• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

~>Dg<~ said:
i5s are generally 10-15 percent quicker than 8 amd core cpus. go check benchmarks in numbers not one biased one check the avg. youll then see the only ones the 8 core can beat is a i3.

amd cpus are good value i like the company . they market their strength which is value for money.

battlefield 4 most modern cpu structured game that caters for cores i5 10-15 percent above 8 cores amd cpus. yet somehow amd 8 core are faster :confused:

funny thing is with this amd paid EA to optimize and still upto 15 percent slower ! what does that tell you. true mantle may help but its a band aid.

loving people are pulling console 8 cores data and just assuming devs are building games for those cause consoles have 8 cores. by the time the development of cores is so refined to take full advantage if and i mean if the cpus will be in the dustbin. it aint happening in next two years and all those games will run faster on intel i5s.

people buying on dreams.

amd is great value that is why you buy amd . value not speed or the fastest.
Click to expand...

According to you BF3 runs better on an I3. So I think after the video I posted people will be able to work out what sort of a part you are taking in this thread. I'd love to see an I3 that can get FB II to hit a brick wall, but ho hum.

All a load of unfounded nonsense, sorry dude. I think by now people can begin to make informed decisions on what they should be doing :)
 
uksoldierboy said:
To be fair though andy,

that's singleplayer, and @1440*900 is it not?

Not trying to pick holes, my fx4100 @4.8 was fine in singleplayer, but in multiplayer was a completely different story, for me at least, even with my 7970.

I have far higher min, average and max fps in multiplayer now with my current rig even with this 6950.
Click to expand...

I played multi player last night for three hours and never saw my FPS dip below 90.

Some games actually perform worse at 1440x900. That's why those German guys bench games all the way down to 1024x768. I also run SLI, which again likes to be ran at higher resolutions

Regardless of that from what has been said in this thread it isn't possible for any AMD CPU to perform like that, with the absolute max settings, at any resolution.

But, moving back to facts here. Frostbite II will take whatever you can throw at it. As did Frostbite. In fact, Frostbite was one of the only games I tested for a review of Quadfire with two 3870x2 that actually worked with it. So trying to twist things (and I don't mean you) to say that Intel perform better is nonsense.

I run the bench in single player, people say that multi player will change things. Quite simply? playing a game in a different mode does not change the performance of a processor. So it's brick wall time. For every time AMD do well some one tries to find a possible reason why they shouldn't.

It's denial. Playing BF3 in multi player does impact the performance. But, it will impact it exactly the same across any CPU.
 
ALXAndy said:
I played multi player last night for three hours and never saw my FPS dip below 90.

Some games actually perform worse at 1440x900. That's why those German guys bench games all the way down to 1024x768. I also run SLI, which again likes to be ran at higher resolutions

Regardless of that from what has been said in this thread it isn't possible for any AMD CPU to perform like that, with the absolute max settings, at any resolution.

But, moving back to facts here. Frostbite II will take whatever you can throw at it. As did Frostbite. In fact, Frostbite was one of the only games I tested for a review of Quadfire with two 3870x2 that actually worked with it. So trying to twist things (and I don't mean you) to say that Intel perform better is nonsense.

I run the bench in single player, people say that multi player will change things. Quite simply? playing a game in a different mode does not change the performance of a processor. So it's brick wall time. For every time AMD do well some one tries to find a possible reason why they shouldn't.

It's denial. Playing BF3 in multi player does impact the performance. But, it will impact it exactly the same across any CPU.
Click to expand...

And the better CPU wins...

 
Tonester0011 said:
And the better CPU wins...

Click to expand...

You do realise that those Russian benchmarks also test things like processor use, yes? I would be careful which ones you use with those.

There was one doing the rounds which turned out to be power usage from the wall.

Do you have a link for it?

And do try harder than spamming a single pic dude.
 
ALXAndy said:
According to you BF3 runs better on an I3. So I think after the video I posted people will be able to work out what sort of a part you are taking in this thread. I'd love to see an I3 that can get FB II to hit a brick wall, but ho hum.

All a load of unfounded nonsense, sorry dude. I think by now people can begin to make informed decisions on what they should be doing :)
Click to expand...

i said the only thing the 8 core amds are beating is i3s read.
 
ALXAndy said:
You do realise that those Russian benchmarks also test things like processor use, yes? I would be careful which ones you use with those.

There was one doing the rounds which turned out to be power usage from the wall.

Do you have a link for it?

And do try harder than spamming a single pic dude.
Click to expand...

You seem to keep ignoring, but only use facts.
Facts are, AMD cannot compete with Intel in BF3, unless your aim is to play SP! lol.

http://translate.google.com/transla.../battlefield-3-ehd-game-test-gpu.html&act=url
 
ALXAndy said:
See post above. I think you'll find you're quite wrong.

But hey, don't tell me ! AMD CPUs are useless if you turn your monitor upside down and play BF3 standing on your head.

Time to drop the straws dude.
Click to expand...

Yeah...looks like SP to me buddy!
BF3....BF4 are CPU heavy, in multiplayer. The place where most people who bought the game go to play, the more people on the server the bigger the dependance on the CPU. Hence being tested on a 64man lobby.
 
Multiplayer changes things, I said this before, and was met with the same line about game modes not changing performance.

But I think this thread is done, the OP has the info he needs, we should all move on :p
 
Tonester0011 said:
Yeah...looks like SP to me buddy!
BF3....BF4 are CPU heavy, in multiplayer. The place where most people who bought the game go to play, the more people on the server the bigger the dependance on the CPU. Hence being tested on a 64man lobby.
Click to expand...

Got any stats for when you play BF3 semi naked with a pineapple in your right hand whilst trying to use the mouse?

Seriously, you're clutching at straws, man. I would bet if I loaded up BF3 on my TV (1080p) I would absolutely batter the scores you have posted. Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with BF3 in multiplayer then it will hit the performance the same way on Intel.

But any way, getting back to the thread. BF3 is an old game now. I still await any one telling me about any of the latest titles, forward thinking titles or future titles.

Because so far I've not only shown that the 8320 works out as good or better than a 4670k in those games, but costs less. In fact, the performance is really rather amazing for the money. As for the older game argument? since when does any one buy a machine to play past games? they buy one because theirs doesn't cut it any more in newer titles.

This thread was about going from an I5 750 to an 8320/50. So far we've had pretty much every angle of attack from the Intel lot, and all of the good advice based on the future and present from the AMD lot.

I mean FFS it's even degraded into an argument over a game more than a year old.

If you want me to show you how the 8320 fares in these games it supposedly sucks at I will, but, I don't think that has or has had any relevance to the thread.
 
This thread has gone a bit bonkers.

I doubt my input will help much but having both systems with identical hardware except CPU's and motherboards. Both CPU's running 4.6ghz and a single 7970 running 1200/7000. If I wanted the best value I would buy the AMD CPU and board but for the best all round experience Inc later multi threaded games the 4670k would be my choice. The 8350 has a hard time keeping up and I have not found any real advantage using an 8350 in games like BF4 or Crysis. I see higher mins on the 4670.

One thing I love with the AMD is the fiddle factor and sheer amount of options for tweaking. You have to really work to get the best from it.
 
Looks like the same price to me mate :)

Intel = Spend more on the chip, spend less on cooling and motherboard.
AMD = Sped less on the chip, spend more on cooling and motherboard.

Edit:

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - OEM £173.99
1 x MSI H87-G43 Intel H87 (Socket 1150) DDR3 ATX Motherboard £79.99
1 x Corsair Hydro H100 Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler *Manufacturer Refurbished Unit - 90 Day Guarantee £44.99
Total : £311.27 (includes shipping : £10.25).




YOUR BASKET
1 x MSI 990FXA-GD80 AMD 990 FX (AMD AM3/AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £139.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
1 x Corsair Hydro H100 Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler *Manufacturer Refurbished Unit - 90 Day Guarantee £44.99
Total : £317.87 (includes shipping : £10.75).



You'd get a lot more consistent performance going with the 4670k over the 8320, because like i said...most games currently are not heavily threaded, and in the not too distant future they wont be either.
 
I'm not being funny here but OCUK are wildly out of touch with pricing on AMD hardware.

For £313 I can get a 8320 with a Crosshair V Formula Z and a H100 refurb.

I can get an 8+2 MSI board elsewhere for around £80.
 
ALXAndy said:
I'm not being funny here but OCUK are wildly out of touch with pricing on AMD hardware.

For £313 I can get a 8320 with a Crosshair V Formula Z and a H100 refurb.

I can get an 8+2 MSI board elsewhere for around £80.
Click to expand...

This is OCUK forum, so i use their pricing. I can get a second hand intel rig for a lot less than the above, means nothing however.

Martini1991 said:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-438-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=2574

With H87 Overclocking being... In whatever state, as I don't know if you still can.
Click to expand...

Didn't know you could no longer overclock using H87?
Good board and the same price though what you've picked :D
 
mmj_uk said:
Any money saved on the CPU is counteracted by the AMD FX requiring a decent motherboard (and cooling) if you want a stable experience without any throttling when overclocking. Only those who don't value the need for thorough stability testing will argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to really know about some of the 970 based motherboards. I have specced loads of builds on forums with the Asus M5A97 EVO and have a few mates using the same motherboard. That is under £80. The VRM can deliver upto 275W.

The only people who really need more are benchers in reality. No different than with an Intel system TBH.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom