I want to upgrade. FX8350 or I5 4690K or I7 4790K

[dandrix]

85% and 59% GPU usage, you literally just made a point against yourself. Or am I reading that wrong?

Either way, BF4 is the perfect game for FX-8350. It's the game FX users always fall back on. 

I encourage you to read my signature in entirety so you can see for yourself that FX chips are not comparable to i5's and WILL bottleneck high end GPU's.You wr You looked at fi

He stopped the gameplay, thats why you saw those percentages.

And it showed that FX 8350 can easily handle 120 fps and clearly showed your provided benchmarks are fake. My god you failed so hard here LOL

[Majestic]

Luckily noone will take him seriously but himself. 

[runit3]

Well being budget minded and having no personal preference beyond use:cost:performance I'll say this:

Ultra budget=you already have a great board to support FX-8. The only thing you would need is a used Fx-8 and an AIO or beast air cooler to support it. ~$200-300 depending on your location and luck on Ebay.

Intel upgrade= 4690k +Z97 +moderate air cooler for moderate OC ~$350-400. Sell your Formula for ~$100 and you're right back to the same cost of the FX route

Now comes the important part. Since cost wise it is roughly equal for the two options the games that you play on a regular basis are the most important differentiating feature. If all you play is AAA titles that actually utilize more than 3-4 cores either route will yield roughly the same result. BF4, Dragon Age Inq, COD:AW, etc. will all yield the same gameplay results with 1080p @60HZ.

If you are using a monitor OVER 60HZ Intel is the only choice.

If you play ANY older games or games that only utilize 1-2 cores Intel is the only reasonable choice to achieve what I would describe as acceptable gameplay, even at 1080p 60HZ. Games that fall into this category are anything from Blizzard, MMO's, ARMA, Day Z, etc. FX has weak cores. Not an opinion, objectively obvious fact with a plethora of benchmarks to back that evidence up.

The choice is yours, but if it was my build I'd go the Intel route.

[Guest Kloaked]

Well i got this right here, proving FX 8350 can handle 2 770s with avg fps of 120.

I have two 770's in SLI and I can tell you for a fact they will not average 120fps in Battlefield 4 unless you turn settings down. I'll watch the video in a bit when I'm at my desk, but I'm calling bs

[Fate]

He stopped the gameplay, thats why you saw those percentages.

And it showed that FX 8350 can easily handle 120 fps and clearly showed your provided benchmarks are fake. My god you failed so hard here LOL

Oh yea one random video from one random dude who I'm absolutely sure isn't biased of his own rig completely disproves four reputable websites who do it for a living. 

[Victorious Secret]

Oh youre becoming desperate i see.

 

I'll say this kindly. Stop being an asshole on a subforum like these where people ask for real help and now fanboy nonsense. 

[dandrix]

I have two 770's in SLI and I can tell you for a fact they will not average 120fps in Battlefield 4 unless you turn settings down. I'll watch the video in a bit when I'm at my desk, but I'm calling bs

Old i5 with dual 770s and you cant get stable 120 fps ? What a suprise there...

[Guest Kloaked]

Old i5 with dual 770s and you cant get stable 120 fps ? What a suprise there...

Good thing my i5 outperforms an 8350 in gaming.

[dandrix]

I'll say this kindly. Stop being an asshole on a subforum like these where people ask for real help and now fanboy nonsense. 

You turning on wrong person here.

[dandrix]

Good thing my i5 outperforms an 8350 in gaming.

In games like Arma 3 and StarCraft 2 who use single threading, still you must be pushing that i5 hard on overclock to do so.

[Majestic]

You turning on wrong person here.

 

And you have yet to provide evidence to support your claim, except for some weak personal video. So again, provide evidence from a respectable source proving your point.

 

All you're doing now is insulting people and hijacking another person's topic for some retarded, unexplained reason.

[dandrix]

And you have yet to provide evidence to support your claim, except for some weak personal video. So again, provide evidence from a respectable source proving your point.

Havent seen your evidence yet, you just talk about facts that havent been proven by genuine unbiaused proof yet.

[Majestic]

Havent seen your evidence yet, you just talk about facts that havent been proven by genuine unbiaused proof yet.

 

Like was explained to you three times already. Both mine and Fate's signature.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-4#entry3620861

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://linustechtips...u-showdown-wip/

http://linustechtips...-3#entry3892901

http://linustechtips...-4#entry3620861

http://linustechtips...ween-amd-intel/

[Majestic]

Oh woe is me.

[dylan43270]

I wish I had the time to cover this topic in detail...

 

At this price bracket I would suggest an Intel over AMD, which I can only recommend AMD for budget builds, or if you only play certain games.

 

Last year I was perfectly happy running an FX6300 and crossfired 270x's in all the games I played, which gave me a solid 60FPS in all games, including WoW.

 

It all depends on the budget, and the games you play. I would never suggest spending more on your CPU than your GPU for a gaming rig.

 

If you really want to go AMD I would suggest a 6300 over the 8350, as it has better single core performance, but unless it is on sale you can get a better bang for your buck with Intel currently with a locked i5.

 

I also hate the term bottlenecked, because even if it is a 1FPS difference it would still be considered bottlenecking your GPU.

 

TL;DR I have a FX6300, Intel 4690k, and a Xeon x5650 and they all do perfectly fine for gaming for the games that I play.

[Majestic]

6300 and 8350 have identical single-core performance. And noone is talking about budget routes.

[dylan43270]

6300 and 8350 have identical single-core performance. And noone is talking about budget routes.

I could be wrong about that, as I have not done much research about it, but that could be from different stock clock speeds.

 

There is always a budget in mind.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

-snipped video-

 

Okay, two things.

 

1. The guy is no where near any players or any action at all, so I would hardly call that an average. I bet an FM2+ chip could get that much in that setting.

2. This isn't an actual benchmark; see reason 1*.

 

 

In games like Arma 3 and StarCraft 2 who use single threading, still you must be pushing that i5 hard on overclock to do so.

 

Pretty sure my 2500k would outperform an 8350 in both of those games.

 

 

I also wish you people on this forum would stop resorting to calling everyone a fanboy when someone disagrees with your conclusion about performance between two brands. Intel will beat AMD in gaming every time, and it's been proven time and time again. Is it worth the premium? That's up to you. Nobody is shaming anyone, just don't go around spreading false information.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Well I have an FX6350 (the 6core version of the 8350) and my minimum fps in BioShock Infinite on ultra with a single R9 280x is 29. So yeah, something is messed up with your benchmark if SLI 770's are getting between 10-15 minimum fps. This is not coming from "fanboyism" as I have systems running Intel and AMD. Unfortunately the only one I have that's on par with what he's talking about is the one I just named. Not to mention the post creator said he's tired of looking at benchmarks and bantering. Good job guys, none of you can read!

On a serious topic, if you want 60fps at 1080p running SLI, there's gonna be some inconsistencies. Some games don't scale well or at all when running SLI (or crossfire) so maybe turn a couple sliders down regardless of which CPU you go with. I can get 60fps on my Pentium G3258+GTX 750Ti rig at 1080p if I have my system on medium/med-high settings. The impact you'll see with one of those higher end CPU's is negligeable. And I'm with you, sir, I'm sick and tired of the benchmarks and banter between butthurt fanboys.

[Claydelas]

Source: 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

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

 

 

"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.  This also doesn't bode well for the future because as GPUs get more powerful, the FX will simply not be able to keep up with even mid-range GPUs.  As of now, the highest end GPU I would pair with an FX that won't limit its potential is an R9 280/GTX770.

 

There are very few games that are very well multithreaded, and even in those games, such as CoD:AW, an i3 is still beating out an FX9.  The reason behind this is because games typically have one main thread, Core #0.  When this main thread is being choked by poor single core performance, the rest of the threads struggle.  So even in these really well multithreaded PC port games, we are still seeing Intel processors beating out FXs because their poor IPC simply can't give as good as results on that main thread.

 

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.  That's a big red flag.

-Source

 

67482.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.

 

A man(Faa) who knows a lot more about this than me did some research and found, to the surprise of no one, that games just aren't using more than 4 threads, and the ones that do, aren't benefiting as much as you would think from those extra cores/threads.  I'm going to link you over to his research that shows how cores/threads have an impact on gaming performance.  It is a great read with a lot of interesting information, as well as a few links to other more reputable review websites doing testing on many popular mainstream games.  For the most part, games are using 2-4 threads.  And the few that can take advantage of more threads, aren't really benefiting from them. Of course in some games, the FX8 is going to do much better than the FX4, but looking over benchmarks from the gaming graphs above, and all of the links in the i3 > FX8 spoiler, the FX4,6,8 processors are mostly lumped together with very little difference between them.  An example:  For every game that the FX8 actually does a lot better than the FX4, there are 5 games that only show a ~10% improvement.

 

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.  This niche area is where the FX processors really shine because those programs benefit from many cores able to execute highly repetitive tasks.  Please note that not all content creation programs benefit from 8 cores, some programs do still prefer the strong cores of Intel, so please check and see if the program you specifically plan to use benefits from more cores, or stronger ones.

 

This is PCMark 7, it is a FutureMark benchmark that "is a complete PC benchmark that measures overall system performance during typical desktop usage across a range of activities such as handling images and video, web browsing and gaming. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system."

-PCMark 7

PCMark7.png

This shows that while the performance in daily workloads is similar, Intel is still ahead.  Also consider that these are older generation Intel processors that have since been improved upon, only further increasing the result in Intel's favor for daily tasks.  Think multi-tasking is better on the FX8 because of all those cores?  Nope.

multi-fps.gif

 

Some more productivity benchmarks for your enjoyment:

photoshop.png

---

premiere.png

---

aftereffects.png

---

lightroom.png

---

x264.png

---

photo_cs6_op.png

---

blender.png

---

3dmax.png

---

autocad.png

---

67478.png

---

67475.png

---

67476.png

---

67485.png

---

 

The FX processors do have some strengths, just make sure that you are using a program that maximizes those strengths because as shown above, even in some multithreaded programs, the i5-4690k still comes out ahead.  In my opinion the gaming benefits of a locked i5, far outweigh the productivity(certain programs) benefits of the FX8.  You will have to personally weigh the pros and cons of what your priorities of your computer will be, and make your decision based on that, but if I'm building a gaming computer with a side of content creation, I will take the better gaming results over a 20 second(arbitrary number) shorter render time.

 

Sources:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/2

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_6.html#sect0

http://pclab.pl/art57691-12.html

 

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.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

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.  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, and that is a conservative, no-overclock estimate.  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 and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.

 

 

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

 

Temperatures:

I hear the argument that AMD runs cooler than Intel, and this is a really silly misconception.  I can understand why someone would think that it does, but the temperatures from AMD processors are inaccurate.  They don't measure the cores, they measure the socket, cores tend to be hotter than the socket by a fair amount, and its an algorithm, not a direct measurement like with Intel. It is against the laws of physics for an FX processor to be less hot than an Intel one.  The FX draws much more power.  At stock, the FX8 draws 125W compared to 84/88W of an i5. The FX processor heats up the room much more as well.  I know in my friends' house who owns the FX, his room is sweltering after just an hour of gaming.

 

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO"

 

-Source

 

 

This is an excellent comparison done by Paulsterio of the forums.  You should really read through the entire above link, it is a great and detailed read. Here is the conclusion in Paulsterio's words.

 

"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.

 

 

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX.  If you need to educate yourself on what VRMs are and why they are so important, please refer to this link about VRMs and Mosfets.  That link is slightly dated, being last updated in 2012, but the basic educational information in it remains the same.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $229.94

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 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/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

 

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

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

 

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

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

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 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/MDtBGX

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

 

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

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 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  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

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

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

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

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

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 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/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

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

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

 

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

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

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

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 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/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

 

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

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 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  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 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.

 

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.

 

Here is another member, UnbendingNose who was told on this very forum to buy an FX8 because it won't hold back an R9 290, and an ASRock Extreme 3 wont throttle his CPU.  Both of which are false.  Here are his two posts, the one where he is asking for advice on what to buy, and the 2nd where he is unhappy with his FX8320s performance because of bottlenecking and throttling.  He finally ended up buying an i5, which is what he should have done in the first place, and miraculously, to the surprise of no one, his performance in every single game improved, most notably minimum fps.

 

 

I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

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.  $225 equals $225 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

[FruitBasketSilex]

He stopped the gameplay, thats why you saw those percentages.

And it showed that FX 8350 can easily handle 120 fps and clearly showed your provided benchmarks are fake. My god you failed so hard here LOL

You are litteraly the most stubborn person I've ever met.

[Fate]

Hey @Claydelas when you paste can you do Ctrl + Shift + V? That way it pastes as plain text and doesn't come out all wonky (at least it did for me on night theme). 

[Mew]

Hey @Claydelas when you paste can you do Ctrl + Shift + V? That way it pastes as plain text and doesn't come out all wonky (at least it did for me on night theme). 

 

Do that or right click> paste as plain text.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Source: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/298264-fx-8350-mobo/?p=4049488

Post by - Faceman

I just copy pasted it as well for people that won't click the link, but I don't take credit for writing, it's all written by the noble forum member Faceman.That post made me buy i5-4460 instead of fx-8350 and I get amazing results on ultra gaming and comparing my performance to benchmarks, holy *** man, are they amazing! Just read it thorough!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the purpose of your build is gaming, do not buy AMD. If you do absolutely have to buy AMD, the Gigabyte 970A-UD3P is the best motherboard of that bunch, but please read below as to why AMD is not good for gaming, and even for some content creation depending on the program.

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.

This post is inaccurate in various instances. The highest grade AMD chip to date is the FX9590, NOT the FX8350. The 9590 not only outperforms the 4690K without overclocking, but can overclock higher in most cases. The power savings are not as insane as the charts my suggest and aren't going to impact the power bill of someone who does gaming. Even if they have their system running 24/7 (which most gamers don't do) a large portion of the time it will be inactive (sleep or hibernation) which consumes almost no power regardless of which platform you are running. Intel has stronger single thread performance than AMD, that's a fact. But for your money, AMD is a better choice. Why do I say that? Because as of today (Feb. 13, 2015) you can get an AMD FX9590, the REAL MOST POWERFUL red side processor, for the exact same price as an Intel i5 4690k on newegg (retail $239.99). An FX8350, is $179.99, and you'll get lesser performance out of it. Wow! It's $60 less and it's not as strong a processor!? Who would have thought?!

This not about 10,000 charts online comparing processors that are not of the same caliber OR PRICE. 8350's can be gotten for as low as $140, and will outperform any Intel processor at that price, unless you bum a used i5 off eBay, good luck. Linus did this wonderful video on price to performance regarding graphics cards. The same can apply to processors at a certain point when it comes to comparison between different brands. And I guess I should bring up a football analogy (on any given sunday, ANY team can beat ANY OTHER TEAM). To list another part of these pro benchmarks that nobody ever addresses: it's called the silicone lottery. Links addressed that too when he did his video on the Pentium G3258. Some processors overclock better than others. And guess what else? Some processors are just better than others at stock speeds too! My personal G3258 I was able to overclock to 4.8GHz. And my 6350 is clocked at 4.6GHz. Done games I play only utilize 1 or 2 cores, so obviously the Pentium much have beaten the 6350 since Intel's single core performance is better than AMD's! WRONG! That's not how it turns out at all. My 6350 averages 15-20 fps higher on average on single or dual-threaded games.

I don't have the technical expertise to explain why, but those are my results. "But the Pentium is half the cost of a 6350!" Right you are! (Kind of) And the 8350 is roughly the same difference in price less than a 4690k. And gets roughly that same difference in performance less in games (15-20fps difference).

The difference in price roughly equates to the difference in performance!?

Who

Would

Have

Thought.

[FruitBasketSilex]

This post is inaccurate in various instances. The highest grade AMD chip to date is the FX9590, NOT the FX8350. The 9590 not only outperforms the 4690K without overclocking, but can overclock higher in most cases. The power savings are not as insane as the charts my suggest and aren't going to impact the power bill of someone who does gaming. Even if they have their system running 24/7 (which most gamers don't do) a large portion of the time it will be inactive (sleep or hibernation) which consumes almost no power regardless of which platform you are running. Intel has stronger single thread performance than AMD, that's a fact. But for your money, AMD is a better choice. Why do I say that? Because as of today (Feb. 13, 2015) you can get an AMD FX9590, the REAL MOST POWERFUL red side processor, for the exact same price as an Intel i5 4690k on newegg (retail $239.99). An FX8350, is $179.99, and you'll get lesser performance out of it. Wow! It's $60 less and it's not as strong a processor!? Who would have thought?!

This not about 10,000 charts online comparing processors that are not of the same caliber OR PRICE. 8350's can be gotten for as low as $140, and will outperform any Intel processor at that price, unless you bum a used i5 off eBay, good luck. Linus did this wonderful video on price to performance regarding graphics cards. The same can apply to processors at a certain point when it comes to comparison between different brands. And I guess I should bring up a football analogy to list another part of these pro benchmarks that nobody ever addresses: it's called the silicone lottery. Links addressed that too when he did his video on the Pentium G3258. Some processors overclock better than others. And guess what else? Some processors are just better than others at stock speeds too! My personal G3258 I was able to overclock to 4.8GHz. And my 6350 is clocked at 4.6GHz. Done games I play only utilize 1 or 2 cores, so obviously the Pentium much have beaten the 6350 since Intel's single core performance is better than AMD's! WRONG! That's not how it turns out at all. My 6350 averages 15-20 fps higher on average on single or dual-threaded games.

I don't have the technical expertise to explain why, but those are my results. "But the Pentium is half the cost of a 6350!" Right you are! (Kind of) And the 8350 is roughly the same difference in price less than a 4690k. And gets roughly that same difference in performance less in games (15-20fps difference).

The difference in price roughly equates to the difference in performance!?

Who

Would

Have

Thought.

You and dandrix both, man. You both.