CPUs for sometime, I did not do tests personally however I tried to salvage as much knowledge as possible to try and answer a question that has been on my mind, which is how far ahead Intel really is? and that question led me to some very interesting realizations.

The discussion will be highly technical and might seem boring to some, I'll start off with the basics & end with the answer to the original question plus several others.

Ok let's begin, first off our discussion will be surrounding AMD's modular Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture & Intel's core series from Westmere to Sandy/Ivy & Haswell.

The Architectures : AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver

The building block of AMD's modular architecture is not an x86 core, it's an x86 module, this module contains everything that a core contains but with a number of components doubled, these components include the integer scheduler, its datapath, 16KB of L1 DCache & it's own load/store unit.
The doubling of these components is what gives the AMD module essentially two cores/threads.
The integer cores share the early pipeline stages (e.g. L1i, fetch, decode), the floating point unit, and the L2 cache with the rest of the module.


 
How this affects performance
Depending on the workload the quad module eight core AMD processors can either perform as eight processing units or as four and this depends entirely on the affinity of the workload to integer or floating point calculations.
If integer calculations are needed there are eight integer pipelines that can be used, however if floating point calculations are needed there are only four.

EA has changed a lot recently.

You just need to stop tinkering around with your PC and play games instead
 
I literally only buy new PC parts every 3 or 4 years when the PC starts grinding to a halt, I also have my PC hooked up to my TV so I can sit on the sofa with a headset and xbox controller to play games
 
I mostly only sit at my desk when editing, or playing FPS/RPGs
 
If your PC cant play it on ultra, stick it on high and enjoy the experience, PC gaming is not a dick measuring contest, I just recently completed black flag on my 11" laptop on lowest settings because it was the only computer I had access too, it was a GREAT time still
 
PC gaming is NOT about building rigs and messing around - sure that is a part of it, but PC gaming is about the freedom, using any controller you want, using a monitor and desk or sofa and TV, having 30 years of backwards compatibility, having settings that let us choose between frame rates and visual fidelity etc etc etc

The 280x have 256 more cores compare to the 280 but yeah not quite worth it for $82 extra.