Please recommend an AMD Processor for me

[tential]

The differences between these two companies while gaming isn't noticeable if sat down behind two computer screens. You would be hard pressed to tell any. In fact many of the Intel guys would swear the FX chip is the Intel in a blind test with no bench running just a game just because it would be a guess.

Except that's not how I purchase something. Maybe you wouldn't notice, maybe the average consumer wouldn't, but I've already decided the general level of performance I want before a chip purchase.

If I had picked up the FX-8350, I would have been utterly borked in Dolphin Emulation compared to the 4770k, I would have lower FPS minimums in a number of games

So why subject myself to it? Why not just look at the data and go "I could get the FX-8350 and have less performance, or I could simply just avoid that and pick up a 4770k?"

So I pick up the 4770k.

So maybe you may not notice those below 60 fps times, that's fine for you.
For me? I don't even want to bother with it.

I didn't want to bother with it back when the Athlon 64 was the best processor to get either.
You don't remember these benches?

I'll always buy the best product available to me. I wont purchase something just because "I may not notice the difference." That's just a pathetic excuse for making a subpar decision.

 

[Maximilian]

How does a semi-coherent post about picking an AMD chip turn into a 5 page thread?

Buy an i5 and be done with it.
If it must be AMD buy an FX8320 and be done with it.

Case closed.

 

[soccerballtux]

How does a semi-coherent post about picking an AMD chip turn into a 5 page thread?

Buy an i5 and be done with it.
If it must be AMD buy an FX8320 and be done with it.

Case closed.

*quad core i5. I won't argue with you there. The benefits of fast single threaded code outweigh the TPism of AMD chips there, IMO.

We argue because my processor at 3.4ghz crunches 210fps at video encoding, and then Intel trollobites keep telling people that a dual core i3 that crunches at 80fps at video encoding is somehow going to be better long term. It's just like the folks telling everyone to buy an e8400 4 years ago saying nothing is quad threaded-- those of us who bought a quad core, can still maintain 60FPS, while the e8400s can be had for $10 on ebay

 

[AtenRa]

So you're able to realize that if you raise the graphics settings of a game to 4K, and turn on all the extra GPU settings possible, that you're GPU bound instead of CPU bound?

It's called being GPU bound.

In the vast majority of 2014 AAA games the vast majority of gamers will be GPU bound even at 1080p.

Do you actually believe you will get any significant fps increase going with Core i5/7 using GPUs like GTX750/660/770 or Radeon 260/270/280 over a FX cpu ??

I could understand you will need the Core i5/7 with High-End GPUs or with CF/SLI for some games. But as resolutions go higher and graphics image quality is increasing in games along with Mantle and DX-12, CPU performance is becoming less and less important each year.

So you will see that a Core i5 2500K and FX8350 will be gaming perfectly in 2-3 years from now using an appropriate GPU.

You're going to be waiting a LONG time if you want the FX-8350 to be better than a 4770k.

It doesnt need to be better, even today they both can be GPU limited with new games at 1080p.

 

[OverVolt]

I don't use AA at high res because there is no need. AA made a difference at lower resolutions. I have zero issues gaming on an AMD FX8150 and HD7800 something or another at something like 1920x1080 no AA and no AF.

I can't tell the difference at high res. None, zip, zilch, nada.

All I do is play games like skyrim or humble bundle games. I don't buy cutting edge games just for the graphics. I just do my own thing. I don't get it. CPU's have plateaued in importance for gaming. I haven't been CPU limited since 2010, nobody is unless its self imposed.

 

[Paul Williams]

AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-9590. one of the best AMD processor i have seen!!

 

[TheELF]

at 8 cores Ahmdahl's law is nothing right now. for a properly developed game engine, that is

prove to me Intel stopped doing it.

what's the single core performance of the Handbrake encode benchmark I provided? 38-40fps at 3.5ghz. I get 210 @ 3.4ghz, which is 52/module. That proves for a properly developed engine, the FX-83XX will be 12/40 or 28 odd percent faster.

Open task manager and look at the games you are playing,you will see that one core maxes out while all other cores are much lower,the more cores you have the bigger this problem becomes.

 

[TheELF]

Intel is going in the direct opposite direction of the overall market. Most people are sitting around watching netflix and surfing facebook on Qualcomm snapdragons on their sofa meanwhile Intel is just plowing ahead on the i9 K10,000,000 and trying to sell a $2,000 desktop to an old person who only really needs a netbook.

Intel sells 35€ cellerons that work perfectly for this kind of stuff and even plays 4k video perfectly because it has dxva.

 

[TheELF]

In the vast majority of 2014 AAA games the vast majority of gamers will be GPU bound even at 1080p.

If you want you can reduce quality and get more fps,or get a better Gpu,if you have a good cpu,but if your cpu maxes out than even if you lower quality or get a better gpu you will not get more fps.
This is a big difference.

 

[AtenRa]

If you want you can reduce quality and get more fps,

Why would i want to reduce image quality when i can play the game with higher image quality ??

 

[TheELF]

Why would i want to reduce image quality when i can play the game with higher image quality ??

Why would you want to play a game with lower FPS if you could play with higher FPS?

It all depends on the taste of the one who plays,if you like better quality with lower FPS than that is totally ok,but don't tell people that everyone has to feel the same way you do.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

*quad core i5. I won't argue with you there. The benefits of fast single threaded code outweigh the TPism of AMD chips there, IMO.

We argue because my processor at 3.4ghz crunches 210fps at video encoding, and then Intel trollobites keep telling people that a dual core i3 that crunches at 80fps at video encoding is somehow going to be better long term. It's just like the folks telling everyone to buy an e8400 4 years ago saying nothing is quad threaded-- those of us who bought a quad core, can still maintain 60FPS, while the e8400s can be had for $10 on ebay

I remember receiving so much flak for recommending the Q8200 above the E8400, especially if you overclock. The Q8xxx series can actually play current demanding games at respectable framerates, but the E8xxx series absolutely cannot.

I remember when I switched from the Northwood Pentium 4 2.8Ghz w/HT to the Venice Athlon 64 3500+. My FPS in counterstrike definitely went up, but I couldn't play music simultaneously without choppy game play. My P4 never had that issue due to hyperthreading. I ended up buying a s939 Manchester x2 4200+ just to play music while I gamed without issue. And when I asked back then (steam forums I believe) I was ridiculed for not getting the Athlon 4000+ than the x2 4200+ because the dual core was slower and useless. Right after that, most games started using 1.5/2 threads, like Team Fortress 2. Turns out the x2 4200+ was a far better CPU than any single core released to date to game with.

More threads=longevity. 6+ threads is where the sweet spot is right now. Games like NBA 2K15 use them already, and I'm certain a whole cache of games will shortly with game devs milking the most out of these consoles.

If you have the money, the lowest tier 6-core i7 (5820k) is the best CPU for the money and longevity on the market today. If you are on a budget and wont upgrade for many years? The FX-8300/8310 (3.3/3.4Ghz FX 8-core) with cooler can be had for as low as $105-110, and will only improve in utility with games from here on out. And it's a 95w CPU to boot.

 

[AtenRa]

Why would you want to play a game with lower FPS if you could play with higher FPS?

It all depends on the taste of the one who plays,if you like better quality with lower FPS than that is totally ok,but don't tell people that everyone has to feel the same way you do.

So if i could get 60fps with higher image quality would i need more fps (60hz monitor)?? Because the vast majority of games will play at 60fps with both the Core i5 or the FX cpus if you have an adequate GPU.

 

[nenforcer]

So you're able to realize that if you raise the graphics settings of a game to 4K, and turn on all the extra GPU settings possible, that you're GPU bound instead of CPU bound?

It's called being GPU bound.

You're going to be waiting a LONG time if you want the FX-8350 to be better than a 4770k.

You have any specific titles in mind that we should wait for so that the FX-8350 becomes better than the 4770k for gaming?
------
I'm not anti-AMD or pro intel, I just look at facts. I don't want you to look at my posts and think "Oh, I am doom and gloom for AMD". I'm not, the future is the future. I have no idea what AMD has in store for 2015-2020. If apple can turn the success of the Ipod into the empire they built today, anything is possible. That's what makes America great.

Yes, Grand Theft Auto V is the PC game I'm going to pay close attention to early next year when it comes out. Grand Theft Auto IV was one of the first games that really fully utilized a quad core (Q6600) cpu at the time and I'm expecting no different when it is ported to the PC after the PS4 and XBONE version just came out.

 

[TheELF]

So if i could get 60fps with higher image quality would i need more fps (60hz monitor)?? Because the vast majority of games will play at 60fps with both the Core i5 or the FX cpus if you have an adequate GPU.

The vast majority of games will get 60fps even on the I3/FX-4xxx or even pentiums.
That's not the point we are discussing.

 

[AtenRa]

The vast majority of games will get 60fps even on the I3/FX-4xxx or even pentiums.
That's not the point we are discussing.

That is exactly the point we are discussing. If any of those CPUs can get you 60fps then you better have a higher-end GPU to play the game at higher image quality.
If those CPUs are enough for 60fps then a low budget FX8320E middle OCed to 4.0-4.4GHz is more than enough even if you want to game at 4K.

 

[tential]

In the vast majority of 2014 AAA games the vast majority of gamers will be GPU bound even at 1080p.

Do you actually believe you will get any significant fps increase going with Core i5/7 using GPUs like GTX750/660/770 or Radeon 260/270/280 over a FX cpu ??

I could understand you will need the Core i5/7 with High-End GPUs or with CF/SLI for some games. But as resolutions go higher and graphics image quality is increasing in games along with Mantle and DX-12, CPU performance is becoming less and less important each year.

So you will see that a Core i5 2500K and FX8350 will be gaming perfectly in 2-3 years from now using an appropriate GPU.




It doesnt need to be better, even today they both can be GPU limited with new games at 1080p.

Before I answer this are you saying a person who already owns an i5-2500k/FX-8350 shouldn't upgrade their CPU (sunk cost)?

Are we talking about a person purchasing today, intending to stay at a midrange GPU/low end GPU(the ones you stated), or are we talking a person who already owns these products and whether they should upgrade to a 4690k/4790k?

 

[AtenRa]

Before I answer this are you saying a person who already owns an i5-2500k/FX-8350 shouldn't upgrade their CPU (sunk cost)?

Are we talking about a person purchasing today, intending to stay at a midrange GPU/low end GPU(the ones you stated), or are we talking a person who already owns these products and whether they should upgrade to a 4690k/4790k?

First, those who have 2500K/FX8350 will benefit upgrading the GPU than the CPU even if they dont OC.

For new builds having Core i3 or FX8350 will get you the same performance using the same GPU. In the majority of new 2014 games, even a Core i5 will have the same performance with those two, unless you are aiming for 980SLI/290 CF.
For 1600p/4K resolutions, you are GPU limited and every one of those CPUs will get you the same performance even if you go with SLI/CF.

That is for 60fps, 120fps is another think. But even for 120fps an OCed FX83xx at 4.4GHz is enough even for BF4 MP. Even for 120fps im GPU limited with the FX and my HD7950@1GHz and i have to lower image quality to get 120fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADaALZ0RWDA&index=7&list=PLPPlscE2CXdFD3sh6m6sNiPB9GdtPU0wU

 

[tential]

First, those who have 2500K/FX8350 will benefit upgrading the GPU than the CPU even if they dont OC.

For new builds having Core i3 or FX8350 will get you the same performance using the same GPU.

Agreed.

In the majority of new 2014 games, even a Core i5 will have the same performance with those two, unless you are aiming for 980SLI/290 CF.

Disagree. I think the performance difference is different for GTX980/R9 290 is a number of games.
Even more so for GTX980SLi/290CF but I think that's just clarifying on something you weren't going to make a longer post about. For MOST games though, you're right you're GPU bound but for the Triple A titles like FC4, AC Unity, DA:I? etc. I prefer to have more CPU as we know more CPU does help.
I think that I'll agree with you in respect though that if you are aiming for 980Sli/290CF chances are even if you had an i7, it wouldn't make a difference to the naked eye in gaming performance.

For 1600p/4K resolutions, you are GPU limited and every one of those CPUs will get you the same performance even if you go with SLI/CF.

Anandtech did a good review on this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/5
So agreed.

That is for 60fps, 120fps is another think. But even for 120fps an OCed FX83xx at 4.4GHz is enough even for BF4 MP. Even for 120fps im GPU limited with the FX and my HD7950@1GHz and i have to lower image quality to get 120fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADaALZ0RWDA&index=7&list=PLPPlscE2CXdFD3sh6m6sNiPB9GdtPU0wU

I'm not a 120 FPS gamer so I really will just not touch on it at all.
--------------------------------------------------------

 

[soccerballtux]

Open task manager and look at the games you are playing,you will see that one core maxes out while all other cores are much lower,the more cores you have the bigger this problem becomes.

you must play a lot of WoW or D3, they're about the only engines that set core affinity masks

windows usually bounces them around to help

 

[soccerballtux]

I remember receiving so much flak for recommending the Q8200 above the E8400, especially if you overclock. The Q8xxx series can actually play current demanding games at respectable framerates, but the E8xxx series absolutely cannot.

I remember when I switched from the Northwood Pentium 4 2.8Ghz w/HT to the Venice Athlon 64 3500+. My FPS in counterstrike definitely went up, but I couldn't play music simultaneously without choppy game play. My P4 never had that issue due to hyperthreading. I ended up buying a s939 Manchester x2 4200+ just to play music while I gamed without issue. And when I asked back then (steam forums I believe) I was ridiculed for not getting the Athlon 4000+ than the x2 4200+ because the dual core was slower and useless. Right after that, most games started using 1.5/2 threads, like Team Fortress 2. Turns out the x2 4200+ was a far better CPU than any single core released to date to game with.

More threads=longevity. 6+ threads is where the sweet spot is right now. Games like NBA 2K15 use them already, and I'm certain a whole cache of games will shortly with game devs milking the most out of these consoles.

If you have the money, the lowest tier 6-core i7 (5820k) is the best CPU for the money and longevity on the market today. If you are on a budget and wont upgrade for many years? The FX-8300/8310 (3.3/3.4Ghz FX 8-core) with cooler can be had for as low as $105-110, and will only improve in utility with games from here on out. And it's a 95w CPU to boot.

yeah. I didn't actually have that issue with my S754 Sempron64 2300+. I overclocked that to 2.3ghz and if I wanted music I just set the music thread priority a bit higher; or encoding a video set the process priority to very low.

I needed the cheapest way to get more RAM (was happy with CPU performance) and that ended up being AMD. If I had spent $100 more I could have gone Intel but meh. This upgrade basically cost me less than the RAM itself.

 

[soccerballtux]

The vast majority of games will get 60fps even on the I3/FX-4xxx or even pentiums.

for now

Frankly, I wish I had kept my IP35-E and e2180@3.4ghz. It probably would have been enough

 

[Yuriman]

And yet there are a number of games even today that will *not* stay above 60FPS on an FX chip, but will on an Intel chip, or will be closer to 60 on the Intel chip. It doesn't matter how much graphical horsepower you have, you'll not get fluid framerates. In these games, an FX offers a compromised gaming experience.

What's so hard to understand?

 

[OverVolt]

And yet there are a number of games even today that will *not* stay above 60FPS on an FX chip, but will on an Intel chip, or will be closer to 60 on the Intel chip. It doesn't matter how much graphical horsepower you have, you'll not get fluid framerates. In these games, an FX offers a compromised gaming experience.

What's so hard to understand?

Having 30FPS is hardly a compromised gaming experience and the price/performance comes into play.

 

[Abwx]

And yet there are a number of games even today that will *not* stay above 60FPS on an FX chip, but will on an Intel chip, or will be closer to 60 on the Intel chip. It doesn't matter how much graphical horsepower you have, you'll not get fluid framerates. In these games, an FX offers a compromised gaming experience.

What's so hard to understand?

Would thoses i3/i5 keep their framerates on real systems.?

I have no i3/i5 or FX but i m sure that it s not the case for the lowly threaded CPUs, as i pointed it they couldnt even stand a wifi connection being on and some download being performed while gaming.