CPU for a gaming build

Gomaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:45

Hi, apologies if this is a repeat question (if so please feel free to point me in the right direction)
I am looking at building a gaming PC and have been watching the potential rise of AMD over Intel especially in the advent of the new console release.
Does the AMD Piledriver Oct core 5Ghz etc... compete, perhaps even beat the I7 haswell core.

In addition it is worth mentioning that I will be pairing an ATI card to the AMD and a nvidia card to the intel.

your opinions/experience would be most appreciated

Thanks in advance

Avenged7Fold · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:51

It would be easier to give a budget and people can spec you respectively. It is not as simple as AMD vs Intel (despite what some people think). They both have their uses and price tags and both are capable of providing great gaming experiences. With an unlimited budget, Intel is better, because you can choose the top end CPU with top end cooling solutions and take advantage of the great clock per clock performance in their 6 core chips. This is overkill for gaming though and you could get away with much less.

The money you spend on a premium CPU would be better to get an adequate CPU for gaming and spend the rest on the GPU. This will net you more frames overall.

What is your budget?

btw the AMD vs Intel title is a risky title. I hope this doesn't end in fanboys spamming at other fanboys.

kaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:52

Not the answer you want, but nobody knows until the PS4/XBOne games get ported over to PC.

The 5GHz Piledrivers are just binned overclocked 8350s, which in turn are overclocked 8320s. The general consensus seems to be to get a 4770k if you want the best for gaming, or buy a 8320 if you mostly play the games where it shines and get most of the 4770k performance for half the cost.

Just out of curiosity, why strictly ATI GPU with AMD and nVidia with Intel? Processor choice doesn't make a difference at all when it comes to GPU brands.

kefan77 · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:53

your budget will determine everything. don't bother with these theoretical flame-igniting questions.

Avenged7Fold · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:56

kaku said:
Processor choice doesn't make a difference at all when it comes to GPU brands.

I think it makes as much difference as choosing a CPU between brands. All depends on budget. (we all know who is easier on the wallet

)

cheesyboy · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:56

No, I don't believe we've previously discussed the relative merits of AMD and Intel

In short, the i7 will beat an fx-8xxx in most gaming circumstances. But the i7 costs over 50% more than the fx-8350 and twice the fx-8320 (which overclocks to the same levels as the 8350). And both FX-8s can be clocked to near 5Ghz, so don't waste the cash on the FX9s

If buying the i7 means losing £100 off your GPU budget, then the AMD will probably be the better choice.

In addition it is worth mentioning that I will be pairing an ATI card to the AMD and a nvidia card to the intel.

There really is no need to do that. AMD/Nvidia GPUs work fine with AMD/Intel CPUs in whatever combination.

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:57

It all comes down to budget, and, how far forward you want to look. If you don't think that eight cores are going to come into use? then go for a 4670k. If you think that the 8 cored consoles will shape gaming? then get an AMD 8 core. Don't expect the AMD 8 core to compete with the I7 4770k as it costs £100 less (do not buy the 8350, rock the 8320 as it's £30 cheaper and pretty much identical).

As for GPUs? I wouldn't buy anything other than AMD now. And that's coming from a GTX 670 SLI user. Games are going to be completely AMD biased within the next year so I would not go anywhere near Nvidia now.

As I say, it all depends on whether you want to prospect a little or make the "based on now and the past" decision. Based on now? there are about three or four games that make use of 8 cores. That is set to change, however. Based on the past? go with Intel.

d_brennen · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:59

Low post count: Check
Inflammatory thread title: Check
Questionable thread content: Check

AMD's FX83xx and above CPUs are offering great performance in some new games, but the future is as clear as mud. Also, ATI ceased to be some years ago

Gomaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 16:59

I'm looking at spending between £1400-£1600 included in this price would be to WD black drives in RAID 0 formation (I am aware that the red was designed for RAID over black but I'm willing to risk it to gain the performance) I'm allocating between £300-500 for GPU, I think I'll avoid the dual GPU as I've heard you can gain micro stutter which I'm quite sensitive to. I usually use an I5 for friend's budget gaming PC's but I was hoping to add some longevity to this machine and I was wanting to start with a solid CPU as the GPU can be upgraded later with more ease.
In addition, I think I will change the title as I was looking for experiences and stats over a fan boy argument!

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:03

It's up to you then.

4770k - very fast out of the box. Overclocking is very hit and miss. Quite solid for future gaming as it has 8 threads (via 4 physical and 4 logical cores).

8320/50 - the 9xxx Centurions are actually dropping in price now, and one can be had for around £170 IIRC.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-361-AM&groupid=701&catid=1967

Should do 5ghz all day long. Pluses are - overclocking is tons of fun, cheap performance to price ratio etc. There is a 'slight' risk and that's that you're taking the gamble as to whether the next gen of console ports will support 8 cores (all signs point to yes, but your naysayer will live in the past).

The safe bet is obviously Intel but it's more expensive, and way less fun IMO. If you end up with a cruddy one it's going to suck for any overclocking fun.

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:04

d_brennen said:
Low post count: Check
Inflammatory thread title: Check
Questionable thread content: Check

AMD's FX83xx and above CPUs are offering great performance in some new games, but the future is as clear as mud. Also, ATI ceased to be some years ago

Then what you do is open your mind and give the right unbiased advice. And if it is a troll? you take all of the wind out of his sails.

If the fanboys turn up? leave them bloody to it

Avenged7Fold · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:04

What gaming resolution. 300-500 on a single card is a lot of money. You can grab a 280x for under the 300 and it will be fine at most normal resolutions, or you can wait out for the 290 or 290x, as at least one of those should be in budget (hopefully)

Is the budget just for the tower itself and doesnt include monitors and such?

Gomaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:05

kaku said:
Not the answer you want, but nobody knows until the PS4/XBOne games get ported over to PC.

The 5GHz Piledrivers are just binned overclocked 8350s, which in turn are overclocked 8320s. The general consensus seems to be to get a 4770k if you want the best for gaming, or buy a 8320 if you mostly play the games where it shines and get most of the 4770k performance for half the cost.

Just out of curiosity, why strictly ATI GPU with AMD and nVidia with Intel? Processor choice doesn't make a difference at all when it comes to GPU brands.

Ah I've been mislead, I assumed the Piledrive WAS the new AMD core for consoles, I shall have words with my sources

With regards to pairing I assumed that ATI - AMD & Intel-Nvidea paired better together. I've been watching the news regarding the ATI for consoles and their new physix (whatever their brand is called) engine works 10x better than nvidea.

In addition, I'm trying to reply to all your comments as quick as I can!

d_brennen · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:05

ALXAndy said:
Then what you do is open your mind and give the right unbiased advice. And if it is a troll? you take all of the wind out of his sails.

If the fanboys turn up? leave them bloody to it

I thought I did

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:06

Gomaku said:
Ah I've been mislead, I assumed the Piledrive WAS the new AMD core for consoles, I shall have words with my sources
With regards to pairing I assumed that ATI - AMD & Intel-Nvidea paired better together. I've been watching the news regarding the ATI for consoles and their new physix (whatever their brand is called) engine works 10x better than nvidea.

In addition, I'm trying to reply to all your comments as quick as I can!

Piledriver is pretty much identical to the CPUs found in the consoles. It's just clocked four times higher

What matters the most for the future is raw core count. Game devs are really lazy, so they'll just get the code running on a PC without making sure it's well optimised for certain CPUs.

Gomaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:07

Yes the budget is for tower itself, I purchased new monitors recently and have the operating system, peripherals etc... This is literally for tower only. With two cards has micro stutter been encountered on your travels as I'm basing that review on a single article rather than general conscientious

Avenged7Fold said:
What gaming resolution. 300-500 on a single card is a lot of money. You can grab a 280x for under the 300 and it will be fine at most normal resolutions, or you can wait out for the 290 or 290x, as at least one of those should be in budget (hopefully)

Is the budget just for the tower itself and doesnt include monitors and such?

Avenged7Fold · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:08

As for pairing ATI with AMD

Well, people say mantle on AMDs new GPU range will likely let applications use multicore setups more effectively but i wouldn't count on rumored specs and advertising and also wouldn't let that affect your CPU decisions..

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:10

Micro stutter* is only a thing to worry about with dual + GPUs. And it's more of an AMD problem but they have been combating it of late.

* It's not really stuttering, that's just the nick name given to it. It's caused by runt frames that are 5 pixels high being displayed on screen and not being fully carried out. There are also dropped frames that are basically a frame that was executed, but not carried out. It causes what appears to be stutter (it's more of a jerk) and puts out incorrect frame rates as runts and dropped frames do not count as you don't 'get' them.

However as I said, this has been addressed and is now being worked on. It's still a problem with triple screen Eyefinity set ups, though.

ALXAndy · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:12

Avenged7Fold said:
As for pairing ATI with AMD

Well, people say mantle on AMDs new GPU range will likely let applications use multicore setups more effectively but i wouldn't count on rumored specs and advertising and also wouldn't let that affect your CPU decisions..

I wouldn't buy Nvidia GPUs now with your money mate.

I'm kicking myself for buying a second 670, I should have jumped ship then. Problem was AMD did not have Crossfire working until the late summer and I love running multiple GPUs.

AMD are set to completely dominate gaming now, given that they have pretty much every single bit of it sewn up. Both consoles, the best GPUs for the money by a mile and they're slowly starting to make a lot of sense in the CPU department too.

Gomaku · 17 Oct 2013 at 17:12

Avenged7Fold said:
As for pairing ATI with AMD

Well, people say mantle on AMDs new GPU range will likely let applications use multicore setups more effectively but i wouldn't count on rumored specs and advertising and also wouldn't let that affect your CPU decisions..

Ok so my next question is, do I overclock a lower CPU (I5 for example) or spend the extra money on a higher CPU and overclock as required?