AMD Cpu for gaming

[GloriousPain]

No.

Care to elaborate at all?

[Faceman]

Care to elaborate at all?

No.

 

I have neither the willpower nor the patience to argue this same shit over and over again with different people. 

[GloriousPain]

No.

 

I have neither the willpower nor the patience to argue this same shit over and over again with different people. 

Great neither do I. I especially don't have time to deal with trying to insult me; Can we just agree that an 8320 OC'ed beats an i3-4130 in rendering, and gaming that uses more than 4 threads...Cause here they're about the same cost. But that an i7 will beat the loving crap out of either?

[Faa]

How does this prove anything?  If anything the test is intel optimized; It's obviously single core and it's running at much lower than stock speeds; I never said shit about AMD having strong single core performance or really high IPC; and I was speaking with i5 inmind like the 4570 due to similar pricing... and AMDs cpus are all unlocked unlike the similarly priced i5s and I blamed programming because well if using all 8 cores of an OC'ed 8320 vs a locked i5 with half the cores just doing simple math even if at same clock  lets take 8150's 63 and the i5-4440's 112 double the 63 and get 126 and overclock it beyond the i5s core= obviously higher than 112 using your resources...

 

Intel optimized? There's no such thing. If you haven't realized it yet; the 2600K used to score 2.0 in cinebench 11.5 and now it does 180 orsomething in R15 where as the 8350 scored 1.32 at 5GHz in cinebench 11.5 and 132 in R15 so don't come up with cheap quotes from Logan.

 

and AMDs cpus are all unlocked unlike the similarly priced i5s and I blamed programming because well if using all 8 cores of an OC'ed 8320 vs a locked i5 with half the cores just doing simple math even if at same clock  lets take 8150's 63 and the i5-4440's 112 double the 63 and get 126 and overclock it beyond the i5s core= obviously higher than 112 using your resources...

 

But games are using half of its cores practically you're selling a FX 4300 with 4 extra cores for 100$ more which is apparently the best price/performance CPU, go ahead watch all benchmarks between the i5 & 4300 there's where your 8350 with 4 active cores is practically twice as slow in games unless theyve been just enough to make the gpu hitting its limit or near its limit. Unlocked or not, their IPC is still ~70% behind. 

That graph was with all cpu's at 2.8GHz.

 

And yeah a 6300 maybe all you need but we all know everyone wants more; that's why I recommend the 8320 you get more for as cheap as possible (other than the 8120 or 8150 but those usually come with worst mobos) 

Lol that logic, apparently a 8320 that doesnt DO any better than their 50% cheaper equivalents such as the 6300 is completely worth it but when it comes down to recommending a i5 that's 20% more expensive isn't worth it. A salesman and a fanboy the ultimate Teksyndicate subscriber.

 

 

Jayz test is fair as he is using averages so it avoid the bias of the websites he was using unless they were somehow all biased in the same direction and the graph speaks of fps not powerconsumption and again your comparing amd to i7s which is a different ball park i never said i7s I said to some intel chips by which I had meant of similar pricings I know on newegg and other such sites the pricing is similar to i5s most of which are locked but also here locally where I am (which I do not disclose for personal reasons) there's a local computer shop called Tony's pc puzzle pieces that actually has 8320s for around the same price as some i3s with even i5-4440 being $30 bucks more ($139 for 8320 vs $179 for i5-4430) now I know which one I'ma buy unless there's some crazy stupid sale or bargain online...

I'm not comparing any AMD cpu with the i7, read again -> if you think the 8320 justifies its pricetag then there will be nothing wrong about the i7 justifying its 50% price tag for pure gaming.

He's wrong, taking averages from a shitload of reviews when they all used a different PSU and a different GPU along with different measuring methods is completely inaccurate. You might as well do this for a GPU, count all numbers you've found and divide it by the amount of benchmarks you've seen and tell them it's the average fps you'll get from that card. Seems like you have troubles understanding what AC/DC efficiency means, read what I've said earlier again or google it. Why not measure it from the 8pin EPS to rule AC/DC efficiency completely out? You must be delusional if you think a 8350 overclocked to its max 24/7 only consumes 100W more and a Haswell consuming 80W more when they barely hit 4.3GHz. Here's your proof which was also measured from the 8pin that a 4770k doesnt consume 80W more when OC'ed; http://cdn.overclock.net/c/c1/c1411aab_yxx.png

I've given you an example why 8350 systems will consume less power than i5/i7's and you still think he's the first source for power consumption tests.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard: ECS H87H3-M3(1.0) Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($41.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $221.98

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-09 16:23 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($148.97 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($69.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $218.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-09 16:24 EDT-0400

Wait the 8320 is unlocked; lets OC it with the stock cooler and a cheap board with some harry potter mosfets and somehow thinking you got the best gaming performance for your price when it's just lacking up to 70% behind a stock i5 in reality. There's no denying that i5's have a better price/gaming performance ratio as I proved this so many times. Just do some research, learn when Intel CPU's can make the difference, learn why Intel can't show a difference, get an understanding of why price/multithreaded performance ratio's mean jack shit for gaming before you waste people's money. I've asked you to show me atleast 5 benchmarks each from a different game where the 8320 fully justifies its 50% price tag, so a 33% difference over the 6300 that costs 50% less. Get that evidence or else you're one of those AMD supporting farm bandits.

 

you should base your purchases on your needs, not what idiots on a forum say and the few cherry picked benchmarks they come up with.

Please do this for AMD. Go ahead cherrypick a game thats according to multiple sources performing much better on the 8350 than on i5's. For Intel you could pick any mmo, rts or any game that's "singlethreaded". FXs cpu are only on par with Intels cpu's IF the game is heavily multithreaded or with a GPU bottleneck and if that's not the case they can fall extremely hard behind. They're going from horrible to all the way being great, just extremely inconsistent performance.

 

 

people argue a 4430 can outperform an overclockable 8320 in threaded tasks, then completely ignore the fact that in single threaded tasks a pentium k will beat the 4430.

So a 8320 at 5GHz will outperform in 4-threaded tasks the 4430? Think I'm done here. 

 

[D3MON]

Great neither do I. I especially don't have time to deal with trying to insult me; Can we just agree that an 8320 OC'ed beats an i3-4130 in rendering, and gaming that uses more than 4 threads...Cause here they're about the same cost. But that an i7 will beat the loving crap out of either?

^this, with the caveat that i'd phrase it the "fx8 gives more overhead in games that are gpu bound", in well threaded games it doesn't matter if you have an fx4300 or a 5960x, however you can be doing other things while you game if you have cpu horsepower spare, but in single/dual threaded games which max out cores the intel will likely perform better (unless theres enough of a clock difference).

[GloriousPain]

/Snip

A: I don't watch and am not subscribed to Tek Syndacite 

B:  IPC isn't everything; Unless your running a dinosaur CPU at 1ghz with 1 core... Now adays CPUs have more than 1 core, and run at more than 2.8Ghz Fine AMD has 70% less IPC but 8320 vs i5 has 100% more cores and depending on the i5 can have more clock speed too as I previously said I blame devs on the fact they don't use all cores I have a friend whose a programmer and he can make programs that can use a full 8 cores why don't games? it's retarded it's like Console gamers holding back pc gamers if games started to actually use all 8 cores of an 8320 Intel might have a reason to stop charging so much for i7s and fps of games would be higher  

C: Where I live there's a computer store price difference between fx 4300 and 8320 is about $50

D:Okay yeah I didn't think about that on Jay's test it's null and void I won't argue it with different PSUs 1 could argue that it just makes it broader the different measurements I entirely didn't think about my bad

E: Wait wtf how does an i7 use less power than an i5? I know the 8350 will use more than either but how does that make sense... and still to me doesn't make a difference at my apartment electricity  is "free" it's payed for by the building it's a flat $25 bucks whether I use AMD or Intel

G: Again I have a local store just a short walk away with prices much cheaper for AMD (mostly cause there's some BULLSHIT tax on Intel) 

H: I said in rendering which uses all my cores I'm actually not the most hardcore of gamers and I did specify in games that use all 8 cores it'd preform as good as an i5 

I: Yeah I'd suggest a G3258 or fx4300 for a cheaper system but OP has a higher budget and is already looking at a top of the line graphics card

J: Calm down...

[Faa]

A: I don't watch and am not subscribed to Tek Syndacite 

B:  IPC isn't everything; Unless your running a dinosaur CPU at 1ghz with 1 core... Now adays CPUs have more than 1 core, and run at more than 2.8Ghz Fine AMD has 70% less IPC but 8320 vs i5 has 100% more cores and depending on the i5 can have more clock speed too as I previously said I blame devs on the fact they don't use all cores I have a friend whose a programmer and he can make programs that can use a full 8 cores why don't games? it's retarded it's like Console gamers holding back pc gamers if games started to actually use all 8 cores of an 8320 Intel might have a reason to stop charging so much for i7s and fps of games would be higher  

C: Where I live there's a computer store price difference between fx 4300 and 8320 is about $50

D:Okay yeah I didn't think about that on Jay's test it's null and void I won't argue it with different PSUs 1 could argue that it just makes it broader the different measurements I entirely didn't think about my bad

E: Wait wtf how does an i7 use less power than an i5? I know the 8350 will use more than either but how does that make sense... and still to me doesn't make a difference at my apartment electricity  is "free" it's payed for by the building it's a flat $25 bucks whether I use AMD or Intel

G: Again I have a local store just a short walk away with prices much cheaper for AMD (mostly cause there's some BULLSHIT tax on Intel) 

H: I said in rendering which uses all my cores I'm actually not the most hardcore of gamers and I did specify in games that use all 8 cores it'd preform as good as an i5 

I: Yeah I'd suggest a G3258 or fx4300 for a cheaper system but OP has a higher budget and is already looking at a top of the line graphics card

J: Calm down...

A: Doesn't matter, most of the AMD 8-core yolo myths came from Teksyndicate

B: IPC doesn't matter? What the hell? CPU monopoly is ABOUT IPC. Why the hell do you think AMD is getting smacked in every CPU bound test such as 720p? It's still getting smacked by 100% in 4 threaded games such as BF3. Get some understanding what benefits single threaded performance improvements have or have a look at the fx 9590 next to a 5960x. Their crappy IPC is the main reason why AMD isn't keeping up with Intel aside from power consumption.

If you really think more single threaded performance will only improve your single threaded performance and do nothing to your "4-threaded" performance or 50 threaded performance then you're misinformed.

C: And 10$ between the 4300 & 6300. Told you get me your evidence before we continue.

D: Good

E: In simple words, get that AVP benchmark I linked again where I showed a 100% difference. The benchmark says, AMD didn't bottleneck a single 7970 nor did Intel but AMD didn't take any advantage of a 2nd 7970 where as Intel pushed the crap out of it. Basically what would consume more power? Intel with two 7970's at 99% load or an AMD system with a single 7970 at 99% load? Now you got the picture.

If you have two cards, try measuring the power when both gpu's are each at 50% load and 99% each. The difference in power consumption is massive, if you're cpu bound you won't get 99% load but lets say 50% load, so upgrading to a CPU with more IPC eg 8350 to 4670k would push the gpu load to 99% making the GPU('s) consume more power. This would be only valid when AMD is performing worse than Intel. There's no FPS difference in Crysis 3 between the two, so an AMD system would consume more power then.

The loads for the AMD was 50/50% and 99%/99% for Intel, thats why you saw a massive bump in performance as you know two 7970's are twice as fast as a single 7970. With a single GPU there was no difference so they added a 2nd 7970 to make the 8350 a bottleneck so they could show a difference. This article shows the same thing; http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/8

Now you have an idea how important single threaded performance can be. 

H: Nobody here was interested in rendering performance, I haven't even mentioned anything about it. There are no games atm that magically saturates 8 cores to make them somehow literally equal to Intel. Crysis 3 is the only one atm, have a look at any BF4 benchmarks the 6300 is just equal to a 8320 except that russian source who claims a 8350 outperforms a 3930K or a 4300 outperforms a 2500K or a 6300 outperforms a 2600K etc.

Consoles have 2 cores reserved for the OS, no reasons to optimize it for 8 cores when you only have 6 available so don't hope for 8 threaded games. What sony told us here -> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

[GloriousPain]

@Faa
I'm done. You're just a fanboy who believes everything intel and lazy computer programmers say, IPC is a bullshit measurement the funniest part is it can even stand for two different things Instructions Per Clock or Instructions Per Core both of which are somewhat important but for the most part negligible Core Count and Actual Clocks are just important you even admitted that Crysis 3 is an 8Core/Thread game why can't other games be this way? Lazy devs... Like Ubisoft... And on AMD FX8 vs Intel i5 lets assume HALF IPC(instructions per core) which is true, but what else is true DOUBLE THE CORE COUNT  Since when doesn't .5*2 = 1?  go grab a damn calculator that tells me other wise! and since 1=1 the only thing that makes AMD inferior in games is programming 8thread/core games already exist you even admit so; Also WTF why are consoles holding us back?  Both AMD and Intel are doing things as far as I'm concerned half right one has core count one has core strength and note I'm ignoring extremes and xeons for obvious reasons... AMD's trying to push the market forward Intels fine with it as is it can just slowly increase computing power and make a fortune Moore's Law is bullshit. and I'm done. Just put simply AMD's Fx8s have as much potential as Intels i5s have power the only difference is optimization there's no reason why they're not equal other than optimization and I mentioned rendering in most of my posts not my fault you musta barely skimmed them or been making arguments for the sake of making arguments ignoring a key statement...

Don't Reply I'm not even gonna read it...

[Faa]

Don't Reply I'm not even gonna read it...

Thats the point; you can't even read or else you wouldn't be claiming gaming is all about corecount as you said single threaded performance is bullshit.

[Frix]

FX8350, but I suggest to go with Intel, cause 8350 will still bottleneck games on high-end cards.

Your avatar makes me crease so hard every time I see it. Especially on threads like this one.

[Totally-A-Hero]

No.

 

I have neither the willpower nor the patience to argue this same shit over and over again with different people. 

Why do you keep being a jerk? Lets keep it clean and helpful, after all that is why were all here. To help and to be helped.

[i_build_nanosuits]

want input from a guy who's experienced both intel and AMD CPU's in the last year with an high-end GPU? (Cause yes believe it or not you do need an high-end graphics card to notice any difference between both chips in most games) If you are to run a GTX 770 or R9 280X i'd recommend a core i5, if you're to run a GTX 760 or R9 280 or anything slower go with an AMD FX-8320...the 8320 is a true quad core CPU that can deliver very acceptable performance in most games and it will load GPU's up to about a GTX 770...if you're into high-end stuff (GTX 780, R9 290 or better) go intel i5 and if you want it to last for 3 or 4 years before you upgrade your CPU again for gaming go with a core i7 and a good CPU cooler. that's it!

AMD is fine for budget oriented build 60FPS in most games, intel (i5 and i7) is better for high-end stuff and/or 120FPS gaming...that's it!

The famous G3258 is shit for modern games anyone saying the opposite blindly listenend to linus video about it and looking lazy benchmark i took some time to try it out myself by disabling cores and HT and it just plain sux it can't even feed the GTX 780 to 60% in MANY (MOST) games...a core i3 is a little better but still i wouldnt pair it with anythiung better than a 760 or R9 280, an FX-6300 is a better choice than the i3 and the FX-83XX sits between the i3 and (very close in many case) to a core i5-4570...now enough arguying kids, i'm out

[Totally-A-Hero]

 

THANK YOU LORD NANO

[i_build_nanosuits]

THANK YOU LORD NANO

you are welcome

[nokturrduk84]

Your avatar makes me crease so hard every time I see it. Especially on threads like this one.

Good.

[Faa]

Why do you keep being a jerk? Lets keep it clean and helpful, after all that is why were all here. To help and to be helped.

It's always the same guys who keep claiming 220$ is less than 220$ or that Intel is just 20% better or 40% better max in single threaded games when their CPU is struggling competing with a 7 years old Q9550 clock for clock, denying any benchmarks they see because they are cherrypicked but if you ask them to do the same their googling skills doesnt cut it at that point other than bringing their bookmarked Logan fabrication vs Intel video's which even shows a 400% difference which is apparently valid. Then theyre calling me a fanboy when I'm bashing X99 cpu's for gaming, or even worse they don't recommend a 5820K/5930K/5960x for gaming because not enough games take advantage of all those cores but theyre recommending the shit out of the 8320.. It's just bullshit that 8320's are worth their money unless you're rendering which is when their price/performance actually appears.

I'm wondering where they are getting that "better price/gaming performance" from when Intel has an equivalent for each of their CPU's at the same price. Probably from this;

At 4K.. They didn't have any balls to do it on 720p and put their CPU's at 5GHz and do a price/performance(/wattage) ratio or just put a 9590 instead. 

[Clyne]

I would recommend a fx 8320, it's an underclocked 8350 in my opinion, just overclock it to match the speeds of a 8350, you'll save some money and use that extra money on somewhere else in your build.

[i_build_nanosuits]

So if i get this right they claim that for gaming their FX cpu's is just about as fast as a core i5-4430 which from my personal experience is right on...that's about what you get with amd ATM in games but they do consume some more energy so at the end of your 2 or 3 years of gaming you will end-up paying the same. AMD is not lying neither do i, an FX 8 core overclocked perform about the same as a core i5-4570 and at stock it's about the level of a core i5-4430.

Its funny when you look at CPU prices versus the performance you come to think that those guys know what they are doing, look at prices it's a very good indicator of how cpu performs in games...curiously.

A 120$ cpu is a 120$ cpu and a 250$ CPU is a 250$ cpu, nothing is free...only the FX-9590 and 9370 are not worth their price tag IMHO...because you can get an 8320 or 8350 and reach that clock speed and get the same performance for much less.

[Faa]

So if i get this right they claim that for gaming their FX cpu's is just about as fast as a core i5-4430 which from my personal experience is right on...that's about what you get with amd ATM in games but they do consume some more energy so at the end of your 2 or 3 years of gaming you will end-up paying the same. AMD is not lying neither do i, an FX 8 core overclocked perform about the same as a core i5-4570 and at stock it's about the level of a core i5-4430.

Its funny when you look at CPU prices versus the performance you come to think that those guys know what they are doing, look at prices it's a very good indicator of how cpu performs in games...curiously.

A 120$ cpu is a 120$ cpu and a 250$ CPU is a 250$ cpu, nothing is free...only the FX-9590 and 9370 are not worth their price tag IMHO...because you can get an 8320 or 8350 and reach that clock speed and get the same performance for much less.

8320's at whatever clock doesnt perform as good as i5's unless it's heavy multithreaded or you are dealing with a GPU bottleneck. The single threaded performance gap is just too big to even consider a piledriver at 5GHz would come close. They don't cost 120$, they cost 150$ and the boards for it are more 30$ expensive so that equals out.

[i_build_nanosuits]

8320's at whatever clock doesnt perform as good as i5's unless it's heavy multithreaded or you are dealing with a GPU bottleneck. The single threaded performance gap is just too big to even consider a piledriver at 5GHz would come close. They don't cost 120$, they cost 150$ and the boards for it are more 30$ expensive so that equals out.

i don't care if you don't trust me and you rather google some benchmarks to forge your opinion mate i,m telling you i've tested both platforms long enough in many games to tell you how they perform it's your choice to trust me and believe me or not...

about pricing the prices i gave where just example i know that if you consider cpu cooler and good enough motherboard to overclock the FX you are in the price range of a B85 motherboard and core i5-4570 which for gaming is still a better choice, yes.

[Totally-A-Hero]

snip

Why did you quote me on this?

[Faa]

i don't care if you don't trust me and you rather google some benchmarks to forge your opinion mate i,m telling you i've tested both platforms long enough in many games to tell you how they perform it's your choice to trust me and believe me or not...

about pricing the prices i gave where just example i know that if you consider cpu cooler and good enough motherboard to overclock the FX you are in the price range of a B85 motherboard and core i5-4570 which for gaming is still a better choice, yes.

So you're trying to compare two different CPU's with the GPU being a bottleneck or being extremely close to hit its limit? Like I said, there won't be a difference when thats the case. We need some proof that an overclocked 8350 has the same single threaded performance as a stock i5 and lets the 6 games that are taking advantage of 6 threads out.

 

 

Why did you quote me on this?

Was explaining why he behaved like that

[i_build_nanosuits]

So you're trying to compare two different CPU's with the GPU being a bottleneck or being extremely close to hit its limit? Like I said, there won't be a difference when thats the case. We need some proof that an overclocked 8350 has the same single threaded performance as a stock i5 and lets the 6 games that are taking advantage of 6 threads out.

All i can say is that with an overclocked GTX 780 for GPU an FX-8320@4.6ghz provide about the same results as a core i5-4570 in most games, that's all i can say.

The i5 is slightly better when less than 4 threads are at use and the FX will be about the same with 5 or 6 threads.

[Totally-A-Hero]

 

So you're trying to compare two different CPU's with the GPU being a bottleneck or being extremely close to hit its limit? Like I said, there won't be a difference when thats the case. We need some proof that an overclocked 8350 has the same single threaded performance as a stock i5 and lets the 6 games that are taking advantage of 6 threads out.

 

 

Was explaining why he behaved like that

 

Still not ok but i get it now.

[Sintezza]

Why do these topics allways end up in the same old pointless discussion?

I realy dont understand, why moderators dont take actions on this kind of crap realy..

 

Topic starter asked for a good AMD cpu for gaming.

 

And what do i read, all the same bullshit again, as in tons of intel vs amd pointless bullshit threads.

Its obvious that Topic starter did not ask about this crap!

 

Intel Fanboys realy need to grow up.

cause 80% of the comments in this thread is useless nonsense!