FX-8350+R9 380 or GTX 960

[Murican]

which of these gpu's would pair better with the cpu

(I don't see the difference past 30-40 fps so please no Intel recommendations)

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, Murican said:

which of these gpu's would pair better with the cpu

(I don't see the difference past 30-40 fps so please no Intel recommendations)

I vote R9 because AMD advertise 380X for their FX-8370 so a R9 380 is best match! (but 960 has less CPU overhead in DX11 games)

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, Murican said:

(I don't see the difference past 30-40 fps so please no Intel recommendations)

Trust me, you will with the FX-8350

 

If you are planning on buying the 8350, don't. It's a bad CPU. If you already have it, then just get the R9 380. If you don't have it, get a cheap i5 or wait for Zen if you NEED AMD (you don't.)

Whatever the case, I recommend the R9 380.

[Simon771]

380 ofc

[don_svetlio]

R9 380 is 15% faster so go for it

[sirbonneville]

i have the 380 and can safely say that it's a great card 

[Hunter7263]

5 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Trust me, you will with the FX-8350

 

If you are planning on buying the 8350, don't. It's a bad CPU. If you already have it, then just get the R9 380. If you don't have it, get a cheap i5 or wait for Zen if you NEED AMD (you don't.)

Whatever the case, I recommend the R9 380.

If you want to get technical the 8350 can actually beat the i5 in some cpu tasks for like 60 bucks less easy. Also he said he doesnt see a difference when going over 40 fps as in he physically cant tell the difference. Some people can some cant. In his case there isnt anything wrong with going for the 8350 because even though it doesnt run as well in gaming as an i5 would it still does well beyond 30-40 fps when pair with either of those gpu's in 1080p. Now I wouldn't reccomend it for going beyond 1080p or above 60fps but if thats not what he's ever going to use it for than really there isnt much point to buying a far more expensive cpu.

[max_headroom]

I wouldn't drop a dime on any AMD cpu.  Spend the little extra and get a good i5.  They can over clock easily and you reach i7 performance that nothing from AMD can touch.

 

Since you asked, I would go with a 960 over a 380.  960 > 380 (specially OC it).  The 960 also has a higher minimum frame rate which means less stuttering.

 

8350 + 380 = PC case is an oven.

[don_svetlio]

42 minutes ago, max_headroom said:

I wouldn't drop a dime on any AMD cpu.  Spend the little extra and get a good i5.  They can over clock easily and you reach i7 performance that nothing from AMD can touch.

 

Since you asked, I would go with a 960 over a 380.  960 > 380 (specially OC it).  The 960 also has a higher minimum frame rate which means less stuttering.

 

8350 + 380 = PC case is an oven.

Erm, the 380 performs much better than a 960, this has been proven time and time again. Unless you have a recent bench by a reputable source like DF, stop talking nonsense.

As for heat, the 380 outputs marginally more than a 960 - not enough to be worthy of discussion

[max_headroom]

1 hour ago, don_svetlio said:

Erm, the 380 performs much better than a 960, this has been proven time and time again. Unless you have a recent bench by a reputable source like DF, stop talking nonsense.

As for heat, the 380 outputs marginally more than a 960 - not enough to be worthy of discussion

I've proven it over and over again with a reputable source called Anandtech.

Unlike you, they're not on AMD's payroll.

 

We've done this song and dance before and frankly you're a terrible dancer.

I'll leave it to the OP to do their own research.

[don_svetlio]

9 hours ago, max_headroom said:

I've proven it over and over again with a reputable source called Anandtech.

Unlike you, they're not on AMD's payroll.

 

We've done this song and dance before and frankly you're a terrible dancer.

I'll leave it to the OP to do their own research.

So AMD, a company with 1/4 of the budget have the funds to pay out 90% of reviewers and users? Lol man, you really need to rethink your claims

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

11 hours ago, max_headroom said:

I wouldn't drop a dime on any AMD cpu.  Spend the little extra and get a good i5.  

 

I can agree to this. Though, i5 Ks are pretty expensive

 

11 hours ago, max_headroom said:

Since you asked, I would go with a 960 over a 380.  960 > 380 (specially OC it).  The 960 also has a higher minimum frame rate which means less stuttering.

 

 

Oh dear! the 380 has the same min frames as the 960 whatever shall we do?? 

 

11 hours ago, max_headroom said:

8350 + 380 = PC case is an oven.

 

 

 

Lol. 

[max_headroom]

6 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

So AMD, a company with 1/4 of the budget have the funds to pay out 90% of reviewers and users? Lol man, you really need to rethink your claims

I wouldn't call you 90%.

 

However when a manufacturer gives someone something free, the reviewer is almost compelled to give it positive ratings.  It isn't unheard of that some of your Youtube "tech heads" get a chitload of free stuff in exchange for a positive review.

 

 

I'm not a Youtube reviewer.  I actually bought both cards with my own money and returned what I didn't think was worth my dime.  To me that's as close to being unbiased.  Would I select the "lesser" brand just for the sole purpose of loyalty?  LOL!  Yes, make an ultra rich company more money while I get stuck with the inferior product.

 

Yeah, that makes sense!  LOL!

[don_svetlio]

Just now, max_headroom said:

I wouldn't call you 90%.

 

However when a manufacturer gives someone something free, the reviewer is almost compelled to give it positive ratings.  It isn't unheard of that some of your Youtube "tech heads" get a chitload of free stuff in exchange for a positive review.

That menas Nvidia payed of 100% of the professional reviewers

[max_headroom]

5 hours ago, Pohernori said:

 

I can agree to this. Though, i5 Ks are pretty expensive

 

 

 

Oh dear! the 380 has the same min frames as the 960 whatever shall we do?? 

 

 

 

 

Lol. 

4690K was only about $40 more expensive than the 8350 at the time I purchased mine.  However, the 4690K, specially when over clocked, completely, utterly, and ruthlessly destroys the 8350.  No questions about it.  Even ghetto dwellers who plunk down $60 for Call of Duty 32 for their XBox one can afford that $40.

 

Synthetic benchmarks are for those with synthetic brains.

[don_svetlio]

4 minutes ago, max_headroom said:

4690K was only about $40 more expensive than the 8350 at the time I purchased mine.  However, the 4690K, specially when over clocked, completely, utterly, and ruthlessly destroys the 8350.  No questions about it.  Even ghetto dwellers who plunk down $60 for Call of Duty 32 for their XBox one can afford that $40.

 

Synthetic benchmarks are for those with synthetic brains.

MCC works better for multi-threaded applications, i5s work better for single-threaded applications. Each has it's own place.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, max_headroom said:

4690K was only about $40 more expensive than the 8350 at the time I purchased mine.  However, the 4690K, specially when over clocked, completely, utterly, and ruthlessly destroys the 8350.  No questions about it.  Even ghetto dwellers who plunk down $60 for Call of Duty 32 for their XBox one can afford that $40.

 

No, I was comparing the price of i5s to unlocked i5s. But the difference was probably more when I bought mine. No one mentioned anything about being too poor. But there's no denying the i5 Ks are pricey. 

 

4 minutes ago, max_headroom said:

Synthetic benchmarks are for those with synthetic brains.

 

Pffftttt.... LOL how can you even come up with such a bad joke like that? 

 

Synthetic benchmarks force constant load on the cards throughout the testing duration where as a game wouldn't be able to and the temps would have been even lower. 

 

Did you even stop to think about it? 

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

No, I was comparing the price of i5s to unlocked i5s. But the difference was probably more when I bought mine. No one mentioned anything about being too poor. But there's no denying the i5 Ks are pricey. 

 

 

Pffftttt.... LOL how can you even come up with such a bad joke like that? 

 

Synthetic benchmarks force constant load on the cards throughout the testing duration where as a game wouldn't be able to and the temps would have been even lower. 

 

Did you even stop to think about it? 

I believe he doesn't know the definition of "think" but yeah, agree with you.

[DXMember]

380 is a faster card

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

I believe he doesn't know the definition of "think" but yeah, agree with you.

 

Well... I wouldn't go there... 

[i_build_nanosuits]

The R9 380 is the faster card, so if they are priced the same i would go with that one...also i would make sure to get a 4GB version of the card because 2gb is too little nowadays, even for 1080p.

[Murican]

PLEASE no flame wars. I think AMD is great. Intel is good too but I don't want any Intel recommendations.