New cpu's coming out?

AMDs Richland APUs and Intels Haswell CPUs are going to be released in June.

In addition, the Nvidia 700 series is releasing at the end of this month.

For gaming definitely get a 4570k, which will be the newest i5 unlocked quadcore from Intel. The i5s have been the gaming kings since they were released. The price should be around 200-250$. Another 100-150$ for a decent motherboard, 50$ for a 8GB of RAM (If you don't already have 8GB), probably around 100$ for a hard drive, optional 60-100$ SSD, 50-100$ for a good case (if you don't already have one) and anywhere from 30$-100$ for optional aftermarket CPU cooling. That leaves about 200$ for Nvidia's or AMD's next gen GPUs. Though I recommend going Nvidia because of the superior driver support + game devs are starting to optimize better for Nvidia cards, both increase performance, and because Nvidia has some cool techs such as advanced Physx, FXAA and TXAA, and Adaptive V-Sync, which I personally LOVE.

Also, be sure to check Newegg.ca (I'm assuming you're in Canada if you're buying from NCIX) to see if they have better deals or some sort of special bundle, such as Metro: the last light which comes with some Nvidia GPUs right now on Newegg.ca

No problem. Be sure to close the thread by clicking "Pick as the solution" if you don't have anymore questions Glad to help if you do. Don't be afraid to ask if you're not sure.

The new consoles use AMD GPUs so that is probably about to change really quick.
And RadeonPRO can mimic Adaptive V-SYNC.

For a budget of $800...you will spend $250 of that on the intel chip. If you went with the AMD FX8350, steamroller will be available on current motherboards. You could spend $180 on the FX8350 which leaves you an extra $70 laying around for a GPU. That money would go a lot further...and I do mean alot further spent on the GPU. $70 is the difference between a HD 7850 and a HD 7870XT (Tahiti based). Most games are GPU bound, so you would be far better off spending more money there.

AMD Build:
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5Bn
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5Bn/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5Bn/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($193.98 @ Outlet PC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon HD 7870 XT 2GB Video Card ($235.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Antec VSK-4000 ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($64.99 @ Microcenter)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.96 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $747.86
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-05-13 20:37 EDT-0400)

Intel build:

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5FX
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5FX/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/X5FX/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($209.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI Z77A-G45 Gaming ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($134.99 @ NCIX US)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card ($174.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec VSK-4000 ATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($64.99 @ Microcenter)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.96 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $757.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-05-13 20:42 EDT-0400)

See, to get comparable pricing, it will cost you a tier lower GPU. Not that the HD 7850 is bad...but the HD 7870XT is like a HD 7930 OC edition (if such a card existed).

I somewhat agree with you. However, it's a gaming build, and the 8350 and the AM3+ socket will be done after Steamroller. On top of that, the 8350 already is struggling to keep up with the 3570k in games, especially in multiplayer.



Look at these benchmarks. Even at a high overclock of 4.7GHz, the 8350 falls behind the 3570k stock speeds. Multiplayer is much more CPU intensive, causing even more of a bottleneck.

On top of all that, the new socket coming out for Intel's 4th generation Haswell is going to be much more future proof than previous sockets. So your upgrade path is probably for 3 years, compared to the AM3+ which is being ditched this year after Steamroller. When it comes to computers, I always say go big or go home. In this case, I suggest you raise your budget a little bit like to 850$ to get both the better GPU and CPU of the two build options. You will regret not doing so EVERY time in the near future. However, I strongly go against getting a 7870. Wait for the next generation. Nvidia said they have had enough of AMD and are trying to knock them right out of the market. Apparently it's supposed to be a really awesome and competitive generation.

On another note, 4GB of RAM won't even come close to cutting it for a gaming rig. When playing BF3 and have other things running in the background such as google chrome, my desktop widgets, other utlities etc. I find myself using over 5GB. 6GB is the sweet spot, however you would need a 3x2GB set of RAM which only works properly on triple channel motherboards. So everyone just goes for 2x4GB. Why not when it costs only about 10$ more than 6GB anyway? Go big or go home.

Oh really...

The TH review has the FX8350 ahead of the i5:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

This one has it ahead of the i7-3770k:

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

So does this one:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?285105-Crysis-3-AMD-FX-CPUs-dominate-INTEL-left-behind

This one has the 3 of them within 4 FPS of each other:

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

How many more should I post?

LGA1150 is only through Broadwell, Skylake is a new socket again in 18-24 months...if it is a socket at all. There has been a lot of talk that Broadwell and forward will be BGA (CPU soldered to motherboard).

Still future proof? I think not...

EDIT: As for Nvidia vs AMD...how do you think Nvidia is liking the fact that AMD skipped sea islands entirely (Radeon 8XXX series) and is releasing Volcanic Islands (Radeon 9XXX series), which the Nvidia equivalent would arrive in 2H 2014?

LOL @ Nvidia:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680-Could-Be-Flashed-to-GTX-770-352983.shtml

If you have a GTX 680, flash your BIOS and you have the "new" GTX 770 due out in a few months. They didn't change anything.

Any proof of this claim?

The TomsHardware link you posted shows the 3550. On top of that, the 8350 dipped down to 21 FPS, which means there is some micro stuttering, which means a jittery, un-smooth gameplay. "Unfortunately for AMD, its CPU dips to 21 FPS, while the Core i5 maintains at least 31 FPS." - TH. And, on top of that again, Toms does their benching in singleplayer, much less CPU intensive than multiplayer.

Any link saying that a 8350 beats a 3770k in gaming is laughable. It's a fact that games aren't well optimized for more than 4 cores, and prefer faster cores over more cores. Because Intel's 3570k stock single thread performance is about 35% better than a 8350 at stock, there is no reason why a 3570k should lose against a 8350, and ESPECIALLY not against a 3770k, which also has 8 threads.

I wouldn't trust any review from anything other than TomsHardware and Anandtech. However techspot seems like a reliable source. But, it's single player, and with a 8350 against a 3470. It also doesn't show the minimum FPS like tom's did, which showed similar average FPS results for the 8350 against the 3550.

About Haswell. You're spewing the BS rumours that came out last year. You really need to get up to date. TomsHardware has already confirmed from Intel that the CPUs with very high end IGPs will be BGA, while everything else will be LGA. You must get up-to-date before you go around saying stuff like that.

For AMD vs Nvidia, they didn't skip the 8xxx series. Toms already had their hands on and benched some 8xxx GPUs a while back. Maybe they discontinued the project afterwards, but who knows. Only time will tell. As for the GTX 770, seems like BS to me. I have a GTX 680 lightning, so according to that link, flashing my unlocked LN2 BIOS to the stock 770 BIOS would be a downgrade. Seems ridiculous. They're only rumours, and again, time will tell. It could be true, but as long as there is progress in tech, I personally don't care. But because Nvidia said they plan on wiping AMD out, I doubt it. Time will tell. I don't care if AMD completely wipes Nvidia out of the competition and I don't care if vice verse happens as I'm not a fanboy *cough cough*. Same goes for the CPUs. If the 8350 beat my 3770k in rendering and gaming, I would have an AMD picture and a 8350 gaming rig. If AMD GPUs had better driver support and all the cool techs Nvidia has, I would have a 7970 Lightning. I look at the facts and go with it.

As for AM3+ being end of life after this upcoming generation, I read it on Toms somewhere. It could have been a rumour but I'm almost sure it was confirmed. Again, time will tell.

A little more on AMD vs Nvidia though. AMD's GPUs definitely have more horsepower than Nvidia's. I'm specifically looking at the 7970 vs the 680. I was originally going to get the 7970 Lightning over the 680 lightning, but the driver support for AMD cards is horrendous. It takes AMD forever to release better drivers to get their cards running better than Nvdia's. http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page3.html Just look at that. The 7970GHz with 3GB of V-RAM still falls behind a 670 stock settings with 2GB of V-RAM. This is because of drivers. Even today, the 680 beats the 7970GHz, even though the 7970GHz is a more advanced and faster card. Optimization is everything. This is why I went Nvidia. Same goes for CPUs. If all games were properly optimized for 8 cores, the 8350 would kick the 3570k's ass, and the 3770k would kick the 8350's ass. Simple as that.

Seriously though, this poor OP just wanted to know what to get for his future build. All I did was give him my opinion based on the endless amount of info I've read on TomsHardware. There's no need for all of this. If you want to start a war, please start a discussion thread in the CPUs section and another discussion thread in the GPUs section and we can have a FRIENDLY discussion in there, if you want.

RE: HD 8XXX series.

The HD 8XXX series is OEM only, and will not make it to the consumer market...it will be for all manner of prebuilt machines and is based on sea islands architecture.

HD 9XXX series is volcanic islands, and was assumed to be the next generation after sea islands. As it turns out, AMD has had the designs ready and was simply waiting on 20nm fab to go full blown. So they will be releasing the 2014/2015 line an entire year early. The HD 9970 will have 100% more capability than the outgoing HD 7970.

As far as drivers are concerned, AMD hired Raja Kudori, who is a known graphical guru and previously worked for apple. He is their top guy in charge of everything software. Since his arrival, AMD has already released 2 new sets of drivers. The first set corrected a long standing issue with CFX, and the second set corrected a micro stutter problem. More drivers are scheduled to be released as well, providing even more support.

Now, with NVidia basically rebranding the GTX 6XX series and offering it as GTX 7XX series, they have been caught "flat footed" by AMD, and no amount of driver support will overcome the difference in horsepower. Especially with the way they're churning out driver updates at AMD now.

EDIT: The newest version of drivers have the HD 7970 GHz edition hanging with the GTX Titan and winning in several benchmarks, it completely destroys the GTX 680 on all fronts. If you don't believe me look at the newest benchmarks with Catalyst v13.4 or v13.5 beta.

Additionally...the i7-3770k behaves exactly like the i5-3570k in games. It benefits ZERO from HTT. In fact, in Crysis 3, running it with HTT on causes the frame rates to drop.

The FX8350 hangs with the i5's in many games. The results are always inside margin of error for the test, which basically means a draw. In Crysis 3 the FX8350 typically wins by a margin of 1-3 FPS over the intel offerings, I consider this a draw also. However, it does illustrate my point. Between the offerings of Intel and AMD, you can't go wrong. The GPU will make a much greater difference in gaming performance than the CPU will, and neither one will bottleneck the GPU.

Additionally, in Linux, the FX8350 typically wins in most applications, but the difference is still within margin of error. Windows does not properly handle the FX series scheduling...which comes as no surprise. Where as in Linux, the Linux kernel handles the scheduling far better, it also does not have the bloated overhead that windows has.

If you think intel is more than MoE victorious over AMD in most benchmarks you're simply uninformed as to the criteria and the way the system works.

It is true the 9xxx series will be more powerful. This could be quite interesting if the rumors are true.

EDIT: The newest version of drivers have the HD 7970 GHz edition hanging with the GTX Titan and winning in several benchmarks,

Click to expand...

I doubt it considering the Titan costs 2x as much.

Additionally...the i7-3770k behaves exactly like the i5-3570k in games. It benefits ZERO from HTT. In fact, in Crysis 3, running it with HTT on causes the frame rates to drop.

Click to expand...

For the most part this is true.

The FX8350 hangs with the i5's in many games. The results are always inside margin of error for the test, which basically means a draw. In Crysis 3 the FX8350 typically wins by a margin of 1-3 FPS over the intel offerings, I consider this a draw also. However, it does illustrate my point. Between the offerings of Intel and AMD, you can't go wrong. The GPU will make a much greater difference in gaming performance than the CPU will, and neither one will bottleneck the GPU.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem the FX8350 suffers from is very much the same as what affects the I7 - current games are not threaded enough.

Considering the new multi-core cpus, developers should really expand to using 4 or more threads.

Additionally, in Linux, the FX8350 typically wins in most applications, but the difference is still within margin of error. Windows does not properly handle the FX series scheduling...which comes as no surprise. Where as in Linux, the Linux kernel handles the scheduling far better, it also does not have the bloated overhead that windows has.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Linux has an excellent task scheduler - thats why it is used for servers and stuff.

I would love to see the 7970Ghz winning against the Titan. That sounds like beyond BS to me. But give me some believable proof and I'll believe it. I also want to see some benchmarks with the new drivers.

The 3770k does better in gaming every time if the game is optimized for up to 8 threads, Such as BF3. In large, crazy battles I see BF3 take up to 70% CPU usage at stock speeds. That's 20% load on the hyperthreads that the 3570k doesn't have, and would have stuttered. Just because its 4 cores and 8 threads doesn't mean games can't take advantage of those 8 threads. A thread is a thread, and a core is a thread. The OS and any kind of software treats it and puts load on it just as if its a core. If a game couldn't use the hyperthreads, the game couldn't use the extra 4 threads on a 8350 either. Neither could any kind of software. In Cinebench 11.5, the 3770k beats the 3570k by a lot. It also beats the 8350 by quite a bit as well. The 3570k gets 6.05, 8350 gets 6.94, 3770k gets 7.91. My 3770k at 4.7GHz gets 9.75 for an idea to what you can achieve. It is also shown in many gaming benchmarks that the 3770k does get some performance gains over the i5, though not much because 4 cores handles the games well enough on their own 90% of the time while the 8350 requires those 4 extra cores to keep up, due to low IPC.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I turned off HT to see for myself what performance boost it gives. I the average FPS was only about 3FPS higher, but the minimum FPS without HT was 5FPS lower than with. That's when something large happens and adds that extra 20% load on my 3770k. Definitely not worth 100$ if you're going to be only gaming.

Double EDIT: I guess I should add some proof to my claim, but you've already provided it. In the techspot link, look at the 3770k compared to the 3470. 300MHz isn't going to score 4FPS higher, especially if HT lowers FPS. This is an old HT rumour because HT on games that were only coded for one thread caused a performance decrease when a program put a high load on the second thread of the core running the game back in the P4 HT days.

As for everything else, I'm happy for AMD as they've been bullied and pushed around by Intel and Nvidia and their ridiculous fanboys for a while. It would be awesome if they finally picked up their socks and kicked everyone's asses out of the competition, and I hope they do because it will stir up some serious competition and technology will be taking huge leaps like it was a few years ago. I hope AMD stays on top though. Having one company dominating the GPU and CPU market for desktops and laptops and maybe even tablets and smartphones will mean some great optimizations. On top of that, AMD has AMAZING prices compared to Intel and Nvidia, especially with Nvidia's Kepler GPUs.

For Linux and Windows, Linux is awesome. I really wish it was the dominating OS. But I'm stuck with Micro$oft for drivers and other software. But Windows released updates not too long ago to fix any performance issues that existed with AMDs CPU architecture because it was quite a known issue and Microsoft was given a lot of crap for it.

Anyway, I'm sure the OP has more than enough information thrown at him. We should let this be where it is and let the OP do his own research instead of throwing information all over his thread. I'm sure he's quite annoyed with us and I give my apologies. You have our opinions. I still say go big or go home, whether that may be an Intel/AMD and AMD/Nvidia build with the next generation. Again, time will tell. Best of luck.

NCIX is more expensive for some of those items. If you click the build list link to pcpartpicker.com it will actually link you directly to the websites where you can buy all those items.

I would personally go with the FX8350, it will be fine for current games, and even better as more heavily threaded games come out.

You can also add a SSD, I would look at something like a Corsair GT series or Force series 120 GB. They're typically around $120.

vs GTX 680:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4836/sapphire_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_toxic_6gb_video_card_overclocked/index8.html

VS TITAN

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/51985-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan/?page=4

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/51985-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan/?page=7

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Sleeping-

Here, the 7970 even bests the GTX 690 (TITAN was unable to run the test)

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/51985-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan/?page=8

Catalyst 13.4 update log:

http://www.pcper.com/news?page=4

EDIT: As for HTT on being a "myth" or "rumor" a german site found it first...the i7-3770k with HTT on loses 9 FPS versus turning it off.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1364211/pclab-more-crysis-3-cpu-benchmarks/230

PCLab discovered it first...but it's in german.

The last post on this thread was an interesting read by the way:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/126414-13-people-lying-crysis-benchmarks

Thought I would share that.

Considering that all the next gen consoles are running multi-core AMD processors(APUs more specifically), the next wave of games should be even more optimized for multiple cores.