Intel vs amd

[i_build_nanosuits]

no you make me rage with all your false claims, i told you ALREADY 99 times that my GPU load in BF4 is ALWAYS 99% and even an AMD A10 APU would do the same

and yet you argue, now i'm done i won't argue no more, of course they improved performance in BF4 by about 70% since october, YEAH RIGHT, no go educate yourself

a bit on how this works i'm really done with you,

[Totally-A-Hero]

You need to step up to an Intel with that powerful of a GPU, your CPU is bottlenecking your video card.

 

As you can see in this graph, the FX processors are not seeing performance gains when moving from 280X to 290X or 770 to 780, which should not be happening.

 

FX processors use an old architecture that was originally designed for servers, and then turned into desktop chips, this was back in 2009.  The AM3/AM3+ is a dying breed.  Even an Intel i3 beats out an FX8320 for gaming.

 

Definitely go for Intel if your main purpose is gaming, The new Devil's Canyon processors are supposed to be very good overclockers, so you can really put that H110 to use.

 

There is nothing wrong with sticking with what you already have, it is not like you are getting unplayable results, but as to the question of which is superior, the answer is Intel.

I have no idea how this makes any sense! A 290 performs very similar to the 780 (a little worse by like 5% OC) so saying that it performs worse on BF4 even bottlencecked dosent make that much sense.

[Faa]

I have no idea how this makes any sense! A 290 performs very similar to the 780 (a little worse by like 5% OC) so saying that it performs worse on BF4 even bottlencecked dosent make that much sense.

Read my post

280x performed exactly the same with a 290x with a 8350 at stock clocks. What basically happened is the 280X ran at 80% with 43 fps and the 290X ran at eg 50% with 43 fps, it's always like this - you can try it out in some cpu bound games like WoW put a gtx 650 in there you see 50% load and 30 fps log out and put a 780 orsomething in it and you get again 30 fps but magically the load decreased to 25% because a 780 is a much stronger card. 

The 770 can't outperform a 290x, never ever but nobody tested them in CPU bound situations - there's no information regarding the gpu load but seeing a massive gap when the CPU is overclocked you can pretty much conclude they werent at 99%. If you ever tried the Opengl test in cinebench, a gtx 670 performs exactly the same as a gtx 780 and again the reason for that was because the cpu was a bottleneck. If you'd test the R9 290 vs 780 in cinebench, it won't say which card performs better; it would only say which driver is better.

Thats why you shouldn't upgrade your GPU if you cant maximize your current gpu.

From another source; a 780ti with that APU performs 93 vs a 4770k & 780ti with 150 fps so we could conclude the APU is the bottleneck and it's going to be a bottleneck for a r9 290x as well but we see a hefty difference between the 780ti & r9 290x with an APU again proving nvidia's driver being better. When we look at the 4770k results only, there's a minor difference because theyre not cpu limited anymore and the gpu's sit at 99% -> you're comparing the "true" performance of a card.

[Totally-A-Hero]

@Faa Regardless of wich CPU you support or anyone does this shouldnt turm into another war like it did on my thread.That chart IS FAKE sure the i5-4670k might bottleneck less than a 8350 or vice versa but the goal should be to help the OP. He has a 290,figure out wich one will fit his needs better.Without FIGHTING

[Joshua Ondangan]

If it's your money you're talking about I say no to upgrade.

 

wait for the one after the haswell refresh. and blow your money over it.

 

your rig will still play your games. but I still say go wait for broadwell or something.

 

better milk out all the milk you can squeeze through outa your rig.

 

if it is me buying I'd upgrade to the best one I can afford.

[Joshua Ondangan]

Depends what you play. If you are mostly into console ports and shooters? Wait on actual benchmarks of a game like Watch Dog's. I think the I7 recommendation is absolute BS. 

 

If you are planning to play WildStar with 40 man raids and play WoW or something? Yeah, Intel is quite a bit ahead. All depends on what you play. Most single player games like Tomb Raider for instance? Might as well be a GPU benchmark. 

 

Here are some games things where a OC Intel would benefit you and actually be worth upgrading for. WoW (big raids only), SWTOR (same), Guild Wars 2 (hardest game on CPU I ever played in world pvp), Day-Z, Rust, RTS (overblown AMD is not as bad as they say, and people that prefer Intel are like hardcore RTS players playing at extremely high FPS), Flight Simulator (yup people still play this),  Dolphin emulator. 

 

If none of the above interest you, and you mainly play single player games and shooters and have no FPS issues in those shooters? Don't worry about it. Intel is better in games, but in many there is no difference, in many it is minimal. We all like different game genres and many are not close to being CPU bound. Some where the Intel is better, is mainly past 60 FPS so do you have a monitor that will display past that? If not? You aren't going to see much benefit. 

^ THIS

 

@op just read the one I quoted. ask your self that and let's see where we can go.

[Faa]

 

@Faa Regardless of wich CPU you support or anyone does this shouldnt turm into another war like it did on my thread.That chart IS FAKE sure the i5-4670k might bottleneck less than a 8350 or vice versa but the goal should be to help the OP. He has a 290,figure out wich one will fit his needs better.Without FIGHTING

 

It's not fake, as another source backed them up. 

[Totally-A-Hero]

Ok so OP there is more just to take into consideration than performance too,i recently had this same question and made a decision on wich CPU i selected.I knew the 8350 was $40 cheaper and would perform fine with my 290 but i went with the i5-4670k. Even tho it cost $40 more i didnt want to have to buy a new motherboard in the future just to upgrade wich in turn would save me more than $40.But it sounds like with your current CPU you should be alright for a little while longer so it is up to u if you wanna upgrade. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Read my post

280x performed exactly the same with a 290x with a 8350 at stock clocks. What basically happened is the 280X ran at 80% with 43 fps and the 290X ran at eg 50% with 43 fps, it's always like this - you can try it out in some cpu bound games like WoW put a gtx 650 in there you see 50% load and 30 fps log out and put a 780 orsomething in it and you get again 30 fps but magically the load decreased to 25% because a 780 is a much stronger card. 

The 770 can't outperform a 290x, never ever but nobody tested them in CPU bound situations - there's no information regarding the gpu load but seeing a massive gap when the CPU is overclocked you can pretty much conclude they werent at 99%. If you ever tried the Opengl test in cinebench, a gtx 670 performs exactly the same as a gtx 780 and again the reason for that was because the cpu was a bottleneck. If you'd test the R9 290 vs 780 in cinebench, it won't say which card performs better; it would only say which driver is better.

Thats why you shouldn't upgrade your GPU if you cant maximize your current gpu.

From another source; a 780ti with that APU performs 93 vs a 4770k & 780ti with 150 fps so we could conclude the APU is the bottleneck and it's going to be a bottleneck for a r9 290x as well but we see a hefty difference between the 780ti & r9 290x with an APU again proving nvidia's driver being better. When we look at the 4770k results only, there's a minor difference because theyre not cpu limited anymore and the gpu's sit at 99% -> you're comparing the "true" performance of a card.

 

Here, this trusty website i found seem to confirm that my PC run's games much better than yours, just look at minimum FPS, clearly your GPU is BOTTLENECKED MAN !

 

 

How long do you think it takes to make a graph like that kid? you have so much to learn...stunning!

[Joshua Ondangan]

Here, this trusty website i found seem to confirm that my PC run's games much better than yours, just look at minimum FPS, clearly your GPU is BOTTLENECKED MAN !

 

 

How long do you think it takes to make a graph like that kid? you have so much to learn...stunning!

^This is one of the best post I've seen since 12:00AM (2:39am now)\

 

while you're at it you should have went bejesus on your bar put it way up high.

 

edit: I have to disagree with you 

i_build_nanosuits

. your graph failed. here let me help you with a more accurate one.

 

[Totally-A-Hero]

Here, this trusty website i found seem to confirm that my PC run's games much better than yours, just look at minimum FPS, clearly your GPU is BOTTLENECKED MAN !

 

 

How long do you think it takes to make a graph like that kid? you have so much to learn...stunning!

IM WEAK!Best post ive seen on this site!!!

[i_build_nanosuits]

NEVER TRUST any benchmarks you see on the internet, NEVER, and never recommand anything you won't have had first hand experience with...never put yourself in a situation

where you would have to back up what you are afirming, unless you can prove it BY YOURSELF not relying on INTERNET COLOURFUL GRAPHS, that's what i learned on this forum

here, and i would like to thank Joshua Ondangan and ProKon for that !

[Totally-A-Hero]

I acctually get all of my benchmarks from linus cause they are overclocked and obviously not fake.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I acctually get all of my benchmarks from linus cause they are overclocked and obviously not fake.

linus is indeed one of the few that i trust. yes.

[Vrbas]

 

 

I don't use SLI anymore for BF4, in the beginning a 780 was capable of 80 fps and now after a halfyear theyre pushing easily 120-150 fps out (I have video's recorded to prove this). 8xxx cpu's perform exactly the same as 6xxx cpu's in BF4 - that game doesn't take any advantage of 8 cores (here a thread analyze: http://i.imgur.com/30hjjLS.png)

 

 

 

 

Hmmm. I do believe that BF4 is in fact using all 8 of my cores.

 

 

 

Oh here is my gpu usage. gtx 660 

 

 

[Joshua Ondangan]

I acctually get all of my benchmarks from linus cause they are overclocked and obviously not fake.

yep you can trust it (you're on this site after all).

 

but hey there are times where you might overclock further than what they did on test or you're using a better driver (after some time has passed) which might give you a better performance.

[mcmad358]

Intel with z97, make sure it's Haswell, Haswell refresh or Devils Canyon. Good z97 are from Asus, msi, gigabyte etc

[i_build_nanosuits]

Here, this trusty website i found seem to confirm that my PC run's games much better than yours, just look at minimum FPS, clearly your GPU is BOTTLENECKED MAN !

 

 

How long do you think it takes to make a graph like that kid? you have so much to learn...stunning!

i find it sad that the page 3 came in so quickly, here i quote my post again just to make sure everybody realise how good my PC is compared to Faa

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

On a more serious note, we have had no more news from the OP but i will post again my recommandation since we are still waiting to know what kind of a gamer he is:

 

Now, i can tell you this OP...you have an awesome GPU and your CPU for most games will be fine unless you play CPU intensive games like online stuff, BF4 online maybe a slight CPU bottleneck from the bulldozer 6 core on a 290 no denying that...crysis 3 same thing, anything recent that use less than 3 threads (WoW, skyrim, planetside...all thos old tech single-threaded games and most indi games) defenetly bottleneck there too...but if you play mostly modern games on single player compaign, then no they should all not be CPU bottlenecked (racing games, sports games, simulation and action games, hitman, max payne, batman, tomb raider all that good stuff) no significant CPU bottleneck...now the choice is yours...i would consider upgrading for an FX-6300 if i we're you for cheap...you could sell the 6100 online and get a good deal for a FX-6300 and you would notice a good 15% boost in CPU performance, lower power consumption and heat output etc...without the need for a new motherboard or any other extra parts...i doubt that your current 970 board would support an 8 core FX, only two 970 chipset boards can do this and they are: gigabyte 970A-UD3p and ASUS m5A97 EVO.

so what are the games you play on this machine?

[Recon-UK]

I have a user here who is fond of me for my rather unbiased opinions, he is struggling in BF4 with a 8350 and 280x.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/152274-i-think-its-drivers/

[Vrbas]

I have a user here who is fond of me for my rather unbiased opinions, he is struggling in BF4 with a 8350 and 280x.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/152274-i-think-its-drivers/

The CPU is not the problem... He says he is getting 50 fps on low with no aa on a 280x... that is not possible.. Something else is causing his low frame rates... 

 

I use a GTX660 and get 60+fps on high preset. No way is a 660 more powerful then a 280x.

[Recon-UK]

The CPU is not the problem... He says he is getting 50 fps on low with no aa on a 280x... that is not possible.. Something else is causing his low frame rates... 

 

I use a GTX660 and get 60+fps on high preset. No way is a 660 more powerful then a 280x.

I posted here so that i could hopefully direct people from this thread, flames are being extinguished.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I posted here so that i could hopefully direct people from this thread, flames are being extinguished.

bright move, i'm 90% sure it's the chipset driver for the mobo that is not installed or corrupted.

[Sintezza]

bright move, i'm 90% sure it's the chipset driver for the mobo that is not installed or corrupted.

 

i got a FX8350 with 7870ghz and i can play BF4 without any problem arround 50/60fps maxout 1080p.

 

If i want better frame rates, i just need a better gpu

[i_build_nanosuits]

i got a FX8350 with 7870ghz and i can play BF4 without any problem arround 50/60fps maxout 1080p.

 

If i want better frame rates, i just need a better gpu

right on, the guy in the other thread is having a comon problem though...BF4 when it starts to sucks it can be anything, it's probably just game related or driver related...i know it for a fact my BF4 run flawlessly on my PC but BF3 (that i don't play anymore) run's like crap...30 to 50fps all the time it's really bad and in the past it was running at well over 65 FPS with my radeon 7950 and same CPU...i should probably just re-install it but like i say i won't play it anymore..

[GzeroD]

As someone who previously owned an FX 6100, and have since tried my own r9 290 on it (I gave it to my brother so I still toy with it from time to time) There is no way its going to cause that much of a performance drop.

My intel is more consistent but the average frame rate is not going to drop to the point where I would see 50 FPS on low settings. My old FX6100 is still able to play games at 5760*1920  on medium with a good frame rate (was on 2x 7850's at the time 45+fps). The only reasons I switched was because I was playing MMOs that required stronger single thread performance than an overclocked 6100 could provide; and I wanted to play on ultra settings when I got new cards.

 

If your chip will overclock to say 4.5Ghz and you don't need the single threaded power for a game that you have or want to play now I would sit on the FX6100 and save for an even better chip and board later.