Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[2is]

It is you who is taking IDCs total system power measurement running Intel Optimized Linx AVX (Floating Point) to suit your 2x power consumption agenda in a thread about GAMING.
Not only that, but when i asked you politely to link data for your comment you reverted with a member call out and trolling with words of "Crap Processors"

Im not complaining about IDCs measurement, it is what it is, a Total System power consumption that doesn't show the CPU only power draw.

It is clear that you wanted to exaggerate from the start about the power consumption of the AMD CPUs and then you continued with personal attacks and insults. Your comments are off topic contributing nothing useful. If you have to show us AMD power consumption in GAMING then by all means do so, thread crapping only shows your true colors.

Not exagurating at all, peak power consumption is higher than 2x. Even your own tests show 2x. IB has a TDP of 77 watts Haswell 84, your test show an additional 70 watts. I know TDP != power but its right around that same value, so you basically have just shy if another i7 running in your AMD setup. Not to mention, how often do you hear about an Intel board burning up when used with a processor it's advertised to work with? The answer is a whole lot less than AMD. Why? Because of the ridiculous power they consume which is WAY above their TDP rating. There is zero exaggeration on my part, no matter how you want to spin the argument. I'm insulting the processor, not any members. If you think I'm insulting you, you need to distance yourself from AMD a bit. You can reply with all the bold words you want, power consumption under load when gaming is 2x and approaches 3 with IDCs peak load tests. Those are the facts.

 

[2is]

Spending that $90 on a better graphics card would be a much wiser choice for a budget gaming rig.

I'd rather just spend an extra $90 and get a much better system.

 

[blackened23]

I'd rather just spend an extra $90 and get a much better system.

This. If someone is hurting that badly for 50-90$ they should not be wasting money on a PC, they should re-prioritize. I don't see the need to go cheap over 90$ when that cheaper processor nets what you pay for it; in other words - you get what you pay for. Sure some GPU bound games might hide the CPU discrepency. Other games? Maybe not. CPU bound titles will run substantially worse. And on that note, most non triple AAA titles tend to be CPU bound, such as MOBAs, MMOs, and games of that type. Most titles are also not heavily multi core games - people can whine about this all day long but it is what it is. If you want the best gaming experience, AMD does not provide that, and the 6320 doesn't cost that far differently from the better i7-4670.

90$ is nothing. If someone is in a situation to where 90$ is that critical, new priorities are in order. Personally i'd rather just get the outright better product that gives the best experience in everything. Not a "maybe ok" experience in one game, a good experience in another, and an outright bad experience in another. Or you could play a completely GPU bound game which would basically hide the CPU being slow. It all depends on the game - if you're looking for a no hassle good experience in everything, the 6320 isn't worth the cost savings.

Now if the savings were more substantial - maybe the AMD CPU could make a good argument for itself. Let's say someone had a pre-existing motherboard that worked for the 6320. And already had the RAM. Then I could see someone opting for the AMD CPU in that case. I could absolutely recommend a 6320 for someone in this situation, as their cost savings would be rather substantial.

But for a ground up build? Nah. Just IMO.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Ok... Here I am posting the latest benchmarks for all those processors along with the new amd apu.

www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardw...31-amd-kaveri-a10-7850k-a8-7600-review-9.html

Its a very comprehensive series of benchmarks and tests that would answer all the questions that have been raised in this thread.
Frankly enough. I am amazed to see amd8350 performance which matched i7 haswell in some tests and even surpassed a few. In gaming too it was a solid chip giving mostly above 55-60 fps in the most difficult of tests where intel best 4770k had 75fps. Which is more than sufficient.

As far as load is concerned. At it's peak amd 8350 is shown to draw 80watt more than i7 4770k. Which can easily be compensated by going for a 600watt psu instead of 500watt for intel. Not much price difference is going to be there above 500watt smps.

I am thinking of getting amd 8320 for 100$ at microcenter. Nothing even come close to that. The i5 4670k is 180$. Considering the motherboard cost and all. I won't even give it a second look.
And I am making a new system. In case you have any misconception. I Am saving the money for a nice GPU.

That review uses a very strange selection of games, but if you look at it objectively, it makes a strong case *against* the 8350, especially if you use the more widely available newegg prices instead of microcenter. 4670k is 40 dollars more than 8350. But you are not buying just a cpu, you are building a system. To make a more favorable comparison for the FX, lets assume a conservative cost of only 800.00 for the system.

So you are paying 5% more for the 4670k, based on the system cost. Now lets look at the results at 1080p, highest settings they tested. Overall, the i5 is 18% faster. Ok, you say, the framerates are all high so it doesnt matter. But if you look a the only game that drops below 60fps (Skyrim) the i5 is 34% faster. It is hard to see that as a good value proposition for the FX.

In addition, if one assumes the 70w difference in power usage that even the AMD fans is this thread seem to be OK with, and considering 20 cents per kwh, 3 hours gaming per day, the cost savings of the i5 is about 15.00 per year, which in 3 years pretty much negates the initial cost savings of the FX.

 

[blackened23]

That review uses a very strange selection of games, but if you look at it objectively, it makes a strong case *against* the 8350, especially if you use the more widely available newegg prices instead of microcenter. 4670k is 40 dollars more than 8350. But you are not buying just a cpu, you are building a system. To make a more favorable comparison for the FX, lets assume a conservative cost of only 800.00 for the system.

So you are paying 5% more for the 4670k, based on the system cost. Now lets look at the results at 1080p, highest settings they tested. Overall, the i5 is 18% faster. Ok, you say, the framerates are all high so it doesnt matter. But if you look a the only game that drops below 60fps (Skyrim) the i5 is 34% faster. It is hard to see that as a good value proposition for the FX.

In addition, if one assumes the 70w difference in power usage that even the AMD fans is this thread seem to be OK with, and considering 20 cents per kwh, 3 hours gaming per day, the cost savings of the i5 is about 15.00 per year, which in 3 years pretty much negates the initial cost savings of the FX.

Also, if one game is 150 fps on the 4670k while being 120 fps on the 8350, one could say both are playable. Then what about the next big game. What if it is 40 fps on on the 8350 and 70 on the 4670k.

These FX chips are not worth it for an inconsistent experience. GPU bound games might hide the CPU deficiency in some titles, but not all. The I5/I7 gives you consistently good across the board performance and a good experience in everything. 6320 or 8350....they MIGHT be worth buying if you have pre-existing motherboards but as a new from the ground up system, not worth it. One game might run fine. Another might run meh. Another might run outright poorly. With the I5 you do not get this, everything is consistently good - especially since the price difference is nearly nil.

Again, I just can't see it. AMD CPUs were great when they had the clearly better product (original Athlons years and years ago) but they just don't now, and the cost savings is not enough to compromise because not all games are GPU bound, even GPU bound games tend to be faster on intel, and CPU bound games generally just are superior on the 4670/4770k. I still think having a pre-existing motherboard for an FX chip might make it worth it. If you're buying everything....nah. Especially for the 8350. I mean the 4670k is just a better experience when everything and all games are taken into consideration and the cost difference is practically non-existent.

 

[TeknoBug]

If you already have an AM3+ board then yes an 8320 or 8350 is worth upgrading to. Otherwise if you have an older system then go socket 1155 or 1150 and get an i5. I'm a very long time AMD user since the 486 days with the occasional Intel system in between over the years and I'm glad I switched to Intel as my main system last year.

 

[el etro]

forced cpu bottleneck

How this represent the conditions most gamers play(with 1080p panels so mainstream todays)? Who will buy a 768p capable card only to pair with a FX-8350?

You can game on a cheap FX-6300 without major problems.

If it was not about power consumption, making this processor clocks 4.6Ghz or more make it a awesome gaming processor...

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'd rather just spend an extra $90 and get a much better system

I've built many systems for family and friends and most of the time they have a fixed budget. Last year i built one for my nephew and he chose the AMD with better GPU, instead of Intel and weaker GPU because the limited $$ amount he had at his disposal at that time.
Now, for people with enough money to consider $90 small change then i would say go for it, why not?

 

[SPBHM]

How this represent the conditions most gamers play(with 1080p panels so mainstream todays)? Who will buy a 768p capable card only to pair with a FX-8350?

quote the rest of my post and you will have my argument

benchmarks like that have their value, as it shows when the faster CPU (but equal on GPU bottleneck test) have similar advantage without the forced low settings on other more CPU intensive games clearly affecting the gameplay quality, they help you to make the best, most informed choice, while GPU bottleneck comparisons for CPUs can be misleading, keep in mind testing games is not easy, so many variables... it's hard to do something representative in 60, 120 seconds runs, specially if you don't have many hours of experience with the game you are testing.

more information is better.

 

[redhotiron2004]

Guys Amd 8350 is only slightly weaker in games only. Every other application is usually much faster then any intel product for that price range. Future is going to be multi threaded. So, no problem there.

Secondly, 90$ might be small for you. But, that's not the case with everybody. Everybody wants to buy a ferrari. But, not everone can afford it. Not everone have a budget of 800$ for a desktop computer. Computer gets built for much lesser at 400-500$ as well. Now, in today scenario everone wants the best and the price difference is so little that you ultimately end up stretching your budget. For eg a 512GB hardisk is quite close to 1TB hardisk on price. So, you probably would go for 1TB. A person looking at 1TB might go for 2TB by the same logic.

This will continue on all levels of the system including PSU, KEYBOARD,MOUSE,LED etc-2. So, I find your comment on 90$ being small about unreasonable. You din't mentioned the cost of motherboard as well which would also cost a decent amount.

Everything depends on your personal situation to spend. IMHO Spending more than 200$ for a processor is shit. Secondly, if you can afford something doesn't mean everone can afford that. At my price range. I am probably willing to compromise slightly on settings and probably tweak a bit for the prefect performance.

Everone would be using solar power if electricity was such a big concern. They dont use it because it's initial cost is high. And not many people are willing to wait 20yrs for a recovery. So, saving additional 80watt electricity is not something I am worried about.

 

[Durp]

Secondly, 90$ might be small for you. But, that's not the case with everybody.

If a $90 difference in an entire PC build is a big problem for someone then that someone is usually the guy who will keep that system for many years because shelling out for a new system soon after simply isn't an option. Keep a Vishera system for many years and that $90 went to your power company.

It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, Vishera doesn't make any sense for a new system.

 

[crashtech]

Guys Amd 8350 is only slightly weaker in games only. Every other application is usually much faster then any intel product for that price range.

I think you should substantiate this claim with data or retract it, and Microcenter prices don't count for most of us. The 8350 is $200 at the Egg right now, that is an average street price.

 

[escrow4]

Guys Amd 8350 is only slightly weaker in games only. Every other application is usually much faster then any intel product for that price range. Future is going to be multi threaded. So, no problem there.

Secondly, 90$ might be small for you. But, that's not the case with everybody. Everybody wants to buy a ferrari. But, not everone can afford it. Not everone have a budget of 800$ for a desktop computer. Computer gets built for much lesser at 400-500$ as well. Now, in today scenario everone wants the best and the price difference is so little that you ultimately end up stretching your budget. For eg a 512GB hardisk is quite close to 1TB hardisk on price. So, you probably would go for 1TB. A person looking at 1TB might go for 2TB by the same logic.

This will continue on all levels of the system including PSU, KEYBOARD,MOUSE,LED etc-2. So, I find your comment on 90$ being small about unreasonable. You din't mentioned the cost of motherboard as well which would also cost a decent amount.

Everything depends on your personal situation to spend. IMHO Spending more than 200$ for a processor is shit. Secondly, if you can afford something doesn't mean everone can afford that. At my price range. I am probably willing to compromise slightly on settings and probably tweak a bit for the prefect performance.

Everone would be using solar power if electricity was such a big concern. They dont use it because it's initial cost is high. And not many people are willing to wait 20yrs for a recovery. So, saving additional 80watt electricity is not something I am worried about.

A $400 or $500 won't be a gaming box. If you can't afford $800 then you might as well buy a console. Then what would I know, I blew $900 on a 780 Ti here (not in the US) yesterday. That is more than a lot of people's PC's, never mind a single part. And capping $200 for a CPU seems pointless to me. I'd take an i7 over an i5 anyday now for gaming. As for $90, for me, its a trivial amount. Comparing it to a ferrari makes no sense.

In the end, a locked i5 is around $220 and would be a way better all rounder than an 8350 which is $200 excluding Microcentre.

 

[Yuriman]

A $400 or $500 won't be a gaming box. If you can't afford $800 then you might as well buy a console. Then what would I know, I blew $900 on a 780 Ti here (not in the US) yesterday. That is more than a lot of people's PC's, never mind a single part. And capping $200 for a CPU seems pointless to me. I'd take an i7 over an i5 anyday now for gaming. As for $90, for me, its a trivial amount. Comparing it to a ferrari makes no sense.

In the end, a locked i5 is around $220 and would be a way better all rounder than an 8350 which is $200 excluding Microcentre.

My bother recently put together a 4670K + Z87 + HD7850 + PSU + ITX case + 8GB DDR3 for $500. Only component he had before was a cheap SSD.

He's a light gamer and it's really a perfect balance.

 

[el etro]

quote the rest of my post and you will have my argument

Forget about Flight Simulator/flighting games benchmarks. Nor CoH/TTR2 uses so badly the CPUs.

And about 8320/6300 vs i5s: $60-$70 differences can separate a GTX 750Ti and a GTX 760(Doubles performance) in some cases. And overclocked 8320 is a strong opponent to a non-overclockable(and non best of its line) i5.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I blew $900 on a 780 Ti here (not in the US) yesterday. That is more than a lot of people's PC's, never mind a single part

Thank you for stating the obvious. AMD might not be for you but it will allow many budget minded buyers a chance to score a better video card or double the ram, things that will affect gaming.
How many people buy a $900 card?? and how many people buy a $150 one? I guess we all know the answer.
For guys like most of us here, an AMD cpu is not attractive for games, that's why i got a i7 but for the majority of PC gamers these systems do make sense. I know many people who are playing with GT 8800 and CD2 powered machines still, i don't know why only the best i5 and i7 are good for gaming. Again, nobody saying AMD is better, just that it's a decent alternative for some.

 

[redhotiron2004]

I think you should substantiate this claim with data or retract it, and Microcenter prices don't count for most of us. The 8350 is $200 at the Egg right now, that is an average street price.

Please refer to the latest benchmarks link that I posted before. I mentioned 8350 because of the benchmarks. I am going for unlocked 8320 which is slightly under clocked version of 8350 for 100$ at microcenter and that chip is still quite cheaper than 8350 on street as well.

My bother recently put together a 4670K + Z77 + HD7850 + PSU + ITX case + 8GB DDR3 for $500. Only component he had before was a cheap SSD.

He's a light gamer and it's really a perfect balance.

Shouldn't you have gone with z87 motherboard for a k series chip?
And that motherboard costs a lot as well. The value proposition had been thrown out of the window here.

Add the cost of hdd. And I would never go for a GPU that is from an older generation. Because the features and improvement are actually much more in GPU(would be a limiting factor) than CPU. A slightly older generation CPU is fine though. As there is not much improvement there.

You have compromised on the latest GPU for having the latest CPU which won't be a critical factor for the games as much as a GPU.

 

[SPBHM]

Forget about Flight Simulator/flighting games benchmarks. Nor CoH/TTR2 uses so badly the CPUs.

what are you talking about, see my previous post showing "mainstream" newer games and correlating it to older benchmarks comparing the 2500 and 8150 which were compared under GPU bottleneck tests by another user,

And about 8320/6300 vs i5s: $60-$70 differences can separate a GTX 750Ti and a GTX 760(Doubles performance) in some cases. And overclocked 8320 is a strong opponent to a non-overclockable(and non best of its line) i5.

8320 to 4570 is $40, and the 4570 is much better (lower power draw) for cheap MBs, for a platform with better cheap MBs, that's a good way of lowering the total cost... the 4570 makes more sense as a gaming CPU for a low cost build than the 8320 IMO, it clearly has a performance advantage in gaming conditions for some games, so if you need $30-$40 for the VGA, I think it would be smarter to find this money somewhere else (other parts), and not sacrificing the CPU, and clearly considering an overall cost of let's say $500, that's not a huge percentage, considering the potential performance implications,

You have compromised on the latest GPU for having the latest CPU which won't be a critical factor for the games as much as a GPU.

not for all games, specially if you adjust graphics settings to match GPU power, while scaling down quality for the CPU usage is much harder.

 

[AtenRa]

For a low budget Gaming system the FX6350 + Asrock 970 Pro3 R2.0 = $195 is the best combination. The CPU comes with a nice 125W Cooler, same as FX8350. It can be OCed to 4.2GHz easily with that cooler and motherboard. You also get a free game with the CPU (FarCry3 Blood Dragon).

You can also go cheaper with FX6350 + ASUS M5A78L-M LX PLUS for just $173 AR.


Cheapest Haswell Core i5 4430 is currently at $190 in newegg. This is a locked 3GHz Quad core CPU.
Cheapest H81 motherboard is the MSI H81M-P33 at $38 AR

Total = $228

That is $55 difference that can be put to a faster GPU or anything else.

We could also go even cheaper with a AMD setup if we go with the AMD Athlon 750K and pair it with a FM2+ motherboard. We could even play BF4 Multiplayer by using Mantle and an AMD GPU.

So for low budget systems, the AMD CPUs are very competitive and provide adequate performance to drive fast GPUs. Some people in here dont understand that the vast majority out there dont spend $900 for only the GPU. There are people playing games with $300-400 PCs.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Just a reminder of the original post, which said he was going to upgrade to a video card "much better" than a 7850, so that would imply he is not looking for a 5 of 6 hundred dollar system.

 

[Yuriman]

Shouldn't you have gone with z87 motherboard for a k series chip?
And that motherboard costs a lot as well. The value proposition had been thrown out of the window here.

Add the cost of hdd. And I would never go for a GPU that is from an older generation. Because the features and improvement are actually much more in GPU(would be a limiting factor) than CPU. A slightly older generation CPU is fine though. As there is not much improvement there.

You have compromised on the latest GPU for having the latest CPU which won't be a critical factor for the games as much as a GPU.

My apologies, meant Z87.

There's nothing wrong with a 7850, and one could spin that argument that it is more future proof than a GTX780 because it supports DX11.1 where nVidia's lineup does not. That argument is rediculous. You're aware that it has been rebadged as the R7 265 and that it's just as current-gen as anything else for sale right now?

 

[SPBHM]

For a low budget Gaming system the FX6350 + Asrock 970 Pro3 R2.0 = $195 is the best combination. The CPU comes with a nice 125W Cooler, same as FX8350. It can be OCed to 4.2GHz easily with that cooler and motherboard. You also get a free game with the CPU (FarCry3 Blood Dragon).

i5 4570 + H81/b85 board $240-250 on newegg

You can also go cheaper with FX6350 + ASUS M5A78L-M LX PLUS for just $173 AR.

i3 4130 + H81 $160-170 on newegg

on both cases you achieve higher performance and lower power draw for gaming on most cases,
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/901-4/performances-jeux-3d.html
http://pclab.pl/art54006-3.html


also compared to the last option you are not limited to a 2008-2009 chipset which is nice, not seeing a big enough advantage in any sense here to justify going with the 6350 for gaming.

IF you exclude the i5, and compare it to the i3, and go outside gaming, the 6350 would look a lot better for sure, but for gaming... not really.
looks like the i3 is as good or better, with lower cost.

 

[cytg111]

IF you exclude the i5, and compare it to the i3, and go outside gaming, the 6350 would look a lot better for sure, but for gaming... not really.
looks like the i3 is as good or better, with lower cost.

I dont understand why this argument is still running, but yea, this. Also with the i3 you a better upgrade path, in a few years pick up a cheap haswell i7 and still be within 90% of top performance CPU-wise..

 

[crashtech]

The i3 vs 6350 is a little harder case to make, it depends on what a person is looking for. I vastly prefer the more modern Intel platform and the ability to switch to an i5 or i7 later. BUT, the i3 will get spanked by the 6350 in heavily threaded loads, and of course the 6350 can be overclocked. This is the narrow price range in which it is still possible to rationalize an AMD purchase if you know exactly what you want going in.

 

[2is]

Guys Amd 8350 is only slightly weaker in games only. Every other application is usually much faster then any intel product for that price range. Future is going to be multi threaded. So, no problem there.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/5

I'd love to know where you got your information from, because it really sounds like you just made it up.