GPU with 8350

[Faceman]

When I say I'm set, it means I've already done my research. 

 

I KNOW it's slower than an i3 in games. I KNOW I could save $100 and go with the Pentium anniversary edition and get better value. I KNOW it runs hot, it's an old architecture (from 2012 - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture): Piledriver is a microarchitecture developed by AMD as the successor to Bulldozer. Produced: from mid-2012 to present.), it's 8 cores barely match up to an i5 in multi-threaded apps, etc etc. In builds for my friend, i recommended an i5 4440 and an i5 4690K.

 

What YOU don't know, is that I'm gonna get the NH-D14 anyways, since it looks great, and Noctua sends updates for its mounting hardware. I'm gonna do video rendering, which the 8 cores will help with. I like supporting the underdogs, so I'm going with AMD. Overclocking is important to me, and that's my view and my choice. 8 cores is nice for me for multitasking. My family's been using Intel for as long as I remember, and I want to see what AMD's like. I only need the performance at medium/high at 40FPS at 1080p. The games I want to play are mostly Minecraft, the total ware series and GMod, and I only buy older games since they aren't as expensive.

 

If you say that the Intel chip comes with the NH-D14, if Intel is the underdog, if Intel has a quad-core CPU that's overclockable at the same price bracket, if buying an Intel CPU means that I'll experience what and AMD chip is like, if the 8350 can't get me medium settings in the games I want to play, and if buying Intel means that AMD will get more support for its R&D, tell me, and I'll reconsider. 

 

When i was looking at GPUs, I was looking at the GTX 760 or R9 270. However, a GTX 760 at $200 or an R9 270 at $170 wasn't a better deal than an R9 290 at $200. You don't know where I'm coming from. I've already stated that I'm happy for games at *MEDIUM* settings. I know what I'm getting into.

 

The *ONLY REASON* why I'm getting an R9 290 is that it's $270 (minus $20 minus $50) compared to the R9 270 at $170 and GTX 760 at $200. That's why I'm set. I don't need more performance. I'm happy to play games at medium. If my R9 290 performs as well as an R9 270 with my CPU, so be it. It's only $30 more, in my mind.

 

I wish you'd read the post. I never said 970 anywhere. I was asking about the R9 290, and whether there was a better value. I don't know where the GTX 970 came into the picture

Your rationale is hysterical.

[TheRunningOtaku]

Your rationale is hysterical.

maybe if you elaborate, or say something relevant to the OP I'd consider. Just because you couldn't achieve what you wanted doesn't mean you have to badmouth people like that.

If you have nothing better to say then don't say it. Everyone has their opinions and I have mine. 

[Faceman]

maybe if you elaborate, or say something relevant to the OP I'd consider.

If you have nothing better to say then don't say it. Everyone has their opinions and I have mine.

Well, to start. Piledriver(2012) is a revision of Bulldowser(2011). The "improvements" are laughable. Just because it was released in 2012, doesn't mean the architecture is from then. It was in development for years. "AMD has re-introduced the "Clustered Integer Core" micro-architecture, an architecture developed by DEC in 1996 with the RISC microprocessor Alpha 21264. This technology is informally called CMT (Clustered Multi-Thread) and formally called "module" by AMD." It still uses a 32nm manufacturing process. Haswell/DC is down to 22nm.

What you SHOULD know is that a CPU cooler can be added at any time. It is inexpensive in comparison to an entire CPU + Motherboard. Buy the i5-4690k + Z97(so you can overclock since that is so important to you) and buy your CPU Cooler later. Yes, the 8 cores will help for video editing and rendering, but not by a large margin. The gains you will get in games will far outweigh the gains in editing and rendering. Some games are borderline unplayable with FX processors, MMOs, Indies, ARMA2/3, DayZ, Emulators, Etc..

There is nothing wrong with rooting for the underdog, but you want to intentionally hamper your performance so you can help AMD's R&D?

Next, your rationale behind the R9 290 only being $220 because you get a free game? You do know that when you buy a 270 or 760 you will also get a free game, so take another $50 off their prices too. You can't give the R9 290 a $50 discount and not the other GPUs.

Rationalize it to yourself however you want, its hysterical from any rational person's point of view.

[Jetster]

There is no denying Intel's superior platform. I always try to get people to go with Intel. The builds just go better and you will have less heat and fewer issues. There are many reasons to go with Intel over AMD. You see in my specs I have the latest Intel setup with a G1 board. But to say some games are borderline unplayable on an FX is simply not true.

[Faceman]

There is no denying Intel's superior platform. I always try to get people to go with Intel. The builds just go better and you will have less heat and fewer issues. There are many reasons to go with Intel over AMD. You see in my specs I have the latest Intel setup with a G1 board. But to say some games are borderline unplayable on an FX is simply not true.

MMOs, ARMA2/3, DayZ, Indies, Emulators are all going to deliver sub 30fps with an FX processor. I would deem that unplayable.

[Jetster]

MMOs, ARMA2/3, DayZ, Indies, Emulators are all going to deliver sub 30fps with an FX processor. I would deem that unplayable.

 

I have no idea what your talking about. BF3 over 100fps on Ultra

 

FX8350

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/3561041

 

 

Exact same set up with i7

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/3607928

[TheRunningOtaku]

There is no denying Intel's superior platform. I always try to get people to go with Intel. The builds just go better and you will have less heat and fewer issues. There are many reasons to go with Intel over AMD. You see in my specs I have the latest Intel setup with a G1 board. But to say some games are borderline unplayable on an FX is simply not true.

Some people have biases to some companies or platforms, and exaggarate things. The 8350 will probably bottleneck the 290 in some games, but it won't be horrible or unplayable. The 8350 will likely be more than enough for my needs, and let's leave it at that.

[anthonyc813]

Yeah, AMD is more for the budget market now - their Athlon line and APUs are decent for the price you pay, but they have nothing against Intel in gaming, unfortunately.

If you're using a midrange card though you'l be fine don't bother to upgrade if you're gonna stick with a low-end GPU.

Soooo say someone does have a high end range mother board and good cooling with a FX CPU? After reading all this great information and wanting to play the newest games, what would you advise? Sorry to ask in this thread but rather not start a new one on the subject. OC the 8320 to the max? Or jsut leave it as is (currently 4.21) and wait a year for a new Intel gaming build. My ASUS Sabertooth 990x is almost a year old and is in perfect condition... kinda does not make sense to swap out major parts just to game at this point. I don;t want to believe I have a low-end GPU (XFX R9 280X) so I hope I should be fine for another 10-12 months with this set up.... right? I get good FPS in the evil within and Lords of the Fallen has not crashed on me once. Waiting for Dragon Age 3 in 2 weeks and hope to run that at max setting on 1080p for at least 80-100 hours.

 

I kinda don't want to push my 8320 further and risk of frying it and the mother board- which will give me a excuse to buy all new parts

[SkilledRebuilds]

I have no idea what your talking about. BF3 over 100fps on Ultra

 

FX8350

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/3561041

 

 

Exact same set up with i7

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/3607928

He was referring to some CPU LIMITED TITLES, not just those two, but the range of Games that he actually mentioned above ARE CPU bound titles.......& perform like shit on that architecture.

Yes BF3 holds its own, and so does 3Dmark, their tailored to be good, multithreaded and optimized to some degree a huge team of people, but pick any lowly threaded CPU bound title from a company not so good at optimization or getting better performance out of more cores, then the FX series dies in the ass in those types of games/software, and there are MANY examples of both GOOD and BAD.

[Mush Brain]

The FX8350 will not bottleneck on any GPU. Even SLI or crossfire. Its will score slightly less in benchmarks but you cannot feel the difference. Over clocked both I7 and FX are fine gaming CPUs. You cannot deny FX "bang for buck" CPU for gaming. The problem with FX is its a dead socket. They are discontinuing it.

 

Hell I can get desent benchmarks out of a Pentium G and a GTX 970.

Multi GPU? if you say so...

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/246214-i5-3570k-vs-8350-stock-clock/

 

image quality maxed out with 2 EVGA GTX 480 SSC's on air and a i5 2500k.

 

 

 

 

7990 Devil 13 (2x 7970's, roughly a 7970 is 1.9x faster than a stock GTX 480) and AMD FX 8 core.

 

 

 

 

The i5 simply decimates the FX with multi GPU setups, the FX is clearly bottlenecking the 7990 by a huge margin.

 

 

[TheRunningOtaku]

I think that the R9 280X should be okay with the card - it's kind of a mid-range card still. If you already bought the parts, there's no real reason to change, unless you're unhappy with the performance of your current setup. Don't upgrade because you want something better - upgrade when your current rig doesn't do what you want it to do.

Soooo say someone does have a high end range mother board and good cooling with a FX CPU? After reading all this great information and wanting to play the newest games, what would you advise? Sorry to ask in this thread but rather not start a new one on the subject. OC the 8320 to the max? Or jsut leave it as is (currently 4.21) and wait a year for a new Intel gaming build. My ASUS Sabertooth 990x is almost a year old and is in perfect condition... kinda does not make sense to swap out major parts just to game at this point. I don;t want to believe I have a low-end GPU (XFX R9 280X) so I hope I should be fine for another 10-12 months with this set up.... right? I get good FPS in the evil within and Lords of the Fallen has not crashed on me once. Waiting for Dragon Age 3 in 2 weeks and hope to run that at max setting on 1080p for at least 80-100 hours.

 

I kinda don't want to push my 8320 further and risk of frying it and the mother board- which will give me a excuse to buy all new parts

I think that the R9 280X should be okay with the card - it's kind of a mid-range card still. If you already bought the parts, there's no real reason to change, unless you're unhappy with the performance of your current setup. Don't upgrade because you want something better - upgrade when your current rig doesn't do what you want it to do.

[anthonyc813]

I think that the R9 280X should be okay with the card - it's kind of a mid-range card still. If you already bought the parts, there's no real reason to change, unless you're unhappy with the performance of your current setup. Don't upgrade because you want something better - upgrade when your current rig doesn't do what you want it to do.

 

yeah Im gonna wait a year or so. I was bummed about my beloved AMD parts after reading all this like I said BUT information is information. Now I am informed <3

I don't have any problems playing anything as of now. I am 90% sure i will Xfire my cards if I get the same on on black friday so I should be good for a while. I always believed AMD was for gaming and Intel CPUs was for graphic design and rendereing.

 

Thank you all for posting facts. Sorry to the OP for derailing his thread.

[TheRunningOtaku]

yeah Im gonna wait a year or so. I was bummed about my beloved AMD parts after reading all this like I said BUT information is information. Now I am informed <3

I don't have any problems playing anything as of now. I am 90% sure i will Xfire my cards if I get the same on on black friday so I should be good for a while. I always believed AMD was for gaming and Intel CPUs was for graphic design and rendereing.

 

Thank you all for posting facts. Sorry to the OP for derailing his thread.

it's cool. Facts are facts, but a lot of time people confuse opinions for facts. 

AMD CPUs aren't all that bad - most people would be okay with them unless you wanted to go for the cream of the crop for gaming.

[randy hutajulu]

the R9 290 would be a good match fore either one of those CPUs as im running a R9 290 on my rig with my 6300 and it runs all games well over 100fps on the highest setting (except crysis 3 and it kills all gpus)

Naahh.. I play crysis on highest setting (including 8xmsaa) at 1920x1200 with my GTX 780. I still get a playable Fps around 40-45.

So, don't worry about crysis 3 buddy

[Jetster]

Here another benchmark. If your ready to make the switch to Intel you can start with a G3259 Pentium dual core if you cannot aford the i5 and upgrade later. Broadwell will fit the 1150 socket Z97 release in 2015

 

GTX760 + G3258 just built this last week.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4541349

[TheRunningOtaku]

aahh.. I play crysis on highest setting (including 8xmsaa) at 1920x1200 with my GTX 780. I still get a playable Fps around 40-45.

So, don't worry about crysis 3 buddy

 

 

Here another benchmark. If your ready to make the switch to Intel you can start with a G3259 Pentium dual core if you cannot aford the i5 and upgrade later. Broadwell will fit the 1150 socket Z97 release in 2015

 

GTX760 + G3258 just built this last week.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4541349

Thanks guys!