Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 4670K + HD 7950 or FX 8320 + HD 7970 or wait?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 20, 2013 4:09:42 PM

Hey people,

As the title says, I'm hoping to get some advice on which CPU+GPU set up to go for. This is my first build, and I really wish I could afford the i5 4670K + HD 7970, but unfortunately I can't so these are the two choices I'm stuck with. The other option I have is to just wait until the HD 9000 series is released, but I figured at the prices the 7970 and 7950 are going for I might as well buy now and maybe wait until HD 9000 prices drop in the future.

I'm hoping to play current and next gen games with this build on high-max settings.

Will be playing at 1600x900 resolution for now, but hopefully upgrading monitor soon. Any help will be appreciated.

More about : 4670k 7950 8320 7970 wait

September 20, 2013 4:28:34 PM

The 7970 is $80 more than a 7950 but offers only a 5% increase in performance. Plus many 7950s are sold with a 7970 PCB. You just have to overclock the 7950 and it becomes a 7970.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:31:10 AM

I5 with 7950 is a superior all around package
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:38:40 AM

For GPU, R9 270X will be good. Its basically an improved rebranded 7950, costs $200

As for CPU, I'd pick the i5-4670k but this also means a more expensive motherboard.
If budget is a concern, get a FX 8320 or 8350.

Just incase you didn't know - Intel and AMD processors use different boards. Make sure it is compatible with your CPU. Usually AMD boards are cheaper.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:52:32 AM

i5 with 7950 better all round across a wide spread of games. OC the card and you've virtually got a 7970 anyway. Even in "next-gen octo-core optimised" games, the Haswell is faster as shown by multiple sites:-

Battlefield 4 Beta:-
http://cdn.overclock.net/c/cc/ccbcb49f_1374264_51877303...

Ultra : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
High : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
Medium : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
Low : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...

"8 core requirement" Darkresurrection keeps trying to hype, refers to the fact the game engine is designed for a baseline of 8x console cores running at 1.75-2.0Ghz. This is why quad-core Haswell's still comfortably match or even beat them even at stock speeds on BF4 with similar "8-core requirements". Think about it - if a game engine needed to fully max out 8x 4GHz PC cores, it would run like absolute sh*t on the sub-2GHz XBone & PS4 unless you stripped almost half the game out...
Share
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:07:03 AM

BSim500 said:
i5 with 7950 better all round across a wide spread of games. OC the card and you've virtually got a 7970 anyway. Even in "next-gen octo-core optimised" games, the Haswell is faster as shown by multiple sites:-

Battlefield 4 Beta:-
http://cdn.overclock.net/c/cc/ccbcb49f_1374264_51877303...

Ultra : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
High : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
Medium : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...
Low : http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchm...

"8 core requirement" Darkresurrection keeps trying to hype, refers to the fact the game engine is designed for a baseline of 8x console cores running at 1.75-2.0Ghz. This is why quad-core Haswell's still comfortably match or even beat them even at stock speeds on BF4 with similar "8-core requirements". Think about it - if a game engine needed to fully max out 8x 4GHz PC cores, it would run like absolute sh*t on the sub-2GHz XBone & PS4 unless you stripped almost half the game out...


even if we want to compare fx 8350 to haswell 4670k, fx 8350 is 2% stronger multi-threaded, we know that games we'll be havily multi threaded in the future, read my link above so
1. fx 8350 costs much less
2.AMD mobos are cheaper comparing to haswell mobos
3: in single threaded games and aps you can play all games on ultra settings
4: in multi- threaded games its even 2% faster (look at crysis3) ubisoft compares fx 8350 vs I7 3770K read above
5: battlefield 4 is on beta, since when can you use beta bench marks as sources!!!??? (remind you of crysis 3 beta) and again that site is biased like hell, like your toms....look here http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/T... and also here http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-bench...
end of the line
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:28:10 AM

Darkresurrection said:
even if we want to compare fx 8350 to haswell 4670k, fx 8350 is 2% stronger multi-threaded

Except when it isn't. See above benchmarks.. Simply throwing around arbitrary "one size fits all 2%" is absurd as there are games where Intel is up to 40% faster and others where they're almost parity. In the real world, gamers do tend to play a spread of different games and not just Crysis 3.

Darkresurrection said:
and again that site is biased like hell,

They (there were two different sites with the same figures) aren't "biased", they just include the latest update which improves performance for both Intel & AMD 4-6 cores alike (and better reflects the game on launch)...

DICE has released a new patch for the Battlefield 4 beta on PC. It adresses some known instability issues. The update includes: Various improvements in performance for users running quad core or six core CPU’s"
http://bravointel.com/2013/10/10/battlefield-4-beta-pat...

...and actually includes the relevant CPU mentioned in OP's question (Haswell i5 - not 2013 AMD vs 2011 era Sandy Bridge).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:59:13 AM

BSim500 said:
Darkresurrection said:
even if we want to compare fx 8350 to haswell 4670k, fx 8350 is 2% stronger multi-threaded

Except when it isn't. See above benchmarks.. Simply throwing around arbitrary "one size fits all 2%" is absurd as there are games where Intel is up to 40% faster and others where they're almost parity. In the real world, gamers do tend to play a spread of different games and not just Crysis 3.

Darkresurrection said:
and again that site is biased like hell,

They (there were two different sites with the same figures) aren't "biased", they just include the latest update which improves performance for both Intel & AMD 4-6 cores alike (and better reflects the game on launch)...

DICE has released a new patch for the Battlefield 4 beta on PC. It adresses some known instability issues. The update includes: Various improvements in performance for users running quad core or six core CPU’s"
http://bravointel.com/2013/10/10/battlefield-4-beta-pat...

...and actually includes the relevant CPU mentioned in OP's question (Haswell i5 - not 2013 AMD vs 2011 era Sandy Bridge).

so what!!!? another unoptimized game!!! as a fact of what really!? the difference between i7 3770 k and fx 8350 is 4 fps!!! dont try to be funny, this game sucks, and hell yeah i played skyrim ultra settings without any lags!!! and helllllo!!! we are talking about the present and the future not the past =)))) yeah if you wanna play old games buy that i5....as far as bf4 goes wait until the release day ;)  here look http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-15/jeux-3d-total-wa...

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:00:29 AM

The problem with FX-8350 is that it's like a gambling, you can pay less and then get more, but more often than not you simply lose. I5-4670/3570 is a superior choice because you are guaranteed excellent performance in ANY game you throw at it, no matter if it's single or multi-threaded - I5 is always good, while there are plenty of cases where the FX part simply underperforms outright.

The cost difference between the two, though is pretty small, IMO, and being a practical and sensible person dictates that you'd rather take a part which gives you 100% bang for your buck instead of the one that gives you anything between 70 and 105%.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:18:12 AM

Gaidax said:
The problem with FX-8350 is that it's like a gambling, you can pay less and then get more, but more often than not you simply lose. I5-4670/3570 is a superior choice because you are guaranteed excellent performance in ANY game you throw at it, no matter if it's single or multi-threaded - I5 is always good, while there are plenty of cases where the FX part simply underperforms outright.

The cost difference between the two, though is pretty small, IMO, and being a practical and sensible person dictates that you'd rather take a part which gives you 100% bang for your buck instead of the one that gives you anything between 70 and 105%.

your i7 3770 k gives 19 fps in shogun 2, is that what you call strong!?? and no you are mistaken, fx 8350 destroys anything you throw at it, 99% of games above 60 fps... in some others like shogun 2, it doesnt matter which one you have i7 19 fps fx 8350 15 fps, funny you dont want to understand

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:18:31 AM

Darkresurrection said:
the difference between i7 3770 k and fx 8350 is 4 fps!!!

And yet again, no-one's talking about Ivy Bridge or i7's... That's why I posted benchmarks with the two CPU's for the benefit of the OP, which of course you don't want to look at because they give the "wrong" result... :sarcastic: 


Look at what? From your own link : i5-3570K = 51.5fps vs FX-8350 = 32.5fps. That's seems to be the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make, and is also proof that i5's are hardly obsolete just for having 4 cores when they have 60% higher IPC even with a 600MHz stock clock penalty. LOL.

Darkresurrection said:
"your i7 3770 k gives 19 fps in shogun 2,"

Compared to FX-8350's 15.2fps, 19.8fps means the i5-3570K is 30% faster. Which again seems to be the exact opposite point of what you're trying to make...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:23:21 AM

Just look at Bsim 500's source bravointel.com =)))) it is not biased at all...not it is not, Intel my ass...intel fanboy's are funny...I can give you this website, https://teksyndicate.com/‎ they are AMD fanboys...go there and see how fx 8350 beats Intel Core i7-3970X, but hell this is as biased as bsim 500's site =))) LOL
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:26:41 AM

BSim500 said:
Darkresurrection said:
the difference between i7 3770 k and fx 8350 is 4 fps!!!

And yet again, no-one's talking about Ivy Bridge or i7's... That's why I posted benchmarks with the two CPU's for the benefit of the OP, which of course you don't want to look at because they give the "wrong" result... :sarcastic: 


Look at what? From your own link : i5-3570K = 51.5fps vs FX-8350 = 32.5fps. That's seems to be the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make, and is also proof that i5's are hardly obsolete just for having 4 cores when they have 60% higher IPC even with a 600MHz stock clock penalty. LOL.

Darkresurrection said:
"your i7 3770 k gives 19 fps in shogun 2,"

Compared to FX-8350's 15.2fps, 19.8fps means the i5-3570K is 30% faster. Which again seems to be the exact opposite point of what you're trying to make with your silly "2% under all conditions" earlier fanboy claim...

in skyrim yeah!! cause that game is single threaded and i still played that game ultra settings!!!! all i want to say is that i7 3770k give 19 fps in that game, 4 fps faster than fx 8350 ...stilll both are not playabale!!! so pay 130 $ more to buy i7 and get 4 more fps
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:27:35 AM

Darkresurrection said:
Just look at Bsim 500's source bravointel.com =))))

Intel's source for what - that AMD have patched BF4 to run better on 4 & 6 cores? Well they have - as has been commented on on 2 dozen other forums and also benefits hex-core AMD's. Dry your eyes and deal with it...

For the benefit of the OP : If you can afford an i5, then get an i5. If you can't get an FX-8320. Anything else is hysterical fanboyism.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:32:37 AM

and i bet you dont want to talk about crysis 3, just a question will ps4 and xbox one game will be like crysis 3 or skyrim!? funny you should ask!!! unreal engine 4.0 is optimized for 8 cores, werent most games of the previous generation made on this engine!? just saying dont listen to Intel Fan boys, or you will play watch dogs medium according to Ubisoft
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:36:41 AM

BSim500 said:
Darkresurrection said:
Just look at Bsim 500's source bravointel.com =))))

Intel's source for what - that AMD have patched BF4 to run better on 4 & 6 cores? Well they have - as has been commented on on 2 dozen other forums and also benefits hex-core AMD's. Dry your eyes and deal with it...

For the benefit of the OP : If you can afford an i5, then get an i5. If you can't get an FX-8320. Anything else is hysterical fanboyism.

bf4 is beta is not done yet! remember crysis 3 beta!!? but who beat who in the end?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 4:58:45 AM

Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
The problem with FX-8350 is that it's like a gambling, you can pay less and then get more, but more often than not you simply lose. I5-4670/3570 is a superior choice because you are guaranteed excellent performance in ANY game you throw at it, no matter if it's single or multi-threaded - I5 is always good, while there are plenty of cases where the FX part simply underperforms outright.

The cost difference between the two, though is pretty small, IMO, and being a practical and sensible person dictates that you'd rather take a part which gives you 100% bang for your buck instead of the one that gives you anything between 70 and 105%.

your i7 3770 k gives 19 fps in shogun 2, is that what you call strong!?? and no you are mistaken, fx 8350 destroys anything you throw at it, 99% of games above 60 fps... in some others like shogun 2, it doesnt matter which one you have i7 19 fps fx 8350 15 fps, funny you dont want to understand



Hurr? If FX-8350 destroys then why does it give only 15 FPS there? That's like 25% less than I5 olol... Dude, you simply fail :) 

Seriously, how can you claim anything after you fail in your own example? Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where 15>20 or something?

:rofl: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:04:51 AM

Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
The problem with FX-8350 is that it's like a gambling, you can pay less and then get more, but more often than not you simply lose. I5-4670/3570 is a superior choice because you are guaranteed excellent performance in ANY game you throw at it, no matter if it's single or multi-threaded - I5 is always good, while there are plenty of cases where the FX part simply underperforms outright.

The cost difference between the two, though is pretty small, IMO, and being a practical and sensible person dictates that you'd rather take a part which gives you 100% bang for your buck instead of the one that gives you anything between 70 and 105%.

your i7 3770 k gives 19 fps in shogun 2, is that what you call strong!?? and no you are mistaken, fx 8350 destroys anything you throw at it, 99% of games above 60 fps... in some others like shogun 2, it doesnt matter which one you have i7 19 fps fx 8350 15 fps, funny you dont want to understand



Hurr? If FX-8350 destroys then why does it give only 15 FPS there? That's like 25% less than I5 olol... Dude, you simply fail :) 

:rofl: 

no you do!!! do you play a game on 19fps!? well i dont touch that game!!! 15 or 19, that's not the tail...it is that this game is not playable with either cpus!!! Have you listened to the John Carmack keynote at quakecon ? well do that for me...The Eurogamer article that I've reported on also has Linus Bloomberg from Avalanche Studios saying that he'd choose an FX 8350 over a 3570K not just because of the higher number of cores but because the 8350 is "from the same hardware vendor" and that will lead to superior implementations of SIMD code., read these two then re-read and tell me your response... rememeber planet side 2!!! =))) amd was bad for this game huh!!? @ The performance boosts will be "massive" according to Creative Director Matt Higby. The Planetside 2 dev team is already hard at work porting their game to the PS4, according Higby the reliance on multi-core technology in the PS4 is forcing the team to optimize their engine for more cores, although this appears to be a difficult challenge for the team, Higby says he's nevertheless excited'' this cpu is the future

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:20:58 AM

Gaidax said:
Hurr? If FX-8350 destroys then why does it give only 15 FPS there? That's like 25% less than I5 olol... Dude, you simply fail :) 

Seriously, how can you claim anything after you fail in your own example? Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where 15>20 or something?
:rofl: 

That's why I stopped responding / feeding the troll. The irony of labelling everyone "fanboys" boggles the mind after hysterically shrieking "INTEL ARE DEAD" in ALL CAPS on another thread the other day. :D  As for crysis 3, the FX 8350 basically drew with an i5-3470 running 800MHz slower. So much for being "destroyed".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:27:45 AM

You are funny, I state the obvious 20>15, you just keep trash-talking I5, when your own precious FX totally blew up in your own example.

FX-8350 got 25% worse result but some dude said it's bettah!!

lol
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:28:10 AM

BSim500 said:
Gaidax said:
Hurr? If FX-8350 destroys then why does it give only 15 FPS there? That's like 25% less than I5 olol... Dude, you simply fail :) 

Seriously, how can you claim anything after you fail in your own example? Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where 15>20 or something?
:rofl: 

That's why I stopped responding / feeding the troll. The irony of labelling everyone "fanboys" boggles the mind after hysterically shrieking "INTEL ARE DEAD" in ALL CAPS on another thread the other day. :D  As for crysis 3, the FX 8350 basically drew with an i5-3470 running 800MHz slower. So much for being "destroyed".


you stopped responding cause you gave in... and now you bully behind another fan boy!? you cant answer my question why is a game like planetside 2 being rebuilt on a new engine to support multi-threaded rather than single threaded if the future is I5? Are you better than John Carmack or do you think you understand better than him!? since when have you become a game developer i wonder =)))))) lol How Pathetic!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:29:32 AM

FX 8350+ 7970... dont doubt it pal...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:31:54 AM

Yeah dude, we totally gave in there, you literally killed us with your own Shogun example where FX-8350 got literally stomped by I5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:39:27 AM

Darkresurrection said:
you cant answer my question why is a game like planetside 2 being rebuilt on a new engine to support multi-threaded rather than single threaded if the future is I5?

Because it runs too slowly on AMD chips due to their weak IPC that's why... No-one said single threading was the future - that's just your petty straw man after losing the argument and throwing a tantrum. The issue is that even heavily 4-8T multi-threaded games run just as fast on Haswells, but many lesser multi-threaded games (which also included less well threaded maps in multi-threaded games like BF3) can and do run much faster on Intel - over 30% in many cases. And even in heavily threaded games, threading is not equally well in all areas of each game, which is why the 8350 ties with the i5 on average fps, but the i5 has almost 50% higher min fps in a number of Crysis 3 maps to use your example).

The main thing AMD has going for it is cost effectiveness, not overall speed across a spread of 100 popular games. Whether you like it or not, 8 slow cores are not necessarily faster than 4 fast cores because in the real world, threading doesn't scale 100%. For some reason that simple fact drives you absolutely berserk mostly out of fanboyism / a huge chip on your shoulder over Intel. I've owned half a dozen of each (Athlon XP & 64 & X2 instead of Pentium 4, etc) going way back to the 286 with 1MB RAM under MS-DOS (pre Windows 3.1). So that's your "fanboy" accusations shot down in flames.

You need to seriously cool off your wildly over-emotional posts and get a grip of yourself. Right now your "how dare you defy me!" style of posting makes you look about 12 years old.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 12:30:17 PM

BSim500 said:
Darkresurrection said:
you cant answer my question why is a game like planetside 2 being rebuilt on a new engine to support multi-threaded rather than single threaded if the future is I5?

Because it runs too slowly on AMD chips due to their weak IPC that's why... No-one said single threading was the future - that's just your petty straw man after losing the argument and throwing a tantrum. The issue is that even heavily 4-8T multi-threaded games run just as fast on Haswells, but many lesser multi-threaded games (which also included less well threaded maps in multi-threaded games like BF3) can and do run much faster on Intel - over 30% in many cases. And even in heavily threaded games, threading is not equally well in all areas of each game, which is why the 8350 ties with the i5 on average fps, but the i5 has almost 50% higher min fps in a number of Crysis 3 maps to use your example).

The main thing AMD has going for it is cost effectiveness, not overall speed across a spread of 100 popular games. Whether you like it or not, 8 slow cores are not necessarily faster than 4 fast cores because in the real world, threading doesn't scale 100%. For some reason that simple fact drives you absolutely berserk mostly out of fanboyism / a huge chip on your shoulder over Intel. I've owned half a dozen of each (Athlon XP & 64 & X2 instead of Pentium 4, etc) going way back to the 286 with 1MB RAM under MS-DOS (pre Windows 3.1). So that's your "fanboy" accusations shot down in flames.

You need to seriously cool off your wildly over-emotional posts and get a grip of yourself. Right now your "how dare you defy me!" style of posting makes you look about 12 years old.

lol my own example was about this fact that no one plays a game on 15 or 19 fps!!! if you are a cheap gamer who plays a game on 19 fps so that figures!!! I usually put the game away for my next build in situations as such...i dont know about you!! games are going multi threaded cause developers have no choice to do anything else, cause jaguar cpu uses 8 weak cores not 4 strong ones, and still the vendor is AMD, it's a shame Intel didnt make it, but who cares, if intel was in xbox one or ps4 i would have bought it, Intel lost it there, about multi-threaded apps, fx 8350 is 2% faster, and it is less expensive, so from January on it doesnt matter that your cpu can single thread like crazy!!! can it do multi thread like crazy will be the question,so that means fx 8350 overcomes any i5....and wait for, awful console ports to struggle more, wait for patches updates and etc...1 year ago i guided my family members to go i5, when they said bulldozer i said hell no. it's a wrong choice...but pile driver is something else, you are angry i know why, if I OCED my cpu i would GO FX 9370 at 4.5 ghz you know fx-8350 does this ON AIR.... IS YOUR I5 better THAN I7 3930K!!? this was released two days ago look http://www.overclock.net/t/1430568/ggpu-battlefield-4-b... is another intelfan boy this is CRYSIS3 look http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... see your i5!? wave hands for it!!! why tomshardware? let me introuce you to another biased like pclab.pl don't you want to support them!!! the first shogun 2 benchs you sent are for this site....inTEL GIVES 30 FPS IN SHOGUN 2 HUH!? WELL THAT WAS 19!!! I said if that's the case go to https://teksyndicate.com. they are amd fan boys!!! but to hell with fanboyism, where is reality, dont lie through your teeth please
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 12:37:10 PM

Gaidax said:
Yeah dude, we totally gave in there, you literally killed us with your own Shogun example where FX-8350 got literally stomped by I5.

you seem to have a little knowledge regarding this matter.... I dont bother replying to you anymore, bullying doesn't matter, speak your mind tell me your reasons if you have got any...if not dont say anything, so sit back and listen hey!? or go play SHOGUN 19fps...you deserve it
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:17:02 PM

As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:34:59 PM

Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:42:37 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...


lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827


You guys crack me up - you bring examples at which you yourselves fail again and again. Try harder, please.

Your move.


:rofl: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:53:44 PM

Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...


lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827

What now?

:rofl: 

oh dear cutie... what are you saying!? really!!! 4670k is faster guys!!!! :lol:  C'mon look at you!!! you look ridiculous by this post :D  can anyone send this guy out!!? :lol:  :lol:  but really thank you for laughter...I like you really, you are funny!!! I kinda love your moving head :love: 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:58:54 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...


lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827

What now?

:rofl: 

oh dear cutie... what are you saying!? really!!! 4670k is faster guys!!!! :lol:  C'mon look at you!!! you look ridiculous by this post :D  can anyone send this guy out!!? :lol:  :lol:  but really thank you for laughter...I like you really, you are funny!!! I kinda love your moving head :love: 



Gaidax: "Here are the valid examples from thousands of independent, real-world 3D Mark entries."

Darkresurrection: "ROFL ROFL ur funney, FX is better cuz I say so"

:sarcastic: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:07:05 PM

Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...


lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827

What now?

:rofl: 

oh dear cutie... what are you saying!? really!!! 4670k is faster guys!!!! :lol:  C'mon look at you!!! you look ridiculous by this post :D  can anyone send this guy out!!? :lol:  :lol:  but really thank you for laughter...I like you really, you are funny!!! I kinda love your moving head :love: 



Gaidax: "Here are the valid examples from thousands of independent, real-world 3D Mark entries."

Darkresurrection: "ROFL ROFL ur funney, FX is better cuz I say so"

:sarcastic: 

:D  :bounce: .... way to go, I like you...to hell with both companies!!! what are we fighting for really!!!? to each his own

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:22:10 PM

TJGuy said:
Hey people,

As the title says, I'm hoping to get some advice on which CPU+GPU set up to go for. This is my first build, and I really wish I could afford the i5 4670K + HD 7970, but unfortunately I can't so these are the two choices I'm stuck with. The other option I have is to just wait until the HD 9000 series is released, but I figured at the prices the 7970 and 7950 are going for I might as well buy now and maybe wait until HD 9000 prices drop in the future.

I'm hoping to play current and next gen games with this build on high-max settings.

Will be playing at 1600x900 resolution for now, but hopefully upgrading monitor soon. Any help will be appreciated.


Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Gaidax said:
Darkresurrection said:
Avro Arrow said:
As soon as I saw the war begin, I ignored every post and just decided to post a straight answer to your question. I'm running an FX-8350 and twin Radeon HD 7970s. My Score in 3DMark v1.1 (3DMark13) is 9574. Their "high-end gaming PC" with an i7-4770K and an nVidia GTX Titan only scores 9131. If my FX-8350 (at stock speeds, no less) can properly run two Radeon HD 7970s in crossfire without bottlenecking them and blasting the crap out of a PC with an i7-4770K and a GTX Titan, then you can be quite certain that the FX-8350 won't bottleneck one HD 7950 or HD 7970. I'm very happy with my two HD 7970s and the 6 free games from AMD in the bundles are reason enough to buy now. The new R9-980X is just another name for HD 7970. You have nothing to fear from using an AMD CPU. Hell, if I hadn't got such a great deal on this FX-8350, I would have chosen the FX-6300. Here's the link to my 3DMark score so you can read it for yourself. If this isn't proof enough that the FX-8350 doesn't pose a significant bottleneck, then nothing will be. Keep in mind that the nVidia GTX Titan in that "high-end gaming pc" ALONE costs $320 more than both my HD 7970s and my FX-8350 COMBINED. Yes, Intel and nVidia sure do give great deals, don't they?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1434717
I don't like conjecture, I don't like opinions. I like facts.

Awesome man!!! brilliant build really...AMD is really way to go, I don't understand what these guys say!!! they say intel gives 19 fps, fx 8350 15 in this single threaded game, LOL 4fps really!? but they never talk about crysis 3, they wont even see that post of battlefield where fx 9590 is on top!!!anyone can OC its fx to 4.7ghz...


lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827

What now?

:rofl: 

oh dear cutie... what are you saying!? really!!! 4670k is faster guys!!!! :lol:  C'mon look at you!!! you look ridiculous by this post :D  can anyone send this guy out!!? :lol:  :lol:  but really thank you for laughter...I like you really, you are funny!!! I kinda love your moving head :love: 



Gaidax: "Here are the valid examples from thousands of independent, real-world 3D Mark entries."

Darkresurrection: "ROFL ROFL ur funney, FX is better cuz I say so"

:sarcastic: 

:D  :bounce: .... way to go, I like you...to hell with both companies!!! what are we fighting for really!!!? to each his own



+1
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:13:30 PM

Gaidax said:

lol...

You don't wanna go 3D Mark route, but if you insist...

Setup - I7-4770k/FX-8350 - dual Radeon HD 7970 - overclocking allowed - only valid results.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/677299/fs/1009220

I7-4770k score - 13313
FX-8350 score - 12344

Fun fact - there are 28 I7-4770k results that surpass top FX-8350 score.

OMG NO FARES IT'S CHITTINGG OMG!!

OK...

Then how about I5-4670k vs FX-8350

I7-4670k score - 12353
FX-8350 score - 12344

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1009220/fs/970827

What now?


Are you trying to say that you would feel a better gaming experience with two HD 7970s because you have an i7-4770K CPU? If you're saying that, you're outright lying. I don't think you understand the point of my post and considering all the crap that's been said in this thread I can't say I blame you. All I pointed out was that the FX-8350 is more than enough performance for gaming. To say that it's faster than an i7 would be a lie, only a complete moron would say otherwise. The simple fact is that you're going to get roughly the same gaming experience from both CPUs. Yes, of course changing my CPU to an Intel will give a better score because the physics involved would improve. My point was that if I get better scores than an i7 simply by having more graphics horsepower, then the CPU isn't as big of a deal as everyone seems to think. I'm not getting low frame rates from having this CPU. Maybe lower than an i7 but nothing that you, me or anyone else would notice or care about. A CPU bottleneck means a reduction in gaming frame rates that are NOTICEABLE. Sure, maybe I'm getting only 80fps while the magnificent i7 is getting 90fps but who cares? It's not like you're going to notice. You will however notice that extra $140 missing from your wallet. If I'm putting a gaming rig together and I have a choice between upgrading my CPU to an i7-4770K or increasing my graphics horsepower, guess which one wins? To be honest, I don't even think that the FX-8350 is the best AMD choice for gaming. The best choice there is the FX-6300 which I would have bought but TD had some absurd deal on the FX-8350 and I went for it. Look at it this way, if you have $500 for an upgrade and you want maximum gaming output for that $500, you're not going to buy an Intel CPU. Most people aren't made of money so why would they spend an extra $200 on what will amount to nothing when that $200 could go to increasing gaming performance exponentially? I'm not a fanboy, I'm just a 25-year PC building veteran with fiscal common sense.

And please, refrain from saying "Your move". That is so immature. This is a thread to help someone get a better gaming experience for his dollar, not a thread to try to "be right" or to sell Intel products. Unless of course, you work for them in which case your credibility is destroyed.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:41:19 PM

CrossFireX is hugely broken.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 5:47:38 PM

Lessthannil said:
CrossFireX is hugely broken.

Really? Do you have it? I've encountered no problems that I can see, and as you can see from my system build info; yes, I do in fact use it. Hell, I've been running CrossfireX since 2009. Are you just parroting what some site says or have you encountered the problems yourself?
m
0
l
October 19, 2013 8:59:08 PM

huilun02 said:
For GPU, R9 270X will be good. Its basically an improved rebranded 7950, costs $200

As for CPU, I'd pick the i5-4670k but this also means a more expensive motherboard.
If budget is a concern, get a FX 8320 or 8350.

Just incase you didn't know - Intel and AMD processors use different boards. Make sure it is compatible with your CPU. Usually AMD boards are cheaper.


Actually the 270X is a rebranded 7870.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 10:37:23 PM

Lessthannil said:
CrossFireX is hugely broken.


Crossfire is fine, I encountered only one game where it was not working and messed stuff up - that was Saint's Row 3. I use it for 2 years now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2013 1:06:46 AM

Lessthannil said:
CrossFireX is hugely broken.


OH GOD yet another joke!!! and so is your post, where does Intel find these fanboys !? and you are an nvidia fanboy too!?
ATTENTION ATTENTION: NVIDIA IS GOOD ONLY!!! get out of here seriously? r9-290x beat the day light out of your gtx 780 and Titan, dont cross fire, just sli, holy crap, is it a new virus, people seem to be out of their minds!!
m
0
l
!