What upgrade is better

[Zakarro]

Firstly, aniquilate is not a word.

Yes it is in my 2nd language

Secondly, 8350 falls behind i5 in framerates all the time.

True and not true, depends what game and how many threads are being used and if OCed or not, and which of the two CPUs happen to OC better with silicon lottery.

Thirdly, that board wasn't going to be enough to handle an OC'd 8350 anyways.

Yeah I thought the same about 990FX UD3s but ppl are getting 5ghz with new Rev 4s I see... Im going to assume that 970 might have a lot of similar built parts difference being less PCI express slots thats all. If the VRM is at least 8+2 it should do ok. Besides the intel build is an MSI board.... I wouldnt evven touch a 200 buck MSI board.

The Intel build is always better for gaming.

Wrong, benching maybe yes if you want to cherrypick, but general gaming no especially when video will always be the determining factor bottleneck

In any case just look at paper stats of both CPUs, at defaults the intel performs a milimeter better.... And considering the price difference..... Not to mention if this guy is going to be getting ready for Unreal 4 engine games which uses 10 threads by default or Source 2 which we all know Gabe after a bong hit probably made it use a lot of threads. Please do not mention the word hyperthreading to me, I can see it coming.

 

[trents]

It's not always true that video will always be the bottleneck. Most of the time, yes, but if you have enough GPU power then the CPU can become the bottleneck. Not hard to do, especially with multiple video cards installed.

 

[EarthDog]

It's not always true that video will always be the bottleneck. Most of the time, yes, but if you have enough GPU power then the CPU can become the bottleneck. Not hard to do, especially with multiple video cards installed.

Very true. Also, the lower the resolution, the more the CPU matters. Plenty of exceptions.

 

[Zakarro]

It's not always true that video will always be the bottleneck. Most of the time, yes, but if you have enough GPU power then the CPU can become the bottleneck. Not hard to do, especially with multiple video cards installed.

True

- - - Updated - - -

Very true. Also, the lower the resolution, the more the CPU matters. Plenty of exceptions.

Also true
but to both of you I doubt he will be running a gazzilion cards sli or crossfire

Besides an 8350 wont bottleneck even 4 cards especially @ 5ghz

 

[EarthDog]

Besides an 8350 wont bottleneck even 4 cards especially @ 5ghz

I don't want to continue down this fact correcting rabbit hole... but AMD CPUs will perform worse than Intel CPUs at the same clock as far as stretching multi-GPU's legs. For multi GPU setups, its best to rock Intel.

Sorry to nitpick, blanket statements... BLEH!

Anyhoo, moving along please...

 

[Theocnoob]

I don't want to continue down this fact correcting rabbit hole... but AMD CPUs will perform worse than Intel CPUs at the same clock as far as stretching multi-GPU's legs. For multi GPU setups, its best to rock Intel.

Sorry to nitpick, blanket statements... BLEH!

Anyhoo, moving along please...

Not to mention FX is on PCIE 2.0
4 cards would be running at 4X PCIE 3.0 equivalent each. Bottleneck right there. Plus the CPU can't really handle it. AMD? Meh.

Yes it is in my 2nd language

So what does aniquilate mean? What language?

 

[trents]

I think it has something to do with taking meds to thin blood.


OCNoob, PCI-3 3.0 vs. PCI-3 2.0 is really nitpicking. Not much substance there. Any bottle necking would not be noticed except in extreme situations where you had multiple large monitors and running very high detail and the rest of the system was up to moving that much data efficiently.

And are you sure that the FX line is limited to PCI-e 2.0? That seems unlikely to me that a CPU line that recent would not have PCI-e 3.0.

 

[EarthDog]

Yup... around 1% for an average with less as the res gets higher...http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/21.html

 

[Zakarro]

I don't want to continue down this fact correcting rabbit hole... but AMD CPUs will perform worse than Intel CPUs at the same clock as far as stretching multi-GPU's legs. For multi GPU setups, its best to rock Intel.

Sorry to nitpick, blanket statements... BLEH!

Anyhoo, moving along please...

Yes neo the rabbit hole goes deep but what you just ssaid is not something I dont know already albeit the difference is negligible at high rez with AA on let alone taking refresh rate with vsync into equation



Btw Aniquilate=Aniquilar in spanish means anhialate in english

- - - Updated - - -

I think it has something to do with taking meds to thin blood.


OCNoob, PCI-3 3.0 vs. PCI-3 2.0 is really nitpicking. Not much substance there. Any bottle necking would not be noticed except in extreme situations where you had multiple large monitors and running very high detail and the rest of the system was up to moving that much data efficiently.

And are you sure that the FX line is limited to PCI-e 2.0? That seems unlikely to me that a CPU line that recent would not have PCI-e 3.0.

1st revision sabertooths werre 3.0

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, we can all make specific examples to prove a point... overall though, what I said stands.


...moving on... let's not rattle the OP with the OT discussion. My PM box is always open if you would like me to continue on correcting things. Thanks.

(I also merged the double posts... please edit to add immediately after you post. )

Oh, and if AMD is anything like Intel, PCIe3 on the board means nothing if the CPU doesn't support it. ... but AMD stuff is out of my wheelhouse.

 

[Zakarro]

Yes, we can all make examples to prove a point...


...moving on... let's not rattle the OP gentlemen with the OT discussion. My PM box is always open if you would like me to continue on correcting things.

I dont think what were debating is OT. OP asked whats better rig and I insist the AMD one

 

[EarthDog]

I think people already mentioned their concerns with the second build... (Kingston ram and not a great motherboard). As far as the GPUs, last I recall those two were close. I hate to use FPS because 2 FPS matters more at 30 FPS then it does at 100 FPS. But regardless, they are close. And because of those reasons is why I would choose #1. Now if the ram and board issue were corrected, its a true toss up to me.



Good luck OP...Im stepping out of this thread as you are in very capable hands with Trents and TOCN.

 

[Zakarro]

I think people already mentioned their concerns with the second build... (Kingston ram and not a great motherboard). As far as the GPUs, last I recall those two were close. I hate to use FPS because 2 FPS matters more at 30 FPS then it does at 100 FPS. But regardless, they are close. And because of those reasons is why I would choose #1. Now if the ram and board issue were corrected, its a true toss up to me.




Good luck OP...Im stepping out of this thread as you are in very capable hands with Trents and TOCN.

All he has to do is change ram then, simple as that. As for the 30 fps 2 fps thing, I dont think either of the rigs would be doing that low....