Why is there a constant flame war on this thread?

[PlayModeOn]

Just today there were 3 people I saw who have to buy new motherboards because their budget FX compatible motherboards throttle even for stock speeds.  These people end up wasting money because some people are still running around saying the FX is great! It costs less! It works just as well in all games! When it is an outright lie.  I was helped a lot by this forum when I first came here, and I am trying to pay it forward.  It becomes brash and hostile people these people are claiming cigarettes don't cause lung cancer when it has been proven that they do!

Yep I am one of those people you saw today.

I was recommended an FX-8350 from the Battlefield 4 forums even though I didn't knew that AMD existed, I knew little about PC at the time (12 months ago) so I just went with it.

But now when I try games such as ARMA II/III and Skyrim there is a 20FPS difference between the FX-8350 and an i5 so I feel a bit cheated.

 

If only @Faceman was there to stop me then I wouldn't be upgrading to Intel (see my sig) instead I could be upgrading my PSU or add a second GPU right now.

[Faceman]

I read it and saw it thank you

 

I see your motivation and I like it although personally I think you should modify it/add more details to it with middle range cards, as many many people, who probably "lurking" in this forums, cannot afford a high end (280X/GTX 770 and above) card. So for someone, who has small money for GPU, and wants to do some work on a PC as well, an 8 core FX might be a good option ( for example in 3rd world countries, someone wants to learn photoshop and videoediting, and has no money for a good CPU, you get my idea)

 

 

I see your reason, but please, read my previous paragraph

 

yeah, insults are usually lead to flaming(will be edited)

The benefits in gaming far outweight the benefits in content creation, unless content creation is an integral part of what you do.  Also, if you see, not all aspects of content creation favor AMD.  Some programs favor strong cores over many weak ones.  Find the right tool for the job.  Always.

 

I don't think adding in anything about mid range cards will matter because it is the CPU that is the problem in that 5th game that is CPU bound.  Or what if someone wants to upgrade later on down the road?  They should be presented with the worst case scenario so that can avoid it now and in the future.  FX has the marketing and reputation as a budget option, but I've debunked that.  Granted there will always be those regions where Intel is prohibitively more expensive and you have to go with the FX, but outside of those circumstances, its the same argument.  Why pay more for 4 out of 5 games, when you can play 5 out of 5?  If you take a look at the steam hardware survey people are playing games that are made for 2-4 cores.  There are very few games that make use of more than 6 cores, and those that do, aren't getting a very tangible benefit, if they were, then all of these graphs would be showing the FX8 outperforming the "lowly" 4 core Intel.

[Fate]

I found this FX 8350 for $170

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009O7YUF6/?tag=pcpapi-20

 

Should I get that or an i3?

 

I absolutely cannot go over $170.

 

Please link so that I know where to buy it.

 

Thanks

Sorry I thought your budget included the motherboard.

If you're mainly doing things like photo editing, video rendering, etc, get the 8350 (though that's not really a good deal for $170, you could find it cheaper).

If you're gaming, get a locked i5 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JIJUBAS/?tag=pcpapi-20

I know it's $10 more than your budget, but it's generally $10 cheaper and if you wait a few days I'm sure you can find one for cheaper. 

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Yep I am one of those people you saw today.

I was recommended an FX-8350 from the Battlefield 4 forums even though I didn't knew that AMD existed, I knew little about PC at the time (12 months ago) so I just went with it.

But now when I try games such as ARMA II/III and Skyrim there is a 20FPS difference between the FX-8350 and an i5 so I feel a bit cheated.

 

If only @Faceman was there to stop me then I wouldn't be upgrading to Intel (see my sig) instead I could be upgrading my PSU or add a second GPU right now.

 

no doubt the 4790k is better. for anyone who has the money of course its the better buy. but 8350 does not suck in most games and its half the price the 4790k is. arma/dayz are poorly optimized games just like ubisoft (ubersuck) games.

[Faceman]

I found this FX 8350 for $170

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009O7YUF6/?tag=pcpapi-20

 

Should I get that or an i3?

 

I absolutely cannot go over $170.

 

Please link so that I know where to buy it.

 

Thanks

You cannot compare just the price of processor alone.  You have to factor in motherboard, cooling, and electricity costs.

 

What is the priority of your machine?  Is it gaming or content creation?  If content creation, which specific programs?

[Faceman]

no doubt the 4790k is better. for anyone who has the money of course its the better buy. but 8350 does not suck in most games and its half the price the 4790k is. arma/dayz are poorly optimized games just like ubisoft (ubersuck) games.

The i5-4440 is better, in all games.

 

You are just flat out trolling at this point and I'm putting you on ignore since you are not open minded and cannot use logic and reason.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

The i5-4440 is better, in all games.

 

You are just flat out trolling at this point and I'm putting you on ignore since you are not open minded and cannot use logic and reason.

lol okay bye felicia. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4440-vs-AMD-FX-8350

[PlayModeOn]

lol okay bye felicia. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4440-vs-AMD-FX-8350

He mentioned not to trust CPUBoss already.

And it doesn't show real world benchmarks. I got fooled into buying the FX-8350 by people and sites like these.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

He mentioned not to trust CPUBoss already.

And it doesn't show real world benchmarks. I got fooled into buying the FX-8350 by people and sites like these.

dude, your problem is you got the 8350 on a 970 that is not very good. if you had a 990fx and werent playing poorly optimized games you'd have a better experience. you're getting crappy performance prolly cause of your mb throttling,also could be your cooling... if you had twice the money for a cpu then yes you should have gone with a 4790k

[QuadNine]

lol okay bye felicia. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4440-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Ok I swear this is the last, The 8350 get crushed in single core due to the i5 having a better IPC( instuctions per clock ), The 8350 has more weak cores, so if you do things that use cores not strength then the 8350 all the way. most things use strong cores not many so the i5 is mainly a better choice

[Victor Golf]

It's not that FX processors aren't usable, because they definitely are, it's just that there are generally better options at the same price point. The reason people get upset is because other people recommend FX processors (mainly the 83xx/63xx) to people who are purely gaming, and it's flat out the inferior option 90% of the time. 

Now I'm not trying to get into a 'flame war' or argument with you, I'm just stating why this stuff happens.

 

Again, the FX series are fine for gaming, the 'i' series are better at this current state. Nobody on this forum is shaming (not sure if that's the correct word) FX users for owning FX processors, they're shaming FX users for recommending them to gamers.

I have no doubt that Intel is a better option for gaming. But just looking at some of the benchmarks that people post and say that "this CPU at this speed can't even beat this CPU at stock speeds" When the numbers they are mentioning are within 1-3 FPS range. This is not a noticeable difference! In other benchmarks, one CPU would get like 90FPS and the other would get like 150 FPS. That is simply unusable. Those types of results are not valid in my opinion because of the ridiculousness that they contain.

 

 

---

---

---

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

[/spoiler]

Most of these are a prime example of what I said.

[Faceman]

I'm using for web browsing (I always end up with ~10 tabs thanks to ADD) also for schoolwork (Office and crap). Games I play are Dota/CSGO with my friends. Maybe my brother will family share his Steam library.

 

I have a spare Hyper 212 and Mom/dad will sponsor a compatible mobo and GPU when I get the CPU. The rest I'm salvaging from an old rig.

Well, make sure some of the old components from the reused rig are compatible.  Check and double check.

 

The intel i5-4440 is going to be your best option at $170 for gaming and everyday use.  You only need an H81/B85 motherboard and you're good to go.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Ok I swear this is the last, The 8350 get crushed in single core due to the i5 having a better IPC( instuctions per clock ), The 8350 has more weak cores, so if you do things that use cores not strength then the 8350 all the way. most things use strong cores not many so the i5 is mainly a better choice

true depending on what i5. at stock the 8350 has something like 1500 passmark score for single core while a 4440 has 1888. so yes you're corrrect there...at stock. overclocking the 8350 raising fsb to get 4.8 ghz i get single core speed score of 1700+....so yeah. a stock i5 4440 beats it barely core for core after i heavily overclock the 8350. but the 8350 still has 4 more cores.  

 

i will admit a 4690k smokes it at stock with a single core score of 2400+

 

yes intel wins..but the fx 8 cores can overclock heavily to close the gap some.

[PlayModeOn]

dude, your problem is you got the 8350 on a 970 that is not very good. if you had a 990fx and werent playing poorly optimized games you'd have a better experience. if you had twice the money for a cpu then yes you should have gone with a 4790k

I remember everyone calling Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes very "optimised". But not on AMD.

 

So you are basically telling me to move to an Intel platform so I'll "have a better experience". Yes I should've gotten an i5 which is only $20 more (here in Australia 12 months ago) and it is compatible with 99% of the games in contrast to 89% with AMD.

And I don't know how a motherboard would make such an impact on performance. Linus did a test on a sub-$100 motherboard vs a top of the line ASUS motherboard and there was only like 2-3 FPS  difference max or virtually none at all depending on the game.

[Faceman]

I have no doubt that Intel is a better option for gaming. But just looking at some of the benchmarks that people post and say that "this CPU at this speed can't even beat this CPU at stock speeds" When the numbers they are mentioning are within 1-3 FPS range. This is not a noticeable difference! In other benchmarks, one CPU would get like 90FPS and the other would get like 150 FPS. That is simply unusable. Those types of results are not valid in my opinion because of the ridiculousness that they contain.

 

Most of these are a prime example of what I said.

How are those results not usable?  Yes, there are some games that show a small margin of difference, while others there is a large margin.  Also, where are you seeing benchmarks of the same game of one CPU getting 90fps while the other is getting 150fps?  The only game I double benchmark is the BF4 Multiplayer, and you can see it scales fairly linearly on both the FX and i5.  The FX8 has to be overclocked the 5Ghz to match the i5-4440 @ 3.1Ghz in Multiplayer BF4.

[PlayModeOn]

Maybe I should "upgrade" from the FX-8350 to the i3 4330.

[Faceman]

I remember everyone calling Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes very "optimised". But not on AMD.

So you are basically telling me to move to an Intel platform so I'll "have a better experience". Yes I should've gotten an i5 which is only $20 more (here in Australia 12 months ago) and it is compatible with 99% of the games in contrast to 89% with AMD.

And I don't know how a motherboard would make such an impact on performance. Linus did a test on a sub-$100 motherboard vs a top of the line ASUS motherboard and there was only like 2-3 FPS  difference max or virtually none at all depending on the game.

Motherboard on Intel from Haswell and forward doesn't make a difference because the voltage regulation is done on the chip.  Whereas with AMD, the voltage regulation is done on the motherboard, and these are incredibly power hungry CPUs that need excellent voltage regulation otherwise they throttle.  Don't forget $10+ per year in energy bill!  That goes up when you overclock and if you use your computer more than 3 hours per day.

 

The argument DialUpBrainSpeed made is silly.  So because the vast majority of people like games that run on 2-4 cores, its your fault for buying an 8 Core?  Or is it the game makers fault for making a game aimed towards what the vast majority of people have(2-4core processors)?  No.  That is backwards logic. I will say again, why buy a platform that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when for the same price you can play 5 out of 5 games?

[Faceman]

Thanks all I'm going with the i5-4440 for $176. Surely I can find $6 lying around somewhere.

 

Big thanks to Faceman for his suggestion

Pair it with an H81 or B85 motherboard and you're good to go!

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

I remember everyone calling Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes very "optimised". But not on AMD.

So you are basically telling me to move to an Intel platform so I'll "have a better experience". Yes I should've gotten an i5 which is only $20 more (here in Australia 12 months ago) and it is compatible with 99% of the games in contrast to 89% with AMD.

And I don't know how a motherboard would make such an impact on performance. Linus did a test on a sub-$100 motherboard vs a top of the line ASUS motherboard and there was only like 2-3 FPS  difference max or virtually none at all depending on the game.

because the motherboard you have only has a 4+1 power phase and maxes out at 140W. it would throttle bad especially if you tried overclocking or dont have good cooling

 

either way, it wont perform well in the games you mentioned and intel is the better route and the superior cpu. i also admit im going to upgrade probably to the 4790k or see what better comes along but yes i recommend to anyone who has the money just go 4790k

[Rubenis]

Problem mainly is that people do suggest to new builds FX procesors, but mostly it is not so good suggestion. FX has older platform, no future proof, and to be honest usually they are not so much cheaper to.

 

For example:

FX 6300 + 760 chpset motherboard is about the same price as i3 + h81(or B85) motherboard.

FX 83XX + 970 chipset motherboard usually is the same price as i5 4460 and H81 motherboard.

 

But keeping Intel single thread performance in mind, i3 or i5 would be more logical buy. But for rendering for cheap FX is better.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

there is no such thing as future proofing a computer. you can get the best stuff money can buy...and 6 months later there will be new stuff that outperforms and is cheaper.

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

honestly...the g3258 is an awesome cpu for single core speed games as its at 2100 passmark score at stock and can oc to 4.8 making the single core faster than most cpus. but would lack heavily in multiplayer games with lots of people

[Dabombinable]

A Core 2 Duo at 4GHz does 1748 million operations per second, in comparison an FX 8350 that is 3-4 years newer and @ 4GHz only does 1566 million operations per second, and an i7 5820k @ 3.3GHz does 2132 mops. (note that this is all based on a single core.) If you don't believe me, go onto passmark and look for the OC rig in my signature, and compare to one of the FX 8350's in the list (I'd post the images, but I already posted them in another thread and I don't want to spam).

[PlayModeOn]

A Core 2 Duo at 4GHz does 1748 million operations per second, in comparison an FX 8350 that is 3-4 years newer and @ 4GHz only does 1566 million operations per second, and an i7 5820k @ 3.3GHz does 2132 mops. (note that this is all based on a single core.) If you don't believe me, go onto passmark and look for the OC rig in my signature, and compare to one of the FX 8350's in the list (I'd post the images, but I already posted them in another thread and I don't want to spam).

What about the i7 4790k?

[Dabombinable]

What about the i7 4790k?

At 4GHz an i7 4790k can do 2762 mops (each cpu will get slightly better or worse results).

-snip- here you go