Should I shell out for an intel processor, or upgrade to the FX-8350?

[exadon]

I'll try to keep this short. I've got a pc running an fx-4170 that I want to upgrade. I've got a radeon 7950 in it and I use the system primarily for gaming. I plan on xfiring somewhere down the line, but first I need a better processor. My question is, should I just get the FX-8350, or should I shell out for a new board and get an intel processor? I'm 16, and I don't pull in a lot from my job, so money is a big factor. If you suggest intel, which processor in the $200-$250 price range could I get the most bang for my buck?

 

[rolli59]

If you go Intel then I5 3570K is the bbb but remember you need as well a $100+ motherboard.

 

[abundantcores]

The i5 3570K will give you about 20% extra FPS in 'some' but not all games.

In well threaded games like BF3 your not going to notice the difference.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html


But, in light threaded games like World Of Warcraft the i5 has a clear lead over Piledriver, because 'while it only has half the cores of the FX-8' they are individually faster. So for a game that is only capable of using 2 cores the Intel i5 has the FX nailed.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

 

[abundantcores]

Edit- BF3 link... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

 

[BuddiLuva]

IF you're preserving the money I'd say go for the 8350 or the 6300

If you go Intel you'l need a new mobo too which is just more money.

Unless you like spending money, because I don't. Therefore......AMD!

 

[rolli59]

I personally would go with the FX8350 in this case.

 

[mohit9206]

upgrading from 4170 to 8350 would result in barely any noticaeble increase in gaming performance. so you are just wasting your money. if you think that 8350 wont bottleneck two 7950 in Xfire you are wrong. all amd cpu's are bottlenecked by dual hi end graphic cards coz the limitation is in the AM3+ socket itself.

 

[abundantcores]

Thats the first i have heard that. links, proof?

 

[technoholic]

... if you think that 8350 wont bottleneck two 7950 in Xfire you are wrong...

That is not a completely accurate argument. A 8350 will chew through anything well threaded, performing similar to Intel's 4 core CPUs. Take BF3 for example. There you can only see a 7950 creating bottleneck, not the CPU. Most games aren't well-threaded. It is game developers' duty to program their games this way, suitable to multi core/thread CPUs. AMD's defect is the poor single core performance. They tried to follow a "modern" route when designing their CPU but they forgot that programmers are too lazy to write multi thhreaded programs (or games in this case)

 

[amuffin]

That really depends on how much money you're willing to drop.

 

[blacknemesist]

Stick with you AMD for now and upgrade to an i5-3570k(if you can OC the CPU) or the i5-3450(if you dont OC the CPU).
The I5-3570k is very very good to OC but if you dont OC it will be a waste of money.
I understand money may be tight but buying an inferior CPU will just make you have to upgrade next year.With a good solid CPU like the I5-3570k(again,only if you plan to OC it) or the I5-3450 you will keep it for years before it needs a replacement.
Personnaly I'd wait for the money for an I5-3570k+mobo+a EVO212+ and turn it into a 4.0-4.2ghz monster.
To make my case,I am without a desktop for 2 months to save money for christmas deals and to get a system that will last for years.I could have bought a cheap short-term solution but those are simply money wasted.

 

[blacknemesist]

That is not a completely accurate argument. A 8350 will chew through anything well threaded, performing similar to Intel's 4 core CPUs. Take BF3 for example. There you can only see a 7950 creating bottleneck, not the CPU. Most games aren't well-threaded. It is game developers' duty to program their games this way, suitable to multi core/thread CPUs. AMD's defect is the poor single core performance. They tried to follow a "modern" route when designing their CPU but they forgot that programmers are too lazy to write multi thhreaded programs (or games in this case)

AMD is a poor CPU designer that seems to fail to read on gaming marketing.Of course Intel is better,they put only 4 cores but each core beats 2 AMD cores.Games are not going 4 cores that soon.

Yes,if the game can use more cores the AMD can near the Intel but how many games do that honestly?Are you going to buy something that is inferior in most gaming scenarios or go with a solution that matches every AMD and works very good in all games?
AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.

As for "its the game producers duty" bla bla(no offence) that is bull.If they are not making them use 4/8/12 core and 4/8/12 threads it is because the gaming data base is still filled with single and dual cores eventhough the 4 core games are around half of that by now.Problem is that GPUs are largely the most important hardware on the system as far as gaming goes.
When the time comes when a 4 core CPU is absolutely necessary to run a game they will make it optimized for that.As for what the CPUs role can be fulfillled with dual or even single core so naturally game producers won't spend time on money working on optimizing a game for something it doesnt need or that barely benefits from.

 

[twelve25]

But, in light threaded games like World Of Warcraft the i5 has a clear lead over Piledriver, because 'while it only has half the cores of the FX-8' they are individually faster. So for a game that is only capable of using 2 cores the Intel i5 has the FX nailed.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

While the Intels may have a lead, the 8350 is still maintaining well over 60fps. I know some people like to say they can tell the difference between 70 and 100fps, but I sure can't when my monitor is at 60hz anyway. Also at very high resolution, the intel drops farther than the AMD, making them equal (58 vs 60fps)

 

[abundantcores]

AMD is a poor CPU designer that seems to fail to read on gaming marketing.Of course Intel is better,they put only 4 cores but each core beats 2 AMD cores.Games are not going 4 cores that soon.
Yes,if the game can use more cores the AMD can near the Intel but how many games do that honestly?Are you going to buy something that is inferior in most gaming scenarios or go with a solution that matches every AMD and works very good in all games?
AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.

You would argue that FX = 70 FPS vs Intel = 80 FPS is worth building a new rig for?

 

[technoholic]

AMD is better(price : performance wise) for heavy duty software like movie or photo editing where the cores and threads are working to full potential.Gaming rarely features the use of so many cores/threads.

At the same time, games are very suitable for parallel work loads, aren't they?

 

[abundantcores]

At the same time, games are very suitable for parallel work loads, aren't they?

What like gaming while also converting an AVI file in to DVD, for example?

 

[blacknemesist]

You would argue that FX = 70 FPS vs Intel = 80 FPS is worth building a new rig for?

You can't compare it will that...10 FPS where?And what about in 2 years when FX will be completely absolete and the I5 is still a good all around CPU?

 

[technoholic]

What like gaming while also converting an AVI file in to DVD, for example?

But let's not forget 8350's power consumption. IMO there is no arguing for it. I like and support AMD but Piledriver still doesn't deliver when you consider power consumption

 

[technoholic]

As for "its the game producers duty" bla bla(no offence) that is bull.If they are not making them use 4/8/12 core and 4/8/12 threads it is because the gaming data base is still filled with single and dual cores eventhough the 4 core games are around half of that by now.Problem is that GPUs are largely the most important hardware on the system as far as gaming goes.
When the time comes when a 4 core CPU is absolutely necessary to run a game they will make it optimized for that.As for what the CPUs role can be fulfillled with dual or even single core so naturally game producers won't spend time on money working on optimizing a game for something it doesnt need or that barely benefits from.

So you claim that multi threading "barely" helps performance?

 

[abundantcores]

You can't compare it will that...10 FPS where?And what about in 2 years when FX will be completely absolete and the I5 is still a good all around CPU?

Here, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

well its 86 vs 110

And 91 vs 107 here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html

And nothing here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

I don't see the point in buying a new Motherboard for gaining 15 / 20 FPS for some games when your already getting over 80 FPS.

 

[blacknemesist]

So you claim that multi threading "barely" helps performance?

I am claming that gaming companies would rather keep up with GPUs and optimize games for them than going into the huge trouble of optimizing a game to support a number of Cores/threads that most people dont have.SO naturally they optimize for 2 cores/2 threads which is comon and less expensive to program for.

 

[blacknemesist]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

You "forgot" this one.

And yes,it is worth it for the price difference.The AMD has a long way to go still.They use alot more power and generate alot more heat.Try OCing it to max then compare the performance to maxed OC i5 and you will see the gap widen.

 

[abundantcores]

I am claming that gaming companies would rather keep up with GPUs and optimize games for them than going into the huge trouble of optimizing a game to support a number of Cores/threads that most people dont have.SO naturally they optimize for 2 cores/2 threads which is comon and less expensive to program for.

To me i would think better multithreading is an important step forward for developers given that games are becoming more complex.

And this is already happening, the Frost Bite 2 uses up to 8 cores for a reason, frankly those who don't move with the times are simply going to be left behind.

 

[blacknemesist]

To me i would think better multithreading is an important step forward for developers given that games are becoming more complex.

And this is already happening, the Frost Bite 2 uses up to 8 cores for a reason, frankly those who don't move with the times are simply going to be left behind.

I agree.Game producers don't.Until the vast majority of the games is using 4+ cores you are simply preparing for something that isnt going to work as you think it will.Most games wont benefit from 8 cores using the AMD architecture as they do with the Intel 2/4 core architecture.Proof of that are the benchmarks above.
I don't see 8 cores in games as the minimum in the near future,maybe in 5 years they will but for now 4 intel cores is a better choice than amd 8 cores.
As I said,until it proves worthwhile making a powerful 8 core CPU dependant game,game producers will stick with making them run on the most used CPU and right now those are dual core and quad cores.8 cores are in a very small number in that pool.
Just because the Frost Bite engine can use up to 8 cores it doesnt mean that the 8 cores vs 4 cores will be significant enough because games are not using all of them because that makes a make longer and more expensive to produce and only a few % of people will have that benefit so it is time and money wasted by gaming companies.
If you have the money and want to game and process audio and video at the same time,go for a 8 core or 12 core otherwise 4 cores will be enough.

 

[technoholic]

blacknemesist get your facts together mate. No offense but at 1 side you claim that CPU arthitecture doesn't make much of a difference, at another side you say that an intel is better than AMD and keep suggesting xxx cpu over another