Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU should I choose for battlefield 4

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 29, 2013 6:22:06 AM

One thing you should know, I'm building a gaming desktop.
I am looking at this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I am going to mainly use this computer for bf4, I would like to keep it at about 70 fps on ultra. My GPU is the r9 280x. For the 64 man servers, I would like to be around 60 fps on ultra. If you know of one, what is a recommended RAM and motherboard? My CPU budget is no more than $400 (preferably lower). Thanks

More about : cpu choose battlefield

a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:30:45 AM

Im using my old AMD FX6100 with a GTX560 and 16GB of 1600MHZ RAM and i run at 70 + fps on ultra on large maps so anything ranging from a lil cheap FX6100 will do.
i would say FX9590. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Take an Asus AM3+ socket motherboard
8GB + at 1600mhz +
a c 158 à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:40:00 AM

FX-8.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:40:09 AM

thunder0024 said:
One thing you should know, I'm building a gaming desktop.
I am looking at this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I am going to mainly use this computer for bf4, I would like to keep it at about 70 fps on ultra. My GPU is the r9 280x. For the 64 man servers, I would like to be around 60 fps on ultra. If you know of one, what is a recommended RAM and motherboard? My CPU budget is no more than $400 (preferably lower). Thanks


Hello,
That CPU is perfect for playing battlefield 4 multiplayer, you might also take a look at these Multiplayer benchmarks
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-... ( Ultra-HD )
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-... (Full-HD)
so with your FX 8350, You are going to need 8gb of ram and a mobo if you don't have them
RAM: CORSAI 8GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... or if you want to keep down your expenses go with http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The first mobo is better if you plan to overclock other wise go with the second one,
Don't forget to close the post, if you feel you don't have any other questions
November 29, 2013 6:46:33 AM

For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:49:18 AM

has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:50:08 AM

Darkresurrection said:
thunder0024 said:
One thing you should know, I'm building a gaming desktop.
I am looking at this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I am going to mainly use this computer for bf4, I would like to keep it at about 70 fps on ultra. My GPU is the r9 280x. For the 64 man servers, I would like to be around 60 fps on ultra. If you know of one, what is a recommended RAM and motherboard? My CPU budget is no more than $400 (preferably lower). Thanks


Hello,
That CPU is perfect for playing battlefield 4 multiplayer, you might also take a look at these Multiplayer benchmarks
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-... ( Ultra-HD )
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-... (Full-HD)
so with your FX 8350, You are going to need 8gb of ram and a mobo if you don't have them
RAM: CORSAI 8GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... or if you want to keep down your expenses go with http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The first mobo is better if you plan to overclock other wise go with the second one,
Don't forget to close the post, if you feel you don't have any other questions


Whats wrong with the FX9590 ?
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:53:57 AM

Well.. if you are looking at any 70 FPS at Ultra then I suggest that you better up your GPU to a Nvidia 780 or wait for the R9-290 with custom coolers to launch.

The 280x would simply not give you Ultra at 70 FPS. It would be like 50 FPS with everything upped.

As for the CPU, better go with the i5 or i7 from Intel. They have awesome Single Threaded performance which will get you through gaming pretty good. The i7 would perform better than the i5 for BF4 because it is able to utilize the extra power of the extra threads more than 4.

I don't know what specifically your budget is, but looking at $400 budget for just CPU with $300 for GPU. I guess your overall budget is around $1200.

Hence for $1200, this is what you should get. This would be one of the best rig for now :

A word of advice : If possible, then try waiting for the AMD R9-290 with custom coolers by the Graphics Cards manufacturer. The 290 is a very good GPU for $100 cheaper than the 780. Despite being cheaper, it is faster than the 780. Hence if possible, then wait for it, otherwise the 780 is the best choice right now. But I would still suggest waiting for custom R9-290.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($209.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($94.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB Video Card ($498.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Fractal Design Define R4 w/Window (Black Pearl) ATX Mid Tower Case ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1061.91
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 09:51 EST-0500)

I hope this helps.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:54:53 AM

has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable




you should change the motherboard that is not compatible with the fx cpu, get ASUS m5a99fx pro or m5a97
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:57:20 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Well.. if you are looking at any 70 FPS at Ultra then I suggest that you better up your GPU to a Nvidia 780 or wait for the R9-290 with custom coolers to launch.

The 280x would simply not give you Ultra at 70 FPS. It would be like 50 FPS with everything upped.

As for the CPU, better go with the i5 or i7 from Intel. They have awesome Single Threaded performance which will get you through gaming pretty good. The i7 would perform better than the i5 for BF4 because it is able to utilize the extra power of the extra threads more than 4.

I don't know what specifically your budget is, but looking at $400 budget for just CPU with $300 for GPU. I guess your overall budget is around $1200.

Hence for $1200, this is what you should get. This would be one of the best rig for now :

A word of advice : If possible, then try waiting for the AMD R9-290 with custom coolers by the Graphics Cards manufacturer. The 290 is a very good GPU for $100 cheaper than the 780. Despite being cheaper, it is faster than the 780. Hence if possible, then wait for it, otherwise the 780 is the best choice right now. But I would still suggest waiting for custom R9-290.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($209.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($94.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 780 3GB Video Card ($498.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Fractal Design Define R4 w/Window (Black Pearl) ATX Mid Tower Case ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1061.91
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 09:51 EST-0500)

I hope this helps.

Hello Sangeet, how are you? he wants to go with fx-8350 I presume
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 6:57:21 AM

9590 is nothing but just an overclocked 8350 with extreme voltage of 220V and for cooling that you would need a very high end CPU Cooler. Hence the overpriced 9590 is not even an option.

That being said, the 4670k would be my recommendation.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:00:29 AM

I know he might be wanting to go with the 8350. But I would recommend the i5 4670k because of its better Single Threaded performance.

I am a big fan of AMD, but let's face it, when it comes to Single Threaded performance, the 8350 is still 15% behind, hence the reason for me recommending the i5 4670k.

Looking forward to the next gen CPU's from AMD, but as for now, I would suggest him to go to Intel path. They are currently better for gaming right now.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:08:01 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
9590 is nothing but just an overclocked 8350 with extreme voltage of 220V and for cooling that you would need a very high end CPU Cooler. Hence the overpriced 9590 is not even an option.

That being said, the 4670k would be my recommendation.


Sangeet Khatri said:
I know he might be wanting to go with the 8350. But I would recommend the i5 4670k because of its better Single Threaded performance.

I am a big fan of AMD, but let's face it, when it comes to Single Threaded performance, the 8350 is still 15% behind, hence the reason for me recommending the i5 4670k.

Looking forward to the next gen CPU's from AMD, but as for now, I would suggest him to go to Intel path. They are currently better for gaming right now.


And let's face it when it comes to multi-threaded i5-4670k is 15% behind, currently most games are multi-threaded gone are those days of single threaded processing or raw performance, as you can see in bf4 there is no difference between these cpus also you might take a look at these benchmarks
http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi... (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performa... (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/...(crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8...(BF3 )
www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-ghosts-benchmark-cpu-gpu-... (COD ghost Identical performance)
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-... ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-...( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchmark/8/ (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
so where is the superiority in these current AAA tittles?
November 29, 2013 7:08:07 AM

The fx9590 is a bit out of my budget
November 29, 2013 7:11:28 AM

So, should I go with the fx 6300 based on the benchmarks?
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:11:50 AM

thunder0024 said:
The fx9590 is a bit out of my budget


Then FX8350
November 29, 2013 7:16:37 AM

Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


I know the FX 9590 clocks in at 5Ghz it is nothing more than a overclocked FX8350. the FX 9590 at stock speeds requires a decent cooler and overclocking? well you can forget that 5.2Ghz wasn't stable with a Noctua U14S a very high end air cooler couldn't keep the temps down and stable. And for the premium OF $279 it just isn't worth it when a I5 4670K is $70 cheaper and can be overclocked to around 4.8Ghz if we push it would surpass the FX 9590 in gaming. If you want to compare a FX 9590 compare it to a I7 4770K which is $10 more expensive and when overclocked annihilates the AMD counterpart in everything.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:19:01 AM
November 29, 2013 7:21:15 AM

Thank you for all your help, I am probably going with the fx 8350 and the r9 290x
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:24:19 AM

In that case I would go with the i7 4770k, which is the best of both world. It has got better Single Threaded as well as Multi Threaded performance because in last gen games, the Single Threaded performance is still an important factor.

Not that the 8350 is bad, but the 4770k is just a little better when it comes to little older games, so it would be little better on older games than the 8350.

But at the end of the day, it is OP's call. We are here to suggest. Let the OP decide what he is comfortable with.

If you are more comfortable with the 8350, then you should go with the build I suggested, just change the CPU with 8350 and change the Motherboard with Asus M5A99X Pro motherboard. That is a sweet motherboard.

Nvidia 780 will back anything up pretty well, so no worries either way.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:28:33 AM

Anyways if you are going with the R9-290x, then just don't go with the reference model.

Wait for the models with Custom coolers to launch. The reference cooler is very inefficient. Very loud and not so much cool with temps around 90-95 degree Celsius. The GPU can bear the high temperatures, but it increases the heat build up in the case which is not a good thing.

Hence wait for the models with custom coolers from Asus, Gigabyte, EVGA and other manufacturers and then buy the R9-290x. It is a very good GPU. Better than both the 780 and R9-290. Go for it.

I just would not recommend the models with reference coolers. Wait for the best.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 7:29:19 AM

has22fas said:
Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


I know the FX 9590 clocks in at 5Ghz it is nothing more than a overclocked FX8350. the FX 9590 at stock speeds requires a decent cooler and overclocking? well you can forget that 5.2Ghz wasn't stable with a Noctua U14S a very high end air cooler couldn't keep the temps down and stable. And for the premium OF $279 it just isn't worth it when a I5 4670K is $70 cheaper and can be overclocked to around 4.8Ghz if we push it would surpass the FX 9590 in gaming. If you want to compare a FX 9590 compare it to a I7 4770K which is $10 more expensive and when overclocked annihilates the AMD counterpart in everything.


thunder0024 said:
Thank you for all your help, I am probably going with the fx 8350 and the r9 290x


Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate
November 29, 2013 7:57:59 AM

Darkresurrection said:
has22fas said:
Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


I know the FX 9590 clocks in at 5Ghz it is nothing more than a overclocked FX8350. the FX 9590 at stock speeds requires a decent cooler and overclocking? well you can forget that 5.2Ghz wasn't stable with a Noctua U14S a very high end air cooler couldn't keep the temps down and stable. And for the premium OF $279 it just isn't worth it when a I5 4670K is $70 cheaper and can be overclocked to around 4.8Ghz if we push it would surpass the FX 9590 in gaming. If you want to compare a FX 9590 compare it to a I7 4770K which is $10 more expensive and when overclocked annihilates the AMD counterpart in everything.


thunder0024 said:
Thank you for all your help, I am probably going with the fx 8350 and the r9 290x


Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


Sorry but two different GPU's here is STOCK I7 4770K vs AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8Ghz Overclocked. I7 destroys it no contest AMD is good but intel is the better chip no matter what you throw back at me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvsL8YRUCw

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836

a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 8:15:23 AM

has22fas said:
Darkresurrection said:
has22fas said:
Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


I know the FX 9590 clocks in at 5Ghz it is nothing more than a overclocked FX8350. the FX 9590 at stock speeds requires a decent cooler and overclocking? well you can forget that 5.2Ghz wasn't stable with a Noctua U14S a very high end air cooler couldn't keep the temps down and stable. And for the premium OF $279 it just isn't worth it when a I5 4670K is $70 cheaper and can be overclocked to around 4.8Ghz if we push it would surpass the FX 9590 in gaming. If you want to compare a FX 9590 compare it to a I7 4770K which is $10 more expensive and when overclocked annihilates the AMD counterpart in everything.


thunder0024 said:
Thank you for all your help, I am probably going with the fx 8350 and the r9 290x


Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


Sorry but two different GPU's here is STOCK I7 4770K vs AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8Ghz Overclocked. I7 destroys it no contest AMD is good but intel is the better chip no matter what you throw back at me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvsL8YRUCw

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836



we are talking about gaming the reason why I mentioned those two rigs is that they cost the same, my uncle's rig ended up a little bit more expensive than mine, but let's neglect that, my combination destroyed his like it or not, the thing is we have all budgets, 330$ cpu without a decent gpu is trash, the other day one of you team mates was mentioning the same thing that was his rig: i7-4770k, 32GB 2666 and r9-280x!!! it is sad, it is really sad, that advertising companies have managed to gull people to this extent to buy overkill CPU, overkill ram at overkill clock and a mediocre gpu!!! no wonder my fx8350+r9-290 and 8gb ram 1600 will run over his rig in any AAA tittle... my uncle's rig was a failure, and now doesn't matter how hard he will kick himself, he doesn't get the fps I get in games. and once more with games starting to become heavily threaded, like this one http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga...
fx8350=i7 4770k or we might even see crysis 3 scenario fx8350>i7 3770k ... and you might ask yourself twice, why hasn't Ubisoft recommended any i5 for this game!?
November 29, 2013 1:02:49 PM

Darkresurrection said:
has22fas said:
Darkresurrection said:
has22fas said:
Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


I know the FX 9590 clocks in at 5Ghz it is nothing more than a overclocked FX8350. the FX 9590 at stock speeds requires a decent cooler and overclocking? well you can forget that 5.2Ghz wasn't stable with a Noctua U14S a very high end air cooler couldn't keep the temps down and stable. And for the premium OF $279 it just isn't worth it when a I5 4670K is $70 cheaper and can be overclocked to around 4.8Ghz if we push it would surpass the FX 9590 in gaming. If you want to compare a FX 9590 compare it to a I7 4770K which is $10 more expensive and when overclocked annihilates the AMD counterpart in everything.


thunder0024 said:
Thank you for all your help, I am probably going with the fx 8350 and the r9 290x


Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


Sorry but two different GPU's here is STOCK I7 4770K vs AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8Ghz Overclocked. I7 destroys it no contest AMD is good but intel is the better chip no matter what you throw back at me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvsL8YRUCw

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836



we are talking about gaming the reason why I mentioned those two rigs is that they cost the same, my uncle's rig ended up a little bit more expensive than mine, but let's neglect that, my combination destroyed his like it or not, the thing is we have all budgets, 330$ cpu without a decent gpu is trash, the other day one of you team mates was mentioning the same thing that was his rig: i7-4770k, 32GB 2666 and r9-280x!!! it is sad, it is really sad, that advertising companies have managed to gull people to this extent to buy overkill CPU, overkill ram at overkill clock and a mediocre gpu!!! no wonder my fx8350+r9-290 and 8gb ram 1600 will run over his rig in any AAA tittle... my uncle's rig was a failure, and now doesn't matter how hard he will kick himself, he doesn't get the fps I get in games. and once more with games starting to become heavily threaded, like this one http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga...
fx8350=i7 4770k or we might even see crysis 3 scenario fx8350>i7 3770k ... and you might ask yourself twice, why hasn't Ubisoft recommended any i5 for this game!?


The i7 intent is not for gaming purposes it is for multi-threading hence the HT cores. If you want a gaming system the I5 4670K is the better chip and it costs $10 more than the FX8350. The I5 4670K performs same as i7 4770k in games. So if we talk about spending a lot of money its $10 more and at 3.4Ghz vs 4.0Ghz its faster and the fact in can be clocked at 4.5-4.8Ghz and the AMD FX8350 4.5-5Ghz makes the $10 more worth it as the intel will waste any AMD in gaming to date at 4.5Ghz in the majority of games. Unless you prove otherwise debate over. Intel is generations ahead of AMD and thats why it's priced higher.
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2013 1:21:51 PM

Stjohn Russell said:
has22fas said:
For $10 more you can get a I5 4670K for gaming i'd recommend that over a FX-8350. One because it can overclock typically 4.5-5.0Ghz which would put it miles ahead of the FX-8350 in terms of gaming performance. Two because it is more efficient and better at single tasks, and not far off in multitasking which would be unoticeable


An FX 9590 Clocks in 5GHz


Just because it has a high clock speed does not mean its actually any good.

a b à CPUs
November 30, 2013 5:42:51 AM

Quote:
Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


If you are comparing two CPU's then you should use the same GPU. When comparing two CPU's then everything except Motherboard and CPU should be same. Keep that in mind, it is very important to do so in benchmarking CPU's.

You simply cannot use an 8350 with the faster R9-290 and the 4770k with 280x.

You should either test both of them with the 280x or both of them with 290.

With same GPU, the i7 would perform better because it is ahead of the FX 8350 in both Single and Multi Threaded performance. Hence it would naturally be better at gaming whether the game is more towards Single Threaded performance and Multi Threaded performance.

Hence compare both the CPU's with the same GPU or don't compare them at all.
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2013 11:52:10 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Quote:
Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


If you are comparing two CPU's then you should use the same GPU. When comparing two CPU's then everything except Motherboard and CPU should be same. Keep that in mind, it is very important to do so in benchmarking CPU's.

You simply cannot use an 8350 with the faster R9-290 and the 4770k with 280x.

You should either test both of them with the 280x or both of them with 290.

With same GPU, the i7 would perform better because it is ahead of the FX 8350 in both Single and Multi Threaded performance. Hence it would naturally be better at gaming whether the game is more towards Single Threaded performance and Multi Threaded performance.

Hence compare both the CPU's with the same GPU or don't compare them at all.


Both rigs cost the same, the one with i7-4770k cost even more, I compared them in terms of their prices
November 30, 2013 12:17:10 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Sangeet Khatri said:
Quote:
Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


If you are comparing two CPU's then you should use the same GPU. When comparing two CPU's then everything except Motherboard and CPU should be same. Keep that in mind, it is very important to do so in benchmarking CPU's.

You simply cannot use an 8350 with the faster R9-290 and the 4770k with 280x.

You should either test both of them with the 280x or both of them with 290.

With same GPU, the i7 would perform better because it is ahead of the FX 8350 in both Single and Multi Threaded performance. Hence it would naturally be better at gaming whether the game is more towards Single Threaded performance and Multi Threaded performance.

Hence compare both the CPU's with the same GPU or don't compare them at all.


Both rigs cost the same, the one with i7-4770k cost even more, I compared them in terms of their prices


I see you didn't respond to my reply hhahaha
November 30, 2013 12:18:36 PM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Quote:
Good choice your rig will be somehow like mine, but a little bit stronger I have fx 8350+r9-290 my uncle the same day my uncle bought i7-4770k+r9-280, we benched some games, It took us a week, it is worth looking at these benchmarks as well, we benched at 1080p
Metro last Light very high
fx 8350+r9-290= 68.5 fps
i7 4770k+ 280x= 51.8 fps
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+ DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290= 91.6
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.4
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 71.3
crysis 3 high+fxaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 78.4
i7 4770k+ 280x= 58.6
Bioshock Infinite ultra quality+DDoF
fx 8350+r9-290=91
i7 4770k+ 280x=73
Hitman Absoloution
fx 8350+r9-290=79.8
i7 4770k+ 280x=76.2
Grid 2 Maximum quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 106.6
i7-4770k+280x= 91.7
Any how play hard mate


If you are comparing two CPU's then you should use the same GPU. When comparing two CPU's then everything except Motherboard and CPU should be same. Keep that in mind, it is very important to do so in benchmarking CPU's.

You simply cannot use an 8350 with the faster R9-290 and the 4770k with 280x.

You should either test both of them with the 280x or both of them with 290.

With same GPU, the i7 would perform better because it is ahead of the FX 8350 in both Single and Multi Threaded performance. Hence it would naturally be better at gaming whether the game is more towards Single Threaded performance and Multi Threaded performance.

Hence compare both the CPU's with the same GPU or don't compare them at all.


????
Battlefield 3 ultra quality+ 4xmsaa
fx 8350+r9-290= 87.4

My i7/280x system averaged over 100 FPS on BF3, with everything maxed out playing Metro on 64 player server for several full rounds. I was shocked to see such an improvement.

I have an i7 4770k and Gigabyte 280x. For BF4 it runs absolutely smooth as silk under any circumstance with all settings on Ultra/HBAO 4x msaa etc. @1080p.

It took a lot to switch from being a hardcore AMD user to an Intel, and I have to agree with you on the i7. I even started a thread on 8350 > 4770 LOL, was summarily slammed for suggesting it.

I don't pay much attention to so called benchmarks. It is real world in-game testing under the most cpu/gpu intensive playing on full 64 player servers that tell the true story. Originally I had the i5 4670, but the load times even with a SSD were unsatisfactory for my taste; in very intense situations on Operation Locker, the FPS was dropping under 40 and stuttered ever so slightly. I returned for an i7 4770k and it was like adding a supercharger.

Micro Center has the i7 4770k on sale for $250 right now. IMO it is worth every bit of difference in cost, and no overclocking is required. The stock cooler is fine although I am using a Hyper 212 EVO.

The mod may lock this thread because these discussions can be quite heated, but I am one of those that at least tested an i5 vs i7. Benchmarks aside, the i7 all around outperforms, period. How the above compares to the 8350 I'll never know first hand. I'm sure the 8350 runs satisfactorily, and if I had a AM3+ mobo I most certainly would have used a FX instead of building everything new and switching to the i7, but have no regrets making the decision. There just isn't much difference in cost.

Also, when people test they may not take into account the frame rates gained during the time after being killed; it can skew the average FPS by quite a bit. On very long rounds it doesn't change the average a lot if your death rates are low, but still I don't see how a fair comparison can be drawn, much is still subjective. Both rigs need to be tested to achieve apples-to-apples comparisons, and is not easy to do. Multiple tests need to be done to get a truer picture of the hardware performance.
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2013 10:57:32 PM

Quote:
Both rigs cost the same, the one with i7-4770k cost even more, I compared them in terms of their prices


But that does not make the 8350 faster than the i7. Does it?
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 12:38:55 AM

Gentlemen, Intel guys, and whoever did not like my benchmarking two rigs, which exactly cost the same, what is your problem with it we ran tests, here are the results, you might run bf3 on i7 4770k_r9-280x 100fps but where at the metro station where the game starts and ends? other than than you are lying through your teeth, and thank you for teaching me how to benchmark, the benchmarks are done in a semi-symmetrical pattern to minimize any difference and repeated three times to eradicate any possibilities of unwanted errors, so no problem with that. I did not intend to to say fx 8350 is better than i7-4770k or worse than that, it was about a budget which went to waste on the intel side, and the same budget which went for pure performance on all around AMD side, like it or not, this is how it worked for us, FX-8320 is now available for as low as 129$ at www.amazon.com giving identical performance to i5 or i7 in current AAA tittle and giving +60 in almost all old single threaded games, leaves no room to spend more, and in the end I am sure about one thing fx 8350+r9-290> i7-4770k+r9-280x, I can say that twice, so he doesn't need to pay even 250$ to play smoothly 129$ is more than enough. Process this!
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 12:47:39 AM

Darkresurrection said:
Gentleman, Intel guys, and whoever did not like my benchmarking two rigs, which exactly cost the same, what is your problem with it we ran tests, here are the results, you might run bf3 on i7 4770k_r9-280x 100fps but where at the metro station where the game starts and ends? other than than you are lying through your teeth, and thank you for teaching me how to benchmark, the benchmarks are done in a semi-symmetrical pattern to minimize any difference and repeated three times to eradicate any possibilities of unwanted errors, so no problem with that. I did not intend to to say fx 8350 is better than i7-4770k or worse than that, it was about a budget which went to waste on the intel side, and the same budget which went for pure performance on all around AMD side, like it or not, this is how it worked for us, FX-8320 is now available for as low as 129$ at www.amazon.com giving identical performance to i5 or i7 in current AAA tittle and giving +60 in almost all old single threaded games, leaves no room to spend more, and in the end I am sure about one thing fx 8350+r9-290> i7-4770k+r9-280x, I can say that twice, so he doesn't need to pay even 250$ to play smoothly 129$ is more than enough.


Finally some who has some common sense !
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 6:56:39 AM

He asked for the best CPU for BF4. Not for the best CPU+GPU combination for a fixed price.

Because yes, the i7+280x and the 8350+290 costs about the same. But there is a third possible combination for a little higher which is i7+290 which would thrash the two rig.

All I wanted to say is that this is the thread asking about the CPU, hence i7 is the best CPU for BF4. No one asked for the similar priced CPU+GPU Combination. What the OP asked for was the "Best CPU for BF4" and the i7 4770k is the best CPU for BF4 even though it is more expensive.

Am I clear to you?
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 7:05:10 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Quote:
Both rigs cost the same, the one with i7-4770k cost even more, I compared them in terms of their prices


But that does not make the 8350 faster than the i7. Does it?


Sangeet Khatri said:
He asked for the best CPU for BF4. Not for the best CPU+GPU combination for a fixed price.

Because yes, the i7+280x and the 8350+290 costs about the same. But there is a third possible combination for a little higher which is i7+290 which would thrash the two rig.

All I wanted to say is that this is the thread asking about the CPU, hence i7 is the best CPU for BF4. No one asked for the similar priced CPU+GPU Combination. What the OP asked for was the "Best CPU for BF4" and the i7 4770k is the best CPU for BF4 even though it is more expensive.

Am I clear to you?



Couldn't have said it any better my self;)
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 11:44:11 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
He asked for the best CPU for BF4. Not for the best CPU+GPU combination for a fixed price.

Because yes, the i7+280x and the 8350+290 costs about the same. But there is a third possible combination for a little higher which is i7+290 which would thrash the two rig.

All I wanted to say is that this is the thread asking about the CPU, hence i7 is the best CPU for BF4. No one asked for the similar priced CPU+GPU Combination. What the OP asked for was the "Best CPU for BF4" and the i7 4770k is the best CPU for BF4 even though it is more expensive.

Am I clear to you?

Dude I suppose you don't understand, he asked for the best CPU for battlefield 4 and if you look at those benchmarks in multi-player there is no difference between those CPUs, so for price/performance thing FX-8350 was the right and ultimate choice, about your 3rd option, in old games i5 4670k> fx8350 in current games which are moderately threaded i5 4670k=FX 8350 in heavily threaded apps fx 8350 > i5 4670k, so it is preference whether you want your CPU to be strong single threaded or multi threaded, look crysis 3 where FX 8350> i7 3770k a year from now, things will be very different, how many games will be like crysis3!? lots of them, AND FX 8350 has a better 45% price/performance ratio comparing to I7, about the last part of your funny post,excuse me who are you to be clear or not? go catch a play bud! what Intel is better because of compilers it uses in benchmarks!?
''For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.''
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2013 12:19:03 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Sangeet Khatri said:
He asked for the best CPU for BF4. Not for the best CPU+GPU combination for a fixed price.

Because yes, the i7+280x and the 8350+290 costs about the same. But there is a third possible combination for a little higher which is i7+290 which would thrash the two rig.

All I wanted to say is that this is the thread asking about the CPU, hence i7 is the best CPU for BF4. No one asked for the similar priced CPU+GPU Combination. What the OP asked for was the "Best CPU for BF4" and the i7 4770k is the best CPU for BF4 even though it is more expensive.

Am I clear to you?

Dude I suppose you don't understand, he asked for the best CPU for battlefield 4 and if you look at those benchmarks in multi-player there is no difference between those CPUs, so for price/performance thing FX-8350 was the right and ultimate choice, about your 3rd option, in old games i5 4670k> fx8350 in current games which are moderately threaded i5 4670k=FX 8350 in heavily threaded apps fx 8350 > i5 4670k, so it is preference whether you want your CPU to be strong single threaded or multi threaded, look crysis 3 where FX 8350> i7 3770k a year from now, things will be very different, how many games will be like crysis3!? lots of them, AND FX 8350 has a better 45% price/performance ratio comparing to I7, about the last part of your funny post,excuse me who are you to be clear or not? go catch a play bud! what Intel is better because of compilers it uses in benchmarks!?
''For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.''


Wall of text AND silly religious vomit....

Facts are what they are, no whining or religious mumbo jumbo will change it.
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2013 3:35:18 AM

LOL! There was seriously no need of posting that thing from the Bible. This is discussion, not a war. And I have no idea, who Satan is.

There seriously was no need of using that phrase or whatever you Christian guys call it.

And wait.. I am not Evil/Impostor/Slave, etc. You cannot compare me with that. I mean you are taking things way too seriously.
December 2, 2013 11:59:00 AM

Darkresurrection said:
Gentlemen, Intel guys, and whoever did not like my benchmarking two rigs, which exactly cost the same, what is your problem with it we ran tests, here are the results, you might run bf3 on i7 4770k_r9-280x 100fps but where at the metro station where the game starts and ends? other than than you are lying through your teeth, and thank you for teaching me how to benchmark, the benchmarks are done in a semi-symmetrical pattern to minimize any difference and repeated three times to eradicate any possibilities of unwanted errors, so no problem with that. I did not intend to to say fx 8350 is better than i7-4770k or worse than that, it was about a budget which went to waste on the intel side, and the same budget which went for pure performance on all around AMD side, like it or not, this is how it worked for us, FX-8320 is now available for as low as 129$ at www.amazon.com giving identical performance to i5 or i7 in current AAA tittle and giving +60 in almost all old single threaded games, leaves no room to spend more, and in the end I am sure about one thing fx 8350+r9-290> i7-4770k+r9-280x, I can say that twice, so he doesn't need to pay even 250$ to play smoothly 129$ is more than enough. Process this!


The bottom line is you did a worthless test. If you swapped the video cards, reran the tests, then average the averages, it would have more merit. The OP specifically states the GPU is already a r9 280x and only needed the CPU, RAM and mobo, with a $400 budget for the CPU.

There is just no way an 8350 or i5 is going to compete with a i7 4770k under the most stressful situations in real world gaming on BF4 using the same 280x video card, and he definitely won't get 70 FPS with the former. You did not provide him with any useful information.

Again, the settings are:
Ultra
HBAO
2x msaa
1920x1080p

Perhaps you could elaborate on the methodology used to maybe explain the huge difference between my results and yours? Again, keeping the test "semi-symmetrical" is meaningless if the system is not being stressed. Regardless, if you only achieved 71 w/4470k and 280x, then I'll absolutely guarantee it would be significantly less than 71 with an 8350 or i5 using the same settings.
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2013 12:16:38 PM

slimething said:
Darkresurrection said:
Gentlemen, Intel guys, and whoever did not like my benchmarking two rigs, which exactly cost the same, what is your problem with it we ran tests, here are the results, you might run bf3 on i7 4770k_r9-280x 100fps but where at the metro station where the game starts and ends? other than than you are lying through your teeth, and thank you for teaching me how to benchmark, the benchmarks are done in a semi-symmetrical pattern to minimize any difference and repeated three times to eradicate any possibilities of unwanted errors, so no problem with that. I did not intend to to say fx 8350 is better than i7-4770k or worse than that, it was about a budget which went to waste on the intel side, and the same budget which went for pure performance on all around AMD side, like it or not, this is how it worked for us, FX-8320 is now available for as low as 129$ at www.amazon.com giving identical performance to i5 or i7 in current AAA tittle and giving +60 in almost all old single threaded games, leaves no room to spend more, and in the end I am sure about one thing fx 8350+r9-290> i7-4770k+r9-280x, I can say that twice, so he doesn't need to pay even 250$ to play smoothly 129$ is more than enough. Process this!


The bottom line is you did a worthless test. If you swapped the video cards, reran the tests, then average the averages, it would have more merit. The OP specifically states the GPU is already a r9 280x and only needed the CPU, RAM and mobo, with a $400 budget for the CPU.

There is just no way an 8350 or i5 is going to compete with a i7 4770k under the most stressful situations in real world gaming on BF4 using the same 280x video card, and he definitely won't get 70 FPS with the former. You did not provide him with any useful information.

Again, the settings are:
Ultra
HBAO
2x msaa
1920x1080p

Perhaps you could elaborate on the methodology used to maybe explain the huge difference between my results and yours? Again, keeping the test "semi-symmetrical" is meaningless if the system is not being stressed. Regardless, if you only achieved 71 w/4470k and 280x, then I'll absolutely guarantee it would be significantly less than 71 with an 8350 or i5 using the same settings.

About i5 perhaps, but fx 8350 has proved your words wrong in the past in crysis3 for example, there is no doubt FX 8350>i5 4670k in real multi-player in this tittle, according to the benchmark on multiplayer I had posted earlier and before publishing my own benchs, fx 8350=i7 4770k in multiplayer of this tittle, the test I had run was between two systems which cost the same, the r9-290 and fx 8350 was mine and i7-4770k and r9-280x were my uncle's, we ran these tests and came up with these numbers, well we had spent the same amount of money, and did a test, he was proud of his i7, in the end he went back home crestfallen. Also look here, is it worth paying for the i7 really?
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-...
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-...
my methodology aside, you don't want to say you can do it better than these tech sites, any how FX8350, was the ultimate, legit option.
December 2, 2013 1:28:07 PM

Darkresurrection said:
slimething said:
Darkresurrection said:
Gentlemen, Intel guys, and whoever did not like my benchmarking two rigs, which exactly cost the same, what is your problem with it we ran tests, here are the results, you might run bf3 on i7 4770k_r9-280x 100fps but where at the metro station where the game starts and ends? other than than you are lying through your teeth, and thank you for teaching me how to benchmark, the benchmarks are done in a semi-symmetrical pattern to minimize any difference and repeated three times to eradicate any possibilities of unwanted errors, so no problem with that. I did not intend to to say fx 8350 is better than i7-4770k or worse than that, it was about a budget which went to waste on the intel side, and the same budget which went for pure performance on all around AMD side, like it or not, this is how it worked for us, FX-8320 is now available for as low as 129$ at www.amazon.com giving identical performance to i5 or i7 in current AAA tittle and giving +60 in almost all old single threaded games, leaves no room to spend more, and in the end I am sure about one thing fx 8350+r9-290> i7-4770k+r9-280x, I can say that twice, so he doesn't need to pay even 250$ to play smoothly 129$ is more than enough. Process this!


The bottom line is you did a worthless test. If you swapped the video cards, reran the tests, then average the averages, it would have more merit. The OP specifically states the GPU is already a r9 280x and only needed the CPU, RAM and mobo, with a $400 budget for the CPU.

There is just no way an 8350 or i5 is going to compete with a i7 4770k under the most stressful situations in real world gaming on BF4 using the same 280x video card, and he definitely won't get 70 FPS with the former. You did not provide him with any useful information.

Again, the settings are:
Ultra
HBAO
2x msaa
1920x1080p

Perhaps you could elaborate on the methodology used to maybe explain the huge difference between my results and yours? Again, keeping the test "semi-symmetrical" is meaningless if the system is not being stressed. Regardless, if you only achieved 71 w/4470k and 280x, then I'll absolutely guarantee it would be significantly less than 71 with an 8350 or i5 using the same settings.

About i5 perhaps, but fx 8350 has proved your words wrong in the past in crysis3 for example, there is no doubt FX 8350>i5 4670k in real multi-player in this tittle, according to the benchmark on multiplayer I had posted earlier and before publishing my own benchs, fx 8350=i7 4770k in multiplayer of this tittle, the test I had run was between two systems which cost the same, the r9-290 and fx 8350 was mine and i7-4770k and r9-280x were my uncle's, we ran these tests and came up with these numbers, well we had spent the same amount of money, and did a test, he was proud of his i7, in the end he went back home crestfallen. Also look here, is it worth paying for the i7 really?
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-...
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-...
my methodology aside, you don't want to say you can do it better than these tech sites, any how FX8350, was the ultimate, legit option.


Is the op playing 1440 res? The vast majority play 1080p, but yes, I do think their test results are bunk.

Tech sites? How do they run tests? Run around a map for a few minutes in single player and call it a day? Pick multiplayer maps at random? How do they perform their tests? I wouldn't call my method better or worse than theirs because they don't go into detail how they did their tests! If they did not stress the cpu/gpu to the extremes encountered in the game, then no, they aren't all that tekky and I don't trust their results. In reality it takes several hours of real time playing on multiplayer servers always attempting to stress the cpu/gpu.

I don't do video tests for a living, but understand how tests can skew results depending how they are done as I do statistical testing for a living on machine reliability. Why I see so called benchmarks, the red flags go up. My original setup had an i5, but I found the low FPS lag annoying even though the "average" was pretty good. The i7 bumped it up a few notches; no more low FPS lag.

You still did not provide one bit of useful information for the OP.

On testing BF4 I found this at Hardcop.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4...

Quote:
In Battlefield 4 , we selected the Siege of Shanghai as our map for testing after spending a few days getting familiar with the 10 different multiplayer maps within the game. Siege of Shanghai is presented as a large conquest map with up to 64 players able to be connected at one time. The map provides a good representation of all of the eye candy that can be found throughout the game, including devolution of the sky scraper, water effects, tight city streets, and of course plenty of tanks.

For our testing procedures, we searched for a server with at least 60 players in a match and where the ping was under 50ms for a server located within 600 miles of the Underground Bunker. Prior to launching each setting change, we would confirm that it is configured in a running server, exit the game and then reload the map to confirm that the settings were correctly applied. (There are instances that the in-game setting changes do not take effect if you do not reload the map so this is something to be informed of if you are doing your own testing.)

We then played within the server performing various tasks, including capturing flags, blowing up tanks, and causing general mayhem as part of the team that we were placed on. We recorded the frame rates via FRAPS for five minutes for presentation below, even though we spent significantly more time playing at each graphical setting. Keep in mind that because this is a multiplayer map where the actions of the other 63 players can be unpredictable, it is very difficult to look at a single FPS graph and discern the gameplay experience in the multiplayer environment. Performance or lack thereof truly has be determined through many hours of play with the various cards.


They at least understand the difficulty in real world testing.

Spot the problem in their results. A 280x gets lower FPS avg than 270x or GTX 760? Puhleeze. See the problem?


A test run with higher resolution than your linked source, but with a 290x:


Hmm.

Tonight I will play Shanghai and see if it agrees with their results using the exact same settings for 1080p. Maybe I am overlooking a video setting and that's why my results are always so much higher, but a simple swap from the i5 to i7 sure improved gameplay.
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2013 2:10:01 PM

Well Intel guys I wish you made up your minds, when I run my test you disagree with them, when i post benchs run by tech authorities you say what is this? you should have run the tests yourself, you keep nagging that well you didn't guide the OP well. Well, this is because you expected me to lie and say buy i7 or buy i5, BULLSHIT, I will never tell lies to make you happy, bf4 is an AMD tittle fx 8350> i7 4770k in this tittle, like it or not, look at this from the same site
''DICE wasn’t lying when they said that optimization for the FX 6300 and FX 4300 will be finished by launch. The FX 6300 an FX 4300 perform excellently, from a 50%-500% performance increase compared to the Beta.'' and look at the benchs again and compare fx 6350 and i7-4770k
December 2, 2013 5:29:24 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Well Intel guys I wish you made up your minds, when I run my test you disagree with them, when i post benchs run by tech authorities you say what is this? you should have run the tests yourself, you keep nagging that well you didn't guide the OP well. Well, this is because you expected me to lie and say buy i7 or buy i5, BULLSHIT, I will never tell lies to make you happy, bf4 is an AMD tittle fx 8350> i7 4770k in this tittle, like it or not, look at this from the same site
''DICE wasn’t lying when they said that optimization for the FX 6300 and FX 4300 will be finished by launch. The FX 6300 an FX 4300 perform excellently, from a 50%-500% performance increase compared to the Beta.'' and look at the benchs again and compare fx 6350 and i7-4770k


Don't know what to tell you. EA may have been paid well to say AMD cpu's run better, but reality is what it is. The OP wanted the "best" cpu for under $400.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...


This probably isn't fair, but did EA/AMD know this before the official release and PR?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2345491&pa...


Here's another test run by Hardocp, this time with much different results:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4...


Tonight I played Shanghai, same settings. My results are:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
169910, 2427016, 32, 133, 70.008

The author of the article in Hardocp appears to be correct that Shanghai can be quite taxing on cpu/gpu, more so than Operation Locker. My min FPS was 32, likely at a point with multiple explosions from tanks/choppers etc. (which I purposely seek out), yet the avg FPS >70 and it played smooth for the entire round. Until I see a stock clocked 8350 w/280x matching 65 or better under the same conditions and settings, it is just wishful thinking the 8350 is > 4770k.

No need to get mad and imply others are lying. I was on the other side of the fence for many years. In fact, I even started a thread asking the question http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1831947/amd-core-p... If I could have upgraded instead of new, it would be an 8350, but after experiencing the OVERALL performance differences, which includes load times ect., I came to the conclusion not to settle for good 'nuff and made the switch to Intel.

Good luck in your future benchmarking adventures comparing apples to oranges, and keep in mind I'm always suspicious of benchmarks than can have an element of subjectivity involved, bias confirmation and incorrect or ambiguous methodology, which includes the above graphs.

The 8350 is perfectly adequate and suited for BF4, AMD at this time just doesn't have a superior solution to Intel. Maybe the next gen will, who knows.

a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 1:25:18 AM

slimething said:
Darkresurrection said:
Well Intel guys I wish you made up your minds, when I run my test you disagree with them, when i post benchs run by tech authorities you say what is this? you should have run the tests yourself, you keep nagging that well you didn't guide the OP well. Well, this is because you expected me to lie and say buy i7 or buy i5, BULLSHIT, I will never tell lies to make you happy, bf4 is an AMD tittle fx 8350> i7 4770k in this tittle, like it or not, look at this from the same site
''DICE wasn’t lying when they said that optimization for the FX 6300 and FX 4300 will be finished by launch. The FX 6300 an FX 4300 perform excellently, from a 50%-500% performance increase compared to the Beta.'' and look at the benchs again and compare fx 6350 and i7-4770k


Don't know what to tell you. EA may have been paid well to say AMD cpu's run better, but reality is what it is. The OP wanted the "best" cpu for under $400.

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...


This probably isn't fair, but did EA/AMD know this before the official release and PR?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2345491&pa...


Here's another test run by Hardocp, this time with much different results:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4...


Tonight I played Shanghai, same settings. My results are:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
169910, 2427016, 32, 133, 70.008

The author of the article in Hardocp appears to be correct that Shanghai can be quite taxing on cpu/gpu, more so than Operation Locker. My min FPS was 32, likely at a point with multiple explosions from tanks/choppers etc. (which I purposely seek out), yet the avg FPS >70 and it played smooth for the entire round. Until I see a stock clocked 8350 w/280x matching 65 or better under the same conditions and settings, it is just wishful thinking the 8350 is > 4770k.

No need to get mad and imply others are lying. I was on the other side of the fence for many years. In fact, I even started a thread asking the question http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1831947/amd-core-p... If I could have upgraded instead of new, it would be an 8350, but after experiencing the OVERALL performance differences, which includes load times ect., I came to the conclusion not to settle for good 'nuff and made the switch to Intel.

Good luck in your future benchmarking adventures comparing apples to oranges, and keep in mind I'm always suspicious of benchmarks than can have an element of subjectivity involved, bias confirmation and incorrect or ambiguous methodology, which includes the above graphs.

The 8350 is perfectly adequate and suited for BF4, AMD at this time just doesn't have a superior solution to Intel. Maybe the next gen will, who knows.



:lol:  now that's why I say some guys don't know shit and, spit out bullshit, Do you live in poland!? well much to your surprise i am polish, pclab.pl doesn't run benchmarks, show q kid one bullshit from that site and even the kid and the kid will laugh at your face, let's apply some logic to it to see whether this bullshit makes any sense, 1.first of all that benchmark is the beta benchmark, not the final product benchmark, and as you can see hardwarepal, states 50% performance boost for fx 6350 in the final product 2.because I am polish and you are not lemme help a little bit to see this web site's non beta benchmark to laugh a little bit at your own post http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html as you can see this funny site says i7 4770k+gtx 780>>> i7 4770k+r9-290x :lol:  seriously!? in an AMD tittle!? so here that jok of yours about pclab.pl is dismissed, well you were unlucky I was polish, pclab.pl sells Intel,Nvidia parts in poland now we go down the second Russain website This web site is a nutritious for publishing funny jokes in eastern Europe, forexample in need for speed rival test which is capped to run at 30fps on personal computers according to all tech sites, the russian site publishes funny numbers like 60fps for i5-4670k+gtx 680, now let's face the big picture about bf4 only in this russian website I used google translate so that everyone can witness the mess this website has made here, open this website and follow me, http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?dept...
* The very first benchmark at this website reads 1920x1080p max quality no AA Asus ARES+ I7 3970X= average fps 119 , minimum fps 91 right!?
* look at the second chart it says which reads 1920x1080p max quality 4xmsaa Asus ARES+ I7 3970X= average fps 97, minimum fps 76
now scroll down to the CPU test,
* in the cpu test chart, testing at maximum quality setting at 1920x1080p it says Asus ARES+ I7 3970X= average fps 128, minimum fps:99fps!!!!! funny the last result rejects the previous ones
my friend you are very unlucky I am from eastern Europe I can bring milions of incidents about these two funny sites, first of all bf4 is not CPU intensive in single player campaign, so the whole joke from the russian web site is really ridiculous, which claims it has run the game in single player campaign
*http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
and in multiplayer capaign fx 8350> i5-4670k, fx 8350=i7 4770k or even better, what we chose for bf4 for was the best, legit option to choose, and we did it. I told you, you won't make make tell lies here, if you told any, I would show everyone that you are lying.
From Techspot, '' the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors.'' you can't disagree with techspot at least, this web site really loves Intel
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 7:52:21 AM

Someone just said that "BF4 is an AMD Title"

Well... I would like to correct him. It is not with CPU's. It has everything to do with GPU but Nothing with CPU.

AMD Graphics Cards would run BF4 better than Nvidia, but the same thing does not apply on PC's. At the end of the day it is the combination of the Single and Multi Threaded performance where the i7 would have advantage over the 8350 due to its superior Single as well as Multi Threaded performance.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 11:29:43 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Someone just said that "BF4 is an AMD Title"

Well... I would like to correct him. It is not with CPU's. It has everything to do with GPU but Nothing with CPU.

AMD Graphics Cards would run BF4 better than Nvidia, but the same thing does not apply on PC's. At the end of the day it is the combination of the Single and Multi Threaded performance where the i7 would have advantage over the 8350 due to its superior Single as well as Multi Threaded performance.


Well thank you for acknowledging pclab.pl's joke, which says i7 4770k+gtx 780 is better than i7 4770k+r9-290x and for the second part of your saying, DICE optimized the game for AMD 6 cores, and look all these websites say the optimization was done for AMD CPUs and GPUs, you don't need to speak when you are not sure
*http://www.gameskinny.com/94dgq/ea-says-optimization-fo...
*http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/battlefield-4-pc-will-b...
*http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Rumor-AMD-Gets...
Therew are 10 other websites which reject your claims, so well you are wrong and DX 8350> I7 4770K, even techspot, which is Intel's best lover admits this, From Techspot, '' the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors.'' so what do you say!? :lol: 
Well sorry Intel guys I know it hurts but it is true, so keep posting nonsense
December 14, 2013 2:42:25 PM

Darkresurrection said:
Well Intel guys I wish you made up your minds, when I run my test you disagree with them, when i post benchs run by tech authorities you say what is this? you should have run the tests yourself, you keep nagging that well you didn't guide the OP well. Well, this is because you expected me to lie and say buy i7 or buy i5, BULLSHIT, I will never tell lies to make you happy, bf4 is an AMD tittle fx 8350> i7 4770k in this tittle, like it or not, look at this from the same site
''DICE wasn’t lying when they said that optimization for the FX 6300 and FX 4300 will be finished by launch. The FX 6300 an FX 4300 perform excellently, from a 50%-500% performance increase compared to the Beta.'' and look at the benchs again and compare fx 6350 and i7-4770k


Darkresurrection said:
Sangeet Khatri said:
Someone just said that "BF4 is an AMD Title"

Well... I would like to correct him. It is not with CPU's. It has everything to do with GPU but Nothing with CPU.

AMD Graphics Cards would run BF4 better than Nvidia, but the same thing does not apply on PC's. At the end of the day it is the combination of the Single and Multi Threaded performance where the i7 would have advantage over the 8350 due to its superior Single as well as Multi Threaded performance.


Well thank you for acknowledging pclab.pl's joke, which says i7 4770k+gtx 780 is better than i7 4770k+r9-290x and for the second part of your saying, DICE optimized the game for AMD 6 cores, and look all these websites say the optimization was done for AMD CPUs and GPUs, you don't need to speak when you are not sure
*http://www.gameskinny.com/94dgq/ea-says-optimization-fo...
*http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/battlefield-4-pc-will-b...
*http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Rumor-AMD-Gets...
Therew are 10 other websites which reject your claims, so well you are wrong and DX 8350> I7 4770K, even techspot, which is Intel's best lover admits this, From Techspot, '' the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors.'' so what do you say!? :lol: 
Well sorry Intel guys I know it hurts but it is true, so keep posting nonsense


Quote:
so what do you say!? :lol: 


I'd say $8 MILLION buys a lot of PR for AMD.

I never said the 8350 wasn't a good cpu, but the 4770k still outclasses it and the lights don't dim when oc'ing. One gripe I always had with an AMD processor is the heat they put out. Still the best bang for the buck IMO, but if all out performance is what the OP is after, sorry to admit it, but Intel still chews them up. No amount of money paid to advertise fairy tales can change that.





a b à CPUs
December 14, 2013 9:52:55 PM

Conclusion : Intel is more powerful but it also costs more money. If you are okay with it, then it is the Intel route, but if it is expensive for you, then opt for an AMD FX 8320 (if you are overclocking) or 8350 instead.
!