# FX 8350 or i7 4770k



## ANIR0X2K00L (Apr 26, 2013)

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 26, 2013)

Nobody knows if next gen games will play better on AMD or Intel, it is mere speculation.
Just because the company makes the hardware for the consoles doesnt mean they'll run the same at all, otherwise everything would be running on AMD like shit on a shovel.

I have a 3570k and an 8350. Neither show any real world difference to me, a lot of the time they trade blows, but the Intel comes out on top by small margins in games.
4770k will obviously perform better by small percentages.
I'd get the Intel.
990FX DOES have all the features, in fact you can get more SATA III 6gbps ports on an AMD board than intel for cheaper, both have USB 3.0 at comparative prices, and in terms of crossfire.sli support, both board types have those in all shapes and forms.

It is literally down to current performance, and since we do not have graphs and random data to tell us otherwise, the 4770k is unknown, but presumed to be better than the current gen.
Who knows what AMD will bring out, but it will evidently be similar to the Bobcat/Jaguar processors in the PS4 and Xbox, perhaps this time a genuine 8 core.

In short, if you're in a hurry, get either 8350 or 3570k, because theyre equally good in my eyes.
In long term, just wait for the 4770k and buy one.


----------



## digibucc (Apr 26, 2013)

the i7 will be cooler and more power efficient, and the amd will be more powerful though i doubt the difference will be so great that you'll notice. the graphics card is much more important, as is the mobo and it's features. so i'd go with those first and then pick the chip that fits what you want.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 26, 2013)

digibucc said:


> i doubt the difference will be so great that you'll notice. the graphics card is much more important,



Couldnt agree more. GPU is the biggie, processors are just a giant clusterfuck of synthetic benchmarks at the moment...


----------



## de.das.dude (Apr 26, 2013)

there wont be any difference in gaming. if you just plan on gaming, i would suggest a FX6300, and a really beefy graphics card.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Apr 26, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> i can wait till then end of this year.



Then maybe come back later when Haswell will be launched and AMD might come up with something. You'll definitely want to wait for the next generation of GPUs.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (Apr 26, 2013)

So till now u guys are suggesting that if i want to do gaming and other stuff like after effects, sony vegas and recording gameplay (battlefield 3, crysis 3) for a more future proof, efficient, cooler, faster solution i should go with the i7 4770k. Should i wait for broadwell or whatever amd comes up with? 

And which motherboard to buy, i was thinking of getting either an Asus Maximus V Formula or an MSI z77 big bang, obviously i go will go with whatever comes for haswell, i guess the chipset would be z87. Is there any other range of motherboards that i should buy? And one last question, should i go with the lower end of the intel extreme platform i.e. x79 something like a 3820 or the 4820 if thats the successor?


----------



## de.das.dude (Apr 26, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> So till now u guys are suggesting that if i want to do gaming and other stuff like *after effects, sony vegas and recording gameplay *(battlefield 3, crysis 3) for a more future proof, efficient, cooler, faster solution i should go with the i7 4770k. Should i wait for broadwell or whatever amd comes up with?
> 
> And which motherboard to buy, i was thinking of getting either an Asus Maximus V Formula or an MSI z77 big bang, obviously i go will go with whatever comes for haswell, i guess the chipset would be z87. Is there any other range of motherboards that i should buy? And one last question, should i go with the lower end of the intel extreme platform i.e. x79 something like a 3820 or the 4820 if thats the successor?



for those i would suggest a 8350. proper 8 core or not, it will help a lot!


----------



## Jack1n (Apr 26, 2013)

You should wait for haswell since its around the corner,but dont wait for broadwell since if you go for the waiting game you will wait forever,the best option IMO is a 4770k,the only advantage the 4820 will have is quad channel memory but it will be slower clock for clock and you will have sufficient bandwidth with duel channel anyhow.


----------



## d1nky (Apr 26, 2013)

fuck the haters and go overkill!

get the 4770k, 8350 serves its purpose well but why choose between something about to be updated and something updated.

ive heard theres an 8550fx or something coming soon and garuanteed there will be more. same as intel .

4770k plus tri fire or tri sli, last ya years and years


----------



## Jack1n (Apr 26, 2013)

The 8350 does have better value than the i7 but if you can afford it you should get the 4770k.


----------



## N3trox (Apr 26, 2013)

it's for gaming, so definately FX 8350


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 26, 2013)

All the reviews I have seen show Intel i5/i7 being ahead by a good margin compared to the 8350 in gaming, has something changed? 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350_6.html#sect0

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2012/test-amd-fx-8350-vishera/6/


We don't know how the 4770k will stack up to AMD in encoding though am willing to bet it will match if not beat it in most tests. However gaming alone it should be 20% faster.


----------



## chinmi (Apr 26, 2013)

get what is cheaper, and when hasswell came out upgrade to that one


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 26, 2013)

chinmi said:


> get what is cheaper, and when hasswell came out upgrade to that one



Why get what is cheaper if his budget will allow him to have what is best performance? Also if he gets the cheapest option he will have to buy a new motherboard and processor for haswell as 8350 is definately the cheaper option..


----------



## d1nky (Apr 26, 2013)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Why get what is cheaper if his budget will allow him to have what is best performance? Also if he gets the cheapest option he will have to buy a new motherboard and processor for haswell as 8350 is definately the cheaper option..



definitely, hasnt anyone said its cheaper to buy once than twice!!


----------



## Mathragh (Apr 26, 2013)

NdMk2o1o said:


> All the reviews I have seen show Intel i5/i7 being ahead by a good margin compared to the 8350 in gaming, has something changed?
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
> 
> ...



I suppose this may have some influence : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 26, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> I suppose this may have some influence : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen



Ah so ports will most likely run better on AMD when the new gen hits, possibly/probably though perhaps maybe not. Good info there


----------



## ueutyi (Apr 27, 2013)

4770k


----------



## HD64G (Apr 27, 2013)

8350 without the least hesitation. Price-performance-upgradeability combined=unbeatable!


----------



## Kaynar (Apr 27, 2013)

You can't base yourself on speculations about AMD performing better cause next gen console is made by AMD. Thats just wrong. The intel CPUs have 4 cores but they have HT plus they are better than AMD clock-for-clock and both can overclock well.

You also cannot know if AMD is once again gonna fail with their next CPU that matches the socket of the 8350, as bulldozer was a failure.

Finally, we only have rumors of Intel's pricing on the new CPUs, while obviously the vendors will keep a larger profit margin the first months. Therefore I expect the 4770K+motherboard to be considerably more expensive than the AMD 8350 system. My opinion is that if you have the money you should go for the new i7 CPUs a few months after they are out. You are asking if you should wait for Broadwell etc... well you can always play the waiting game but it is always the same result: at that time you will be wondering if you should wait for what comes after Broadwell...


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 27, 2013)

Kaynar said:


> The intel CPUs have 4 cores but they have HT plus they are better than AMD clock-for-clock



That depends on your workload. Single threaded does great on Intel but your IPC starts dropping like a fly as soon as your start using HT cores. At least AMD gives you almost linearly consistent performance across all of its cores, so it doesn't drop off much faster once you start using more than 4 cores like the i7 does.

Any application that fully utilizes the resources of a 3770k or a 8350 will find that the 8350 will pull ahead in most cases (they tend to be integer cases, if FP isn't optimized with FMA,) and that is only because HT is slow because it's using spare resources as opposed to dedicated resouces in AMD's chips (sans FP unit, but that's a different argument because of how it works). If you're only gaming, Intel is the better option and if you want a boost in multi-threaded performance an i7 will fit the bill nicely, but if you're regularly going to be using software that knows how to use 8 cores, go with the 8350. It will cost less and will get the same amount of work if not more done.

So make your decision based on workload. More often than not, if you need more than an i5, the 8350 probably will be acceptable because anyone who needs an i7 with that kind of ability to thread should work nicely on the 8350 as well. I would consider the i7 an indulgence more than anything else.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (Apr 27, 2013)

Kaynar said:


> You can't base yourself on speculations about AMD performing better cause next gen console is made by AMD. Thats just wrong. The intel CPUs have 4 cores but they have HT plus they are better than AMD clock-for-clock and both can overclock well.
> 
> You also cannot know if AMD is once again gonna fail with their next CPU that matches the socket of the 8350, as bulldozer was a failure.
> 
> Finally, we only have rumors of Intel's pricing on the new CPUs, while obviously the vendors will keep a larger profit margin the first months. Therefore I expect the 4770K+motherboard to be considerably more expensive than the AMD 8350 system. My opinion is that if you have the money you should go for the new i7 CPUs a few months after they are out. You are asking if you should wait for Broadwell etc... well you can always play the waiting game but it is always the same result: at that time you will be wondering if you should wait for what comes after Broadwell...



I was thinking of waiting for broadwell cause it has 14nm and realize that then i should wait for skylake as it would support ddr4 and i realized its a never ending game. I currently have an hd 7950 and still i cant play battlefield 3 cause i have a core 2 duo e7400. And i have thought that even if next gen games require more cores and i7 is a safer bet than i5 and fx 8350 cause it has the high single thread performance of intel and 8 threads like the 8350 and i do have the money to get the 4770k (keep in mind its almost 50% more expensive in my country) and i cant go any higher due to the high costs. I have to keep this system for the next 5 years so i dont mind spending extra.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 27, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I was thinking of waiting for broadwell cause it has 14nm and realize that then i should wait for skylake as it would support ddr4 and i realized its a never ending game. I currently have an hd 7950 and still i cant play battlefield 3 cause i have a core 2 duo e7400. And i have thought that even if next gen games require more cores and i7 is a safer bet than i5 and fx 8350 cause it has the high single thread performance of intel and 8 threads like the 8350 and i do have the money to get the 4770k (keep in mind its almost 50% more expensive in my country) and i cant go any higher due to the high costs. I have to keep this system for the next 5 years so i dont mind spending extra.



The 7950 is a pretty high end card, I would keep everything the same and find a second hand Quad Core Q9xxx series. Should be more than enough for BF3. I'm running it maxed out on an Athlon II X4 620 so a Q9xxx series would be fine for a cheap upgrade.


----------



## Kaynar (Apr 27, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> That depends on your workload. Single threaded does great on Intel but your IPC starts dropping like a fly as soon as your start using HT cores.



Lol didn't know that...



ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I was thinking of waiting for broadwell cause it has 14nm and realize that then i should wait for skylake as it would support ddr4 and i realized its a never ending game. I currently have an hd 7950 and still i cant play battlefield 3 cause i have a core 2 duo e7400. And i have thought that even if next gen games require more cores and i7 is a safer bet than i5 and fx 8350 cause it has the high single thread performance of intel and 8 threads like the 8350 and i do have the money to get the 4770k (keep in mind its almost 50% more expensive in my country) and i cant go any higher due to the high costs. I have to keep this system for the next 5 years so i dont mind spending extra.



yeah I've been thinking about upgrading too, as i got an i7 930 at 4ghz but would like something newer mostly because of the higher overclocks achievable with watercooling (near 5ghz). I'm most probably going for 4770k if the price is not too high and they OC well. If, as you say, the 4770k woud be 50% more expensive (you didn't specify what so i can assume u either compare to the price in another country or the price of the 8350 at your seller), then I would really consider the 8350 if it is "normally" priced.


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 27, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Nobody knows if next gen games will play better on AMD or Intel, it is mere speculation.
> Just because the company makes the hardware for the consoles doesnt mean they'll run the same at all, otherwise everything would be running on AMD like shit on a shovel.
> 
> I have a 3570k and an 8350. Neither show any real world difference to me, a lot of the time they trade blows, but the Intel comes out on top by small margins in games.
> ...



I would suggest going AMD then if you don't perceive much of a difference if only simply because AMD likes to keeps it's sockets around a lot longer then Intel.


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2013)

AMD lost the CPU performance battle years ago.

It's not just performance either. I've experiences less frustrating system glitches with Intel systems too.

Go with Intel.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (Apr 27, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> The 7950 is a pretty high end card, I would keep everything the same and find a second hand Quad Core Q9xxx series. Should be more than enough for BF3. I'm running it maxed out on an Athlon II X4 620 so a Q9xxx series would be fine for a cheap upgrade.



Dude i am not just gonna play battlefield 3 for the rest of my life!!! I will be playing battlefield 4 and others to come.

And can i start some kind of poll so that its easier to get an idea of what people think is better between the fx 8350 and i7 4770k


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 27, 2013)

guess I'm the only one that's actually going to vote.


----------



## Nordic (Apr 27, 2013)

You mention you are planning on having this system for 5 years or so. If amd did 2-3 more am3+ cpu's would you ever consider upgrading to them?


----------



## toilet pepper (Apr 27, 2013)

I am an AMD supporter (not fanboy). Most of my parts are from AMD as I started with a very cheap AMD board and an Athlon x2 240. I got to upgrade my processor to an Athlon x4 640 and kept the board which I eventually replaced with the one I'm using. After I had the budget to change my CPU, I was able to upgrade to an 8320 which I clocked to 4.3Ghz 24/7. The only good thing with going AMD is the upgrade path, you could move up or down a tier with the right board.

No doubt if I had the money to purchase an i7 and a decent board for it I'd get one. Both high-end Intel boards and CPUs here cost twice the price of an AMD set.


----------



## de.das.dude (Apr 27, 2013)

qubit said:


> AMD lost the CPU performance battle years ago.
> 
> It's not just performance either. *I've experiences less frustrating system glitches with Intel systems too.*
> 
> Go with Intel.



its been the opposite for me.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Apr 27, 2013)

I voted AMD because just about everything I own is Amd powerd


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 27, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> Dude i am not just gonna play battlefield 3 for the rest of my life!!! I will be playing battlefield 4 and others to come.
> 
> And can i start some kind of poll so that its easier to get an idea of what people think is better between the fx 8350 and i7 4770k



I've had my Athlon II X4 since 2009 and there isn't a single game it can't destroy, I can't see it struggling for a long time to come. 

The Core 2 Quad was just a solution to hold off the big upgrade whilst you await Steamroller etc. If you're content on a big upgrade I'd get the FX 8350 because it'll free up money towards a better GPU and more RAM whilst giving you choice to upgrade architectures etc. If money is no object and you are OK with potentially no upgrade path then the i7 4770k.


----------



## d1nky (Apr 27, 2013)

funny i had the fx4100/7950 and it struggled maxed settings on some big games, paired it with an 8350 and its torn the ass off games.

and op if youre waiting, id suggest to wait till the new components are out (like you said, wait till the end of the year) you can then ask the same question, once everything is reviewed etc.


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> its been the opposite for me.



I believe that. It's different for everybody.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 27, 2013)

This go AMD because next gen consoles use it is utter nonsense. I know people still dig that underdog shit but when you have to twist things around that much to justify your purchase you know something is off. You see that PS4/PC comparison? Funny it looks better on a nvidia card despite the PS4 being AMD. This is a telling example because you know many many next gen games will use that engine. I'd bet the CPU was Intel as well. This comparison is completely ridiculous. I'd recommend a 2700k over a 8350 as it has both a power AND performance advantage, and yet here we're comparing it to the 4770k? This is such a misinformation and fan boy manufactured contest.

Let's consider the scenario where the consoles using AMD leads to an advantage for them. Even then there's is no chance of that performance gap closing.


----------



## d1nky (Apr 27, 2013)

i cant believe we're comparing an 'about to be realeased cpu' to a two year old cpu! 

i have the 8350, if i had the money id get the 4770k and run tri fire! if i had the money i may have an intel rig as well as the amd! but amd deliver performance for budget, intel deliver superior performance for no budget!

and lan derf ha has big point, i being a big amd/ati fan boy like AMD products and stick by it, but i also have a brain and a budget!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 28, 2013)

I was probably a bit heavy handed. The Crysis 3 benchmark is promising, but cryengine has terrible market penetration compared to unreal.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 28, 2013)

d1nky said:


> i being a big amd/ati fan boy like AMD products and stick by it, but i also have a brain and a budget!



I'm an AMD fan too, but that didn't stop be from choosing Intel because I had the budget for it. Also be careful of you usage of the word budget. What you're describing is cost effectiveness. There is a difference between having a budget of 800 USD and 1800 USD and someone with the latter is more likely to get the hardware that's faster across the board because he or she can and would be willing to invest more. It's true that there is a point of diminishing returns, but for some people (and I count myself included,) that the extra cost for that performance and extra features is worth it. I would rather spend a little more and get something good instead of spending less and get something okay, that's just me though.

Also, I would like to note that performance isn't always everything.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 28, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Nobody knows if next gen games will play better on AMD or Intel, it is mere speculation.
> Just because the company makes the hardware for the consoles doesnt mean they'll run the same at all, otherwise everything would be running on AMD like shit on a shovel.
> 
> I have a 3570k and an 8350. Neither show any real world difference to me, a lot of the time they trade blows, but the Intel comes out on top by small margins in games.
> ...


  There is nothing logical from what you state to indicate I4770K will be better than an 8 core steamroller cpu. Totally conjecture nothing objective at all to base your recommendation on. When steamroller releases, then you have a basis for comparison. That is what you should have said to be objective.


----------



## Inceptor (Apr 28, 2013)

If it's for gaming, just buy what you can afford.  
At this point, either would be fine, as long as you have a good gpu.


----------



## LinkPro (Apr 28, 2013)

For CPU-intensive games like Starcraft II or many other RTS games I can see the CPU being important. My Phenom II based system suffers quite a bit in the late game after I reset the CPU overclock (used to be a 955 @ 3.8). Intel's better per-core performance will most likely be favorable here. I don't know if the 8350 improves on that, but for my next upgrade which will be this summer I'm probably going with Intel.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 29, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> there wont be any difference in gaming. if you just plan on gaming, i would suggest a FX6300, and a really beefy graphics card.



Eh from what I'm seeing, theres a few games that an OC on the 8350 doesn't seem to do anything. I'm talking mostly about CPU dependent games like Skyrim where the 8350 seems to fall behind.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Eh from what I'm seeing, theres a few games that an OC on the 8350 doesn't seem to do anything. I'm talking mostly about CPU dependent games like Skyrim where the 8350 seems to fall behind.


Yes , Sky Rim is one of those POORLY Designed games that don't provide threads for multiple cores. I purposely refuse to buy such games and send emails to the design company telling them how ignorant they are for producing games without threads. Fortunately more and more games are being designed with multi-core design and perform well on the 8350.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

LinkPro said:


> For CPU-intensive games like Starcraft II or many other RTS games I can see the CPU being important. My Phenom II based system suffers quite a bit in the late game after I reset the CPU overclock (used to be a 955 @ 3.8). Intel's better per-core performance will most likely be favorable here. I don't know if the 8350 improves on that, but for my next upgrade which will be this summer I'm probably going with Intel.


 
If that is your decision , in my opinion, it is the lazy way to go. Until consumers put more pressure on game designers to provide multi-core support rip-off game designers will continue their shoddy program designs. It is in the interest of consumers to get off their asses and push for progress instead of archaic practices that hold back software design progress.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 29, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> If that is your decision , in my opinion, it is the lazy way to go. Until consumers put more pressure on game designers to provide multi-core support rip-off game designers will continue their shoddy program designs. It is in the interest of consumers to get off their asses and push for progress instead of archaic practices that hold back software design progress.



I say this to every person who mentioned, this.

If it's so easy to make stuff multi-threaded, why don't you do it? It's much easier to say something than to actually do it. I think you need to know what you're talking about before implying that it doesn't take effort to do this. Also more often than not, games don't need to be multi-threaded and as you can see a lot of games that really need to be and games that generally speaking don't need, it don't have it.

The game shapes the requirements, not the other way around.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 29, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> If that is your decision , in my opinion, it is the lazy way to go. Until consumers put more pressure on game designers to provide multi-core support rip-off game designers will continue their shoddy program designs. It is in the interest of consumers to get off their asses and push for progress instead of archaic practices that hold back software design progress.



It sure didnt work for SimCity now did it. They listened, and they threw the more-than-one-core-please request in the bin and released it anyway. The game sucked. They didnt listen to the consumers and make a change, they simply did what they wanted. As most other companies do.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 29, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I say this to every person who mentioned, this.
> 
> If it's so easy to make stuff multi-threaded, why don't you do it? It's much easier to say something than to actually do it. I think you need to know what you're talking about before implying that it doesn't take effort to do this. Also more often than not, games don't need to be multi-threaded and as you can see a lot of games that really need to be and games that generally speaking don't need, it don't have it.
> 
> The game shapes the requirements, not the other way around.


Really ,,  right ill get started on the multi core version of k dog killer right away then , ill just go back to uni and learn comp programming and just give up my PAid job as a eng so I can one day play my own game that id have built,  or you could get effin real.

ALL MOST all game devs  are upping their prices for games and including extra cost dlc so I say feck em its Their job to inovate THEIR JOB , and dont talk such drivel aquinas.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 29, 2013)

Probability of seeing poorly threaded games is still pretty high for the next few years, so unless you know you will be spending the majority of your time in games capable of multicore (eg Battlefield series), you are better off with 4770K. If you do know that you will be spending more time on multicore games, then its more or less a coinflip. They are both sufficiently powerful and performs similarly enough for you not to regret going either way. Or wait for Haswell


----------



## btarunr (Apr 29, 2013)

You're faced with a delicious catch-22.
Get +15~20% performance and 25~35% lower power draw, with i7-4770K
Get +5% frame-rates across your games with the $330 i7-4770K
Get +20% frame-rates by buying a $199 FX-8350, and spending the $131 you save on a better graphics card*

*$330 Core i7-4770K + $200 GeForce GTX 660 (total $530) will give you lower frame-rates than $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530).


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> I say this to every person who mentioned, this.
> 
> If it's so easy to make stuff multi-threaded, why don't you do it? It's much easier to say something than to actually do it. I think you need to know what you're talking about before implying that it doesn't take effort to do this. Also more often than not, games don't need to be multi-threaded and as you can see a lot of games that really need to be and games that generally speaking don't need, it don't have it.
> 
> The game shapes the requirements, not the other way around.


But in fact you are wrong. Even word processors benefit with muliti-threading. I was an os/2 user for many years. The premier word processor for os/2 was a product called Describe. They ran separate threads for spell-check and undo ,which was unlimited.  The processor was designed for large manuscripts or documents. The threading made it possible for the unlimited undo and made spell check much faster.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Really ,,  right ill get started on the multi core version of k dog killer right away then , ill just go back to uni and learn comp programming and just give up my PAid job as a eng so I can one day play my own game that id have built,  or you could get effin real.
> 
> ALL MOST all game devs  are upping their prices for games and including extra cost dlc so I say feck em its Their job to inovate THEIR JOB , and dont talk such drivel aquinas.


 You are so much on point. If effort is required to produce a quality product with intelligent design then these bastards have every responsibility to do so. Lazy , smug, and poorly trained are the words that come to mind.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 29, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> You are so much on point. If effort is required to produce a quality product with intelligent design then these bastards have every responsibility to do so. Lazy , smug, and poorly trained are the words that come to mind.



The fact that they don't and there will still be people who use it anyway means that their product is good enough for some, and we have to optimise this non-ideal situation. Now off your high horse and come back to reality


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2013)

btarunr said:


> You're faced with a delicious catch-22.
> Get +15~20% performance and 25~35% lower power draw, with i7-4770K
> Get +5% frame-rates across your games with the $330 i7-4770K
> Get +20% frame-rates by buying a $199 FX-8350, and spending the $131 you save on a better graphics card*
> ...


Assuming no overclocking. Once you jump into that realm, that 8350 needs A LOT better than a $120 board to hold overclocks well (vs SB/IB that does fine around there), not to mention a monster air cooler or AIO to keep temps of the octo under control.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 29, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Really ,,  right ill get started on the multi core version of k dog killer right away then , ill just go back to uni and learn comp programming and just give up my PAid job as a eng so I can one day play my own game that id have built,  or you could get effin real.
> 
> ALL MOST all game devs  are upping their prices for games and including extra cost dlc so I say feck em its Their job to inovate THEIR JOB , and dont talk such drivel aquinas.




Whilst I agree with some of your comment it would have had more impact if a slight attempt to employ basic grammar, punctuation and correct spelling. The clearer your sentence structure the better your argument will be understood. It's a pity that I understand some of the non-native English speakers in this forum better than a British, United Kingdom resident from Manchester? 


Some slight correction. Sorry It was so bad I couldn't fix it all.




> Really? Right I will get started on the multi core version of k dog killer right away and then I'll just go back to university and learn computer programming. Then give up my paid job as a engineer so I play the game that I've built. Alternatively, you could get real.
> 
> Almost all game developers are upping their prices for games and including extra cost of downloadable content, so I say leave them alone, it's their job to innovate and their job only. Don't talk such drivel Aquinus.


----------



## d1nky (Apr 29, 2013)

this guys planning on waiting till later to buy such cpu/mobo, and wants something to last 5-6years. if i remember correctly, without quoting as well. 

so if he could wait till the end of the year, what sort of components are expected then?

and wouldnt buying a 2 year old processor be the wrong choice? especially as games etc are more than likely to evolve.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 29, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Whilst I agree with some of your comment it would have had more impact if a slight attempt to employ basic grammar, punctuation and correct spelling. The clearer your sentence structure the better your argument will be understood. It's a pity that I understand some of the non-native English speakers in this forum better than a British, United Kingdom resident from Manchester?
> 
> 
> Some slight correction. Sorry It was so bad I couldn't fix it all.



And what.
Im not an English teacher , im an engineer with a shit phone.
 I do apologise ..


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

d1nky said:


> this guys planning on waiting till later to buy such cpu/mobo, and wants something to last 5-6years. if i remember correctly, without quoting as well.
> 
> so if he could wait till the end of the year, what sort of components are expected then?
> 
> and wouldnt buying a 2 year old processor be the wrong choice? especially as games etc are more than likely to evolve.



How would buying  a steamroller FX processor which will be available in the 4th quarter be a 2 year old CPU? Please read before you post.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Assuming no overclocking. Once you jump into that realm, that 8350 needs A LOT better than a $120 board to hold overclocks well (vs SB/IB that does fine around there), not to mention a monster air cooler or AIO to keep temps of the octo under control.




Oh I see you are back again. No further comments until the FX steamroller is released in 4th quarter.Then we can answer the chaps question of which CPU would be best.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2013)

"Back again"? Huh? 

Anyhoo - I addressed the question with KNOWN information is all. Its not my fault he starts the thread 9 months prematurely. Now, go troll someone else who will take your bait ehh?


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 29, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> "Back again"? Huh?
> 
> Anyhoo - I addressed the question with KNOWN information is all. Its not my fault he starts the thread 9 months prematurely. Now, go troll someone else who will take your bait ehh?



You misinterpreted my remarks. I am saying we really have to wait and since he can wait a while, it makes sense to withhold a recommendation until we have more information. I was not merely responding to you but the whole conversation.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2013)

If you are not talking to XXXX, then dont quote XXXX next time.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 29, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> But in fact you are wrong. Even word processors benefit with muliti-threading. I was an os/2 user for many years. The premier word processor for os/2 was a product called Describe. They ran separate threads for spell-check and undo ,which was unlimited. The processor was designed for large manuscripts or documents. The threading made it possible for the unlimited undo and made spell check much faster.



Yeah, back when CPUs were running at 33Mhz or less. The point is with a *modern cpu with a modern OS* the difference won't be noticeable for a lot of tasks and the overhead of making certain tasks multi-threaded doesn't outweigh the costs.

The simple fact is that games deal with data that's a bit more complex than a word processor document and there are interdependencies where two or more threads. It is very possible that the number of locks required to ensure that data is consistent and that race conditions don't occur, you're looking at a lot of overhead and possibly a huge change to your code base to accommodate that design.

More companies than not use existing code to write applications and writing something new from scratch takes a lot of time, money, and effort. Unless it needs to be done, money tends to be more important than performance unless performance costs you money and despite people complaining about games not being well multi-threaded, people are still going to buy their games weather or not they change their strategy.

It all comes down to money, money, money.


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Apr 29, 2013)

lol boy let the amd intel war begin


----------



## d1nky (Apr 29, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> How would buying  a steamroller FX processor which will be available in the 4th quarter be a 2 year old CPU? Please read before you post.



my apologies, i thought the FX8350 was released in 2011, which it was actually october 2012. ive had one hell of a weekend and still feel drunk! 

the op asked 4770k or 8350? and then later added a poll including steamroller.

he also said about waiting till the end of the year, which is why i said. wouldnt it be better to ask this question then, and why compare a one year old cpu (corrected) against a brand new relased cpu. 

its not that im trolling, i just dont see how we can compare something hypothetical

p.s i was meaning the fx8350 being the old cpu. you misunderstood i think


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 29, 2013)

skellattarr said:


> lol boy let the amd intel war begin



If you have nothing better to say can you kindly please not post anything?


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (Apr 29, 2013)

btarunr said:


> You're faced with a delicious catch-22.
> Get +15~20% performance and 25~35% lower power draw, with i7-4770K
> Get +5% frame-rates across your games with the $330 i7-4770K
> Get +20% frame-rates by buying a $199 FX-8350, and spending the $131 you save on a better graphics card*
> ...



I want to say something here, i know that the second combination is a better option for the cost but i will have to keep my new CPU and new GPU (gtx 770 or hd 8950) for 5 years, i bought a Core 2 Duo e7400 2.8ghz 4 years ago and i regret my decision to save on my CPU and go for a better GPU since i am only able to utilise 40% of my current card. I have the money to get a 4770k and a gr8 GPU, actually for reference 3770k costs $430 in my country, and a 670 cost $560 so its really expensive. These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years and my question is it capable to survive for 5 years. 

And when is steam roller coming and what are the new features? Because some on this forum are suggesting wait for steamroller to come out and then compare the highest version with the 4770k.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 29, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I want to say something here, i know that the second combination is a better option for the cost but i will have to keep my new CPU and new GPU (gtx 770 or hd 8950) for 5 years, i bought a Core 2 Duo e7400 2.8ghz 4 years ago and i regret my decision to save on my CPU and go for a better GPU since i am only able to utilise 40% of my current card. I have the money to get a 4770k and a gr8 GPU, actually for reference 3770k costs $430 in my country, and a 670 cost $560 so its really expensive. These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years and my question is it capable to survive for 5 years.
> 
> And when is steam roller coming and what are the new features? Because some on this forum are suggesting wait for steamroller to come out and then compare the highest version with the 4770k.


Whilst no release date has been announced that I know of , most are expecting steamroller in Q3-4 of this year.
It might well be worth the wait and the core count on cpus for consumers won't go past 8 for a fairly long time imho as consoles will dictate typical core use in games for years to come. 
Yeah 12 -16  cores might already be out but I mean common place and utilised effectively,  so I happily bought  an 8350 expecting 4-5 years good use of it though next swap for me would have to be the motherboard to add pciex 3 and ddr4 perhaps.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 29, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> ..... I have the money to get a 4770k and a gr8 GPU, actually for reference 3770k costs $430 in my country, and a 670 cost $560 so its really expensive. These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years and my question is it capable to survive for 5 years....



If you have the money to buy the 4770K + gr8 GPU then why is the need for this discussion?

And what makes you think that FX-8350 + 670 will survive for 2 yrs and not so for 5+ yrs?  Newer games that are released utilize more than 4 cores and am sure this will get better and better.  Games will be GPU challenged.

And FYI the PC market might die because of the hand held devices flooding the market, you never know.

my 2 cents.


----------



## Ikaruga (Apr 29, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I want to say something here, i know that the second combination is a better option for the cost but i will have to keep my new CPU and new GPU (gtx 770 or hd 8950) for 5 years, i bought a Core 2 Duo e7400 2.8ghz 4 years ago and i regret my decision to save on my CPU and go for a better GPU since i am only able to utilise 40% of my current card. I have the money to get a 4770k and a gr8 GPU, actually for reference 3770k costs $430 in my country, and a 670 cost $560 so its really expensive. These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years and my question is it capable to survive for 5 years.
> 
> And when is steam roller coming and what are the new features? Because some on this forum are suggesting wait for steamroller to come out and then compare the highest version with the 4770k.



We are not at peak atm (performance wise). If you would have bought a 2600K at Sandy times and OC-ed it to the roof, that config would have been good for 5 years, but not Ivy or Haswell, they are just "patching" good old Sandy at Oregon.
Intel is much better than AMD (it's night and day tbh), but they are going downhill bad, why AMD is worse but going up, and who knows, perhaps Steamroller will be something big. 
Intel will kick in again when the Haifa team will be ready with their Skylake (14nm). Those guys never disappoint, and that will be Intel's next peak, and that will be the time when you will have to buy the best option again, which will hold it's value for a long time.

*edit*.: So I suggest get something what's "best for the buck" mid-range now, something good enough but not too expensive. The time is just not right to spend money on the top high-end atm in my opinion.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 29, 2013)

Ikaruga said:


> We are not at peak atm (performance wise). If you would have bought a 2600K at Sandy times and OC-ed it to the roof, that config would have been good for 5 years, but not Ivy or Haswell, they are just "patching" good old Sandy at Oregon.
> Intel is much better than AMD (it's night and day tbh), but they are going downhill bad, why AMD is worse but going up, and who knows, perhaps Steamroller will be something big.
> Intel will kick in again when the Haifa team will be ready with their Skylake (14nm). Those guys never disappoint, and that will be Intel's next peak, and that will be the time when you will have to buy the best option again, which will hold it's value for a long time.
> 
> *edit*.: So I suggest get something what's "best for the buck" mid-range now, something good enough but not too expensive. The time is just not right to spend money on the top high-end atm in my opinion.



Speaks a lot of sense regarding Intel imho and reasonable end point to be fair


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 30, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> Yes , Sky Rim is one of those POORLY Designed games that don't provide threads for multiple cores. I purposely refuse to buy such games and send emails to the design company telling them how ignorant they are for producing games without threads. Fortunately more and more games are being designed with multi-core design and perform well on the 8350.



I agree completely, they talked about it being a new engine, but it's just renamed and tweaked, same engine they been running for about a decade. Sadly though, the game is so damn fun, despite the crappy optimizations for current hardware, I still want to play.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 30, 2013)

Any of those CPU's would do just fine, but obviously the 4770k will be the faster of the two. I can tell you now my 8350 plays all the games I play easily, doesn't break a sweat at all and is alot faster then my 965 (yes in gaming). 

Im like you I want a system to last me a long time. I built this system to last me a good 5-6yrs as I don't play games as much as I used to (getting old) and the games that come out even my old 965 would still be able to play them no worries, so getting the 8 core set me up for now and for the future. I don't see games getting much more demanding but hopefully more optimised for the hardware we have now. Its not that the hardware is slow its that the software needs to catch up.

The choice is yours, either will do the job, it all comes down to one thing, price, save some going the AMD or spend big and go the intel for that little extra boost


----------



## techtard (Apr 30, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Assuming no overclocking. Once you jump into that realm, that 8350 needs A LOT better than a $120 board to hold overclocks well (vs SB/IB that does fine around there), not to mention a monster air cooler or AIO to keep temps of the octo under control.



I'm hitting 5.0 ghz on a $100 ASUS M5a97 Rev 2.0 mobo paired with an FX-8320.  It does however, require monster cooling like you said. And the heat it throws out, it's like having an electric heater under my desk.

As some others have said, go for whatever you can get cheaper. An FX platform with a more powerful GPU will be just as good in most games, except for a few that are poorly programmed, or use very ancient game engines & are CPU-bound.

nVidia is supposedly releasing the 7xx series soon, maybe get an FX based PC + a high end GTX 770.


----------



## Lionheart (Apr 30, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> If you have nothing better to say can you kindly please not post anything?



He was stating the obvious I see nothing wrong with that


----------



## btarunr (Apr 30, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I want to say something here, i know that the second combination is a better option for the cost but i will have to keep my new CPU and new GPU (gtx 770 or hd 8950) for 5 years, i bought a Core 2 Duo e7400 2.8ghz 4 years ago and i regret my decision to save on my CPU and go for a better GPU since i am only able to utilise 40% of my current card. I have the money to get a 4770k and a gr8 GPU, actually for reference 3770k costs $430 in my country, and a 670 cost $560 so its really expensive. These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years and my question is it capable to survive for 5 years.
> 
> And when is steam roller coming and what are the new features? Because some on this forum are suggesting wait for steamroller to come out and then compare the highest version with the 4770k.



Then it's i7-4770K for you. I wouldn't wait for Steamroller, I have no reason to think it will be >5% performance over FX-8350.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 30, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> i bought a Core 2 Duo e7400 2.8ghz 4 years ago and i regret my decision to save on my CPU and go for a better GPU since i am only able to utilise 40% of my current card.



No CPU 4 years ago would be powerful enough to ultilise a modern video card to it's full potential. The best you couldn't have got was a Core 2 Quad which would be playing today's games fine but even so a modern GPU wouldn't be utilised fully.




ANIR0X2K00L said:


> These types of setups " $200 FX-8350 + $330 GeForce GTX 670 (total $530)" are for those who want to keep their systems for 2 years




Says who? I've been running a crappy Athlon II X4 since 2009, and there isn't a single game it cannot play maxed out today. I could probably hang onto it for another 2 years if I wanted to making 6 years total.




ANIR0X2K00L said:


> my question is it capable to survive for 5 years.



There is no correct answer. Technology moves so fast so what we recommend today might be a lemon for longevity. IMO the FX would last longer for gaming, in the short distant future you'll get better performance as it'll be paired with a faster GPU and in the long distant future you'll get better performance due to it being a genuine 8 core CPU.


----------



## Pinscher (Apr 30, 2013)

ATI crossfire set ups favor intel cpu's.
Where as Nvidia sli set ups perform better than ATI crossfire on AMD cpu's.

the 8350 is at least 140 bucks cheaper then that i7.. is it even available yet?
keep in mind that if you plan to do SLI or crossfire, i'd use an intel system since AMD platform offers diminishing returns... weird huh?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html

Read it and weep.



Dent1 said:


> No CPU 4 years ago would be powerful enough to ultilise a modern video card to it's full potential. The best you couldn't have got was a Core 2 Quad which would be playing today's games fine but even so a modern GPU wouldn't be utilised fully.



Dude, seriously?
If you're playing a game that is CPUdependent, then what you say is true to a point.  A core 2 due E8400  will Over clock to 4 ghzand is more than enough CPUfor you to play  the games of today.

That cpu is 7 years old.

If you plan to run dual GPU's, a system that uses PCIe 1.0 only has enough bandwidth for a single modern GPU. cutting it down to x8x8 will bottleneck your graphics cards.

any non CPU dependent game will utilized your modern GPU to it's full potential on a CPU from up to 7 years ago.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 30, 2013)

Pinscher said:


> Dude, seriously?
> If you're playing a game that is CPUdependent, then what you say is true to a point.  A core 2 due E8400  will Over clock to 4 ghzand is more than enough CPUfor you to play  the games of today.
> 
> That cpu is 7 years old.
> ...



Please use the Edit function instead of double posting


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> If you have nothing better to say can you kindly please not post anything?



There was NOTHING wrong with his comment. You went out of bounds in your moderation. He was on topic and polite. Your role is not to censor but to keep things civil. He was civil. You owe him an apology.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 30, 2013)

Pinscher said:


> Dude, seriously?
> If you're playing a game that is CPUdependent, then what you say is true to a point.  A core 2 due E8400  will Over clock to 4 ghzand is more than enough CPUfor you to play  the games of today.
> 
> That cpu is 7 years old.
> ...



The E8400 is 5 years old. Released January 2008.

http://ark.intel.com/products/33910

I was careful with my wording, I wasn't implying that E7400 coupled with a modern GPU couldn't play games well. But just because it can play games well doesn't mean it pushing the GPU to its full potential.

If an Core 2 Duo could push a modern GPU to it's full potential then a Core 2 Duo E7400 + ATI 7970 would perform identical to an i7 4770k + ATI 7970 in single threaded games. The latter would have double the frame rate whether the game is single thread or not. (That is not to say the former couldn't max out most games, it would) What you're forgeting is an older CPU has slower instructions per clock and access to slower memory bandwidth so even in a single threaded environment it would be signficantly slower.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 30, 2013)

Lionheart said:


> He was stating the obvious I see nothing wrong with that





os2wiz said:


> There was NOTHING wrong with his comment. You went out of bounds in your moderation. He was on topic and polite. Your role is not to censor but to keep things civil. He was civil. You owe him an apology.



Should we let the forums fill up with comments like "lolwut", "Cheezburgers!" and other useless post like that then? I don't see anything wrong with posting banter either, but I have been in the forum long enough to know what once comments like this creep in, the thread derails within a page and becomes completely useless for OP. Did I censor him? I didn't delete the post (quite a few of us will do that without batting an eyelid). Enough of this sidetracking, if you are not too happy with the way I moderate please feel free to make a complaint, and I shall be judged by the superiors.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 30, 2013)

My Vote:

Intel i7-4770K

Reasoning:

I would take the i7 for a number of reasons.  For starters, it will consume less power and generate less heat than the AMD alternative.  Nect, you said your primary focus was gaming, there are both quite a few games that favor Intel CPU's due to using abstract instruction sets, and a lot of games that use 4 or less threads--which also favors Intel.  The only games I can think of where AMD CPU's are on equal footing and there are up to or more than 8 threads supported, are Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033.  Now even with those two titles, BF3 somewhat favors Intel CPU's as well as supporting a maximum of 8 threads--which would lead to the i7 outperforming the FX-8350.

There's also the fact that even though next-gen consoles will have up to 8 threads available, it doesn't immediately mean every game that comes out will support 8 threads.  It will probably take 2-3 more years to see games optimized for that, which means the hardware in question will already be up to 3 years old, and still kicking, at that point, there will be substantially faster hardware available from Intel and AMD, and what you picked at this point will almost seem irrelevant.  The fact is almost all games being released this year will probably use 1-4 threads, and most of the games for the next ~3 years will probably use ~4 threads.

Now there's always the argument about going AMD to save money, because you can always upgrade in the future since they stay on the same socket.  Here's what nobody here has mentioned;  there is only 1 AM3+ motherboard on Newegg that lists having PCI-Express 3.0 sockets, and it's $200.  By comparison, there are dozens of Intel Motherboards that feature them--every 7x series motherboard to be precise starting as low as $75.  This means if you upgraded your GPU, you risk a chance at a noticeable bottleneck not too far down the road--sure, current PCI-ex 3.0 GPU's don't take a huge performance hit from dropping down to 2.0, but what about the next generation of GPU's?  And what about multi-gpu setups for that matter?

The obvious retort would be "well he can just buy a new mobo when PCI-express 3.0 is natively supported", but then you're adding additional cost in the foreseeable future--something this guy is explicitly trying to avoid.  You'd be looking at buying 2 motherboards, a cpu, and any gpu expenses, and that $100-150 you saved has been completely voided.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

btarunr said:


> Then it's i7-4770K for you. I wouldn't wait for Steamroller, I have no reason to think it will be >5% performance over FX-8350.



You have every reason to believe it will give a 15% performance boost overall. With the doubling of decoders and the shortening of the memory channel that is what AMD executives and engineers are predicting. Now single thread performance will be in the area of 6-7 % which is 2 to 3% more than you stated in your erroneous post.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 30, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> You have every reason to believe it will give a 15% performance boost overall. With the doubling of decoders and the shortening of the memory channel that is what AMD executives and engineers are predicting. Now single thread performance will be in the area of 6-7 % which is 2 to 3% more than you stated in your erroneous post.



No concrete launch window for the consumer versions, and no tests done. Even if its 15% better I believe you are better off getting a 4770K half a year early, at worst case 4770K will be equal to 3770K (which is on average quite a bit better than 8350 in games, and can overclock better). The only advantage Steamroller have (at 15% improvement over Bulldozer) will be price, but I have no reason to believe that the price will be significantly different.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 30, 2013)

SR will be 20-30% better in fully supporting sw and 10-15% in IPC. So, Intel will have heavy competition and everyone with an AM3 mobo the best CPU upgrade EVER... So, everyone should hope that this happens and this scenario has very nice possibility to be seen close to the end of 2013.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> No concrete launch window for the consumer versions, and no tests done. Even if its 15% better I believe you are better off getting a 4770K half a year early, at worst case 4770K will be equal to 3770K (which is on average quite a bit better than 8350 in games, and can overclock better). The only advantage Steamroller have (at 15% improvement over Bulldozer) will be price, but I have no reason to believe that the price will be significantly different.



4770K is not available. You are making assumptions about availability and performance. Fourth quarter begins 10/1/13  That is as little as 5 months away. It certainly won't be coming in December too late for Christmas rush. So it will be October or November. 5-6 months.  Hasbeen has been delayed you can't be sure when it will arrive. You can't recommend products until they are tested on real applications. So you are definitely jumping the gun. I still FIRMLY state wait until the dust clears The fellow said he can wait into the 4th quarter why are you showing your Intel fangs so soon???  I hate having to waste time combating FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) the famous PR tactics of the WINTEL crowd. Lets cut the hype down a couple of notches and wait until the 4th quarter. If somebody else needs a computer tomorrow then a recommendation now is necessary and we can see for what purpose the computer is needed and what budget is available and then make an appropriate recommendation


----------



## erocker (Apr 30, 2013)

Haswell is releasing in June: https://www.google.com/search?q=Int...0.57j0l3j62l2.4476j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Either way, it isn't released. Makes no sense to make a decision about it now. 

If you need a CPU now, get the AMD chip. Personally if I needed something right now I'd get a 3770K.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 30, 2013)

Haswell is a month away and there have been plenty of performance leaks. Versus SR which hasnt leaked a thing outside of electrons p). WHile both are speculative, one at least has rumors of performance circlating while the other, SR, is a mythical beast at this time regarding performance...One cant hang their hat on anything at this point, but at least Haswell has a nub to make you want to think about it. 




EDIT: It sure seems people are looking really REALLY hard to find BIAS in posts... Amazing...


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

erocker said:


> Haswell is releasing in June: https://www.google.com/search?q=Int...0.57j0l3j62l2.4476j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> 
> Either way, it isn't released. Makes no sense to make a decision about it now.
> 
> If you need a CPU now, get the AMD chip. Personally if I needed something right now I'd get a 3770K.



Thanks . I see sanity being expressed here instead of bias.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 30, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> 4770K is not available. You arer making assumptions about availability and performance. Fourth quarter begins 10/1/13  That is as little as 5 months away. It cewrtainly won't be coming in December too9 late for Christmas rush. Sot it will be October or November. 5-6 months.  Hasbeen has been delayed you can't be sure when it will arrive.



If I don't make assumptions on the availability and performance of Steamroller there is absolutely no point in talking about it at all. 

Given what little we know about Steamroller the expected time gap between it and Haswell is still going to be about half a year, thank you for doing the math for me. No I am not making any  assumptions on the expected performance of 4770K, the worst case is that 4770K is a total turd and OP gets a 3770K instead (which is proven to be quite powerful). Or we can expect a slight improvement (on par with 2770K to 3770K), in which case Steamroller needs to work pretty hard in order to catch up with it in gaming.


----------



## drdeathx (Apr 30, 2013)

long term 4770K will be better


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> long term 4770K will be better


 Most likely. It will however be far more expensive. Intel will likely price at the same level of the 3770 or a bit higher.  That will enable them to maintain their return on investment. Remember the cpu market is shrinking. So Intel is not likely desirous of lowering the unit pricing
of the Hasbeen chips.
  So if Steamroller delivers a 15% overall performance improvement over FX Vishera as AMD insists, and 6-7% gain in single threaded performance. it is likely to be much closer to I7 4770k
performance than Vishera is to I7 3770k. For most productivity apps Vishera is only a hairsbreath behind I7. Apps like winzip,Photoshop, databases etc. In multimedia decoding it is quite a respectable competitor to I7 3770k.

 I have every reason to wait and see. If I am disappointed, I have never had an issue with expressing it here or elsewhere.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 30, 2013)

Remember however, the cost to support Steamroller (mobo with proper VRMs, proper Heatsink to support similar overclocks to IB), assuming its like BD, could drive the cost difference down a bit.

Thing is, one can wait until XXXXX, but then when they get there, Broadwell is around the corner or AMD's 'tock'...Really, I mirror what a few people said here already and if you are ready now, buy in a month... waiting a month as opposed to _AT LEAST_ 5 is a different ballgame. I'm not sure SR will be worth waiting that long for IMO... and I say SR but that is quite interchangeable really. If SR was coming out in a month I would say wait for that and dont wait for Haswell.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Remember however, the cost to support Steamroller (mobo with proper VRMs, proper Heatsink to support similar overclocks to IB), assuming its like BD, could drive the cost difference down a bit.
> 
> Thing is, one can wait until XXXXX, but then when they get there, Broadwell is around the corner or AMD's 'tock'...Really, I mirror what a few people said here already and if you are ready now, buy in a month... waiting a month as opposed to _AT LEAST_ 5 is a different ballgame. I'm not sure SR will be worth waiting that long for IMO... and I say SR but that is quite interchangeable really. If SR was coming out in a month I would say wait for that and dont wait for Haswell.



No Broadbust is likely at least 2 years off. Pay no mind to the projected release it will be a good deal later than that. It will take 2 years for Intel to make its return on investment in Hasbeen wothwhile. Also Broadbust is a further die shrink. It will be harder each time they shrink the process closer to atomic size.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 30, 2013)

> No Broadbust is likely at least 2 years off. Pay no mind to the projected release it will be a good deal later than that. It will take 2 years for Intel to make its return on investment in Hasbeen wothwhile. Also Broadbust is a further die shrink. It will be harder each time they shrink the process closer to atomic size.



Release dates were not the underlying point in that... the concepts were, note.



Ya know, for someone who seems to resent bias, you sure do take your jabs at Intel quite a bit without provocation I may add...

"Broadbust"

"Hasbeen"

If you would like to stop bias and argumentative posts, perhaps looking in the mirror is a good place to start.


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> Release dates were not the underlying point in that... the concepts were, note.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



     I understand where you are coming from on that, but my derision of Intel monikers is not based on lack of performance it is about their monopolistic practices which cause higher cpu prices and slow down technical advances. I  have intense hatred of monopoly capitalists and their undue influence on goverment processes. There are many anti-monopoly laws on the books that are not being enforced because of the big money they use to corrupt an already corrupt government. So I have a bias against Intel for that reason alone.  If AMD ever fails cpu prices will shoot up further and innovation will slow even further. It is not that I view AMD as a good capitalist. To me they all stink, but I am concerned about technical progress and the cost of commodities that I purchase.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 30, 2013)

I agree with your reasoning, but that isn't an excuse. Just stop it and perhaps people will respond more in kind to your views as, without that, they are mostly rooted in fact.

Catch you around... its GO TIME!


----------



## os2wiz (Apr 30, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> I agree with your reasoning, but that isn't an excuse. Just stop it and perhaps people will respond more in kind to your views as, without that, they are mostly rooted in fact.
> 
> Catch you around... its GO TIME!



I appreciate your response ,I will heed your advice . It's good we found some common ground.


----------



## d1nky (May 1, 2013)

can we draw up a conclusion for OP then?! theres been several pages, giving fact and opinion on every stance, amd, intel and amd steamroller.

would it be best to say to wait, if thats what he wants and to last 5/6 years.


----------



## os2wiz (May 1, 2013)

d1nky said:


> can we draw up a conclusion for OP then?! theres been several pages, giving fact and opinion on every stance, amd, intel and amd steamroller.
> 
> would it be best to say to wait, if thats what he wants and to last 5/6 years.



Yea since he is willing to wait about 5-6 months I think it will be more evident what will be the best performer and price range info will be clear by that time.


----------



## Super XP (May 1, 2013)

d1nky said:


> can we draw up a conclusion for OP then?! theres been several pages, giving fact and opinion on every stance, amd, intel and amd steamroller.
> 
> would it be best to say to wait, if thats what he wants and to last 5/6 years.


Plain and simple, if he plans on waiting another 5/6 years for his next upgrade, then waiting should be his only decision IMO. Wait for AMD's Steamroller at the very least, because by then anything you buy today "Will" be pretty much obsolete in 5/6 years time. Plus Steamroller is rumoured to be quite the performer.
If he is looking for something right now and does not care about anything else coming out, then either AMD or Intel will do the job quite nice.  

I don't buy this crap about power efficiently and such. Both processors have their positives and negatives.  If you were comparing AMD’s Bulldozer, then yes I would not recommend it because Piledriver is better.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 1, 2013)

d1nky said:


> can we draw up a conclusion for OP then?! theres been several pages, giving fact and opinion on every stance, amd, intel and amd steamroller.
> 
> would it be best to say to wait, if thats what he wants and to last 5/6 years.



^^Exactly, if u can reason for 10 pages in a way with proofs then its okay, but fighting for proving ur own views isnt much of a help. And please stop pointing out people who are biased, because the next few post are about that person defending and u prosecuting.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 1, 2013)

Super XP said:


> Plain and simple, if he plans on waiting another 5/6 years for his next upgrade, then waiting should be his only decision IMO. Wait for AMD's Steamroller at the very least, because by then anything you buy today "Will" be pretty much obsolete in 5/6 years time. Plus Steamroller is rumoured to be quite the performer.
> If he is looking for something right now and does not care about anything else coming out, then either AMD or Intel will do the job quite nice.
> 
> I don't buy this crap about power efficiently and such. Both processors have their positives and negatives.  If you were comparing AMD’s Bulldozer, then yes I would not recommend it because Piledriver is better.



I cant help it, i have to study cause i am in 9th and my dad woudnt allow me to get another pc for the next 5 years, thats the reason why i have a good budget. And i am pretty much at the edge, i play games like battlefield 3 (4,5 whatever comes after it), crysis 3 which require a good cpu. I have a gr8 gpu but i get only 15 fps with my core 2 duo and many times my game and pc just freezes and windows takes 15 minutes to boot so.....

Its really annoying to play with such low fps so i cant wait too long. Interestingly its extremely fun when i troll people with a gtx 690 and i7 3770k and this happens many times


----------



## Dent1 (May 1, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I cant help it, i have to study cause i am in 9th and my dad woudnt allow me to get another pc for the next 5 years, thats the reason why i have a good budget. And i am pretty much at the edge, i play games like battlefield 3 (4,5 whatever comes after it), crysis 3 which require a good cpu. I have a gr8 gpu but i get only 15 fps with my core 2 duo and many times my game and pc just freezes and windows takes 15 minutes to boot so.....
> 
> Its really annoying to play with such low fps so i cant wait too long. Interestingly its extremely fun when i troll people with a gtx 690 and i7 3770k and this happens many times



If you truly require the build to last 5-6 years I'd recommend getting 16GB of RAM. Somebody will reply with a typical contradictory statement like "games don't even use 4GB it's unnecessary". But in 5-6 years that extra RAM might the difference between upgrading and not. It's better to shoot too high than too low and RAM is at its cheapest so there is no excuse.

PS. I have evidence of the last generation of games using almost 8GB of RAM. Every time I post it the forum goes in denial and nobody challenges it. In fact, they don't reply again and pretend they didn't read it.


----------



## d1nky (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> If you truly require the build to last 5-6 years I'd recommend getting 16GB of RAM. Somebody will reply with a typical contradictory statement like "games don't even use 4GB it's unnecessary". But in 5-6 years that extra RAM might the difference between upgrading and not. It's better to shoot too high than too low and RAM is at its cheapest so there is no excuse.



i agree overkill is the best kind, hence why i buy something too good and then have room for improvement, for example a 1kw psu. its ready for xfire and a beast watercooler set up and more.

and yea this thread has been lengthy, just wait and see what the new gear is all about and ask the question then.


----------



## btarunr (May 1, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> You have every reason to believe it will give a 15% performance boost overall. With the doubling of decoders and the shortening of the memory channel that is what AMD executives and engineers are predicting. Now single thread performance will be in the area of 6-7 % which is 2 to 3% more than you stated in your erroneous post.



At this point, neither of us can accuse the other of being erroneous. It's not the first time AMD claimed that its next generation would have "more of this component," and ended up failing to deliver on expectations. All that AMD has going for it is great pricing, which lets you invest more on other stuff, like better graphics cards, and getting a net performance gain over a similarly priced Intel platform.


----------



## Dent1 (May 1, 2013)

btarunr said:


> All that AMD has going for it is great pricing



What about upgradability?




btarunr said:


> which lets you invest more on other stuff, like better graphics cards, and getting a net performance gain over a similarly priced Intel platform.



That sounds like it has a lot going for it.


But I would agree in your defence btarunr, that I wouldn't base waiting for Steamroller soley on the promise for an 15% performance increase.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> If you truly require the build to last 5-6 years I'd recommend getting 16GB of RAM. Somebody will reply with a typical contradictory statement like "games don't even use 4GB it's unnecessary". But in 5-6 years that extra RAM might the difference between upgrading and not. It's better to shoot too high than too low and RAM is at its cheapest so there is no excuse.
> 
> PS. I have evidence of the last generation of games using almost 8GB of RAM. Every time I post it the forum goes in denial and nobody challenges it. In fact, they don't reply again and pretend they didn't read it.



Thats no problem, i will buy a motherboard with 4 dimms with two 4 gb sticks of ddr3 1600mhz ram, if i need more in the future i can always add


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> What about upgradability?



As I pointed out in my overlooked post, the entry level Intel motherboards available have better features than even the most expensive AM3+ boards (PCI-express 3.0 shows up on a single AM3+ motherboard at $200) for the most part, and if you're assuming upgrades that's added cost in my mind.  I maintain that paying a little more for an Intel system up front is probably a better value over a long enough time line (2-3 years+).



Dent1 said:


> That sounds like it has a lot going for it.



It depends heavily on the games you play.  There are infinitely more titles that benefit Intel architecture, a lot of which would cover for a slightly weaker GPU (look at Skyrim benchmarks, where an i3 is on par for the 8350 x.x).  In the next 3 years 4 threads should become the baseline (instead of 1-2 that we get now) with a lot more titles supporting upwards of 8, but at that point even the cheaper AMD and Intel CPU's will probably handily outperform even the top dogs now.



Dent1 said:


> But I would agree in your defence btarunr, that I wouldn't base waiting for Steamroller soley on the promise for an 15% performance increase.



I'd be surprised if Steamroller launches _before_ 2014 rolls around to be honest...



Dent1 said:


> If you truly require the build to last 5-6 years I'd recommend getting 16GB of RAM. Somebody will reply with a typical contradictory statement like "games don't even use 4GB it's unnecessary". But in 5-6 years that extra RAM might the difference between upgrading and not. It's better to shoot too high than too low and RAM is at its cheapest so there is no excuse.
> 
> PS. I have evidence of the last generation of games using almost 8GB of RAM. Every time I post it the forum goes in denial and nobody challenges it. In fact, they don't reply again and pretend they didn't read it.



This is sound advice.  The reason people deny it is because almost every single game available is 32-bit, which means it is physically incapable of addressing more than 4GB of RAM.  The next generation of consoles will finally hopefully usher in 64-bit games which will allow RAM to be relevant again (since 8GB is only ~$30 everyone has that much).  The new consoles have 8GB of RAM (at least the PS4 and I see no reason the Xbox won't have similar or more) and I'll be damned if developers don't take advantage of being able to create larger and more detailed textures which eat into the available resources.

The only situations I've seen where games get close that that are heavily modded and they use system memory because the game itself quickly eats all of the available VRAM (looking at you GTAIV with ICE mod).


----------



## Fourstaff (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> What about upgradability?



If we are looking at 5-6 years of life, I don't think this will be a big issue. For example, a person in 2008 will get a E8400, one of the best performing chips for its price. Zoom forward to half-life/end of life in around 2011, it is still a decent performer. Get a bit further to 2012 and you will find that its pointless to drop a Q9550 in for that slight boost, you might as well start again with a 2500K. Do you see why upgradability is not so much of an issue if you are going for top/near top end of the platform? On the other hand, you can choose to get an AM3 board and a 955 during 2009 will find himself stuck with 1090T as the maximum upgrade on the AM3 board purchased in 2009.


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> If we are looking at 5-6 years of life, I don't think this will be a big issue. For example, a person in 2008 will get a E8400, one of the best performing chips for its price. Zoom forward to half-life/end of life in around 2011, it is still a decent performer. Get a bit further to 2012 and you will find that its pointless to drop a Q9550 in for that slight boost, you might as well start again with a 2500K. Do you see why upgradability is not so much of an issue if you are going for top/near top end of the platform? On the other hand, you can choose to get an AM3 board and a 955 during 2009 will find himself stuck with 1090T as the maximum upgrade on the AM3 board purchased in 2009.



I had a similar experience.  Was deciding between Phenom or a Q6600, I went with the Q6600.  I ended up using it from like 2007 or 2008 until 2011 so 3-4 years.  In that time if I had stuck with AMD I would have had to get an AM2 Phenom with an AM2 board, then a new CPU because the Phenom I's were awful, then a new motherboard, and I still would barely be edging out the Intel system...


----------



## Melvis (May 1, 2013)

xenocide said:


> It depends heavily on the games you play.  There are infinitely more titles that benefit Intel architecture, a lot of which would cover for a slightly weaker GPU (look at Skyrim benchmarks, where an i3 is on par for the 8350 x.x).  In the next 3 years 4 threads should become the baseline (instead of 1-2 that we get now) with a lot more titles supporting upwards of 8, but at that point even the cheaper AMD and Intel CPU's will probably handily outperform even the top dogs now..



Skyrim has the code of a potato is why. Its like one of the worse coded old game engines alive. Its not that its the CPU's fault its that the software is lagging behind. Hell not even windows could address the new arch of Bulldozer/Piledriver they had to bring out a patch/fix just to make it work correctly, again is it the CPU's fault? nope, its software again. We all have plenty of CPU power since 4yrs ago, its now up to the lazy ass people to code for the hardware to take advantage of it. Hardware is light years ahead of software, its software that has to play the catch up game.

We should see within the next 2yrs games coded a lot better for 8 core/threaded CPU's because of the next gen consoles.


----------



## Dent1 (May 1, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> Thats no problem, i will buy a motherboard with 4 dimms with two 4 gb sticks of ddr3 1600mhz ram, if i need more in the future i can always add



Just get the 16GB now, it's only $30 more.  RAM is at it's cheapest, I guarantee in a few years time it'll cost significantly more than $30 extra you're opting out of, plus you'll struggle to find the same brand models type.


There are games out right now like Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Max Payne 3, BF3 which use almost 8GB already. For anyone that contradicts this fact I challenge them to turn off virtual memory and watch their game crash after 20mins or witness the "windows has insufficient memory error" after 20mins of game play. Yes disable VM!



xenocide said:


> It depends heavily on the games you play.  There are infinitely more titles that benefit Intel architecture, a lot of which would cover for a slightly weaker GPU (look at Skyrim benchmarks, where an i3 is on par for the 8350 x.x).  In the next 3 years 4 threads should become the baseline (instead of 1-2 that we get now) with a lot more titles supporting upwards of 8, but at that point even the cheaper AMD and Intel CPU's will probably handily outperform even the top dogs now.



The i3 should be compared with the FX 6300 pricewise. The FX6300 is on par with it in games and would only out-paste it in games as time goes on. Whilst having the edge in non gaming tasks today.




Fourstaff said:


> If we are looking at 5-6 years of life, I don't think this will be a big issue. For example, a person in 2008 will get a E8400, one of the best performing chips for its price. Zoom forward to half-life/end of life in around 2011, it is still a decent performer. Get a bit further to 2012 and you will find that its pointless to drop a Q9550 in for that slight boost, you might as well start again with a 2500K. Do you see why upgradability is not so much of an issue if you are going for top/near top end of the platform? On the other hand, you can choose to get an AM3 board and a 955 during 2009 will find himself stuck with 1090T as the maximum upgrade on the AM3 board purchased in 2009.



In 2009, I got my Athlon II X4, there isn't a single game it couldn't play, in a year or two I could drop in a second hand Phenom IIX6 1100T. AMD does upgradability best.

Heck, there are plenty of low end and midrange mobo chipsets like the AMD 770, AMD 870, 880G from 2009 that are AM3+ ready and support Piledriver with a bios flash and are Steamroller ready! You can't doubt AMD's upgradability.


Heck even the 7025 / nForce 630a chipset from 2007 is AM3+ ready and supports Piledriver! The board is 6 years old!


----------



## Fourstaff (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> In 2009, I got my Athlon II X4 ...
> 
> Heck even the 7025 / nForce 630a chipset from 2007 is AM3+ ready and supports Piledriver! The board is 6 years old!



Or you could have gotten a 955BE and not upgrade until at least Steamroller. OP is getting top of the line chip (or near top of line), upgrading options are usually limited and not with the money.

The vendor's BIOS support for AMD is pretty good, but given that AM3 is only released in 2009 the earlier nforce boards will not have been able to support bulldozer. We have 955 by then, and your next upgrade would be 8350 now(not that much of an upgrade if you ask me). Or pray Steamroller is still backward compatible with AM3 I see no reason why not, but you can never be so sure).


----------



## Dent1 (May 1, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Or you could have gotten a 955BE and not upgrade until at least Steamroller. OP is getting top of the line chip (or near top of line), upgrading options are usually limited and not with the money.
> 
> The vendor's BIOS support for AMD is pretty good, but given that AM3 is only released in 2009 the earlier nforce boards will not have been able to support bulldozer. We have 955 by then, and your next upgrade would be 8350 now(not that much of an upgrade if you ask me). Or pray Steamroller is still backward compatible with AM3 I see no reason why not, but you can never be so sure).



Unfortunately, my board only officially supports up to  Phenom IIX6 1100T ATM. Which is strange as a few other boards with the same chipset, and even older chipsets have full AM3+ support. Asus just haven't got around to the bios update. 

When I got my Athlon II X4 it was on it's release and paid about £70. The Phenom II X4 was around £150. I couldn't justify spending double for a slight boost, in some cases the missing L3 made virtualy no difference to the performance.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> When I got my Athlon II X4 it was on it's release and paid about £70. The Phenom II X4 was around £150. I couldn't justify spending double for a slight boost, in some cases the missing L3 made virtualy no difference to the performance.



If you can get a 1100T for £120 you will be paying (in total) of £190, a bit cheaper if you can sell your x4 off. Performance difference between the phenom II x4 and x6 is almost negligible when it comes to gaming, and indeed the higher clock of x4 usually pulls ahead. Not much different in terms of performance and price if you would have gotten the 955 in first go ( 2 cores would have been important in other applications, but that is unfortunately not our focus in this context)


----------



## d1nky (May 1, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> ^^Exactly, if u can reason for 10 pages in a way with proofs then its okay, but fighting for proving ur own views isnt much of a help. And please stop pointing out people who are biased, because the next few post are about that person defending and u prosecuting.



nuff said


----------



## Dent1 (May 1, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> If you can get a 1100T for £120 you will be paying (in total) of £190, a bit cheaper if you can sell your x4 off. Performance difference between the phenom II x4 and x6 is almost negligible when it comes to gaming, and indeed the higher clock of x4 usually pulls ahead. Not much different in terms of performance and price if you would have gotten the 955 in first go ( 2 cores would have been important in other applications, but that is unfortunately not our focus in this context)



Yeah I'm definitely skipping the Phenom II series all together. I'm upgrading next year for Steamroller or an Intel alternative depending on what's best value for money then. 

I'd be selling my current mobo and CPU to sponsor the upgrade. I might keep my RAM or will swap it for one with faster bus speed at the same capacity.


----------



## de.das.dude (May 1, 2013)

phenoms are out of stock everywhere... their production was halted AFAIK.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 1, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> phenoms are out of stock everywhere... their production was halted AFAIK.



2nd hand fleabay. Hole I have convinced most that upgradibility is not so important


----------



## Abate (May 1, 2013)

*You failed to understand OP.*



btarunr said:


> You're faced with a delicious catch-22.
> Get +15~20% performance and 25~35% lower power draw, with i7-4770K
> Get +5% frame-rates across your games with the $330 i7-4770K
> Get +20% frame-rates by buying a $199 FX-8350, and spending the $131 you save on a better graphics card*
> ...



It seems you didn't get what OP said, right?

He said 
"I can *spend extra* to get a 4770k when it release". He didn't say that he will *downgrade* other components like GPU by getting i7. 
Read his post again. 

So that means, his rest of the system will be on same budget except the CPU. 
For example: $1000 for System - CPU and he can spend either $200 for FX-8350 or $340 for i7 4770K on top of that. 

Then why there is a need to point out at same budget you can get better framerate on this than this? 

He asked like, 
I can either go with FX-8350 + GTX 670 ($530) or i7 4770K + GTX 670 (660). Money is not a problem, as I can handle that. Which system I have to choose?

In this case, your recommendation will be?


----------



## btarunr (May 1, 2013)

Abate said:


> It seems you didn't get what OP said, right?
> 
> He said
> "I can *spend extra* to get a 4770k when it release". He didn't say that he will *downgrade* other components like GPU by getting i7.
> ...



This: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2894035&postcount=76

Maybe read the whole thread.


----------



## RCoon (May 1, 2013)

I dont know why this thread is still active. The very simple way of condensing these 5 pages is:

*Wait for the 4770K and AMD's new CPU to be released.*

That is literally it. Everything else is just posting for the sake of it.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 1, 2013)

RCoon said:


> I dont know why this thread is still active. The very simple way of condensing these 5 pages is:
> 
> *Wait for the 4770K and AMD's new CPU to be released.*
> 
> That is literally it. Everything else is just posting for the sake of it.



Or get 3570K/3770K now and ignore Haswell/Steamroller. Or, wait for Haswell which comes out in a month's time, and get either Haswell or IVB. Or, get a FX6300 now, and then upgrade again in maybe 3 years time to *insert construction vehicle*, and hope that its socket compatible. Boatloads of options, my preferred advice is to wait for Haswell and depending on the performance, get either that or the soon to be discounted 3570K. Or, if OP is going to wait till the end of the year, everyone can go back home and return when Steamroller is out, as you prescribed.


----------



## d1nky (May 1, 2013)

just wait and see what the new hardware is like

thread closed lol  (i joke im not a mod and dont pretend to be)

wow six pages of this! @rcoon i didnt think ya said it loud enough haha


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2013)

LOL, its not like SR or whatever comes out next year will let his computer last 5-6 years versus what is available now...Buy Intel now unless you know you need all those threads that the AMD can offer.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 2, 2013)

Super XP said:


> I don't buy this crap about power efficiently and such.



I came up with about a dozen snarky comments about this but I can't choose. So instead I'll just ask in what way do you not "buy" it?


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 2, 2013)

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2013/04/30/amdrsquos_new_heterogeneous_uniform_memory_access

Its getting tougher and tougher to speculate, what to make out of this latest piece of info? Unified memort is good....

I just dont want to spend on intel and see that after 2 years amd is what intel is now for gaming and intel is what amd is now for gaming.


----------



## wiak (May 2, 2013)

get a fx-8350 with a samsung 840 pro 256GB, should be faster than a i7 4770 and a harddrive


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2013)

wiak said:


> get a fx-8350 with a samsung 840 pro 256GB, should be faster than a i7 4770 and a harddrive


 Yeah and so is a i7 920 with an SSD.


----------



## btarunr (May 2, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> http://www.hardocp.com/news/2013/04/30/amdrsquos_new_heterogeneous_uniform_memory_access
> 
> Its getting tougher and tougher to speculate, what to make out of this latest piece of info? Unified memort is good....
> 
> I just dont want to spend on intel and see that after 2 years amd is what intel is now for gaming and intel is what amd is now for gaming.



hUMA is irrelevant unless you plan to use the integrated graphics. Even if you do, hUMA isn't featured on Richland, so you'll have to wait until next summer. Even if you do, APUs aren't AMD's fastest chips.


----------



## AsRock (May 2, 2013)

If ya can wait why not wait till broadwell, even if it's barely better it's still better and as you say it's gotta hold up for 5+ years so to me it be money better spent.

If you get it now i would go Intel for sure just no question about it if you can afford too.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Ah so ports will most likely run better on AMD when the new gen hits, *possibly/probably* though perhaps maybe not. Good info there



Screw theory.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 2, 2013)

AsRock said:


> If ya can wait why not wait till broadwell, even if it's barely better it's still better and as you say it's gotta hold up for 5+ years so to me it be money better spent.
> 
> If you get it now i would go Intel for sure just no question about it if you can afford too.
> 
> ...





ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I cant help it, i have to study cause i am in 9th and my dad woudnt allow me to get another pc for the next 5 years, thats the reason why i have a good budget. And i am pretty much at the edge, i play games like battlefield 3 (4,5 whatever comes after it), crysis 3 which require a good cpu. I have a gr8 gpu but i get only 15 fps with my core 2 duo and many times my game and pc just freezes and windows takes 15 minutes to boot so.....
> 
> Its really annoying to play with such low fps so i cant wait too long. Interestingly its extremely fun when i troll people with a gtx 690 and i7 3770k and this happens many times


Like i said, i am at the edge, i cant wait for broadwell, and i heard broadwell would be soldered to the motherboard.


----------



## Abate (May 3, 2013)

btarunr said:


> This: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2894035&postcount=76
> 
> Maybe read the whole thread.



Aah.. Sorry then..


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 3, 2013)

Read a lot about the new IGP in haswell but its not gonna be of any use for me. Anyways found this...

http://www.techpowerup.com/183476/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Overclocked-to-7-GHz.html


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 8, 2013)

So now that people have stopped posting the current forum suggests go for a i7 4770k, right ???


----------



## os2wiz (May 8, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> So now that people have stopped posting the current forum suggests go for a i7 4770k, right ???



I strongly disagree. Since Haswell isn't here yet you might swell wait to see how Steamroller performs. It will be available in late October or early November.  If you have money to burn go and throw it on Has well. If you want the biggest bang for the buck and close to Has well performance, I would say check out the FX steamroller release. .


----------



## anubis44 (May 8, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> So till now u guys are suggesting that if i want to do gaming and other stuff like after effects, sony vegas and recording gameplay (battlefield 3, crysis 3) for a more future proof, efficient, cooler, faster solution i should go with the i7 4770k. Should i wait for broadwell or whatever amd comes up with?
> 
> And which motherboard to buy, i was thinking of getting either an Asus Maximus V Formula or an MSI z77 big bang, obviously i go will go with whatever comes for haswell, i guess the chipset would be z87. Is there any other range of motherboards that i should buy? And one last question, should i go with the lower end of the intel extreme platform i.e. x79 something like a 3820 or the 4820 if thats the successor?



If it's all pretty much the same to you, buy AMD: they could use the money much more than Intel 

On a more serious note, the AMD Steamroller is supposed to drop into socket AM3+ boards, so if you can't wait, I'd get the FX-8350 (I have one, and it's extremely nice to be able to actually keep running Folding@Home on 4 cores, while I play a game on the other 4 cores - Intel CPUs only have 6 physical cores on their highest end CPUs) and you'll still be able to drop in a next generation AMD CPU. If you go Intel, you probably won't be able to do that. If you can wait, wait until we hear benchmarks for Steamroller at least before you drop your cash and make a choice.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 8, 2013)

anubis44 said:


> If it's all pretty much the same to you, buy AMD: they could use the money much more than Intel
> 
> On a more serious note, the AMD Steamroller is supposed to drop into socket AM3+ boards, so if you can't wait, I'd get the FX-8350 (I have one, and it's extremely nice to be able to actually keep running Folding@Home on 4 cores, while I play a game on the other 4 cores - Intel CPUs only have 6 physical cores on their highest end CPUs) and you'll still be able to drop in a next generation AMD CPU. If you go Intel, you probably won't be able to do that. If you can wait, wait until we hear benchmarks for Steamroller at least before you drop your cash and make a choice.



I cant get a 8350 and later update to steam roller, and the AM3+ is no use to me cause when my next update comes if i buy steam roller they would have changed the socket cause excavator would be the last cpu on AM3+.


----------



## os2wiz (May 8, 2013)

ANIR0X2K00L said:


> I cant get a 8350 and later update to steam roller, and the AM3+ is no use to me cause when my next update comes if i buy steam roller they would have changed the socket cause excavator would be the last cpu on AM3+.



So why did you seek counsel as to a CPU choice if you had no intention to consider an alternative. It seems you were merely seeking a pat on the back ?


----------



## HD64G (May 8, 2013)

So, get a 6300 which has plenty power for today's use in order to upgrade IF NEEDED without spending much.


----------



## cdawall (May 8, 2013)

FX 8350 since the piledriver architecture is in both new consoles and almost all games are ported now anyway.


----------



## ANIR0X2K00L (May 8, 2013)

os2wiz said:


> So why did you seek counsel as to a CPU choice if you had no intention to consider an alternative. It seems you were merely seeking a pat on the back ?



Ohk, please answer my question as an individual, if u were at my place and had to buy a pc which u have to keep for the next 4 years, what will u do? Buy a 4770k, a 8350 or wait for steam roller?

FYI, its not easy to sell used stuff in my country so i cant get a 6300 and sell it later.


----------



## erocker (May 8, 2013)

You have six pages, that's about 150 different opinions on the matter. 4770k isn't out yet. Steamroller isn't out yet. There are no hard facts on either yet. If you want a new CPU. Figure out what you want to do with your computer, find what is in your budget and choose.


----------

