Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[Torn Mind]

My response is very late, OP.

Generations pass, and things change. AMD is playing second fiddle to Intel now in terms of gaming performance. Now, if you can afford an i5 or greater and you have no plans to do streaming, Intel is the way to go. Under that, it becomes a matter of what specific games you play that determine the choice. Many games do not benefit from extra cores, but the Battlefield series does. Hence, the FX-8350 is a choice to consider if you are willing to take on the higher power costs in exchange for a lower upfront cost for the CPU+motherboard.

 

[AtenRa]

I want you to look carefully at using the CPU with more powerful GPU's that is when you can see that the CPU is the limiting factor.

Once you start to use a more powerful GPU, you will enable more Image Quality features like AA filters. That will swift the load back to the GPU again and you will be GPU limited.
It is only with the top of the line $600+ GPUs that you will see more performance with the Intel CPUs. But then again you will get more than 60fps with either the FX or the Intel Core i CPU.

Also, dont forget that most reviews test CPU Gaming performance with out AA filters. Nobody will use a top of the line GPU like R9 290X or GTX780Ti for gaming and not use AA filters.

 

[TeknoBug]

I have an FX 4350 system, relatively fast due to its higher stock clock speed out of the box and can be OC'd to 4.63GHz even on a 4+1 phase board, and handles games just fine and can be found for $100-120 depending on where you are.

I was also thinking of suggesting FM2 + Athlon X4 760K, not a bad combo but not ideal for dedicated gaming.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I was also thinking of suggesting FM2 + Athlon X4 760K, not a bad combo but not ideal for dedicated gaming.

Why not? The 750/760K should be good for at least 4GHz, even on the stock cooler. Its very easy to get 6800K/stock FX4350-level performance out of them. Being IGP-less, they have a lot more thermal headroom, since they don't have to power the IGP. They also don't require highspeed RAM, again because of that missing IGP.

I'll grant you they're not ideal, but they're very hard to beat if you're on a budget...

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think the question should be more like "what is the best choice". An FX 8350 will certainly play any game out there, but I dont think it is the best choice for a gaming system in the over 7 or 8 hundred dollar range.

Just go to game.gpu and look at the results at 1080p for a wide variety of games. The choice of cpu certainly *does* matter. A 4670k is simply much more well rounded. In the games that are well threaded and favor the FX, an i5 is still basically the same or very close in performance. OTOH, in games that are less well threaded the i5 is considerably faster, at a modest increase in cost when the cost of the entire system is considered. The lower power consumption of the i5 is a bonus, and will eliminate part of the initial cost savings of getting an FX.

 

[cytg111]

in a market where cpu performance only advances ~10% yoy I would invest in the 10% top percentile.. It is simply an investemt that is going to last the next .. ten years? So dont cheap out on it .. i5 or i7

 

[Shmee]

I would get the latest i5 or i7 k version. Very good IPC and overclockability.

The big question for me is, will having HT on help in BF4 and other upcoming games on the i7? Just a quick question for those who might know. Also, this is probably beyond your budget, but the high end IB-E or upcoming Haswell-E are top of the line, though also probably unnecessary with a single GPU.

 

[B-Riz]

Is O/C a big deal?

From browsing this forum and taking in the reviews of Haswell, O/C on those is mixed.

I always thought the i5 3350P was an interesting product; no video, runs cooler.

You can get a nice i5 something for ~ $150 on flea-bay IF O/C is not a big deal.

Or an FX 63xx or 83xx would work just fine.

 

[B-Riz]

I would get the latest i5 or i7 k version. Very good IPC and overclockability.

The big question for me is, will having HT on help in BF4 and other upcoming games on the i7? Just a quick question for those who might know. Also, this is probably beyond your budget, but the high end IB-E or upcoming Haswell-E are top of the line, though also probably unnecessary with a single GPU.

Some testing between Win 7 and Win 8.1 out on the net with HT on and off shows the game does better in MP without HT, go figure...

I am running no HT and a nice O/C, MP is smooth.

 

[Keysplayr]

If this hasn't been suggested before, I'd ask the OP how much he has to spend on CPU, mobo and RAM. Then take that dollar amount and find the best we are able to get with Intel, and then the best we are able to get with AMD. Take those two products and hunt down some benches from a source commonly respected by both Pro AMD or Intel parties.
Then, OP, you'll have your answer. There really isn't any reason for this thread to go on like this. IMHO.
Good Luck.

 

[jhu]

Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

Absolutely. PS4 and XBox One are pretty decent gaming consoles.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Absolutely. PS4 and XBox One are pretty decent gaming consoles.

If 720p/900p and 30fps is considered decent.

 

[crashtech]

Yeah, if you want to replicate the console experience, get a console. Going through the trouble of building a gaming PC usually indicate a desire for something better.

 

[davie jambo]

Nothing wrong with AMD cpus for gaming , any quad core CPU from the last three years is good enough , it's all about the GPU

I've got an i7 and a FX8350 and they are about the same in the real world in 3d games. However I would say in games like Civ 5 the i7 is much quicker. It was also twice the price though

Play a lot of FPS type games ? Go AMD. Play RTS games more ? Go intel
:thumbsup:

 

[SlowSpyder]

For whatever it is worth I used an AMD PhenomII 1090T @ 4GHz for a long time (paired with DDR2, even) and felt it is a very capable CPU even today. I upgraded not out of necessity, but because having the same motherboard for five years caused me to get bit by the upgrade bug.

And while I'd say Intel certainly trumps AMD in absolute performance, it is hard to beat AMD's CPU's if you're on a limited budget. I think the FX 83xx CPU's are hard to beat at the prices you can often find them at. Unfortunately the FX platform hasn't gotten any love from AMD in quite some time and is a bit dated.

 

[SPBHM]

it is hard to beat AMD's CPU's if you're on a limited budget. I think the FX 83xx CPU's are hard to beat at the prices you can often find them at.

not for gaming, it's hard to beat Intel CPUs + ultra cheap MB and stock cooler,

 

[davie jambo]

not for gaming, it's hard to beat Intel CPUs + ultra cheap MB and stock cooler,

Bollocks , I upgraded my FX8350 to an I7 because the internet keeps saying AMD were rubbish

Could barley notice a difference

 

[SlowSpyder]

not for gaming, it's hard to beat Intel CPUs + ultra cheap MB and stock cooler,

I guess it depends on the budget and the games. But, I'd take an inexpensive FX 6300 build over an i3. And the FX 8320 has had some pretty decent deals from time to time, that would be another really solid inexpensive option.

 

[norseamd]

If 720p/900p and 30fps is considered decent.

ps4 runs 1080 at 30 + fps. some games might even run up to 60 fps. the x box one run 720 or 900 at 30 fps.

 

[norseamd]

Bollocks , I upgraded my FX8350 to an I7 because the internet keeps saying AMD were rubbish Could barley notice a difference

not a surprise. games hardly take advantage of the full cpu power anyways. amd has more cores while intel has better single thread performance so there are always programs that will run better on one processor or the other

 

[Keysplayr]

n/m. I see it's 500 to 600 dollars limit.

working........

 

[schmuckley]

NO.Anything Nehalem or later is better for gaming.

 

[SPBHM]

Bollocks , I upgraded my FX8350 to an I7 because the internet keeps saying AMD were rubbish

Could barley notice a difference

2 things, i7s are not really faster than cheaper i5s for most CPU intensive games, that was my point, for gaming you shouldn't compare 8350s to i7s, but to i5s if you are trying to use your money efficiently

if you don't play CPU limited games (or settings, slow GPU, absurd AA/res and so on), obviously upgrading your CPU was not a great idea,

I guess it depends on the budget and the games. But, I'd take an inexpensive FX 6300 build over an i3. And the FX 8320 has had some pretty decent deals from time to time, that would be another really solid inexpensive option.

problem is, an 8320 requires a better motherboard and cooling solution, while an i5 4440, 4570 or whatever would work fine with $50MBs and no tweaking, and match/outperform the 8320 even with a 1ghz+ OC for 99% games,

as for comparing the 6300 to an i3 (let's say 4130), the 6300 have a solid advantage on MT video conversion, file compression and so on (still kind of low when you consider one is sold as 6 core and the other as 2, which means, there is a big difference in performance per core), but when you go back to gaming the 6300 is going to loose its advantage, as you can see here there are many examples of the 6300 behind by a good margin
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-4/performances-jeux-3d.html

considering they have basically the same price and this thread is specifically about gaming, and the i3 also have lower power requirements/better cheap MBs/platform, I don't know, as much as I also admired the performance/cost from the 6300 a year back, I'm not seeing it as the winner here for gaming... if you add other possibilities like video encoding my opinion could be different.

 

[AtenRa]

problem is, an 8320 requires a better motherboard and cooling solution,

No and No,

You can use a $50 AM3+ with USB-3 for the FX8320, OC to 4GHz with default cooler and have FX8350 performance.

ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 @ $52,49

This motherboard supports up to 125W TDP FX8350. So you can also use the FX6300 and OC to 4GHz easily with default cooler or OC to 4.4GHz+ with a $30 Cooler.

while an i5 4440, 4570 or whatever would work fine with $50MBs and no tweaking,

Just to remind everyone suggesting an H81 motherboard that they ONLY support PCI-e Gen-2, no matter if your CPU can support Gen-3.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75016/Intel-DH82H81-PCH

I/O Specifications
Supported Processor PCI Express Port Revision : 2

 

[SPBHM]

No and No,

You can use a $50 AM3+ with USB-3 for the FX8320, OC to 4GHz with default cooler and have FX8350 performance.

ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 @ $52,49

This motherboard supports up to 125W TDP FX8350. So you can also use the FX6300 and OC to 4GHz easily with default cooler or OC to 4.4GHz+ with a $30 Cooler.




Just to remind everyone suggesting an H81 motherboard that they ONLY support PCI-e Gen-2, no matter if your CPU can support Gen-3.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75016/Intel-DH82H81-PCH

no vrm cooling for 125w+ CPUs, no sata III... not sure it's the wisest route for people trying to save money, I see more potential headache with that than H81 + nice low TDP CPUs with no OC.

you are right about the H81 and PCIE 2 support (Intel loves this ugly segmentation stuff, H61 could work with PCIE 3.0, they disabled it for H81 since the CPU can provide 3.0 support, oh well, native usb3 and sata 3 are more important), but the Am3+ solution doesn't offer any advantage over that, I can't blame that 760G for not having PCIE 3.0/sataIII support since it's from 2009 or something.



still, stock 4570 is much faster than 4.4GHz FX in some games, and the same on others or GPU bound ones, so... it still looks like a more logical choice for gaming.