i5 4690k w/ r9 290 vs fx 8320 w/ gtx 970

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
TofuLion

TofuLion

Admirable
Oct 10, 2014
1,761
0
6,460
new to gaming/enthusiast but not new to the IT industry. my initial instinct is to take the latter, both options are roughly the same price. in either case i want to have fun overclocking and getting the best experience i can. was going to upgrade to the next gen console but decided otherwise, so either way it will be a huge improvement to what i'm used to.

the reason i am leaning more towards amd is the cores. plain and simple. i think we will be seeing a lot more need for added cores/threads in the near future. i understand the performance gap, that in today's conditions, the i5 piledrives the fx 83**. but on the other hand, properly threaded applications will see the extra cores coming in handy. also, i plan on building a home server (NAS/Router/VPN) all running on separate VMs and thats when the fx will shine most. at that time (about 2-3 years)i will probably upgrade the cpu/mobo/ram to something intel.

also, i believe the gtx 970 will still be sufficient for most games at that time (hoping to get around 4 years before i upgrade gpu). from what i've read, gtx is much more future proof than r9, meaning i will meet the requirements for games to come in that time frame. i will be building this system primarily to play AC: Unity and TES Online mostly.

thoughts/suggestions/questions/concerns?
 
Solution
M
The combined execution performance of all 8 cores on the FX-8320 is no better than the execution performance of the i5's 4 cores at equal clocks, so the FX-82XX series buys you absolutely no advantage in computing performance in any workload over the i5. The FX-83XX NEEDS a HEAVILY threaded workload just to perform on par with the i5. In every other workload, the i5 is faster. Core count is not a yardstick of execution resources.

The advantages to the FX-8320 and AM3+ platform are:
1. ECC memory support (depending on motherboard)
2. IOMMU (970/990 chipsets)
3. Cheaper than Intel for ECC and IOMMU (VT-d) support.

Those advantages are useless for gaming.

The only implementations of an AMD CPU that make sense (from a value...
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,333
4,162
174,240
Buy a 4690K and a GTX970.
The $60 difference in the cpu budget can be found somewhere.

Don't believe the AMD FUD about games needing many cores. Game developers want the largest possible audience for their games. If they require 8 core cpu's, they will not sell many. It is a difficult design and programming task to effectively use more than two threads. That is why you see few games today that do.
By the time multithreaded games become common, today's cpu's will be long obsolete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TofuLion

TofuLion

Admirable
Oct 10, 2014
1,761
0
6,460


i am inclined to agree. however, ac unity recommends an i7 or 8350. this tells me that they are either horrible coders (doubt that) or excellent at multithreading. the next gen consoles have 8 core apus i think. this will lead to multithreaded games becoming mainstream faster than we might think. then theres always the factor of how i will reuse this system and get optimal server performance (i know its best to build each system with only its intended use in mind). all the reviews i've read have dramatically favored the i5, but i think this is mostly bias, and its all based on current conditions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TofuLion

TofuLion

Admirable
Oct 10, 2014
1,761
0
6,460


this will also be my htpc/dvd emporium(for my household)/streamer(to and from)

fx build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($126.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Patriot Viper 3 Low Profile Red 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.93 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Red 1TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card ($327.85 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec TruePower Classic 750W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($60.00 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Pioneer BDC-207DBK Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1004.69
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-05 00:36 EST-0500

i5:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.95 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97MX-Gaming 5 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($103.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Patriot Viper 3 Low Profile Red 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.93 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Red 1TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($254.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec TruePower Classic 750W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($60.00 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Pioneer BDC-207DBK Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $1064.78
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-05 00:39 EST-0500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rannon

Honorable
May 24, 2014
143
0
10,710
the fx8320 is poor at single threaded performance.. also since your gonna be gaming mostly, go for the i5
faster and while still offering 4 cores and its overclocks better, as well lower power consumption AND runs cooler. the i5 will be plenty cpu for a long time to come..so dont worry about it being under-powered..there is a reason why despite so much debate that hands down intel wins...no i am not a fan boy.. i myself is owner of a fx-9590 running stock speeds. but that's because i mostly do server based work and video editing. but apples to apples comparison. the intel i5 is much newer and outperforms the fx8320 by a mile in almost all areas. par that up with the gtx 970 and you got yourself a beast of a machine for years to come. if you want a real world scenario. in a game such as battlefield 4 , you WILL notice more stuttering using the amd than the i5. so if your gonna do mostly gaming and a bit of video editing, get the i5 . or if its the opposite get the amd. also overclocking the i5 WILL HANDS DOWN beat the fx cpu by a fair margin when it comes to editing as well.. hope this helped you pick a definitive answer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

Outlander_04

Titan
BANNED
Nov 18, 2008
20,308
4
74,960


This would be an issue only if a game ran on a single thread . Critical if you are gaming in 1999 , but not so much today

Since the FX 8320 is easy to get to 8350 speeds this is a reasonable comparison
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page6.html

http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-detail/combo-review-amd-vishera-fx-8350-asus-crosshair-v-formula-z-rog/19/

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page6.html

There is no advantage to using an i5
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mdocod

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2010
1,797
0
20,460
The combined execution performance of all 8 cores on the FX-8320 is no better than the execution performance of the i5's 4 cores at equal clocks, so the FX-82XX series buys you absolutely no advantage in computing performance in any workload over the i5. The FX-83XX NEEDS a HEAVILY threaded workload just to perform on par with the i5. In every other workload, the i5 is faster. Core count is not a yardstick of execution resources.

The advantages to the FX-8320 and AM3+ platform are:
1. ECC memory support (depending on motherboard)
2. IOMMU (970/990 chipsets)
3. Cheaper than Intel for ECC and IOMMU (VT-d) support.

Those advantages are useless for gaming.

The only implementations of an AMD CPU that make sense (from a value perspective) for gaming is on the low end. An overclocked 860K or FX-6300 as an alternative to an i3 haswell can be a valid alternative for novelties sake, (the i3 is usually still the better performer).

---------

There is absolutely no way to easily transition the hardware specific optimizations for games on an 8 core game console to the AM3+ platform. That myth has got to die. The game console is still fixed hardware, thus, software can include very specific scheduler optimizations and workload balancing optimizations tuned to that specific hardware. Furthermore, the consoles are leveraging an HSA environment and the software is compiled lean specifically for that hardware, the AM3+ platform does not support HSA/hUMA and the software certainly will not be compiled specifically for the AM3+ platform.

I'm sure AMD loves the fact that people are mistakenly using misguided deductive reasoning to figure that FX-8 series CPUs will be superior for gaming in a world with 8 core consoles, but I assure you, that's nothing more than a happy accident in terms of marketing. Real-time workloads will always scale better with per core performance than they do with more cores. The software that is being compiled for the consoles, is very system specific and comes with far lower compute overhead to achieve the same outcome as the desktop. Until game developers start releasing separate binaries for specific CPU and GPU combinations on the desktop, the compute overhead on the desktop will continue to be far higher, and continue not to scale as well into many-core CPUs except in limited circumstances.

On a final note: The 8 core CPU in those game consoles, is actually 2 separate quad cores. This is an import distinction, as it means there are some hardware limitations (communication bottlenecks) that will effectively limit the useful performance scaling of a multi-threaded process for many workloads to 4 cores. Undoubtedly most console games will use very little of the second CPU most of the time.

----------

As counter-intuitive as this may seem, no CPU in it's price class is better poised to handle the console ports of today and tomorrow than the i5 haswell.

If AMD released a super-powerful quad channel DDR4 APU system on the desktop, it's possible we may actually see console ports with HSA optimization, until then, we probably won't see much in the way of a "nice" transition from console to desktop (maintaining low compute overhead etc).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
O

Outlander_04

Titan
BANNED
Nov 18, 2008
20,308
4
74,960


Yes that is essentially the core of the argument .

But it is also true that the combined execution performance of an intel i5 is not better than an FX 8xxx processor ,


So smart people buy the FX 8320 , save $60- 70 and spend that money on a better graphics card
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RazerZ

RazerZ

Judicious
Ambassador
Aug 18, 2013
9,961
0
33,960


What about a locked 4440+ a cheap H97? It would be around the same price as the 8320+ 970+ Aftermarket cooler.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

manez

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
352
0
10,960
I know you said you wan't to overclock, but consider getting an Intel xeon E2-1231 v3.
At 3.8 ghz it's of course not unlocked but about as fast as the I5 at stock speeds but it has 8 threads and will blow away the AMD counter part on every front.

And the best part is it costs roughly the same as the i5 and since you can't OC it anyway you might as well shave off a couple of bucks from the mobo.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
O

Outlander_04

Titan
BANNED
Nov 18, 2008
20,308
4
74,960


Its a better value for performance proposition , but you compromise on expansion options , lose a little bit of game performance , and lose in encoding and rendering
Unless I wanted an m-ATX build or had a desperate need to save $10 of power each year I'd always choose the AMD for the better performance , and so I could play with clocking
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mdocod

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2010
1,797
0
20,460
It's well known that FPS minimums in compute intensive games that do not scale beyond 4 threads are up to ~75% higher on an i5 haswell than on an equal clocked FX-83XX. In many games, that's the difference between 30FPS and 50FPS, which for some gamers, has significant meaning.

Looking at GPU bound single player bench-marking sequences and then using those as the basis of an argument for a less expensive CPU that is actually a terrible value for real-time workloads is right out of the AMD marketing department playbook on how to sell opertons to gamers.

If you're pushing an FX-8XXX CPU option as a good value for gaming you are delusional. The only place it is relevant is in budget workstation builds and AMD enthusiast/novelty builds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

manez

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
352
0
10,960


It's only 20 bucks more, granted not many games use 8 threads at this moment, but as the OP said, the consoles have CPUs with 8 weak threads and we might be seeing games utilizing them surprisingly soon.

Since these new i5s aren't that good overclockers and the gained extra juice will mostly go to waste anyway for many years to come, the xeon offers the best bang for buck intel can offer you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RazerZ

RazerZ

Judicious
Ambassador
Aug 18, 2013
9,961
0
33,960


What do you think of these gaming benchmarks:

Watchdogs
CPU_01.png

Crysis 3
CPU_03.png

Skyrim
51123.png

Diablo 3
51124.png

Dragon Age Origins
51138.png

Dawn of War II
51139.png

World of Warcraft
51140.png

Starcraft II
51141.png

Rome Total War II
400x800px-LL-4409e0d6_rome1.jpeg

Far Cry 3
CPU_01.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

Outlander_04

Titan
BANNED
Nov 18, 2008
20,308
4
74,960

I think the only game that shows any advantage to an intel is starcraft

In the heavy duty games like watchdogs and crysis the FX 8350 is so close to the intel quads that you would always be better off having an extra $60 to spend on the graphics card

I think all the low resolution benchmarks show how some sites set up meaningless tests to give support to their advertising revenue .
Know anyone buying a screen like that in 2014? Me either .
And in every single game [ apart from starcraft ] the FX makes more than 60 fps. Since the monitor can only ever display 60 fps [ 60 Hz] spending more on an intel quad [ or much more on a socket 2011 processor] does not change the users experience at all . In both cases they get 60 fps served to them . NEVER any more than that even if the benchmark says they are getting 200 fps , not even if it says they are getting a 1000 fps .
The extra spent on the intel is wasted . You'd always be better off with the AMD and buying girl dinner at a decent restaurant in the hope she might start dating you
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mdocod

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2010
1,797
0
20,460
There are lots of popular games that are compute bound to less than 60FPS minimums on both AMD and Intel in conditions that are not benchmarkable. In those conditions, the haswell solution has significantly better FPS minimums. It's not just starcraft, this issue extends to all sorts of games.

In BF4, which is one of the few games that scales into 8 threads, the i5-4440 gets the same minimum FPS as an FX-8350@5GHZ on 64 player maps in congested areas. The i5-4440 achieves ~30% higher FPS than the FX-8320 (Stock clocked) in these same conditions. (both occur below 60FPS, where this scaling DOES count!) No matter how you implement the 8 core option from AMD it never delivers the value of the i5 in gaming. If the FX-83XX series is a poor value in BF4, one of the few titles that scales into its 8 cores, then that makes it a much worse value for pretty much every other game ever made to date, as most of them only scale to 2-4 threads.

List of popular games that show significant (25-75% or greater) performance discrepancy in minimum FPS at sub-60FPS levels between piledriver and haswell:
DayZ (high unit count conditions)
WoW (Raids/towns etc)
BF3 MP
BF4 MP
PlanetSide 2 (busy conditions)
Arma 3
Supreme Commander (late game high unit/player count)
Supreme Commander 2 (late game high unit/player count)
Starcraft II (late game high unit/player count
Flight Simulator X (especially with mods and far view distances)
Popular Console Ports like the GTA series (and long lists of badly optimized ports that only run 1-3 threads on old x86 instructions, yet are very popular)
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
R

rannon

Honorable
May 24, 2014
143
0
10,710

couldn't have said it better, good job
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,333
4,162
174,240
8+ cores/threads are most useful if the workload can be evenly split among all 8 threads.
Not an easy thing to do. Both from the design aspect in finding equal tasks, and the programming aspect of dispatching and monitoring multiple threads.
The key is the master thread. The master thread speed becomes more important as more threads are added to the app.
Read "Amdahl's law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

And... If you really wanted 8 threads, look at a i7-4790K. Only $100 more for the best there is for gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

Outlander_04

Titan
BANNED
Nov 18, 2008
20,308
4
74,960


couldn't have said it worse


I have not played all of those games , but the ones I have have not shown any issues with minimum fps lower than the intels .
Generally you find that the extra threads available tend to minimize variations in FPS, not increase it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom