i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

pastymuncher · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:12

So did i but they are still at it. It's always the same people too.

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:15

pastymuncher said:
So did i but they are still at it. It's always the same people too.

Things won't change any time soon.

MOOGLEYS · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:15

To be fair the O/P asked if upgrading from an i5 750 to AMD 8350 would be worthwhile.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:16

The Core i5 4670K is slower than an FX8350 in the most CPU intensive part of Crysis3 though:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-Crysis-3-v2.png

The Core i5 760 is around Phenom II X4 level in the game.

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:16

MOOGLEYS said:
To be fair the O/P asked if upgrading from an i5 750 to AMD 8350 would be worthwhile.

And it won't be, not for gaming in the current climate.
It's like people upgrading from i5 2500k's to i5 4670K's, it's largely pointless, sure they'll get more core for core performance, but it's not really worth it (I made the change, love my 4670K at 4.75GHZ)

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:19

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The Core i5 4670K is slower than an FX8350 in the most CPU intensive part of Crysis3 though:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-Crysis-3-v2.png

The Core i5 760 is around Phenom II X4 level in the game.

No deeplinking.

I assume Moogley's has them both clocked, he disagree with the FX83 outperforming.

Without playing the game and seeing the figures, I can't imagine there'd be any tangible difference between the two however, more to the point of the GPU bottleneck.

MOOGLEYS · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:20

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The Core i5 4670K is slower than an FX8350 in the most CPU intensive part of Crysis3 though:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/scree...Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-Crysis-3-v2.png

I always use my own findings based on having the hardware to make my decisions. Synthetic benchamarks from the net can show whatever the reviewer feels like tbh.

And it won't be, not for gaming in the current climate.

Upgrading now is a bad idea, We have no real idea how things will pan out over the next few months. Best to hang on for now and re-assess in a couple of months.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:26

MOOGLEYS said:
I always use my own findings based on having the hardware to make my decisions. Synthetic benchamarks from the net can show whatever the reviewer feels like tbh.

Upgrading now is a bad idea, We have no real idea how things will pan out over the next few months. Best to hang on for now and re-assess in a couple of months.

Pcgameshardware does far more intensive tests than most websites. If they get weird results,they tend to do more testing than other websites.

They and one or two other sites identified the Turbo issues(Hexus also for example) with Kepler which lead to higher than average scores for short runs,and this has lead to review sites changing the way they benchmark GPUs. Now most sites leave newer graphics cards pre-rendering scenes,for a few minutes to remove the benchmark boosting effects of temperature controlled Turbo functions. Its important as the newer AMD GPUs(even the Kaveri IGP) also have these types of boost functions.

Heck,I hypothesised that a while back TBH,so I was happy some websites bother to test it out.

They even were among the first websites to test BF3 in a multi-player scenarios and with large amounts of players. They also have identified that with some newer games HT has had issues too.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 13 Oct 2013 at 14:34

pastymuncher said:
For crying out loud stop bitching, it's pathetic. You lot are ruining this place. It used to be just the graphics card section but now this one is going downhill too. Op asks a simple question and we end up with 116 post's of bitching. How about somebody actually helps someone for a change instead of destroying peoples threads?

Its a discussion, even if some get a bit protective about their choices. I think the thread has offered a good insight into the current state of cpu performance directly relevant to the OP's needs.

gpuerrilla · 13 Oct 2013 at 16:17

MOOGLEYS said:
The 8350/20 are great value CPU's but they really cannot compete with the Intel's at the moment.

Just my 2p's worth.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - Retail £179.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
Total : £310.78 (includes shipping : £9.00).

Let's put this into perspective. That £60 goes a long way. If your trying to build a budget rig then this is a massive factor. One good thing is at least Moogley owns both systems so he has a valid opinion.

pastymuncher said:
For crying out loud stop bitching, it's pathetic. You lot are ruining this place. It used to be just the graphics card section but now this one is going downhill too. Op asks a simple question and we end up with 116 post's of bitching. How about somebody actually helps someone for a change instead of destroying peoples threads?

Not sure who your pointing the finger at but the quote below is right.

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Its a discussion, even if some get a bit protective about their choices. I think the thread has offered a good insight into the current state of cpu performance directly relevant to the OP's needs.

-------------

Martini1991 said:
And it won't be, not for gaming in the current climate.

I use my PC to do more than just Gaming, I hope others might too.

Martini1991 said:
That's one reason I'm pro i5,

We know you are pro intel. Thanks for clearing that up!

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 18:54

You can only have a valid opinion if you own both?
Talk about a contradiction.

gpuerrilla · 13 Oct 2013 at 19:36

Martini1991 said:
You can only have a valid opinion if you own both?
Talk about a contradiction.

Not directed at anyone, dunno what your implying...

It's basically saying if anyone has a balanced measure it's this lad.

OTOH Martini you do a fair bit of underlining how impeded the FX range is ('clocks and cycles'), and in other threads actually recommend it (when it suits).

That is talking about contradiction.

ubersonic · 13 Oct 2013 at 19:42

Th0nt said:
OTOH Martini you do a fair bit of underlining how impeded the FX range is ('clocks and cycles'), and in other threads actually recommend it (when it suits).

That is talking about contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, its a different context, if a person has a Core2 system or no computer and is looking to buy/build a cheap system then the FX are a great option for the money. If however like in this case the person already has a 1st gen i5 setup or newer then moving to an FX setup isn't really worth it.

gpuerrilla · 13 Oct 2013 at 19:52

ubersonic said:
It's not a contradiction, its a different context, if a person has a Core2 system or no computer and is looking to buy/build a cheap system then the FX are a great option for the money. If however like in this case the person already has a 1st gen i5 setup or newer then moving to an FX setup isn't really worth it.

Read post #61.

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:05

Th0nt said:
Not directed at anyone, dunno what your implying...

It's basically saying if anyone has a balanced measure it's this lad.

OTOH Martini you do a fair bit of underlining how impeded the FX range is ('clocks and cycles'), and in other threads actually recommend it (when it suits).

That is talking about contradiction.

So I give advice based on the situation as opposed having a slanted bias towards a vendor?

I wouldn't call that contradictory.

ALXAndy · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:08

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Pcgameshardware does far more intensive tests than most websites. If they get weird results,they tend to do more testing than other websites.

This. They also test down to resolutions that others don't bother with to tell the whole story.

I can't believe that some people are in such a deep state of denial that they would take a bit of digging by Eurogamer to be some sort of paid for advertisement. It just clearly goes to show that some just don't understand what the article was about. It's about the next gen consoles and how they will affect the PC as a gaming platform. If people don't want to understand that then whatever really. It's not like we've been answering to console gaming for our PC gaming fix for the past decade is it?

(note to those who seem to be a bit lacking. That was incredibly sarcastic there).

gpuerrilla · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:09

Martini1991 said:
So I give advice based on the situation as opposed having a slanted bias towards a vendor?

I wouldn't call that contradictory.

No it's not. Generally your posts are spot on. Your bias is questionable at times though but this thread has been done for the OP. As Duncan says

I'm Oot

!

*fixed for wierd paste code and Andy posting in that time

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:10

Fix yo' code.

ALXAndy · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:10

Martini1991 said:
So I give advice based on the situation as opposed having a slanted bias towards a vendor?

I wouldn't call that contradictory.

It's not being slanted. It's simply adding two and two together and coming up with four.

Consoles - nasty horrid little plastic boxes that utterly and absolutely dictate what games we will be playing on our PC.

PC - seeing as they will soon share the same architecture (well, they already do) then base one around it to get as close a match as you can for the best gaming experience.

= 4.

Martini1991 · 13 Oct 2013 at 20:15

Jaguar isn't the same architecture as Piledriver.

AMD's next lot with the rejigged Modules will be closer to what the consoles are (Pretty sure your advice was to match the consoles as best as possible)