i5-4670K, Xeon E3-1230 v3 or FX-8350?

[realoc]

Hi everyone!

I want to buy a new PC and I'm not sure which CPU to buy, because I just read a review about the Xeon E3-1230 v3 and was amazed by it's gaming performance.

My new setup so far:

Screen: Dell U2713HM
Case: Antec GX 700
PSU: Corair 550W RM 80+ Gold
Ram: 16 GB G.Skill TridentX CL7 PC1600 (removable heatspreader ftw)
Heatsink: Noctua NH-D14
GPU: to be determined(most likely a highend custom R9 290)
Board: Asus Z87-A(C2) for Intel CPU or Asus M5A99FX for AMD CPU
SSD: Samsung 840 Basic 120GB(from my old PC)
HDD: WD Green 3TB(from my old PC)

If I buy the i5-4670K, I would overclock as much as possible with this heatsink.
I know that the Xeon doesn't have much room for overclocking ~200 MHz.

so which one would be best considering the new games are more and more optimized for multicores?

 

[ShintaiDK]

4670k

 

[Burpo]

Xeon E3-1230 v3 all the way! Much better chip!

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1230+v3+@+3.30GHz&id=1942

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K+@+3.40GHz&id=1921

 

[cvance10]

Those benchmarks don't mean much to gamers. That being said, the Xeon would still be my pick.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD FX9370 + WC Kit @ $269,99 ($20.00 off with code untill 11/11)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&forcesecure=1

ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 @ 124,99(AR $20.00) + $10.00 off with code untill 11/13
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131851

The board supports the FX9370 with BIOS update (1903)

 

[frozentundra123456]

For gaming, and if willing to overclock, I would suggest the 4670k. A few games are starting to show benefits from hyperthreading, but unless you get extremely unlucky in the silicon lottery, overclocking would probably pull the 4670k ahead of the Xeon.

 

[Agenesis]

Make sure the motherboard is compatible with these Xeons with no IGP. But the 4670k would be my pick. HT isn't very important to me and I would be able to overclock it and yield more performance in games.

It's easier to sell later on as well should you find a cheap i7 to upgrade to.

 

[TreVader]

4670k


ecc and ultra-high multithreaded performance are unnecessary on the vast majority of games


4670k + R9 290 will be a beast

 

[schmuckley]

out of those 3=4670K
This mobo is good for cheap:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138381 or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138380

 

[24601]

Make sure the motherboard is compatible with these Xeons with no IGP. But the 4670k would be my pick. HT isn't very important to me and I would be able to overclock it and yield more performance in games.

It's easier to sell later on as well should you find a cheap i7 to upgrade to.

Indeed, as shown by the crazily stubborn prices on used 2500k.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...cpu+cooler"+-"copper+core"+-gigabyte&_sacat=0

That's a chip launched January 2011 mind you.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

Xbox 1 & PS4 = 8 core AMD CPU @ 2Ghz

__FX_8350_ = 8 core AMD CPU @ 4Ghz (4.2 Ghz Turbo)

Once new games developed for Next Gen consoles start hitting the shelves, AMD 8 core CPU's will shine..

 

[Enigmoid]

Xbox 1 & PS4 = 8 core AMD CPU @ 2Ghz

__FX_8350_ = 8 core AMD CPU @ 4Ghz (4.2 Ghz Turbo)

Once new games developed for Next Gen consoles start hitting the shelves, AMD 8 core CPU's will shine..

Do I have to say this again? 6 cores on the console can be used by the games. Furthermore there are MAJOR differences between jaguar and Piledriver (modular vs non-modular). All indications also point to the xbone and ps4 being at 1.75 and 1.6 ghz.

And the cores are not the reason that we will probably get multithreaded games, its the similar architecture (ps3 and xbox 360 can address multiple cores yet most console ports and single or double threaded).

 

[crazzy.heartz]

Do I have to say this again? 6 cores on the console can be used by the games. Furthermore there are MAJOR differences between jaguar and Piledriver (modular vs non-modular). All indications also point to the xbone and ps4 being at 1.75 and 1.6 ghz.

And the cores are not the reason that we will probably get multithreaded games, its the similar architecture (ps3 and xbox 360 can address multiple cores yet most console ports and single or double threaded).

Those slow 1.6/1.7 Ghz cores in Ps4 & Xbox1 (vs 3 Ghz+ cores in Xbox 360 & PS3) are the very reason we'll get multi-threaded games.

Benefit of having a 8 core CPU for Desktop - 6 cores for game & 2 for OS/Background tasks; just like Xbox 1 & PS 4.

 

[bgt]

Xbox 1 & PS4 = 8 core AMD CPU @ 2Ghz
__FX_8350_ = 8 core AMD CPU @ 4Ghz (4.2 Ghz Turbo)Once new games developed for Next Gen consoles start hitting the shelves, AMD 8 core CPU's will shine..

The non OCed FX8350 feels snappier then a non OCed i7-3770 anyway. So yes, I believe this could be true.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Xbox 1 & PS4 = 8 core AMD CPU @ 2Ghz

__FX_8350_ = 8 core AMD CPU @ 4Ghz (4.2 Ghz Turbo)

Once new games developed for Next Gen consoles start hitting the shelves, AMD 8 core CPU's will shine..

The FX is still the worse CPU. Plus as mentioned, the consoles only use a max of 6 cores for gaming. Making the FX even more useless.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The non OCed FX8350 feels snappier then a non OCed i7-3770 anyway. So yes, I believe this could be true.

So not only is kabini more "snappy" than a faster Core. Now the FX series is also? You have zero credibility with this continual BS. Slower but smoother? Pff

 

[ShintaiDK]

Those slow 1.6/1.7 Ghz cores in Ps4 & Xbox1 (vs 3 Ghz+ cores in Xbox 360 & PS3) are the very reason we'll get multi-threaded games.

Benefit of having a 8 core CPU for Desktop - 6 cores for game & 2 for OS/Background tasks; just like Xbox 1 & PS 4.

If thats the reason, why dont we have these multithreaded games today. Both the Xbox360 and PS3 could handle 6+ threads. The Xbox One and PS4 is not increasing that amount.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

If thats the reason, why dont we have these multithreaded games today. Both the Xbox360 and PS3 could handle 6+ threads. The Xbox One and PS4 is not increasing that amount.

Because X-Box 360 and PS3 have 3Ghz+ cores and a single game thread was able handle the brunt of processing. Thus, dev's were able to get away with coding for less threads..

Now, due to low clock speed and even lower single threaded performance for those 1.6/1.7 Ghz cores in Ps4 & Xbox1, developers are forced to spread out the load. They just don't have any other alternative..

 

[ShintaiDK]

Because X-Box 360 and PS3 have 3Ghz+ cores and a single game thread was able handle the brunt of processing. Thus, dev's were able to get away with coding for less threads..

Now, due to low clock speed and even lower single threaded performance for those 1.6/1.7 Ghz cores in Ps4 & Xbox1, developers are forced to spread out the load. They just don't have any other alternative..

The Xbox One/PS4 is faster than the Xbox360/PS3 in singlethreaded as well. You know, due to IPC. Clockspeed alone does not determine how fast an uarch is.

 

[crashtech]

An OCed 4670K is the obvious choice for the only application mentioned, "games," with no other specifics.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

The Xbox One/PS4 is faster than the Xbox360/PS3 in singlethreaded as well. You know, due to IPC. Clockspeed alone does not determine how fast an uarch is.

It has been a consensus on the forums that game devs have been forced to code for multiple cores as these cores are quite weak.. Same has been admitted by few renowned devs as well.

Furthermore, x-box and ps3 CPUs were at least at-par with the Desktop CPU's at that time.. This is not the case with X-box 1 and PS4 cpu. Current Gen AMD 8 core CPU is 4/4.2Ghz, compared to an equivalent 8 Core CPU in X-box1 and PS4 at just 1.6/1.7 Ghz.

Isn't it warranted that Games will perform better with AMD CPU's, having the same number of cores, But, Running at more that twice the speed !?

 

[ShintaiDK]

It has been a consensus on the forums that game devs have been forced to code for multiple cores as these cores are quite weak.. Same has been admitted by few renowned devs as well.

Furthermore, x-box and ps3 CPUs were at least at-par with the Desktop CPU's at that time.. This is not the case with X-box 1 and PS4 cpu. Current Gen AMD 8 core CPU is 4/4.2Ghz, compared to an equivalent 8 Core CPU in X-box1 and PS4 at just 1.6/1.7 Ghz.

Isn't it warranted that Games will perform better with AMD CPU's, having the same number of cores, But, Running at more that twice the speed !?

Xbox360/PS3 CPUs was far from on pair. They was just as weak. Desktop CPUs of the time ran in circles around the 2. And thats why the CPUs in the consoles didnt cost 500$+, but 80$.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

Furthermore, 4670K mentioned above is still a 4 core, 4 thread processor.

Even if the game devs have been restricted to use just 6 cores, it's still 2 cores short.. Compared to a FX-8350 which is capable of 8 threads (equivalent to 8 cores in Xbox1/PS4). This can prove a more viable option in the long run as more and more games, coded for X-box1 and PS4 come out and are coded to use more cores.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Furthermore, 4670K mentioned above is still a 4 core, 4 thread processor.

Even if the game devs have been restricted to use just 6 cores, it's still 2 cores short.. Compared to a FX-8350 which is capable of 8 threads (equivalent to 8 cores in Xbox1/PS4). This can prove a more viable option in the long run as more and more games, coded for X-box1 and PS4 come out and are coded to use more cores.

It doesnt work that way. The 4670K still beats the 8 core FX. You know, there is no limit how many threads you can run on a core. And you still have main worker threads that depends on fast cores, rather than slow.

And due to the joy of Amdahls law and the amount of serial code in games. The faster quadcore shines even more.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

It doesnt work that way. The 4670K still beats the 8 core FX. You know, there is no limit how many threads you can run on a core. And you still have main worker threads that depends on fast cores, rather than slow.

And due to the joy of Amdahls law and the amount of serial code in games. The faster quadcore shines even more.

In that case, what's the advantage of having Hyper Threading on intel i7 CPU's and the huge price premium for this feature, as i5's are essentially i7's with their Hyper Threading disabled.

Wouldn't games perform better with CPU's that have a high core count; those, which have been coded to scale with more cores ?