Originally Posted by mikeo01
What's being compared here is the I7s and I5s. What about lower end Intel chips which cost similar to a single FX-8320
Intel's I5s and I7s are the only thing that's considered "better" than AMD's highest end. And even that costs more.
You can buy the fastest I3 processor for a FX-8320, but that doesn't make the I3 look like the better choice.
Considering the thread title it's pretty understandable why i3s aren't being discussed here. Just like HD 7850s wouldn't be discussed in a thread about the $500+ GPU market.
Originally Posted by Durquavian
Yes but most of those MMOs are played on old archaic hardware, laptops even and then most of these arguments are moot. I have played WoW for 8 years, stopped a year ago, and it played great on my AMD systems. No lag in 40man groups with a 965BE nor my 8350, both paired with a XFX 6770.
Juniper as a GPU is comparable to a 4870, from those days GPU performance has gone up something like 250%. I also have a 5770 and I'm pretty sure that if I used that thing to game it would pretty much always be the bottleneck.
However with modern GPUs this isn't the case. Per core performance on the AMD side has only marginally gone up from the Phenom IIs but GPU performance has gone up by ~250%.
I'm sure that we can run almost any game on archaic hardware and get somewhat good frame rates. However the experience will be much better with hardware that's faster and fits the purpose.
Guild Wars 2 or SC2 for example will see easily noticeable gains in performance even when going above 4.5GHz on a 4770K. Both of those games have parts in them that will tank any system to low fps and at that point you're going to want to have the fastest thing you can get.
For example back in the day with my little gtx 670 in SC2 OCing a 3930K would bring minimums from the 35fps range to 50fps range. A huge and very noticeable difference. And the same OC also brought average fps from ~60 to ~90. Again a huge difference, especially on 120hz monitors.
The "all games run just fine on any CPU" isn't a real argument. Yes the games do run but for the best experience overall in all kinds of titles you're going to want a new-ish intel CPU.
If you're sure that you only play BF4 and crysis 3 (and similar) then sure, save the $50 and get an FX. Other than that, the better experience is with the consistently well performing choice.
Originally Posted by 2advanced http://www.g4tv.com/games/top-100-pc-games/
Looking at this list above, WOW ranks 10th and Star Craft ranks 12th. The top 5 titles are;
-Need for Speed Most wanted
-Star Wars: The Old Republic
-Call of Duty Black OPS 2
-and Diablo 3
All newer titles (2011-2013). IIRC, AMD CPUS handle all these games well.
Yes and after those you have stuff like:
-Guild Wars 2
All of the games above perform noticeably better on intel's current gen CPUs.Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
But the point remains; even in situations where people have come in here asking for advice on a gaming rig, (even Gaming Evolved Titles) you're usually in there kicking, screaming, and hollering "INTEL." Usually without taking into consideration the more significant part of any gaming rig..... THE GPU!
What's there to talk about? Overall platform costs between an i5 and an FX system aren't very different.
If spending $30-$50 more will give you much better performance in MMOs, RTSs, and many other non gaming evolved titles then I don't see an issue.
And even the gaming evolved titles are very hit and miss sometimes on AMD CPUs:
^ Assume that you got a better GPU for that (let's be generous) $50 you saved from going with an FX. Would that GPU upgrade really be clearly more important? No it wouldn't. It would completely depend on the games. And today with ever more powerful GPUs the CPU bottlenecked games are more and more common.
I wouldn't expect someone who desperately clings and resorts to hand picked benchmarks, as the end-all be-all, to be open minded and/or rational. But don't you think it means something when you have many-a-members here telling you that Intel is simply NOT worth the extra cash in most cases (myself included)? Why do you chose to make a conscious decision to not place any value in the Users experience? Is it an ego thing? There is a "real-world experience" value to damn near everything from cars to smartphones. I don't see why it is so difficult to comprehend.
User experience can't be measured easily and it hasn't been measured when it comes to these things.
We could all shout that our platform "feels" the best until we're red in the face but it wouldn't benefit anyone actually looking to buy a system because no proof would be offered, no objective information or testing.
Using your rationale, Porsche and Apple should have seized to exist a long time ago, and frankly, have no place in society because, on paper, they just dont have anything to offer over the competition.
Cars are a completely different market and frankly I have no idea why you would choose to compare AMD to porsche or Apple.
Ehhh, how 'bout yes. Some of these even put your own results to shame, and all on a measly $130 motherboard.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Yes, not the board of choice I know. But IT CAN be done.
Just proves my point. CPU-Z and superpi 1M scores. Neither of those put much stress on the board.
Now try cinebench or wprime 1024m at 1.8v+ and 7GHz+
Actually..... YES..... Just yes.
Again, you can't generalize all FXs and say that they're all as capable as yours. Many of them have horrendous leakage and the heat output goes completely crazy after 4.6ghz or so. Some don't, but many do.
As I said, about my 4770K. It can keep 4.5ghz under 90C on the stock cooler in the aida stress tests. However that's clearly not representative of 4770Ks in general.
On average you cannot buy a UD3 and a $20 cooler and go for near 5ghz frequencies with an FX. It's possible if you get lucky with your silicon but it's not happening in most cases. Just like you can't go and buy a 4770K, not get any aftermarket cooling and still get 4.5ghz. Possible, but again, not likely or representative of the average results.
Originally Posted by Durquavian
Ok lets be REAL
. Fact as has been noted by so many over so many of these threads is that everyday gaming and usage it is nearly impossible to tell the difference. You bench mostly and yes there is a difference there, in results mostly, seeing how there is no productivity involved.
I always keep it real and honest so let me show you guys how. Seeing most use a single monitor @1080p then any, yes ANY
current CPU will suffice. The bigger issue, especially for gamers is the GPU. And stay honest, 60hz is the refresh rate of most of these monitors. A 43xx AMD or i3 can give a great experience in gaming with these qualifiers. And these apply to most, the lions share, of gamers.
Now lets speak to the extreme gamers and the like. Yes then it becomes a bit smaller as far as options. These guys run multi-monitors with multiple GPUs to run them and generally multiple programs while playing. At this point only the top AMD offerings of 8350/20/9590 will do and even then they have their limits. Intel has the better options but the 4770/3770 and the other 20 that sit in that range for Intel are in the same boat as the aforementioned AMDs, leaving just the 6cores from Intel as the only options (could be more, my knowledge of all Intel offerings are limited).
For business Intel becomes the only option, but it isn't their arch so much that makes it so but the software ie:ICC. And the power usage does become a factor here and obviously Intel is a no brainer for that as well.THIS IS THE REAL AND HONEST ANSWER.
3770K and 4770K definitely are not in the same boat as the 8-core Visheras when it comes to gaming.
The intel i7s beat them handily in pretty much anything, when a game is well multithreaded the difference is usually smaller, and when it's badly multithreaded the i7s win by a landslide. And to top it off the i7s have more overclocking potential than a 8350 what they're usually compared against.
Yes any part will suffice. But we're not here in search of "good enough". That's not what enthusiasts are about. Even small differences matter (and I'm not saying the differences between FX and i7 are small) and if you're deciding on what to buy then why wouldn't you go with something that's better?
So once again without cherry picking results or anything of the sort.
Can we agree that:
i5 vs. FX:
1) i5 clearly beats the FX in badly multithreaded games
2) i5 and FX trade blows in well multithreaded games
3) If going with a 8320 the FX is a bit cheaper (if 8350, 9370, 9590 then the savings are almost zero)
User is left with two choices:
-sacrifice performance in RTS, MMO etc. and save ~$50
-Get consistent performance across the board and spend ~$50 more.
i7 (quad) vs. FX:
-Clear win for the intel part in 97% of cases, however it costs more.