Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 vs FX 8350 (With GTX 770)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 23, 2013 7:58:34 AM

Hi
I am buying a new rig for gaming (Battlefield 4). And ill buy a GTX 770. Which CPU you recommend me? I am bit afraid of buying 8350 (or 8320) and it bottleneck my GTX 770.

More about : 8350 gtx 770

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 8:04:47 AM

I dont think either would bottleneck, just remember your ALWAYS going to have a bottleneck somewhere.

As for deciding what CPU you should choose all depends on what i5 you'll be getting

m
0
l
Related resources
October 23, 2013 8:27:33 AM

between i5 2500k and FX 8320, which one should i get?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 8:48:40 AM

ldewitt said:
I dont think either would bottleneck, just remember your ALWAYS going to have a bottleneck somewhere.

As for deciding what CPU you should choose all depends on what i5 you'll be getting



This graph is a good demonstration of a bottleneck at a lower resolution. Each graphics card provides near the same performance at 1680x1050. But if you look at the graph in the link I posted above, you'll see different results at 1920x1080 (1080p).

I guess the choice would depend on the resolution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 8:51:39 AM

SeDzz said:
between i5 2500k and FX 8320, which one should i get?


The 2500k is what was available to the reviewer and will run a tad slower than a newer i5-3570k or i5-4670k. I'd recommend either the newer Intel processors.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 8:58:33 AM

If just by looking at the Tom's Hardware benchmarks on BF4, I'd pick the i5-2500k. Because it had a higher average framerate than the FX 8350, which in turn is obviously better than the 8320.

The benchmark itself I find strange, because if the FX 8350 (eight core) and i5-2500k (four core) are so close to the i7-3960X, would indicate the game to be extremely GPU-heavy (the Titan used was already bottlenecking at 74fps)

And also the i5-2500k is quite an old chip already, so I would get an Ivy bridge or Haswell i5 instead.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 9:44:13 AM


I didn't see a bf4 graph but yeah i would go by the link ubercake provided.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 10:30:32 AM

i think i will buy a i5 3570k.
My concern is if the games are optimized for 8 core, FX in the future would not be better ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 10:59:52 AM

I rock a 8120 @ 4.1 and have no issues, everyone is intel this intel that AMD doesn't compare they suck compared to intel blah blah blah, well i've had intel and AMD and i don't see a difference in performance only the enthusiast see the differences with there clocking/bench marking programs ect. I have a buddy with the i7 not sure what i7 it is but i played on his and i notice no difference from bouncing between my 8120 and his i7 they both perform outstanding. I'm not sure if his is overclocked or not so i guess that could be the reason; but IMO you pick what ever you feel comfortable with.
m
0
l
a c 741 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 11:36:29 AM

huilun02 said:
If just by looking at the Tom's Hardware benchmarks on BF4, I'd pick the i5-2500k. Because it had a higher average framerate than the FX 8350, which in turn is obviously better than the 8320.

The benchmark itself I find strange, because if the FX 8350 (eight core) and i5-2500k (four core) are so close to the i7-3960X, would indicate the game to be extremely GPU-heavy (the Titan used was already bottlenecking at 74fps)

And also the i5-2500k is quite an old chip already, so I would get an Ivy bridge or Haswell i5 instead.


The BF4 benchmarks posted on here the past couple weeks or so differ from what Tom's results were. It appears that thread was removed. Probably due to the flame war that ensued.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-bench...

m
0
l
October 23, 2013 11:49:26 AM

Go AMD. It's better for multitasking and streaming/recording games. Don't pay a premium for a mere 0.1 fps. Also, with mantle and the next gen consoles on AMDs side, games will start to utilize more cores. I recommend the 280x - it's cheaper and more powerful (and with mantle it will ridicule the 770). The money you've saved can go into an SSD or a water cooler - all of AMDs CPUs are unlocked, no need to pay $50 more just for the ability overclock. Just goes to show how greedy and money hogging bastards intel have become. This will change when AMD come out with their steamroller CPUs.

Edit: A GTX TITAN won't be bottlenecked buy this CPU, no way you could be losing frames over a silly GTX 770 (or as I have recommended - an R9 280x.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 11:59:52 AM

We keep hearing that AMD next gen processors are going to be the thing that overtakes Intels with regard to performance. Bulldozer was supposed to be the Intel killer.

The 8350 is a great processor, but I find it odd that Dice recommends a 6 or 8-core AMD for BF4, but you only need a 4-core for the Intel architecture. There are definitely differences in the architecture at play here. AMD is coming along, but even their FX 9590 $390 processor (8-core) doesn't beat a $340 i7 4770 (4-core) when it comes to gaming. Now that's what I call greedy.

AMD is closing the gap when it comes to performance, but they're just not there yet.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 3:04:32 PM

here what you have to know..either buy an i7 the second, third or fourth generation or buy fx 8350 undoubtedly, there is a reason here games are getting heavily threaded so 4 cores and 4 threads wont help you so much so you need 4 cores and 8 threads or simply an fx 8350, look here: http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga....... Ubisoft has announced that i5 can only push medium settings
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 23, 2013 7:00:40 PM

logainofhades said:
huilun02 said:
If just by looking at the Tom's Hardware benchmarks on BF4, I'd pick the i5-2500k. Because it had a higher average framerate than the FX 8350, which in turn is obviously better than the 8320.

The benchmark itself I find strange, because if the FX 8350 (eight core) and i5-2500k (four core) are so close to the i7-3960X, would indicate the game to be extremely GPU-heavy (the Titan used was already bottlenecking at 74fps)

And also the i5-2500k is quite an old chip already, so I would get an Ivy bridge or Haswell i5 instead.


The BF4 benchmarks posted on here the past couple weeks or so differ from what Tom's results were. It appears that thread was removed. Probably due to the flame war that ensued.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-beta-gpu-cpu-bench...



That chart was a better match of what I expected. But then again, the FX 8350 against the much older i5 2500k is totally fair right?

I'm starting to think the benchmarks (including Tom's) deliberately left out the i5-3570k and i5-4670k for some reason...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 1:04:57 AM

Totally i7-2600k is 2% faster in multi threaded programs comparing to i5-4670k, anyone with a sound mind knows that, bf4 is multi threaded , so here i7-2600k wins ! you want core i5 4670k benchamark: min 47 average: 60....so you don't need to shout about this slender difference
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 1:12:41 AM

fx 8350 is much faster multi-threade even 2% faster than i7 4770k...so I think it figures, when games are going heavily threaded, you know what's the response
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2013 1:32:16 AM

How much can you get each of those CPU's for? How much are you willing to spend? Answer those two first and you will be closer to picking between em.

The situation with BF4 is very similar to what we saw with Crysis 3. The game use's two threads to do most of the rendering and spawns additional threads to handle environmental destruction, physics and various battle effects. The more things you have going on the more cores the CPU needs to have, BF4 seems to use about six during heavy battle.

With games like BF3, BF4, Crysis, ect.. you need to completely ignore average FPS and only look at minimum FPS. Average includes staring at walls, the ground or other scenarios that don't have much happening, minimum is what you can expect when stuff's exploding all around you and your fighting back.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 741 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 6:49:36 AM

Yea budget plays a big factor here. If you have the money to do so, go all out and get an i7. Most people aren't exactly made of money so an FX 8320 and using the extra $150 saved over a 4770k and sticking it into a better graphics card is a better gaming solution for the more budget minded.
Share
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 7:41:55 AM

logainofhades said:
Yea budget plays a big factor here. If you have the money to do so, go all out and get an i7. Most people aren't exactly made of money so an FX 8320 and using the extra $150 saved over a 4770k and sticking it into a better graphics card is a better gaming solution for the more budget minded.


I can't agree more, either i7 which is an excellent choice but needs more money as well, or fx 8350 or fx 8320...anything else, is a big mistake
m
0
l
October 24, 2013 7:50:20 AM

Thank you for all the answers. I'll buy a FX 8350 and already bought R9 280x
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 8:02:01 AM

SeDzz said:
Thank you for all the answers. I'll buy a FX 8350 and already bought R9 280x

An excellent choice, i have the same cpu, along with 7970 ghz edition, and I play every single game ultra settings at 1920x1080p...my games are smooth smooth smooth
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
October 24, 2013 8:35:57 AM

SeDzz said:
Thank you for all the answers. I'll buy a FX 8350 and already bought R9 280x

don't forget to close the post, when you feel you have no other questions
m
0
l
!