CPU advice on New Build

[stjhalofan]

Hello guys, i am new to this forum, but a long time LTT fan. I am going to be building a new pc soon, and i really want to build in the NZXT H440 By razer, and i am having trouble finding an AMD board that will go in there for an FX processor.(aesthetics wise really.) I saw Linus' build in the ultimate surround video and i am wondering if it is really worth it to go for Intel because i cannot find a good board for the FX 8370 i want for processor, so what is the advantage to going with a 4790k over the 8370 because it seems like a massive step down to me, it is almost double the price. so i guess my real question is, either what is a good board that would aesthetically fit the H440 razer with an 8370? or what is the advantage to go With a 4790k? Thanks in advance!  

[Gofspar]

uhh, the 4790k could slap the fuck out of any AMD cpu.

[zappian]

uhh, the 4440 could slap the fuck out of any AMD cpu.

 

In games at least.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Hello guys, i am new to this forum, but a long time LTT fan. I am going to be building a new pc soon, and i really want to build in the NZXT H440 By razer, and i am having trouble finding an AMD board that will go in there for an FX processor.(aesthetics wise really.) I saw Linus' build in the ultimate surround video and i am wondering if it is really worth it to go for Intel because i cannot find a good board for the FX 8370 i want for processor, so what is the advantage to going with a 4790k over the 8370 because it seems like a massive step down to me, it is almost double the price. so i guess my real question is, either what is a good board that would aesthetically fit the H440 razer with an 8370? or what is the advantage to go With a 4790k? Thanks in advance!

The i7-4790K and FX-8370 are not even in the same league, the AMD FX came out in 2012 on an already old platform, it's over now...even a core i3 haswell outperform it in most games, and a core i5 match it in all scenarios pretty much.

What are you looking to do with this machine and what graphics card you plan to pair with the CPU?

[Bonesy]

Honestly, Intel CPU's are king right now...but yes, they are more expensive also. Do you do production work or primarily gaming?  If gaming, an i5-4690k will serve you better than an i7-4790k. The i7's advantage is hyper-threading which games don't use.

[Sakkura]

 what is the advantage to going with a 4790k over the 8370 because it seems like a massive step down to me, it is almost double the price.

 

Because the FX-8370 has more cores and higher clocks? Well, there's a lot more to CPU performance than cores and clocks. Intel has much better performance per core and per clock cycle. Combined with the fact that a lot of software cannot effectively utilize many cores, this means a 4790K is anywhere from a little to a lot faster than the FX-8370, depending on the workload.

 

A cheaper Core i5-4690K can be slightly slower than the FX-8370 in some workloads, but in many cases (eg. most games) is significantly faster.

[IP man]

Go with intel if you can afford it. Always

[i_build_nanosuits]

If gaming, an i5-4690k will serve you better than an i7-4790k. The i7's advantage is hyper-threading which games don't use.

Oh really!? lol...last time i checked benchmarks, pretty sure the i7's where coming out on top of the charts all the time..check this:

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

[Bonesy]

Oh really!? lol...last time i checked benchmarks, pretty sure the i7's where coming out on top of the charts all the time..check this:

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

 

That has nothing to do with hyper-threading...the 4790k comes in stock at 4.0 ghz while the 4690k is stock at 3.5 ghz.

[i_build_nanosuits]

That has nothing to do with hyper-threading...the 4790k comes in stock at 4.0 ghz while the 4690k is stock at 3.5 ghz.

no, the clockspeed are carefuly written next to the CPU's name and the i7-4770k is running 100mhz faster than the i5-4670k...both of which operate at stock speeds.

Take more time to look carefuly through the benchmarks they have a very interesting story to tell.

 

If you're too lazy this is all the 2014 benchmarks compiled into one:

 

[Sakkura]

All we end up with is "X is better, look at this one benchmark."

 

We can do better!

 

"X is better, look at all these benchmarks."

 

[Gofspar]

In games at least.

He mentioned a 4790k not a 4440

[Bonesy]

You aren't really going to match any board with the Razer color scheme. You're best bet is to go with a blacked-out MOBO...or mod the color to your liking. Something like this might work well...it's mostly black, and has a combo with the 4690k currently: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132412

[Sakkura]

Honestly, Intel CPU's are king right now...but yes, they are more expensive also. Do you do production work or primarily gaming?  If gaming, an i5-4690k will serve you better than an i7-4790k. The i7's advantage is hyper-threading which games don't use.

 

Games do benefit from hyperthreading. But most of them don't benefit from more than 4 cores/threads, so hyperthreading on quad cores usually makes little difference. But on dual cores, hyperthreading is a significant advantage. It's a serious contribution to the performance gap between Core i3s and Pentiums.

[Bonesy]

no, the clockspeed are carefuly written next to the CPU's name and the i7-4770k is running 100mhz faster than the i5-4670k...both of which operate at stock speeds.

Take more time to look carefuly through the benchmarks they have a very interesting story to tell.

 

If you're too lazy this is all the 2014 benchmarks compiled into one:

 

-snip useless benchmark-

 

Take more time to provide relevant information. We were talking about 4790k and 4690k. We were also talking about gaming performance....not a synthetic benchmark that isn't focused on FPS, but rather a statistical score based on computational algorithms. 

 

Thanks for your time, please come again.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Take more time to provide relevant information. We were talking about 4790k and 4690k. We were also talking about gaming performance....not a synthetic benchmark that isn't focused on FPS, but rather a statistical score based on computational algorithms. 

 

Thanks for your time, please come again.

will you fucking take a second and look at the benchmarks? omg...these are 100% RELEVANT GAMING BENCHMARKS performed on haswell i5 and i7...what more can you ask for sir?

here i link again, just LOOK:

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

[WereCat]

AMD CPUs are good for the price but anything Intel have right now will pretty much outperform it in almost every scenario.

If you plan to OC I would pick i5 4690k with Z97 board if not then grab Xeon E3 1231 V3 with some cheap board.

[Bonesy]

@i_build_nanosuits - ignored

[Sintezza]

I own a FX8350 for more then 2 years now.

And i have to say they realy starting to show their age.

Its not that bad as some people yell and sream about but stil...

 

Intel haswell i5´s / i7´s are simply better allrounders in gaming.

And with "allround" i mean every game, and every gaming scenario like multi and single player.

 

Hawell cpu´s have simply faster individual cores, and allot of cpu bound games still benefiting from that, especialy on 1080p

Mmo´s, rpg´s and such games.

 

But offcourse it all depends on the games you play, and how you play them.

And offcourse which GPU you are looking for.

 

The FX8350 will basicly still be totaly fine, if you pair it with a "nowdays" midrange gpu like a 280X

But if you are looking for a more higherend GPU like a GTX970/GTX980 or R9-290X, then by all means go intel if you can afford.

 

I have to say, that i cannot realy recommend a FX8 core nowdays anymore, they ar simply old cpu´s from back in 2012, and AMD didnt improve its architecture since then.

In my opinnion its not realy worht it, to invest in a 3 year old platform anymore.

[SSL]

As always, AMD is a few steps behind Intel at a lower price point. If Intel hadn't wasted time monkeying with that Itanium crap, the gap would probably be even larger.

[Fate]

@i_build_nanosuits - ignored

Get over yourself please

[harrynowl]

Oh really!? lol...last time i checked benchmarks, pretty sure the i7's where coming out on top of the charts all the time..check this:

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

Although I'd argue the i5 is still the better value for the price gap/performance difference, and odds are in a lot of scenarios its' the difference between 109 FPS and 117 FPS (while the FX is quite happy at 54 FPS or something ).

 

But it does pose the question of 1230V3.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Although I'd argue the i5 is still the better value for the price gap/performance difference, and odds are in a lot of scenarios its' the difference between 109 FPS and 117 FPS (while the FX is quite happy at 54 FPS or something ).

 

But it does pose the question of 1230V3.

no i agree if you look purely at performance/$ in the games that are out right now, the i5 still has better value...especially if you game on a 60hz or 75hz monitor...

[Faceman]

@i_build_nanosuits - ignored

Bonesy, you're the one who is in the wrong.  That "useless" benchmark is a combination of all of the games tested, on all of those different processors and then added together to give an overall valuation of how they perform overall.  It isn't perfect, but it is good for someone who is too lazy to read, someone such as yourself.

 

Does it make sense to buy an i7 over an i5 for gaming?  No, not at all, but there are some games that slightly benefit from those extra threads.  I wouldn't advocate someone to buy an i7 over i5 unless they have lots of money to spend.

[Bonesy]

The OP is concerned about pricing, and justifying the need for a 4790K....I stated the 4690K would be better for gaming(due to the OP's price concern), In response, I get sent a russian benchmark(nothing against russian, just cant read it), of different CPU's, that only proved my point for me. I wouldnt say I'm wrong at all

 

And when you are sent just a picture...of a graph showing values like 800+...Im supposed to automatically know the graph is a compilation of multiple games FPS into one(horrible way to do graphs anyways). I see values of 800+, I assume they're synthetic benchmarks...as I think most would.