i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

pastymuncher · 12 Oct 2013 at 13:27

Yet another thread ruined by a Intel v AMD war. Haven't we had enough of this crap by now? I bet the OP still doesn't know what to do after 80 post's.

I think overall what people are saying is that the OP should stick with his 750 get it to around 4Ghz and he will be fine. I quite agree as i was disappointed with my move from my 760 @4.2Ghz to my 4670k. Yes it's more powerful in benchmarks, yes it's more power efficient and it is nice to run my SSD at full speed but i just have not seen any dramatic gains in any games i am playing.

the1gooner · 12 Oct 2013 at 13:45

pastymuncher said:
Yet another thread ruined by a Intel v AMD war. Haven't we had enough of this crap by now? I bet the OP still doesn't know what to do after 80 post's.

I think overall what people are saying is that the OP should stick with his 750 get it to around 4Ghz and he will be fine. I quite agree as i was disappointed with my move from my 760 @4.2Ghz to my 4670k. Yes it's more powerful in benchmarks, yes it's more power efficient and it is nice to run my SSD at full speed but i just have not seen any dramatic gains in any games i am playing.

Good to have some order and sense brought back to this thread

And good points too.

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 14:29

pastymuncher said:
Yet another thread ruined by a Intel v AMD war. Haven't we had enough of this crap by now? I bet the OP still doesn't know what to do after 80 post's.

I think overall what people are saying is that the OP should stick with his 750 get it to around 4Ghz and he will be fine. I quite agree as i was disappointed with my move from my 760 @4.2Ghz to my 4670k. Yes it's more powerful in benchmarks, yes it's more power efficient and it is nice to run my SSD at full speed but i just have not seen any dramatic gains in any games i am playing.

The sooner people realise how it really is the better. AMD's FX CPUs are now incredibly competitive and like their GPUs they're not really leaving anything else in the same performance bracket worth having due to the massively cut prices.

For future gaming I can't recommend the FX 8 core CPUs enough. If people paid attention to the results they're putting out in multi threaded benchmarks and games it would save a lot of arguing.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 12 Oct 2013 at 14:30

ALXAndy said:
i'm a giant AMDfanboi who hasn't read the thread he's replying to

The 8320 would at this minute be a pointless move for the OP. That would be the point of the thread.

8 core steamroller, not that is going to make things interesting. Sadly not anytime soon

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 14:32

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
The 8320 would at this minute be a pointless move for the OP. That would be the point of the thread.

8 core steamroller, not that is going to make things interesting. Sadly not anytime soon

Completely and totally ignoring all of the facts and figures? yeah, it's not worth moving from his I5 to a 8 core FX.

Taking recent benchmarks and games and the massive overclocking potential of the 8320? it's a no brainer. Steamroller is just a controller refresh. It will offer up 15% or so more than Piledriver. However, as I said go and look at the facts and figures. 8320 is more than man enough for any current game, especially those that are massively multi threaded. In those games? they stand out head and shoulders over the i5 750.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 12 Oct 2013 at 15:34

ALXAndy said:
yeah, it's not worth moving from his I5 to a 8 core FX.

...

Good pleased you agree.

Also 15% increase in steamroller would be a massive disappointment

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 15:37

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Good pleased you agree.

Also 15% increase in steamroller would be a massive disappointment

I think you really need to do some research.

~>Dg<~ · 12 Oct 2013 at 15:37

if you on a budget amd 8320 is a decent new buy or obviously you just buy a second hand i5 which are on avg 10 percent faster.

amd cous can play fine but they are more of a budget option. as his cpu oc is still good enough wait a year. nothing will test it for that time anyway. not till this time next year when as usual all the big games come out.

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 15:39

~>Dg<~ said:
if you on a budget amd 8320 is a decent new buy or obviously you just buy a second hand i5 which are on avg 10 percent faster.

amd cous can play fine but they are more of a budget option. as his cpu oc is still good enough wait a year. nothing will test it for that time anyway. not till this time next year when as usual all the big games come out.

I wish that people would stop posting in threads like these with results they just pull from thin air. Honestly, the lack of knowledge being shown is hilarious.

Please go away and do your research.

Phixsator · 12 Oct 2013 at 19:03

ALXAndy said:
It's amazing just how badly people miss the point.

8320 (ignoring the 8350 as it's not worth buying) is £113.

I7 4770k = £240. So basically double the price. Does it offer double the performance then?

No, not even close to it. I've continually said that the only Intel CPU worth buying for gaming (be cause people like twisting words it would seem) would be the 4770k. The reason? AMD can't compete simply because the 4770k is a massive step up from £113. It's double the price !!!

But such is life when you have a CPU that has no competition.. You can charge whatever you like for it. And that's fair enough.

However, some of what's being said here is hilarious. When it comes to the next gen games (at least five of which we already have !) 8 core FX CPUs are hugely better than I5s from three gens ago. They always were, they just didn't have the support. If you can't see past the end of your nose? fair enough. But things are changing. Next gen games have been listed and specced and they want 6gb ram, a 64 bit OS (the FX CPUs simply don't work properly in anything less, do your research) and 8 cores for the highest spec.

Seriously if you can't read the writing on the wall you have serious issues.

By all means go Intel. AMD have nothing to offer once you get to the 4770k, so you can feel all fuzzy and warm inside knowing you have the best. Best performance. But don't think for a minute you got the best value for money.

Ummm, are you attacking me? or to someone else? I cant figure out why you are wailing about like that to my post? That video sums things up pretty well from a users perspective. Im sitting on a fx-8350 myself and i am very happy that i own that chip. It was dirt cheap and i needed something that could replace my old dead i7 920. It does its job and im satisfied with its performance for the amount of money i paid. So there is no reason for that post of yours my friend..

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 19:09

Phixsator said:
Ummm, are you attacking me? or to someone else? I cant figure out why you are wailing about like that to my post? That video sums things up pretty well from a users perspective. Im sitting on a fx-8350 myself and i am very happy that i own that chip. It was dirt cheap and i needed something that could replace my old dead i7 920. It does its job and im satisfied with its performance for the amount of money i paid. So there is no reason for that post of yours my friend..

I wasn't talking to you so no need to get touchy

~>Dg<~ · 12 Oct 2013 at 19:09

ALXAndy said:
I wish that people would stop posting in threads like these with results they just pull from thin air. Honestly, the lack of knowledge being shown is hilarious.

Please go away and do your research.

why its true i5 are generally about 10 percent faster in bf4 brand new game same again. also i dont know about the games i test most of the games that are coming out i know what will be optmized for and what wont.

just marketing and people swallowing garbage and rumors. simple fact is you want fastest gaming cpus you buy intel you on a tight budge you buy amd. that's it.

what is there to research ? ive gamed on a 8320 at 4.8 ghz what research do i need to do ?

only games in so called games coming next year maybe two. thats in next twelve months guess what still faster in intel

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 19:19

~>Dg<~ said:
why its true i5 are generally about 10 percent faster in bf4 brand new game same again. also i dont know about the games i test most of the games that are coming out i know what will be optmized for and what wont.

just marketing and people swallowing garbage and rumors. simple fact is you want fastest gaming cpus you buy intel you on a tight budge you buy amd. that's it.

what is there to research ? ive gamed on a 8320 at 4.8 ghz what research do i need to do ?

only games in so called games coming next year maybe two. thats in next twelve months guess what still faster in intel

Yet more 'facts' huh?

Good going. I believe you... Not.

If you want to compare CPUs do it with facts. I suggest you stop by the Cinebench thread or 3Dmark Firestrike Physics thread for a true representation of what a CPU is capable of.

It saves pulling figures out of your...

elrasho · 12 Oct 2013 at 21:08

There are some i7 860s on the bay, they go for less than £100 would that be a worthwhile upgrade? It's crazy how much to and fro there is between Intel and AMD. I'm suprised the 8350 hasn't go as much good press considering it's value for money. Now that I have an overclock of 4ghz and getting around 70fps on BF3 my brain is saying don't upgrade... My heart days Do IT! Lol

~>Dg<~ · 12 Oct 2013 at 22:25

ALXAndy said:
Yet more 'facts' huh?

Good going. I believe you... Not.

If you want to compare CPUs do it with facts. I suggest you stop by the Cinebench thread or 3Dmark Firestrike Physics thread for a true representation of what a CPU is capable of.

It saves pulling figures out of your...

cinebench how about real world uses ? which account for maybe 99 percent of sales lol.

check out cinebench dam that made me chuckle

doesn't matter if a cpu can be faster its if its got the programs done to utilize that . will they ? = no.

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 22:33

~>Dg<~ said:
cinebench how about real world uses ? which account for maybe 99 percent of sales lol.

check out cinebench dam that made me chuckle

doesn't matter if a cpu can be faster its if its got the programs done to utilize that . will they ? = no.

I'm glad you're so educated in the things you speak of. Thankfully I tend not to take the word of people that just say things on the internet with no foundation or basis, like the stuff you say.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Because you know? I would rather take the word of the guys and gals who actually make the game, rather than some guy saying "will they? = no". I think you'll find, mate, that they will.

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

As for Cinebench and Firestrike physics? they're a fine display of what a CPU is capable of when used fully. But of course you knew that and understood it, too.

~>Dg<~ · 12 Oct 2013 at 22:44

i tell you what book mark this thread i bet you 5 pounds that in the next year (12 months starting today ) that a i5 is better than a 8350 in majority of games as it is now and nothing changes

.

doesn't matter what devs would prefer its what makes sales. intel control so they win. its that simple.

as said bookmark this 12 month from today well do the benchmarks and see whats changed . when you lose donate the 5er to charity for me, thanks.

ALXAndy · 12 Oct 2013 at 23:22

~>Dg<~ said:
i tell you what book mark this thread i bet you 5 pounds that in the next year (12 months starting today ) that a i5 is better than a 8350 in majority of games as it is now and nothing changes .

doesn't matter what devs would prefer its what makes sales. intel control so they win. its that simple.

as said bookmark this 12 month from today well do the benchmarks and see whats changed . when you lose donate the 5er to charity for me, thanks.

A year?

Well given that the last few big titles have all supported 8 cores I think you'll find it's already happened. No I5 can compete with the 8350 in heavily threaded games, just like they can't compete in heavily threaded apps.

Nice to know you read the article and understand it fully though.

Would be the recommended specs for Watchdogs. Oddly enough under the recommended specs I don't see an I5. Strange !

Maybe that's because it wants eight threads and not four?

As for Intel controlling? pmsl where have you been under a rock? AMD Gaming Evolved.

Xbox one - AMD.
PS4 - AMD.

Intel control so badly that they are shrinking their dies for mobile devices so they can get out of the desktop market. Yeah that's control alright.

kaku · 12 Oct 2013 at 23:42

So much fanboy rage. Especially love the linking of what amounts to a paid-for advertisement as 'research'.

To the OP: the boost you can get for the budget isn't worth it imo. The issue is compounded by having to change motherboard - might be worth looking in to the second hand market.

elrasho · 12 Oct 2013 at 23:45

kaku said:
So much fanboy rage. Especially love the linking of what amounts to a paid-for advertisement as 'research'.

To the OP: the boost you can get for the budget isn't worth it imo. The issue is compounded by having to change motherboard - might be worth looking in to the second hand market.

That's what I'm thinking, seen some i7 860s on the bay... very tempting