Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[AtenRa]

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.

I dont disagree that H81 is better than AM3+ with 760G chipset, but you can have an 6 or 8-core 4GHz CPU with this cheap motherboard. For a very budget oriented build, you can use the FX6300 OC to 4GHz with default cooler on this cheap motherboard and use more of you budget for a faster GPU.

 

[Magic Carpet]

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.

Got a 4570 cpu to toy with, and its a boring chip, no HT, no overclocking, yeah it has some newer intrsuctions... but by the time I really make use of them, I will be on a different platform anyway. Long story short, bored with it to death already (along with the B85 mobo). At least with AMD FX you can have some oc fun :biggrin:

Yeah, it uses less power so what, lol (still have to use a fan). I have a Thuban rig nearby and it's not much slower in games (270 Crossfire), but six cores are much more fun to play with and once oc'ed, it leaves 4570 in the dust (MT workloads).

Got the wrong Haswell cpu, I know. And now I need to change the mobo if I decide to go with the oc capable K version. Intel is boring, unless you are willing to pay the top buck. Fact.

Certainly, for the average consumer, it may seem like a better purchase even with the features crippled, but not for me.

 

[SPBHM]

you can always try to OC by 5% with bclk, also IGP OC? :biggrin:

but I understand, when I moved to sandy bridge i3 a few years back I missed playing with OC, but I have to say, it was the most stable and trouble free experience I've ever had, for a few years now (and using a "sub $50" style MB)... just plug and play.

if you just want a really fast CPU with no complications and great price/performance locked haswell is the best imo, if you want to do some more tweaking 4670K or AMD CPUs will offer more options, but not exactly better performance for the money invested in many cases,

But I certainly miss the days (before 2011) when you could also OC lower end Intel hardware, or when AMD had more competitive performance per core.

 

[davie jambo]

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,

You said AMD were not good for gaming , when clearly they are just as good as intel at it

 

[Magic Carpet]

you can always try to OC by 5% with bclk, also IGP OC? :biggrin:

I really don't fancy Intel QuickSync (before anyone mentions it) at all. The IGP is a nice bonus, but it's not a replacement for discrete graphics for me. I tried to use it but I didn't like it (ended up pairing it with a slow-as-hell GT 640, but still giving me better "real-world" experience). Yes, I can turbo all cores at 3.6 Ghz, but that's about it, and it's not working with the latest BIOS revision (have to use pre-September release, MSI B85-G43 GAMING if you are curious) for that. So yeah, I should have paid more for a better processor along with a better mobo. Luckily, I can offload this build to a client, and give myself "another chance".

but I understand, when I moved to sandy bridge i3 a few years back I missed playing with OC, but I have to say, it was the most stable and trouble free experience I've ever had, for a few years now (and using a "sub $50" style MB)... just plug and play.

Those sub $50 boards come with inferior audio chips, I have to say, the only thing I like in this mobo is the newer ALC1150 audio codec.

if you just want a really fast CPU with no complications and great price/performance locked haswell is the best imo, if you want to do some more tweaking 4670K or AMD CPUs will offer more options, but not exactly better performance for the money invested in many cases,

No way I am changing my Thuban rig to this. Yeah, I suppose, I ought to shell out more dough, to be satisfied.

But I certainly miss the days (before 2011) when you could also OC lower end Intel hardware, or when AMD had more competitive performance per core.

Same here.

 

[Durp]

You said AMD were not good for gaming , when clearly they are just as good as intel at it

From what biased source are you getting this incorrect information from?

 

[SPBHM]

I really don't fancy Intel QuickSync (before anyone mentions it) at all. The IGP is a nice bonus, but it's not a replacement for discrete graphics for me. I tried to use it but I didn't like it (ended up pairing it with a slow-as-hell GT 640, but still giving me better "real-world" experience). Yes, I can turbo all cores at 3.6 Ghz, but that's about it, and it's not working with the latest BIOS revision (have to use pre-September release, MSI B85-G43 GAMING if you are curious) for that. So yeah, I should have paid more for a better processor along with a better mobo. Luckily, I can offload this build to a client, and give myself "another chance".

For anyone used to discrete graphics it's not really that important to have the IGP, but I like the fact it gives me a "backup plan" if something goes wrong with the other cards, also I tend to use my old PCs for something else when I replace them, and I normally don't use discrete graphics for them later on, even the 760G awful IGP is better than nothing in this case,

as far as I know you shouldn't be able to force turbo on 4 cores load, are you sure it keeps the higher clock once you load all cores, on all cores?

last year asrock and a few others found a way to enable K OC without using a Z chipset, but Intel fixed the "problem", and I'm not sure it had any benefit for locked CPUs,

Those sub $50 boards come with inferior audio chips, I have to say, the only thing I like in this mobo is the newer ALC1150 audio codec.

not all cheap boards use the same, but even the cheaper Realteks are not to bad these days (but if you have higher end headphones and so on, obviously you should care more about the audio chip/board construction), I initially was displeased with the sound on that board, even had to use a PCI Xonar DG, but ended up adapting to the quality anyway, with different headphones I even thought the awful ALC662 was sounding better than the xonar dg

 

[davie jambo]

From what biased source are you getting this incorrect information from?

First hand experience

Got both CPU's with the same GPU (7970) frame rates are very similar

 

[SPBHM]

First hand experience

Got both CPU's with the same GPU (7970) frame rates are very similar

I trust "pro" reviews more than you, I'm sorry about that, but you could at least tell us the games and settings you tested, because your experience goes against all the data I can find on multiple websites,

 

[davie jambo]

I trust "pro" reviews more than you, I'm sorry about that, but you could at least tell us the games and settings you tested, because your experience goes against all the data I can find on multiple websites,

Just telling you how it is

Only reason I moved to intel was because review sites keep saying "get an i5"

So bought myself a shinny new i7 with board (cost me near enough £450)

Frame rates are maybe 5% better

Worst upgrade ever

 

[Sweepr]

A faster CPU wont help in GPU-limited scenarios. You should have done a little research first.

Your refusal to tell the games you play & settings also speaks for itself.

 

[Durp]

Just telling you how it is

Only reason I moved to intel was because review sites keep saying "get an i5"

So bought myself a shinny new i7 with board (cost me near enough £450)

Frame rates are maybe 5% better

Worst upgrade ever

So for your needs it was barely better. I assume 60Hz monitor with GPU bound games with the settings turned up? When you mask the performance of the processor of course you won't see much of a difference from a processor upgrade. For your needs it was a waste of money.

The fact is, when you remove the GPU bottleneck and push on the processor then Haswell consistently outperforms Vishera by a noticeable amount. In the best case scenario Vishera can almost keep up with Haswell but it the worst case scenario Vishera looks like a joke next to it. This is the reason why you see many sites recommending Haswell/Ivy and not Vishera for new gaming builds. Because whatever your gaming needs are, it will perform well, not just in specific GPU bound situations.

I assure you, I'm quite the fanboy.... of performance per dollar, i personally don't mind which logo is on the box. I also think Haswell is a poor product but it's absolutely superior to Vishera. Especially when it comes to gaming.

To answer the OP, no, I wouldn't recommend buying any current AMD cpu for gaming. If HSA support goes completely crazy then you might consider Kaveri or any future APU chips but not Vishera.

 

[Magic Carpet]

For anyone used to discrete graphics it's not really that important to have the IGP, but I like the fact it gives me a "backup plan" if something goes wrong with the other cards,

Wasted die space, if you ask me. I have plenty of PCI/PCI-E cards to troubleshoot with. I know, this has been discussed to death before.

also I tend to use my old PCs for something else when I replace them, and I normally don't use discrete graphics for them later on, even the 760G awful IGP is better than nothing in this case,

That's fine.

as far as I know you shouldn't be able to force turbo on 4 cores load, are you sure it keeps the higher clock once you load all cores, on all cores?

Absolutely. This was a mobo "feature", but they removed it with a bios update later.

last year asrock and a few others found a way to enable K OC without using a Z chipset, but Intel fixed the "problem", and I'm not sure it had any benefit for locked CPUs

Intel just made mobo makers release a patch, that made those boards... "crippled" again. Nice business tactics, isn't it.

not all cheap boards use the same, but even the cheaper Realteks are not to bad these days (but if you have higher end headphones and so on, obviously you should care more about the audio chip/board construction), I initially was displeased with the sound on that board, even had to use a PCI Xonar DG, but ended up adapting to the quality anyway, with different headphones I even thought the awful ALC662 was sounding better than the xonar dg

You won't find a sub $50 board with decent onboard sound (ALC889, ALC892, ALC898), let alone ALC1150. Now, that is true, one can adapt... but after comparing 892 vs 1150, I don't wanna go back. Like I said, that's the only decently implemented feature of that board. Now, remember, this is sound... you can't measure it with fps, everything is very individual.

 

[AtenRa]

So for your needs it was barely better. I assume 60Hz monitor with GPU bound games with the settings turned up? When you mask the performance of the processor of course you won't see much of a difference from a processor upgrade. For your needs it was a waste of money.

The fact is, when you remove the GPU bottleneck and push on the processor then Haswell consistently outperforms Vishera by a noticeable amount. In the best case scenario Vishera can almost keep up with Haswell but it the worst case scenario Vishera looks like a joke next to it. This is the reason why you see many sites recommending Haswell/Ivy and not Vishera for new gaming builds. Because whatever your gaming needs are, it will perform well, not just in specific GPU bound situations.

I assure you, I'm quite the fanboy.... of performance per dollar, i personally don't mind which logo is on the box. I also think Haswell is a poor product but it's absolutely superior to Vishera. Especially when it comes to gaming.

To answer the OP, no, I wouldn't recommend buying any current AMD cpu for gaming. If HSA support goes completely crazy then you might consider Kaveri or any future APU chips but not Vishera.

And when do you remove the GPU bottleneck in latest DX-11 games ??? at 720p with AA filters turned off ?? Or when you use $800 GPUs ???

Even a Core i5 can be a bottleneck in games, so generally saying that AMD CPUs are not for gaming is wrong.

Its all about your budget and what performance you are aiming for.

 

[Magic Carpet]

And when do you remove the GPU bottleneck in latest DX-11 games ??? at 720p with AA filters turned off ?? Or when you use $800 GPUs ???

Even a Core i5 can be a bottleneck in games, so generally saying that AMD CPUs are not for gaming is wrong.

Its all about your budget and what performance you are aiming for.

I tend to agree with this rational view on things. If you have a limited gaming budget, you should always spend more on gpu, than the rest of the components. No limits, Intel + Nvidia is the best combo nowadays.

 

[Durp]

And when do you remove the GPU bottleneck in latest DX-11 games ??? at 720p with AA filters turned off ?? Or when you use $800 GPUs ???

Even a Core i5 can be a bottleneck in games, so generally saying that AMD CPUs are not for gaming is wrong.

Its all about your budget and what performance you are aiming for.

The version of directX used is irrelevant. The amount of PC gamers that play cpu bound MMOs, MOBAs and other competitive games vastly outnumber the percent of people playing games where the CPU doesn't really matter. You will also need that extra CPU power if you ever intend to use a higher refresh rate monitor which are getting very popular for good reasons.

And I already agreed with the above poster, because for his needs Vishera wasn't holding him back. He pointed out that he was "tricked" by review sites recommending a faster processor and I was trying to help him understand why he saw only minor performance increases.

I really want to avoid debating with a shill though so lets just leave it at that.

Calling another member a shill is insulting, and we don't allow that.
Markf900 Anandtech Moderator.

 

[davie jambo]

So for your needs it was barely better. I assume 60Hz monitor with GPU bound games with the settings turned up? When you mask the performance of the processor of course you won't see much of a difference from a processor upgrade. For your needs it was a waste of money.

The fact is, when you remove the GPU bottleneck and push on the processor then Haswell consistently outperforms Vishera by a noticeable amount. In the best case scenario Vishera can almost keep up with Haswell but it the worst case scenario Vishera looks like a joke next to it. This is the reason why you see many sites recommending Haswell/Ivy and not Vishera for new gaming builds. Because whatever your gaming needs are, it will perform well, not just in specific GPU bound situations.

I assure you, I'm quite the fanboy.... of performance per dollar, i personally don't mind which logo is on the box. I also think Haswell is a poor product but it's absolutely superior to Vishera. Especially when it comes to gaming.

To answer the OP, no, I wouldn't recommend buying any current AMD cpu for gaming. If HSA support goes completely crazy then you might consider Kaveri or any future APU chips but not Vishera.

No I have a 1440p monitor overclocked to 96hz

I just think it's crazy folk are saying "don't buy AMD for gaming"

For example skyrim (CPU bound game) runs perfectly at 1080p 60fps on my AMD system (fx8350 stock speed and 7970). Yes it does slow down if you sprint through whiterun but so does the intel CPU

 

[AtenRa]

I really want to avoid debating with a shill though so lets just leave it at that.

Next time someone disagrees with you dont even bother to have a conversation, just call him shill and continue with what you believe is the only truth.
Insulting other members is not allowed, even if they insult you first.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[crashtech]

Well, to be honest, the same argument that is being used to defend the use of AMD CPUs for gaming could also be used to defend the used of the current gen i3, or many other past generation CPUs, such as the Core2 Quad, the hexcore Phenoms, any Nehalem i5 or better, etc. etc. etc. What is best and what is necessary are rarely the same, but generally I agree with the idea that given any particular budget constraint, it's best for a gamer to spend more on the GPU than CPU, up to about double the money, in fact.

 

[Durp]

Next time someone disagrees with you dont even bother to have a conversation, just call him shill and continue with what you believe is the only truth.

Debating with someone paid to stay on one side of the discussion is a waste of time.

I don't understand why Anandtech allows you to shill here but that's their choice I guess. This isn't a normal situation so that response applies quite well.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The only AMD CPU worth it is the FX6xxx series. And thats still short term investment. Everything else they have to offer is rubbish and not worth it besides some niche cases.

 

[davie jambo]

The only AMD CPU worth it is the FX6xxx series. And thats still short term investment. Everything else they have to offer is rubbish and not worth it besides some niche cases.

They are good for gaming , which is the question in the OP

 

[crashtech]

They are good for gaming , which is the question in the OP

They are "good enough" for gaming, but that was not precisely the question. From the OP:

MY questions are....

1) Does it make sense to build an AMD system now? Or just stick with cheap Intel i3 type cpu?

2) What AMD CPU would be a good buy and not bottleneck me in games for awhile? I want to play BF3 and BF4 on 64 multiplayer type maps.

Whether it makes sense to use an AMD CPU is highly subjective, hence the contentiousness of the replies.

To me, the answer to question two would be an 8350 or better, but the 8350 doesn't "make sense" to a lot of people, including me, which again begs for contentiousness.

 

[Keysplayr]

Next time someone disagrees with you dont even bother to have a conversation, just call him shill and continue with what you believe is the only truth.

AtenRa, try not to take that personally as I think he is just a bit upset that he knows that you are an AMD reseller but you do not disclose it in your sig, which i feel would be a proper thing to do especially in a "Which should I buy AMD or Intel" thread. I hope you can understand his, and I'm sure, other's concerns and be sympathetic towards that.

OT: So, using newegg for a baseline, what is the best system from AMD and Intel that can be had for 550 bucks and which will outperform the other overall? Should we look strictly at AMD's FX series like the FX-6300 or what?

This looks sweet from Intel - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...=Combo.1543423

And I have a shopping cart full of "equivalent" AMD parts worth 633.00

I'm sure i could skim off a bit but I chose the FX9370 instead of FX 6300. Using the 6300 would be about 130 dollars cheaper.
Also don't forget to include the 650Ti or AMD equivalent.
Around just above 500 bucks for an AMD system. Now, are these two systems comparable in performance?

These systems are Without the operating systems of course.

Thoughts?

 

[jhu]

Well, to be honest, the same argument that is being used to defend the use of AMD CPUs for gaming could also be used to defend the used of the current gen i3, or many other past generation CPUs, such as the Core2 Quad, the hexcore Phenoms, any Nehalem i5 or better, etc. etc. etc. What is best and what is necessary are rarely the same, but generally I agree with the idea that given any particular budget constraint, it's best for a gamer to spend more on the GPU than CPU, up to about double the money, in fact.

Of course, the cheapest method is to get an old computer and use the savings to buy a faster video card.