Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD FX 8350 + R9 290 or Intel Core i7 4770k?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • PC gaming
  • Graphics Cards
  • AMD
  • CPUs
  • Browsers
  • Games
  • Systems
  • Components
  • Graphics
  • Peripherals
  • Bottleneck
  • Video Editing
Last response: in CPUs
November 23, 2013 10:27:13 AM

AMD FX 8350 and R9 290 or i7 4770k and R9 280x.

My expectations are Full HD 1080p, 60fps, Ultra w/ everything maxed out (AA, etc).

Not that interested in 4k since by the time I do get a 4k monitor (when 4k monitors are affordable..) I'll be upgrading my GPU anyway :p 

Cooling both of them are Hyper 212 Evo's, by the way.

Things I'll be doing with my PC;
1). Gaming.
2). Video Editing
3). General use (watching videos in 1080p and fluent browsing).

More about : amd 8350 290 intel core 4770k

November 23, 2013 11:27:11 AM

I think I *might* of put this in the wrong thread. :o 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 11:47:08 AM

If you play older games, get the 4770K. If you are only looking foward, save some $ by getting the 8320 and overclocking that unless that overclock exceeds around 4.5GHz.

If you are upgrading to a better GPU anyway, I would just get the 4770k now (personally) and stick with the 280x for now, and then get that better GPU.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 11:52:39 AM

no it is ok, you may want to hear this story, before intel guys jump in this thread and convince you to go with i7-4770k and r9-280, I have fx 8350, I have combined it with r9-290, the day I went for this rig my uncle based on some intel guy's sayings went with i7-4770k+ r9-280x, it took us a week to bench some games, needless to say I awas some about 20 fps ahead of him in every single game we tested we tested( metro last light, bf4,bf3,COD black ops2, MOH warfighter, Tomb raider, crysis 2 dx11 patch) 20 fps is the difference of 40 fps to solid 60 fps, believe he feels regretful like hell
here are some of our results at 1080p
crysis 3 high quality fxaa
r9-290+fx 8350= 76
r9-280+i7-4770k= 58
metro lastlight
r9-290+fx 8350= 64
r9-280+i7-4770k=51
battlefield 3
r9-290+fx8350=90
r9-280+i7 4770k= 71

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 11:58:33 AM

He is getting a better GPU later. The 280x is responsible for the low(er) framerate, not the 4770k.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 11:58:47 AM

Lessthannil said:
If you play older games, get the 4770K. If you are only looking foward, save some $ by getting the 8320 and overclocking that unless that overclock exceeds around 4.5GHz.

If you are upgrading to a better GPU anyway, I would just get the 4770k now (personally) and stick with the 280x for now, and then get that better GPU.

Old or modern, the answer is r9-290+ fx 8350, the same you made my uncle make that stupid decision.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
November 23, 2013 11:59:16 AM

Whichever gets you the better GPU - so I'd say the FX. If it was just a processor comparison I would have said the i7.

Both would be great for gaming, video editing and just about anything else. The i7 would be ahead in single-threaded (generally older) games or apps. But there's not much point once you're already way over 60 FPS. They would be pretty equal in multi-threaded apps, the i7 may be slightly ahead. But for the money you pay, I couldn't justify it.

Darkresurrection has personal experience, so that's pretty cool.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 12:02:13 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Lessthannil said:
If you play older games, get the 4770K. If you are only looking foward, save some $ by getting the 8320 and overclocking that unless that overclock exceeds around 4.5GHz.

If you are upgrading to a better GPU anyway, I would just get the 4770k now (personally) and stick with the 280x for now, and then get that better GPU.

Old or modern, the answer is r9-290+ fx 8350, the same you made my uncle make that stupid decision.


That's the answer right now (even though I strongly suggest getting the 8320 over the 8350). He is getting a better GPU later on which would be at least the R9-290 given that he will go with the 280x for now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 12:02:28 PM

8350 + 290
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 12:02:35 PM

Lessthannil said:
He is getting a better GPU later. The 280x is responsible for the low(er) framerate, not the 4770k.


r9-290+fx 8350> i7 4770k+r9-280x seeing is believing, I don't care who is or what is responsible, I am answering his question based on what i have seen, not heard. if he could go with i7-4770k+r9-290, he wouldn't ask this question, he would go for it, he has a budget, he is looking for the best combo, here it is fx 8350+ r9-290
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 2:07:00 PM

2-way crossfire with R9 270x vs single R9 290?

Edit: Oh, and I've forgotten to mention that I've decided to get the best of both worlds. Meaning, I'm going to get the Intel Core i7 4770k and the AMD R9 290 (see question above). What was kind of holding me back was my microphone which was the Audio-Technica AT2020 which I've now swapped out for a blue snowball. Still about £40 over my budget, but I guess that's okay.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 4:49:13 PM

Single R9-290.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
November 23, 2013 4:50:05 PM

Yep, single 290. Get a third party one too, the stock ones have coolers that aren't too great.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 4:51:31 PM

JOOK-D said:
Yep, single 290. Get a third party one too, the stock ones have coolers that aren't too great.


I agree, but he would have to wait a while to do that.

The R9-290's fan is literally a blower.
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 5:21:03 PM

Derppppp said:
AMD FX 8350 and R9 290 or i7 4770k and R9 280x.

My expectations are Full HD 1080p, 60fps, Ultra w/ everything maxed out (AA, etc).

Not that interested in 4k since by the time I do get a 4k monitor (when 4k monitors are affordable..) I'll be upgrading my GPU anyway :p 

Cooling both of them are Hyper 212 Evo's, by the way.

Things I'll be doing with my PC;
1). Gaming.
2). Video Editing
3). General use (watching videos in 1080p and fluent browsing).

Simply put, the one with the better GPU is best for gaming unless there is a bottleneck.
m
0
l
November 24, 2013 6:01:47 AM

bouncedk said:
Since hyperthreading has 1% impact on gaming performance, that would be a waste.


Games are starting to utulise Hyper threading now. BF4 in particular, and many other future games.

Also, the i7 lineup are supposed to be better/faster at video editing (and multi-tasking), so not all is wasted.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
November 24, 2013 10:00:54 AM

Similar performance to an FX 8350 (multi-tasking etc.).

Games are starting to utilise multi-threading, not hyper-threading. I think. I believe benches between the i5s and i7s are still very close even on those games, but don't quote me on that.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2013 10:50:52 AM

Derppppp said:
bouncedk said:
Since hyperthreading has 1% impact on gaming performance, that would be a waste.


Games are starting to utulise Hyper threading now. BF4 in particular, and many other future games.

Also, the i7 lineup are supposed to be better/faster at video editing (and multi-tasking), so not all is wasted.


currently games don't fully utilize hyper threading,(multi-tasking) if games started using hyper threading, fx 83-- would be equal to i7 3770k or even surpass that which has already happened in games like crysis 3, http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... so I maintain in the future not far off a lot of games will be like this one, crysis series except for crysis2 set new standards, which after a year or a year and a half become standards of a lot of new games
m
0
l
November 27, 2013 1:38:16 PM

What about a 4930k and an R9 280x or a 4770k and an R9 290.
The only sacrifice(s) I'd have to make to get the 4930k is to a really good microphone (the AT2020) to no microphone, or at least a VERY crappy one, and instead of a mechanical keyboard and a razer deathadder, I'd have to go with a membrane keyboard, and a not so good (or..."decent") mouse.
Or is a 4930k overkill for gaming and editing?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
November 27, 2013 4:01:23 PM

4930k is way overkill. You'd be better off with the 4770k and the 290.
m
0
l
December 4, 2013 9:44:49 AM

Intel Core i7 4770k and GTX 780/R9 290..
Or..
AMD FX 8350/overclocked 8320 and 780Ti (with no compromises)?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 9:50:41 AM

You're playing 1080p? You'll be above 60 FPS with any of those monster graphics cards, it doesn't really matter lol :p 

I'd go with whatever is best for your wallet. And OC'd 8320 > 8350 IMO.
m
0
l
December 4, 2013 9:54:47 AM

I'll add these GPU(s) to the mix;
Radeon HD 7990 w/ FX 8350
R9 290x w/ FX 8350
m
0
l
December 4, 2013 10:13:15 AM

I'm torn on getting the 780 or R9 290.
The R9 290 has TrueAudio and Mantle, and Nvidia has G-Sync, but I'm not planning on getting a new monitor in a while; I'm waiting for 4k to become mainstream (£200-300, maybe?), by that time I'll have a new GPU (and a new CPU + DDR4) so I'm not all that excited for G-Sync, and with the money saved from buying the R9 290 I can max out my case (300r) and get 6-7 140mm fans.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 10:15:58 AM

I'd say the R9 290. Just make sure to get a 3rd party one, the reference cooler sucks. :lol: 
m
0
l
December 4, 2013 10:26:04 AM

I'm beginning to lose faith in AMD - it's been a whole month and no non-reference cooler.
I actually meant non-ref R9 290 (with case maxed out with fans) vs non-ref GTX 780.
I'm really in no position to wait right now - I'm getting sick and tired of the waiting game.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b U Graphics card
a c 119 À AMD
a c 482 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 1:01:08 PM

If you really can't wait then spend more and go with the GTX 780, it's not as if it will be a downgrade, though it will cost more. I don't see why you're losing faith though, these things can take a while (I do agree though, they're taking their sweet time).
m
0
l
April 8, 2014 3:29:57 PM

bouncedk said:
Since hyperthreading has 1% impact on gaming performance, that would be a waste.


Regardless I watched a 4770k just kick the snot out an FX-8350 in benchmarks and several RTS titles, also Skyrim benches, as a matter of fact on the RTS titles with tons of units on the board, the 4770k was setting at 80% load while the FX-8350 took a nosedive loaded to 100%.. The FX-8350 was clocked to 4.7GHZ and the 4770k was at 3.9GHZ to 4.0GHZ on AIR, The FX-8350 was under water. Clock for clock 4.0GHZ (same clocks for both CPUs) the intel performed better, with similar GPUs used, RAM was OC'd for the FX-8350 to 2133mhz and change, and 4770k 2400mhz and change. The FX-8350 couldn't get the memory performance of the 4770k, and the 4770k had room to go further.

I have completely ignored both Bulldozer and Piledriver (Zambezi & Vishera), because the oh so very slight increase in a few small areas of perfomance over my current Phenom II x6 1100t clocked at 4.278GHZ was never even close to being worth buying either a Bulldozer or Piledriver, ATM so I'm jumping ship to intel after over a decade of AMD.

Also the memory controller on the 4770k is far superior to that of the FX-8350, I watched the 4770k run memory speeds that the FX-8350 cannot hope to match on an ASRock Z87M Extreme4 micro atc Mobo that cost $120.00, while the FX-8350 was on a Crosshair V 990FX formula mobo that cost $224.99 plus another $300.00 and change in water cooling.
Everyone likes to scream and yell about AMD being cheaper, but they always FAIL to mention the additional costs that you WILL have to pay to get GOOD overclocking. Also at full load the 4770k uses around 74 to 81 watts less then the FX-8350 (8350 at 4.8ghz versus 4770k at 4.7ghz) both on water, but there really isn't any real reason to clock the 4770k that high to pull off extremely good numbers.

(gaming) On some titles you will likely not see a huge difference from either chip, on other titles you WILL, depending on the GPU you run.

Intel 4770k with Mobo = $459.00 End cost OR $70.00 to $200.00 for cooling.
FX-8350 with mobo = $424.00 (then add for water cooling or high end Air), lets say $70.00 to $200.00
End cost FX-8350 = $494.00 to $624.00 end cost
FYI, you cannot decently OC an FX-8350 on a $50.00 Mobo, cheapest I saw a good friend get away with is the Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 at $139.00, but he hit a wall.

So you have to conclude that for about the same price you can have either one or the other intel or AMD.
intel = $459.00 - $529.00 - $659.00 from stock air to water cooling.
AMD = $424.00 - $494.00 - $624.00 from stock (tiny OC), aftermarket air to water cooling.

If anyone is going to argue over what amounts to a $30.00 price difference as being a deal breaker, then they are just arguing semantics.. I don't even know why people bother arguing the intel versus AMD issue, it's already been decided.

If you plan to build $30.00 is nothing...
m
0
l
April 8, 2014 3:34:16 PM

Lessthannil said:
He is getting a better GPU later. The 280x is responsible for the low(er) framerate, not the 4770k.


Correct.
m
0
l