Gaming CPU Needed

[KenVelocity]

fx 8350 vs i5 4690

I dont know what cpu would be good for gta V and AC unity could you guys help me out????........:)

 

[AresKrieger]

Go i5,  FX chips are inferior in gaming since most games utilize 4 cores, additionally the IPC rating on the fx chips is awful by comparison.

[GlassBomb]

I would say Intel, simply because of how aged the AMD chipset is.

[TheSuspect]

i5 ofc

[Imakuni]

29 minutes ago, KenVelocity said:

I dont know what cpu would be good for gta V and AC unity could you guys help me out????........:)

 

If you want a gaming machine, you are better off with Intel's.

 

Do consider an i5 6500, though. Unless you are really tight on the budget, it's not really that worth it to get a 4460 anymore.

[Vortez]

Hands down go for intel core i5! In games it's considerably better than old FX.

 

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

I would say Intel, simply because of how aged the AMD chipset is.

AGE HAS NOT A DAMN SHIT TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE.

 

For how long are people going to say bullshit like this?

 

There is AM3+ boards with better features on them then almost ALL Ivy boards, most Haswell boards and many skylake boards. These AM3+ boards are relatively cheap, well built and offer good power delivery for overclocking.

 

Oh and inb4 bullshit "oh but PCIe Gen3 is sooo much better for gaming then Gen2"

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X_PCI-Express_Scaling/

 

yes, Gen3 may give you 2 FPS more. maybe

 

Following boards has USB 3.1 10GBs, M.2 NVMe support, crossfire, 6+2 or 8+2 power deliver (or 2x 4+1 in parrallell)

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/dxs8TW/asrock-motherboard-970ag31

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/jntWGX/asus-motherboard-970progamingaura

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/mC648d/gigabyte-motherboard-ga990fxgaming

 

all of which is plenty good for normal use and even overclocking.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Vortez said:

Hands down go for intel core i5! In games it's considerably better than old FX.

 

again AGE has little to do with the argument.

API and architecture is all that matters.

 

FX is shit due to a weak architecture and APIs not using the potential of the CPU.

 

If you use a FX CPU in Ashes of the Singularity DX12, it is faster then ANY i5, it even comes close to a i7 4790k.

[Suika]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

AGE HAS NOT A DAMN SHIT TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE.

Exactly. AM3+ was shit from the start, age has nothing to do with it :^)

[GlassBomb]

13 minutes ago, Prysin said:

AGE HAS NOT A DAMN SHIT TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE.

~snip~

Age has something to do with the features that you are able to get.

 

I said nothing about performance or anything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Edit: For instance. I want ITX-sized, with M.2 (NVMe) for my next build. How many options do I have to pick between when comparing Intel boards, with AMD boards? That's where I am getting at.

[i_build_nanosuits]

the i5-4690 will crush the FX in every games...EVERY games.

wanna discuss this FACT further...bring on the benchmarks i'm sure even if you google all day you won't find ANY gaming benchmarks in which the FX perform better than the core i5. NONE.

[Prysin]

3 hours ago, GlassBomb said:

Age has something to do with the features that you are able to get.

 

I said nothing about performance or anything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Edit: For instance. I want ITX-sized, with M.2 (NVMe) for my next build. How many options do I have to pick between when comparing Intel boards, with AMD boards? That's where I am getting at.

that still has NOT A SHIT to do with age. It has everything to do with supply and demand.

 

ITX builds are considered "low power". And a FX CPU wouldnt really make sense in a low power build (since it is a high power part.) The vendors. not AMD, not FX, therefore focus ITX setups on the FM2+ platform.

 

WHY?

 

because the A88X chipset and SKUs require less power and have less PCIe lanes and have a much less power hungry NB and SB. Due to this it is cheaper for the board partners to make FM2+ boards at ITX size, because they do not have to invest nearly as much RnD into power delivery to feed a FM2+ CPU.

 

 

however same applies to Intel.

If i want fast memory (higher then 1600MHz), why do i have to buy a Z board? Which always cost a shitload more.

If i want a fucking heatsink on my mobo's VRMs, why is there no boards under 70 bucks (that doesnt look gawdy or have less features then other boards in same price range)???

 

It is simply because the board partners, that is EVGA, MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS, ASRock, ECS, Supermicro and BIOSTAR all know that by doing it this way, they can grab a few more pennies outta your wallet.

 

It has nothing to do with the CPU. An i3 6100 and a i7 6700k has the same IMC. On a Z series board, the i3 can run 4266MHz DDR4 just fine. On a B, H or Q board it cannot. Tthere is not a single fucking reason for this RAM speed limitation to exist. Infact, all it does is hurt the consumer. Digital Foundry and many other review sites has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that faster RAM helps lower end CPUs perform better by cutting down on the "downtime" in the CPU waiting for data to travel back and forth to memory. An i3 or locked i5 will benefit immensely from faster RAM. whilst a unlocked i5 or i7 will barely see any benefit at all.

Thus Intel and its board partners are deliberatly gimping the ability to draw more performance out of the lower end SKUs without spending a LOT more money (more then it is worth spending in most cases).

 

 

2 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the i5-4690 will crush the FX in every games...EVERY games.

wanna discuss this FACT further...bring on the benchmarks i'm sure even if you google all day you won't find ANY gaming benchmarks in which the FX perform better than the core i5. NONE.

No i5 will beat a FX8 in DX12 Ashes.  hell, no i5 will compete with a FX in multi-thread. As soon as the FX can use all its threads, no i5 (ok, maybe a 6600k with huge OC) will compete.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/5974309/fs/7668225

 

look at that comparison, the i5s IPC allow it to serve up A LOT more drawcalls, but once you enter the Physics section, you realize that the FX is suddenly ahead.

Thing is though, even at very similar clock speeds, the i5s IPC means jack shit over multiple threads. Sure the i5 comes close, but let us be real here. An i5 at 4.7GHz is achieving a VERY good OC. Not many i5s will go much further then that. A FX 8350 that does not hit 5GHz or above isnt that good. The average FX 8350 should hit 4.9 to 5.1GHz on all 8 threads. My own 8320 does 4.77GHz on a 92mm Air cooler.... God forbid if i had it under water, how fast it could go then. And that is a 8320, that is a 3.5GHz SKU.... the 8350 is a 4GHz SKU. So it is much higher binned in the first place.

 

Whilst Firestrike is not a accurate for all games, it does show how a CPU should perform in a game in worst case scenario. In FXs case, it has to either clock down, or put the ALU cores on hold when using its floating point. The i5s much higher IPC helps it clear its pipeline faster so it is not as heavily affected by changing workloads as FX are. This is why the i5 scores A LOT higher in the combined test, despite both running the same clock-speed.

 

I will not argue that a i5 is worse in every game. It isnt. However games that uses 8 threads and that is very CPU intensive, like The Witcher 3 in Novigrad, will see the FX match or overtake a i5 4690k. Proof is here (as you can see. The FX is worse in open areas and equal or better in NPC heavy areas):

 

You must also add the fact that most games are NOT very CPU intensive. So the step from a FX to a i5 isnt day or night. Due to the i5s lower clock speeds, you are actually much more likely to see equal scores. Benchmarks and reviews are NEVER the whole story (i learned that the hard way when i bought a i3 6100). They are merely a pointer. Other parts in your system can and will affect how each CPU plays a game. If you do streaming, or have lots of programs in the background FX is simply better. If you simply shut down all background tasks and play ONLY the game, the i5 is hands down better.

 

It all boils down to use case and price.

If the i5 is similarily priced, boards are equally priced, the features you want are there. Go for the i5. However if you plan to multi-task a lot, or the i5 is more expensive, then the FX is an option. Not the best option. But it is still an option.

 

Either way. Why are you backing the OP in getting a Haswell part? Tell him to get skylake. It is a no-brainer.

 

Also, Nano, get on skype.

[GlassBomb]

8 minutes ago, Prysin said:

~snip~

Again. What I am saying is this.

 

AMD-compatible motherboards has a very limited selection from what I (as in me, personally) want of a motherboard. The selection of things I want from a motherboard, and from what vendor I want it from (may it be to localization, warranty, or anything else) is a really limiting factor when ~I~ am looking at a AMD-based system.

 

I never once mentioned anything about the performance of the AMD chips, compared to Intel. All I am saying is that the selection of motherboards that goes with Intel builds is far, far greater than anything AMD currently has on offer.

 

If I want an AMD motherboard that has M.2 compatibility, then I only have six options to choose from. All of which being normal ATX size. Where as if I were to choose the Intel platform, I literally would have over 100 boards to choose from.

 

That is all what I am trying to get at. I honestly could care less about the performance difference between either of the chips in question. All I am talking about right now is the selection of boards that you have to pair with whatever chip you wish to go with.

 

PS. Sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way.

[Prysin]

26 minutes ago, GlassBomb said:

Again. What I am saying is this.

 

AMD-compatible motherboards has a very limited selection from what I (as in me, personally) want of a motherboard. The selection of things I want from a motherboard, and from what vendor I want it from (may it be to localization, warranty, or anything else) is a really limiting factor when ~I~ am looking at a AMD-based system.

 

I never once mentioned anything about the performance of the AMD chips, compared to Intel. All I am saying is that the selection of motherboards that goes with Intel builds is far, far greater than anything AMD currently has on offer.

 

If I want an AMD motherboard that has M.2 compatibility, then I only have six options to choose from. All of which being normal ATX size. Where as if I were to choose the Intel platform, I literally would have over 100 boards to choose from.

 

That is all what I am trying to get at. I honestly could care less about the performance difference between either of the chips in question. All I am talking about right now is the selection of boards that you have to pair with whatever chip you wish to go with.

 

PS. Sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way.

the performance part was not aimed at you.

 

Also, mITX intel with M.2 isnt even 100 boards. its 27 across Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Including the Xtreme platform.

http://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#s=13,24,30,14,15,16,21,28,29&f=8&E=1,3

[GlassBomb]

26 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Also, mITX intel with M.2 isnt even 100 boards. its 27 across Sandy Bridge to Skylake. Including the Xtreme platform.

I was mainly looking at ATX boards there, since you can only get M.2 with AMD in that size. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Edit: Either way. I'm leaving this thread. Toodles. o/

[Duh_tech]

I5

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 hours ago, Prysin said:

 

No i5 will beat a FX8 in DX12 Ashes.  hell, no i5 will compete with a FX in multi-thread. As soon as the FX can use all its threads, no i5 (ok, maybe a 6600k with huge OC) will compete.

 

Also, Nano, get on skype.

are you seriously rooting for the old ass outdated AMD FX CPU's here?! are you serious man?! really?! you really do believe an overclocked AMD FX POS can deliver ANYWHER NEAR the performance of a modern intel core i5 chip in games?! really?!?

[Prysin]

8 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

are you seriously rooting for the old ass outdated AMD FX CPU's here?! are you serious man?! really?! you really do believe an overclocked AMD FX POS can deliver ANYWHER NEAR the performance of a modern intel core i5 chip in games?! really?!?

with a 980Ti under DX11, in a couple of games yes.

In DX12 -> effortlessly, from what ive seen so far. Time Spy benchmark will be the "final nail" that will show us wether this will hold true for all DX12 games, not just a couple.

In most other DX11 titles i5 is hands down better. UNLESS, you are doing heavy multi-tasking. In which case more demanding games will benefit from having more threads availible for background processes.

[TheGamingBarrel]

15 hours ago, Prysin said:

ITX builds are considered "low power". And a FX CPU wouldnt really make sense in a low power build (since it is a high power part.) The vendors. not AMD, not FX, therefore focus ITX setups on the FM2+ platform.

I would consider 5960X + TITAN X In ITX To be high power.

15 hours ago, Prysin said:

It has nothing to do with the CPU. An i3 6100 and a i7 6700k has the same IMC. On a Z series board, the i3 can run 4266MHz DDR4 just fine.

Except no two CPUs have the same IMC.

[pinksnowmanshandle]

21 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

Go i5,  FX chips are inferior in gaming since most games utilize 4 cores, additionally the IPC rating on the fx chips is awful by comparison.

Well that is until we see Zen FX chips come out, then maybe AMD's FX CPUs will be decent but pricing will likely be more into Intel's HEDT CPUs (Haswell-E).

[jjohnthedon1]

21 hours ago, Prysin said:

AGE HAS NOT A DAMN SHIT TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE.

 

For how long are people going to say bullshit like this?

 

There is AM3+ boards with better features on them then almost ALL Ivy boards, most Haswell boards and many skylake boards. These AM3+ boards are relatively cheap, well built and offer good power delivery for overclocking.

 

Oh and inb4 bullshit "oh but PCIe Gen3 is sooo much better for gaming then Gen2"

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X_PCI-Express_Scaling/

 

yes, Gen3 may give you 2 FPS more. maybe

 

Following boards has USB 3.1 10GBs, M.2 NVMe support, crossfire, 6+2 or 8+2 power deliver (or 2x 4+1 in parrallell)

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/dxs8TW/asrock-motherboard-970ag31

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/jntWGX/asus-motherboard-970progamingaura

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/mC648d/gigabyte-motherboard-ga990fxgaming

 

all of which is plenty good for normal use and even overclocking.

Don't are how good the board is 

u still Gota put a fx chip in it

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, jjohnthedon1 said:

Don't are how good the board is 

u still Gota put a fx chip in it

u gota put a grammar in ur post if u want 2 b taken srsly

[AresKrieger]

3 hours ago, wcreek said:

Well that is until we see Zen FX chips come out, then maybe AMD's FX CPUs will be decent but pricing will likely be more into Intel's HEDT CPUs (Haswell-E).

They're calling some of the new zen chips FX, huh I didn't expect then to keep the same name.

[pinksnowmanshandle]

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

They're calling some of the new zen chips FX, huh I didn't expect then to keep the same name.

Oh yeah, AMD is keeping the FX name.

[DocSwag]

I say Skylake i5. While as @Prysin said fx CPUs do have some points on their side, most dx11 games don't use more than 4 cores, and going Skylake gives you a much better upgrade path in the future. If you get an fx 8xxx then you don't have anywhere to go (well technically you have the 9590 but that thing is basically just an fx 8xxx that's factory overclocked and it draws WAY too much power), but if you go Skylake you could upgrade to something like a Kaby lake or Cannonlake i7 in the future.