50$ more on CPU

[seon123]

I'm in an arguement in a youtube comment section and a dude claims that AMD CPUs are going to bottleneck in nearly all games. He also says that games aren't going to use more than 4 cores in the near future cause only 5-10% of gamers are going to benefit from it. So he says that it's worth getting a 4670 with a 270 rather than a 8320 with a 280. Is he saying nonsense, or is he actually right?

[OfficialJsP]

well i am sure the consoles have 8 cores which in the long run i presume it should be better for PC over all and people with multiply threads since most games are ports these days but i am 100% sure any FX AMD CPU will not bottleneck but yeah i would go for the 4670 over the 8320 because it has better performance per core 

[seon123]

well i am sure the consoles have 8 cores which in the long run should be better for PC over all and people with multiply threads since most games are ports these days but i am 100% any FX AMD CPU will not bottleneck but yeah i would go for the 4670 over the 8320 because it has better performance per core 

But wouldn't it be better to go with the more powerful 280 over the 270?

[Guest]

I'm in an arguement in a youtube comment section 

I'm sure it contained logic, reasoning, facts, no emotional bias, and was keep free of cussing, racial slurs, and generally offensive language.

[OfficialJsP]

But wouldn't it be better to go with the more powerful 280 over the 270?

 

yeah ofc

[TheRetiredSlave]

He's not entirely right, but he's not entirely wrong either..

 

Games as of right now generally don't see any performance increase going from 4 cores to 8 cores. Games right now do generally prefer to have 4 strong cores (Intel i5) rather than 8 weaker cores (AMD FX-8). In terms of raw CPU performance right now, I would generally choose a 4-core i5 over an FX 8-core.

That being said, games will probably use more cores in the future, and an overclocked FX 8-core generally won't really be a bottleneck in most titles (it could be a bottleneck in terribly optimized console ports though)..

 

In terms of raw overall gaming performance, an FX-8320+280 would be a stronger setup than an i5-4670+270.

 

 

**Note my use of the word "generally".. Always bear in mind that ideas that are true in some games are not always necessarily true in other games.

[seon123]

http://imgur.com/Ay2iYM4

That's how it started

[ManWithBeard1990]

That's a bit harsh. Amd's aren't that bad. If you were deciding on a better GPU than the 280 I'd say yeah get the Intel, but really with your choices the AMD one is probably best.

[grimmjow660]

I think even games require more cores, the FX won't be of much use. If my old 2500k was giving the same performance as my friends 8350 with the same gpu, im sure the FX will be obsolete when we get there.

And this was in battlefield 4, a game that people say requires more cores.

[Faceman]

Vast majority of games prefer strong cores of many weak cores.  It is better to get the i5 + 270 than an FX8 + 280.

 

With the FX, you could be limited in the performance you get depending on the game, and it will bottleneck high end GPUs, and multi-GPU setups.

 

The i5 you will be able to play any game without issue, no bottlenecking of high end cards, or multi-GPU setups.

[Hieb]

I'm in an arguement in a youtube comment section and a dude claims that AMD CPUs are going to bottleneck in nearly all games. He also says that games aren't going to use more than 4 cores in the near future cause only 5-10% of gamers are going to benefit from it. So he says that it's worth getting a 4670 with a 270 rather than a 8320 with a 280. Is he saying nonsense, or is he actually right?

 

It varies on games, and I wouldn't say that an FX-8320 would bottleneck an R9 280 unless you were looking for high framerates. For instance if you're looking for ultra settings at 30-60 fps, you would be absolutely fine with an FX-8320. But if you're looking for high framerates, meaning >60 FPS preferring not to dip below 60, you would prob be better off with the i5 and R9 270.

 

Once DirectX 12 is released it may be a different story (depending on how much of an improvement over 11 it is), but for now the FX CPUs can cause delays in frames and some report gameplay being jittery rather than as smooth (due to frame latency).

 

Also the consoles do have 8-core CPUs, however they use an architecture that is different from AMD's Piledriver CPUs. Additionally, only 6 of the cores are used for games in the Xbox One and Playstation 4 - the other 2 are reserved for OS functions. Anyhow, just because games will support numerous cores better than they do now doesn't mean AMD CPUs will be better options than Intel CPUs (the only time I feel they are is when comparing Athlons to Pentiums for gaming)... it just means they will be better options than they've been in the past. Even in games that do effectively support 6-8 threads, Intel CPUs routinely provide better performance. In some games the gaps are smaller than others, and in some there is no noticeable gap whatsoever (these are typically in games that have low CPU dependency overall, and in these an Athlon 750K will provide performance similar to a 5960X).

 

It really depends how dependent on good CPU the games you play are... but I would personally recommend an i5 over the FX-8320.

 

Now if you wanted to meet somewhere in the middle, you might consider a lower level i5 like an i5-4460 so you can still afford an R9 280, or perhaps a GTX 760 (which fits snugly between the 270X and 280).