AMD or Intel processor for BF4 build (ultra)

[lmao234]

Someone I know wants to build a PC mainly for playing Battlefield 4 on Ultra settings. The budget doesn't really matter but please don't go overkill (suggest Intel Extremes). He would also like to save as much as possible. I am veering towards AMD because Mantle will supposedly make use of its 8 cores. 

Which should I choose?

[Kuzma]

It's either AMD 8 cores or Intel 6 cores

8350 or 3930k IMO

[Vitalius]

Someone I know wants to build a PC mainly for playing Battlefield 4 on Ultra settings. The budget doesn't really matter but please don't go overkill (suggest Intel Extremes). He would also like to save as much as possible. I am veering towards AMD because Mantle will supposedly make use of its 8 cores. 

Which should I choose?

8350 since you already said no the the Intel Extremes. 

[lmao234]

Sorry I should have been more clear. Umm... as long as it doesn't go through $400 it's fine (but it would be a plus if it was $300 or under).

[Raboo]

AMD 8350

[lmao234]

8350 since you already said no the the Intel Extremes. 

Why though? What specific advantage does Extremes hold over normal CPUs and would you need to pay so much extra for them?

[Jack.EXE]

I'd go FX8350, seeing how BF4 will support mantle.

[Kuzma]

Why though? What specific advantage does Extremes hold over normal CPUs and would you need to pay so much extra for them?

6 Intel cores out performs anything AMD has to offer in every way - if I had the money for a 3930k trust me, I'd have one.

[lmao234]

6 Intel cores out performs anything AMD has to offer in every way - if I had the money for a 3930k trust me, I'd have one.

Me too... but not everyone can buy it and he has a rough budget for the whole build I'm just using some of that money for the CPU.

[Kuzma]

Me too... but not everyone can buy it and he has a rough budget for the whole build I'm just using some of that money for the CPU.

I wasn't exactly saying that's all he should get I did recommend an 8350 first, I was simply answering his question as to why everyone mentions Intel Extreme CPUs when people say "no budget"

[Vitalius]

Why though? What specific advantage does Extremes hold over normal CPUs and would you need to pay so much extra for them?

If the 3930k is an extreme processor (this part of Intel's lineup, I know little about), then you want the extra cores.

[_ASSASSIN_]

8350 or 3770K/4770K

[nokturrduk84]

8350 or 3770K/4770K

3770K/4770K!

 

don't buy amd cpus. They are weak comparing to i7s. Here, check this benchmarks:

As you see i7s outperform amd cpus

[_ASSASSIN_]

3770K/4770K!

 

don't buy amd cpus. They are weak comparing to i7s. Here, check this benchmarks:

As you see i7s outperform amd cpus

the 8350 perform as good if not better than the 3570K (especially when overclocked), it just doesn't have hyperthreading like the i7's do

[Hirad123]

This is a pretty good question seeing as apparently bf4 is "multicore optimized" and AMD offers more cores but intel is still architecturaly faster.

[nokturrduk84]

the 8350 perform as good if not better than the 3570K (especially when overclocked), it just doesn't have hyperthreading like the i7's do

yes, but as you see, they fail at i7's.

[constanrine5d]

I say wait for the benchmarks, also what is your resolution (sorry if I missed that)

[Mooshi]

3770K/4770K!

 

don't buy amd cpus. They are weak comparing to i7s. Here, check this benchmarks:

As you see i7s outperform amd cpus

 

 

The difference between an AMD 8350 and an Intel i7 3930k is only 7

 

AMD price as of this post on Newegg: $199.99

Intel price as of this post on Newegg: $569.99

 

Cost difference: $370

 

7 extra FPS is not worth $370.

 

And these are stock speeds. Plenty of people run an 8350 around 4.6Ghz.

 

If we ignore generation, brand loyalty, clock speeds and focus on value per dollar, there is no reason why you shouldn't get an 8350 and use the extra cash to invest in more power GPUs. That is what is going to be doing the bulk of the rendering anyway.

[Vitalius]

The difference between an AMD 8350 and an Intel i7 3930k is only 7

 

AMD price as of this post on Newegg: $199.99

Intel price as of this post on Newegg: $569.99

 

Cost difference: $370

 

7 extra FPS is not worth $370.

 

And these are stock speeds. Plenty of people run an 8350 around 4.6Ghz.

 

If we ignore generation, brand loyalty, clock speeds and focus on value per dollar, there is no reason why you shouldn't get an 8350 and use the extra cash to invest in more power GPUs. That is what is going to be doing the bulk of the rendering anyway.

You also have to weigh performance-price ratio along-side future proofing. Will an 8350 be enough for games in the future (1-2 years)? Who knows. We have to see if Mantle takes into account AMD's weird architecture and somehow pulls better numbers than you'd expect by doing so. If so, sure. If not, doubt it.

[nokturrduk84]

The difference between an AMD 8350 and an Intel i7 3930k is only 7

 

AMD price as of this post on Newegg: $199.99

Intel price as of this post on Newegg: $569.99

 

Cost difference: $370

 

7 extra FPS is not worth $370.

 

And these are stock speeds. Plenty of people run an 8350 around 4.6Ghz.

 

If we ignore generation, brand loyalty, clock speeds and focus on value per dollar, there is no reason why you shouldn't get an 8350 and use the extra cash to invest in more power GPUs. That is what is going to be doing the bulk of the rendering anyway.

First, it's not 7, but 9 if you're talking about min fps, second, it's just min fps and what about average fps, where difference is 13? And if talking about overclocking, you know you can overclock i7 too... So...

[Mooshi]

You also have to weigh performance-price ratio along-side future proofing. Will an 8350 be enough for games in the future (1-2 years)? Who knows. We have to see if Mantle takes into account AMD's weird architecture and somehow pulls better numbers than you'd expect by doing so. If so, sure. If not, doubt it.

 

If money were no object, I'd take the most baller i7 over AMD any day, but the OP did mention as low cost as possible.

[TheProfosist]

Amd 8 core probably since I would assume their optimizing it for more cores.

[Vitalius]

If money were no object, I'd take the most baller i7 over AMD any day, but the OP did mention as low cost as possible.

True. But he also said no budget. I find those two things contradictory myself, but I can understand what they mean when they put those two things together. 

Eh. 8350 would be better. You will upgrade platforms and CPUs by the time it wouldn't be "enough" for ultra gaming.

[Mooshi]

First, it's not 7, but 9 if you're talking about min fps, second, it's just min fps and what about average fps, where difference is 13? And if talking about overclocking, you know you can overclock i7 too... So...

 

Intel: 52/64

AMD: 48/57

 

Difference: 4/7

 

I'm just going by the chart you posted... :mellow:

 

I still stand by at the current market price, it's not worth the extra $370 dollars. Yes, an overclocked i7 will overclock like stink. I used to use a first gen i7 920 back in the day. But at some point, the extra performance doesn't merit the price tag. It isn't 100 dollars more, it's $370. That's enough for a beefy graphics card.

 

 

True. But he also said no budget. I find those two things contradictory myself, but I can understand what they mean when they put those two things together. 

Eh. 8350 would be better. You will upgrade platforms and CPUs by the time it wouldn't be "enough" for ultra gaming.

 

 

Yeh. According to that chart, my i5 2500k is still relevant and those were stock speeds.

[nokturrduk84]

I said about 3970x, but even so, 3930k has 7 fps difference in avg. fps. It's quite a big number in gaming. Anyway, let author of post decides what's the best for him