i5 750 to AMD 8350 worth it?

[ALXAndy]

Comes down to budget, that's fair enough.
Me personally if on a budget will still opt for the i3 over the FX6*** just because the games i play, so that's personal preference. (Built a budget rig for a mate, his games of choice were Skyrim and the like, his i3 is doing very nicely!)

Admittedly the FX6*** would play a damn sight better for BF4, but i don't plan on playing that!

I mainly play KSP, sometimes the odd BF3....though if put into hours my computer spends 96% of the time downclocked browsing the forums and websites in general!!

His I3 doesn't do as nicely as the 6300 you told him not to get.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=699

And that's without overclocking the 6300.

But LOLs for spending more on a derped CPU that can't be overclocked.

TBH,with an HD7950,an FX6300 or FX6350 is going to be within 10% or thereabouts of an IB Core i3,and the FPS is over 60FPS and Skyrim is not a first person FPS anyway so its a moot point. One of my mates has an FX6300 and an HD7870XT and it seems to have decent framerates at 1920X1080.

I get the impression Skyrim Online is going to use a more threaded engine,from what Bethesda has indicated. About time! The Creation/Gamebryo engine is ancient,and would be nice if Fallout 4 had DX11.

The 6300 is faster at stock in Skyrim than the I3. And it has masses of overclocking headroom in it too.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Well, my 3930k at 4.2GHz scrapes above a score of 140. At 4.5 GHz 156 and at 4.9 GHz at about 170ish. Pretty much all the Sandy, Ivy and Haswell chips in that thread score better. Does that mean my CPU is bad, or barely better than an i5 760?

Some of these guys have enthusiast systems TBF and if they shared their total spend it would be far more transparent than it appears lets put it that way.

 

[the1gooner]

Well, my 3930k at 4.2GHz scrapes above a score of 140. At 4.5 GHz 156 and at 4.9 GHz at about 170ish. Pretty much all the Sandy, Ivy and Haswell chips in that thread score better. Does that mean my CPU is bad, or barely better than an i5 760?

Well I know which one I would rather have

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The thing is I was having a discussion,about the current Intel CPUs with someone I know(AFAIK,he is involved in marketing and the like).

Intel kibbling the Core i3 is more of a ploy to make it look meh on purpose.

It makes the Core i5 look better,and guess what?

People will then pay the extra premium to get a Core i5 instead and it means more money for Intel. Those people would have bought a Core i3 or a similarly priced Intel CPU instead.

Making a decent Core i3,especially one which can overclock,would mean less people buying Core i5 CPUs.

It happened with socket 1156.

For the Dell market, which is about box shifting, whether the Core i3 was 20% slower or faster than its now would make little difference IMHO.

 

[uksoldierboy]

Built a system for a mate today which was AMD based,
Fx 6300, His 7870, great little system, the stock cooler that came with the fx though probably the most flimsy looking thing I've ever seen!

Unfortunately the budget didn't allow for aftermarket cooling, at least not yet, hopefully in a. Month or two we'll be able to cool it properly ready to overclock it.

 

[Martini1991]

I think anyone can agree that the i3's meh.

There's tons of choice for all budgets now.

 

[the1gooner]

Making a decent Core i3,especially one which can overclock,would mean less people buying Core i5 CPUs.

Yeah which is why I kept hold of my previous i3 540 for so long which did 4.0Ghz easily, that thing was a bargain all things considered.

Shame Intel made the decision to make the newer i3's locked.

 

[Tonester0011]

His I3 doesn't do as nicely as the 6300 you told him not to get.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=699

And that's without overclocking the 6300.

But LOLs for spending more on a derped CPU that can't be overclocked.

You're clueless mate
If the games he plays are lightly threaded....where the IPC counts most, how is it getting a 2/4 CPU wrong? Based on the SB architecture.

He would be getting a lot worse performance in Skyrim, Kerbal + whatever other games he plays if i got the 6300.

Here's a little graph....Shame they only show average framerates, i'm sure the minimums from AMD would be laughable!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3970x-sandy-bridge-e-benchmark,3348-12.html

On the other hand, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim does exhibit greater sensitivity to platform performance.

Four Sandy Bridge-E/EP-based CPUs enjoy the lead at 1680x1050, suggesting that some combination of high clock rates and large shared L3 caches help drive performance.

As with any workload that increasingly emphasizes some other component, however, scaling up to 1920x1080 and then 2560x1600 quickly levels off average frame rates. Our highest resolution tips the scales in favor of Intel’s Ivy Bridge architecture. Sandy Bridge-derived CPUs clump together in the middle, while AMD’s portfolio lags behind (albeit by less than 10 FPS, on average, under the High settings preset).

 

[gpuerrilla]

ES:Skyrim is now two years old...

 

[Tonester0011]

ES:Skyrim is now two years old...

It doesn't matter lol, still in the top 10 for Steam.
I spent £320 on his computer, and it's the best for that budget for the games he plays. Whether the games he plays are old isn't the point, the point being Intel's superior IPC is what counts.

You could get a big balled 16 core, if the game in question can only use two threads....wow, that 16 core CPU is now comparable to a dual core!!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3970x-sandy-bridge-e-benchmark,3348-12.html

The Core i5 CPUs will perform better than a Core i3 though. Firstly clockspeeds tend to be higher and more important you forget about HT. With the OS shuffling around threads,expect performance on a Core i5 to be clock for clock better than a Core i3 even with Skyrim.

Also,the FX6300 and FX6350 CPUs Turbo to 4.1GHZ and 4.2GHZ in lightly threaded games like Skyrim. Performance will be roughly the same as the FX8350 IMHO.

That is thing,the FX6300 only lack two less cores,but still have the full L3 cache,when compared to the top end CPUs.

If anything that would mean the FX63** series probably has slightly better single thread IPC than an FX8300 series CPU.

The SB based Core i5 2400 running at 3.1GHZ to 3.4GHZ is faster than an IB Core i3 running at around the same clockspeed.

The FX8350(and by extension the FX6300 and FX6350) are only 11% slower with an HD7950 3GB when compared to a Core i3 3220.

In all cases FPS is over 60FPS. Skyrim is only a 3rd person single player game,so the framerates are fine.

Virtually none of the processors spend any time working on frames for more than 50 milliseconds, our usual threshold for "badness." That means you're looking at reasonably fluid animation with most of these CPUs, including the FX-8350. In fact, we have to ratchet the threshold past our customary next stop, 33 milliseconds or 30 FPS, and down to 16.7 milliseconds—equivalent to 60 FPS—to see meaningful differences between the CPUs.

Even TR mentioned that even an Athlon II X4 850,produced smooth framerates and that is the slowest CPU they used for the Skyrim test.

My mate has no performance issues running it on an FX6300 with an HD7870XT and has put dozens of hours into the game.

About KSP.

I play it on a Xeon E3 1220. My mate does and he has an FX6350 and he has not noticed any performance problems so far,and he has explored half the Kerbal system and sent landers,etc.

If there are issues,it is down to the Alpha nature of the game,especially last year when you could have rockets randomly exploding on the launchpad,or veering off course.

 

[Tonester0011]

About KSP.

I play it on a Xeon E3 1220. My mate does and he has an FX6350 and he has not noticed any performance problems so far.

If there are issues,it is down to the Alpha nature of the game,especially last year when you could have rockets randomly exploding on the launchpad.

Have you tried that CPU benchmark ship that you can download off the spaceport? http://kerbalspaceport.com/stock-cpu-performance-rocket/

Ha, destroys my computer for the first few stages. Starts off at like 13FPS!

As for Skyrim mate, i don't play the game. All my gameplay hours are when i let my brother borrow my Steam account because he's cheap and didn't want to buy the game!

I built my mates computer on a very strict budget and got the best performance you can for the few games he plays, overkill on the GPU though. £320 for: i3 2130, GTX580, Z68something (no idea, cost £20!) TX650W, Intel320SSD, 1TB HDD + all the other bits etc

 

[gpuerrilla]

It doesn't matter lol, still in the top 10 for Steam.

Lol, so it must be good if steam promotes it...

Err so it doesn't matter when you select a game - yeah I get it, but when someone else posts a title its a one off

As for Skyrim mate, i don't play the game.

Lol, it doesn't matter then.

I built my mates computer on a very strict budget and got the best performance you can for the few games he plays, overkill on the GPU though. £320 for: i3 2130, GTX580, Z68something (no idea, cost £20!) TX650W, Intel320SSD, 1TB HDD + all the other bits etc

With OcUK of course..

 

[Martini1991]

Steam doesn't promote it, he means sales....

 

[gpuerrilla]

Steam doesn't promote it, he means sales....

I'm sure Tonester can fight his own battles

 

[Tonester0011]

Lol, so it must be good if steam promotes it...

Err so it doesn't matter when you select a game - yeah I get it, but when someone else posts a title its a one off



Lol, it doesn't matter then.



With OcUK of course..

Clearly i was on about Steam top 10 sales?? LOL.
As for bringing it up, Andy did. I mentioned the game as that's my mates all time favourite game, sad as that may seem. I merely found a CPU benchmark showing AMDs weakness, later backed up by CAT (only showing the true disparity between the i3 and i5, what i didn't know about)

Edit, using the MM thanks to OCUK Forums. Yes

 

[Martini1991]

I'm sure Tonester can fight his own battles

Is it because I tend to run rings around people ?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Is it because I tend to run rings around people ?

I like it in all honesty. The thing is although there's lots of tittle tattle and the odd mud slinging, you learn a lot and believe me I don't take it too seriously.

This is why the OcUK forum is huge, massive community, good knowledge.

 

[Hades]

I think I'll just leave this same Skyrim benchmark here, but at 2560x1600. It shows that as resolution increases CPU powere becomes less important than GPU. So £30 or £60 or whatever saved on CPU can be better spent on the GPU. That's increasingly important as the possibility of 8 thread gaming increases.

The Intel chips are certainly faster per core and I doubt the gaming world will move to 8 threads overnight. But it shows that an 83x0 is no less relevant than an i5. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Essentially the buyer is making a bet whichever one they decide on:

Buy i5 = betting that 8 thread gaming will be slow to take off
Buy 83x0 = betting that 8 thread gaming will take off quickly

For me I'd get the 8320 (in fact I will be shortly) but that's because for my personal usage it is the more rounded CPU with better value. I don't pretend it's faster than an i5 in lightly threaded applications and games though.

EDIT: Hmmm, blast. The pic won't display. Anyway it shows: 3570k at 60.6 min / 75.4 max and 8350 at 58.8 and 68.8

 

[Martini1991]

We'll have to see with Watchdogs.

Even if games do go threaded over night, the i5's won't crap their pants, but it does lower their relative price/performance in comparison.

I think everyone and their dog should look forward to AMD's next CPU, that could have potential, the trade off might become worth while for some people.