Gaming CPU needed?

[qilobit]

AMD FX-8350  VS  Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz ?

Let's say I have US$170 for a processor (Gamming) should I get the FX-8350 or the i3, I know the i3 is cheaper. 

[Fulgrim]

Do you have a motherboard for either chip at hand? If not, get neither - an i5 4460 would be better.

[GarnetDevil]

If you don't need to do anything that benefits multi-core processor (rendering, decoding, etc.), i5 4460 is your way to go

[SkilledRebuilds]

Wait longer, get an lowend i5 and call it a day.

 

Longevity over time with upgrade abilities and faster felt performance in most 1-4 threaded softwares.

 

If its an encoding rig, you'd get the 8350, maybe... I'd still save and get a faster i5 if money allowed.

[comicsansms]

The FX compares with an i5 performance wise, but it is over 8 cores instead of 4.

But the i3 has better performance per core.

 

This is tough, it really depends on the game. I would get the i3!

[dragoon20005]

i3 now then get i7 later

[Dabombinable]

Go with the i3 since your gaming.

 

The FX compares with an i5 performance wise, but it is over 8 cores instead of 4.

But the i3 has better performance per core.

 

This is tough, it really depends on the game. I would get the i3!

The FX 8350 only compares in games and programs that use 4-6 threads to an i5 4440 when running at 5.3GHz.

[don_svetlio]

New games - FX
Old games - i3

[Dabombinable]

New games - FX

Old games - i3

That's not how things are....

[Kobathor]

That's not how things are....

Sure is. Most games these days are really optimized to run with lots of cores. That, and the i3 will actually bottleneck lots of GPUs (anything over R9 290.)

 

OP, I'd get an i5 4460/4590. Same/better performance than the 8350.

[Dabombinable]

Sure is. Most games these days are really optimized to run with lots of cores. That, and the i3 will actually bottleneck lots of GPUs (anything over R9 290.)

And the FX 8350 will bottleneck any GPU over a 280X. And the benchmarks speak for themselves, the FX 8350 is still not as good as an i3 at gaming.

[Kobathor]

And the 8350 will bottleneck any GPU over a 280X. And the benchmarks speak for themselves, the FX 8350 is still not as good as an i3 at gaming.

Benchmarks, not games. Also, false on the bottleneck. I got to borrow my friends 980ti for a while, and on Valley it could keep up almost fine. (dipping into the low 80s twice I think.) Then again, mine is OC'd. 

 

As the great JayzTwoCents one said, "I want to slap whoever first said that an i3 is good for gaming." 

[Dabombinable]

Benchmarks, not games. Also, false on the bottleneck. I got to borrow my friends 980ti for a while, and on Valley it could keep up almost fine. (dipping into the low 80s twice I think.) Then again, mine is OC'd. 

 

As the great JayzTwoCents one said, "I want to slap whoever first said that an i3 is good for gaming." 

Those benchmarks include games. And you seem to not understand what a bottleneck is. Was the 980ti running at 100% usage? No it wasn't. And just lol, face reality.

[Kobathor]

Those benchmarks include games. And you seem to not understand what a bottleneck is. Was the 980ti running at 100% usage? No it wasn't. And just lol, face reality.

And with an i3 it would have never reached 100% ever.

 

Seriously, I even said, dipped into the low 80s twice. for less than a second. I don't have GPUz logs or anything, but you can take my word for it. It was at 100% the rest. 

 

I think we both understand what a bottleneck is, you just looove exaggerating the word though. The 8350 is a fast CPU, it will not be bottlenecked by any but a few single GPU setups. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

If the i3 is all he can afford for some reason,.. it does leave in place, the ability to upgrade to a better CPU, like the locked i5's & he can get unlocked i5's/i7's when he can afford to.

 

What can he do when he finds the 8350 isn't enough for Gaming (needs vary)......whether modern or not,...games are still showing how bad they are in comparison,,...to what.... then choose to buy a whole new Intel platform anyway when you figure out that FX single core performance is a huge detriment to PC Gaming AND...THE EXPECTATIONS from your other hardware ie: GPU performance suffering.

[D2ultima]

Benchmarks, not games. Also, false on the bottleneck. I got to borrow my friends 980ti for a while, and on Valley it could keep up almost fine. (dipping into the low 80s twice I think.) Then again, mine is OC'd. 

 

As the great JayzTwoCents one said, "I want to slap whoever first said that an i3 is good for gaming." 

Valley is a single-threaded, non-CPU-intensive benchmark purely designed to murder GPUs with effects more than anything else. You'd need to check a different sort of benchmark, likely for a game that is heavier on a CPU.

 

We're not saying an i3 is good for gaming. Ever. What we're saying is, that an i3 is, for the majority of cases, better than any AMD CPU on the market for gaming. Just like an FX-4130 is better than a Pentium 4 for gaming. Does it mean the 4130 or the pentium 4 are good for gaming? Hell no. But one has to be better than the other if they're not equal.

 

Also, JayzTwoCents once said he left MSAA off in BF4 because he globally forced it to 4x via nVidia control panel... except that BF4 disallows overrides unless you hack the driver profile using nVidia Inspector, and the "great JayzTwoCents" didn't know this, so his test was invalid. He is not almighty, nor the final word on things.

 

And you seem to not understand what a bottleneck is. Was the 980ti running at 100% usage? No it wasn't.

A GPU can be running at 100% reported usage and still benefit from a better CPU. It doesn't make all that much sense at face value, but I'll say that most of the time, what we see as GPU load in games/benchmarks/etc is nowhere NEAR what the correct load is. There's a bunch of tools OEMs like Dell and MSI have that shows them what's REALLY going on with a GPU, and they're not allowed to show them or even give the real numbers in certain scenarios. Just know that while sub-100% reported load is a bottleneck, 100% load doesn't mean no improvement is possible.

 

And with an i3 it would have never reached 100% ever.

Since Valley as I said above is single-threaded, you wouldn't be able to clock an AMD chip fast enough without LN2 to get the same single threaded performance that i3 would give, so yes. It would have MUCH more likely hit 100% reported load with the i3. In VALLEY. Other benchmarks? Maybe different story.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

This has been D2ultima, dropping a bunch of knowledge that people will inevitably tell him he's wrong about.

[Kobathor]

-snip-

If you have a crappy CPU, you will bottleneck your GPU in most all intensive tasks. Even Valley. (I'm sure you could just Google it.) 

 

You're correct about a better CPU being better, people still don't believe me when I tell em that Hyperthreading gets you more FPS in the Frostbite Engine, as long as your GPU is competent. 

 

I had more in my post about bottlenecking that was removed, but TL;RD was that in games that use more than 2 cores (every game these days,) the 8350 beats the i3 every time. And, that the i3 will bottleneck most GPUs, which it does. 

 

Also, put your signature in your signature, not at the bottom of posts. I know it's to be snarky and all, but still. 

[D2ultima]

Also, put your signature in your signature, not at the bottom of posts. I know it's to be snarky and all, but still. 

That wasn't meant to be a signature, it was meant to cut off my replying to the three posts.

 

And to be snarky.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I would try to get something like this as a minimum:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($163.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($59.88 @ OutletPC)

Total: $223.87

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-27 12:31 EDT-0400

see, both the FX and the core i3 have a weakness...the core i3 multi-threaded performance is not there (required for most modern games) and for the FX the SINGLE-THREADED performance is not there (ALSO required by most games)....the i5-4460 has both acceptable single-threaded AND multi-threaded performance so it can play ANYTHING fairly well...not the case for the i3 or the AMD FX.

Yes the FX is fine with many games, and yes the i3 is fine with some games too...but if you want an all around GOOD cpu for gaming, i5-4460 is a bare minimum.

[Nena Trinity]

I say go for FX-6300 or i5-4460!

[D2ultima]

I say go for FX-6300 or i5-4460!

The 6300 doesn't compare to the 4460 in any way shape form fashion or meowmix.

[SkilledRebuilds]

^If it did, people would be recommending them to everyone.

 

Remember OP - Price to Performance is what MOST people will provide insight on..

There IS a reason hardly anyone says get an FX CPU for Gaming focused machines.

[Nena Trinity]

The 6300 doesn't compare to the 4460 in any way shape form fashion or meowmix.

FX is about the same as the i3 but the i5-4460 is quite good to for its price!