8350 or 9590

[Kaleb33497]

some of you where lots of help and some of you where not, thanks!

[Aytex]

Just now, Kaleb33497 said:

read the original post i said that i would be using it for streaming

Oh sorry, well if I was in your position i wouldn't waste my money on the 9590 as it is what others say an factory overclocked overpriced chip

Just go for the 8350

[Kaleb33497]

Just now, Aytex said:

Oh sorry, well if I was in your position i wouldn't waste my money on the 9590 as it is what others say an factory overclocked overpriced chip

Just go for the 8350

ok

[manikyath]

i'd say get the 8350 with a nice cooler and good motherboard and OC the devil out of it.

 

for those that are hatting on amd, here's some benchmarks between a stock 4790k and a "stock" fx-9590:

single core

all cores

[Naeaes]

10 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i can disprove your bullshit with 5 seconds of google. But you're not worth wasting 5 second of my life

Are you trolling or do you really believe it's not the case? The two CPUs are identical in all aspects except Clock speed and TDP, aren't they?

[Rodniz]

11 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i can disprove your bullshit with 5 seconds of google. But you're not worth wasting 5 second of my life

How many seconds did it tooked u to write that post?

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Kaleb33497 said:

some of you where lots of help and some of you where not, thanks!

get the 8320 and overclock it. you should hit 4.6-4.7GHz easily, and there is no point pushing a FX CPU above that really. The performance gains VS the power usage and heat output aint worth it at all.

 

Get a decent mobo if your budget allows it. I suggest the Gigabyte GA 990FX GAMING, as it has the most modern feature set availible to the FX platform (USB 3.1, 30GB/s M.2 + more) and it should allow for a decent overclock.

Get a 120mm air cooler of your choice and you are good to go.

[Kaleb33497]

Just now, Prysin said:

get the 8320 and overclock it. you should hit 4.6-4.7GHz easily, and there is no point pushing a FX CPU above that really. The performance gains VS the power usage and heat output aint worth it at all.

 

Get a decent mobo if your budget allows it. I suggest the Gigabyte GA 990FX GAMING, as it has the most modern feature set availible to the FX platform (USB 3.1, 30GB/s M.2 + more) and it should allow for a decent overclock.

Get a 120mm air cooler of your choice and you are good to go.

is there a big difference between the 8320 and the 8350?

[manikyath]

4 minutes ago, Kaleb33497 said:

and some of you where not, thanks!

welcome to fanboiitechtips forums, where you can say all you want as long as you have an intel cpu and an MSI R9 390 with a samsung SSD, seagate hard drive, and seasonic power supply.

/s

 

thats why i keep those benchmarks on hand, while indeed hideously outdated the FX chips actually do quite incely ignoring heat and power draw.

[ThinkWithPortals]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

welcome to fanboiitechtips forums, where you can say all you want as long as you have an intel cpu and an MSI R9 390 with a samsung SSD, seagate hard drive, and seasonic power supply.

I fit 3/5 of the criteria, do I still win?

 

/s

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

I fit 3/5 of the criteria, do I still win?

 

/s

gosh, WD blacks are so noisy i'm getting deaf

/s

 

my WD black is more silent than any seagate branded drive i have...

[ThinkWithPortals]

Just now, manikyath said:

gosh, WD blacks are so noisy i'm getting deaf

/s

 

my WD black is more silent than any seagate branded drive i have...

Huh, mine's very loud, compared to my old 500gb Seagate...

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

welcome to fanboiitechtips forums, where you can say all you want as long as you have an intel cpu and an MSI R9 390 with a samsung SSD, seagate hard drive, and seasonic power supply.

/s

thats why i keep those benchmarks on hand, while indeed hideously outdated the FX chips actually do quite incely ignoring heat and power draw.

It really depends on what you're doing! No joke, OK, I've used an 8350 for 4 years. Any game that doesn't enjoy tons of cores (IE: every game that's not BF4) SUCKED on my 8350. My worst experience: 15 FPS in Boston of Fallout 4. With my 4790k? Won't go below 60 FPS ever, even with my 7970 Ghz edition. Source games benefited, multitasking benefited, basically every single part of my computing is better compared to the "8-core monster!!1!!!1" that the 8350 is. I could say the same if I went with an i5.

 

The 8xxx and 9xxx series of CPU's are outdated and bad, even though you have that one benchmark that says.. Otherwise? I don't actually see any information at all that suggests the 9590 even meets up with the i7. It's not in English so I don't get it anyways.

 

Maybe people with actual GAMING experience could rag on AMD, like me. I don't know about Zen and how good/mediocre it will be, but for now, I can't recommend any AMD CPU. The 860k is the only exception. They don't do quite nicely, especially for the performance/watt and the upfront price.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

It really depends on what you're doing! No joke, OK, I've used an 8350 for 4 years. Any game that doesn't enjoy tons of cores (IE: every game that's not BF4) SUCKED on my 8350. My worst experience: 15 FPS in Boston of Fallout 4. With my 4790k? Won't go below 60 FPS ever, even with my 7970 Ghz edition. Source games benefited, multitasking benefited, basically every single part of my computing is better compared to the "8-core monster!!1!!!1" that the 8350 is. I could say the same if I went with an i5.

 

The 8xxx and 9xxx series of CPU's are outdated and bad, even though you have that one benchmark that says.. Otherwise? I don't actually see any information at all that suggests the 9590 even meets up with the i7. It's not in English so I don't get it anyways.

 

Maybe people with actual GAMING experience could rag on AMD, like me. I don't know about Zen and how good/mediocre it will be, but for now, I can't recommend any AMD CPU. The 860k is the only exception. They don't do quite nicely, especially for the performance/watt and the upfront price.

you know that Source Engine has used at least 4 cores, in every game it has been used in, since 2006?

 

15 FPS in Boston... at what FX clocks?

Then again, FO4 uses the same shitty engine Bethesda used for Skyrim, which was recycled from Oblivion.... Basically a DX7 or 8 engine that has been patched and welded together by sloppy code to make it adhere to specifications of newer APIs....

 

And it doesnt matter which benchmark anyone shows you. Because you wont understand any benchmark not showing Intel 3x ahead of FX.

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

you know that Source Engine has used at least 4 cores, in every game it has been used in, since 2006?

15 FPS in Boston... at what FX clocks?

Then again, FO4 uses the same shitty engine Bethesda used for Skyrim, which was recycled from Oblivion.... Basically a DX7 or 8 engine that has been patched and welded together by sloppy code to make it adhere to specifications of newer APIs....

And it doesnt matter which benchmark anyone shows you. Because you wont understand any benchmark not showing Intel 3x ahead of FX.

You still haven't showed me any of these benchmarks you're talking about. I linked two videos proving my case, in one of them the FX is winning in a bit of GTAV, but otherwise they're very close. My point is: an i5 will give you a better user experience all around, especially in GAMING circumstances.

 

There are some benchmarks that definitely favor more cores, and that's totally fine, there are cases where the 8350 will beat the 4460, maybe.. I can't think of a situation a casual/gaming user would come by where the FX would win.

 

I got 15 FPS average in Boston of Fallout 4, at 4.2Ghz on my 8350. Like I said, I've used the 8350 for 4 years, since 2012. I'm no fanboy of either, fanboys are bad and they should feel bad.. 

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

You still haven't showed me any of these benchmarks you're talking about. I linked two videos proving my case, in one of them the FX is winning in a bit of GTAV, but otherwise they're very close. My point is: an i5 will give you a better user experience all around, especially in GAMING circumstances.

 

There are some benchmarks that definitely favor more cores, and that's totally fine, there are cases where the 8350 will beat the 4460, maybe.. I can't think of a situation a casual/gaming user would come by where the FX would win.

 

I got 15 FPS average in Boston of Fallout 4, at 4.2Ghz on my 8350. Like I said, I've used the 8350 for 4 years, since 2012. I'm no fanboy of either, fanboys are bad and they should feel bad.. 

With a 7970?

 

K.... ill see if i can score that bad with a Nvidia GTX 950 and a 8320 at 4.2GHz...

If its a CPU issue, i should hit 15 FPS.

If its a GPU issue, or a combined CPU + GPU issue, it will show differently.

 

Dont hold your breath for my testing though, i have a few other issues to fix first, like my ITX setups ground-issue.

[Kobathor]

Just now, Prysin said:

With a 7970?

 

K.... ill see if i can score that bad with a Nvidia GTX 950 and a 8320 at 4.2GHz...

If its a CPU issue, i should hit 15 FPS.

If its a GPU issue, or a combined CPU + GPU issue, it will show differently.

 

Dont hold your breath for my testing though, i have a few other issues to fix first, like my ITX setups ground-issue.

Yes, for me it was a CPU issue, my 7970 does fine even on High settings (Ultra brings me to 50 FPS.) I guess you could have called it a "bottleneck," since the CPU would be at 100% and the GPU would hover around 50%, unlike in BF4 where the GPU was jammed at 100% usage during firefights. YMMV.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

Yes, for me it was a CPU issue, my 7970 does fine even on High settings (Ultra brings me to 50 FPS.) I guess you could have called it a "bottleneck," since the CPU would be at 100% and the GPU would hover around 50%, unlike in BF4 where the GPU was jammed at 100% usage during firefights. YMMV.

what RAM do you have? not that RAM speed helps FX CPUs much, as me and Magetank found out, but FO4 fucking LOVES memory bandwidth. Hell, you can see improvements in FO4 even on a i5 4690k using faster memory.

[Kobathor]

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

what RAM do you have? not that RAM speed helps FX CPUs much, as me and Magetank found out, but FO4 fucking LOVES memory bandwidth. Hell, you can see improvements in FO4 even on a i5 4690k using faster memory.

1866Mhz, Fallout 4 crashes when I OC it any higher.

 

when YOU OC it, or you select a higher XMP?

Also, it may simply be your motherboard not supporting higher.

OC the mem, it's rated at 1866Mhz. Battlefield 4 and other games are fine with the OC. My 990FX board was fine with it.

[Prysin]

Just now, Kobathor said:

1866Mhz, Fallout 4 crashes when I OC it any higher.

when YOU OC it, or you select a higher XMP?

Also, it may simply be your motherboard not supporting higher.

[Kaleb33497]

5 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Yes, for me it was a CPU issue, my 7970 does fine even on High settings (Ultra brings me to 50 FPS.) I guess you could have called it a "bottleneck," since the CPU would be at 100% and the GPU would hover around 50%, unlike in BF4 where the GPU was jammed at 100% usage during firefights. YMMV.

you are obivously lying, i watched a streamer play fallout 4 on an 8350 while streaming with the same pc and he never dropped below 30fps

[Kobathor]

3 minutes ago, Kaleb33497 said:

you are obivously lying, i watched a streamer play fallout 4 on an 8350 while streaming with the same pc and he never dropped below 30fps

Depends where you were! In some places I got a solid 60 FPS, like inside simple buildings, but any kind of open space or cities and the FPS tanked. I'm using Boston as the example because there's lots of quests that take place there, so you're in Boston quite a lot.

[Prysin]

Just now, Kobathor said:

Depends where you were! In some places I got a solid 60 FPS, like inside simple buildings, but any kind of open space or cities and the FPS tanked. 

what is/was your GPU driver at the time?

[Kaleb33497]

Just now, Kobathor said:

Depends where you were! In some places I got a solid 60 FPS, like inside simple buildings, but any kind of open space or cities and the FPS tanked. 

he never got below 30 fps ANYWHERE so obivously you  are lying

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

what is/was your GPU driver at the time?

The newest ones, specifically 15.9.x, AKA the Fallout 4 hotfix or whatever came out at the time. Before I replaced it, I tried with the Crimson edition drivers, and FPS was still bad, around 17 FPS average in Boston. Other places improved, like forests.

TRUST ME. It wasn't a GPU thing. Fallout 4 is not the prettiest game anyways.