Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fx 8350 + r9 280x vs Intel i5 4760k + Gtx 760

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2014 10:13:30 AM

hi all

plz with simple words explain to me why ?
i am no to pc gaming and i can't decide where to go i read over a million article about 8 core for next gen and i5 for old games but people still argue alot and i can't just get it clear ?


if i want to play Assassin's creed unity Watch dogs and GTA V which one i should be good with ?

i am playing at 1680*1050 so can u help me with this ? i am sure u can but try not to confuse me plz :)  :) 

and what's the whole matter with mantel ?
is physics that important to go with a nvidia card ?

N.B there won't be any overclocking >
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2014 10:24:24 AM

Well, being really honest if you are not willing to OC, you dont need a k version of the intel cpu, this can already save some bucks on your budget. I currently own an FX8350 with 2x GTX760 in SLI, and I am able to run these games pretty decent. When I bought it, I did thought on some OC for it, that's why I went on with AMD instead of Intel.

Nowadays, if the option was not related to that, but pure output power... I would prolly go with an 4760/4790 (locked cpu), an H97 (again, since you are not willing to overclock, there is no reason to get the top Z97 boards, there will be more features on it, but wouldnt make a difference in performance to you).

About the cards, I do prefer Nvidia cards over ATI, but I cannot say that ATI have some pretty good cards. I would say that the R9 270X is in the same leve as GTX 760, the 280X with the GTX 770, and the R290 with the 780, it's more of a difference on budget, psu, case cooling and the temps you will get.

Nvidia cards are usually more expensive than the ATI, but they run on lower temps, SLI is a must have the same chip, while Xfire from ATI gives you a bigger range of cards. ATI cards usually use more throughout power than Nvidia, requiring better PSU.

Hope it helps...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2014 10:26:08 AM

8320 is same chip as 8350, the 8350 is stock clocked higher. So depending on price difference, just go 8320.

That said,
the 8320/8350 has more cores, but weaker cores.
the 4760k has less cores, but stronger

Games rarely (exception of very few) use more than 4 cores. Which is why for gaming intel route, people say not to go i7 and stay with i5.

For straight gaming, the i5 4760k will be better than the amd. But games are more gpu driven than cpu driven. As long as your cpu is strong enough to deliver to your gpu, which both your suggested cpu's are, then its all up to the gpu.

The intel will also use far less electricity, run cooler.

If your not overclocking, it doesnt make sense to pay an extra $20 for the 'k' version of the 4760. Since k means unlocked which means you can overclock it.

If your playing at 1080p, both these setups will allow high graphics (760) and ultra graphics (280x).

Mantle is just a different way games are coded to make them run more efficient. But only on certain games. And this just edges the amd card vs the equivalent nvidia card. But with a 280x vs 760, mantle or not the 280x is way better. But 280x vs gtx 770, mantle games would be better on the amd.

But mantle is one thing, nvidia has their own as well.

Physics is just like the little fine details of the game. Such as in water, you'll see ripples, and stuff like that. Its really cool, but no way makes the game easier or better.

Overall, just get the amd vs nivida thats cheaper for comparable. Which is pretty much what you have, 760 is best in $200 region, and 280x is best in $300 region.

Overall, the amd with 280x will give better gaming performance, in most short of very few games. And that better gap is quite large, and games its not the gap is very small.

The intel is the stronger overall build, plus when you upgrade your gpu, you'll have a better cpu to go with it.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 13, 2014 10:27:19 AM

what if i bought a i5 4440 or 4670 with r9 280x will this be better ?
or the fx 8350 with r9 280x ?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 13, 2014 10:29:30 AM

At 1680x1050, a GTX760 should be able max most modern games.
If you're not going to overclock, a non-K Intel will severely beat an AMD FX; the latter really needs to be overclocked to get the best from it (but an overclocked Intel will leapfrog that in most titles).
So, of the two combinations you list, I'd choose the Intel CPU with the GTX760.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2014 10:30:01 AM

if you are on a budget, get the 8320. If you have enough to get the i5-4670, get it. Since you aren't overclocking you don't need a "K" CPU.

Either of these CPU/GPU would go well with the games you want to play. You will need a CPU cooler for your 8320 but not your 4670; if that makes any difference to your decision.
m
0
l
June 13, 2014 10:33:41 AM

ok no k version for me ... i will make very simple for my brain :D 

if u have I5 4670 and fx 8350
with gtx 760 and r9 280x

what will u choose ?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 325 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 13, 2014 10:35:15 AM

Most of the time, gaming performance is more determined by the graphics card than the cpu.

Comparing the R9-280X and the GTX760, the 280X is a bit stronger.
But, it also costs more. The performance differences are only detectable by synthetic benchmarks.
Either would serve you well at 1680 x 1050.
You will get what you pay for at any but the highest priced cards.

Personally, I think there is a lot of fud about needing 8 cores for games.
The fact is that few games today can effectively use more than 2-3 cores.
There are exceptions like FSX.
Game developers want the largest possible audience for their products. They will not willingly spend the extra cost of producing games that require 8 cores to run well. That will reduce their market.

Mantle reduces the cpu cost of graphics drivers. It is of most benefit to low priced cpu chips. It makes little difference in FX-8350 and 4760K class cpu's.

Some games can use PhysX to enhance eye candy. Mostly, it is not an important factor.

On the FX-8350 vs 4690K, the intel cores are about 30% faster per clock. For gaming, intel is better. For rendering and multithreaded apps, FX does well.

And the intel "K" suffix cpus are for overclocking. If you will not overclock, you can buy a cheaper chip and a cheaper motherboard.
Still, I would pay 5% more for a "K" suffix cpu and a Z97 motherboard. You are not required to overclock initially.
But, that 5% price increase will bring you a conservative 20% increase in cpu capability. That will increase the longevity of your purchase.

For the graphics card a GTX760 will be appropriate. If you have the budget, make that a GTX770.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 13, 2014 10:35:31 AM

1680x1050 isn't that much these days. Either of your video card choices will let you run games pretty much maxed out.

i5-4670k can be overclocked, so if you aren't planning on it you would be better off with the i5-4590. Either would have more per-core performance then the AMD FX chips, of course, they cost more.

FX chips like the 8320 have 4 dual core modules, effectively eight cores. In applications that can utilize many cores it can perform better then an i5, in general though, for gaming, an i5 is the better choice.

PhysX is a visual modification that some games support, it requires extra processing to handle these visual changes (Things like ragdoll physics and collision). Mantle is more a low-level GPU access language that AMD recently introduced. It allows high levels of optimization at the cost of development time.

Pricing them out comes about the same. With the AMD config you would have better game performance on GPU bound titles, with the intel setup you would do better in CPU bound titles.

Either configuration is a potent gaming machine.


(Personnally I would still add a heatsink to this build, the stock one is merely 'okay')
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dJ2bCJ
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dJ2bCJ/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($86.66 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($76.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 760 2GB DirectCU II Video Card ($216.60 @ Newegg)
Total: $580.23
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-13 13:31 EDT-0400

(CPU cooler is almost mandatory, the stock one is quite noisy under load)
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/T3MTzy
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/T3MTzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($143.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($76.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 280X 3GB DirectCU II Video Card ($309.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $625.94
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-13 13:33 EDT-0400

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 13, 2014 10:36:45 AM

^Clarification: All CPUs need a CPU cooler, and the ones you are considering come with one, BUT, the AMD stock cooler tends to get loud under load, so you may wish to buy an aftermarket cooler if only to reduce noise. Assuming it will fit in your case, I recommend a 120mm tower cooler other than the frequently-parroted Hyper212 EVO. That's not a bad cooler, but competitors (e.g. Enermax, NZXT, Gammax, Rosewill) offer similar performance for sometimes substantially less money. This makes the Hyper212 EVO a bang/buck Loser, and I try not to recommend Losers. Since you aren't planning to overclock, even a 92mm cooler should be sufficient.
m
0
l
June 13, 2014 10:57:54 AM

will i be able to see a huge difference using 4440 instead of 4670 ??

if i go with 4440 to save for a better GPU as r9 280x instead of gtx 760 will this be better ?

after all guys you were really more than helpful :) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 325 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 13, 2014 11:09:51 AM

You will not likely see a big difference between a i5-4440 and a i5 4670

You will also not see a significant difference between GTX760 and R9-280X.

Doing some research, I find that the most popular R9-280X has 33% negative feedback on newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
By comparison, the most popular GTX760 card is at 6%
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 136 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
June 13, 2014 11:22:38 AM

I agree with geofelt. At your resolution, and in actual games (not benchmarks), you are not likely to see any notable difference.
m
0
l
June 13, 2014 11:29:02 AM

then for r9 280x or gtx 760 i better go with the best price

and i5 4440 as the cpu ..

ok thx all :) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2014 2:23:34 PM

I'd go intel with the gtx 760. Its not as good as the 280x, but not noticeable at those settings. Plus it would probably run almost half the energy, be a lot more quiet, and better all around. plus then you don't have to worry about overheating or stock cooler upgrading to better, and such.
m
1
l
!