New Gen gaming AMD vs Intel

Diamond-HP · Jun 30, 2013

Hi guy's thought I'd get some opinions here as I'm prepping the finishing touches to my build aimed mainly at Rome II and wanted to see what you think.

I'm a little perplexed at the moment as I decide to go either for an AMD FX 8350 4 Ghz x8 or an Intel equivalent.

Now Rome II is going to be dual core and as we already know Intel pretty much pips AMD in that area but I was considering the FX 8350 simply because I thought it was powerful enough to keep up.

Now that the new games consoles are coming out and are spec'd at 8 core CPU's won't that mean games developers will finally make that multi thread jump to 4 - 8 core gaming?

My budget is $230 (£150)

Suggestions on this?

aredflyingbird · Jun 30, 2013

Diamond-HP :

Intel CPU's are overall better at gaming than AMD CPU's, however, Intel is a little on the expensive side. AMD CPU's are also good, but not much, and are very affordable. Yes, game devs will make a jump to multithreads since next gen consoles have the same architecture as PC. If you strictly game, I would recommend the 4670k or the 3570k. However, the 8350 is very overclockable and can beat the Intel's i5 cpu's in some tests, thus having roughly equal performance in games. I would recommend getting the 8350 and with some overclocking, it would be a all around good CPU for the price.

Diamond-HP · Jun 30, 2013

Yeah that's what I was thinking initially.

My main concern is as Rome II is CPU heavy and dual core will I see any ill effects by choosing the FX 8350 over an Intel equivalent for the budget I stated?

vinhn · Jun 30, 2013

A 4670k is the best in that price range. Check out this comparison
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/57197-amd-a10-6700-32nm-richland/?page=2
Intel CPU though are pricey, blows most of AMD CPUs out of the water.

chairsgotoschool · Jun 30, 2013

you might wanna check out an i5 3570 or 4670, far better single thread performance and they are about the same price as the 8350.

aredflyingbird · Jun 30, 2013

Diamond-HP :

Since Rome 2 isn't optimized for multicores, Intel's 22nm quad core CPU will deliver better performance. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6 as you can see with Shogun 2, Intel's CPU dominate AMD.

Diamond-HP · Jun 30, 2013

Hmmm this is what I mean it's a tough one, do I go for the i5 4670 with Rome mainly in mind? but what about the new 8 core games which are surely to come out now that the consoles have gone 8 core?

I guess I was hoping the FX 8350 should be good enough for Rome and will be future ready for 8 core gaming due end of year with the consoles releases.

How would you play this scenario with that in mind?

Latest specs requirements for Rome 2

http://games.on.net/2013/07/pc-specs-revealed-for-total-war-rome-2-new-egypt-panorama-on-offer/

01002920 · Jun 30, 2013

I was amazed about sony AND micro going BOth for AMD rather than intel. I guess the cheaper, the more money to develop games XD... lol no.

On the other side intel vs amd both have really good chips and both are trying to improve, i really love the turboboost technology on my core i5.

Diamond-HP · Jun 30, 2013

Right I've done some checking.

I can't get the i5 Haswell because that coupled with a Mobo that accepts 1866mhz RAM came to £300 / $456 which is more than what I'm willing to pay.

The i5 3750k with Mobo costs £234 / $355

Compared with the AMD

FX 8350 with mobo - £210 / $319

Is the i5 3750k really that worth it compared with the FX 8350?

vinhn · Jul 1, 2013

Diamond-HP :

Yes, right now, Intel CPUs are better than AMD, plus you shouldn't be getting AMD just because it has 8 cores. Not a single game right now will utilize 8 core and I don't expect games within the next 3 years will utilize 8 cores. Until games does, you would have already thinking about upgrading anyway.

ElMoIsEviL · Jul 1, 2013

If Rome 2 is an important game to you then for sure I would get an Intel CPU if I were you. Just get something strong enough with at least 4 cores like a 4670K or something.

montosaurous · Jul 1, 2013

The FX 8320 is $40 cheaper than the FX 8350, and $80 cheaper than the 4670k which does not OC as well as Ivy Bridge and consumes more power. The most cores any game can utilize right now is 6, yes. However I expect that to change in the next year or two. Gaming at higher resolutions is more dependent on the video card, and will see less of a difference in frames between Intel and AMD. If you have already purchased your GPU it doesn't really matter, but if you haven't it'd be better to go for a cheaper CPU and better GPU.

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

montosaurous :

Dude my rig is listed in my sig as is my GPU.

As you can see my weak point is in my CPU so I'm trying to decide between the i5 3570 and the FX 8350 to see which will give me the biggest gains for the next few years for gaming, graphics do depend on GPU's but games like Rome 2 are very CPU intensive as was Shogun II so that is something I have to address as Total war games are among my favorites.

As I said I looked at the i5 haswell and the cost plus the mobo is outside of what I'm willing to pay so if I do go Intel it will be the Ivy Bridge.

I suppose an OC'ed i5 3570 would be a good pairing with my HD 7850? it's tough because teh FX 8350 get's more points in certain site bench comparisons but then I guess it's for it's all round capabilities not exclusive with gaming?

montosaurous · Jul 1, 2013

Sorry, I must've missed it lol. But yeah both CPUs would be good but I would go with the FX 8350 just because it performs much better in multithreaded apps and is much more future proof.

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

At this point and at those prices I could get either, although the Intel is about $20 over what I wanted to pay but I'm not going to let $20 stand in my way now am I.

Rome II is not out till September which is when I was going to do the upgrade anyway, what I'm going to do is wait till it comes out, see how bad the bottle neck is and then get some initial benches from other users in the first few weeks of the games release from people using both CPU's ...... best performing CPU will win and also I will get more news about the new consoles games developments with regards to the 8 core gaming.

I feel right now their both good CPU's and I will upgrade but I'd like some hard info (from Rome 2 live) before I choose.

Thanks for helping me out though guy's.

(As this is an open ended conclusion I'm going to give best answer to the post that reflected that or the most facts, thanks)

montosaurous · Jul 1, 2013

Both would play it well, but if it only uses 1-2 cores like Total War Shotgun 2 it may perform considerably better on an i5.

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

montosaurous :

Yep that's the conclusion, CA the guy's who make Total War have apparently geared this toward the Haswell line for top performance however an IB will work just fine.

8350rocks · Jul 1, 2013

Diamond-HP :

The consensus on Rome 2 from what I have seen is that a FX6300 will be enough to run it well. If that's the case, then the 8350 should be plenty as well...I don't see any reason to spend more money than you need to. Unless you just want to dump an extra $60-80 on intel MB + CPU for a few FPS increase...

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

8350rocks :

Well you say that but two things, one there is no consensus that's worth a damn until the game actually comes out or unless CA say so.

Two I had forum discussion just yesterday on TWcenter and one of the Mods there stated clearly that Intel will be better (and it will because it's a dual core game), he even went as far to say in large battles the 8350 could even struggle!

Now I personally don't know if that last comment is true unless you have or know someone that played Shogun 2 with an FX 8350?

But all I know is Shogun was an absolute biatch on the CPU on high settings in large battles, really bad when I tried it, I'll need the most suitable CPU possible even if I am a bit lamented on going over to Intel as I had my heart set on a FX 8350.

Maher90 · Jul 1, 2013

Diamond,as for Total War Games they are great!,Awesome!,Blamazing(lol).but is it really worth the AMOUNT of money you invest in Intel or save some money to play all next-gen games with cheap CPU? you can't just put everything on one game because there are many others better and doesn't require high-end Intel CPUs,i am just saying focus on the GENERAL games not just Total War game because it's Devs really REALLY need to research multi-core for it and fast imagine Total War Running on 6 cores or 8 cores!,most games even Starcraft 2 can utilize more than 2/3 cores and i see that FX users are enjoying the game even though Intel still beats FX in SC2

So Just don't focus on one game that's all

EDIT:not being multi-core friendly is just an excuse to force people to buy Intel from my point of view,you know...Total War games have been an Intel Ad games

8350rocks · Jul 1, 2013

Diamond-HP :

8350rocks :

Well you say that but two things, one there is no consensus that's worth a damn until the game actually comes out or unless CA say so.

Two I had forum discussion just yesterday on TWcenter and one of the Mods there stated clearly that Intel will be better (and it will because it's a dual core game), he even went as far to say in large battles the 8350 could even struggle!

Now I personally don't know if that last comment is true unless you have or know someone that played Shogun 2 with an FX 8350?

But all I know is Shogun was an absolute biatch on the CPU on high settings in large battles, really bad when I tried it, I'll need the most suitable CPU possible even if I am a bit lamented on going over to Intel as I had my heart set on a FX 8350.

Shogun 2 you should get about 30 FPS on a stock 8350, if you OC then you'll probably get about 40 FPS if you hit 4.7+ GHz. That should be good considering the 3570k only gets about 35 FPS in that one at stock clocks with Turbo Core.

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

Maher90 :

Well that's the problem, I only play COD and Total War these day's and let's be honest I wouldn't have trouble playing any game on a i5 3570k because even if a game does support multi threading games currently are not going passed 4 cores if that.

Yeah I know you say why pay more, well were talking £30 here tops, so do I spend £30 and have the better gaming experience (although marginal) on the one game I do play or do I cheap out because the 8350 can play games I'll probably never play?

8350Rocks that's cool but then you have to figure the OC on the i5.

ElMoIsEviL · Jul 1, 2013

8350rocks :

Diamond-HP :

Shogun 2 you should get about 30 FPS on a stock 8350, if you OC then you'll probably get about 40 FPS if you hit 4.7+ GHz. That should be good considering the 3570k only gets about 35 FPS in that one at stock clocks with Turbo Core.

The FX-8350 is quite poor at Shogun 2 even when Overclocked to 4.8GHz:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

Diamond-HP · Jul 1, 2013

You do have to be careful with some of these benches though some sites I feel could be bias but ....... there's not much doubt in my mind that come end of August I'll be looking like going for the Intel.

8350rocks · Jul 1, 2013

EDIT: Not sure why the image isn't working but here's the link:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-15/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html

It may be poor "relatively" but it still competes with i5's in Shogun 2, which is to say it's either very demanding, or very poorly optimized. The 8350 is @ 15.2 FPS and a 3770k is @ 19.1 FPS, I would say that's a pretty poorly optimized game or you need a 3930k to break into first person shooter type frame rates.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg12/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-total-war-shogun-2.html

That review shows that without AA, the 8150 gets the same type frames in Shogun 2 as a 2600k @ 52 FPS avg. Considering the 8350 is about 15% better than the 8150, I would say you'll be fine.

New Gen gaming AMD vs Intel

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Share this page