• 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.

Bit of advice please :)

steve_french

steve_french

steve_french

Associate
Joined
28 Dec 2013
Posts
13
I've been looking at upgrading my PC for a while now and have narrowed my choice of motherboard and processor down to the following 2 options;

FX 8320 and gigabyte 990fxa-ud3

Or

i5 4670k and msi z87 g43 gaming

Two completely different ways to go and I'm really struggling with which to choose, I know the i5 is supposed to be the better CPU for gaming atm but is this set to change now we've got ps4 and xbox games that utilise 8 core CPUs?

All advice and wisdom welcome :)
 
If you aren't interested in running 2 GPUs (that MSI board doesn't support SLI), then you can drop the AMD board down to a 970 chipset. Get the Asus M5A97 Evo or the Giga 970a-UD3P and you can still get a good overclock.

That done, you would have the AMD option at around £195 or the Intel option at around £255

What would you spend the extra ~£60 on? The AMD would be the better option for gaming if it meant you got a much better GPU. If you are already high-end on the GPU, then the Intel might be better (game dependent, but generally it would be).
 
A 970 chipset will support xfire (but not SLI), same as the MSI G43.

Xfire 5770s will work just as well with the AMD as the Intel. What do you expect your GPU budget to be when you upgrade?

For a 290x, the Intel would be the better choice. A 280x probably I'd go with the AMD for the cost saving. Any less than a 280x, then I would go for the AMD and put the £60 saving towards getting a better GPU. [or Nvidia equivalents]
 
Steve you could have used the post from yesterday, but besides that intel is the best cpu gaming platform bur AMD is the best value.

So it depends if you think its worth the extra cost.
 
When I get round to it and have saved some more monies I'd probably be spending about £180 ish on a GPU but that might not be for a while yet (6 months maybe)

If I'm really gonna notice the difference with the cards I've got atm then I'd definitely spend abit more on the Intel CPU
 
There won't be any performance difference with the x-fire 5770s on the AMD or Intel (two 5770s being approximately equal to a single 260x) you'll be GPU-limited in almost everything.

The extra £60 takes you from a 270x (£150 to £180) to a 280x (£246+). I'd go AMD and the better GPU, but it depends on what games you play, and whether the PC is used for any other high end tasks.
 
I only really use my PC for gaming no video editing or anything like that

As far as the games I play/wanna play; ff14, skyrim and the new elder scrolls mmo when it's released, bf4, a range of games really
 
I'm being swayed towards the intel route I think as it's the more up to date CPU, chipset etc and won't make much of a difference which I choose with my current cards and for the sake of an extra £50 seems like the better option to me in the long run
 
Mickyflinn is bang on earlier. If your looking for the long run, then AMD seem to have it covered over the last few years and that doesn't seem to end. Intel are notably annoying for changing their socket design. .

I have an IB but actually wished afterwards i'd gone the red corner and saved a few quid.
 
But for the sake of saving £50? Back to my OP however are AMD CPUs going to start coming into there own now we're going to start seeing ps4/xbox titles making their way to PC that are optimized for 8 cores and if so is the 4670k going to be a bad investment in the not too distant future?
 
I've always bought on the principle of buying what's good now at the right price rather than what's possibly round the corner. Whether that's AMD or Intel is purely a decision between raw performance over cost.

I'm not sure what AMDs plans are for AM3+. Looking a their leaked road maps, none but they continue to invest heavily in the FM2 which they've always been good at.

I feel personally cheated by intel when they dropped the 1 pin off the 1156 platform for the 1155 pin of the Sandybride . then change again for subsequent releases. For form IMO.

but as i said, i was happy with my IB knowing it will last a few years without having to worry about what's round the corner.
 
Intel and AMD are about as bad as each other when it comes to sockets, although there's ignorance surrounding AMD's sockets (As Huddy's explanation is an example of this as he's mentioning FM2)

With Intel, you know what you're getting, it's all very transparent (usually) about sockets.
With AMD? It's all "It's coming out for our current socket" cue new socket. (Bulldozer, Trinity and Kaveri as recent examples,)
 
Hi Martini.

orry is there anything inaccurate about my post.. Just so I know in in future..or is it the way it reads? ;)

I was under the impression that Trinity, Richland, Kaveri and the next years Carrizo are all compatible with the same FM2+ socket?

As for intel.. I don't beleive you do.. There are currently 1150, 1155 and 2011 variants available at present. I could easily buy an Haswell CPU and expect to work where an IB was once was. I'd be wrong.
 
AMD have backwards compatibility (That they've been very good with), Intel recently just have a socket and two lots of CPU's for that socket (1156 and 1366 to an extent had the 32nm refresh with Gulftown and clarkdale, but that's it) Intel don't really do backwards compatibility.

But if you bought a trinity at launch on FM2, you need a new board for Kaveri, as after "FM2 All the way, FM2 is future proof" FM2+ came forth, and Kaveri required it. That to me is worse.
Same with AM3 and AM3+. It was all AM3 this, that and future proof this, till suddenly AM3+ appeared out of nowhere (And launching with already established AMD chipsets) and was a requirement for Bulldozer.

My point was you were an example of the ignorance surrounding the sockets (As in how it reads), rather than being outright inaccurate.

Furthermore, I wouldn't put any stock on AMD's APU's with future proofing.
They've had 3 ; Llano, Trinity (Richland doesn't really count.. It was more a C2 to C3/Silicon revision) Kaveri, and each has came with a new socket. (FM1 (Well, obviously) but then FM2, and then FM2+)

1155 is a dead socket, my point being is Intel was very transparent about Haswell not working on 1155 and needing a new socket (Amazing if someone missed it) Also I think it was physically impossible to work with 1155 what with the voltage regulation (Of some sort) being in the CPU now.

1150 is currently an unknown quantity, there's a haswell refresh guaranteed on 1150 (Although we had the usual "NEED A NEW CHIPSET" scaremongering), broadwell's an unknown quantity whether or not it'll work with launch 1150 boards (Or whether it's 1150 at all) It should (Following history) be and work on 1150, but who knows this time around.
 
Last edited:
If you go down the AMD route I would not recommend the UD3 board. I had the rev3.0 version and it is a very cheaply made board with a crappy bios. The VRMs/MOS heatsinks overheated easily resulting in throttling of the CPU.

The Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 AMD 970 is much better and £10 cheaper.
 
alex_123_fra said:
If you go down the AMD route I would not recommend the UD3 board. I had the rev3.0 version and it is a very cheaply made board with a crappy bios. The VRMs/MOS heatsinks overheated easily resulting in throttling of the CPU.

The Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 AMD 970 is much better and £10 cheaper.
Click to expand...

Presumably you're talking the 990fx UD3?

This is the unrelated 970 chipset board, and has had Gigabyte's FX revisions - matching the Rev 4.0 990fx UD3 (including Load Line Calibration). I own one, and it's decent enough (only running with an Athlon X2, though, so can't comment on throttling)

Edit;
Apologies: forgot the OP originally had the 990fx listed (I recommended the 970a UD3p later down the thread)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom