AMD or Intel processor for gaming

[Opcode]

Intel dominates AMD in straight gaming, blame Microsoft for that.

[Bloodkil933]

@GloriousPain

@Bloodkil933

 

      In order for the FX to even match the stock performance of an i5, it has to be overclocked.  I remember someone who made the switch from an 8320 to an i7 and did lots of testing on various games.  He said his 4.6Ghz 8320(overclocked) performed like a i5-4460(locked) 3.2Ghz in games like Crysis 3, Battlefield 4, and Watch Dogs.  And this guy used to be a massive tool/AMD fanboy.  In order to get a halfway decent overclock on the FX processor, you have to get a 990 series motherboard which is expensive.  The least expensive alternative is the Gigabyte 970, but then you are looking at a MAX overclock of 4.6Ghz, and that is optimistic because of the power phase design on that motherboard.  Intel doesn't have that problem, motherboard doesn't impact the overclock capability, it is up to the chip.

     For pricing, you can pick up an i5-4670k for $180 in-store at Microcenter.  If you don't live near a Microcenter, you can use Staples.com or Frys.com price match tools to get it shipped to you for the same price + cost of shipping.  To be fair, I used the Microcenter in-store price for the 8320 as well.  After all of that, the price difference is only $10.  There is absolutely no reason, what so ever, to recommend someone an FX8xxx over an i5 unless their primary purpose for the machine is video editing and rendering.  Not to mention the FX8xxx bottlenecks video cards that are above a GTX770/R9 280X, and will not allow you to upgrade to multi-GPU configurations in the future.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CcjvdC

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

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($180.00)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($25.98 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($75.66 @ Newegg)

Total: $281.64

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hbxTpg

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($130.00)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($25.98 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($116.90 @ Newegg)

Total: $272.88

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

I have a 290X with my FX-8350 and it didn't bottleneck it overclocked or even on stock.

 

For reference, here his my 8350 at stock and overclocked with my 290X (overclocked to 1200/1680)

 

Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2004243

Overclocked: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2444715

 

I fail to see any bottleneck there at all.

[Faceman]

I have a 290X with my FX-8350 and it didn't bottleneck it overclocked or even on stock.

 

For reference, here his my 8350 at stock and overclocked with my 290X (overclocked to 1200/1680)

 

Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2004243

Overclocked: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2444715

 

I fail to see any bottleneck there at all.

Go to Cinebench and run the GPU test, let me know your score.  What is your FPS in Battlefield 4 at the highest possible settings with Resolution Scale turned up to 140%?

[i_build_nanosuits]

op i experienced both the amd fx and the intel cpu in gaming and if youre on a budget i'd suggest something like this as it performs noticeably better in most games than the amd fx except maybe for watch dogs and is much more power efficient and up to date with an upgrade path to a faster core i7 if you may want to in a distant future, it just a better cpu all around especialy for gaming:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($184.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI H97M-E35 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($79.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $264.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

[Faceman]

I have a 290X with my FX-8350 and it didn't bottleneck it overclocked or even on stock.

 

For reference, here his my 8350 at stock and overclocked with my 290X (overclocked to 1200/1680)

 

Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2004243

Overclocked: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2444715

 

I fail to see any bottleneck there at all.

Achievements for the overclocked score:

 

"

• 
  Brawn

  Your GPU is ready to rumble, but your CPU doesn't want to play."

[i_build_nanosuits]

I have a 290X with my FX-8350 and it didn't bottleneck it overclocked or even on stock.

 

For reference, here his my 8350 at stock and overclocked with my 290X (overclocked to 1200/1680)

 

Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2004243

Overclocked: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2444715

 

I fail to see any bottleneck there at all.

play assassins creed black flag, compagny of heroes 2, arma 3, watch dogs at 1080p and monitor gpu load

[Bloodkil933]

 

Achievements for the overclocked score:

 

"

• 
  Brawn

  Your GPU is ready to rumble, but your CPU doesn't want to play."

 

 

[Faceman]

My i5-4670k at stock is hitting 118fps.  Overclocked to 4.7Ghz = 134.  My GPU is an EVGA GTX 780.  A R9 290X is supposed to be better than a 780.  My GPU is not overclocked.

 

Here is Firestrike:

an i5-4670k @ stock = 3.8Ghz with an R9 290X, same clock speed and driver version as yours, scores 9800.  Your 8350 is OC'd to 4.8Ghz, and you are more than 100pts lower than an i5 at stock.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2353809

[i_build_nanosuits]

that is a very low score for that gpu..your cpu is defenetly bottlenecking your gpu

[Faceman]

Here is the highest registered i5 + 290X score:

 

i5 is at stock, 3.8Ghz and the R9 290X is overclocked, but nothing extreme. 1050Mhz on the Core and 1375Mhz on the Memory.  That is 50Mhz core and 125Mz memory higher than yours, which translates into a score of 14148.  It is on an older driver version though.and FM approved.

[Bloodkil933]

play assassins creed black flag, compagny of heroes 2, arma 3, watch dogs at 1080p and monitor gpu load

 

My i5-4670k at stock is hitting 118fps.  Overclocked to 4.7Ghz = 134.  My GPU is an EVGA GTX 780.  A R9 290X is supposed to be better than a 780.  My GPU is not overclocked.

 

Here is Firestrike:

an i5-4670k @ stock = 3.8Ghz with an R9 290X, same clock speed and driver version as yours, scores 9800.  Your 8350 is OC'd to 4.8Ghz, and you are more than 100pts lower than an i5 at stock.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2353809

 

that is a very low score for that gpu..your cpu is defenetly bottlenecking your gpu

 

About that, playing Watch Dogs at 1080p:

 

 

Bare in mind this about 5 seconds into gameplay.

[Faceman]

About that, playing Watch Dogs at 1080p:

See how your GPU load is bouncing up and down?  Thats a CPU bottleneck there buddy.

[Bloodkil933]

See how your GPU load is bouncing up and down?  Thats a CPU bottleneck there buddy.

Read the edit.

[Faceman]

Read the edit.

I was going to say.. those temperatures are insanely good for a 290X.  Give us something more concrete, play for 10 minutes and show us the loads, and monitor it yourself.  Nothing you have provided is looking good for that GPU + CPU.

[Bloodkil933]

I was going to say.. those temperatures are insanely good for a 290X.  Give us something more concrete, play for 10 minutes and show us the loads, and monitor it yourself.  Nothing you have provided is looking good for that GPU + CPU.

This is getting nowhere, I'm not gonna sit here and justify my setup. It runs almost every games at 60+ FPS on the highest setting apart from Crysis 3. That's all I care about.

 

I've asked this and researched this many a time, this combination does not create a bottleneck. Go and research it and I'm sure you'll be surprised.

 

I understand what you say, I just don't agree with it, we're all PC Gamers/Enthusiasts and share the same passions, let's leave it at that, it's not worth arguing over.

[D3MON]

if one was significantly better than the other....we wouldn't be on page 3   
there's your answer.
happily transcoding and gaming on a £170($235) 4.6ghz+capable cpu & board

games aren't well threded eh?

[airdeano]

@Faceman

@Bloodkil933

 

then we'll just move on and hopefully help the OP on their decision instead of hijacking their thread.

both have different outcomes and we can live with that.

[GRJohn]

There you go http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/147501-ive-got-an-fx-8320-an-i7-2600-any-benchmark-requests/
Actual games, actual tests, real-world results and no canned or synthetic benchmarks.

[Deletive]

Honestly if you have the money I'd just go Intel. sure if you need the power now for a low price it's worth it to go AMD. But if like a year or 2 down the road you need more performance? broadwell vs nothing from the AMD side. AM3+ is 2009 chipset with a + at the end of it. (so with some improvements)  

 

Quick sync can take hold of Streaming and with only ATX sized form-factors on the AMD that are good it's kind of a waste of space, you can't SLI/Crossfire unless you're fulling those up with PCI-e sound cards, SSD's and things of the sorta. 

AMD is still fine for gaming, can probably hold it's own at 1080p till 2015. It's a capable chip I'll give you that; i'm still running a Q8300 which can't even hold a 750 ti anymore. 

But if I were you Intel can give you more in a smaller form factor which quite satisfying in the long run. 

[GloriousPain]

-snip-

Might I suggest just locking the thread he did get some genuine advise along the way... I'm sure he can look through all the benchmarks and such... 

[Faa]

@Faceman

@Bloodkil933

 

then we'll just move on and hopefully help the OP on their decision instead of hijacking their thread.

both have different outcomes and we can live with that.

What about doing something about those soloclaimers? We can't give here honest advice because the fanatics here counter it with a bunch of nonsense like; 200$ is cheaper than 200$ (8350 vs i5), futureproof crap when they have zero understanding of how multithreading/parallelism works, after they denied about 5000 gaming benchmarks they drop here a Teksyndicate video, every game is gpu bound when the majority plays multiplayer games which is nearly always cpu bound, Intels IPC only 20-30% better expanding their logic would come down that 8350's are 60% faster in multithreaded performance, 8350 faster than a i5 or even i7 in games, when the OP's game can't use more than 4 cores -> 8350's are as fast as i5's and 4300's aren't, there's no difference between AMD & Intel after Logan showed them that AMD is up to 350% faster.

I have provided bennyboy, bloodkill over the 200 benchmarks a week or two ago, nope had no effect. Whats the point behind dropping information that you know is complety wrong, finding every post new tactics to show how great their cpu is, starting to insult us because they have further no proper evidence, lying complety about AMD's performance - who does this exactly help? It's obvious that they aren't helpful and at this point is just too damn obvious theyre rather trolling.

The OP asked us which is the best gaming cpu and the correct answer is the i5.

[Jade]

4670k

y u no 4690K? it's like, $6 more

[Sintezza]

[Sintezza]

an FX83xx cpu does not bottleneck any GPU.

 

Its all depending on the games you play, and what you do with your computer besides that.

Some games do run a littlebit better on intel, But they are also very well playable on an AMD.

 

I´m just getting tired of this crap, an FX 8 core does not bottleneck any GPU. it just doesn´t.

 

i5 or FX83xx are all good choices, it just depends on your budget, and peronal ussage.

And games you play.

 

[Faa]

an FX83xx cpu does not bottleneck any GPU.

Show me video's of gameplay in multiplayer scenario's middle in combat rocking the gpu at 99%. I have provided you earlier a bunch of them all way below 99%

 

 

Its all depending on the games you play, and what you do with your computer besides that.

No it depends on how honest you are about AMD's performance.

 

 

Some games do run a littlebit better on intel, But they are also very well playable on an AMD.

Dropping no evidence to back this up doesnt prove anything.

 

 

I´m just getting tired of this crap, an FX 8 core does not bottleneck any GPU. it just doesn´t.

It does.

 

 

i5 or FX83xx are all good choices, it just depends on your budget, and peronal ussage.

FX 83xx isn't a good choice when they cost the same and the fx 83xx = 6xxx = 4xxx = gaming performance. You might as well say the 4300 is equal to a 8350 unless you're coming again up that a single thread can be executed on an unlimited amount of cores. AMD cpu's aren't close to Intel when you're cpu limited.

Let's deny  real time evidence showing cpu bottlenecks & anandtech.com/vr-zone/pcgameshardware.de/hardwarepal/pclab.pl/sweclockers.com/hardware.info are all wrong because you said it. Not sure how this helps anyone out lying about AMD's performance. You just can't advice people a cpu when you complety throwed the facts out