Top tier AMD FX vs Mid tier i7 for gaming

[Jonathan W]

Hello everyone. so I am looking to build a mostly new computer.

The only things im keeping from my old workstation are:

8TB of WD Black Caviar

ZOTAC GTX 980 AMP! Edition

eSata expansion card

 

The rest is going to a buddy of mine as his birthday present/intro to gaming PCs [rest of the parts are in my signature]

 

So i've had a Core i7 950 forever and tbh it works just fine, im used to running outdated parts so i tend to think more practically than "i need the best and most expensive"

I've been looking to switch over to AMD cpus instead of Intel, no real reason in particular, just curious about how different it would perform.
According to this CPUBOSS research, an FX-9590 is only marginally better than my i7-90 which is concerning...

 

Basically im looking for peoples suggestions on the best CPU for ~$250 for WIN10, 3D animation [my eventual career], gaming, and amatuer video/game clip editing

 

Also it should be noted im planning to liquid cool the CPU with a simple AiO water block and the chance ill OC is slim to none.

[Guest]

Stay with the i7 I say

[Totallycasual]

People should really stay away from cpuboss

[harrynowl]

Stay with your i7 and don't use CPU boss for comparisons.

[Briggsy]

Can't go wrong with a Xeon E3 12xx series if the price is right.

[QueenDemetria]

People should really stay away from cpuboss

No, CPUBoss(and the other boss's) should just go offline.

[D2ultima]

Hello everyone. so I am looking to build a mostly new computer.

The only things im keeping from my old workstation are:

8TB of WD Black Caviar

ZOTAC GTX 980 AMP! Edition

eSata expansion card

 

The rest is going to a buddy of mine as his birthday present/intro to gaming PCs [rest of the parts are in my signature]

 

So i've had a Core i7 950 forever and tbh it works just fine, im used to running outdated parts so i tend to think more practically than "i need the best and most expensive"

I've been looking to switch over to AMD cpus instead of Intel, no real reason in particular, just curious about how different it would perform.

According to this CPUBOSS research, an FX-9590 is only marginally better than my i7-90 which is concerning...

 

Basically im looking for peoples suggestions on the best CPU for ~$250 for WIN10, 3D animation [my eventual career], gaming, and amatuer video/game clip editing

 

Also it should be noted im planning to liquid cool the CPU with a simple AiO water block and the chance ill OC is slim to none.

If your OCing chance is slim to none, you might as well get a 4790S and force max boost or something. Should keep was it... 3.6GHz? Or 3.8GHz? Somewhere around there, under a 4-core load. I believe that CPU is just about within your price range though.

 

Alternately if you can find a 3770K for $250 I would say get that and DO overclock it. 

[numnums]

Intel will beat AMD in gaming across the board even with their low end i3s as well as the G3258. Me personally coming from an FX chip after the switch to Intel the difference was night and day. If you're just doing gaming stick with your i7. If you do want to upgrade you can't go wrong with the 4670k or non "k" variant if you aren't plan in in overclocking.

[SteveGrabowski]

If your OCing chance is slim to none, you might as well get a 4790S and force max boost or something. Should keep was it... 3.6GHz? Or 3.8GHz? Somewhere around there, under a 4-core load. I believe that CPU is just about within your price range though.

 

Alternately if you can find a 3770K for $250 I would say get that and DO overclock it. 

 

The all cores turbo on the i7-4790 is 3.8GHz I think.

[SteveGrabowski]

The Xeon E3-1231v3 is probably the best locked CPU out there for $250. 

 

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=E3-1231V3B&c=CJ

[EpicAdom]

snip

AMD won't be worth it if you're upgrading. The single core performance just isn't there for it to make sense. Get an i7, you'll be happy with it. It will perform way better than any AMD cpu in games and it will be better in productivity tasks.

[D2ultima]

The all cores turbo on the i7-4790 is 3.8GHz I think.

Yeah, I do think you're right about that.

 

The Xeon E3-1231v3 is probably the best locked CPU out there for $250. 

 

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=E3-1231V3B&c=CJ

It might be unless a 4790S can be found for $250 or less

[Jonathan W]

People should really stay away from cpuboss

 

 

Stay with your i7 and don't use CPU boss for comparisons.

 

 

No, CPUBoss(and the other boss's) should just go offline.

Why does everyone hate on CPUboss? I use them to give me a general idea on what chips seem to perform better since i know nothing about architectures or what does what scores mean what

[tmlhalo]

If you use cpuboss, you start here. 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-950-vs-AMD-FX-9590#performance

That is where they have content aggregation to make a list of popular benchmarks from other sites. Everything above that is useless, pointless, or generally wrong. There are examples of top tier cpus getting similar scores to single core celerons with their 1-10 rating system. Since the benchmark scores and specification section are aggregated from more legitimate sites, that can actually save you a small bit of time vs visiting each of those sites individually.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Why does everyone hate on CPUboss? I use them to give me a general idea on what chips seem to perform better since i know nothing about architectures or what does what scores mean what

Because CPU boss is trash mostly based on assumption and specs (for example: this 4.0ghz CPU is 25% faster than this 3.0GHZ CPU...where one is an outdated AMD FX and the other one is an haswell i5)

If you want to compare chips on something solid, use this link...these are made with USER SUBMITED RESULTS...much better:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2384vs1489

[QueenDemetria]

Why does everyone hate on CPUboss? I use them to give me a general idea on what chips seem to perform better since i know nothing about architectures or what does what scores mean what

The only good thing I can say about CPUBoss is the spec sheet they give, the rest of it is biased and inaccurate. For starters, a scale from 1 to 10 is not a good way to rate a processor, since their is too many factors and it really just doesn't do a good job at fully explaining the performance(The power consumption and performance numbers arent quite right with this: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350).They also base their results over artificial benchmarks, which has no real world meaning to what performance you would actually get. Lastly, they don't do enough tests to back up their results, and their test environment changes too constantly(ie: What mother board was used, how much ram, what storage device, etc.). When it comes to GPUBoss, "its garbage unless if its nVidia".

[dandrix]

You dont need i7 mainly for gaming, go with unlocked i5.

[Jonathan W]

You dont need i7 mainly for gaming, go with unlocked i5.

 

well its also going to be my workstation when i get out of college for my 3D animation work and amatuer, youtube level video editing

[Jonathan W]

The only good thing I can say about CPUBoss is the spec sheet they give, the rest of it is biased and inaccurate. For starters, a scale from 1 to 10 is not a good way to rate a processor, since their is too many factors and it really just doesn't do a good job at fully explaining the performance(The power consumption and performance numbers arent quite right with this: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350).They also base their results over artificial benchmarks, which has no real world meaning to what performance you would actually get. Lastly, they don't do enough tests to back up their results, and their test environment changes too constantly(ie: What mother board was used, how much ram, what storage device, etc.). When it comes to GPUBoss, "its garbage unless if its nVidia".

 

Yeah whenever I use CPUboss I just scroll down to the actual number charts, the differences section, ive always thought the 1-10 rating was just a gimmick anyways  

[harrynowl]

Why does everyone hate on CPUboss? I use them to give me a general idea on what chips seem to perform better since i know nothing about architectures or what does what scores mean what

The numbers are misleading, the benchmarks have no methodology and very little insight into the system, and it just uses a "which number is better" scale for spec comparisons. And the overall score/10 is completely pants.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Why does everyone hate on CPUboss? I use them to give me a general idea on what chips seem to perform better since i know nothing about architectures or what does what scores mean what

As you can see here your i7-950 and FX-8350 performs about the same except when all 8 threads are in use in which case the AMD FX will edge your chip by about 27%

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-950-vs-AMD-FX-8350/617vs1489

Also what is an interesting read is the small text that come for every chip...they are always dead on and gives you the infos you want to know:

i7-950:

The i7-950 is a first generation Core processor which is now three generations and four years old. The 950 was included in the group test as a reference for how fast processors were back in 2009. This particular generation of processor heralded the 4 core 8 thread configuration that Intel has been kitting its top end processors with ever since. In terms of real world performance based on single core horsepower (most applications are still unable to make use of multiple cores concurrently), with a PassMark Single Thread score of 1320 the i7-950 is approximately 50% slower than its modern day equivalent, the i7 4770K.

 

FX-8350:

In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance. ^{[May '13 CPUPro]}

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

What i like about this site is that you can trust the results because they are user submited...i've submited my results...you should too...you know it's reliable you can't cheat user submited database results.