Fx 8320 vs i5 4460

[Pirate_Twinkie]

I've seen gameplay of crysis 3 ultra on i5 4590(not a typo) with r9 280x play at 45 fps average 30 minimum 76 max and a fx 8320 with r9 280x play at 55 fps average 37 minimum and 83 max. I will be playin games like crysis 3 and battlefield 4 and hard line when that comes out. I was just wondering what to get for my build. Will the fx 8320 hold up just as well in battlefield and other games that are graphically intensive or will the i5 4460 hold up better? I heard the i5 4460 is better but the gameplay I have seen proves the fx 8320 is better than even the more powerful i5 4590 so I am kind of leaning towards the fx right now but I would like other peoples options before I come to a conclusion. P.s I cannot afford a 4560 it costs to much where I live and the 4460 and fx 8320 are the only CPUs I can afford.

 

[monstercameron]

Looks for deals.

 

[Ken g6]

P.s I cannot afford a 4560 it costs to much where I live and the 4460 and fx 8320 are the only CPUs I can afford.

Are you sure? If you answer [thread=80121]these questions[/thread], maybe we can figure something out for you.

You did happen to pick a couple of rare, highly-threaded games. In such games the FX may perform well, but its minimum frame rates may be lower than Intel.

 

[Pirate_Twinkie]

I live in canada and local computer shops are selling the fx 8320 around $180 and i5 4460 around the $230 price points that's a $50 diffrence. I will be playing games mostly and I do some video editing, photoshop, and music production but nothing serious. This is a second build my previous build has a intel i5 4770k I believe with 2 gtx 770s. This build will be a second build will be used by me and my brother since we share our old build and one person doesn't get to use it while the other is using it.

 

[SPBHM]

4460 is a much nicer gaming CPU, it have no problems beating the 8350 (or even 9590) when it comes to gaming.

http://pclab.pl/art56366-5.html

 

[Pirate_Twinkie]

Will 4 cores be sufficient for gaming for the next year or two since I hear games are starting to use over 4 cores already? And what type of upgradablity(4th to 5th gen) should I expect if I go with a i5 with h97 mobo(which I heard might not even support 5th gen intel CPUs by the time they come out)? I don't want to buy a i5 now and then have the 5th gen proccesors(which I read are coming within the next 2 months) release in the next few months and be stuck with a mobo that won't even let me upgrade by the time I have the money.

 

[crashtech]

The reason FX CPUs are cheap is because they can barely give them away. It's ancient platform with relatively poor performance except for some niche applications. A Haswell i5 gets you into LGA 1150, a much newer platform with far more upgrade potential. AM3 is at the end of the line.

 

[toyota]

Crysis 3 already needs more than 4 cores NOW to keep the framerate up and let you fully push a high end gpu. I get over 80% cpu usage at times with my 4770k and my 2500k was pegged at times and holding my card back. so why buy just an i5 if you are going to be a little gimped from day 1?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Because it is 100.00 cheaper, still beats any FX in the vast majority of games and is also very close to a 4770k except in the one game that you seem to be obsessed with?

To the OP, an i5 is a vastly superior CPU for gaming compared to an FX. It is very close to the FX in the few highly threaded games and vastly superior in a lot of other games that are not well threaded. And the 50.00 difference in initial cost will be mitigated over time by lower power use. An i7 is not appreciably faster than an i5 in the vast majority of games. Crysis 3 is an outlier. How much future games will benefit is only speculation. To me, the extra cost of an i5 over any AMD CPU for gaming is clearly worth it. Whether the extra cost of an i7 over an i5 is worth it, is much more debatable.

 

[toyota]

he was inquiring about Crysis 3. and having more than 4 cores can help a little in couple other games just depends on where you are testing at. plus having more than 4 cores means you have some breathing room to leave other stuff running while playing. hell there were times when my 2500k was needing over 90% more just for a game so good luck if something else needs some cpu usage. reviews test on clean systems with nothing else running at all which is not realistic.

and what difference does 100 bucks make over the time someone normally keeps a cpu? 33 bucks a year for 3 years really going to impact your life? if so then pc gaming should be the last of your worries. and rest assured there will be some more games where having more than 4 cores will help during that time.

now if budget is really that tight and you dont care about trying to stay above 60 fps in all games then sure the i5 is just fine.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Since you're mostly playing games, I'd spend the extra money and get the i5 4460.

Now if you were mostly video editing, I'd say save the cash and get the FX (especially
if you were planning to use Sony Vegas).

 

[master_shake_]

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#sort=a7&qq=1&s=12&f=34,40

get a 4570 its 2 dollars more

 

[AtenRa]

If you play BF4 MP 64 players then get the FX8320, OC to 4.0GHz, turbo off.
4 cores/threads CPUs lag in BF4 MP 64 players. Even with my 3770K @ 4.4GHz im experiencing lagging in 64 player maps.

 

[SPBHM]

If you play BF4 MP 64 players then get the FX8320, OC to 4.0GHz, turbo off.
4 cores/threads CPUs lag in BF4 MP 64 players. Even with my 3770K @ 4.4GHz im experiencing lagging in 64 player maps.

I've seen benchmarks showing something different (haswell i5 vs 83xx), and this BF4 test for example, 1GHz advantage for the FX and:

"For configurations with AMD FX stability of the animation is noticeably worse." (google translator)
http://pclab.pl/art57842-5.html

 

[AtenRa]

Im using Mantle and the Core i7 3770K @ 4.4GHz laggs at 64 player maps.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This test in BF4 multiplayer http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-multiplayer-mantle-vs-directx-11-test-gpu.html shows 4770k at stock having higher minimums than FX 9590 at 5 ghz, even under mantle.

 

[StrangerGuy]

One thing that is rarely talked about is Intel has much lower mobo costs. Even a 4790K can run on a $50 mobo without any problems, but good luck finding $50 mobo that run a stock 125W FX flawlessly...and you are looking about $160 minimum for OCing one without worrying about burning up the board.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

One thing that is rarely talked about is Intel has much lower mobo costs. Even a 4790K can run on a $50 mobo without any problems, but good luck finding $50 mobo that run a stock 125W FX flawlessly...and you are looking about $160 minimum for OCing one without worrying about burning up the board.

That is true if you are planning to do a lot of overclocking with the 8 core. Although I've been running my FX 8320 on a $45 ECS A960 M2 motherboard at stock clock for about a year and half without any problems.

I've actually found overclocking to be a lot cheaper on the AMD side -- and even the $30 motherboards (shop Newegg with Rebates) can do substantial overclocking to the FX chips which are rated at 95 watts (FX4300 / FX6300). Plus, AMD chips with unlocked multiplier are usually dirt cheap compared to Intel K's (the only exception is the Pentium G3258).

 

[AtenRa]

One thing that is rarely talked about is Intel has much lower mobo costs. Even a 4790K can run on a $50 mobo without any problems, but good luck finding $50 mobo that run a stock 125W FX flawlessly...and you are looking about $160 minimum for OCing one without worrying about burning up the board.

That is a misconception, ASUS M5A78L-M LX PLUS can support 125W TDP CPUs like FX8350 and it currently is at $46,99 AR in Newegg.
Edit: ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 can also support 125W TDP and it also has USB3. Currently at $50 AR at Newegg.

You can get the FX8320 ($150 on Amazon) and OC to 4.2GHz using the default Cooler and this motherboard. Turbo off using 1.35V will result in higher performance than FX8350 (default) at even lower power consumption.

If you want to OC to 4.7-4.8GHz you can also do it using the ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 that also has SATA-6 and USB-3 at $90,00 at Newegg. So no need for $160,00 motherboards.

 

[AtenRa]

This test in BF4 multiplayer http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-multiplayer-mantle-vs-directx-11-test-gpu.html shows 4770k at stock having higher minimums than FX 9590 at 5 ghz, even under mantle.

I have more than 120fps with my Core i7 3770K and im still lagging bad at 64 player maps. Its not about performance.

 

[Enigmoid]

That is a misconception, ASUS M5A78L-M LX PLUS can support 125W TDP CPUs like FX8350 and it currently is at $46,99 AR in Newegg.
Edit: ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 can also support 125W TDP and it also has USB3. Currently at $50 AR at Newegg.

You can get the FX8320 ($150 on Amazon) and OC to 4.2GHz using the default Cooler and this motherboard. Turbo off using 1.35V will result in higher performance than FX8350 (default) at even lower power consumption.

If you want to OC to 4.7-4.8GHz you can also do it using the ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 that also has SATA-6 and USB-3 at $90,00 at Newegg. So no need for $160,00 motherboards.

Yep, AMD's motherboards are generally pretty good.

Though that board you linked has 20% of the reviews DOA or no video.

 

[SPBHM]

Im using Mantle and the Core i7 3770K @ 4.4GHz laggs at 64 player maps.

Mantle seems to still deliver a better result with haswell i5 (3.5? or 3.7GHz with turbo?) than 4.7GHz FX, not only higher average framerates but lower and consistent frame times

it doesn't mean an i5 (or your i7 with HT off on the bios) is as good as the i7 (HT) in this game, but relative to the FX the i5 is looking good in this game/test,


that motherboard is using the 760G/sb710, that's 2009 stuff, it should be OK, but it's only sata II while even h81 have fast sata III while SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper...

and 4.2GHz fx is slower than stock i5 on h81 board for gaming,