Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[crashtech]

NO

And the only people who use passmark as a resource for anything is only doing so because whatever he/she is trying to prove can't be mimicked in real applications. Enter a completely useless passmark score.

I use Passmark to briefly compare CPUs. It's convenient and one of many ways to examine relative performance, especially of CPUs that would be hard to find in the same chart. The single-threaded database in particular seems to jive with real-world expectations. Just because you are biased against it doesn't mean its not a useful tool, ALL benchmarks need to be taken with a grain of salt. The more benchmarks examined, the better, and Passmark is just one of many.

 

[Creig]

FX 8320 at Microcenter - $100
Gigabyte GA-990-FXA-UD3 motherboard - $130

For $230, I doubt there's an Intel mobo/CPU combo that could equal it. That's one thing that people leave out. Not only are Intel CPUs more expensive than AMD's, but their motherboards are as well. So you have to factor in that additional cost as well.

 

[crashtech]

FX 8320 at Microcenter - $100
Gigabyte GA-990-FXA-UD3 motherboard - $130

For $230, I doubt there's an Intel mobo/CPU combo that could equal it. That's one thing that people leave out. Not only are Intel CPUs more expensive than AMD's, but their motherboards are as well. So you have to factor in that additional cost as well.

You realize that the many if not most readers of this thread have no access to a Microcenter, right? But at any rate, certainly an Intel version of that MC deal could be found that would rival that, as well as have lower power consumption and MUCH higher single threaded performance. There are dozens of Intel boards below that price point, and they don't have to have 12 power phases to do the job.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You realize that the many if not most readers of this thread have no access to a Microcenter, right? But at any rate, certainly an Intel version of that MC deal could be found that would rival that, as well as have lower power consumption and MUCH higher single threaded performance. There are dozens of Intel boards below that price point, and they don't have to have 12 power phases to do the job.

My FX 9370 runs at 1.55v and 5GHz+ on an 8+2 phase board. It appears to run out of steam shortly after that, but the point is an 8 phase board should be plenty for 99% of FX owners.

 

[el etro]

Not everyone that run a FX System needs a 990FX board.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I had a 6300 and the dips in games were horrific. It was matched with a 7870 and even with settings adjusted for mid-range (i.e. not maxed out) there were constant random FPS drops

FX 8350 with 7970 or even with the 7850 i paired with it now have no such problems. Like i said chipset sucks but the processors are actually pretty fast. Remember that many ppl are still using i7 920's with W8 and have no need to upgrade.
Being a few % slower than Intel doesn't make it horrible like some said.

 

[2is]

My FX 9370 runs at 1.55v and 5GHz+ on an 8+2 phase board. It appears to run out of steam shortly after that, but the point is an 8 phase board should be plenty for 99% of FX owners.

For how long though? I've done a lot of over clocking with sub standards boards that worked fine, like you're saying, but would not hold their OC after a couple years.

 

[TerryMathews]

FX 8320 at Microcenter - $100
Gigabyte GA-990-FXA-UD3 motherboard - $130

For $230, I doubt there's an Intel mobo/CPU combo that could equal it. That's one thing that people leave out. Not only are Intel CPUs more expensive than AMD's, but their motherboards are as well. So you have to factor in that additional cost as well.

X58 and L5639. Just saying...

 

[TFchris]

and revert back to pci-e 2.0 and triple channel memory? no thanks

 

[TerryMathews]

and revert back to pci-e 2.0 and triple channel memory? no thanks

Meets the challenge of an Intel rig that beats AMD at the price point.

 

[SPBHM]

FX 8320 at Microcenter - $100
Gigabyte GA-990-FXA-UD3 motherboard - $130

For $230, I doubt there's an Intel mobo/CPU combo that could equal it. That's one thing that people leave out. Not only are Intel CPUs more expensive than AMD's, but their motherboards are as well. So you have to factor in that additional cost as well.

as far as I know Microcenter don't offer exclusively AMD products, so it's likely that you could get a good deal on Intel parts,

this topic is bery specific 'GAMING', the 8320 even with OC can't keep up with a stock i5 haswell for quite a few games,

and revert back to pci-e 2.0 and triple channel memory? no thanks

if you are a dual channel fan you can use 1366 CPUs on DC, and pcie 2.0 is hardly a problem... a 2600K is not bad because of the lack of PCIE 3.0 support,

my biggest problem with the L5something is first the motherboard, it's not easy to find the right motherboard, for the right price and since the multiplier is so low, overclocking is going to be on the limit for the bclk.

and again, "gaming", not the best case scenario for more lower performance cores.

 

[AtenRa]

2+ years ago everyone was saying that Bulldozer sucks for gaming. HD7970 was the fastest card on the planet at that time. Anyone using one for gaming would enable AA filters and have 30fps and above even with the FX8150.
Yes there are games that Intel CPUs are faster, like Skyrim, StarCraft II etc. But in the majority of games a higher performing GPU is all you need to play at 1080p with higher IQ.
Bellow graphs shows how the majority would play those games if they had the HD7970 2+ years ago. All those games were playable even with lower CPUs than the ones in the graphs.
For a low budget system, spend more in GPU than the CPU is the golden rule.

Edit: one graph was wrong.

 

[SPBHM]

2+ years ago everyone was saying that Bulldozer sucks for gaming. HD7970 was the fastest card on the planet at that time. Anyone using one for gaming would enable AA filters and have 30fps and above even with the FX8150.
Yes there are games that Intel CPUs are faster, like Skyrim, StarCraft II etc. But in the majority of games a higher performing GPU is all you need to play at 1080p with higher IQ.
Bellow graphs shows how the majority would play those games if they had the HD7970 2+ years ago. All those games were playable even with lower CPUs than the ones in the graphs.
For a low budget system, spend more in GPU than the CPU is the golden rule.

Edit: one graph was wrong

now let's return to the real world, where people just don't play GPU limited stuff 100% of the time,

graphics can go both ways,

let's compare the 2500K to the 8150 in a few newer popular titles

which one was a better investment for gaming in your opinion?
for me it's clear,

the problem is, i5s are competitive with high clocked 8 core FX for a few games (like let's say BF4), and way faster for others... there is no price difference to justify this... for gaming Intel clearly have a better solution with their high performance cores, I didn't choose the graphics I posted, just went with the newest relevant games they tested, and only in a single one (BF4) the 8 core FXs are showing some great results, I could post graphics showing a bigger difference,

some people play "AVP" and that's fine, others also play CPU bound MMOs and so on...
you can use the old argument that these tests are using a lot of GPU power, but reality is, lower GPUs can also be affected, a single test like this can fail to capture the worst parts of the game, and less GPU power could simply mean, less AA for example, still facing the same CPU bottleneck... since there is proximity in price, I trust the CPUs higher on these graphs are going to be just as fine for non CPU limited stuff, but better when you need the extra performance or longevity (just compare the 8150 to the 2500k, the 2500k was actually cheaper at one point if I remember correctly)

 

[Gikaseixas]

the 8320 even with OC can't keep up with a stock i5 haswell for quite a few games

Does this makes the FX 8320 a bad cpu for games? Following that logic anything less than i5 is not for gaming. People really need to stop with this line of thinking. I have one and i can say with confidence that it plays every game on the market and well. There's not one single game that runs poorly on it. Better than Intel? hell no. Runs games, hell yes...

 

[AtenRa]

now let's return to the real world, where people just don't play GPU limited stuff 100% of the time,

GameGPU turn OFF AA when they bench CPU performance in every game. That is not real world when you have GTX780Ti SLI or any High end Graphics card

I have acknowledge that Intel CPUs are faster in some games many times in the past, but that doesnt change the fact that in real world people will enable AA filters when they have High End GPUs and that makes the majority of the games GPU limited.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For how long though? I've done a lot of over clocking with sub standards boards that worked fine, like you're saying, but would not hold their OC after a couple years.

My board is fairly high end, I'd like to think it would last at least through the warranty period. But to answer your question, not real long, I think I got this up and running around September-October.

 

[2is]

Does this makes the FX 8320 a bad cpu for games? Following that logic anything less than i5 is not for gaming. People really need to stop with this line of thinking. I have one and i can say with confidence that it plays every game on the market and well. There's not one single game that runs poorly on it. Better than Intel? hell no. Runs games, hell yes...

It makes it a bad buying decision since the i5 spanks it in just about everything and doesn't cost a whole lot more.

 

[SPBHM]

Does this makes the FX 8320 a bad cpu for games? Following that logic anything less than i5 is not for gaming. People really need to stop with this line of thinking. I have one and i can say with confidence that it plays every game on the market and well. There's not one single game that runs poorly on it. Better than Intel? hell no. Runs games, hell yes...

bad? probably not, best choice, or best for the money invested? probably not
that's the main thing for me, "Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?"

I don't like doing this but, in reality a few games can give some pretty poor performance according to tests,

GameGPU turn OFF AA when they bench CPU performance in every game. That is not real world when you have GTX780Ti SLI or any High end Graphics card

I have acknowledge that Intel CPUs are faster in some games many times in the past, but that doesnt change the fact that in real world people will enable AA filters when they have High End GPUs and that makes the majority of the games GPU limited.

thing is, as I said you can't cover the entire game on a single short run, so making some effort to take GPU limit out of the equation is a good thing,

let me give you an example,

2011 testing with GPU limit

all the same for gaming right?!

forced cpu bottleneck

tell us something new, the 2500K IS potentially faster when it's the limiting factor,

if you followed the second graph, you would have made a better choice when buying a gaming CPU,

now I point you again to my previous post, to see which one is doing better in newer titles, some even at non aggressive settings for CPU testing, and changing the experience (like AC 31 vs 53 min, Arma 3 27 vs 20 AVG, COD 44 vs 73 min), you don't really need 3 titans to find yourself in this range, just reasonable settings, and as I said, it's a short test, I trust the faster CPU on CPU bound tests more for other situations during the game when the CPU is limiting...


so yes, I think the 8320/6300 is a compelling CPU for the price, also fun for OC, but specifically for gaming? I don't think is the way to go when i5s are close in price and have many other nice advantages (once again, i5s are cheaper when it comes to cooling/power and MB choices), but if you also do a lot of heavy work with videos, file compression and so on it can be quite nice to have the 8t (but specially the 6300 vs i3)

 

[Magic Carpet]

Does this makes the FX 8320 a bad cpu for games? Following that logic anything less than i5 is not for gaming. People really need to stop with this line of thinking. I have one and i can say with confidence that it plays every game on the market and well. There's not one single game that runs poorly on it. Better than Intel? hell no. Runs games, hell yes...

Haven't you got used to some things here? Binary logic prevails. "It is bad, if it is not the best". Rinse. Repeat :whiste:

You can game on a cheap FX-6300 without major problems. Not news, but for the price it's one of the best processors to have, imo. Over 500+ positive reviews at Newegg, these people can't all be wrong, or maybe they are... for not playing "benchmarks".

 

[inf64]

I agree with Magic Carpet, FX6300 is among the best CPUs from perf/$ POV.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Haven't you got used to some things here? Binary logic prevails. "It is bad, if it is not the best". Rinse. Repeat :whiste:

You can game on a cheap FX-6300 without major problems. Not news, but for the price it's one of the best processors to have, imo. Over 500+ positive reviews at Newegg, these people can't all be wrong, or maybe they are... for not playing "benchmarks".

Exactly my thoughts :thumbsup:

 

[redhotiron2004]

You know something. Some Intel piss here are so irritating that I couldn't stop from replying. It's obvious that a person having money to buy 780 or 780ti would not cheap out on CPU. AMD does not Cater to people who have that kind of money to spend. They would go with something like i7.

Secondly, some benchmarks are so ridiculous in showing that amd8350 is getting 18-19fps and lesser vs 28-29 fps from the top end at those ultra settings. Its true that 18-19 fps are not playable. But, do you consider 28-29 fps playable??

At the budget at which you buy AMD processor. You would probably be willing to compromise on settings.

Also, let me make it clear to you all. That you need a top of the line motherboard for overclocking a k series processor that are costly because of Intel limitations. And for others there are cheaper motherboard available for both Intel and AMD. The difference is that you can overclock an AMD on a cheaper motherboard. But, the same is not true for Intel hasswell.

 

[2is]

Haven't you got used to some things here? Binary logic prevails. "It is bad, if it is not the best". Rinse. Repeat :whiste:

You can game on a cheap FX-6300 without major problems. Not news, but for the price it's one of the best processors to have, imo. Over 500+ positive reviews at Newegg, these people can't all be wrong, or maybe they are... for not playing "benchmarks".

It makes it a bad buying decision since the i5 spanks it in just about everything and doesn't cost a whole lot more.

Do AMD fans typically ignore what they can't argue against?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Do AMD fans typically ignore what they can't argue against?

I am not a fan of either brand, for the record. But things are not black and white either. Nobody is ignoring the fact, that Intel has the best processor out there, gaming or not. But you seem to ignore the fact, that there are people who are buying AMD processors every day and are absolutely content with their purchases. Just read reviews from web stores. Why are they buying AMD? They have their reasons. The real-world difference between AMD and Intel is not that big, when you actually game, and not reading too much into every benchmark, world wide web has to offer. Choice is good and I am glad AMD is still around to offer that choice, whether you like it or not. AMD has the second-best processor in the world, for significantly less, what's not to like? Nobody is forcing you to buy it, but do not limit options to others, as they may have different things on agenda.

 

[crashtech]

Brand loyalty is not informed by logic.

BTW, I wish AMD had the second-best processor in the world. That, at least, would be something to brag about. Lack of serious competition is not good.