Advice on i5 or an AMD piledriver

[Deleted member 157462]

I'm totally new to PC building but I've finally decided to build one of my own. I've got ~£700 to spend and I'm a little unsure on which processor to get.

I've narrowed it down to
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-444-IN&groupid=701&catid=6

or

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-336-AM&tool=3

With my (albeit incredibly limited knowledge) the AMD seems far better as its faster and has more cores but people keep telling me that the Intel CPUs tend to perform better.

Any advice on which one would be the better purchase?

Thanks

 

[Doomedspeed]

Welcome,

Firstly intel vs AMD is a tough choice.

What are you using this PC for? Gaming and if so what games are you playing? and at what resolution?

Aswell you've gone for some odd CPU choices, id suggest you look at deciding between these two instead:

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - OEM £169.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
Total : £299.58 (includes shipping : £8.00).



The 4670k is on the Haswell socket, it is overclockable. While its more expensive it's a better all rounder than the AMD CPU.

The 8320 is basically a 8350 for £30 less (bargain). There is VERY VERY little difference to the 8350, so its a much better buy.. The 8320 will like multi-threaded games like BF4 (it performs a little better than the 4670k in that) but will nose dive in games like Skyrim..
Though it is better for heavy video editing.

Like i say, its down to you're uses and the budget for other components like GPU's and SSDs

 

[Deleted member 157462]

Thanks for your response

For the GPU I'm looking at something like http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-189-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1750

I'm not sure i really understand the difference between all these CPUs, am i wrong in thinking more cores and more GHz is better?

And yes the PC will be used mostly for gaming

 

[ALXAndy]

The 8320 will like multi-threaded games like BF4 (it performs a little better than the 4670k in that) but will nose dive in games like Skyrim..

This is incredibly misleading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

I would hardly say that 60 FPS + (on stock clocks !) and 58 FPS on huge resolutions equates to what you consider a nose dive. It's almost like the other day when some one claimed that Arma III absolutely choked on the AMD, yet there was 2 FPS in it between the AMD and the 4770K.

Please do your research on what you claim before you go making silly statements like that. Overclocked the AMD will be more than good enough for Skyrim. In fact, it's a butt old game now so any CPU is good enough for Skyrim.

OP - you want either the 8320 on a 990FX evo (around £90 for the board) or a 4670k with an appropriate board. Note - the AMD rig will be much cheaper, but if you want Intel then the one to get is the 4670k or above.

 

[Doomedspeed]

For the GPU I'm looking at something like http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-189-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1750

A GTX 770 is a good chioce, though i suggest you go for one with an after market cooler Like this one:

YOUR BASKET
1 x MSI Geforce GTX 770 Gaming Edition 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card £269.99
Total : £279.59 (includes shipping : £8.00).



It'll be cooler and quieter and they usually come pre-overclocked too.

Though, the price throws up a curve ball, it fall right into the Jaws on the R9 280X, the 280X is actually a bit quicker and has 3GB of VRAM, which can be useful in BF4.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev1.0 WindForce 3X 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card £254.99
Total : £264.59 (includes shipping : £8.00).



The windforce is my personal favourite aftermarket cooler for GPU's.

I'm not sure i really understand the difference between all these CPUs, am i wrong in thinking more cores and more GHz is better?

That's a common mis-conception, albeit its the way they advertise too... Its not true atall, especially cross manufacturers.

If you want some resources take a look at benchmark and comparison websites such as:

Anandtech bench: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/698?vs=837
Bit-tech: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/1

There are also other places..

 

[Doomedspeed]

This is incredibly misleading.

Please do your research on what you claim before you go making silly statements like that. Overclocked the AMD will be more than good enough for Skyrim. In fact, it's a butt old game now so any CPU is good enough for Skyrim.

Sorry, i have done my research on this. While skyrim is still easily playable on an AMD chip (im not disputing that atall) it does fall behind the intel chips somewhat.

Also, you bought me up on "research", and the link you posted was a comparison to the old intel generation.. Good going.. (though albeit, there not a lot of difference).

This shows the difference a bit better IMO (even at OC frequencies) : http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

Skyrim maybe be old but all those test were done without any mods.. They are thousands of HD texture mods and some 4k textures too. Along with many ENB's..So CPU is still needs to be powerful.

 

[solado]

It's a really hard one to call now games are starting to use more cores / threads. Battlefield 4 is one of these games for example and the gap has closed quite a margin.

AMD are better at overclocking and have more cores / threads than the i5.
Intel i5 are better for old games and much better single threaded performance.

Please don't hotlink images, instead upload them to a image hosting site and link from there.

 

[almighty15]

This is incredibly misleading.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

So at 1920x1080 with high settings the AMD CPU only manages to hit what the Intel chips can do when on Ultra?

Or in laymen's terms the AMD chip is offering 23% less performance with the same hardware as the i5

And that is only average frame rates, minimums would be even lower still on the AMD chip.

I would call his statement accurate...

 

[almighty15]

It's a really hard one to call now games are starting to use more cores / threads. Battlefield 4 is one of these games for example and the gap has closed quite a margin.

AMD are better at overclocking and have more cores / threads than the i5.
Intel i5 are better for old games and much better single threaded performance.

Unless every single game released from now on can use 6-8 cores the AMD chips will never be a good choice.

Us PC gamers have been waiting for good threading support since Intel released the Q6600 back in 2007.

And we're still waiting 6+ years later...

Threading will not happen over night and until it does the Intel chips are still the better choice.

 

[Doomedspeed]

All that graph shows is it's horrendously GPU bound on a single card and at 1080p.

How can the FX4320 be 1 FPS behind the 8350 otherwise.

This thread is a good resource: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18553302&highlight=bf4

 

[solado]

I get people hate AMD due to they are 30%-50% slower single thread, multi-thread isn't as strong (AMD need more cores to match Intel) and they use a lot more power in comparison to Intel.

But regardless of what people say.
Newer games = Gap has closed until GPU improve and come down in price.
Older games = Intel Dominates.

It's a hard one to call if you dont mind AMD or Intel.
If ofcause you are one of the many bias one sided PC gaming fans then it's clear cut.

 

[Doomedspeed]

But regardless of what people say.
Newer games = Gap has closed until GPU improve and come down in price.
Older games = Intel Dominates.

Exactly right,

So if you want to play a whole spetrum of games, you can't lose going intel. Thats my point.

The 8320 is amazing value for money but if you can afford a 4670k theres no reason not to get one..

£800 intel build:

YOUR BASKET
1 x Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev1.0 WindForce 3X 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card £254.99
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - OEM £169.99
1 x MSI Z87-G43 Intel Z87 (Socket 1150) DDR3 ATX Motherboard - FREE Alpenfohn Civetta Cooler!! £86.99
1 x Toshiba SSD HDTS212EZSTA 9.5mm 128GB Solid State Hard Drive - Retail £71.99
1 x GeIL Black Dragon 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C11 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (GD38GB1600C11DC) £59.99
1 x BeQuiet Pure Power L8 500W '80 Plus Bronze' Power Supply - With 120mm Silent Wing Fan Built in £53.99
1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM (ST1000DM003) HDD £47.99
1 x Corsair Carbide 200R Compact ATX Case - Black (CC-9011023-WW) £47.99
1 x OcUK 22x DVD±RW SATA ReWriter (Black) - OEM £17.99
Total : £821.50 (includes shipping : £8.00).



£750 AMD

YOUR BASKET
1 x Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev1.0 WindForce 3X 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card £254.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
1 x Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 AMD 970 (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £79.99
1 x Toshiba SSD HDTS212EZSTA 9.5mm 128GB Solid State Hard Drive - Retail £71.99
1 x GeIL Black Dragon 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C11 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (GD38GB1600C11DC) £59.99
1 x BeQuiet Pure Power L8 500W '80 Plus Bronze' Power Supply - With 120mm Silent Wing Fan Built in £53.99
1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM (ST1000DM003) HDD £47.99
1 x Corsair Carbide 200R Compact ATX Case - Black (CC-9011023-WW) £47.99
1 x OcUK 22x DVD±RW SATA ReWriter (Black) - OEM £17.99
Total : £764.50 (includes shipping : £8.00).



The AMD will really need an aftermarket cooler too though (+£25-£30)

 

[ALXAndy]

Sorry, i have done my research on this. While skyrim is still easily playable on an AMD chip (im not disputing that atall) it does fall behind the intel chips somewhat.

So what? does it make the game unplayable? or, is it perfectly playable on that CPU? I was responding to -

but will nose dive in games like Skyrim

Nose dive? FFS. It's exaggeration like that which I was responding to. It's funny how certain individuals use such dismissive comments when the reality is nothing like it at all.

If you're going to start recommending things then do it with honesty. There's no need to talk crap.

Unless every single game released from now on can use 6-8 cores the AMD chips will never be a good choice.

Us PC gamers have been waiting for good threading support since Intel released the Q6600 back in 2007.

And we're still waiting 6+ years later...

Threading will not happen over night and until it does the Intel chips are still the better choice.

A load of old poo.

Firstly - yes it will happen overnight. Two consoles show up with 8 cores, games immediately get 8 core support. It's as crushingly simple as that.

What's poo though is how you speak about an AMD not being able to run games unless all of them are being used. This is utter rubbish as I showed you the other day. Stop making off the cuff remarks on forums and make sure you have the data to back up your claims. Remember Arma III? that's exactly my point. There you were saying how they suffer really bad on an AMD yet the reality was actually the complete opposite.

So you've gone from AMD being completely useless for everything, to AMD only being any good when all of them are supported.

 

[joeyjojo]

All that graph shows is it's horrendously GPU bound on a single card and at 1080p.

How can the FX4320 be 1 FPS behind the 8350 otherwise.

This thread is a good resource: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18553302&highlight=bf4

Exactly, as most games are! An AMD CPU is only a problem if it's not giving you playable framerates (30 fps for most people, more depending on your screen and gaming preferences).

To use the BF4 chart you linked as an example, who cares if the 8350 is 20% slower than the 4770K when they're doing 75 and 92 FPS minimum respectively? The money would be better spent on the GPU than the Intel chip (unless you've got a 120 Hz monitor, but then you're going to have to really up the GPU budget anyway).

Your point about the Intel being better overall is probably true though, but it comes at a premium. Plus, we have yet to see what Mantle does...

 

[ALXAndy]

Exactly, as most games are! An AMD CPU is only a problem if it's not giving you playable framerates (30 fps for most people, more depending on your screen and gaming preferences).

To use the BF4 chart you linked as an example, who cares if the 8350 is 20% slower than the 4770K when they're doing 75 and 92 FPS minimum respectively? The money would be better spent on the GPU than the Intel chip (unless you've got a 120 Hz monitor, but then you're going to have to really up the GPU budget anyway).

Your point about the Intel being better overall is probably true though, but it comes at a premium. Plus, we have yet to see what Mantle does...

Mantle will completely and utterly retire the CPU completely, leaving you only needing a good GPU with GCN.

But let's face it here. Pretty much any decent CPU these days is more than good enough for gaming, with any game. So that means AMD or Intel, either will do the job.

It comes down to money, preference and choice, not because one product simply isn't good enough. People need to bloody get real around here and stop talking bloody nonsense.

This is why -

1. AMD have no immediate plans to upgrade, and or replace and improve Piledriver.
2. Intel have dropped the desktop and are trying to get a foothold in the mobile market, where their future lies.

AMD has Gaming Evolved, HSA and Mantle. They also have their APUs in two consoles, they are going to be the PC gaming kings.

 

[Doomedspeed]

So what? does it make the game unplayable? or, is it perfectly playable on that CPU? I was responding to -

but will nose dive in games like Skyrim

Nose dive? FFS. It's exaggeration like that which I was responding to. It's funny how certain individuals use such dismissive comments when the reality is nothing like it at all.

If you're going to start recommending things then do it with honesty. There's no need to talk
A load of old poo.

Firstly - yes it will happen overnight. Two consoles show up with 8 cores, games immediately get 8 core support. It's as crushingly simple as that.

What's poo though is how you speak about an AMD not being able to run games unless all of them are being used. This is utter rubbish as I showed you the other day. Stop making off the cuff remarks on forums and make sure you have the data to back up your claims. Remember Arma III? that's exactly my point. There you were saying how they suffer really bad on an AMD yet the reality was actually the complete opposite.

So you've gone from AMD being completely useless for everything, to AMD only being any good when all of them are supported.

Sorry but to call our opinions 'poo' then come out with that '8 core consoles change everything' statement annoys me.

If you were to do your research on console CPU's you'd see that the cores are shared between CPU/GPU and the OS's other features too.

The PS4 is sais to use 2 cores on OS alone.

I would post links to articles but im on my phone so its a but of a nightmare.

I just want to make sure the op knows the truth..

 

[Martini1991]

Exactly, as most games are! An AMD CPU is only a problem if it's not giving you playable framerates (30 fps for most people, more depending on your screen and gaming preferences).

To use the BF4 chart you linked as an example, who cares if the 8350 is 20% slower than the 4770K when they're doing 75 and 92 FPS minimum respectively? The money would be better spent on the GPU than the Intel chip (unless you've got a 120 Hz monitor, but then you're going to have to really up the GPU budget anyway).

Your point about the Intel being better overall is probably true though, but it comes at a premium. Plus, we have yet to see what Mantle does...

How? If you've bottlenecked why would buying the better GPU be better?
If we're using the "AMD gives playable FPS" why would you ever want a better GPU?

It's a fallacy, we wouldn't run the GPU set ups we run if we didn't want the performance out of them.

 

[ALXAndy]

Sorry but to call our opinions 'poo' then come out with that '8 core consoles change everything' statement annoys me.

Where did I call your opinions poo? Was I even talking to you with that comment? no, so stop reading other people's posts and taking them personally.

If you were to do your research on console CPU's you'd see that the cores are shared between CPU/GPU and the OS's other features too.

You think I don't know that?!?! the most important part of any gaming rig is the GPU. Not, as Intel fans would like it to be, the CPU. Intel's IPC and single threaded performance is about as important to gaming in 2014 as putting a cabbage leaf on your head. In fact, as soon as Piledriver arrived and showed enough improvements to be universally good for gaming the CPU argument is now baseless.

But as I said, you seem to have taken my replies and responses to others personally so please stop doing that. It's one of my pet peeves when people on forums get all uppity thinking you're talking to them.

The PS4 is sais to use 2 cores on OS alone.

I would post links to articles but im on my phone so its a but of a nightmare.

I just want to make sure the op knows the truth..

The PS4 when sitting idle (IE not gaming) uses two cores. When being used in gaming it uses them all, as does it use HSA which the new APUs have.

All the OP needs to know, IE the bottom line, is that either of the CPUs he has in mind are more than good enough for a gaming PC.

It's really as easy and simple as that.

Edit. Oh, I see it was you who made the nosedive comment. Ah well, I don't agree with you at all and let's just leave it there.

 

[Martini1991]

Nosedive is absolutely the correct word to use.

How else would you describe a situation where it's able to keep up with the big boys (The i7's etc on BF4) and then unable to keep up with i3's (Skyrim)

That's a nosedive.

 

[Make]

Firstly - yes it will happen overnight. Two consoles show up with 8 cores, games immediately get 8 core support. It's as crushingly simple as that.

Two consoles have been out for a few months now, how many 8-core games have shown up for the PC that have been made for the consoles originally?

Not really overnight, as the answer is 0.