Originally Posted by mikeo01
So from those graphs bottom line is the games that AMD's chips cannot cope with are in the minority rather than the majority; especially with the transition to multi-threaded gaming.
Considering the 4770K is almost 50% more expensive than the FX-832
0 and about 40% more than the FX-8350 for an average of 24% more performance in terms of gaming.
UPDATE: It isn't biased as there's some good results from both sides
See, this is kind of inaccurate. As I said before, you could get a Xeon equivalent of the 4770 for $250. that makes the price difference between that performance level and an 8350 about $50. That will all be more than justified by the energy saving and extra performance you get with Intel, longer time between a CPU upgrade, not to mention lower wattage power supplies are quite a bit cheaper, I could easily save $40 by going with a 400-500w PSU rather than an 600-800w PSU.
Now if we forget that there's a cheaper Xeon eqiuvalent of the 4770K (not to mention there's also a cheaper 4770 minus the "K" and the 4670, and others available) let's compare the 4770K and the 8350 then.
The 4770K makes an average gain of around 30% and as high as 40%, and even has high as 75 percent if you include single core tests (which I just don't think matter soo much anyways, but still).
At around $100 more than the 8350, the 4770K also costs about 30% more.....So 30% more performance, 30% more cost, that's about on par right?
BUT that's before you take energy savings into account, or the lack of a need for a higher power PSU, which all costs the consumer money. The 4770K will have a longer usable life than the 8350, which means less money spent in your life time on CPU's over all.
Then if you take overclocking into account, the clear winner will be the 4770K in terms of extent and performance gains from overclockability.
So all of these factors, really do make the 4770K a better price to performance ratio in the long run, despite it costing $100 more initially. That cost is technically already offset by the performance gains from the start, so if you include all of those other savings and performance increases, you're essentially getting a 4770K level of performance for the cost of an 8350 (or less) in the end.
Then if you take all of these considerations and apply them to the Xeon version of the 4770 that sells for only $250, you definitely can't ignore that it's an even better buy over both
Heck, even the 4670K shows some pretty significant FPS increases over the 8350.....and it's only $40 more.
Enslaved odyssey to the west
While both are respectable FPS, more than enough.....you have to think about how this translates into future performance and hardware longevity.
Most of these FPS increases of the 4670K over the 8350 are at least 10-30%
At $200 for the 8350, and $240 for the 4670, that's a price difference of just 17%!
This means the performance gains far outweigh the price difference. And that's before you factor in other things I've brought up time and again, like energy savings, etc.Edited by AMDATI - 3/6/14 at 3:19pm