AMD 8320 Piledriver vs Intel i5 3450 with GTX 760

VirgilDSG · Apr 18, 2014

I am making a new gaming PC.
I have searched a lot and found that i5 3450 is better at single core work and in gaming compare to AMD 8320 but none of the results shows with a dedicated card.
And I think i5 3450's on board GPU wont work together with the dedicated card. Am I right?
Which processor is better for gaming when put with a dedicated card.

Other info -
Ram - 1*8GB
GPU - GTX 760
HDD - WD 2TB
PSU - Corsair 550W
Mobo and Processor undecided.

unknownofprob · Apr 18, 2014

intel quad core cpu's wreck amd cpu's, I would get the i5 3450 with the GTX 760 all the way.

You can't get the iGPU with the GTX 760 working together but running separately.

schau314 · Apr 18, 2014

I personally feel that unless you already have a motherboard an i5-4570,4430, or 4570 are better choices if buying new. Otherwise if you already have a motherboard an i5-3550p is usually cheap and has no integrated graphics to deal with.

VirgilDSG · Apr 18, 2014

unknownofprob :

I saw few benchmarks comparing these 2 CPUs. I saw that AMD 8320 wrecks Intel i5 3450 in applications which uses multicores. And 3450 wrecks 8320 in gaming. My concern is gaming but aren't Intel doing better in games cause it got a GPU on board? And as I am putting GTX 760 with it[iGPU & GTX 760 will not work together], will it still gonna wreck AMD 8320 in games?

VirgilDSG · Apr 18, 2014

schau314 :

I haven't purchased a Motherboard yet. 4th Gen processors are lil costly than 3450. But its ok to go with a newer Gen for lil more bucks. But question is still remain. As Intel's on board GPU does not work with a dedicated card will it still beat AMD's 8320 8 core 3.5Ghz Piledriver Processor while gaming?

schau314 · Apr 18, 2014

Heres a comparsion of the 8320 and the i5-3570k non overclocked for both. The i5 mentioned is a little better but this will help decide pros and cons.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701
Also heres a discusiion about it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1694765/amd-8320-intel-core-3570k.html

VirgilDSG · Apr 19, 2014

schau314 :

Thanks for the help.
The games AnadTech used to compare benchmarks doesn't require a mid-high end GPU. And it doesn't listed on which motherboard, Ram, HDD etc. the test have made. So my guess its made on same kind of hardwares. And no external GPU used for both the devices. Thats why Intel give better FPS than AMD. I like to play Crysis 3, Assassin's Creed 4, Battlefield 4 and etc high end modern games.
That discussion helps a lot but its kinda 1 year old. I can get i5 4440 at i5 3450's price atm.
My core question is which one is the winner between -
"i5 4440[HD 4600 wont work here] + GTX 760 vs AMD 8320 Piledriver + GTX 760"

unknownofprob · Apr 20, 2014

This option;

"i5 4440[HD 4600 wont work here] + GTX 760"

VirgilDSG · Apr 20, 2014

unknownofprob :

Thanks for your answer. Can you tell me how do you come to this solution? Eager to know the walkthrough!

unknownofprob · Apr 20, 2014

intel CPU's take the lead over AMD, though AMD have the cores. there cores aren't as powerful as an intel core, but with 8, that's quite a bit but also useless as that is way too much. Intel CPU's have the outright lead in gaming, and with other tasks too. Both with a GTX 760, just points to the i5 4440.

wh3resmycar · Apr 20, 2014

i'm using an i5-3450 and a 650 ti boost. once you go dedicated gpu (dGPU) you can forget about the integrated one iGPU. but there are motherboards where there are solutions that you can use intel quick sync (for video transcoding) if need be.

but to answer your main questions i'm willing to bet an arm and a leg that i5 3450 is better in gaming than an fx8320 (google benchmarks)

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

wow so much intel fans in here saying stuff they no nothing about...

the FX-8320 is a monster i own one and it's just as fast as a i7-3770 once overclocked to 4.6ghz. In the recent games that use 4 core or more this CPU is competing and beat even the core i5-4670k, so there is no way the i5-3450 is faster except for old games (or new games built on old game engine) that use only 1 or 2 heavy threads like skyrim for example...in games like BF4 and Crysis 3 that use more threads (more core) the FX CPU's are way up there with the core i7, oh and BTW FX-8320 and FX-8350 are the exact same chip but the 8320 is clocked slightly slower, but these chips are all unlocked so they overclock in 15 seconds...i would recommand the 8320 to anybody it's also much cheaper...also for the future most games that will be developped for PS4 and XBone and then be ported to PC will be codded to make good use of the 8 core jaguar CPU in those console, so they should run much better on a PC with an 8 core CPU...

Now, no need to post old reviews done on windoes 7 showing skyrim ran at low resolution to highlight the better IPC of intel CPU's, as i said single-threaded games is about to be a thing of the past and windows 8 greatly improved the threads management of the 8 core cpu's...if you link any benchmarks to go against mine make sure you are linking modern games tested under windows 8...

benchmarks :

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_China_Rising_-test-bf_4_proz.jpg

http://splashurl.com/oo6ced5[/img]

unknownofprob · Apr 21, 2014

Nothing about.....Well, I can almost bet the OP will be bundling the FX 8320 with a 970 chipset, making OC utterly useless as with that chipset, Overclocking is a nightmare with the 970 chipset and with an 8 core, CPU, only makes things worse. 4.6Ghz, dude, most cpu coolers can't handle the temps of the 8320 at it's stock speed! OC on AMD Processors is not as good as people think, they can become unstable with marginal overclocks, and depending on the motherboard, the voltage output may limit OC so far. I still recommend the i5 4440, as it does still have a small room of OC, but not a lot as it's not unlocked. For gaming, it in fact will do better, despite what other people show in specs.

Anything you want to add?

wh3resmycar · Apr 21, 2014

i lol at the resolution that screenshot came from 1024x768...

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

unknownofprob :

Wrong AGAIN,

here's what i'm using :

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($151.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $261.95
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-21 00:33 EDT-0400)

This 970 chipset motherboard (gigabyte 970a-UD3P)feature an 8+2 digital power phase and high quality VRM's and mosfets and it overclocks my CPU very well, earlier tonight i had my CPU stable at 4.75ghz to run benchmarks on this and when i play battlefield 4 at 4.6ghz my temps never go any higher than 47c recorded in HWinfo with only this 29$ cheap cooler...so all you say again is fan boy claims that you heard somehwere probably in here and you took for granted, but nothing you say is correct...sorry

And BTW those benchmarks of the FX-8350 are done at the stock clock speed of 4.0ghz...just imagine what results this chip gets at 4.6 or 4.8ghz for example (the gains from overclocking is HUGE on an 8 core CPU when all 8 cores are utilised by an application.)

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

wh3resmycar :

Any CPU benchmark as to be run at low resolution otherwise you are testing the GPU, to test the CPU you have to take the load off the GPU to get the CPU score against one another...noob

wh3resmycar · Apr 21, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

*facepalm

unknownofprob · Apr 21, 2014

I didn't say YOU I said OP (even though you have a 970)!!!, Just because the power phase couldn't support that speed, doesn't mean it does, especially with msi motherboards. Most have a 6+2 Phase. Take it from reviews, plenty of motherboards cannot do decent OC on the 970 chipset, just because our rig works, doesn't mean someone else with different parts will.

Have you looked at the reviews mate, your motherboard along with a few Asus's work ok when OC, but MANY motherboards can't do this and actually looking at msi's motherboards, they overheat, and cause damage to the rest of the system.

PS; AMD 8 core CPU's when using temp monitoring software always have inaccurate results.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

unknownofprob :

i know that MOST (except 2) motherboards on the 970 chipset are not meant to house FX 8 core CPU, i know it just too well i bough a msi 970A-G46 mobo for my CPU without checking reviews, when i did checked the reviews i sold it right away and ordered the best 970 board wich is the gigabyte i linked, and everyday since i'm recommanding this board, it's the best, asus also has a 970 board with a 6+2 power phase that can support overclocked FX 8 core it's called the 970 something EVO...

I know about temps reading too, trust me my temps are just fine...the hyper 212 is indeed an awesome cooler and i have nice airflow in my case and i have absolutely no heat or power consumption issue with that chip, its AWESOME trust me...

unknownofprob · Apr 21, 2014

Take it from people who know; Same Question as OP, Gaming;

JOOK-D
"The i5 4440 would be the best pick. I wouldn't even attempt to overclock, nor even put an 8 series chip in the low end MSI 970 boards. The only 970 boards I would even consider a mild overclock on would be the M5A97 R2.0 from ASUS, or the GA-970A-UD3(P) from Gigabyte. Below that, don't bother."

your motherboard is included, but who knows what motherboard the OP has or will get.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

unknownofprob :

READ MY PREVIOUS POST YOU POSTED TWICE...
The op if decide to go with AMD 8 core will get the board i will suggest hiim to get like all the others before him and he will be VERY happy he did that...especially in a year or two when the real next gen AAA titles will hit the market and use this 8 core monster to it's full potential...cause BF4 and crysis 3 run's nice but they are still only 3 heavy threads game...the proof of that is that a PS3 version of both games exists...the REAL next gen games will use 6 to 8 heavy threads and will be too much for a core i5 to handle...especially a ''low-end'' core i5 like the 3450...core i5-4670K overclocked..maybe!

unknownofprob · Apr 21, 2014

Wherever you heard that, I'm crying.

If you take this into account, My intel i7 4930k on bf4 ultra gets to a max if 30% CPU usage with a R9 290X, An i5 4440 will most certainly be fine for games to come as it is a strong CPU, Though it only has 4 cores, 4 cores is much stronger then 4 cores of an AMD processor, Could be compared to more like 6 ADM cores but still lacks it, 8 Cores, no point even going there as that's way down the track. If he did end up going for the FX 8320, why bother recommending him a 970 chipset when he'll be much better off getting a 990FX/X, which all the reviews YOU listed were used with. Real next gen games will NOT have such a massive jump like you say, especially a 100%+ increase. Since the i5 has a 6MB cache for 4 cores, and the FX 8320 has 8MB for 8 cores, that's not a very good balance, making both CPU's quite close for heavy threads.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

unknownofprob :

AGAIN so much stuff wrong !
1st your intel is a 6core CPU with 12 threads...it's in no way similar to any CPU available and is the undisputed master that as nothing to do with a core i5 4 core 4 thread CPU...so leave that out of the way please...

2nd the 990FX chipset only advantage and why it's on high-end motherboard is the full support of SLI/CFX with 2x pcie 16x lane...that's it. so if there is no intention to use 2 GPU in his system one has no reason to pay a premium to get a 990FX chipset because as we stated already there are 2 extremely good and overbuilt beefed up motherboard from Gigabyte and ASUS that can handle those CPU and allow for the craziest overclocks possible...

3rd the FX-83xx chips (every FX 8 core chips) does not have 8 mb of cache but 16mb of cache (8mb L3 cache and 8MB L2 cache) making them very good chips for gaming.

wh3resmycar · Apr 21, 2014

a more coherent and real world application of cpu performance

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_4820k_processor_review,14.html

but when you start to look at the heat and power consumption and see how far apart a 3450 and an 8350 consumes, you'd laugh at the amd solution.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 21, 2014

wh3resmycar :

The link you posted as i said earlier is an old review done under windows 7 featuring very old single-threaded games (far cry 2, crysis 2, come ON)...

Here's some real world applications benchmarks...much better to reveal the real performance of a CPU than old games that use 1 or 2 threads at the very most :

These results are compilation of tests featuring single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks and the time are compiled for every CPU's on the market...you can't get any more significant results than this. You can see the FX-83xx (8320 and 8350 are the same chips only lower clock speed for the 8320) do really well even against the all mighty core i7.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-36-Total-Time,3179.html

PassMark CPU benchmarks, also feature a lot of tests including integer math, prime numbers, floating points math, physics, encryption, compression, extended instructions (SSE), sorting, single-thread performance etc. results are uploaded daily to a database from real users :

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

And about power consumption now, these are 125w CPU that will hit 140w fully overclocked under full load, it is still less than even an entry-level GPU these days...i don't know why you even bring this as an argument it has been proven that an FX 8 core CPU use about 8$ more in electricity per year for a 4 hours a day use in the US over a core i7...nothing to go crazy about there, at least i don't care 8$ a year is less than i pay for chewing gum in a month...

You can bring any review or anything that you want i will refute your claim cause all of those are intel fanboyism and almost nothing about all that is true...the only thing that is true is that the intel CPU's have a better IPC (single-thread performance) clock for clock of about 23%...that's it, everything else is false.

AMD 8320 Piledriver vs Intel i5 3450 with GTX 760

Reputable

Illustrious

Honorable

Reputable

Reputable

Honorable

Reputable

Illustrious

Reputable

Illustrious

Distinguished

Honorable

Illustrious

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Illustrious

Honorable

Illustrious

Honorable

Illustrious

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Share this page