AMD or Intel processor for BF4 build (ultra)

[The Great Sayain Man]

I7 4770k. 

[Glenwing]

Intel cause amd platforms don't support pci e 3.0 right now

 

Current graphics cards do not max out PCIe 1.0.

[Vitalius]

Current graphics cards do not max out PCIe 1.0.

Glen, they are specifically talking about how 290X's can crossfire over PCI-e and don't use Crossfire bridges anymore. For that purpose, having at the very least PCI-e 2.0 x16 is important. PCI-e 3.0 x16 is preferred so there is absolutely no bottleneck. Though there probably wouldn't be.

Which, as you can imagine, is ironic considering it's AMD's GPU that might need it, yet AMD's CPU's don't support it. 

[Glenwing]

Glen, they are specifically talking about how 290X's can crossfire over PCI-e and don't use Crossfire bridges anymore. For that purpose, having at the very least PCI-e 2.0 x16 is important. PCI-e 3.0 x16 is preferred so there is absolutely no bottleneck. Though there probably wouldn't be.

Which, as you can imagine, is ironic considering it's AMD's GPU that might need it, yet AMD's CPU's don't support it. 

 

I wasn't saying they should use PCIe 1.0 The point was GPUs don't max that out, and both current platforms use 2.0 and upwards so there is plenty of bandwidth left over with whatever platform they choose, it doesn't matter whether they go for an AMD platform (dual PCIe 2.0 x16) or Intel (dual PCIe 3.0 x8) which are effectively the same thing anyway.

[CarlosRex]

Intel cause amd platforms don't support pci e 3.0 right now

That's false actually, all available FM2+ boards support native PCIE 3.0, the AM3+ 990FX Sabertooth R.20 GEN3 also supports PCIE 3.0.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128655

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/

 

[Giggitygoebbels]

4930K gives the best of both worlds IMO.

[delet my acc pls]

4930K gives the best of both worlds IMO.

4930K gives the best of both worlds IMO.

But it costs like 450$, i would rather use the money i save with getting a i5 or a normal i7 on a GPU because there will be a bigger performance increase

[Arun46682]

Fx8350 + amd current gen (not sure if mantle gonna benefit on current gen ) or new gen gpu  would be best choice for bf4 and for other  AMD titles.it is really useless if u get Fx8350 with Nvidia card or Intel Processor with Amd GPU becoz that mantle API not gonna benefit anyway.

[TheProfosist]

Current graphics cards do not max out PCIe 1.0.

that would be a x4 PCI-E 3.0 slot if think correct me if im wrong. Im pretty sure that graphics cards can exceed that

That's false actually, all available FM2+ boards support native PCIE 3.0, the AM3+ 990FX Sabertooth R.20 GEN3 also supports PCIE 3.0.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128655

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/

yep was going to say the same thing

But it costs like 450$, i would rather use the money i save with getting a i5 or a normal i7 on a GPU because there will be a bigger performance increase

a 4930K is closer to $600...

[FellTheSky]

Architecturally speaking, Intel is NOT ahead of AMD, because even though an Intel core is faster than an AMD core, it's twice as large and even though it's twice as large, it's not nearly twice as fast.

That's why an Intel core should be compared to an AMD Module (Dual core) & not core for core.

 

Dud you cant actually be thinking that 4930k its all intel got. We are stuck on performance since sandy bridge.  They are not pushing it. And though you say core per core they are not twice as fast, each core can have hyperthreading. On top of that, they come on low stock speeds

 

Now dont get me wrong. I sure hope amd can catch out. That way we may get mainstream 6 and 8 cores from intel, and push the prices down. 

[TheProfosist]

Dud you cant actually be thinking that 4930k its all intel got. We are stuck on performance since sandy bridge.  They are not pushing it. And though you say core per core they are not twice as fast, each core can have hyperthreading. On top of that, they come on low stock speeds

 

Now dont get me wrong. I sure hope amd can catch out. That way we may get mainstream 6 and 8 cores from intel, and push the prices down.

Can I ask something? What is demanding the additional CPU performance for consumers?

[Glenwing]

that would be a x4 PCI-E 3.0 slot if think correct me if im wrong. Im pretty sure that graphics cards can exceed that

 

They don't.  GTX 680 barely maxes out 3.0 x2 so even Titan (40-60% faster) would not be able to max out 3.0 x4.

[TechFan@ic]

Dud you cant actually be thinking that 4930k its all intel got. We are stuck on performance since sandy bridge.  They are not pushing it. And though you say core per core they are not twice as fast, each core can have hyperthreading. On top of that, they come on low stock speeds

 

Now dont get me wrong. I sure hope amd can catch out. That way we may get mainstream 6 and 8 cores from intel, and push the prices down. 

Give this post a spin to better understand what I mean.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/48571-intel-amd-architectural-discussion-how-far-ahead-intel-really-is/

[TheProfosist]

They don't.  GTX 680 barely maxes out 3.0 x2 so even Titan (40-60% faster) would not be able to max out 3.0 x4.

So your saying that I have RAID cards and PCI-E SSDs that use up more bandwidth than some one to top of the line GPU's? Id like to see if this was true. You would need a way to restrict a slot to the different generations and speed on it then a way to max the cards with some sort of output and see what happens.

[soggyfatman]

Yes, I know. We are choosing a 7970, the others would be above his price point.

Have you decided what cpu you are going with?

[YellowMenace]

Since the next gen consoles are using an 8-core CPU, BF4, being a next gen game, may be able to utilize and get some leverage from those extra cores that AMD has and Intel doesn't. I'm pretty sure an Intel 6-core would smoke this, but may be way too pricey.

Also, the BF4 beta can run just fine on a 3770k and the beta is terribly optimized at the moment.

[TheProfosist]

Since the next gen consoles are using an 8-core CPU, BF4, being a next gen game, may be able to utilize and get some leverage from those extra cores that AMD has and Intel doesn't. I'm pretty sure an Intel 6-core would smoke this, but may be way too pricey.

Also, the BF4 beta can run just fine on a 3770k and the beta is terribly optimized at the moment.

It should run perfectly fine on a 3770K when their done probably even a 2500K their not going to alienate a large amount of PC gamers just because its "AMD optiomized".

[Opsilon]

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchmarks/4/

these are some beta benchmarks i found, and form what i see, AMD 8350 is fast, and very close to thew 4670k and 4770k, keep in mind they are not overclocked.

Now, since 9590 is out i suspect the best 8 core chips are used for that, so the 8350 and 8320 will be limited in overclocking, so i would honestly say go with an 8350, just to have some headroom for OC.

 

If you plan to go with intel, the 4930k/3930k are expensive, they would be optimal chips, but they are too expensive, so if you are even asking to go AMD path i suspect you are like most of us, not rich, and can't afford it. I would stick with an i7 4770k, just because modern games will support more threads, and even HTT can help. I don't recommend the i5 just because it has 4 threads, and this will show in modern titles, not to mention if you are doing something in the background, more threads will help..

 

Other thing too keep in mind, the 8350 is 4ghz stock, the 4770k 3.5ghz. Once you start overclocking, the intel platform will pull ahead.

Here is my reasoning: if you get an 8320 you will be able to do 4ghz-4.3 if you have a good chip, 8350 will give you a bit more , the i7 is the luck of the draw, they are not good overclockers, if you can get that thing to 4.6ghz AMD chip will look like an amateur, on the realistic side you will get 4.2-4.4 ghz from it, this is kinda sad since most of the older gen intel's can go higher on average, but the intel will still be faster.

 

So if you don't have the money, get an 8350, don't really bother with an i5 since if you start recording or streaming you ill see performance hits, if you do have the money get the i4770k and be done with it, just note that what ever path you go, get a monster cooler, they will heat up...

[Mixzzz]

I would go AMD because:
 

1) Op said its better to keep the costs lower if possible

2) BF4 is only in BETA(not really but...) and those benches arent accurate, wait for the real release

3) You will save tons of money(It was 370$ or so?). You could buy another GPU and get a lot more FPS instead of getting more powerful CPU and getting only few FPS more... And 8350 wasnt really made to compete with Intel extreme CPUs...

4) X79 Motherboards are also more expensive...

[lmao234]

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchmarks/4/

these are some beta benchmarks i found, and form what i see, AMD 8350 is fast, and very close to thew 4670k and 4770k, keep in mind they are not overclocked.

Now, since 9590 is out i suspect the best 8 core chips are used for that, so the 8350 and 8320 will be limited in overclocking, so i would honestly say go with an 8350, just to have some headroom for OC.

 

If you plan to go with intel, the 4930k/3930k are expensive, they would be optimal chips, but they are too expensive, so if you are even asking to go AMD path i suspect you are like most of us, not rich, and can't afford it. I would stick with an i7 4770k, just because modern games will support more threads, and even HTT can help. I don't recommend the i5 just because it has 4 threads, and this will show in modern titles, not to mention if you are doing something in the background, more threads will help..

 

Other thing too keep in mind, the 8350 is 4ghz stock, the 4770k 3.5ghz. Once you start overclocking, the intel platform will pull ahead.

Here is my reasoning: if you get an 8320 you will be able to do 4ghz-4.3 if you have a good chip, 8350 will give you a bit more , the i7 is the luck of the draw, they are not good overclockers, if you can get that thing to 4.6ghz AMD chip will look like an amateur, on the realistic side you will get 4.2-4.4 ghz from it, this is kinda sad since most of the older gen intel's can go higher on average, but the intel will still be faster.

 

So if you don't have the money, get an 8350, don't really bother with an i5 since if you start recording or streaming you ill see performance hits, if you do have the money get the i4770k and be done with it, just note that what ever path you go, get a monster cooler, they will heat up...

Yh decided to go FX 8350 for now. If performance variates from my predictions, or they don't utilize Mantle like we thought they would, I'll take a 4770K or a 3570K. I'm playing it safe for now. 

[Opsilon]

Yh decided to go FX 8350 for now. If performance variates from my predictions, or they don't utilize Mantle like we thought they would, I'll take a 4770K or a 3570K. I'm playing it safe for now. 

Good thinking, i believe you will be satisfied, i am thinking of getting an AMD CPU myself, but i would love to get steamroller 8 core or at least 6 core, but so far no news about them .

If not i woill save up for the 4770k, since i plan to keep my next CPU and MOBO for 5 years

[xXmjzXx]

Intel....

[Glenwing]

So your saying that I have RAID cards and PCI-E SSDs that use up more bandwidth than some one to top of the line GPU's? Id like to see if this was true. You would need a way to restrict a slot to the different generations and speed on it then a way to max the cards with some sort of output and see what happens.

 

I guess so.  That'd be something interesting for Linus/Slick to do a video on.  I could be wrong, I haven't seen Titan benchmarks directly but I'm projecting from GTX 680 and Radeon 7970 benchmarks on different PCIe configurations based on the Titan's lead over them.

 

The heaviest I/O on the graphics card would be between the GPU and the RAM, but that doesn't need to pass through the PCIe slot.  If you use graphics cards for GPGPU/compute, then the bandwidth usage is higher however, and a healthy amount of PCIe 3.0 lanes is a good idea there.

[TheProfosist]

I guess so.  That'd be something interesting for Linus/Slick to do a video on.  I could be wrong, I haven't seen Titan benchmarks directly but I'm projecting from GTX 680 and Radeon 7970 benchmarks on different PCIe configurations based on the Titan's lead over them.

 

The heaviest I/O on the graphics card would be between the GPU and the RAM, but that doesn't need to pass through the PCIe slot.  If you use graphics cards for GPGPU/compute, then the bandwidth usage is higher however, and a healthy amount of PCIe 3.0 lanes is a good idea there.

Well thats what I mean GPU's arnt just used for gaming, though I know thats all most people think about here. I would also like to see how much bandwidth is say needed for a titan that is just maxed out doing GPGPU. Didnt they have a 780 in one of their rigs to do such?

[NumbingCrayon]

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.

to bad bf4 is optimized for amd and will be running the mantle api in december.