Haswell i3-4150 vs FX 8320/e for budget gaming rig?

[Enigmoid]

At this point in time the FX is generally going to do nearly as good in singlethreaded games but perhaps much better in highly multithreaded games.

I agree that the best bet is to save up for an i5.

The AM3+ platform is quite dated and hard to recommend.

For a budget gaming chip the FX series is pretty hard to beat. I would take it over the i3. Overclocking burns a lot of power and requires more expensive equipment. Generally the cost will be great enough that you might as well go for a locked i5.

 

[DrMrLordX]

And what's with these OC's? Now we're talking a 4.8 Ghz standard OC?

No OC is standard, but seriously, this is the OC forum, right? Go and take a look at what people are doing with the E chips. If it's my money and my time/effort/research, I'm rolling the dice on the bet that I can hit a target overclock that's below the maximum of what others have achieved with the same chip. You get out what you put into the process.

All I'm pointing out is:

Someone put a 9590 vs an i3 on a benchmark totals chart
Someone else said "look at the i3 nearly beating AMD's expensive flagship lulz"
I say "Okay, take the cooling you need for a 9590, slap it on an 8320E, crank it to 4.8 ghz or so, and you pay less for about the same performance as compared to the 9590, making the chart look like less of a win for the i3 and more of a win for Vishera in general".

The i3 is gonna be cheaper, just not that much cheaper, and if you're willing to live with the eccentricities of a 4.8 ghz Vishera then you get a whole lot more than just a gaming chip. The E chips make it a slightly more livable experience.

There are probably some E chips out there that just won't hit 4.8. Many of those will fall short thanks to the motherboard choice. There is a possibility that both the 970-ud3p and 990fx-ud3 will fail to keep a chip @ 4.8 ghz consistently, especially at the voltage that a "bad" 8320E might need to get there.

Now, an honest inquiry: can locked LGA1150 Haswell chips use bclk straps on boards that provide them?

 

[2is]

Could you name thoses day to day tasks that wouldnt be well performed, and of course by wich CPU, rather than general statements that prove nothing i d like to see numbers that suggest so.

Anything that is single threaded and almost anything that relies heavily on single threaded performance. You and I have been through similar discussions already, I think in this very thread, so I already know that an intelligent, objective conversation is not possible with you.

If you don't want to believe what I'm saying, I won't make your ignorance my problem. If you really don't have a clue what an i3 can be better at, i'm sure you are well versed in using the google search engine to educate yourself. My guess however is that you'll just burry your head in the sand if your recent post history is any indication.

I also didn't say anything about these tasks not being well performed by either CPU. I said that one would be better than the other. There's a difference, and your skewing of words is a prime example of how you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation on the topic.

 

[Abwx]

Overclocking burns a lot of power and requires more expensive equipment. Generally the cost will be great enough that you might as well go for a locked i5.

Overclocking all the cores is useless, there s much more to gain by setting a smart turbo profile when few cores are used , at this condition you can overclock up to 4.4-4.5 for one or two cores and then decrease frequency by 200MHz each time two other cores are used down to all cores at about 3.5-3.6 for base frequency.

This way power comsumption will not increase notably and can be maintained within a 95 or 125W TDP, depending of the overclocker eagerness...

Anything that is single threaded and almost anything that relies heavily on single threaded performance. You and I have been through similar discussions already, I think in this very thread, so I already know that an intelligent, objective conversation is not possible with you.

That s still a general statement, could you name some of thoses tasks where there would be a lack of ST perf that would render the experience less good.?

Or perhaps that tasks that are still single theeaded are so because they are already fast enough with one thread and dont need Mthreading.?.

 

[2is]

Yes I can, but I'll leave that task to you for reasons I've already illustrated.

 

[TheELF]

Or perhaps that tasks that are still single theeaded are so because they are already fast enough with one thread and dont need Mthreading.?.

Well if there is an "already fast enough" than an I3 is "already fast enough" at compressing transcoding "multicore" and whatever else....
Especially at about halve the power consumption,not to mention the gamers who couldn't care less about anything else than games.

 

[JumBie]

Nope:

This for some reason doesn't include Crysis 3 where fx is much faster than i3. So I would say those are pretty even in average fps.
Which one have better frame times? Which one will age better? :whiste:

According to this benchmark it says otherwise.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/

On this one the FX series only beats them out in 2 games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

A few more as well, maybe were both nitpicking? Or is something wrong with either benchmarks.

 

[2is]

I think it's interesting how low the standard is set for AMD. Intel receives a lot of grief from their fanbase when releasing a next gen CPU that's only a few points better than the outgoing gen, except over the course of time, these incremental updates have gotten to the point where a i3 is competing with an FX8

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think it's interesting how low the standard is set for AMD. Intel receives a lot of grief from their fanbase when releasing a next gen CPU that's only a few points better than the outgoing gen, except over the course of time, these incremental updates have gotten to the point where a i3 is competing with an FX8

An i3 is competing with the 4790k, too. I think it sort of shows how above a certain threshold, your CPU choice doesn't have a huge impact in performance. Certainly not the way a GPU upgrade does.

 

[2is]

An i3 is competing with the 4790k, too. I think it sort of shows how above a certain threshold, your CPU choice doesn't have a huge impact in performance. Certainly not the way a GPU upgrade does.

Except for an i3 to compete with a 4790 you need a bottleneck else where in the system. For it to compete with an FX8, you need something that that FX8 is simply not good at. A condition that doesn't exist for 4790 owners.

This is why at the end of the day, an i5 is the best all-around choice. It's reasonably economical, and you don't have to worry about it not performing well in something, which you may have to concern yourself with if you're going with an i3 or any AMD processor.

If budget is relatively loose, you have the option of an i7. If it's a virtual non-issue, you have the enthusiast platform.

It's sad really. There are so many steps above an i3 Intel has for it's customers, yet AMD has fell so behind the pecking order that we are often comparing their best with an i3. Perhaps if their fans demanded more, these topics would be a bit more interesting instead of being so one-sided.

 

[Abwx]

It's sad really. There are so many steps above an i3 Intel has for it's customers, yet AMD has fell so behind the pecking order that we are often comparing their best with an i3.

Only in some games, and games are one task, for all the rest an i3 is pointeless, hence why the usual suspects will always insist for games as being the only relevant metrics when comparing an AMD CPU to its competitor offerings...

What about tasks that need a powerfull CPU.?.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Except for an i3 to compete with a 4790 you need a bottleneck else where in the system. For it to compete with an FX8, you need something that that FX8 is simply not good at. A condition that doesn't exist for 4790 owners.

This is why at the end of the day, an i5 is the best all-around choice. It's reasonably economical, and you don't have to worry about it not performing well in something, which you may have to concern yourself with if you're going with an i3 or any AMD processor.

Yes, I agree. If you want to game at low to medium settings, go with Intel.



The above is a joke.

But to say what you said above to me is like saying, "If you game at real world settings than an i3 is competitive with an i7." Of course there are some games and situations where all the CPU power you can muster is a benefit in gaming, no doubt. But most games today are GPU limited at settings we actually use. In my experience games made by smaller developers that are CPU limited still fly on my FX even when using just a single core. With 4k becoming mainstream and 5k right around the corner, I'm still maintaining my point, that the CPU just isn't all that important above a certain threshold in real world situations. For benching, 120Hz, multiple higher end cards, a faster CPU will help you get the most out of your hardware. For the other 90% of us, a moderate CPU + strong GPU will be every bit as good as a $1000 CPU + strong GPU combo since the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in your frame rates.

*edit

Didn't see your addition before I posted.

If budget is relatively loose, you have the option of an i7. If it's a virtual non-issue, you have the enthusiast platform.

It's sad really. There are so many steps above an i3 Intel has for it's customers, yet AMD has fell so behind the pecking order that we are often comparing their best with an i3. Perhaps if their fans demanded more, these topics would be a bit more interesting instead of being so one-sided.

Do you think if AMD fans went with Intel because they were unhappy with AMD's offerings and they lost more revenue they'd somehow put out better products than they have because 'their fans demanded' it? I demanded better music from Metallica since 1994 and stopped buying their albums, that didn't seem to help.

I understand what you're saying, but to me the reality is that my FX doesn't cause me to compromise at all when I game. I have games that my FX doesn't even make my 7970 hit 100% GPU use. Do I care when those games bottom out at 52FPS and spend an overwhelming majority of their time at above my monitor's capability to draw the image? No. I also expect most games to be graphically limited with the new consoles and 4k (and on the horizon 5k) monitors becoming more mainstream.

 

[2is]

Only in some games, and games are one task, for all the rest an i3 is pointeless, hence why the usual suspects will always insist for games as being the only relevant metrics when comparing an AMD CPU to its competitor offerings...

What about tasks that need a powerfull CPU.?.

There are certainly plenty of tasks where an FX8 will outclass an i3 by a wide margin. At the end of the day, both processors are a compromise. This is why I'm saying an i5 is the better choice. There is nothing that it performs "poorly" in, the same cannot be said about an i3 or any AMD processor.

My point is, AMD has fell so far behind the 8 ball it's an embarrassment to even have an FX8 in the same discussion as an i3. There shouldn't be anything that an i3 does better in, but there is plenty. What makes it worse is when end users make excuses for it or defend it vs demanding better. And that's a sad state of affairs.

 

[2is]

But to say what you said above to me is like saying, "If you game at real world settings than an i3 is competitive with an i7." Of course there are some games and situations where all the CPU power you can muster is a benefit in gaming, no doubt.

But that's not really true. If your processor is only enough for 40 fps, you're never going to get above 40 fps no matter how much or how little GPU power you have, and being GPU limited has a very simple solution. You lower settings, done. Often times a single setting is good enough. What do you do if you're CPU limited? Virtually nothing. If your performance bottleneck is CPU related you're essentially screwed. If it's GPU related, there's a plethora of settings that can and will alleviate the performance bottleneck.

As for "games today" I'm not seeing the same trend you are. I'm seeing a lot of CPU heavy games today. The only thing significantly more taxing on the GPU now is becoming VRAM, but again, you simply lower the texture quality from ultra to high, VRAM issues are gone.

Compromising on GPU performance is a far easier hurdle to overcome than compromising on CPU performance. With Intel changing sockets regularly and AMD not bothering to come out with anything more powerful, a CPU upgrade is very likely to lead to a new motherboard and perhaps new RAM as we start heading into DDR4 territory now. A GPU is a far more viable upgrade not to mention far easier to alleviate by simply making some in game IQ settings.

 

[2is]

Do you think if AMD fans went with Intel because they were unhappy with AMD's offerings and they lost more revenue they'd somehow put out better products than they have because 'their fans demanded' it? I demanded better music from Metallica since 1994 and stopped buying their albums, that didn't seem to help.

I certainly have nothing against charity, and if that's your motivation then by all means, you should support the cause that's important to you.

 

[Abwx]

There are certainly plenty of tasks where an FX8 will outclass an i3 by a wide margin. At the end of the day, both processors are a compromise. This is why I'm saying an i5 is the better choice. There is nothing that it performs "poorly" in, the same cannot be said about an i3 or any AMD processor.


My point is, AMD has fell so far behind the 8 ball it's an embarrassment to even have an FX8 in the same discussion as an i3. There shouldn't be anything that an i3 does better in, but there is plenty. What makes it worse is when end users make excuses for it or defend it vs demanding better. And that's a sad state of affairs.

There s tasks where an i3 is no worse than a i5 or even an i7, does this qualify thoses latters as mediocre.?.

The i5 selected by the OP is 3.4 turbo, it will be slower than a i3 clocked at say 3.7 in anything that use two cores at most, yet i saw no one pointing that the i5 will be inferior in single threaded games by 10%, on the other hand if the i3 has 5% lead over an FX in a game the latter is branded as not good...

That said their main problem is their process, contrary to what some people claim Bulldozer is not a broken concept, it s just that it has a process disadvantage that cant be compensated by the intrinsicaly high efficency, currently the disadvantage is 35-45% higher TDP due to said process, at equal process a 8C Piledriver would be as efficient as a 4770k while a theorical 8C Steamroller would be 25-30% more efficient.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Sure, but what isn't a compromise? Anything other than an Intel 5960X and four GTX 980's is a compromise. That includes i5's, 4790K's, and FX CPU's. But for those of us that buy with in a budget it's about getting what fits your needs best for the money spent. An FX 8320e is cheaper than an i3 and in my opinion the better all around option. When you step up to an i5 things become more cloudy, though I can certainly see the benefits of an i5 over an FX, but I don't think it is as black and white of a situation as it is being made out to be here. But both are certainly a compromise from Intel's highest end CPU and can limit you at some points in games regardless of settings.

I don't see how AMD fans would make a difference in AMD's product stack. It certainly isn't like AMD is rolling around in profits while being complacent. If that was the case I'd say your point has merit.

You say it is an embarrassment for AMD to have the FX CPU's to be in the same discussion with i3's... why? Even though AMD was much more competitive with Intel all the way to the top of their product line at one time; when you look at the difference in R&D money, the manufacturing advantage Intel enjoys, and their dominant position in the market, you could argue that it is embarrassing for Intel that a company that has shot itself in the foot as much as AMD has, has made as many bad business decisions as AMD has, and has been as mismanaged as AMD has manages to beat Intel's offerings at anything at all.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I certainly have nothing against charity, and if that's your motivation then by all means, you should support the cause that's important to you.

I think you missed my point. I'm saying if AMD fans were unhappy enough with their products to go to Intel, then all that does is remove more revenue from AMD's bottom line. I don't see how that will help have AMD put out better products. I'm not saying give your money to AMD even if you don't like their products. Just addressing your comment that AMD would have somehow put out better products if their fans wanted different parts than they have put to market. If AMD makes less money, then how does that improve their products?

 

[AtenRa]

But that's not really true. If your processor is only enough for 40 fps, you're never going to get above 40 fps no matter how much or how little GPU power you have,

urban legend

 

[2is]

urban legend

Proven fact

I think you missed my point. I'm saying if AMD fans were unhappy enough with their products to go to Intel, then all that does is remove more revenue from AMD's bottom line. I don't see how that will help have AMD put out better products. I'm not saying give your money to AMD even if you don't like their products. Just addressing your comment that AMD would have somehow put out better products if their fans wanted different parts than they have put to market. If AMD makes less money, then how does that improve their products?

I understood your point.

You say it is an embarrassment for AMD to have the FX CPU's to be in the same discussion with i3's... why? Even though AMD was much more competitive with Intel all the way to the top of their product line at one time; when you look at the difference in R&D money, the manufacturing advantage Intel enjoys, and their dominant position in the market, you could argue that it is embarrassing for Intel that a company that has shot itself in the foot as much as AMD has, has made as many bad business decisions as AMD has, and has been as mismanaged as AMD has manages to beat Intel's offerings at anything at all.

Pretty sure I answered the "why" but you want to continue to make excuses for your brand of choice, by all means. Lets not kid ourselves, the only thing keeping AMD high end competing with Intel's low end stuff is the threat of anti-trust lawsuits. If it wasn't for big brother, Intel could very easily price AMD out of existence. I'm not saying that's a good thing or I'd want that to happen, just pointing out that the feeble attempt you made to try and paint AMD as competitive is quite artificial.

My brand allegiance goes to the brand making the better products. When the X2's were wiping the floor with Pentium 4's and Pentium 4 Dual Core's I didn't make excuses for Intel. I built myself an AMD machine. A few of them. When AMD couldn't compete with Core 2, I didn't make excuses for AMD, I build an Intel machine with a Q6600. Intel's superiority has not stopped since then, so I will continue to buy those products and not make excuses for the uncompetitive ones.

 

[tential]

Yes, I agree. If you want to game at low to medium settings, go with Intel.



The above is a joke.

But to say what you said above to me is like saying, "If you game at real world settings than an i3 is competitive with an i7." Of course there are some games and situations where all the CPU power you can muster is a benefit in gaming, no doubt. But most games today are GPU limited at settings we actually use. In my experience games made by smaller developers that are CPU limited still fly on my FX even when using just a single core. With 4k becoming mainstream and 5k right around the corner, I'm still maintaining my point, that the CPU just isn't all that important above a certain threshold in real world situations. For benching, 120Hz, multiple higher end cards, a faster CPU will help you get the most out of your hardware. For the other 90% of us, a moderate CPU + strong GPU will be every bit as good as a $1000 CPU + strong GPU combo since the CPU is rarely the limiting factor in your frame rates.

*edit

Didn't see your addition before I posted.



Do you think if AMD fans went with Intel because they were unhappy with AMD's offerings and they lost more revenue they'd somehow put out better products than they have because 'their fans demanded' it? I demanded better music from Metallica since 1994 and stopped buying their albums, that didn't seem to help.

I understand what you're saying, but to me the reality is that my FX doesn't cause me to compromise at all when I game. I have games that my FX doesn't even make my 7970 hit 100% GPU use. Do I care when those games bottom out at 52FPS and spend an overwhelming majority of their time at above my monitor's capability to draw the image? No. I also expect most games to be graphically limited with the new consoles and 4k (and on the horizon 5k) monitors becoming more mainstream.

My own point is it's fine to purchase AMD if you're an AMD fan. If you're an intel fan it's fine to purchase intel. But don't bring fanboyism into recommending products for other users.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I understood your point.

Not sure I understand your reply then. It had nothing to do with the point I made.

Pretty sure I answered the "why" but you want to continue to make excuses for your brand of choice, by all means. Lets not kid ourselves, the only thing keeping AMD high end competing with Intel's low end stuff is the threat of anti-trust lawsuits. If it wasn't for big brother, Intel could very easily price AMD out of existence. I'm not saying that's a good thing or I'd want that to happen, just pointing out that the feeble attempt you made to try and paint AMD as competitive is quite artificial.

My brand allegiance goes to the brand making the better products. When the X2's were wiping the floor with Pentium 4's and Pentium 4 Dual Core's I didn't make excuses for Intel. I built myself an AMD machine. A few of them. When AMD couldn't compete with Core 2, I didn't make excuses for AMD, I build an Intel machine with a Q6600. Intel's superiority has not stopped since then, so I will continue to buy those products and not make excuses for the uncompetitive ones.

It seems like unless I 100% agree with you on everything you say and praise Intel and bash AMD's products you are going to argue with me. So with that in mind I think I'll be done with the conversation. My FX games quite well, that's been my experience, not sure what else to tell you.

 

[Abwx]

It seems like unless I 100% agree with you on everything you say and praise Intel and bash AMD's products you are going to argue with me. So with that in mind I think I'll be done with the conversation. My FX games quite well, that's been my experience, not sure what else to tell you.

I noticed that the most vocal anti AMD posters do not own AMD gear, they are generaly just repeating hearsay and urban legends.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I noticed that the most vocal anti AMD posters do not own AMD gear, they are generaly just repeating hearsay and urban legends.

Agreed.... I really don't get all the hate. If you buy an AMD with realistic expectations, you'll likely be very satisfied.

As I have mentioned in the past -- my i7 3770k performs nearly identical to my FX 8320 in real world performance.... Without an FPS counter at the top of the screen -- it's virtually impossible to tell the two machines apart.

I am actually retiring my 3770k -- and moving up to a 4790K, so there should finally be a noticeable difference between my Intel and AMD game machines (finally going SLI too on my new 4790k build).

 

[tential]

Agreed.... I really don't get all the hate. If you buy an AMD with realistic expectations, you'll likely be very satisfied.

As I have mentioned in the past -- my i7 3770k performs nearly identical to my FX 8320 in real world performance.... Without an FPS counter at the top of the screen -- it's virtually impossible to tell the two machines apart.

I am actually retiring my 3770k -- and moving up to a 4790K, so there should finally be a noticeable difference between my Intel and AMD game machines (finally going SLI too on my new 4790k build).

AMD is so great... yet you upgrade to a 4790k rather than an FX-9xxx