What GPU should I get?

[Jengo]

Hi.

I am looking at upgrading my system, but of course the ultimate question has popped up, AMD vs Nvidea. (and no the answer is not 42 in this case)

I currently have:
cpu: fx 4300 @ 4.5 Ghz
gpu: 7870Ghz
psu: cx 500
ram: 8Gb 1600Mhz
motherboard: asus m5a97 r2.0

I am looking at getting a r9 290x from Saphire or a GTX 970 as a gpu upgrade, and to minimize any bottlenecking my fx4300 will be upgraded to a fx 8350. The psu will be upgraded to a rm750 as well.
I would like to know what you guys think I should do?

 

[MattP123]

Budget & Location? 

[Fulgrim]

I would recommend on getting an i5 4690k + decent motherboard mate. That FX8350 will be rather lackluster tbh, if you could squeeze in a 290X on top then you'll be sorted.

 

But as it stands, you're best of going for an i5 instead of an FX8350, even considering that you need a new board to do so.

[Jengo]

Budget & Location? 

I live in Denmark so the items must be available within the EU.

My budget is 4000kr or there about (670$) (540€)

[TheKDub]

970, and I'd suggest getting an i5 4690 or 4690K and a h97 or z97 mobo. (4690 and h97, or 4690K and z97)

[Jengo]

I would recommend on getting an i5 4690k + decent motherboard mate. That FX8350 will be rather lackluster tbh, if you could squeeze in a 290X on top then you'll be sorted.

 

But as it stands, you're best of going for an i5 instead of an FX8350, even considering that you need a new board to do so.

I will consider it, what motherboards would you recommend for the i5? I don´t have any experience and very little knowledge about the Intel platform.

[MattP123]

I live in Denmark so the items must be available within the EU.

My budget is 4000kr or there about (670$) (540€)

Get this. You can get a better CPU cooler later. 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($229.95 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($107.93 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB ACX 2.0 Video Card  ($329.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $667.87

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-07 19:10 EST-0500

[Jengo]

970, and I'd suggest getting an i5 4690 or 4690K and a h97 or z97 mobo. (4690 and h97, or 4690K and z97)

That is going to go over my budget. I can get the i5 4690k with a z97 from msi, but if I do that I will have to keep my current gpu.

[Fulgrim]

I will consider it, what motherboards would you recommend for the i5? I don´t have any experience and very little knowledge about the Intel platform.

MSI Z97-G45 should be alright

[Jengo]

 

Get this. You can get a better CPU cooler later. 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($229.95 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($107.93 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 970 4GB ACX 2.0 Video Card  ($329.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $667.87

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-07 19:10 EST-0500

 

Thank you very much, but prices are quite a bit higher here in Denmark, so I might have to leave the 970 out for now. I already have a aftermarket cpu cooler and it should do the trick

aftermarket cooler: http://www.arctic.ac/eu_en/freezer-13.html

[I/O]

For 60hz monitors and any single GPU the FX 8350 is a fine choice and amazing value. The only time you need Intel is if you are trying to run dual or triple high end cards to push a 120hz monitor.

[TheKDub]

That is going to go over my budget. I can get the i5 4690k with a z97 from msi, but if I do that I will have to keep my current gpu.

 

I'd at least keep that in mind for the future, perhaps wait a little longer with your current setup and then upgrade all 3 at once?

[Faceman]

You should switch to Intel to be honest.

 

Go for an i5-4690k + Z97 motherboard.  The GPU you currently have is still good for another year.

 

The FX8 will bottleneck a high end GPU, and it makes certain games downright unplayable, BF4 is not one of them.  Its an old architecture, and you are better off upgrading your CPU and then your GPU later.

[Jengo]

For 60hz monitors and any single GPU the FX 8350 is a fine choice and amazing value. The only time you need Intel is if you are trying to run dual or triple high end cards to push a 120hz monitor.

My monitor is 144Hz but can be adjusted to run at 144, 120, 75, 60 and 56Hz I just want 60fps on ultra I have heard good things about the fx 8350 and that was why I was going to get it, because upgrading my motherboard, is not something i really want to do, but I may have to.

You should switch to Intel to be honest.

Go for an i5-4690k + Z97 motherboard. The GPU you currently have is still good for another year.

The FX8 will bottleneck a high end GPU, and it makes certain games downright unplayable, BF4 is not one of them. Its an old architecture, and you are better off upgrading your CPU and then your GPU later.

Ohh, ok. I saw some benchmarks showing the fx 8350 as being as good as the i5 and close to the i7 for gaming that is, and in some games the fx 8350 would pull ahead and in others intel would win. I saw this on TekSyndicate. But maybe Intel is more future proof or something, I honestly do not know?

I'd at least keep that in mind for the future, perhaps wait a little longer with your current setup and then upgrade all 3 at once?

Do you think the i5 would improve my frame rate even with the 7870?

[TheKDub]

Do you think the i5 would improve my frame rate even with the 7870?

 

Maybe by 5-20fps depending on the game.

[Faceman]

Ohh, ok. I saw some benchmarks showing the fx 8350 as being as good as the i5 and close to the i7 for gaming that is, and in some games the fx 8350 would pull ahead and in others intel would win. I saw this on TekSyndicate. But maybe Intel is more future proof or something, I honestly do not know?

No, that is not a credible review.  That is the only review of its kind showing the FX beating an i5.  Its just plain falsified.  Tek Syndicate is not a reliable source, they even have one video showing an APU beating an i7-4770k.  Ignore them, unsubscribe from them, they aren't credible.  Every other credible reviewer on the internet shows the i5 beating the FX8.  The i5 is definitely more future proof than the FX8.  With the i5, you wont bottleneck high end GPUs, you will also be able to play ALL games.  You also have an upgrade path to an i7 if needed.  But for gaming, i5 = i7.  The FX8 doesn't have an upgrade path, and it is already a very old processor.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Indies, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 10-15fps is acceptable.

 

The i3 even beats the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

i5-4670k Vs. FX8350 Aggregate Comparison

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

Sidenote:  Don't buy the RM750.  Buy the EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W Instead.  Much better PSU and generally at or around the same price.

[I/O]

My monitor is 144Hz but can be adjusted to run at 144, 120, 75, 60 and 56Hz I just want 60fps on ultra I have heard good things about the fx 8350 and that was why I was going to get it, because upgrading my motherboard, is not something i really want to do, but I may have to.

People don't understand how hard it is to attain 144fps minimum even with top end hardware and dual 980s. We should try to master 1080P at 60fps before moving ahead with crazy resolutions and refresh rates that are not even able to get driven fast enough to be locked to the monitors native max refresh rate.

 

 

[Jengo]

No, that is not a credible review.  That is the only review of its kind showing the FX beating an i5.  Its just plain falsified.  Tek Syndicate is not a reliable source, they even have one video showing an APU beating an i7-4770k.  Ignore them, unsubscribe from them, they aren't credible.  Every other credible reviewer on the internet shows the i5 beating the FX8.  The i5 is definitely more future proof than the FX8.  With the i5, you wont bottleneck high end GPUs, you will also be able to play ALL games.  You also have an upgrade path to an i7 if needed.  But for gaming, i5 = i7.  The FX8 doesn't have an upgrade path, and it is already a very old processor.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Indies, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 10-15fps is acceptable.

 

The i3 even beats the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

i5-4670k Vs. FX8350 Aggregate Comparison

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

Thank you very much for this detailed reply. I have always used AMD in the past, so I must admit to being a bit biased, but maybe it is time for a change

[Faceman]

Thank you very much for this detailed reply. I have always used AMD in the past, so I must admit to being a bit biased, but maybe it is time for a change

Thats because AMD was good in the past.  I've used AMD in the past, but this is the present, and AMD is simply not competitive when it comes to their CPUs in today's gaming world.  Their GPUs are still great and I recommend them all the time, but their CPUs are just not cutting it.

[Jengo]

People don't understand how hard it is to attain 144fps minimum even with top end hardware and dual 980s. We should try to master 1080P at 60fps before moving ahead with crazy resolutions and refresh rates that are not even able to get driven fast enough to be locked to the monitors native max refresh rate.

 

 

I did not choose this monitor it was a gift from my father, and I realize I am not going to be hitting the 144 avg, but as I said, I am happy with 60 avg

[Jengo]

Thats because AMD was good in the past.  I've used AMD in the past, but this is the present, and AMD is simply not competitive when it comes to their CPUs in today's gaming world.  Their GPUs are still great and I recommend them all the time, but their CPUs are just not cutting it.

I guess I will be going with the i5 4690k and MSI Z97 Gaming 5 in that case and hopefully I will get a bit higher fps with my 7870Ghz, until I can upgrade it to a gtx 970 or r9 290x not sure.

[Faceman]

I guess I will be going with the i5 4690k and MSI Z97 Gaming 5 in that case and hopefully I will get a bit higher fps with my 7870Ghz, until I can upgrade it to a gtx 970 or r9 290x not sure.

Can't go wrong with either a 970 or R9 290X.  Both perform about the same, with the 970 having better temperatures and lower power consumption. 

 

Buying the i5 and Z97 is a must because it lays the foundation for the future so that you can get high end cards, and start pushing those frame rates consistently past 60.

 

I also saw that you were considering the RM 750.  While this is a good PSU, there is a better option at the same price point.  The better PSU is the EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750/850.  Much, much better PSUs that come with more desirable features, and a longer warranty.  Not to mention, EVGA's world renown customer service.  I don't know what prices are like in Denmark, but if those PSUs are within range of each other price wise, go for the EVGA one.

[I/O]

I guess I will be going with the i5 4690k and MSI Z97 Gaming 5 in that case and hopefully I will get a bit higher fps with my 7870Ghz, until I can upgrade it to a gtx 970 or r9 290x not sure.

A single 7870 is not going to need much CPU to push to it's max. The FX 8350 is a fine CPU for an HD 7870. You are goging to throw away allot of money needlessly going to an Intel platform when all you are running is one HD 7870 which will never come close to 144fps on any somewhat modern game with decent graphics.

[Aniallation]

For 60hz monitors and any single GPU the FX 8350 is a fine choice and amazing value. The only time you need Intel is if you are trying to run dual or triple high end cards to push a 120hz monitor.

Only in the few games that actually use more then 4 cores. 

 

In games that use 1-4 cores, an FX 4300 and 8350 will perform the same given they're at the same clock speeds.

[Jengo]

Can't go wrong with either a 970 or R9 290X. Both perform about the same, with the 970 having better temperatures and lower power consumption.

Buying the i5 and Z97 is a must because it lays the foundation for the future so that you can get high end cards, and start pushing those frame rates consistently past 60.

I also saw that you were considering the RM 750. While this is a good PSU, there is a better option at the same price point. The better PSU is the EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750/850. Much, much better PSUs that come with more desirable features, and a longer warranty. Not to mention, EVGA's world renown customer service. I don't know what prices are like in Denmark, but if those PSUs are within range of each other price wise, go for the EVGA one.

The web shop I have been looking at do not have any psu´s from EVGA, so I might have to go hunting the web for some other shops, but thanks for the heads up

A single 7870 is not going to need much CPU to push to it's max. The FX 8350 is a fine CPU for an HD 7870. You are goging to throw away allot of money needlessly going to an Intel platform when all you are running is one HD 7870 which will never come close to 144fps on any somewhat modern game with decent graphics.

As I have said before I am not looking for 144fps, that just happens to be the refresh rate of my monitor. I am looking for a stable 60fps, and the reason I am upgrading to the Intel platform, is so I can get an r9 290x or gtx 970 without having a massive bottleneck.