FX 8350 or I7 4770k!!!help

[dacuban]

so im big at gaming and love games but so many reviews or benchamarks about which one to pick help pls!

 

[manu2b]

4770K if you have the budget.

If you read reviews/benchmarks, you've certainly noticed that the 4770k burst the 8350 off.

 

[Theocnoob]

Bursting something off is not an actual thing in the English language manu. You can't do that.

The 4770K beats the 8350 hands down. The 8350 "competes" with the 4670K.

 

[manu2b]

Bursting something off is not an actual thing in the English language manu. You can't do that.

The 4770K beats the 8350 hands down. The 8350 "competes" with the 4670K.

Lol! So, let's say obliterate it!

Edit: or maybe "burst it out"?

 

[Psyko07]

In games there's not much differance between the 4770k and 4670k depending on the games you want to play going with the i5 and then using the savings to buy a better gpu may be a smarter choice.

 

[manu2b]

^This, gaming wise, as soon as you go xFire/SLI with high end GPU's, i5/i7 kill the AMD FX.

 

[Knufire]

^This, gaming wise, as soon as you go xFire/SLI with high end GPU's, i5/i7 kill the AMD FX.

Not according to Anandtech...you need 3 or 4 (with a PLX board) to see a meaningful difference.

This is in the present though, the i5 is certainly more future proofed.

 

[Boulard83]

4670k/4770k ALL the way for gaming.

 

[manu2b]

Not according to Anandtech...you need 3 or 4 (with a PLX board) to see a meaningful difference.

This is in the present though, the i5 is certainly more future proofed.

HAve a look at that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-7.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-6.html

Edit: heck, the 8350@stock is already a bottleneck with a single GPU on games like Crysis 3, farcry 3 or Borderland 2 (10 to 40% less FPS with a single 7970/680)
Links:
http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

 

[EarthDog]

It depends on the game... Look at BF3 in the Tom's review for example.. almost no difference.

 

[Wipeout]

I am going to build a new system in a few months, and I am facing the same decisions.I have a FX 6300 overclocked to 4.4g.I have a 660SC, but with a 670 gpu or higher, fps would not be a problem for most games on ultra.There are a handful of games that are more cpu intensive vs gpu.Out of those games your still going to get 40 -50 fps with a overclocked FX and a good gpu.I went to many sites comparing benchmarks, and a overclocked 8350 will give you good performance.With that said, here is my dilemma.

With Haswell it looks like Intel did not change the manufacturing process of the thermal paste. Haswell still uses paste instead of solder between the IHS and die.So the question you might ask yourself, I know I am.Should you go with Haswell, and just delid the cpu.Easier said than done, but that is another option.There are some videos on this procedure, but my question is, what is the best way, and is it risky? I think a razor blade would be the safest way.It seems the glue around the edges contributes to the gap, even though the paste the use is crappy.

 

[manu2b]

^Yep, but it's 1 out of 5 or 10.

I've linked a few above, but trust me, I checked more than 20 games CPU benchmarks, and if most of them are already bottleneck by the FX now, what about next year?

If you check the benchsmarks I linked, you'll see that even the i7 920, which is something like 3 years old and runs at 2.66GHz...) does better than the FX8350 in many cases.

If you game, get a i5 4670k: no need for HT, and due to the fact that it produces less heat, it should OC higher than the i7 while staying in a tolerable temp range?

 

[manu2b]

I am going to build a new system in a few months, and I am facing the same decisions.I have a FX 6300 overclocked to 4.4g.I have a 660SC, but with a 670 gpu or higher, games and fps would not be a problem for most games on ultra.There are a handful of games that are more cpu intensive vs gpu.Out of those games your still going to get 40 -50 fps with a overclocked FX and a good gpu.I went to many sites comparing benchmarks, and a overclocked 8350 will give you good performance.With that said, here is my dilemma.

With Haswell it looks like Intel did not change the manufacturing process of the thermal paste. Haswell still uses paste instead of solder between the IHS and die.So the question you might ask yourself, I know I am.Should you go with Haswell, and just delid your cpu.Easier said than done, but that is another option.There are some videos on this procedure, but my question is what is the best way, and is it risky?

Why delidding? Haswell@stock is faster than the [email protected]. And you can achieve 4.5GHz with a good air cooler on the Intel CPU.
Together with a $130 MoBo and a 500W PSU when you need a $180 MoBo (990FX-UD3 new revision do not play nice anymore with the FXs), 600PSU at least and a H100 to keep it cool...

EDIT: I am no fanboy at all. My rig plays everything maxed out@1080p (except Crysis 3), but it has a 40%+ OC, when a 2500k would give more FPS@stock.

 

[EarthDog]

^Yep, but it's 1 out of 5 or 10.

I've linked a few above, but trust me, I checked more than 20 games CPU benchmarks, and if most of them are already bottleneck by the FX now, what about next year?

If you check the benchsmarks I linked, you'll see that even the i7 920, which is something like 3 years old and runs at 2.66GHz...) does better than the FX8350 in many cases.

If you game, get a i5 4670k: no need for HT, and due to the fact that it produces less heat, it should OC higher than the i7 while staying in a tolerable temp range?

You need to look a little better. BF3 was just ONE of the examples in your link. AvP does shows the same behavior I am speaking of. The other games you listed from the Tom's link are also known CPU hogs. Again, it depends on the title and settings used.

Here is Crysis 3 - http://www.overclock.net/t/1362591/lightbox/post/19332690/id/1302789

... like I said, it depends on the game.

 

[manu2b]

^Have you cheched the TechSpot ones?

I come back with more in a minute

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, checked them. My crysis3 link goes against it...

Honestly. I don't really care. In 5 minutes of searching I have found enough to have a quality counterpoint. Thanks though, but don't waste your time as we will go in circles posting up links. Either one will be fine, but if you go SLI/CFx with high end cards, you will likely want an Intel to push them, yes.

 

[manu2b]

Hitman absolution:
http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html
Crysis 2:
http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html

So, would you choose a CPU that will be a bottleneck in a lot of nice games? Or one which is not?

 

[tungureanu]

I can`t wait for next years game ports from xbox and ps. if you know what i mean....

 

[manu2b]

Honestly. I don't care. In 5 minutes of searching I have found enough to have a quality counterpoint. Thanks though, but don't waste your time. It depends on the title, that is quite clear.

Yes, it depends on the title, agreed on that, but one CPU is a limiting factor on mmany games (you have to agree on that ) when the other is not.

Edit: argh, time wasted!

 

[EarthDog]

I can`t wait for next years game ports from xbox and ps. if you know what i mean....

I dont. Nor do I know what that has to do with anything in this thread.