27 replies to this topic

[The Botanist]

So long story short I ended up with basically two computers for Christmas. One, an I7 4770(not k) 3.4 gz quad core with a ASUS z87 plus motherboard. The other is an AMD FX 8320 3.5 gz with 8 cores and ASUS MX5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. I will be running 16 gb of Ram and a Radeon HD7870 graphics card. My question I which processor/motherboard combo would you chose and why? I need to decide which to keep and which to try and sell. Thank!

[MetalBacon]

Good question. Send me one of your computers and I'll tell you to use the one that you kept.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

I built a Z87 Sabertooth with the 4770K in it for my son a while back and it's a great gaming rig with great UEFI Bios that's way to easy to work in that anyone who use to enjoy the old Bios gets confused with the ease of UEFI.

Without knowing what Z87 MB you have I can't tell you.

[Summon3r]

if im not mistaken that AMD chip overclocks well? and I7 provides really no gaming bonus.

[The Botanist]

Hey, thanks for the responses so far! Here is a link to the z87 motherboard I have.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813131980

[Goose]

You've got the big Intel already: Use it.

You have to take up overclocking to break even using AMD …

[Durant Carlyle]

I'd go Intel. No question about it. They have a definite advantage in gaming horsepower over AMD.

Eight cores can be an advantage in certain circumstances and with certain programs. In the vast majority of cases, gaming is not one of those circumstances or programs.

Linky.
Linky 2. 3DMark11 score 8940 (4770) vs 6200 (8320).

As far as overclocking goes, you MIGHT be able to get the 8320 high enough to equal or surpass the 4770, but there are no guarantees.

[Smokeyjedi]

My 8350@4792mhz is just barely able to budge that CPU off its high horse @ stock clocks,takes 4992mhz @ 1.48V to get out in front. Use the Intel setup sell AMD. One day sell the (4770)chip for a K model if you are curious about OC and or buy a large liquid cooler

[Sen]

Intel all the way. Superior performance [stock clocks] and lower power consumption.

Not that AMD is bad, but it's no intel [anymore, sadly]

[Shamous13]

I'm an amd fan myself. I have a 8350 oc'd to 4.6ghz and 2 - hd7870 cards and I get 60+FPS in mwo consistently. It will be intresting when Mantle starts to be integrated in to games, by the looks of it developers will be able to use all 8 of amd's physical cores and people are speculating that it will allow amd to surpass intel in the gaming industry.

[Sen]

Don't get me wrong, Shamous, I *LOVE* AMD. . I wish they'd get off their butts and come up with a competitive desktop lineup. As it stands, they seem to be focusing way more on console and ultra portable development [SURVIVING on it, really]. At this point, bulldozer and piledriver just don't have the performance OR the power efficiency to keep up. They really haven't had a "GOOD" performance release since Thuban.

As to Mandle, that's a GPU side optimization, as I understand it. Could you cite where you've found that they are implementing it CPU side?? Granted, I just googled it on the fly and read the wiki, so any additional info you could provide would be appreciated

[Egomane]

I believe it was in this video, which is a presentation of Mantle, were the developer (not from AMD) declares that it performs much better on the current AMD chips like the 8350 then on Intels core-i series.

If I remember correctly it's not so much because of being optimized for a specific CPU, but more because the AMD chips have 8 real processors with shared floating point units, while intel only emulates extra cores via hyperthreading.

The presentation starts at 26:30


I'm not completly sure and I don't have time to watch the video once more right now. If I'm in error, I herewith admit it, before anyone gets the chance to mention it.

[Shamous13]

Egomane, on 09 January 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

I believe it was in this video, which is a presentation of Mantle, were the developer (not from AMD) declares that it performs much better on the current AMD chips like the 8350 then on Intels core-i series.

If I remember correctly it's not so much because of being optimized for a specific CPU, but more because the AMD chips have 8 real processors with shared floating point units, while intel only emulates extra cores via hyperthreading.

The presentation starts at 26:30


I'm not completly sure and I don't have time to watch the video once more right now. If I'm in error, I herewith admit it, before anyone gets the chance to mention it.

This is one of the places I heard it, I cant remember where I read it as well .

Edit: The comments in question can be found at the 39:00 mark

Edit 2: really great writeup Here,

Quote

DICE's Andersson extrapolated upon that same notion in his keynote, saying that, with Mantle, the CPU "should never really be a bottleneck for the GPU anymore." In a separate demonstration, Oxide showed their Mantle-enabled space game suffering no frame rate hit when the FX-8350 processor on which it ran was underclocked to 2GHz, or half its base speed. (Graphics processing in that demo was handled by a Radeon R9 290X.)

Edited by Shamous13, 09 January 2014 - 08:54 AM.

[Goose]

… As damning an indictment of DirectX that all is, I don't see this game changing APIs' …

[Smokeyjedi]

Goose, on 09 January 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

… As damning an indictment of DirectX that all is, I don't see this game changing APIs' …

but if that engine runs that smoothly on 8 threads @ 2.0ghz. just imagine the possibilities........

[Grey Death Storm]

HI [color="#b27204"]The Botanist[/color]

Since you have the option of having Intel Computer, I would definitely Go with the Intel builds computer as Intel CPU architecture is better than AMD Pile Driver. intel haswell has 4 x cores with multi Threading which utilises all core maximum performance plus Intel intend to make an extreme Intel CPU version of LGA 1150 socket which you may want look into in the future, Intel has the advantage over AMD when comes to complex calculations, Video editing and other heavy duties.

AMD FX 8350 is an 8 Core CPU which is more aimed for gaming than any other computer related task, Its a good processor for budget PC but will fall by the way side when dealing advanced Calculations and video editing or Auto CAD. AMD 8 core CPUs when it comes down to problem in general todays Operating systems do not utilize all of the 8 cores of the AMD FX 8350 thiswhy AMD mainly had low marks in the review As the architecture of CPU does not efficiently use all 8 cores when dealing with the operating System kernel.

Stick to the Intel Build also build your AMD machine and sell it of as a Gaming rig.

Edited by Death Storm, 10 January 2014 - 03:56 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Death Storm, on 10 January 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

HI [color=#b27204]The Botanist[/color]

Since you have the option of having Intel Computer, I would definitely Go with the Intel builds computer as Intel CPU architecture is better than AMD Pile Driver. intel haswell has 4 x cores with multi Threading which utilises all core maximum performance plus Intel intend to make an extreme Intel CPU version of LGA 1150 socket which you may want look into in the future, Intel has the advantage over AMD when comes to complex calculations, Video editing and other heavy duties.

AMD FX 8350 is an 8 Core CPU which is more aimed for gaming than any other computer related task, Its a good processor for budget PC but will fall by the way side when dealing advanced Calculations and video editing or Auto CAD. AMD 8 core CPUs when it comes down to problem in general todays Operating systems do not utilize all of the 8 cores of the AMD FX 8350 thiswhy AMD mainly had low marks in the review As the architecture of CPU does not efficiently use all 8 cores when dealing with the operating System kernel.

Stick to the Intel Build also build your AMD machine and sell it of as a Gaming rig.

http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350, they totally trade blows everywhere..........Intel wins single core benchmarks.....but hyper thread "cores" are <60% of a real core you really end up with roughly 6.25"cores"after hyperthreading-loss(think parasitic power loss-crank to wheels in car)
AMD utilizes 4 cores(although less powerful alone) each with 2 of the same sized arms= 8 threads, not one silly lil gimp arm.@60%like HT....... 4 cores instruct 8 arms, thus the single core performance monopoly Intel owns, and the slight multithreaded lead AMD has when compared to most similar of architectures from competition,4core 8threads. As i said trade blows all day. except for the 8350 can be overclocked to the thermal-nuclear limits........I am currently trying to split the atom with my 8350 @ 4996mhz @ 1.48V going to need MOAR aggresive cooling!

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 10 January 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[Sen]

The last thing you need to realize, though, is that cores aren't EVERYTHING. an AMD 1090T Thuban has 6 cores. Put it against a 4670k haswell . . .

Now, if I Understand how mantle works, it's STILL not about the CPU, just about GPU optimization removing the CPU as a bottleneck. If I have this right, you're STILL CPU dependent on MwO. I'd *STILL* recommend the intel system.

However, if you like the AMD that much, you should keep what you LIKE the most. The AMD is still a really good system. Both will perform well in most general use/gaming households.

TBH, at that point you should plug in both, fire them up, and decide which one FEELS better.

And hurry, isn't time running out?

[Catamount]

OP, to put it succinctly, the 4770 offers better out of the box performance in today's games, but the 8320 offers a lot more potential for tomorrow's games. Either chip will play today's games, however neither chip will play MWO at 60fps without overclocking.

Two out of four of those statements support keeping the 8320, and one is neutral.


That said, you have sellable hardware, so there's no reason why you need to keep either combination. You could sell both CPUs, and one motherboard, and buy a better CPU for the remaining motherboard, although only if you like to OC.


If you do, I would sell both CPUs, and the AMD motherboard, and get a 4770k, and a decent air cooler or a closed-loop liquid cooler.

If you don't want to overclock, I'd say keep the 4770. It might be a closer tossup if it was the 8350 vs the 4770, but it's the 8320, still a fine chip, but not quite a 4770.


Either way you should land with some decent money in your pocket. Maybe you could consider looking at a second 7870?


Edit: had to rewrite because I forgot Intel changed the damn sockets... again :/ That's one plus for AMD, they don't change the sockets 64,281 times a week.

Edited by Catamount, 10 January 2014 - 07:03 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Catamount, on 10 January 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

OP, to put it succinctly, the 4770 offers better out of the box performance in today's games, but the 8320 offers a lot more potential for tomorrow's games. Either chip will play today's games, however neither chip will play MWO at 60fps without overclocking.

Not true.

I have a plain-Jane 4770 (which cannot overclock) with a GTX 780, playing at 2560x1440 resolution, and I don't go under 60 FPS very often.

People have been saying "tomorrow's games will take advantage of more cores" for many years. Yet dual-core machines still play most games just as well as anything with more cores. More-core machines will remain the platform of choice for people who use Photoshop and other graphic programs, or who do audio/video processing, and things like that. It will be a LONG time before anything more than four cores is commonplace in gamers' machines. By that point, you'll need a new CPU anyway.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 10 January 2014 - 10:03 AM.