Why go Haswell?

[RubyRoks]

For budget gaming, if i were to go Intel, what reasons are there that would make me want to go with Haswell over Ivy Bridge?
MoBos and mid/low to high end CPUs are similar price, but the sub i3 line is WAY cheaper on the last gen hardware
any compelling arguments?

[Chriz6097]

6 Sata III ports on intel chipset. Great for storage whores I guess.

[Tmh85]

Don't go i3 route get an 8320 and a 990fxa ud3

[RubyRoks]

 

6 Sata III ports on intel chipset. Great for storage whores I guess.

1: i only have 2 things to use SATA on, so that isn't a big deal, but it's nice

 

Don't go i3 route get an 8320 and a 990fxa ud3

2: I brought up the sub i3 because that's what i'm looking into as a start point. There's nothing too super on the AM3+ socket that isn't the same price as an i3 or i5

[tp95112]

Don't go i3 route get an 8320 and a 990fxa ud3

I second this. If your on a tight budget AMD is the way to go.

[Me1z]

Better performance, slightly better integrated graphics, and lower power consumption. Haswell may not overclock as well as Ivy, but if you aren't overclocking I'd say Haswell is worth it.

[Jvagle875]

There isn't really a reason to go with Haswell over Ivy other than upgradability and a few perks from the 87 chipset.If you are thinking of "budget gaming" I would give AMD a consideration though

[tp95112]

 

 

1: i only have 2 things to use SATA on, so that isn't a big deal, but it's nice

 

2: I brought up the sub i3 because that's what i'm looking into as a start point. There's nothing too super on the AM3+ socket that isn't the same price as an i3 or i5

 

THere the same price and probably even better depending on what you need

[Jvagle875]

 

 

1: i only have 2 things to use SATA on, so that isn't a big deal, but it's nice

 

2: I brought up the sub i3 because that's what i'm looking into as a start point. There's nothing too super on the AM3+ socket that isn't the same price as an i3 or i5

 

If you are going to upgrade soon, I would advise you save your money a bit longer. Don't buy something bad now and upgrade later. You're spending money twice. I've been down that route, not fun.

[Tmh85]

 

 

1: i only have 2 things to use SATA on, so that isn't a big deal, but it's nice

 

2: I brought up the sub i3 because that's what i'm looking into as a start point. There's nothing too super on the AM3+ socket that isn't the same price as an i3 or i5

 

But the 8320 out performs the i3 (And the i5 in some applications) or get a 6300 (Still better than i3) which is around 100 dollars and 8320 is 150 dollars

Am3+ Is a great budget to performance ratio chipset and is completely worth every penny

[Faa]

But the 8320 out performs the i3 (And the i5 in some applications) or get a 6300 (Still better than i3) which is around 100 dollars and 8320 is 150 dollars

Am3+ Is a great budget to performance ratio chipset and is completely worth every penny

99% of the games don't take advantage of more than 2 cores so an i3 will be overall 20-25% faster than a FX 9590 single core performance wise. An i3 is a better choice.

[Ryan Leech]

Don't go with Haswell. An AMD product or even an older intel would be better.

[Ryan Leech]

99% of the games don't take advantage of more than 2 cores so an i3 will be overall 20-25% faster than a FX 9590 single core performance wise. An i3 is a better choice.

Are you trying to say that 3.3GHz Haswell is 20% faster than 5GHz Piledriver?

[renz62]

if you're on a budget build, go AMD. if not, go Intel

[RubyRoks]

did...did i just start a flame war?...

I've done a lot of research, and the Intel chips out perform the AMD on single thread, but the second you go multi-thread, AMD blows Intel out of the water.

but keep in mind, the MoBo budget is around $50 and the CPU budget is $80
The cheapest MoBos i can find on AM3+, FM2+/FM2, and LGA 1150 on newegg are about $45 to $50
the most decent, yet cheap, MoBo on LGA 1155 is $42.99, giving me more to work with on the CPU

Right now, i'm looking at a $300 dollar parts list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231439
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171046
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138374
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116777
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150542

any help would be nice, but i think this might be the best i can do

[Mindtrickz]

Better performance ~15%, lower power consumption and better features.

[Faa]

Are you trying to say that 3.3GHz Haswell is 20% faster than 5GHz Piledriver?

Yes is it required to prove this?

8350@5GHz: http://i.imgur.com/kAqay.png

Inte i3 Ivy bridge: http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

The i3 haswell is 10-12% faster than the Ivy bridge. I3 HW will sit at 1.50 and that 8350 at 1.32

 

 

games that aren't multithreaded are usually not all that affected by single core performance these days, More often than not they are pretty undemanding games that can be run well on almost any half decent CPU.

 

 

Almost all games do take advantage of more than 1 core so they are multithreaded so how does that make sense if a single threaded app isn't effected by single core performance? WoW, SC2, BL2, Skyrim, Civ 5, Total war rome, Sniper elite V2 and much more are pretty lightthreaded and theyre freaking CPU bound. AMD is sitting at 20 fps in 25m raids up in a 10 year old mmo.

 

Alot of games released in the last 5 years will be single core performance reliant, but that advantage means bugger all in terms of FPS though. But almost every engine out now is multi threaded and saying an i3 is better than even a 6300 is foolish. Yes a 6300 will lose out in some older games by a few fps, but that loss is more than made up for when it comes to current games and also looking into the future.

 

Almost every engine is  heavily multithreaded? There's so far only two Cryengine & Frostbite. Ill leave this review here where only game uses more than 2 cores and thats BF3. Overall an i3 is a better choice as I proved it outperforms 9590 in terms of single core performance in a floating point benchmark and games aren't doing anything else than FP calcs.

[Antistatic12]

Considering i3's dont turbo boost, maybe go with the AMD equivalent and OC the heck out of it.
or consider getting an i5/i7. I am not to familiar with AMD so I will let others talk about that, however their hexacores are so much cheaper than Intel's, I know that much from experience

I am not the best person to talk about budget rigs, but have you considered a used 2500K/2600k/2700K that clocks at 4.8-5ghz.
I am sure there are many floating around as people upgraded. and as long as the mobo is of decent quality you should be fine. Just a suggestion.

[chesleywan]

did...did i just start a flame war?...

I've done a lot of research, and the Intel chips out perform the AMD on single thread, but the second you go multi-thread, AMD blows Intel out of the water.

but keep in mind, the MoBo budget is around $50 and the CPU budget is $80

The cheapest MoBos i can find on AM3+, FM2+/FM2, and LGA 1150 on newegg are about $45 to $50

the most decent, yet cheap, MoBo on LGA 1155 is $42.99, giving me more to work with on the CPU

Right now, i'm looking at a $300 dollar parts list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231439

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817171046

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138374

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116777

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150542

any help would be nice, but i think this might be the best i can do

I'm doing an ITX Haswell build that is just a tad more than what you have listed there; getting an MSI H81I and Pentium G3420. (However, I'm salvaging a couple parts and some were purchased second-hand.) The CPU performance should be close to a Sandy Bridge i3, which is more than enough. If you're tight on a budget now and you want to upgrade in the future, going Haswell now will allow you more upgrade potential in the future, assuming the next gen Intel CPUs will continue with the LGA 1150 socket.

 

>> Basically, price really shouldn't be an issue between Haswell and Ivy Bridge. You're just getting more features with Haswell and upgrade potential.

 

With regards to that parts list, that H61 board doesn't have SATA III or USB 3.0. The lowest-end Haswell chipset (H81) has both of those features by default. From reviews I've read, that PSU has exactly the same internals at the 400W CM Elite -- may be wasting a bit of money there. RAM is annoyingly expensive. If you try buying second-hand, you might be able to get a much better video card for that price.

[Jumper118]

You didn't read anything I said at all did you? Just what you wanted to hear

 

That's alright though, you go enjoy your inferior performance Not like it's bothering me

Just ignore him mate, if you look at his other posts he is just a troll that seems to think a haswell i3 is the best cpu ever 

 

Considering i3's dont turbo boost, maybe go with the AMD equivalent and OC the heck out of it.

or consider getting an i5/i7. I am not to familiar with AMD so I will let others talk about that, however their hexacores are so much cheaper than Intel's, I know that much from experience

I am not the best person to talk about budget rigs, but have you considered a used 2500K/2600k/2700K that clocks at 4.8-5ghz.

I am sure there are many floating around as people upgraded. and as long as the mobo is of decent quality you should be fine. Just a suggestion.

That is true. I went from a fx6200 to a 2550K@5ghz and there was a good improvement in performance.

[Faa]

You didn't read anything I said at all did you? Just what you wanted to hear

 

That's alright though, you go enjoy your inferior performance Not like it's bothering me

I did and fixed your wrong stuff.

 

Just ignore him mate, if you look at his other posts he is just a troll that seems to think a haswell i3 is the best cpu ever 

Show me where I've said that otherwise you're being the troll here making your own fiction stories.

[Suika]

99% of the games don't take advantage of more than 2 cores so an i3 will be overall 20-25% faster than a FX 9590 single core performance wise. An i3 is a better choice.

While you might be right on the single threaded performance, that doesn't mean an i3 is a better gaming processor. Nine times out of ten, the 8350 gives a higher average FPS in gaming than even an i7-3770k. Maybe bigger dips too, but higher averages. If 99% of games were actually single threaded, then this wouldn't hold true, and the FX line wouldn't be as popular as it is. But the FX line is popular, and benchmarks exist to prove the FX-8350 outperforms even a 3770k in gaming.

Percentage wise, however, you are extremely incorrect. An i3 outperforms better than the 9590 by way less than 10%. Or 5%. Maybe about 1%. Haswell, Ivy, and Sandy included. It does, but by miniscule and unoticable amounts.

[Faa]

While you might be right on the single threaded performance, that doesn't mean an i3 is a better gaming processor. Nine times out of ten, the 8350 gives a higher average FPS in gaming than even an i7-3770k. Maybe bigger dips too, but higher averages. If 99% of games were actually single threaded, then this wouldn't hold true, and the FX line wouldn't be as popular as it is. But the FX line is popular, and benchmarks exist to prove the FX-8350 outperforms even a 3770k in gaming.

Percentage wise, however, you are extremely incorrect. An i3 outperforms better than the 9590 by way less than 10%. Or 5%. Maybe about 1%. Haswell, Ivy, and Sandy included. It does, but by miniscule and unoticable amounts.

A Sandybridge i3 is like 20% slower than an i3 so add to that 68fps a 20% gain so thats 81.6fps. A 8350@5GHz would be a 800MHz or 1000MHz OC so thats an overclock of 25% so add to 58 fps 25% make 71.6 fps passing a Sandy bridge i3 but 10 fps behind an i3 HW.

Source where the cpu is the limiting factor to avoid the gpu being the limiting factor: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Saints%20Row%20IV/test/sr4%20proz.jpg

And your 9 of the ten 8350 performing better is complety wrong. A 8350@4.8GHz is upto 100% slower than an i7 3770K@4.8GHz as being proved here: http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

[FellTheSky]

i have just put a computer together for a friend. Just bought a i5 3330 used for 125$ locally, and put it into a b75 mobo. No reason for going haswell if you are in a budget.

 

No need to turn this into another amd vs nvidia guys. It depends on the games/applications he play/use.  A 8320 is perfectly fine (and better for modern games). But my friend does play a lot of WoW, so ive decided to go for the 3330. 

[Suika]

And your 9 of the ten 8350 performing better is complety wrong. A 8350@4.8GHz is upto 100% slower than an i7 3770K@4.8GHz as being proved here: http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

That review has the 3770k significantly overclocked as compared to the 8350 which is moderately overclocked. Just because they're both at 4.8GHz doesn't mean it's the exact same overclock in percentage. I mean, the FX can probably achieve that on air cooling, the 3770k not so much. I could easily get my 8350 past 5GHz on water, maybe even on air if I felt comfortable with 70-80C temps (I don't.). Comparing an i7 at 4.5GHz to an FX-8350 at 5GHz seems like a more reasonable test since the overclock is significantly larger on the 3770k.

 

Anyway, that review has a significantly different scaling on BF3 than Tom's hardware. And I mean significant, 100FPS just from a CPU on BF3? Seems unrealistic.

 

And when you begin running both processors at their stock clocks or equivalent overclocks, you get results like this.

 

 

Oh, right, a Phenom has near the same performance on BF3 as an i7. CPU intensive game? Maybe on multiplayer, but it's too unpredictable to benchmark credibly.

 

If you're willing to throw in some benchmarks to prove a point, you should throw some realistic ones, too, because I'm not blurting out nonsense. I personally haven't overclocked a CPU as high as they did to the i7, so it doesn't seem as real as a test to me as you're putting forth.

 

Here are stock benchmarks, if you want to continue arguing.

 

https://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs-3770k-vs-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks

 

I'll admit, Intel wins almost everything else, but AMD has a lot of gaming. There is no reason to pick an i5 over the 8350 if all you're doing is gaming. If you're going to edit, then would an i5 be a suitable option.