Hi, i'm buying used cpus.Both have same price.
It's been said over and over again , high frequency i5 is favorable for gaming compared to low frequency octa core(the fx 8370e).
Youtube gaming videos suggests fx is A BIT faster, though i HIGHLY doubt the accuracy and deviations.
BUT, what is the truth?
REasonS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS IS THE MAIN CONCERN
1).Benchmarks scores of these cpus were almost SAME. BUT performance PER CORE for INTEL(4 cores) is BETTER than AMD(8 cores) !!!
HOWEVER , those benchmark includes tests like data compression, ENCRYPTION performance and others that were NOT RELATED to GAMING performance, at all !!!
IN REALITY, which is more EFFICIENT for gaming? !!!
___________________________________________________________________________________
2)Intel i5 supports AVX 2.0 where as AMD does not.Does that matter?
Cause games like QUANTUM BREAK dont run on C2Q(like q9400) for not having certain instruction set(not sure if ssse or avx) that new i3(like i3-2100) have , even though both have same performance.
___________________________________________________________________________________
3).Back in days, many(mostly from this forum) prefers high frequency CORE 2 DUO over CORE 2 QUAD.
Initially, games supporting dual core runz faster on C2D. Quads runs just fine though.
HOWEVER, TODAY, you cant game without a quad core , like FAR CRY 4.
SO, that decision turns out pretty UGLY.
I'm afraid that may REPEAT, for these i5 and Fx cpu !!!!!!!!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4).Would game developers optimize games for high clock with lesser cores ? Isn't THAT less efficient when games get "bigger" and more things to process?More data(like GTA 5) needs more cores.
,but,
GAMES LIKE GTA 5 AND WITCHER 3 SUPPORTS 8 threads BUT still runs fast on i5(subjectively).
THIS IS CONFUSING because ;
A)More cores means sets of calculation can be subject to same clock speed INDEPENDENTLY.
Other words, SPREADING LOADS ACROSS CORES, EACH load can be processed faster than few cores @higher clock.
EVEN SIMPLER , it is like 4.0ghz single core vs 3.0ghz dual core.
(though lithohraphy,binning may vary a little , in this case)
B)If a game needs 4 CORES AT MOST, 8 cores=waste.
Thus HIGHER clocks with 4 cores=MORE FPS in these case. FOR FASTER CALCULATION, clock speed matters.
~BUT are there games that cant use 8 threads nowdays???????
NOT all data(may have same size)be processed at same clock speed.Games NEED high clock speed.
Even mini games run on i7 Extreme, despite having low core usage, it still operates at highest clock speed as possible.
SO, more confusion !!!!
SO, WHICH IS BETTER, EXPLAIN.
*pls ignore about overclocking or heat or brand issue when discussing.
It's been said over and over again , high frequency i5 is favorable for gaming compared to low frequency octa core(the fx 8370e).
Youtube gaming videos suggests fx is A BIT faster, though i HIGHLY doubt the accuracy and deviations.
BUT, what is the truth?
REasonS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS IS THE MAIN CONCERN
1).Benchmarks scores of these cpus were almost SAME. BUT performance PER CORE for INTEL(4 cores) is BETTER than AMD(8 cores) !!!
HOWEVER , those benchmark includes tests like data compression, ENCRYPTION performance and others that were NOT RELATED to GAMING performance, at all !!!
IN REALITY, which is more EFFICIENT for gaming? !!!
___________________________________________________________________________________
2)Intel i5 supports AVX 2.0 where as AMD does not.Does that matter?
Cause games like QUANTUM BREAK dont run on C2Q(like q9400) for not having certain instruction set(not sure if ssse or avx) that new i3(like i3-2100) have , even though both have same performance.
___________________________________________________________________________________
3).Back in days, many(mostly from this forum) prefers high frequency CORE 2 DUO over CORE 2 QUAD.
Initially, games supporting dual core runz faster on C2D. Quads runs just fine though.
HOWEVER, TODAY, you cant game without a quad core , like FAR CRY 4.
SO, that decision turns out pretty UGLY.
I'm afraid that may REPEAT, for these i5 and Fx cpu !!!!!!!!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4).Would game developers optimize games for high clock with lesser cores ? Isn't THAT less efficient when games get "bigger" and more things to process?More data(like GTA 5) needs more cores.
,but,
GAMES LIKE GTA 5 AND WITCHER 3 SUPPORTS 8 threads BUT still runs fast on i5(subjectively).
THIS IS CONFUSING because ;
A)More cores means sets of calculation can be subject to same clock speed INDEPENDENTLY.
Other words, SPREADING LOADS ACROSS CORES, EACH load can be processed faster than few cores @higher clock.
EVEN SIMPLER , it is like 4.0ghz single core vs 3.0ghz dual core.
(though lithohraphy,binning may vary a little , in this case)
B)If a game needs 4 CORES AT MOST, 8 cores=waste.
Thus HIGHER clocks with 4 cores=MORE FPS in these case. FOR FASTER CALCULATION, clock speed matters.
~BUT are there games that cant use 8 threads nowdays???????
NOT all data(may have same size)be processed at same clock speed.Games NEED high clock speed.
Even mini games run on i7 Extreme, despite having low core usage, it still operates at highest clock speed as possible.
SO, more confusion !!!!
SO, WHICH IS BETTER, EXPLAIN.
*pls ignore about overclocking or heat or brand issue when discussing.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram