8320 vs 4670k

[acidydragon]

Hello all!

I have an opportunity to get a new CPU/Mobo, and I had a question for you all

 

Currently I am running an AMD FX 8320 CPU that I got to a stable 4.5GhZ overclock.

 

I have 400 bucks to spend currently on my computer, and was looking into switching to an i5 4670k. (Plus I can sell my Mobo/CPU for about $300 total based on eBay pricing)

However, after some research, I've seen some interesting numbers.

The 4670k doesn't appear (based on the internet, and its weird information) to be much better than an 8350 (I didn't find much for the comparison to an 8320)

 

I currently have an Asus Sabertooth 990fx, and the 8320 (Can be sold for 300ish dollars)

I would be buying an Asus Maximus VI Formula and the 4670k (500ish dollars)

 

The price isn't THAT big of a deal, if I'll notice a difference in my gaming.

 

 

I was going to mention the 3570k in this post, because people claimed it was nearly the same for the money as the 4670k... but it's a 2 dollar difference...

[Valhallatier]

wait for next generation of CPU.

[dizmo]

wait for next generation of CPU.

No...the performance increase is so minimal.

I prefer Intel so I'll say 4670k.

[venturizhou]

If you are gaming at 1080P there isn't going to be a difference realistically. Just keep your money and factor in the fact that after eBay and Paypal fees you are looking at $260ish if they sell for $300.

[acidydragon]

I'm gaming at 6000x1080p.

What about the 9590 that AMD put out?

[venturizhou]

I'm gaming at 6000x1080p.

What about the 9590 that AMD put out?

.

That is just a highly binned version of the same CPU

My question is are your unsatisfied with your current gaming experience or is this simply spending money for the sake or something new and shiny?

[acidydragon]

My question is are your unsatisfied with your current gaming experience or is this simply spending money for the sake or something new and shiny?

A little of both? I want the best possible, but only if sensible.

I was going to watercool what I had, but when I asked the watercooling section if I should water, or go for the 4670k, they ALL said go for the CPU.

Keep the 8320, and save your money for Maxwell if your resolution is 6000X1080p. Honestly, the difference between an OC 8320 and a 4670K is going to be too small for you to bother to switch.

I won't be going Maxwell. I have a 780 that I just got, and I don't plan to switch when the new GPU's come out.

Can you guys give me any real benchmarks that pit these CPU's against each other?

I just want to see some numbers, and all of the numbers I could find are very misleading, and seem very wrong.

[Rekx]

If you have some money to spend why not get another graphics card? That would help more if you are gaming at 6000x1080p (nvidia surround)

[Faa]

Can you guys give me any real benchmarks that pit these CPU's against each other?

 

I just want to see some numbers, and all of the numbers I could find are very misleading, and seem very wrong.

This one is much better.

[acidydragon]

This one is much better.

As someone who doesn't care to look at my FPS while I play (I want to be IN the game), this explains where my stuttering came from.

Watch this video. (Start at 1:35 to skip the intro)

If you want speed, I recommend upgrading eventually. Just save up, you don't need to spend it on a CPU that will give you less than 10% more performance for ~ $300

Do you know if there's any reason he didn't overclock the i5... like... any?

He shows how high the 8350 can get at a (some of the time) unreachable level (you have to put your voltage over the recommended stopping point [google guides on 8350 4.8ghz])

[SpaceSquid]

Buy another 780 or just buy a 750gig SSD.

[CarlosRex]

Games are moving towards more threads.
With time the AMD FX CPUs are only going to perform better. I would definitely say keep the CPU.
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/10522-game-developers-choose-amd-over-intel-for-gaming/
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/42309-amd-cpus-will-gain-performance-boosts-due-to-next-gen-consoles-according-to-john-carmack/
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/43230-console-optimizations-will-improve-amd-cpu-performance-in-planetside-2/

The 8350 already is on par with the 4670K & 2600K in BF4.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-test-gpu.html

And in the CPU intensive parts of Crysis 3

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/graficheskaya-chast.html

 

 

As for Skyrim you need to know that the Creation Engine is actually locked to 60 frames a second, reviewrs only unlock it to benchmark.
Both the 8320 & the 4670K easily put out significantly more than 60 frames a second.
You also need to know that when you actually unlock the frame rate to allow it to go over 60 your game world gets sort of confused, time passes on faster and you'll get some weird quest and world glitches.

[acidydragon]

Games are moving towards more threads.

With time the AMD FX CPUs are only going to perform better. I would definitely say keep the CPU.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/10522-game-developers-choose-amd-over-intel-for-gaming/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/42309-amd-cpus-will-gain-performance-boosts-due-to-next-gen-consoles-according-to-john-carmack/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/43230-console-optimizations-will-improve-amd-cpu-performance-in-planetside-2/

The 8350 already is on par with the 4670K & 2600K in BF4.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-test-gpu.html

And in the CPU intensive parts of Crysis 3

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/graficheskaya-chast.html

That's another issue I'm having... Or rather, two issues.

People show COMPLETELY different data on the same topic. Watch the video that @Faa posted, it shows this as completely different...

And its not just between these two, Linus has a video about the 3570k and the 8350, that show ANOTHER layer of different data...

No one seems to have a put together idea. Many of these different data sets show something interesting though, similar highs,

but crappy lows for the 83xx series chips. With the video, they show Crysis 3 dropping all the way down under 30 FPS (unplayable by my standards)

The CPU would be around a 200 dollar (at most) investment after selling what I own.

The GPU would be around a 550 dollar (area) investment after (not) selling what I own.

The Water cooling would be in the neighborhood of 400-700 dollar investment after selling what I own.

The CPU ends up being MUCH cheaper than the others after resale... Is it worth 200 dollars isn't really the question still, because most of that is in the board... So down to the chips, is it worth 50-100 bucks?

Also I guess the difference would be, after the sale of my current stuff (I'll do it somewhere other than eBay to keep all the money) the CPU would leave me with 300 in my pocket still... And that's why I keep pushing for it. Would it be worth it, to go for the CPU, if I end up about 100 bucks short of what I had before (with a nicer board [the Maximus VI Formula])

I just feel like I could quickly gain another little bit, and then go straight into water cooling my rig, vs. with the other options, I would dump EVERYTHING, and have to start from the bottom again in my savings for my next piece.

1. With 1080p gaming (what I generally do on games I'm serious about), is a second video card worth it over the CPU?

2. Would Water cooling the 8320 be more worth it (I'm nearly at my voltage limit as it) than getting the i5?

None of these purchases are necessarily required for the "good enough" standard. But I consider myself to be an enthusiast, and I don't want to settle for that. I want the best unless it's ridiculous.

@CarlosRex @ONOTech @Faa @jesper101996 @venturizhou @dizmo @Valhallatier

[Constantine]

Remember if you're getting the FX 8320 you'd have to use Windows 8 to make use of the multi-core optimisations that they added

[Valhallatier]

No...the performance increase is so minimal.

I prefer Intel so I'll say 4670k.

what minimal? AMD doesn't even make gaming/consumer class CPU anymore. so i'm saying upgrade to the next line up of INTEL CPU. also the 4670k doesn't really differs much from 3570k, just increased iGPU performance which nobody here need oh yeah more heat too, so not worth it. 

[dizmo]

what minimal? AMD doesn't even make gaming/consumer class CPU anymore. so i'm saying upgrade to the next line up of INTEL CPU. also the 4670k doesn't really differs much from 3570k, just increased iGPU performance which nobody here need oh yeah more heat too, so not worth it. 

The increase generation to generation with Intel CPU's. My 2700k is just as fast as my friends 4770k. The systems feel identical.

Yes, I do prefer Intel over AMD. If AMD makes a comparable chip with the same TDP I'd consider it but...they don't have one.

Why would you go with an older CPU when the newer one is the same price? That doesn't make any sense...

[CarlosRex]

That's another issue I'm having... Or rather, two issues.

People show COMPLETELY different data on the same topic. Watch the video that @Faa posted, it shows this as completely different...

And its not just between these two, Linus has a video about the 3570k and the 8350, that show ANOTHER layer of different data...

 

No one seems to have a put together idea. Many of these different data sets show something interesting though, similar highs,

but crappy lows for the 83xx series chips. With the video, they show Crysis 3 dropping all the way down under 30 FPS (unplayable by my standards)

As to the Crysis 3 benchmark it is actually explainable, both GameGPU & PCGamesHardware benchmarked the part of the game which had a LOT of grass, called "welcome to the jungle" in this particular area the AMD CPUs dominated because all of the vegetation physics was very well multi-core aware.

Linus & likely the Aussie in the video posted here actually benched inside buildings.

Almost the entirety of Crysis 3 is in New York that has become a jungle and is very vegetation heavy & even 3570K users can attest to how Crysis 3 absolutely destroyed their CPUs in the outdoors areas.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FCrysis-3-PC-235317%2FTests%2FCrysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578%2F

PCGamesHardware CPU performance investigation.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FCrysis-3-PC-235317%2FTests%2FCrysis-3-CPU-Test-1068140%2F

[acidydragon]

what minimal? AMD doesn't even make gaming/consumer class CPU anymore. so i'm saying upgrade to the next line up of INTEL CPU. also the 4670k doesn't really differs much from 3570k, just increased iGPU performance which nobody here need oh yeah more heat too, so not worth it.

It's 2 dollars for a 4670k over a 3570k. Just saying...

I might just go 4670k... Worst case? I get a minor bump in performance if the people with the Pro AMD graphs are right. If they're wrong, I get a huge boost from the low FPS part of the Intel favoring charts.

Worst case scenario, I go to the more supported, better optimized, and more liked chip, and I end up with all of that WITH 300 dollars still in my wallet. Yeaaahhh... I think this is solved guys. Thanks for the help I suppose.

As to the Crysis 3 benchmark it is actually explainable, both GameGPU & PCGamesHardware benchmarked the part of the game which had a LOT of grass, called "welcome to the jungle" in this particular area the AMD CPUs dominated because all of the vegetation physics was very well multi-core aware.

Linus & likely the Aussie in the video posted here actually benched inside buildings.

Almost the entirety of Crysis 3 is in New York that has become a jungle and is very vegetation heavy & even 3570K users can attest to how Crysis 3 absolutely destroyed their CPUs in the outdoors areas.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FCrysis-3-PC-235317%2FTests%2FCrysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578%2F

PCGamesHardware CPU performance investigation.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FCrysis-3-PC-235317%2FTests%2FCrysis-3-CPU-Test-1068140%2F

The Aussie says in his videos that he runs through a level... NOT A SECTION, a level... and in the entire game, I don't think theres a level that they don't go outside for a chunk of it.

[CarlosRex]

It's 2 dollars for a 4670k over a 3570k. Just saying...

I might just go 4670k... Worst case? I get a minor bump in performance if the people with the Pro AMD graphs are right. If they're wrong, I get a huge boost from the low FPS part of the Intel favoring charts.

 

Worst case scenario, I go to the more supported, better optimized, and more liked chip, and I end up with all of that WITH 300 dollars still in my wallet. Yeaaahhh... I think this is solved guys. Thanks for the help I suppose.

I'm afraid that you might look back at this thinking you wasted money you could have otherwise spent on more graphics horsepower, better audio or something else to improve your gaming experience.

FX 8300s are only getting better in games with time because of the amount of under-utilization of their cores.

The i5s won't show any comparable performance improvements over time because they're already showing fairly high core utilization.

Remember both consoles have 8 core AMD CPUs in them, developers will have no choice but to optimize for AMD hardware.

Console ports will run better on the PC for a change and even better on the AMD systems.

[CarlosRex]

The Aussie says in his videos that he runs through a level... NOT A SECTION, a level... and in the entire game, I don't think theres a level that they don't go outside for a chunk of it.

There are actually two levels early on in the game the majority of which are indoors.

Most reviewers actually opt to bench those because they don't have to play through the first hour or two of the game to get outside.

Also if you're running Win7 you would do well to install the microsoft bulldozer patches for AMD FX CPUs.

Download the first, then reboot.

Download the second then reboot again and you're done.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

[acidydragon]

There are actually two levels early on in the game the majority of which are indoors.

Most reviewers actually opt to bench those because they don't have to play through the first hour or two of the game to get outside.

Also if you're running Win7 you would do well to install the microsoft bulldozer patches for AMD FX CPUs.

Running Windows 8

I mean, yes Crysis 3 seems to like AMD. But I don't really play Crysis 3 anymore... I beat it, and it replayability is very low...

Most other games, prefer Intel's single core strength.

[acidydragon]

Deleted 

[acidydragon]

I don't want to start a war over the AMD technologies or whatever...

But I don't want to speculate on the future core optimizations for my decision now, because I don't personally think they'll happen.

AMD will have their games like Crysis that they get in with the developers for

But so will Intel.

[Valhallatier]

The increase generation to generation with Intel CPU's. My 2700k is just as fast as my friends 4770k. The systems feel identical.

Yes, I do prefer Intel over AMD. If AMD makes a comparable chip with the same TDP I'd consider it but...they don't have one.

Why would you go with an older CPU when the newer one is the same price? That doesn't make any sense...

because of these mobo/socket type thing... you need to buy them too. well i'm not a guy who works at Intel but if they make a new socket for the next gen chip, then that means you need to spend more money if you want to buy them.

 

[acidydragon]

because of these mobo/socket type thing... you need to buy them too. well i'm not a guy who works at Intel but if they make a new socket for the next gen chip, then that means you need to spend more money.

 

If AMD makes a new chip (which their 2015 forecast that was leaked says they aren't anytime soon), they would change the socket too. They're working on SMALLER chips (not faster)