Need a Gaming CPU

[ASailingCowboy]

So I have a question that has been bugging me for a little while now. I am working on a PC upgrade that I would like to build (A dream list) and I find myself debating against a duel Xeon E5-2620 CPU's and an AMD FX 8350 (right now until ZEN releases and that might change all together). Form the research that I have done the 8350 has better overclocking and general clock speed but the dual set up while not having overclock ability would run with 16 cores. My main purpose is general gaming mostly 1080p right now (unless I get the LG 34 ultra wide) and content creation I am currently starting up a graphic design company. Part of my build is for functionality but some of it (the dual set up) is for just trying to have a Bad*ss rig. I am posting this to see what others think because solo research is no fun. While I know this will spark a lot of comments please know that I will not reply to anything that insults me and calls me stupid for my choices. Thank you!

[Laputacake]

Spend a bit more and get a 2670 and thus 

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

If your gaming, just get a i5. It will cost about the same and will be much faster.

 

The dual 2011 systems are much slow in practice than on paper.

[manikyath]

to be honest, amd FX is out of the draw, it's just too old to honestly legitimately consider.

 

there's this application called 7zip, it scales really well across multiple cores, it has a built in benchmark which i ran on my i7 4790k, and a friend of mine ran on his FX9590.

 

EDIT: yes, i am aware the compressing cpu usage on the FX is worryingly low, but while there's plenty of intel people happily sending me their results, for some reason every FX guy i ask gets mindlessly pissed off at me. i'm not taking conclusions why, but seeing the only guy who sent me his benchmark is using an FX9590 and two R9 295x2's to heat his house it kinda starts to form an interesting pattern...

[WoodenMarker]

Most games aren't optimized to take advantage of so many cores. Fewer but faster cores like those on a modern i5 would be better for gaming.

Some things like 3d rendering scale very well with many cores but that doesn't seem to be what you're mostly doing.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

If your gaming, just get a i5. It will cost about the same and will be much faster.

 

The dual 2011 systems are much slow in practice than on paper.

9 minutes ago, ASailingCowboy said:

My main purpose is general gaming mostly 1080p right now -- and content creation I am currently starting up a graphic design company.

if something seems off, you should take a good second read to make sure you didnt miss anything

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, manikyath said:

if something seems off, you should take a good second read to make sure you didnt miss anything

Even then. The i5 would be much faster in photoshop and premiere as they like singlethreaded performance.

[Vadise]

As mentioned above, for gaming, you will be well served by a quad core CPU and a competent GPU, Photoshop, Corel, Autocad and such will work just as well on such a CPU setup. However, if you end up finding that you need more horses for calculations and rendering you can THEN look into PCI-E expansions, such as the Intel Phi, AMD Firepro, Nvidia Quadro or Tesla, depending on your needs.

[ASailingCowboy]

I have been a Team Red fan for a while but Like mentioned above the FX series is old and dying out and I find myself leaning more towards the Intel CPU's I have used PCPartpicker to create a few different builds and these are the two I keep coming back too. (You will notice the 8350 doesn't quite make the cut)
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/ (Dual Xeon)
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/ (i7-6850k)