Gaming CPU

[Zottabyte]

Hey all, so I have bought the AMD fx8350 and am waiting on my r9 290 Tri-X. People have been saying that AMD's FX chip line is really old and your games will be unplayable with bottlenecks and you should of gone for intel blah blah. Please, please when you comment try not to be biased over intel or AMD as it really dosen't help, I am looking to play my games and sometimes stream them and I was wondering would i be able to Play most games at ultra 60+ fps or 50+ fps with this rig:

 

 

CPU: FX8350 4GHZ

GPU: Sapphire radeon r9 290 Tri-X

Mobo: Gigabyte 970A-UD3P

RAM: 8GB corsair vengeance 1600mhz

PSU: corsair cx750m

 

Please once again, no fanboy comments as all will be ignored. I know that intel has better perfomance in there i5 lines than amd FX's but all I want to know is that will I be able to run games smoothly at 50+ (most games) ultra preset?

 

thanks

[SkilledRebuilds]

You can't say not be biased, when people provide reasoning and info, it will be seen with a 'disagreement of opinion'

It's going to happen,.. it's the nature of the discussion..

 

 

@Zottabyte

If chasing 50-60fps then your fine, but when chasing particular requirments it can fall on its back.

 

ie: Oculus Rift requires 75FPS CONSTANT Minimums,.. for its 75hz. NO FX can do that in all games. <-- This does not mean Intel can either,.. but it's more likely due to their IPC for non-multithreaded games.

^A Reason, not a bias.

 

If your chasing 120-144fps due to 120-144hz monitors, some games may never reach that high on FX, but will on Intel.

 

If chasing the 50-60fps, even surpassing this, most of the time you'll be fine on FX processors unless the game itself is a piece of shit.

 

Not all games are equal, all have a varied result,.. some better than others.

Aiming for 60fps is easy enough, but there may be some framedrops on games that are coded shit.

Other games are flawless.

[lovingGamer]

from what i learned it depends, If you will use your PC for Gaming (Intel) if Rendering, editing (AMD)

[Fluxx]

Should be fine

 

You might experience more random lag spikes then you would with an intel cpu but it should still run without any problems.

[Bonesy]

Depends on what you mean by "most games"....most AAA games, you might have to settle for high instead of ultra high to keep the FPS. Also, poorly optimized games, especially ones that are more CPU-based - are where you will run into "issues". In general though...you will be fine with most games @1080p - but yes, your CPU is bottle-necking your build.

[ANewFace]

Not being biased but AMD CPUs are 3 years old, If you think about it, how many 3 year old components would you buy?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Naw FX chips won't make your game completely unplayable... 

In most games you could... But for example games like saints row 4 are where you could be bottleneck severely. Like 40~30fps.

[cesrai]

You will be fine and with DX12 coming you will be great.

[JustCallMeVlad]

Do yourself a favor and return the fx setup while you can and get a 4690K

[Majestic]

Hey all, so I have bought the AMD fx8350 and am waiting on my r9 290 Tri-X. People have been saying that AMD's FX chip line is really old and your games will be unplayable with bottlenecks and you should of gone for intel blah blah. Please, please when you comment try not to be biased over intel or AMD as it really dosen't help, I am looking to play my games and sometimes stream them and I was wondering would i be able to Play most games at ultra 60+ fps or 50+ fps with this rig:

 

This is an extremely loaded question. You're already biased and invested into AMD. How can this conversation be anything but biased.

 

 

 

You will be fine and with DX12 coming you will be great.

 

I have yet to see DX12 comparison tests in the new DX12 test from futuremark. Their absence is almost telling us all we need to know right now.

[Zottabyte]

You can't say not be biased, when people provide reasoning and info, it will be seen with a 'disagreement of opinion'

It's not something that will not happen,.. it's the nature of the discussion..

That wasnt m

Depends on what you mean by "most games"....most AAA games, you might have to settle for high instead of ultra high to keep the FPS. Also, poorly optimized games, especially ones that are more CPU-based - are where you will run into "issues". In general though...you will be fine with most games @1080p - but yes, your CPU is bottle-necking your build.

yeah i know Im annoyed at that but I just wanted to know, thanks dude

Naw FX chips won't make your game completely unplayable...

In most games you could... But for example games like saints row 4 are where you could be bottleneck severely. Like 40~30fps.

Really? Even with mantle :blink:

[The Pi]

Compare CPU to CPU not brand to brand at the same price point.

[Wirbelfeld]

AMD processors are either hit or miss with gaming. Sometimes they can work but in some games, they choke. MY friend has an AMD chip and can not even play World of Tanks on his PC but can play games such as Far Cry. Depends on the game

[Zottabyte]

This is an extremely loaded question. You're already biased and invested into AMD. How can this conversation be anything but biased.

You will be fine and with DX12 coming you will be great.

Thats good to hear thanks dude I just hope it goes well

AMD processors are either hit or miss with gaming. Sometimes they can work but in some games, they choke. MY friend has an AMD chip and can not even play World of Tanks on his PC but can play games such as Far Cry. Depends on the game

yeah thats what alot of people were saying, its good I like bf4 cause i heard AMD does great with that game

[Altecice]

Going to paste this here, Give it a read.

 

 

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Dying Light, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.

 

For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.

 

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.

My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.

 

The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much better on an i3 than an FX9.

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any.  What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it"  Now...why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games without issue?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

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

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

 

 

"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."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"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."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

The Bulldozer architecture was released in 2011, but it had been in development for many years.  It basically reused an old architecture that had already been phased out years ago.  They reused it, and marketed it well to trick users into thinking it was something spectacular.  "How could an 8 core, 4Ghz CPU possibly be bad?"  One word:  Architecture.  This CPU is not good now, and it wasn't even good when it was released.  Please give this article a read because it does a much better job of explaining this than I will ever be able to.  Analyzing Bulldozer

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX.  This also doesn't bode well for the future because as GPUs get more powerful, the FX will simply not be able to keep up with even mid-range GPUs.  As of now, the highest end GPU I would pair with an FX that won't limit its potential is an R9 280/GTX770.

 

There are very few games that are very well multithreaded, and even in those games, such as CoD:AW, an i3 is still beating out an FX9.  The reason behind this is because games typically have one main thread, Core #0.  When this main thread is being choked by poor single core performance, the rest of the threads struggle.  So even in these really well multithreaded PC port games, we are still seeing Intel processors beating out FXs because their poor IPC simply can't give as good as results on that main thread.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.  That's a big red flag.

-Source

 

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

 

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

A man(Faa) who knows a lot more about this than me did some research and found, to the surprise of no one, that games just aren't using more than 4 threads, and the ones that do, aren't benefiting as much as you would think from those extra cores/threads.  I'm going to link you over to his research that shows how cores/threads have an impact on gaming performance.  It is a great read with a lot of interesting information, as well as a few links to other more reputable review websites doing testing on many popular mainstream games.  For the most part, games are using 2-4 threads.  And the few that can take advantage of more threads, aren't really benefiting from them. Of course in some games, the FX8 is going to do much better than the FX4, but looking over benchmarks from the gaming graphs above, and all of the links in the i3 > FX8 spoiler, the FX4,6,8 processors are mostly lumped together with very little difference between them.  An example:  For every game that the FX8 actually does a lot better than the FX4, there are 5 games that only show a ~10% improvement.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.  This niche area is where the FX processors really shine because those programs benefit from many cores able to execute highly repetitive tasks.  Please note that not all content creation programs benefit from 8 cores, some programs do still prefer the strong cores of Intel, so please check and see if the program you specifically plan to use benefits from more cores, or stronger ones.

 

This is PCMark 7, it is a FutureMark benchmark that "is a complete PC benchmark that measures overall system performance during typical desktop usage across a range of activities such as handling images and video, web browsing and gaming. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system."

-PCMark 7

This shows that while the performance in daily workloads is similar, Intel is still ahead.  Also consider that these are older generation Intel processors that have since been improved upon, only further increasing the result in Intel's favor for daily tasks.  Think multi-tasking is better on the FX8 because of all those cores?  Nope.

 

Some more productivity benchmarks for your enjoyment:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

The FX processors do have some strengths, just make sure that you are using a program that maximizes those strengths because as shown above, even in some multithreaded programs, the i5-4690k still comes out ahead.  In my opinion the gaming benefits of a locked i5, far outweigh the productivity(certain programs) benefits of the FX8.  You will have to personally weigh the pros and cons of what your priorities of your computer will be, and make your decision based on that, but if I'm building a gaming computer with a side of content creation, I will take the better gaming results over a 20 second(arbitrary number) shorter render time.

 

Sources:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/2

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_6.html#sect0

http://pclab.pl/art57691-12.html

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5.  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year, and that is a conservative, no-overclock estimate.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E_(kWh/day) = P_(W) × t_(h/day) / 1000_(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost_($/day) = E_(kWh/day) × Cost_(cent/kWh) / 100_(cent/$)

 

Temperatures:

I hear the argument that AMD runs cooler than Intel, and this is a really silly misconception.  I can understand why someone would think that it does, but the temperatures from AMD processors are inaccurate.  They don't measure the cores, they measure the socket, cores tend to be hotter than the socket by a fair amount, and its an algorithm, not a direct measurement like with Intel. It is against the laws of physics for an FX processor to be less hot than an Intel one.  The FX draws much more power.  At stock, the FX8 draws 125W compared to 84/88W of an i5. The FX processor heats up the room much more as well.  I know in my friends' house who owns the FX, his room is sweltering after just an hour of gaming.

 

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.
 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell
 Senior Technology Director
 Advanced Micro Devices
 Fort Collins, Colorado
 2950 East Harmony Road
 Suite 300
 Fort Collins, CO"

 

-Source

 

.  That link is slightly dated, being last updated in 2012, but the basic educational information in it remains the same.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6JNdt6/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($145.95 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($83.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $229.94
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-04 15:50 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.
Total: $215.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6
Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)
Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)
Total: €203.31
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3
Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)
Total: €204.68
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

 

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf
Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)
Total: $267.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX
Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)
Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.
Total: $311.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH
Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)
Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)
Total: $344.44
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr
Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)
Total: $356.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT
Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)
Total: $226.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3
Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)
Total: $263.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)
Total: £163.37
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)
Total: £166.54
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL
Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)
Total: €214.55
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3
Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)
Total: €219.29
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL
Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)
Total: €205.20
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3
Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)
Total: €218.66
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.

 

Here is another member, UnbendingNose who was told on this very forum to buy an FX8 because it won't hold back an R9 290, and an ASRock Extreme 3 wont throttle his CPU.  Both of which are false.  Here are his two posts, the one where he is asking for advice on what to buy, and the 2nd where he is unhappy with his FX8320s performance because of bottlenecking and throttling.  He finally ended up buying an i5, which is what he should have done in the first place, and miraculously, to the surprise of no one, his performance in every single game improved, most notably minimum fps.

 

 

I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $225 equals $225 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

 

[Wirbelfeld]

AMD however is great at cheap video rendering. The many cores really helps with the rendering as you can fully utilize all cores.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Really? Even with mantle :blink:

 

I don't think saint row 4 has mantle  :huh:

[Zottabyte]

Going to paste this here, Give it a read.

Thanks dude great read explained alot im pretty happy with that though as some of the first games that were mentioned I didnt even play really apart from DR3 but thanks alot of info thanks

I don't think saint row 4 has mantle :huh:

probably not, Im new to this :lol:

AMD however is great at cheap video rendering. The many cores really helps with the rendering as you can fully utilize all cores.

yeah heard that, I like streaming so I heard thats great for streaming

This thread; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

Im not saying im wrong because im new to this, hence the thread.

[Sauron]

Saying it will make your games UNPLAYABLE is pure bullshit. You'll loose about 30% in terms of performance, depending on the game. For gaming, an i5 is a better choice.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

probably not, Im new to this :lol:

 

Most games don't use mantle as far as I know...

FX chips really are getting old though  

[Majestic]

Im not saying im wrong because im new to this, hence the thread.

 

This thread has no purpose. You don't ask a question eventhough the title suggests this, you're just trying to justify your purchase. It just oozes from the starting post that you're fully aware the i5 is better but went with AMD anyway and are now looking for people to justify/rationalize your purchase. 

 

We are not here for your self-esteem. AMD vs. Intel posts with such lack of direction always spiral out of control, especially with a TS this biased.

[Zottabyte]

You can't say not be biased, when people provide reasoning and info, it will be seen with a 'disagreement of opinion'

It's going to happen,.. it's the nature of the discussion..

@Zottabyte

If chasing 50-60fps then your fine, but when chasing particular requirments it can fall on its back.

ie: Oculus Rift requires 75FPS CONSTANT Minimums,.. for its 75hz. NO FX can do that in all games. <-- This does not mean Intel can either,.. but it's more likely due to their IPC for non-multithreaded games.

^A Reason, not a bias.

If your chasing 120-144fps due to 120-144hz monitors, some games may never reach that high on FX, but will on Intel.

If chasing the 50-60fps, even surpassing this, most of the time you'll be fine on FX processors unless the game itself is a piece of shit.

Not all games are equal, all have a varied result,.. some better than others.

Aiming for 60fps is easy enough, but there may be some framedrops on games that are coded shit.

Other games are flawless.

Wow thanks dude. Yeah Im not aiming for like 100+ fps as I probably wont need it as Im more of a Casual gamer and 50-60 is very nice for me I know some games mightn't be like that but I have the CPU in place now and I really dont want to send back the mobo and CPU for say a i5 and a intel mobo for an extra 20 fps in only some games right? If i notice it alot of course i willm but do you think I should now or see how it goes?

Most games don't use mantle as far as I know...

FX chips really are getting old though

yeah Ino, If i do see a really bad performance driop in alot of games I probably will resort to intel but ill see how it goes first

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

yeah Ino, If i do see a really bad performance driop in alot of games I probably will resort to intel but ill see how it goes first

 

Unless you play lots of mmo with many players, you'll be okay...

[Zottabyte]

This thread has no purpose. You don't ask a question eventhough the title suggests this, you're just trying to justify your purchase. It just oozes from the starting post that you're fully aware the i5 is better but went with AMD anyway and are now looking for people to justify/rationalize your purchase. 

 

We are not here for your self-esteem. AMD vs. Intel posts with such lack of direction always spiral out of control, especially with a TS this biased.

Dude, I know the i5 is better but my current location was showing that an i5 was 120 euros extra and I went with AMD because it was cheaper and Forums and benchmarks showed great results with this chip. The  recently i posted my build on another forum and got replies saying about bottlnecks and bad unplayable framerates. I dont want to play at amazing fps all I want to play at is 50-60 which is fine for me, and my question is will my rig be able to do that. The question isnt saying that AMD is better than intel because we all know when it comes to CPU's intel's get better performance in most circumstances bar bf4 which i like to play

[SkilledRebuilds]

Wow thanks dude. Yeah Im not aiming for like 100+ fps as I probably wont need it as Im more of a Casual gamer and 50-60 is very nice for me I know some games mightn't be like that but I have the CPU in place now and I really dont want to send back the mobo and CPU for say a i5 and a intel mobo for an extra 20 fps in only some games right? If i notice it alot of course i willm but do you think I should now or see how it goes?

Most of the time,... the difference is that Intel's STAY at a higher FPS as a consistant level,.. FX's do drop frames in many games.

Intel just outright..plain as day.. does not drop frames in 99-100% of the games out there.

This is why everyones jumping on your bandwagon.

 

I'd TOTALLY worth it to move to Intel,. but ultimately it's YOUR choice.

If it isn't enough,.. you will be back.

If it's acceptable to you,.. then you'll be happy with it.

/I'm not trying to be mean so don't take it this way,... basically its simple, when you play games,.. if the fps drops annoy you, go Intel, if your happy with performance levels, keep it until your next upgrade, in which you save for the Intel rig,.. and use your current machine for something else.