Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

amd fx 8350 vs i5 4440 for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 6, 2014 11:36:23 AM

ok the two procesors are the same price so witch one is better for gaming pls help

More about : amd 8350 4440 gaming

a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 6, 2014 11:38:23 AM

The I5 unless you are going to overclock the FX8350.
February 6, 2014 11:40:48 AM

rolli59 said:
The I5 unless you are going to overclock the FX8350.


not really im not into oc thing i just putt the cpu in and rock
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 6, 2014 11:43:15 AM

In that case I would go with the I5 on a H87 chip set board.
February 6, 2014 11:46:27 AM

rolli59 said:
In that case I would go with the I5 on a H87 chip set board.


h87 are litle expensive can it do its work with like h81 or b85
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2014 11:47:14 AM

i5 would be great other than in games that are better optimized for AMD chips. look into the games you play the most and see what architecture they favor. good luck

b85 will be fine if no OC
February 6, 2014 11:48:53 AM

NormH said:
i5 would be great other than in games that are better optimized for AMD chips. look into the games you play the most and see wha architecture they favor. good luck


what do u mean games that are optimized for amd chips how do i know that
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2014 11:53:01 AM

Depends on the games you are playing

Graphically intensive games with new game engines that can use all available cores run better on the AMD
BF3
BF4
Crysis3
and probably every highly detailed new game

The i5 would be better in older games/game engines like starcraft and skyrim
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2014 11:54:40 AM

google what architecture does battlefield 4 favor. or insert the game of your choice. some prefer amd, some prefer intel, and some run the same on both. whichever brand your favorite games fall into more get that one.
February 6, 2014 12:01:47 PM

Outlander_04 said:
Depends on the games you are playing

Graphically intensive games with new game engines that can use all available cores run better on the AMD
BF3
BF4
Crysis3
and probably every highly detailed new game

The i5 would be better in older games/game engines like starcraft and skyrim


yea bf3 bf4 but what is the fps dfierence in bf4 betwean 8350 and i5 4440
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2014 12:07:42 PM

honestly if you get the i5 it'll consume much less power, thus you can get a smaller power supply, with that money saved get a better gpu,ssd, or step up to the K version haswell so you can overclock with a z87 board. Intel is technically better, much better in single threaded stuff.

see if you can find an ivy bridge xeon cpu and you could save money with a cheapish ivy bridge mobo..that way you get hyperthreading 8 threads. Or take a look at a used 2500k.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2014 12:10:42 PM

WhiteSnake91 said:
honestly if you get the i5 it'll consume much less power, thus you can get a smaller power supply, with that money saved get a better gpu,ssd, or step up to the K version haswell so you can overclock with a z87 board. Intel is technically better, much better in single threaded stuff.

see if you can find an ivy bridge xeon cpu and you could save money with a cheapish ivy bridge mobo..that way you get hyperthreading 8 threads. Or take a look at a used 2500k.


he said he has no desire to OC so his is useless advice. i agree that intel can outperform a less watts but purely on bang for buck processor power is similar and if no OC its really 50-50 on which card is better in which game
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2014 3:59:32 PM

WhiteSnake91 said:
honestly if you get the i5 it'll consume much less power, thus you can get a smaller power supply, with that money saved get a better gpu,ssd, or step up to the K version haswell so you can overclock with a z87 board. Intel is technically better, much better in single threaded stuff.

see if you can find an ivy bridge xeon cpu and you could save money with a cheapish ivy bridge mobo..that way you get hyperthreading 8 threads. Or take a look at a used 2500k.


Not really, no

The total power cost difference between the two would amount to about $15 a year .

And if you have a thermostat controlling the heat in your home then maybe half the year that waste heat of the computer is going to be useful and reducing heating costs .

And when you start streaming , or playing online with 64 other players the AMD shines

a b 4 Gaming
a c 371 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2014 4:20:05 PM

OP, which graphics card do you have?

Since you're not overclocking the i5 4440 would suit you better. It won't struggle with any modern game or in the near future. Generally, your gaming experience is going to be dictated by the strength of your GPU.
February 6, 2014 4:20:35 PM

The i5 any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2014 6:25:52 PM

You're going to have to overclock AMD to match intel performance and he said he didn't want to. For cheap hell he could get the 6300/8320 and clock it high but he doesn't want to. The i5 won't struggle in anything at all, whereas the weak cores of the AMD will, what GPU will you even be pairing it with OP? If the GPU isn't that strong anyway you might save some money with the 6300/8320 anyway

I also doubt a computer is going to heat up a whole house enough...my bro's hotter a10 5800k sure doesn't...
February 6, 2014 8:54:08 PM

WhiteSnake91 said:
You're going to have to overclock AMD to match intel performance and he said he didn't want to. For cheap hell he could get the 6300/8320 and clock it high but he doesn't want to. The i5 won't struggle in anything at all, whereas the weak cores of the AMD will, what GPU will you even be pairing it with OP? If the GPU isn't that strong anyway you might save some money with the 6300/8320 anyway

I also doubt a computer is going to heat up a whole house enough...my bro's hotter a10 5800k sure doesn't...


well im planing to get hd 7950 or r9 280x
February 7, 2014 5:29:38 AM

rolli59 said:


Really lacking there is gaming benchmarks with wast majority of games single threaded the I5 has the win and very few if any games support more than 4 threads.Here is another comparison with some games at the bottom and I used I5 3470 since the 4440 was not available http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=702


i heard that intel is gona refresh their haswell cpus this year
February 7, 2014 5:29:56 AM

rolli59 said:


Really lacking there is gaming benchmarks with wast majority of games single threaded the I5 has the win and very few if any games support more than 4 threads.Here is another comparison with some games at the bottom and I used I5 3470 since the 4440 was not available http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=702


i heard that intel is gona refresh their haswell cpus this year
a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 7, 2014 5:32:40 AM

There is supposed to be Haswell refresh before they release Broadwell at the end of the year.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 371 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 8:56:40 AM

Brian Jhonson said:
rolli59 said:


Really lacking there is gaming benchmarks with wast majority of games single threaded the I5 has the win and very few if any games support more than 4 threads.Here is another comparison with some games at the bottom and I used I5 3470 since the 4440 was not available http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=702


i heard that intel is gona refresh their haswell cpus this year


Most likely. However it's possible that they will only refresh the mobile ones. Moreover the refresh could be something as simple as similar chips with a slightly bumped clockspeed.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 1:02:11 PM

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

$190 processor performing as well as those that cost more than twice as much .........

The total cpu power will not be a huge issue for pure game performance with either AMD or intel .

What will happen is that when you add extra tasks , like streaming , then the AMD has the reserves of cores and will keep higher frame rates . What else surprises me is the number of "experts " who have never actually used or build with AMD FX .

And thanks to AMD making 8 core processors for XBOX and PS4 any game that is designed for the consoles will have an engine capable of using the extra threading

a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 1:16:44 PM

Outlander_04 said:
Depends on the games you are playing

Graphically intensive games with new game engines that can use all available cores run better on the AMD
BF3
BF4
Crysis3
and probably every highly detailed new game


I haven't seen benchmarks/tests corroborating that. Intel Core i5 does well in games that are either heavily multi-threaded or lightly threaded. AMD's 8 cores simply allow it to keep up with Core i5 on games that need many threads, but on lightly threaded but CPU-intensive games, AMD FX can even be slightly behind. The fact that Core i5 has "only" 4 cores does not need to handicap it on applications that use more than four threads since Intel's architecture completes more instructions per cycle. It's like transporting your goods with four big trucks or eight small trucks. AMD gives you more smaller trucks. The price-performance is quite similar. AMD chips need a lot more power, specially overclocked. So you need more robust power supply, but you can make up for the cost difference with buying something like FX 8320.
February 7, 2014 1:30:53 PM

Outlander_04 said:
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

$190 processor performing as well as those that cost more than twice as much .........

The total cpu power will not be a huge issue for pure game performance with either AMD or intel .

What will happen is that when you add extra tasks , like streaming , then the AMD has the reserves of cores and will keep higher frame rates . What else surprises me is the number of "experts " who have never actually used or build with AMD FX .

And thanks to AMD making 8 core processors for XBOX and PS4 any game that is designed for the consoles will have an engine capable of using the extra threading



That benchmark is for singleplayer, which is very different from the multiplayer experience. That Core i3 for instance will not be getting anywhere near an average 95 fps on BF4 mutliplayer. Neither will the Fx-6350.

Many big time streamers use the i5 4670k as well, so that clearly isn't an issue.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 1:31:49 PM

An 8 core AMD processor doesnt have 8 discreet cores . It has 4 , and each of those has the integer unit split in two so they can run seperate tasks .
The my core is stronger than your core argument is pure bunk since an AMD core is not the same thing as an intel core .

What is important, when the software can handle it, is the total math ability of a processor . Here the AMD is totally competitive and always has been with intel core processors .

What else is imprtant is that those 4 big intel trucks might be running at 40% load in a game . The AMD can run four "cores"at 70% to get the same result and it still has 4 free cores to run your network , firewall , AV etc etc etc .
Benchmarks on clean unloaded computers tell you virtually nothing . Yes theyre the benchmarking industries standard presentation .

And even then most are paid for by the sponsorship of intel one way or another . This site is a perfect example . It has a huge intel bias
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 1:59:00 PM

I have a soft spot in my heart for the old Phenom II 965 AMD , but you can't honestly tell me that in pure performance that AMD will beat Intel, it's just not, and 99% of people that know their stuff would agree with that as well as the majority of the internet. At best they can match an intel once you heavily overclock them, which again the OP said he didn't want to do, which would require a good mobo and power supply and will cost more on the power bill too, so actually intel is cheaper in the end since it costs less on the power bill.

tell me that an 8350 does as good as an i5 in Starcraft 2, in Skyrim,etc that requires good single thread performance. It's sad that the 8350 has to take 8 cores to match intel's 4.....maybe with the consoles using 8 core cpu AMD can catch up but I really wouldn't stake on it too much, at best they'll just match intel.

The OP could probably find a xeon and cheaper but decent mobo and PSU like Corsair builder 430w and get an even better pc for possibly cheaper than an i5 goes for.
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 2:17:44 PM

I know the OP said he did't want to OC, but really, most of the "better" branded mobo's like Asus and Gigabyte come with OC software + bios etc where its really as simple as a "one click turbo power my computer please!" That being said, I believe the choice shouldn't be as much about whether its AMD or Intel, but more about the budget as compared to what the OP wants it for. Does it need multiple PCI-E x16 or x1, PCI slots, USB3 or 2, how many fan headers etc and all that jazz. Once you find the acceptable choice in mobo..... the choice of Intel or AMD cpu is a no brainer. Or so I figure anyways
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 2:20:00 PM

Thats not the case at all Whitesnake . Almost all the comparative benchmarking online between intel and AMD was deeply flawed and you cannot conclude the intel is better .
Two reasons :
Most benchmarks were run at low resolution or details or both . Totally pointless since a monitor runs at 60 Hz . This is the same as 60 fps and its as fast as a conventional monitor can ever run . Turning down resolution so an intel chip runs a game at 120 fps and saying its better than an AMD which made 90fps is meaningless to the end user .
Both systems will be displaying 60 fps for the end user .
In benchmarks where the detail is high and the resolution high and the game engine capable of running all available threads then the AMD has always been more than competitive . Often finishing ahead of the intel .

The second reason you have mentioned yourself . Why would anyone bench mark a processor using old DX9 game engines like Skyrim uses? That will just give you a skewed result . No one is building a gaming pc today to play Skyrim .
And the reason they are not is that even the supposedly weaker AMD build will be smashing through the 60 fps barrier and running the monitor at its max speed . You'd build for game engines like BF4 and you'd always have more than enough skyrim performance anyway
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 4:07:56 PM

Outlander_04 said:
An 8 core AMD processor doesnt have 8 discreet cores . It has 4 , and each of those has the integer unit split in two so they can run seperate tasks .
The my core is stronger than your core argument is pure bunk since an AMD core is not the same thing as an intel core .



Actually, AMD CPUs contain modules, and each module presents two logical cores. In fact, the module has two integer cores, not one integer core that has been "split into two". The FX modules do share some facilities between the two cores such as the floating point unit. Based on this, the FX module seems almost like a true dual core CPU if all you run is integer operations, but the floating point unit shared. So an FX module is somewhere mid-way between a dual-core CPU and a single core with hyperthreading, depending on the tasks. Regardless, the core count doesn't mean anything without knowing the performance per cycle, and we know Intel does better in this area.


What is important, when the software can handle it, is the total math ability of a processor . Here the AMD is totally competitive and always has been with intel core processors .

What else is imprtant is that those 4 big intel trucks might be running at 40% load in a game . The AMD can run four "cores"at 70% to get the same result and it still has 4 free cores to run your network , firewall , AV etc etc etc .

said:

What is important, when the software can handle it, is the total math ability of a processor . Here the AMD is totally competitive and always has been with intel core processors .

What else is imprtant is that those 4 big intel trucks might be running at 40% load in a game . The AMD can run four "cores"at 70% to get the same result and it still has 4 free cores to run your network , firewall , AV etc etc etc .



I disagree with your assessment that you need dedicated cores for every CPU intensive task, such as firewall, AV, etc. There there is little evidence for this, really. If your game does not bog down the cores its running on, then other software can run just fine on the same cores. If the game does bog down the cores it can use, then other software can benefit from additional cores. But think about it, if your game is bogging down the cores it can use, that means this this game could benefit from faster cores. AMD loses under this scenario. In fact, a lot of older and even some newer operating systems can bog down if you give them twice as many slower cores. Look up the concept of the giant lock. Concurrency has always been hard to manage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_lock

And also look up the Amdahl's law. In fact, a game that spawns 4, 20, whatever threads can still be bogged down by a slow individual core performance if it happens that a single thread is being bottle-necked by a slow core, while the rest threads have to do little work and most of the time wait for the bogged down thread to finish its job. It's not like the developer can always say "let's just split all work equally between 8 threads all the time". Some algorithms are just too hard to parallelize.

And by the way, network, AV, etc do not take a lot of CPU power. Most of the time AV does nothing except for passively monitoring the operating system calls and such. When you download a large file or do a similar operation, then AV will inspect it, but that's not something that's happening in the middle of running game a lot. Games themselves are highly optimized to use little bandwidth, and firewalls are also quite easy on CPU. It's not like you're going to be playing games on a computer that acts as a router and a firewall for a large network.





a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 4:23:43 PM

Outlander_04 said:
Thats not the case at all Whitesnake . Almost all the comparative benchmarking online between intel and AMD was deeply flawed and you cannot conclude the intel is better .


I am not sure where you get this idea. Most of the recent articles I have seen over here or anandtech or similar web site used 1080p. I have seen a few benchmarks involving 720p, but that's when testing very slow hardware such as the integrated GPUs.


Totally pointless since a monitor runs at 60 Hz . This is the same as 60 fps and its as fast as a conventional monitor can ever run . Turning down resolution so an intel chip runs a game at 120 fps and saying its better than an AMD which made 90fps is meaningless to the end user .
said:

Totally pointless since a monitor runs at 60 Hz . This is the same as 60 fps and its as fast as a conventional monitor can ever run . Turning down resolution so an intel chip runs a game at 120 fps and saying its better than an AMD which made 90fps is meaningless to the end user .


Absolutely not pointless. If the game runs at 60FPS average, it CAN bog down to like 30FPS on a regular basis in a massive multilayer game or when various effects are present. On the other hand, if the game can run 90FPS average or more, I known I can easily set maximum FPS at say 65 and then enjoy a very smooth game play with FPS rarely dipping below 60.
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 4:52:33 PM

Brian Jhonson said:
rolli59 said:
The I5 unless you are going to overclock the FX8350.


not really im not into oc thing i just putt the cpu in and rock

Honestly, the 8350 is so easy to overclock; don't be afraid to dive in and overclock!!! AMD intended these chips for that purpose. Its fun and you would learn a lot in the process.

With that said, the i5 is the route to go if your set on not overclocking.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 5:11:26 PM

jacobian said:


I am not sure where you get this idea. Most of the recent articles I have seen over here or anandtech or similar web site used 1080p. I have seen a few benchmarks involving 720p, but that's when testing very slow hardware .


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts...
December 2013 . Tomshardware turns down the resolution so they can show a difference in performance between FX and intel


Other cpu based tests like the one I linked earlier and again now
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
Show no noticeable variation between intels top sockt 2011 cpu's , current i/ i5's and FX
In that case the cheapest one that get the job done is the best one . And thats FX
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 7, 2014 5:19:26 PM

12630252,0,1541334

I disagree with your assessment that you need dedicated cores for every CPU intensive task, such as firewall, AV, etc. There there is little evidence for this, really. If your game does not bog down the cores its running on, then other software can run just fine on the same cores. If the game does bog down the cores it can use, then other software can benefit from additional cores



[/quotemsg said:


Im well aware of the architecture of FX processors . Im also aware that each module serves the same function as an intel core . Fetch decode etc etc. Im also aware that the integer cores which are much smaller and have fewer transistors than intels cannot stand alone .
As I said earlier to compare the core to core performance when they are not the same thing is a bit pointless .

And if you had followed AMD along this design path you'd know the engineers were creating what was essentially hardware hyperthreading . One core , with two integer units . Probably the marketing people decided to sell this as an octocore

What you dont seem to understand about an i5 core is that it can run exactly one process at a time . Just one . It doesnt matter if that process loads the core to 1% or 100 % . Only one will run at one time .
The i5 runs out of available cores/threads a lot sooner than the AMD

a b à CPUs
February 7, 2014 10:57:25 PM

Outlander_04 said:

What you dont seem to understand about an i5 core is that it can run exactly one process at a time . Just one . It doesnt matter if that process loads the core to 1% or 100 % . Only one will run at one time .
The i5 runs out of available cores/threads a lot sooner than the AMD



This statement doesn't seem to make any sense. One thread per processor? In 2014? Seriously? A web server could spawn 60 or more threads/processes on a single-CPU server 15 years ago but today you think one thread will lock other processes from using a core? In fact, you can run a multi-threaded or multi-process application on a single-core CPU, no problem. Different instruction streams simply take turns as scheduled by the operating system. A single thread does not even "bind" itself to the specific core unless you make it so. Multiple threads simply means that a lot of instructions can execute in parallel, but on which core they execute, the OS will decide that. You have 8 threads and only two cores? No problem. The OS will execute two instructions at a time, from two different threads, and the instructions from two threads processes will simply take turns at utilizing the CPU cores.

I also don't get your concept of "hardware hyperthreading". Is Intel hyperthreading not done in hardware? There is actually "software hyperthreading" somewhere? Seriously?



a b à CPUs
February 8, 2014 12:42:53 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Thats not the case at all Whitesnake . Almost all the comparative benchmarking online between intel and AMD was deeply flawed and you cannot conclude the intel is better .
Two reasons :
Most benchmarks were run at low resolution or details or both . Totally pointless since a monitor runs at 60 Hz . This is the same as 60 fps and its as fast as a conventional monitor can ever run . Turning down resolution so an intel chip runs a game at 120 fps and saying its better than an AMD which made 90fps is meaningless to the end user .
Both systems will be displaying 60 fps for the end user .
In benchmarks where the detail is high and the resolution high and the game engine capable of running all available threads then the AMD has always been more than competitive . Often finishing ahead of the intel .

The second reason you have mentioned yourself . Why would anyone bench mark a processor using old DX9 game engines like Skyrim uses? That will just give you a skewed result . No one is building a gaming pc today to play Skyrim .
And the reason they are not is that even the supposedly weaker AMD build will be smashing through the 60 fps barrier and running the monitor at its max speed . You'd build for game engines like BF4 and you'd always have more than enough skyrim performance anyway


Wow....

Well if you are testing the cpu you want it to do the work no? hence the settings where the limiting factor is.... the cpu.

60hz monitor:

lock fps to 30, 60, 90, 120. If you honestly think there is no visible difference over 60fps you have a shit system not capable of doing so.

Higher fps = less input lag and lower frame times + less time spent under 60fps = better experience.



a b 4 Gaming
a c 371 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2014 7:33:27 AM

maxalge said:
Outlander_04 said:
Thats not the case at all Whitesnake . Almost all the comparative benchmarking online between intel and AMD was deeply flawed and you cannot conclude the intel is better .
Two reasons :
Most benchmarks were run at low resolution or details or both . Totally pointless since a monitor runs at 60 Hz . This is the same as 60 fps and its as fast as a conventional monitor can ever run . Turning down resolution so an intel chip runs a game at 120 fps and saying its better than an AMD which made 90fps is meaningless to the end user .
Both systems will be displaying 60 fps for the end user .
In benchmarks where the detail is high and the resolution high and the game engine capable of running all available threads then the AMD has always been more than competitive . Often finishing ahead of the intel .

The second reason you have mentioned yourself . Why would anyone bench mark a processor using old DX9 game engines like Skyrim uses? That will just give you a skewed result . No one is building a gaming pc today to play Skyrim .
And the reason they are not is that even the supposedly weaker AMD build will be smashing through the 60 fps barrier and running the monitor at its max speed . You'd build for game engines like BF4 and you'd always have more than enough skyrim performance anyway


Wow....

Well if you are testing the cpu you want it to do the work no? hence the settings where the limiting factor is.... the cpu.

60hz monitor:

lock fps to 30, 60, 90, 120. If you honestly think there is no visible difference over 60fps you have a shit system not capable of doing so.

Higher fps = less input lag and lower frame times + less time spent under 60fps = better experience.





I don't think that's the point he was making. I believe he was saying that the benchmarks mean nothing to the end user since they're not going to be using those settings regardless, real-world settings of 1920x1080 at various graphics settings may be more useful. I agree though that it does make the CPU do the work and technically tests it, but there's really no real-world application other than benchmarks and e-peens.

I maintain that for the OP the intel is the better choice, it's more of a plug and play experience in many cases with no need (but then again, no possibility) for overclocking. The fact is that in current games intel's i5 lineup does outperform AMD's FX lineup.

This question has once again gotten far out of hand I believe most of the information being given will mean less to the OP. IMO, in this case, Intel > AMD.
February 8, 2014 7:44:07 AM

if you are a heavy gamer and want to play next gen games the fx 8350 is the best choice .

if you play old games like skyrim then the i5

fx 8350 is for games like bf4 , metro last light , watch dogs etc
a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 8, 2014 7:45:33 AM

I agree with JOOK-D So does this hardware site http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o... and any other respectable site since currently Intel is simply better. Roles were reversed many years ago when Intel was stuck on Netburst and AMD was the performance king with Athlon 64 X2 and its FX variants but since then they have simply been chasing Intel and for us gamers the future is not that great if they are just going to concentrate on APU's! http://www.techpowerup.com/195355/vishera-end-of-the-li...
February 8, 2014 8:19:21 AM

intel i5 for old games
a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 8, 2014 8:20:12 AM

Intel I5 for all games!
February 8, 2014 8:35:56 AM

rolli59 said:
Intel I5 for all games!


This.
February 8, 2014 8:43:25 AM

Let's stop this silliness about the FX lineup being better for next gen mutlithreaded games. Here is someone rocking the i5 4440 on BF4, 64 player, on high settings...getting an average 80-90fps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nrUaV5Z3A

And that's while recording.

You are not going to find a video of an FX-8350 performing any better than that. Basically, Intel's quad core i5 lineup will perform the same as the top tier FX chip in better multithreaded games, and better than it in games that make use of less cores. It can do everything the FX can, and more. AND it has an actual upgrade path...unlike the FX-8350 which is the best you're ever going to install on that motherboard.

The fanboyism surrounding AMD right now is just ridiculous. When AMD has produced superior products, I've gone that route. But right now, Intel is stomping them. So go Intel now, and if AMD produces something better in the next few years, jump on board with that. The blind brand loyalty is just dumb.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 371 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2014 8:54:40 AM

VenBaja said:
Let's stop this silliness about the FX lineup being better for next gen mutlithreaded games. Here is someone rocking the i5 4440 on BF4, 64 player, on ULTRA settings...getting an average 80-90fps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nrUaV5Z3A

And that's while recording.

You are not going to find a video of an FX-8350 performing any better than that. Basically, Intel's quad core i5 lineup will perform the same as the top tier FX chip in better multithreaded games, and better than it in games that make use of less cores. It can do everything the FX can, and more. AND it has an actual upgrade path...unlike the FX-8350 which is the best you're ever going to install on that motherboard.

The fanboyism surrounding AMD right now is just ridiculous. When AMD has produced superior products, I've gone that route. But right now, Intel is stomping them. So go Intel now, and if AMD produces something better in the next few years, jump on board with that. The blind brand loyalty is just dumb.


I agree with you.

Though I feel I need to point out that that person was on high settings and using shadowplay to record, before someone uses that as a criticism to your points. :lol:  On a side note, shadowplay looks awesome, might have to switch to nvidia...
February 8, 2014 9:03:30 AM

JOOK-D said:
VenBaja said:
Let's stop this silliness about the FX lineup being better for next gen mutlithreaded games. Here is someone rocking the i5 4440 on BF4, 64 player, on ULTRA settings...getting an average 80-90fps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4nrUaV5Z3A

And that's while recording.

You are not going to find a video of an FX-8350 performing any better than that. Basically, Intel's quad core i5 lineup will perform the same as the top tier FX chip in better multithreaded games, and better than it in games that make use of less cores. It can do everything the FX can, and more. AND it has an actual upgrade path...unlike the FX-8350 which is the best you're ever going to install on that motherboard.

The fanboyism surrounding AMD right now is just ridiculous. When AMD has produced superior products, I've gone that route. But right now, Intel is stomping them. So go Intel now, and if AMD produces something better in the next few years, jump on board with that. The blind brand loyalty is just dumb.


I agree with you.

Though I feel I need to point out that that person was on high settings and using shadowplay to record, before someone uses that as a criticism to your points. :lol:  On a side note, shadowplay looks awesome, might have to switch to nvidia...


Yeah I had to go back and edit it to say "high" settings. Not that it really matters though, as that's the GPU's monkey. And shadowplay does look awesome! The next card I get will probably be from Nvidia just so I can get that free recorder.
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 8, 2014 12:51:59 PM

My point is largely as Jook-D outlined

Buying an FX or i5 will make little difference to the user experience for most gamers. In part this because of the technology limitations existing in computer systems . In part its because in some situations intel is better, and in others because AMD have the edge .

The intel fanboy mantra that you have to buy an intel is mindless and ill informed .
Few who repeat such things even have any experience with AMD .
If they did they would know that what they are saying is simply not true
a c 257 4 Gaming
a c 787 à CPUs
a c 301 À AMD
February 8, 2014 1:00:34 PM

Outlander_04 said:
My point is largely as Jook-D outlined

Buying an FX or i5 will make little difference to the user experience for most gamers. In part this because of the technology limitations existing in computer systems . In part its because in some situations intel is better, and in others because AMD have the edge .

The intel fanboy mantra that you have to buy an intel is mindless and ill informed .
Few who repeat such things even have any experience with AMD .
If they did they would know that what they are saying is simply not true


Nothing wrong with either but since OP is not going to overclock the FX then the I5 is simply better than the FX for more or less the same price!
What gets me is everybodies prediction that the FX is going to be better for new and future games!
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2014 1:13:05 PM

rolli59 said:
Outlander_04 said:
My point is largely as Jook-D outlined

Buying an FX or i5 will make little difference to the user experience for most gamers. In part this because of the technology limitations existing in computer systems . In part its because in some situations intel is better, and in others because AMD have the edge .

The intel fanboy mantra that you have to buy an intel is mindless and ill informed .
Few who repeat such things even have any experience with AMD .
If they did they would know that what they are saying is simply not true


Nothing wrong with either but since OP is not going to overclock the FX then the I5 is simply better than the FX for more or less the same price!
What gets me is everybodies prediction that the FX is going to be better for new and future games!

To be fair, its not a bad prediction/assumption. Game developers code for consoles first, and since both the Xbox One and PS4 are built around AMD 8-core cpus, its not that bold of a claim.
!