Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX-8320 vs Intel core i5-3470

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 26, 2013 9:27:30 AM

which is better for gaming and multitasking.
I might also use photoshop and after effects.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 10:27:41 AM

The i5 is probably a little bit better for gaming and the 8320 should be better for multi-tasking because it has twice as many threads. That's really a tough question because each application uses the CPU differently. In synthetic testing the 8320 wins and it can be overclock for an easy 15% boost in performance.
May 26, 2013 10:45:04 AM

swilczak said:
The i5 is probably a little bit better for gaming and the 8320 should be better for multi-tasking because it has twice as many threads. That's really a tough question because each application uses the CPU differently. In synthetic testing the 8320 wins and it can be overclock for an easy 15% boost in performance.


yeah it is a tough decision. but which one do you think is more future proof?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 11:00:02 AM

Since games will likely use more threads in the future and since many future games will be designed to run on AMD chips due to the fact that the PS4 and xbox one use AMD, I would get the 8320. I have an 8320 and it works good for my gaming needs so far.
May 26, 2013 11:59:29 AM

swilczak said:
Since games will likely use more threads in the future and since many future games will be designed to run on AMD chips due to the fact that the PS4 and xbox one use AMD, I would get the 8320. I have an 8320 and it works good for my gaming needs so far.


thanks, I think I'm going with FX-8320. What GPU are you using?
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 12:11:22 PM

There's no such thing as "Future Proof". Reality as it stands right now suggests that a 3470 is a lot better for gaming. Games that I play like World of Tanks, and other online games, as well as games like Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, and CODII all use 4 cores are less. World of Tanks only uses 2 cores and many online games only use 2 cores. So it's important to have really powerful cores. A 3470 has REALLY powerful cores so it will perform a lot better than an 8320 that has REALLY weak cores.

Would you rather have 4 powerful cores or 8 weak ones? If all you do is multitask then the 8320 might be a little better. But the 3470 isn't faar off from the 8320 in multitasking, maybe like 10% slower, and the 8320 is way far behind in single threaded performance as well as programs that use 4 cores or less by like 50%.

As far as games using 8 cores. Yeah, it'll happen, but I don't see it happening ANY time soon. More like 5 years from now when you'll need a new CPU any ways. Even games that take advantage of 8 cores like Crysis 3 still perform better on a 3470 than an 8320 when you crank the resolution down and put the load on the CPU. Explain that? It's because of per core performance. It's really important for you CPU to have powerful cores because many programs and games don't use all of your CPU.

I checked a benchmark site and of the 35 benchmarks and games they tested the 3470 won 21 and the 8320 won 14. The games were all won by the 3470.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 12:16:27 PM

Btw, why aren't you getting a K version like the 3570k? You can't overclock a 3470 and it's about the same price. I find that to be an extreme waste. Even if you don't want to overclock, still get the 3570k, it's clocked higher and if you want to overclock in the future, it's there for you.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 12:26:08 PM

RedDave said:
swilczak said:
Since games will likely use more threads in the future and since many future games will be designed to run on AMD chips due to the fact that the PS4 and xbox one use AMD, I would get the 8320. I have an 8320 and it works good for my gaming needs so far.


thanks, I think I'm going with FX-8320. What GPU are you using?

I'm using a Radeon 7950 boost. The difference between the i5 and 8320 is probably only a few frames and it makes no difference if you are using a 60hz monitor and staying at 60 fps or higher which all of my games do with this configuration.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 12:30:40 PM

Nobody has a definite answer for future proofing a PC, all we can do is try to predict what will happen in the future and hopefully be right about it.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 12:52:26 PM

Go for the 8320. Especially since you will be doing some photoshop as you will definitely notice the difference between the i5 and FX there. They are both solid cpus, as one poster did mention above if you do go for the i5 you may as well just get the 3570k for the price difference.
May 26, 2013 1:19:39 PM

ericjohn004 said:
There's no such thing as "Future Proof". Reality as it stands right now suggests that a 3470 is a lot better for gaming. Games that I play like World of Tanks, and other online games, as well as games like Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, and CODII all use 4 cores are less. World of Tanks only uses 2 cores and many online games only use 2 cores. So it's important to have really powerful cores. A 3470 has REALLY powerful cores so it will perform a lot better than an 8320 that has REALLY weak cores.

Would you rather have 4 powerful cores or 8 weak ones? If all you do is multitask then the 8320 might be a little better. But the 3470 isn't faar off from the 8320 in multitasking, maybe like 10% slower, and the 8320 is way far behind in single threaded performance as well as programs that use 4 cores or less by like 50%.

As far as games using 8 cores. Yeah, it'll happen, but I don't see it happening ANY time soon. More like 5 years from now when you'll need a new CPU any ways. Even games that take advantage of 8 cores like Crysis 3 still perform better on a 3470 than an 8320 when you crank the resolution down and put the load on the CPU. Explain that? It's because of per core performance. It's really important for you CPU to have powerful cores because many programs and games don't use all of your CPU.

I checked a benchmark site and of the 35 benchmarks and games they tested the 3470 won 21 and the 8320 won 14. The games were all won by the 3470.


Isn't most games rely mainly on your GPU? I don't mind losing a few frames as long I get a better multi threaded preformance besides as swilczak mentioned i think multi threads is the future. As for weak cores they are weaker than i5 but I don't they are that much weak.
May 26, 2013 1:25:10 PM

ericjohn004 said:
Btw, why aren't you getting a K version like the 3570k? You can't overclock a 3470 and it's about the same price. I find that to be an extreme waste. Even if you don't want to overclock, still get the 3570k, it's clocked higher and if you want to overclock in the future, it's there for you.


chrisafp07 said:
Go for the 8320. Especially since you will be doing some photoshop as you will definitely notice the difference between the i5 and FX there. They are both solid cpus, as one poster did mention above if you do go for the i5 you may as well just get the 3570k for the price difference.


Here in my country the price difference between i5-3470 and i5-3570k is big. So I can't buy as I still want to get a good GPU. I would have bought the K version over the FX but my budget is very limited.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 2:45:08 PM

Buy the best you can afford.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 3:24:38 PM

hafijur said:
I love how people say in future fx series will run games better due to consoles. Its a load of rubbish, if anything if games tax the cpu more intels raw performance will destroy amd even more. Also I find it funny one of the worst efficient cpus is considered future proof compared to a cpu thats 2x better performance per watt. In 2014 I expect 25w cpus from intel to outperform the fx8350.

Games can be designed to work well with a certain CPU architecture. AMD's FX CPU's are very unique with 8 integer clusters, 4 modules and a lot of cache. You have no idea what will happen in the future so please stop speculating that Intel will always be better just because they are better right now. Remember 10 years ago when Microsoft had a lot more money than Apple? Well they don't anymore. Things can turn around real fast for AMD if they make the right moves, which they seem to be doing in the gaming industry.
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 26, 2013 4:32:18 PM

swilczak said:
hafijur said:
I love how people say in future fx series will run games better due to consoles. Its a load of rubbish, if anything if games tax the cpu more intels raw performance will destroy amd even more. Also I find it funny one of the worst efficient cpus is considered future proof compared to a cpu thats 2x better performance per watt. In 2014 I expect 25w cpus from intel to outperform the fx8350.

Games can be designed to work well with a certain CPU architecture. AMD's FX CPU's are very unique with 8 integer clusters, 4 modules and a lot of cache. You have no idea what will happen in the future so please stop speculating that Intel will always be better just because they are better right now. Remember 10 years ago when Microsoft had a lot more money than Apple? Well they don't anymore. Things can turn around real fast for AMD if they make the right moves, which they seem to be doing in the gaming industry.


+1
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 4:51:23 PM

hafijur said:
I love how people say in future fx series will run games better due to consoles. Its a load of rubbish, if anything if games tax the cpu more intels raw performance will destroy amd even more. Also I find it funny one of the worst efficient cpus is considered future proof compared to a cpu thats 2x better performance per watt. In 2014 I expect 25w cpus from intel to outperform the fx8350.


Your post defies logic. CPUs being taxed more isn't what people are talking about per-say. What people are talking about is Multi-Threading (the ability to run multiple different threads of information on multiple CPU cores). This means spreading around the work onto more cores (8 integer cores in this case) rather than taxing a single core or two at 100%.

The upcoming consoles from Microsoft and Sony will feature AMD Jaguar-like cores (8 of them) as well as an AMD GPU. Games coded around these platforms (using the AMD Development kit) will make use of those 8 cores as well as various AMD compute and SIMD features. This isn't a possibility but rather a statement of fact.

Therefore what some are saying is that AMD CPU's may just yet get a boost in upcoming titles launching around the same time as those two consoles. It is a very logical assumption for one to make. Maybe these people don't intend to upgrade for a few years and want a more steady platform for the duration of this time.

As for power savings, some websites calculated the savings in electricity... I believe it was something like $19 in a year.
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2013 6:10:45 PM

hafijur said:
In that case the difference between an intel i5 quad and fx8000 series will come down but still if both intel and amd competitive cpus using there cores intel will win. Intel already wins on 100% cpu tasks like video encoding over the fx8350.


Yea but no ones cares about that. This poster is trying to get an answer for value, take your fanboyism elsewhere. We all know core for core Intel is stronger but that doesn't mean they make a better cpu, now go away.
May 27, 2013 6:34:48 AM

I think we went a little off topic. So what do you people think is a better all round CPU not only for gaming but for everything (multitasking, video editing, photoshop and may be some programming) that can last me like 3-4 years. Which one should I go for?
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2013 7:55:39 AM

RedDave said:
I think we went a little off topic. So what do you people think is a better all round CPU not only for gaming but for everything (multitasking, video editing, photoshop and may be some programming) that can last me like 3-4 years. Which one should I go for?


The 8320 for sure, if you are doing editing and photoshop you will be using all of the 8320's 8 cores and will see better performance in all heavily multi-threaded applications, that really is where the FX cpus do very well right now. They also game comparatively well to i5s and i7s so for an all around best choice the 8 core will benefit your needs.
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2013 8:13:43 AM

hafijur said:
chrisafp07 said:
RedDave said:
I think we went a little off topic. So what do you people think is a better all round CPU not only for gaming but for everything (multitasking, video editing, photoshop and may be some programming) that can last me like 3-4 years. Which one should I go for?


The 8320 for sure, if you are doing editing and photoshop you will be using all of the 8320's 8 cores and will see better performance in all heavily multi-threaded applications, that really is where the FX cpus do very well right now. They also game comparatively well to i5s and i7s so for an all around best choice the 8 core will benefit your needs.


I like how amd fanboys think just because amd cpu with 8 cores will beat a 4 core intel cpu.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-...

Wow the i5 3470 destroys the amd cpu. Piledriver and bulldozer are a load of rubbish. I think it must be the biggest lead in history between intel and amd. Its astonishing how on 32nm amd have actually gone backwards from there 45nm cpus. Intel have improved massively since there 45nm cpus, like 2x better at half the power on 22nm while amd on 32nm gone backwards in performance taking more electricity generally on the fx4000 and 6000 cpus.


I'm simply stating that an 8 core cpu will benefit more for what he is doing. Video editing in particular loves threads. I mean cmon relax, the i5 doesn't destroy the aMD nor does the AMD destroy the i5, please be reasonable this poster is looking to make a purchase based on your response. These cpus would be so close in performance it would be barely noticeable, the 8320 is just slightly more powerful for multi-threaded apps.
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2013 8:58:21 AM

People on here should really just stop feeding the fanboy trolls on both sides (AMD and Intel). 95% of the threads on Tom's end up turning into flame wars, and no one ever gets a real answer. There is no real discussion anymore and its sad.

As I said before, simply buy the best you can afford. An 8320/8350 will serve you just fine. Likewise, the i5 3470, 3570, etc. will as well. I am using an 8350 and it works great. I play games (at smooth, ultra graphics) and use apps that require lots of threads. I have no complaints on either side. Why did I buy an 8350? It allowed me to spend a little more of my money elsewhere on my rig. Would I have bought an i5/i7? Absolutely if my budget comfortably allowed it.
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 9:11:23 AM

hafijur said:
You said photoshop. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-... 3470 destros the fx8350. 42% is a lot of gain as the i5 3470 beats the fx8350 if calculated correctly. Lets not forget taking half the power consumption. Anyway 3470 will win on most real world tasks compared to amd, gaming its not really a contest as i5 will destroy amd on that.


Then why does Tom's hardware say the FX8350 > i5-3470 in Photoshop?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Tom's has it rated better again in video editing as well...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Why do you hunt for fanboy websites that show biased results in intel's favor? Use Tom's benchmarks...they're typically closest to real world results. Everytime you post something, the link is to a website no one's ever heard of...why?

@RedDave: The FX8320 will be comparable to anything you can pick in the i5 intel family. Performance will be very similar, and for the price of the FX8320, any i5 you choose would be considerably more. If you have a budget in mind, the FX8320 makes it easier to fit more higher quality parts in your build and stay at the same price point...(especially a GPU, that's the best money spent for gaming/rendering)
a c 130 å Intel
a c 104 À AMD
a c 219 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 10:11:55 AM

RedDave I can understand you wanting to get the best bang for your buck but posting a thread with AMD vs Intel in this forum will always digress into a flame war between the AMD and Intel fanboys and you will not get your answer.

Your best option is to do the research yourself and look up benchmarks with the processors you have in mind.

Hafijur , Chrisafp07 and 8350rocks unless your posts start to address the OP and answer HIS questions action will be taken.
May 27, 2013 10:19:23 AM

RedDave said:
which is better for gaming and multitasking.
I might also use photoshop and after effects.


The I5 is better for gaming in the most games, FX-8320 is better but not much better in few games, these who support good HT.

For photoshop and streaming and such, the FX-8320 is a winner due to using its HT.

Its hard to know if the games will support HT in the future but if they do, FX-8320 will be a good gaming CPU in the new games aswell.

I'm right now using a FX-4100@ 4,7 ghz. I'ma upgrade to I5 because I aint sure FX-8320 will do me good in the games I'm gonna play, since all of them dont support HT. My decision is to go with an I5-3450 and a cheap B75 1155 mobo, and then go with i7 3770 in about a year if the games will support HT. I'm done with AMD.

Anyways, FX-8320 is ok for gaming but personally I'd choose intel, since I've seen some tests in games which dont support HT, FX-8320 vs I5-3570K, FX-8320 Appears to be much better for streaming, but I5-3570k beat it in gaming, definitely in these non-HT supported games.

I hope you find your solution!

If you're gonna photoshop FX-8320 may be the choice, but remember, for gaming the intel appears to be better unless you wanna stream when gaming.

I'm not a fanboy, and want no arguement, this is just some info I found on the internet, also checked benchmarks and I5-3570K beats FX-8320 in most games and an I5-3470 even 3450 would beat it in most games too.
May 27, 2013 10:28:41 AM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
You said photoshop. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-... 3470 destros the fx8350. 42% is a lot of gain as the i5 3470 beats the fx8350 if calculated correctly. Lets not forget taking half the power consumption. Anyway 3470 will win on most real world tasks compared to amd, gaming its not really a contest as i5 will destroy amd on that.


Then why does Tom's hardware say the FX8350 > i5-3470 in Photoshop?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Tom's has it rated better again in video editing as well...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Why do you hunt for fanboy websites that show biased results in intel's favor? Use Tom's benchmarks...they're typically closest to real world results. Everytime you post something, the link is to a website no one's ever heard of...why?

Actually thats site use very "Future Proof" benchmark suite :

after effect CS 4 released on October 15, 2008 (newest release CS6)
photoshop CS 5 (why not CS4 like after effect?)
Virtual Dub 1.9.5 released August 22, 2009 (newest Release 1.9.11).
very strange PC mark 7 1.0.4 result i5 3470 120 % faster then i5 2500k in computation score 70 % in creativity score
strange winzip result, thats difference than any other site

so this cherry picking benchmark just show us how "Future Proof" intel i5 is.
a c 130 å Intel
a c 104 À AMD
a c 219 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 10:58:34 AM

I asked for posts to be addressing the OP and not quoting and responding to others to continue the flame war and I warned that there would be action taken.

Pangolin_user 1 day ban for ignoring the warning.
May 27, 2013 1:13:58 PM

Thanks to all of you guys. After doing some research I found that the Intel i5-3470 is better for me, I might even get the i5-3570K if I find a good price. Just one last question is the motherboard MSI Z77A-G43 a good board for overclocking the i5-3570K? Thanks again guys :) 
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 1:25:13 PM

RedDave said:
Thanks to all of you guys. After doing some research I found that the Intel i5-3470 is better for me, I might even get the i5-3570K if I find a good price. Just one last question is the motherboard MSI Z77A-G43 a good board for overclocking the i5-3570K? Thanks again guys :) 


While it is a Z77 board...you'll want to look at something like the Asus P8Z77 or Asus Z77 sabertooth, or something like the Asus Maximus. You could also go with something like the Asrock Z77 Extreme9 for solid overclocking, Gigabyte's Z77 UD3 is a good option, and so is the MSI Z77A-G65.

When you're overclocking, you want maximum control of the power you're putting to the CPU, which means really good VRMs and entry level boards don't typically have such features.
May 27, 2013 1:44:52 PM

8350rocks said:
RedDave said:
Thanks to all of you guys. After doing some research I found that the Intel i5-3470 is better for me, I might even get the i5-3570K if I find a good price. Just one last question is the motherboard MSI Z77A-G43 a good board for overclocking the i5-3570K? Thanks again guys :) 


While it is a Z77 board...you'll want to look at something like the Asus P8Z77 or Asus Z77 sabertooth, or something like the Asus Maximus. You could also go with something like the Asrock Z77 Extreme9 for solid overclocking, Gigabyte's Z77 UD3 is a good option, and so is the MSI Z77A-G65.

When you're overclocking, you want maximum control of the power you're putting to the CPU, which means really good VRMs and entry level boards don't typically have such features.


What about Gigabyte GA-Z77-D3H and ASRock Z77 Extreme4?
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 4:37:04 PM

Of those 2, I would lean toward the Asrock Z77 Extreme4. Just keep in mind, if you go intel...your build will cost you quite a bit more to do a good intel build and overclock it. The difference in cost between the FX8320 and the i5-3470 is about $30 or so...but when you factor in the motherboard for the intel is also another $30-80 more expensive (depending on your choice)...you can see it pushes build costs up pretty quickly.
May 27, 2013 4:54:54 PM

8350rocks said:
Of those 2, I would lean toward the Asrock Z77 Extreme4. Just keep in mind, if you go intel...your build will cost you quite a bit more to do a good intel build and overclock it. The difference in cost between the FX8320 and the i5-3470 is about $30 or so...but when you factor in the motherboard for the intel is also another $30-80 more expensive (depending on your choice)...you can see it pushes build costs up pretty quickly.


Yeah that's why I'm thinking of getting the GPU later after a month or two and depend on the intergrated graphics in the CPU. Many thanks 8350rocks :D 
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 5:00:50 PM

That's going to be pretty abysmal if you're going to do anything graphically demanding.

I know Tom's review basically alluded to using intel's HD4k graphics by saying, don't do it...unless it's in a pinch to update BIOS or something. Intel is not typically known for their built in graphics being good. So I would recommend you get a GPU as quickly as possible...because you certainly won't be playing something like BF3 on HD4K
May 27, 2013 5:05:46 PM

I know the HD graphics of Intel sucks but I just don't want to rush into it and buy a cheap GPU
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 5:10:34 PM

What's your GPU budget in the intel build?
May 27, 2013 5:17:34 PM

8350rocks said:
What's your GPU budget in the intel build?


about 120$
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 27, 2013 5:20:33 PM

You can buy a HD 7770 GHz edition for that. If you play your cards right, you might even be able to swing a HD 7790, which is basically just a tiny bit shy of the HD 7850 (think like HD 7830). That would be a great card for the money!
May 27, 2013 5:26:03 PM

hafijur said:
I would save up and wait for haswell or steamroller and any good graphics then. For the time being an a10 apu if cheap will do most of your tasks.


They say that haswell have about 10% better preformance than ivy bridge which isn't alot of improvement actually.
May 27, 2013 5:36:41 PM

8350rocks said:
You can buy a HD 7770 GHz edition for that. If you play your cards right, you might even be able to swing a HD 7790, which is basically just a tiny bit shy of the HD 7850 (think like HD 7830). That would be a great card for the money!


Really that's great! Thanks again
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 28, 2013 7:28:01 AM

hafijur said:
7850 is a lot better then a 7790. 7850 designed for 1080p games due to 256bit interface vs the 128bit for 7790.


The core clock on the HD 7790 is significantly faster than it is on the HD 7850, and there are nearly as many processors. There is a slight gap in bandwidth, which is why I said it was just shy of the 7850...but really...the difference would be negligible.
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 7:52:07 AM

If your talking about ALL-AROUND computing, the 3470 takes the win for me. It'll perform up to 50% more than the 8320 during single threaded programs(not just single threaded programs, but programs that use 4 cores or less, a lot of programs and games). And it only performs 10 maybe 15% at the most, worse that the 8320 in multithreading. You can even make up for that 10% if you overclock the Base Clock .2Ghz, which you can do.

To me, it's worth it to give up 10-15% on multithreading to get UNREAL single threaded performance and gaming performance.

THere's a common misconception that games only rely on the GPU. That's false. Sure if you play games like Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 at 1920x1080 and MAX out the settings then you won't notice but a couple FPS(personally I care about those FPS). But then, if you want to go play some online MMO that only uses 1 MAYBE 2 cores then you'll notice a MASSIVE difference. Like 30-50FPS out of 100. Since those games are online they rely heavily on the CPU and they rely heavily on single core performance, which the 8320 doesn't have much of. Therefore it's really a poor choice if your going to be playing online multiplayer games. Just read Tom's reviews of League of Legends and DOTA. You'll see that it takes an i5 to get the most out of those online games.

This is why I say get the 3470. It's good at EVERYTHING. Not just SOME things and bad at other things. It's an all around good CPU.

Btw, why don't you get an i5 3350P? It's a QUAD core i5 just like the 3570k, only it doesn't have HD4000 graphics, which you won't need anyways. Sometimes it can be found for 159.99 instead of 229.99 for the 3570k. Normally it's 179.99 but I'm sure you can find a deal.

Does anyone see my point? It's not like the 8320 is a "bad" processor. It's actually quite good in multithreading. It's just not that much better than the i5, and it's a whole lot worse with single threaded programs and games. And there are a TON of single threaded programs and games to consider before making a decision. Sure you can say "well I'm going to always be using multithreaded programs", but you don't know that. I never new I'd be playing MMO's like world of tanks, but I am. The 3470 is good for whatever you run into. Personally I've never used a program to this day that used more than 4 cores. But that's for what I do.

Actually, to be quite honest, if I had a choice, I'd go for the 8320 simply because it can overclock. You can squeeze 5.0Ghz out of that thing easily. It still won't be nearly as powerful as the 3470 in single threaded tests but it won't be as far behind as it is stock. If your going to overclock there's no reason to get an 8350 when you can just grab an 8320 and overclock, am I right about this 8350rocks?

But if you don't plan on overclocking, do yourself a favor and get a 3350P. You'll have the most powerful CPU core for core on the market. At least until Haswell comes out.
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:10:23 AM

I gotta agree with 8350rocks on this though. The 7790 is not far off from the 7850. Not far off at all. In fact, the 7790 is suppose to really react nicely to overclocking. I heard AMD didn't want them clocked too high as they would perform too close to the 7850.

I find the 7790 to be a way better deal than the 7850. 7790 is about 140$ usually and 7850 is usually 180$. If your going to spend 7850 money, you should just get the 650Ti Boost for 10$ cheaper. Tom's review says it's faster AND it's cheaper. You can't beat that.

You can even find a 650Ti boost 1GB for 160$. That's the way I would go for sure. Unless your strapped for cash then get the 7790.

Tom's doesn't even recommend AMD GPU's in this price range anymore like they used too. Nvidia just has better performance for the money here, as of right now. All of this changes from month to month though and there's plenty of reasons to get one over the other.

I like Nvidia for: Driver updates, 3D Vision 2, PhysX Effects, and a lot less runt/dropped frames compared to AMD cards in Crossfire. So if your ever going to crossfire those 7790's(if you can do that), then you need to think about all the runt/dropped frames AMD cards have problems with when they're in crossfire. It's not like AMD cards in crossfire are a huge disaster. It's just that Nvidia cards perform noticeably better in SLI than AMD cards do in crossfire due to the runt/dropped frames. Personally I think that this just speaks to the quality of Nvidia cards and their drivers.
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:31:08 AM

I didn't even realize my posts were for nothings. I just went back and read all of the post and the OP already chose the 3470. Lol.

The advice I would give you would be:

-really, just get a 3570k for around 209.99$ and get an Asrock z77-Pro3 motherboard for 94.99. This'll make your total cost be almost 300$ on the dot. Most AMD fans say Intel motherboards cost more. That's completely false. I can find Intel motherboards just as cheap as AMD. Just look on pcpartpicker.com, the prices are about the same.

-if you want a cheap graphics card that performs really well for a great price I'll give you one. This is my favorite price/performance GPU. GTX650Ti(regular). You can find them for 125$ right now. If you want to go cheaper than that, get a 7770Ghz Edition. I can find those for 99.99 right now. That's the cheapest card I'd get though. And if you want to make sure you can play everything, then get the GTX650Ti Boost 1GB for 159.99.
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:34:55 AM

hafijur said:
wtf, 7790 is a really high clocked 128bit card while a 7850 is a very low clocked 256bit card. If anything the 7850 will oc far better, 7790 is extremely high clocked 128bit card. 256bit cards run games at 1080p better.

7790 is basically on limit of clock speed, 7850 is clocked very low due to 256bit the performance at half speed can perform better then a 128bit card with 2x the speed. Also the shaders matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzf7Q2-A7AU


I was quoting Tom's Hardware there. So take it up with them. They say that AMD didn't want the 7790 clocked too high as it would compete with the 7850. And the 7790 is a good overclocker despite it being clocked high already. Either way, the GTX650Ti boost is the better buy in this space. And when you gaming at 1080p and at settings that's playable on a 7850, you'll never need that 256 bus anyways. Using Tom's as my reference, there isn't a huge gap in performance between the two cards at 1920x1080.

And I never said which card overclocked better. I said the 7790 overclocked well.

What are you arguing for? None of the points I made were wrong.
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:52:46 AM

hafijur said:
wtf, 7790 is a really high clocked 128bit card while a 7850 is a very low clocked 256bit card. If anything the 7850 will oc far better, 7790 is extremely high clocked 128bit card. 256bit cards run games at 1080p better.

7790 is basically on limit of clock speed, 7850 is clocked very low due to 256bit the performance at half speed can perform better then a 128bit card with 2x the speed. Also the shaders matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzf7Q2-A7AU


HD 7790 = GCN 1.1 (Not Tahiti, but similar technology called Bonnaire I believe)
HD 7850 = GCN 1.0

What you're missing in bandwidth, you make up in technology...
May 28, 2013 3:18:57 PM

I'll see if I can find the 7790 here in my country as I don't think it is avaliable yet or I'll go with the 7770 as for nvidia GPUs they are really over priced in here so I'll stick to AMD for the GPU. Thanks guys for helping choose the best parts for my new build I really appreciate it.
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 28, 2013 3:57:13 PM

RedDave said:
I'll see if I can find the 7790 here in my country as I don't think it is avaliable yet or I'll go with the 7770 as for nvidia GPUs they are really over priced in here so I'll stick to AMD for the GPU. Thanks guys for helping choose the best parts for my new build I really appreciate it.


No problem man.
!