Gaming CPU advice

Tanamien · Jun 3, 2014

I need to build a new pc for my light gaming experience. I have always built with AMD and been happy but I think i am going to go with intel this time around.

I will go with the i5 but i am not sure which to pick up. I have never overclocked so i am not sure if i should go with a k version. Could I get a good suggestion for CPU and mb please. Would it be better to get the K and learn to over clock and is it worth the performance?

The most intense graphic game i play is world of tanks. However I would like a decent build so that If i do intent to play other games I will be fine. Plan to get GTX 760 or 770 when build is complete.

Tradesman1 · Jun 3, 2014

I'd go with the 4670K, even if you don't want to OC now, down the road a bit, with the K model rather than think about getting a new CPU, you can OC it, and be like getting a free CPU upgrade

Outlander_04 · Jun 3, 2014

If you are going with a K sku intel

you might as well buy an FX 8350 , a board with a 970 series chipset , and have an extra $100 or so to spend on the graphics card
Sometimes you will game a little worse than the intel , sometimes you will game a little better , but generally you wont be able to tell the difference between cpu's .... but you will if you have a better graphics card

wurkfur · Jun 3, 2014

Considering that $30 gets you a nice CPU cooler like the Cooler Master 212 EVO, there isn't any reason not to get a CPU with an unlocked multiplier like the k series Intel chips or one of the nicer AMD FX chips.

An FX 8230 becomes a FX 8350 by changing the multiplier from 17.5 to 20. You can even use the stock cooler and you don't need to mess with voltage. Nothing to be scared of.

The K series Intel chips can do the same but they are usually $100+ dollars more than an AMD counterpart that could overclock to the same level.

Either way, you can get some good gaming performance with a little future headroom.

CTurbo · Jun 3, 2014

I recommend this because I don't think overclocking is worth it. Too much extra money spent for a performance gain that you won't need or notice.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vhTZFT
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vhTZFT/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vhTZFT/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $289.96

wurkfur · Jun 3, 2014

So you recommend a Intel chip that will run neck an neck with an AMD chip that will do it for $70 less...

I was confused for a second.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Whether or not you believe in overclocking, the FX-8320 or FX-8350 is capable and ready for an easy overclock and your recommendation is not. Changing a multiplier is infinitely more simple than adjusting the FSB and affecting the memory, PCI-E, and everything else. An AMD FX At 4 Ghz with 8 cores, looses nothing to an i5 other than single threaded performance. Overclock and that disappears. Something your i5 can't do.

So you have a $130 chip (FX-8320) that can overclock and still hangs with a $200 chip that can't overclock.

One chip lets you go faster for free if you don't mind a little risk, the other make you buy another chip. Great recommendation...

CTurbo · Jun 3, 2014

No. I selected a $199 i5 that is better than any FX at any clock speed 90% of the time. Overclocking is over-rated. Sure anybody that gets one of those FX chips will be dying to overclock as much as possible because they will need all the power they could get, whereas with the 4590, you'll never need to overclock because it is strong enough already as is. And not to mention it costs less than an overclocked FX8350 setup.

I will like to point out that in the link you give, the i5's 3.7ghz cores are 40% stronger than the FX's 4.2ghz cores. Let me know when you overclock your FX to 6.0ghz to match that "locked" 3.7ghz.

wurkfur · Jun 3, 2014

CTurbo :

LMFAO!

In single threaded performance.

Did you conveniently omit the Passmark score that the FX score 25% higher without an overclock.

Did you neglect that Watch Dogs and other newer heavily threaded games are going for more cores that the Intel chips don't have?

It is the same broken record again and again for Intel fanboys. You cost more for less performance. Get over it.

Outlander_04 · Jun 3, 2014

CTurbo :

90+ % of the time your expensive intel chip gives no advantage at all .
In general use the user experience is identical .
In gaming the AMD is often faster
And the exception in performance will be when you run games that only use 1 or 2 threads . A total list of those released recently is .......................... very short

As for total computing power your math is excellent . The intel cores are 40% more powerful so basically it gets trashed by the AMD that has twice as many cores .
Want to do the math for us ?
Hint: an intel core would have to be 100% more powerful since there are half as many

CTurbo · Jun 3, 2014

90+ % of the time your expensive intel chip gives no advantage at all .
In general use the user experience is identical .
In gaming the AMD is often faster
And the exception in performance will be when you run games that only use 1 or 2 threads . A total list of those released recently is .......................... very short

As for total computing power your math is excellent . The intel cores are 40% more powerful so basically it gets trashed by the AMD that has twice as many cores .
Want to do the math for us ?
Hint: an intel core would have to be 100% more powerful since there are half as many

This is like the complete opposite of what is true.

First of all, the i5 4570 it's not any more expensive compared to an overclocked FX8350
The i5 is actually the faster chip +90% of the time
In gaming, the i5 is ALMOST ALWAYS faster
And the exception in performance will be when you run games that only use MORE THAN FOUR threads . A total list of those that exist are.......................... very short

Tradesman1 · Jun 3, 2014

Think the question rolls down to - as far as gaming anyway - are you willing to OC or try it anyway - if not then you go Intel with something like CTurbo suggested - or it you willing to try OCing (which is not all the rocket science that many claim it to be), if so then the clear choice of those mentioned is the 4670K or 4690K....The 8350 is a good CPU and OCed (healthy OC) can take a 4590, not by much and the process of OCing AMD can be a little daunting - the K chips mentioned with even a slight OC (easily done) will blow away a 8350 in anything and everything but video rendering - The 8350 is close - clock for clock to a 2500K (a few gens ago), trails the 3570K by a fair amount and the 4670K by even more, the 4690K is an even wider margin

logainofhades · Jun 3, 2014

What is your budget for CPU and Motherboard?

JOOK-D · Jun 3, 2014

Outlander_04 :

CTurbo :

90+ % of the time your expensive intel chip gives no advantage at all .
In general use the user experience is identical .
In gaming the AMD is often faster
And the exception in performance will be when you run games that only use 1 or 2 threads . A total list of those released recently is .......................... very short

As for total computing power your math is excellent . The intel cores are 40% more powerful so basically it gets trashed by the AMD that has twice as many cores .
Want to do the math for us ?
Hint: an intel core would have to be 100% more powerful since there are half as many

Intel i5's are almost always ahead of the FX's. In gaming, the intels are faster.

Multithreaded efficiency really isn't that great, not in games.

JOOK-D · Jun 3, 2014

wurkfur :

Single-threaded performance is still of importance. Doesn't Passmark efficently use all of the available threads? (could be off). If so, then it doesn't really simulate real world performance since most applications won't. The FX 8350 is behind a damn pentium in single-threaded performance, according to passmark.

Yet quad core intel chips still outperform the FX's in well threaded games. ._.

An intel alternative doesn't cost an arm and a leg over AMD. And don't throw around the word fanboy if we're going to discuss things here, it doesn't help anybody.

Tradesman1 · Jun 3, 2014

wurkfur,

You do of course realize that the upper end AMD FX chips you speak of are pre-OCed, which is how they got them to be ale to run a couple of sticks of 1866 out of the box, check their BIOS and Kernel Programming guide and you will find the 8350, 8320, even back to the 8150 have MCs that are native 1333, so if you really want to compare performance between say a 4650K and a 8350, 8320, then it's best done at a clock for clock basis, think you'll find putting them against each other that way is no contest, Intel all the way except for video rendering

Outlander_04 · Jun 3, 2014

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-discussion-1000004/crysis-3-is-an-example-of-how-well-amd-cpus-perfor-29356784/

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

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

Assertions from fanboys that intel are way better rely on two things :
1/ pick a bnchmark for a game that cant use multithreading
2/ have no actual experience of using an AMD processor .

In these newer games that can multithread there is a couple of fps difference at most . Some times the AMD is ahead . Sometimes the intel is ahead

But most important to most people will be the cost difference , since that lets you spend more on a graphics card and improve performance

Tradesman1 · Jun 3, 2014

I've run both head to head numerous times, and there is no comparison, like many(which AMD loves) showing benchmarks at 'stock' can often show and advantage for AMD (which is why they are pre-OCed, also why the FXs are pre-OCed to lay the claim that their CPUs can run 1866, and take note they (AMD) don't claim FX's as 'native' since it's not, it's 1333), even with the pre-OC once you load up w/ DRAM the ability to run 1866 drops to 1600 and 1333 with more sticks and more DRAM...Would suggest you try running side by at 4, 4.2, 4.4, 4.6 whatever and see what happens....And Amd isn't changeing rather than try and improve their CPU, they stick to gimmicks - remember the release of the 9370 and 9590 and their ridiculous prices (and claims) - A CPU released out of the box at 4.7.........wasn't it interesting that absolutely none were sent out for review prerelease. And why, simply another gimmick to claim the fastest clocked CPU out of the box, but the big reason was that the 4770K (could have bought two of them for the initial 9590 price), yes, the 4770K, simply beat up on the 9590 and at many things with the 4770K at stock. If (big if, we are still waiting, and basically from what I have seen of their hyped promos, it will be using the same antiquated MC tech that BullDozer had which wasn't really updated at all for PileDriver) ) and when SteamRoller CPUs come out it will prob be the same, they will be behind the current Intel offerings of the time and may even still be tied to DDR3 as it will require a revamped MC for DDR4

CTurbo · Jun 3, 2014

Assertions from fanboys that intel are way better rely on two things :
1/ pick a bnchmark for a game that cant use multithreading
2/ have no actual experience of using an AMD processor .

I actually try very hard to avoid benchmarks because anybody can pull a benchmark that is convenient to their argument.

I actually have MORE experience with AMD. I used a Phenom II x6 1055t for years and I have an A10-6800k now. I don't HATE AMD, I really wish they would release something competitive. I'm just not about to buy 2 year old tech that was barely competitive when it came out.

But most important to most people will be the cost difference , since that lets you spend more on a graphics card and improve performance

Coming from somebody who does NOT recommend overclocking Haswell cpus because it is unnecessary, AMDs ARE NOT CHEAPER AND COMPETITIVE AT THE SAME TIME.
They are either cheaper, OR "almost" competitive. The only way they are cheaper is to pair them with a low budget motherboard and run them at stock speeds in which case they get stomped, or you can pair them with a decent or good motherboard, get an aftermarket cooler, overclock the crap out of them, and they are almost competitive, but then they are no longer cheaper, and in fact, they are probably more expensive at that point.

I just don't understand why anybody would bother with them at this point.

Outlander_04 · Jun 4, 2014

CTurbo :

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

The FX 8350 is getting stomped? Really ? It looks like the intel is running an unnoticeable 3 fps faster .
Maybe you have different opinion of what "stomped" means

As for cost . well you can have that same performance from AMD by buying an 8320 and clocking it to 8350 speeds .
AMD cost :$140
Intel cost: $220
No other cost is involved . On the stock cooler you can even run it a little higher than 8350 speeds . It does get noisy though .

The $80 difference spent on a graphics card will improve gaming performance . You could move up from a GTX 760 to an R9 290 in the same budget

If you are encoding then the intels dont compete unless you use an i7 . And that adds another $100 to the intel build

There are other things you dont understand too , evidently

CTurbo · Jun 4, 2014

That's ONE GAME. What about the other 99.999999999999% of the games out there? There are only a handful of games that are in the FX's favor. I'd like to point out how the dual core i3 4130 is "running an unnoticeable 3 fps slower" lol

I don't know why you go straight for the $220 i5. I would not get that one either. I would get a $180-190 i5 like the 4460 or 4570

So you have a $140 FX8320 and a $190 i5 4570

No other cost is involved? Really? You don't need a motherboard these day? If you want to get a decent overclock, you need at least a 970 series. Those are what $60? $70? Overclocking a FX8320 to 8350 levels is NOT a decent overclock as the 8350 still loses out to the 4570 90% of the time. You have to get a REAL overclock to even come close and that requires an after market cooler. I will use the most popular budget cpu cooler in the world as example. The $30 Cooler Master 212 Evo.

So a $140 FX8320 + $70 970 series mobo + $30 cpu cooler = $240
I could put the $190 i5 4570 in $50 H81 motherboard for $240 and it would be better for the same price no matter how much the FX8320 is overclocked.

There IS NO price advantage. No $80 extra. No advantage. No nothing.

Outlander_04 · Jun 4, 2014

As Ive pointed out no additional cpu cooler is needed , and if you want to game with an H81 chipset mb you are going to start noticing the limitations very quickly . The compromises you have to make are even worse than those you would make using a $50 motherboard with the FX processor

The $80 price advantage still applies

One game? I linked to others already in this thread already .

JOOK-D · Jun 4, 2014

Outlander_04 :

http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/M/375430/original/Crysis3-CPU.png Ivy i5 matches it.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html Ivy i5 matches it.

We could sit here and throw around benchmarks all day. There will be numerous varying results. The problem is, there aren't that many more games that utilise multithreading so the FX won't perform so closely.

1) Of course. Because the majority of games can't. That's rational thinking, don't cherry pick benchmarks from a smaller subset of games that happen to fit your argument whilst ignoring every other title out there.

2) I have experience with a couple of FX chips. Couldn't keep up performance in stressful multiplayer situations. They're ok for SP.

The AMD is ahead in literally one or two instances. That's no argument to get it at all.

logainofhades · Jun 4, 2014

Outlander_04 :

I like how you neglected the fact that the FX barely beat an i3 4130, by that same unnoticeable 3fps, in that benchmark you posted. Not to mention the fact the i3 can be paired with a very cheap motherboard, saving even more for better graphics. Even with the cheapest motherboard able to handle the FX 8350 at stock speeds safely, you still save about $30 with the i3. You kind of invalidated your own argument. :lol:

CTurbo · Jun 4, 2014

Yeah and overclocking a 8320 to 8350 is NOT "getting a decent overclock" as they are the same chip to begin with anyway. And even more so that the 8350 is barely more competitive and still no where close to even the cheapest/weakest $175 Haswell i5 4430 @ 3.0ghz. There will be no limitations using a locked i5 and single gpu on a H81 chipset.

Outlander_04 · Jun 4, 2014

logainofhades :

i3 socket 1150 chips cost the same or more than the FX 8320 .

And you are welcome to buy one and then try gaming online because the performance will suck once you do .
Encode a video and the i3 is , of course , worse than an i5 which cant compete with the AMD
The i3 is a total waste of money in those usage scenarios

You kind of invalidated your pretense of knowledge

Gaming CPU advice

Reputable

Legenda in Aeternum

Titan

Distinguished

Pizza Monster

Distinguished

Pizza Monster

Distinguished

Titan

Pizza Monster

Legenda in Aeternum

Titan

Dignified

Dignified

Legenda in Aeternum

Titan

Legenda in Aeternum

Pizza Monster

Titan

Pizza Monster

Titan

Dignified

Titan

Pizza Monster

Titan

Share this page