Gaming CPU build $1000

[Amanaman83]

My friend wants to build a computer with a thousand doller budget. There is a lot more room in the budget with the 8350, but how much better is the 4960k for gaming/general use?

[zappian]

4690k is MUCH better for gaming.

[Laputacake]

I5, FX processors are old and have a pretty shit architecture.

[wyattzx]

The i5 4690k is going to be much better for gaming. 

[jamie.k.hofer]

i5 is has much better performance especially per core and is more power efficient.

[Toddwjp]

i5, fx series is know just too old to recommend really

[QueenDemetria]

For those uses: 4690k, its much better for gaming.

If your friend was running VM's and other server applications I would have recommended the FX.

[Sauron]

With 1000$, it's hard to recommend an FX. What0s the exact build? Maybe something else can be shaved to make room for the i5. FX cpus are good when you're on a budget and the gpu isn't fast enough to be significantly bottlenecked by the cpu.

[SeanBond]

4960k is much better for most gaming scenarios, 8350 can stack up only in heavily multithreaded scenarios and the 8350 is pointless when the 8320 exists anyway. They overclock almost the same and have about the same performance at the same clock. So the real question is do you want to spend half as much on a 8320 to often get bottlenecked in games or spend twice as much to get similar performance in heavily threaded games. Not most games are single or dual threaded.

[TheMissxu]

I5, FX processors are old and have a pretty shit architecture.

I would say i5 as well, but it isn't the FX processors that are bad... It's the people programming the software. Just look at Linux; if you have Linux, definitely AMD. If you have windows... Intel. Similar things go for multi-core optimized software. If you run lots of single core optimized (or rather, lack of optimization) software, then Intel is for you. If you have some multi-core applications (few, but there are some), then AMD is much cheaper and will run just as well (within error, I'd say).

 

I must admit, most, if not all games, are more optimized for single thread, so if that was a real decision... It's a no brainer, i5 (unless you are running linux).

 

You do pay 75$ more for the i5 though.

[Briggsy]

an e3 1230 xeon and a cheap intel board will destroy an overclocked 8350, price and performance.

[zappian]

an e3 1230 xeon and a cheap intel board will destroy an overclocked 8350, price and performance.

 

Dont know if he needs a xeon for gaming,

 

But its a very good cpu for the price.

[pitprok]

an e3 1230 xeon and a cheap intel board will destroy an overclocked 8350, price and performance.

Yea buy what about the price ?

[Steven9595]

The build in my signature cost me ~$1,050 including Windows 8.1.

[zappian]

The build in my signature cost me ~$1,050 including Windows 8.1.

 

Very nice rig .

You need to get a 212 EVO dude .

[Amanaman83]

What about the i5 4440, is that any good?

[Suika]

What about the i5 4440, is that any good?

It's basically a locked and underclocked i5-4690k. The actual performance difference ranges from 5-15%.

[zappian]

It's basically a locked and underclocked i5-4690k. The actual performance difference ranges from 5-15%.

 

Yeah.

Is still enough for 99% for the cards op.

More than enough.

[Amanaman83]

How about the i5 4690, its just a locked 4960k, right?

[thekeemo]

Check out the builds in my Sig if you need any help. Most people agree with them

[Steven9595]

Very nice rig .

You need to get a 212 EVO dude .

I know It has to wait until I get my check back from my school. I somehow overpaid by $550...

[RichardF]

I would say i5 as well, but it isn't the FX processors that are bad... It's the people programming the software.

No, they're bad.

 

1) They're still on 32nm which means worse efficiency.

 

2) They have far fewer transistors than Intel chips. 1.2B for "8 cores". Even a Sandy Bridge E quad has more with 1.27B. A true six core Sandy Bridge E chip has 2.27B. AMD's "8 core" chips sound massive, but they don't have very many transistors. 8 core Haswell E has 2.6B transistors — twice as many as AMD's "8 core" Vishera.

 

There is only so much you can do with clockspeed when you're dealing with a chip that has so few transistors. However, Lynnfield quads have just 774M transistors and they're faster per core than Vishera even at a lower clockspeed! A 4 GHz Lynnfield quad will beat a 4 GHz Vishera in gaming benchmarks, and that's a 45nm chip with so few transistors:

 

FX 8350, 4 GHz

i5 760 quad (Lynnfield), 2.8 GHz

 

Cinebench R10 single thread benchmark:

 

FX: 4338

Intel: 4512

 

Dragon Age Origins 1680 x 1050, Max, no AA or Vsync

 

FX: 139.2

Intel: 142

 

Dawn of War II 1680 x 1050, Ultra

 

FX: 70.5

Intel: 70.8

 

WoW

 

FX: 91.5

Intel: 89

 

Starcraft 2

 

FX: 47.9

Intel: 44.9

 

Now, keep in mind that the Lynnfield chip has no hyperthreading, is from 2009, and is running at a 1.2 GHz slower rate. FX is competitive with a gimped quad from 2009. That says a lot.

 

I realize these are older games that are not heavily threaded like newer ones, but I don't have better benchmarks in front of me (using Anandtech's CPU bench). It still says a lot that single thread performance of a tiny old Lynnfield chip beats FX clocked 1.2 GHz higher, or is around the same performance. Lynnfield also has 7 MB less L2 cache.

 

The one thing in Anandtech's CPU bench that FX chips seem to really excel at is 7-zip. I assume this is because each of the four modules has two integer threads and one fpu.

 

FX: 23223

Lynnfield: 11641

 

Lynnfield also falls well behind when an app can take full advantage of the eight FX threads:

 

Cinebench R10 multithreaded

 

FX: 22674

Lynnfield: 15060

 

 

But, let's look at 4 core Haswell at 4 GHz... (4790K, 88W)

 

Cinebench R15 multithreaded

 

FX: 640

Haswell: 894

 

single-threaded

 

FX: 64

Haswell: 181

 

Bioshock Infinite SLI, minimum FPS (1080p max, 2x 770)

 

FX: 12.1

Haswell: 28.3

 

single GPU, minimum FPS

 

FX: 9.6

Haswell: 28.6

 

Battlefield 4, minimum FPS (1080p max, 2x 770)

 

FX: 63.6

Haswell: 82.3

 

If you have a water loop and can push enough voltage into an FX to get near 5 GHz then you can game at 4K relatively well because of GPU-bound scenarios. It won't be as fast as Haswell, but it's reasonably competitive with Ivy Bridge E (4930K). But, you're going to pay for the power bill.

[Hieb]

How do they calculate minimum framerate? Observable or absolute lowest? Because if the minimum fps of 12 and 28 in Bioshock Infinite is based off of one or two delayed frames during an intense moment in a 10 minute test, that doesn't mean much.

I think I'm gonna dig up some framerate over time CPU tests and see what I can find... tells us a lot more than a static min and avg value.

 

Also I don't know why people bring 4K into the discussion. The higher resolution doesn't really affect CPU load directly (indirectly reduces it due to lower framerates). If you can play at 50 fps with an Athlon at 1080P, you can play at 50 fps with an Athlon at 4K (provided you have sufficient GPU power )

 

edit:

Found some framerate over time graphs comparing 3770K and 8350 both at 4.4GHz, using 2x 7970s and 2x 680s.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-8.html

[dandrix]

4690K is best gaming CPU out there, FX 8350 is more for a workstation, streaming rig.

[Fate]

4690K is best gaming CPU out there, FX 8350 is more for a workstation, streaming rig.

4690k is better for both, just sayin'

When both are overclocked the 4690k has >= multithreaded performance and you can use Quick Sync for streaming (it would probably destroy the 8350 using X264 performance wise).