Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Which processor is better for future proof gaming.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 21, 2013 10:35:20 PM

I'm trying to build a new gaming computer for my self, and I'm wondering what processor would be better for future proof gaming. etc games in the next 4 years, the AMD FX-8350 or the Intel i5 3570k.
BTW i'm trying to keep the cpu price $200 or lower.
a b à CPUs
a b $ Windows 7
September 21, 2013 10:39:57 PM

4670k, this way you have a socket that will accept a 5th gen chip when they are released.
a b 4 Gaming
September 21, 2013 10:49:01 PM

i would go amd as they both perform the same in gaming they both overclock well though my moneys on the amd if you asked which would go higher and the amd has those 8cores while not very useful for gaming you never know what you could be doing in a couple of years and they could become useful. also theres no point having compatibility with 5th gen if he is not gunna be upgrading for four years which my guess will be about the arrival of 6th gen chips plus it costs 40$ more for the 4670k.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2013 11:15:31 PM

+1 for the i5

The thing is, that the i5 is more effective and can do more per clock cycle. Also the Intel line beats any AMD CPU when it comes to single-threaded tasks. AMD does shine in multi-threaded tasks, but if an application/game can use lot of cores, it doesn't mean it will use them correctly. Most of the games can indeed use 3-4 cores, but, the problem is, they use it in a way 3-4 different single-threaded apps would. And then it can happen as in Battlefield 3, that the FX-8350 gets placed between 2 generation old i3 and i5. The i5 gets a bit lower FPS than the FX while i5 gets around 50% more min. frames than the FX-8350.
September 21, 2013 11:57:46 PM

random stalker said:
+1 for the i5

The thing is, that the i5 is more effective and can do more per clock cycle. Also the Intel line beats any AMD CPU when it comes to single-threaded tasks. AMD does shine in multi-threaded tasks, but if an application/game can use lot of cores, it doesn't mean it will use them correctly. Most of the games can indeed use 3-4 cores, but, the problem is, they use it in a way 3-4 different single-threaded apps would. And then it can happen as in Battlefield 3, that the FX-8350 gets placed between 2 generation old i3 and i5. The i5 gets a bit lower FPS than the FX while i5 gets around 50% more min. frames than the FX-8350.

Noone cares what a processor can do per cycle. All we care about is performance/value. I dont care if my cpu runs at 1Ghz or 5GHz as long as it is fast. Please don't compare things that dont matter. Compare the cost for an intel cpu/mobo against an amd cpu/mobo. Then for the same total price see which one performs best on the applications/games you are using

a b 4 Gaming
September 22, 2013 12:07:17 AM

Dags said:
random stalker said:
+1 for the i5

The thing is, that the i5 is more effective and can do more per clock cycle. Also the Intel line beats any AMD CPU when it comes to single-threaded tasks. AMD does shine in multi-threaded tasks, but if an application/game can use lot of cores, it doesn't mean it will use them correctly. Most of the games can indeed use 3-4 cores, but, the problem is, they use it in a way 3-4 different single-threaded apps would. And then it can happen as in Battlefield 3, that the FX-8350 gets placed between 2 generation old i3 and i5. The i5 gets a bit lower FPS than the FX while i5 gets around 50% more min. frames than the FX-8350.

Noone cares what a processor can do per cycle. All we care about is performance/value. I dont care if my cpu runs at 1Ghz or 5GHz as long as it is fast. Please don't compare things that dont matter. Compare the cost for an intel cpu/mobo against an amd cpu/mobo. Then for the same total price see which one performs best on the applications/games you are using


i have to agree and amd will give you better price/performance ratio

a b 4 Gaming
September 22, 2013 12:09:44 AM

i wouldn't get the 8350 though the 8320 or even the 6300 will give u better performance if you spend the money you save on a better graphics card

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 1:02:56 AM
Share

Dags said:
random stalker said:
+1 for the i5

The thing is, that the i5 is more effective and can do more per clock cycle. Also the Intel line beats any AMD CPU when it comes to single-threaded tasks. AMD does shine in multi-threaded tasks, but if an application/game can use lot of cores, it doesn't mean it will use them correctly. Most of the games can indeed use 3-4 cores, but, the problem is, they use it in a way 3-4 different single-threaded apps would. And then it can happen as in Battlefield 3, that the FX-8350 gets placed between 2 generation old i3 and i5. The i5 gets a bit lower FPS than the FX while i5 gets around 50% more min. frames than the FX-8350.

Noone cares what a processor can do per cycle. All we care about is performance/value. I dont care if my cpu runs at 1Ghz or 5GHz as long as it is fast. Please don't compare things that dont matter. Compare the cost for an intel cpu/mobo against an amd cpu/mobo. Then for the same total price see which one performs best on the applications/games you are using


since I am bored, then let's do a little comparisson>

FX-8350+GA990FX = ~400USD
i5-4670K+GA-X87X = ~400USD

Let's take as a basis the multiplayergame like Battlefield 3, which we all know is taxing as hell. Guess which processor will lead?
I give you a hint - the FX-8350 gets smoked by i5-2500; so, please, do entertain me: "where lies the better value?" Especially considering the TDP of AMD processor? 125W will force you to get better case and better cooling. And you'll see the difference to the 84W of intel i5 on your monthly bill too... :D 

Second> the ips is more important than you think. In praxis a processor with let's say 3 ips has to be clocked 33% faster than the one, which has 4 ips :D  That's the main reason most AMDs get smoked even by a simple celeron when it gets to get things done :D  Sure, they have a lot of cores /4cores in phenom x4 fe/ or modules /4 in FX8350/, but they are effectively wasted if an application can not use them effectively /or uses a single thread/.
September 22, 2013 7:52:39 PM

Seriously? from 84w to 125w you will see the difference on your montly bill? Man, you must be paying shitloads on utilities. As for better case and cooling you got no idea what you are talking about. Either you never had a 125w cpu or you never tried it on a moderate case/stock cooler.

i5 4670K = $239.99
FX 8350 = $199.99
that's a 20% more expensive processor. Are you sure that it is 20% faster? I wouldn't bet plus I do care about real applications and games and not synthetics or intel compiled benchmarks. I don't say that Haswell is bad, in fact is the most advanced and efficient cpu atm but still more expensive. If I was going to make an HTPC or anyway my goal was low power consumption and low heat/noise system then I would go for an i5 and maybe S version. But we talk about games.
And since the op talked about a system that he won't need to upgrade soon lets take into account of what we expect from games in the next few years.
So console games will be running on AMD APUS fully taking advantage of the 8 cores and game developers will be developing games for 1 architecture only. The x84-64 and more specifically for the AMD APU processors. PC games seem to be using more and more cores too. So if I had to make an assumption for the next few years I would say that games will be using more cores so an 8 core is the safest bet.
a b 4 Gaming
September 22, 2013 8:59:27 PM

random stalker said:
Dags said:
random stalker said:
+1 for the i5

The thing is, that the i5 is more effective and can do more per clock cycle. Also the Intel line beats any AMD CPU when it comes to single-threaded tasks. AMD does shine in multi-threaded tasks, but if an application/game can use lot of cores, it doesn't mean it will use them correctly. Most of the games can indeed use 3-4 cores, but, the problem is, they use it in a way 3-4 different single-threaded apps would. And then it can happen as in Battlefield 3, that the FX-8350 gets placed between 2 generation old i3 and i5. The i5 gets a bit lower FPS than the FX while i5 gets around 50% more min. frames than the FX-8350.

Noone cares what a processor can do per cycle. All we care about is performance/value. I dont care if my cpu runs at 1Ghz or 5GHz as long as it is fast. Please don't compare things that dont matter. Compare the cost for an intel cpu/mobo against an amd cpu/mobo. Then for the same total price see which one performs best on the applications/games you are using


since I am bored, then let's do a little comparisson>

FX-8350+GA990FX = ~400USD
i5-4670K+GA-X87X = ~400USD

Let's take as a basis the multiplayergame like Battlefield 3, which we all know is taxing as hell. Guess which processor will lead?
I give you a hint - the FX-8350 gets smoked by i5-2500; so, please, do entertain me: "where lies the better value?" Especially considering the TDP of AMD processor? 125W will force you to get better case and better cooling. And you'll see the difference to the 84W of intel i5 on your monthly bill too... :D 

Second> the ips is more important than you think. In praxis a processor with let's say 3 ips has to be clocked 33% faster than the one, which has 4 ips :D  That's the main reason most AMDs get smoked even by a simple celeron when it gets to get things done :D  Sure, they have a lot of cores /4cores in phenom x4 fe/ or modules /4 in FX8350/, but they are effectively wasted if an application can not use them effectively /or uses a single thread/.


Dags said:
Seriously? from 84w to 125w you will see the difference on your montly bill? Man, you must be paying shitloads on utilities. As for better case and cooling you got no idea what you are talking about. Either you never had a 125w cpu or you never tried it on a moderate case/stock cooler.

i5 4670K = $239.99
FX 8350 = $199.99
that's a 20% more expensive processor. Are you sure that it is 20% faster? I wouldn't bet plus I do care about real applications and games and not synthetics or intel compiled benchmarks. I don't say that Haswell is bad, in fact is the most advanced and efficient cpu atm but still more expensive. If I was going to make an HTPC or anyway my goal was low power consumption and low heat/noise system then I would go for an i5 and maybe S version. But we talk about games.
And since the op talked about a system that he won't need to upgrade soon lets take into account of what we expect from games in the next few years.
So console games will be running on AMD APUS fully taking advantage of the 8 cores and game developers will be developing games for 1 architecture only. The x84-64 and more specifically for the AMD APU processors. PC games seem to be using more and more cores too. So if I had to make an assumption for the next few years I would say that games will be using more cores so an 8 core is the safest bet.

i agree the 8 core cpus arent made for the game devs though they're for background tasks however i bet games will start using about 6cores soon so i still recomend the amd it doesnt make anywhere near as much of a difference as the graphics card for gaming anyway so the amd should be fine.
!