Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD is getting better than INTEL ???? Future GAMING ******************

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 4, 2014 2:13:39 AM

So, as you might have heard that AMD FX8350 comes with 8 core !!which is good for movie editing and modeling
where as Intel i5 4670K has 4 core !! and is good for gaming

the main fact is that the present games don't require more than 4 core and the single core performance of FX is lower than I5 that is why I5 is better in gaming ..

but if you look at the future , you will see that more demanding games will be developed such as crysis 3 and need for speed

my question is that should i buy I5 or FX
i want my computer to manage next 5 years !!
and Fx is lower in prize

looking at the future i think there will be more games that require more than 4 core

IS FX really better choice for the future
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 2:19:46 AM

got the money go x79 best of both worlds, thats why their expensive, and most likely the next series after maxwell i think skylake is going to have a 6 core i7 in its z87ish line up whatever they are going to call it. as for your issue i would go with 4770k as the games that will support more than 4 cores will by then probably support hyper threading to imo
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 2:21:50 AM

The fx 83xx does have 8 cores, but they are weaker cores than intel cores. Either option is good for gaming currently
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 93 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 2:22:53 AM

Piledriver is in no way more future-proof than any haswell I5s
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 2:24:38 AM

crysis 3 is released for over a year.
the fx has 8 cores but it has nearly half the preformance of a intel core and higher power consumption.
you are getting what you are paying for.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 2:28:07 AM

I would personally get the i5. The FX chips single threaded performance is pathetic, even the Phenom II CPUs are stronger clock by clock, and while AMD only widened the gap between their products and Intel's in single threaded performance, Intel has been closing in, in heavily threaded performance quite rapidly. Also the K series i5 can be overclocked in the future in case you needed to squeeze more juice out of it.

JOHNN93: Haswell is about 47% faster in single threading, so it is more like the FX cores have 2/3 the performance of an Intel Haswell core i5.
Share
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 2:42:56 AM

Technically the FX 8000 series have 4X1.5 cores so what ever that is
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 116 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 2:49:56 AM

lol the fx is a 4 module cpu not an 8 core. yes it has 8 compute cores but shares 4 float units between them. which means it has a similar overall functionality as an intel quad with hyperthreading and thats where you should make the comparison.

also make comparisons on clock for clock basis because the fx runs faster by default just to keep up. the difference between the 2 architectures is such that you can drop down from the 4670 to the 2600k and because of the 2600k's hyper threading it will keep up and punish the 8350 in most scenarios not just gaming. where the fx does get a win it scrapes it but when the intel gets a win the margin is often pretty decent.

this reasoning is why intels still cost more even though they run slower out the box, there just more efficient generally.
if your on a budget then you cant go wrong with an fx 8350 as it will perform very well but if you can afford the intel you will get the same work done faster in most cases for less power usage, less waste heat and quieter operating.

in the future amd may well steal a lead but its not gonna be with the current fx lineup. why? because amd dont seem to be afraid to try something new. they were the first to implement x86 and hammered intel with there athons back in 2002-2005 the same could very well happen again if intel dont pull there thumbs out and give us innovation rather than iteration.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 3:51:11 AM

if you look at thief benchmarks, a game that was released a couple of days ago for pc and consoles, all of the benchmarks show intel beating amd even the i3 beats the fx-8350, i always see people saying 8 cores is the future because consoles use 8 cores but that doesn't seem right after seeing many benchmarks, here are thief benchmarks







m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 3:53:29 AM

pc 1 said:
if you look at thief benchmarks, a game that was released a couple of days ago for pc and consoles, all of the benchmarks show intel beating amd even the i3 beats the fx-8350, i always see people saying 8 cores is the future because consoles use 8 cores but that doesn't seem right after seeing many benchmarks, here are thief benchmarks









HAHAHA... thats like getting your a$$ kicked by your sister while your friends are watching
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 4:25:50 AM

:lol:  Has this question ever been asked before?

You get what you pay for, simple as that, and for myself AMD would have to have a major historical upset to ever get me to spend another penny of my money on AMD anything!

And that's being said by a past AMD fan!

However, IMO, AMD has let me down with all their claims that turned into useless dribble, and has lost a loyal customer!

Now if in the future somehow AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat, I may reconsider, but for what's available now?

It will be a cold day in Hell before AMD gets my money!

I like the performance Intel is delivering, simple as that! :) 
m
0
l
March 4, 2014 4:49:59 AM

this solves everything !!

Core I5 is much better than FX-8350

yeah , you guy opened my eyes ! LOL
i was counting the core numbers
and i was not counting the performance "games"

ok that is it
i Will buy a Core I5 this month

but WHICH ONE ??
is Intel i5 4670K a good choice
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 4:50:14 AM

It is obvious that the game is not well optimized to run on more than 4 cores/threads as illustrated by the fact that a hyper threaded hexa core i7 delivers the same performance as a Quad core i5 Intel. Simply put the game is not optimized for AMD platforms with higher cores/thread count. That is actually more of the developers mistake. AMD compete quite well in better multi threaded titles. But since it is not certain whether more other titles in the future would be optimizing higher than 4 threads efficiently, Intel is the right choice right now.
m
0
l
March 4, 2014 4:56:14 AM

4Ryan6 said:
:lol:  Has this question ever been asked before?

You get what you pay for, simple as that, and for myself AMD would have to have a major historical upset to ever get me to spend another penny of my money on AMD anything!

And that's being said by a past AMD fan!

However, IMO, AMD has let me down with all their claims that turned into useless dribble, and has lost a loyal customer!

Now if in the future somehow AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat, I may reconsider, but for what's available now?

It will be a cold day in Hell before AMD gets my money!

I like the performance Intel is delivering, simple as that! :) 


Same sentiments here. I owned an Athlon XP all the way up through the 8350. The 8350 even running at near 9590 speeds just couldn't keep any modern gpu fed on most of the games I play. I'm not going to drop $400 on a gpu just to have it hamstrung at 70% by my "octo core" Amd cpu.

Switched to a 3570k, oveclocked it to 4.3 on stock voltage and never looked back. Heck, even added another gpu and it happily keeps both at 85% usage or better all the damn time.
m
0
l
March 4, 2014 5:59:28 AM

Are there any chances that mordern games will need more than 4 core ??
May be in 2016 ??
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 380 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2014 6:07:11 AM

It's hard to tell, it's up to the developers. They're not going to make them NEED 8 core processors due to the fact that something like 80% of PC users have quad cores, so that wouldn't make sense.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 6:07:29 AM

Hitman_4761 said:
is Intel i5 4670K a good choice


Of course it is, and at this point in technological history it's the best option for you Futurewise, it'll run what's out there today and what's coming tomorrow, and can be nicely overclocked as long as you have a good after market cooling solution for it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 93 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 6:07:38 AM

It is not about the number of cores, unless it is specifically optimize for that.

Haswell really have some potential if optimize correctly, and I believe intel will follow that path, which could mean that all haswell processors could bring out more processing power if developers start using massive AVX2 SIMD arrays.(1 example)

If developers is going to start utilizing the newer instructions sets supported by haswell, haswell could actually get much much betetr performance, we are talking about 30-60% is certain applications over ivy-bridge. NOTE: But my guesses would be that it would remain rather untouched on gaming.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 6:17:56 AM

Hitman_4761 said:
Are there any chances that mordern games will need more than 4 core ??
May be in 2016 ??


Before that becomes a real concern, you'll probably be already upgraded to a platform past what you're asking about now, hardware has far surpassed softwares ability to take advantage of what's already here.

Even with CPUs sporting hyper threading capabilities allowing illusionary split core use allowing the false illusion of doubling your cores, when in some games it doesn't add any performance gains at all, and it some games and applications it actually hurts performance.

You originally asked about Crysis3 being coming? but Crysis3 is old news, and gaming is actually going to be more critical with the GPU you game with.

There's your next question!?

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 6:45:57 AM

ewok93 said:
It's hard to tell, it's up to the developers. They're not going to make them NEED 8 core processors due to the fact that something like 80% of PC users have quad cores, so that wouldn't make sense.


Its far less than that even, I think Steam said that around 50% are still on dual cores.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 93 à CPUs
March 4, 2014 6:50:05 AM

Games would need to be optimized for weak 8 cores, to actually have a benefit over an I5.
Game-developers wont do that, future applications would require more and stronger cores, and that is no where the near future we are talking alot of years ahead.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 6:56:13 AM

Dual cores are VERY common, i3's/pentiums are common and not to mention dual core celerons floating about.

Core count really is not relative to gaming performance, I mean look at the FX-4100/4300 they are quad core and get trashed by the i3 4130 which is a dual core.

In terms of future proof it's a whole NOBODY KNOWS. Future proofing questions are some of the hardest to answer.

Whenever you buy a piece of tech keep in mind in 2-3 years it may be outdated, it lasts you longer be proud.

My mum has been using an old single core pentium for about 10years.

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 7:49:26 AM

Weaker cores or not, if is is not well multi-threaded going with a higher core count won't improve performance regardless of the platform. The charts above prove that, even for Intel processors. On the other hand a well-multi threaded title will show real difference in performance when running on a 6/8 core chip whether from Intel or AMD.

i3-4130 is a 4 threads processor with the same FPU count as the two FX quad chips which are older and are/were priced lower than their i3 SB/IB counterparts.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2014 8:05:37 AM

Quote:
but if you look at the future , you will see that more demanding games will be developed such as crysis 3 and need for speed


both which run faster on Intel, even though they scale, because of Intel's stronger cores.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 380 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2014 10:43:28 AM

Sorry, I meant of gamers. One large company probably has about 500 people using similar computers, most likely with dual cores. Schools often provide students with laptops with dual cores, but these are not for gaming. There isn't much future proofing with CPUs as by the time games have progressed to using more cores, you'll want a new CPU anyway. Get what is best NOW for what you need. If you're playing games that run just as well on an 8320 as an i7 like BF4 and Crysis 3 can, get that and save some money. More realistically, if you're playing an assortment of games, some that run awfully on an 8320 and really well on an i5, get an i5. Just get what you need.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 738 à CPUs
a c 135 À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2014 10:47:56 AM

Crysis 3 definitely does like the HT of an i7. If not wanting to overclock, I say Xeon 1230 v3 with a less expensive B85 of H87 board. The price difference between it and the 4670k, with z87 board, would be quite similar if not a bit cheaper due to board price differences. \

Edit*- Looking at prices, the 4670k seems to have gone up. The 1230v3 solution would be cheaper. Even if you wanted to do a multicard setup, which would require z87, there is only like $10 difference between the two CPU's right now.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($244.30 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H87 Pro4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($93.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $338.28
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-04 13:51 EST-0500)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($234.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($129.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $364.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-04 13:51 EST-0500)
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 380 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2014 10:49:37 AM

I'm not sure why I thought of Crysis 3. The i7 is much better than the 8320 there. But my point is, get what you need.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 738 à CPUs
a c 135 À AMD
a b å Intel
March 4, 2014 10:54:51 AM

I would only recommend the FX 8320, if your budget dictated it, to allow for a better GPU. Otherwise, 4670k if you want to overclock, Xeon 1230 v3 if you don't.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 4, 2014 1:20:46 PM

+1 to logain.

The simple fact is AMD can only compete on price, not on performance except in specific scenarios.
I don't mind that AMD compete on price as it keeps the market healthy.

Right now for gamers the 4670K is the king of the market, though it's cousin the xeon 1230 v3 is also up there with the recent price changes. The 4770k and 4930K etc are all a bit excessive for gaming right now in my opinion but for streaming/rendering very good.

The FX-8 series do have redeeming qualities in that when streaming It's been noted they can keep up with i5's and to an extent i7's.

If I had the choice of FX-8350 or i5 4670K the 4670K wins 100% of time UNLESS it meant I had to purchase other parts that are weaker to get the i5.

even then i'd ignore the 8350 and get the 8320.
m
0
l
March 11, 2014 7:37:17 AM

can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 738 à CPUs
a c 135 À AMD
a b å Intel
March 11, 2014 7:41:45 AM

You can pick up OEM sandy bridge chips for around that price. :p 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2014 7:50:09 AM

GObonzo said:
can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.


Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...
m
0
l
March 11, 2014 8:31:59 AM

RobCrezz said:
GObonzo said:
can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.


Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...


The other thing to remember is that everyone has different limits on what they're willing/able to spend. For me, spending an extra $100 on a better CPU is not a big deal. It's still well within my budget. Some people can't or don't want to spend money on the better Intel options, and some just want the best, no matter what the cost.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2014 9:04:03 AM

VenBaja said:
RobCrezz said:
GObonzo said:
can keep posting the same "dribble" over an over people. as long as I'm getting 50+fps for half the price, in every new game out there, i'm sticking with FX8350. show me this awesome i5/i7 running 60fps in everything and that cost ~$170 and i may think to change over.


Initial outlay might be higher, but look at the longevity. I bought my 2500k back in 2011 and it still capable of playing all games at high fps with a good enough GPU. The AMD option was the Phenom II which now most are having to upgrade to play the latest games...

In the long run, the Intel option might be cheaper...


The other thing to remember is that everyone has different limits on what they're willing/able to spend. For me, spending an extra $100 on a better CPU is not a big deal. It's still well within my budget. Some people can't or don't want to spend money on the better Intel options, and some just want the best, no matter what the cost.


Yeah, you are right. I was just pointing out that sometimes a little more initial outlay can be cheaper in the long run (although not always).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 11, 2014 9:37:10 AM

i don't get this arguement on initial outlay.

You can get an i5 locked + $50mobo that can outperform the 8350 + more costly mobo

If I had more money I would have gone Intel...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2014 9:58:33 AM

gamerk316 said:
Quote:
but if you look at the future , you will see that more demanding games will be developed such as crysis 3 and need for speed


both which run faster on Intel, even though they scale, because of Intel's stronger cores.


AshyCFC said:
i don't get this arguement on initial outlay.

You can get an i5 locked + $50mobo that can outperform the 8350 + more costly mobo

If I had more money I would have gone Intel...


May I ask what do you have right now and why are you displeased with it?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2014 10:31:13 AM

pc 1 said:
if you look at thief benchmarks, a game that was released a couple of days ago for pc and consoles, all of the benchmarks show intel beating amd even the i3 beats the fx-8350, i always see people saying 8 cores is the future because consoles use 8 cores but that doesn't seem right after seeing many benchmarks, here are thief benchmarks









To be honest those benchmarks will be irrelevant this month.. see for yourself. I think the OP poses a VERY good question. The gaming environment is changing. With OpenGL and DirectX also saying that they're moving to closer to hardware support we could see Mantle-like effects across the board in all new games.

Don't be too surprised if the FX-8350 overtakes the i7-4770K in Thief sometime this month.

http://techreport.com/news/26080/thief-wont-support-man...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2014 10:45:53 AM

With mantle support what would really matter is the GPU not the CPU. If he has a GPU with mantle support then he may notice performance improvement regardless of the platform he is using (AMD/Intel), probably more with the AMD CPU, for which the game is not properly scaled.
m
0
l
March 12, 2014 1:36:11 AM

Compare a $180 CPU to a $600-$1000 CPU and say that the $180 CPU is crap its shit..definitely true, against a $600 and above CPU its gotta be crap since you are paying so much money not for wasting it, you pay for performance.
Better would be to compare $180 AMD CPU to an intel CPU of same or similar price (tolerance of $5 may-be).

The FX 8-core CPUs do perform very good in gaming, though not as good as the i7 (that's a minimum of $350, double of FX-8350 so expect a double performance from an i7 as compared to an FX-8350). But if you're told to buy a CPU+MB and a budget of $350 then you wouldn't get anything better than FX-8 cores.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 93 à CPUs
March 12, 2014 1:45:46 AM

When did anyone compare a $180 CPU to a $600-1000 CPU?
You wont get double performance going form a fx 8350 to a 4770k

Thsi $350 would be better than the fx 8 core in gaming. (We are not looking into coolers, GPUS and all that)
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($119.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $349.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-03-12 04:43 EDT-0400)
m
0
l
March 12, 2014 2:58:17 AM

Against an FX-8 core CPU the only Intel CPU that I would go would be any i7, I personally won't prefer to downgrade from an 8-core to a quad-core, performance of 4670k is just slightly better than 8350 in most cases, but in many other cases 8350 is better by a better margin. Also, isn't it good to have extra cores so that you can efficiently do multitasking and multi-threaded workloads.

I don't know about others but I will not buy FX-8xxx if I don't want a great MT performance, if I want great performance at or less than 4-threads then definitely it's 4670k, else it is FX-8350 or any of the Haswell i7 processor.

And I guess OP said future gaming which means using as many threads as available, so FX-8xxx or i7.
And to the one who said that why would developers optimize for more threads if majority of the people have quads, answer is performance, they'll do it for performance.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 93 à CPUs
March 12, 2014 3:10:23 AM

A 4670k is just as future-proof as a fx 8350.

developers wont develop games for performance.

Developers will try to get the biggest playerbase(Get as many people to be able to play with reasonable FPS and quality, meaning you will have to optimize it for the general computer).

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 97 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 12, 2014 6:46:15 AM

Vmn is right devs want dollar $$$s as for what I own anewg it's an fx-8320 and I like it.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 116 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 13, 2014 9:19:51 AM

imran27 said:
Against an FX-8 core CPU the only Intel CPU that I would go would be any i7, I personally won't prefer to downgrade from an 8-core to a quad-core, performance of 4670k is just slightly better than 8350 in most cases, but in many other cases 8350 is better by a better margin. Also, isn't it good to have extra cores so that you can efficiently do multitasking and multi-threaded workloads.

I don't know about others but I will not buy FX-8xxx if I don't want a great MT performance, if I want great performance at or less than 4-threads then definitely it's 4670k, else it is FX-8350 or any of the Haswell i7 processor.

And I guess OP said future gaming which means using as many threads as available, so FX-8xxx or i7.
And to the one who said that why would developers optimize for more threads if majority of the people have quads, answer is performance, they'll do it for performance.
when you gonna get it through your head. the fx cpu's are 4 moudule cpu's not 8 core. they have 8 compute cores but only 4 fp units which makes them no better than a quad core hyperthreading cpu. the 2600k fairs very well against the 8350 cpu as it has hyperthreading so no it doesnt have to be an i7 haswell...


m
0
l
!