# Choosing a processor



## na (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi
I want to take a processor AMD-Athlon750K. or FX-6300.html
I have read a lot of info
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1702339/amd-athlon-750k-6300-gaming.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/88/AMD_Athlon_X4_750K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

http://cpu-comparison.whoratesit.co...k-Edition-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-750K/1555vs1548

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-750k

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1148&pid2=1146&compare=athlon-ii-x4-750k-vs-fx-6300

,but i don't understand ,how much is better in the games
I know that FX 6300 is better,but how much better - 20..30...50 ...........100 %
1)I am mainly interested in the game performance-how much average FX 6300 is better in the games
2)How are the trends in the games-Will be possible in the near future,the games to be possible to use full six cores of FX 6300 and this to give a big/huge advantage to FX 6300 ?
3)Will FX 6300 enough powerful in the next 2 years for the games ?

Thank you in advance


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 21, 2013)

Depends on the type of games you play. If its singlethreaded heavy like World of Tanks, FX6300 will not be faster than 750K. If you play Battlefield 4 instead, the FX6300 will be quite a bit faster. 

Will it be powerful enough in 2 years time? Again, depends on the games you play. Rome II struggles even on the best processor money can buy today.


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 21, 2013)

The athlon is like half the price draws less power isn't that much slower and if you get an A88X chipset board you can upgrade to kaveri next year.


----------



## RCoon (Oct 21, 2013)

na said:


> Hi
> I want to take a processor AMD-Athlon750K. or FX-6300.html
> I have read a lot of info
> http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1702339/amd-athlon-750k-6300-gaming.html
> ...



Using an OC'd 750K at the moment, it plays manshoot very well, StarCraft II is OK but 4vs4 is a bit crappy when you've got maxed out armies. RTS games, go for 750K and OC to hell, if you're doing manshoot like BF3/4 or Metro games, go for 6300. Besides that, my GPU does all the legwork, including PhysX.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 21, 2013)

FX-6300 is the only sensible option. There is no competition really. FX-6300 has access to more cache so would outperform the 750k in single threaded applications too.

OP, not sure why you're asking this question. All your links above allude that the FX-6300 is a better choice today. With time that choice will just compound.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 21, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> FX-6300 is the only sensible option. There is no competition really. FX-6300 has access to more cache so would outperform the 750k in single threaded applications too.



760K is an overclocking monster though, easily makes up the difference and its almost half the price.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 21, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> 760K is an overclocking monster though, easily makes up the difference and its almost half the price.



The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits. 

The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.


OP, do you realise these two choices are on different sockets? Be careful to have the right motherboard.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 21, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits.
> 
> The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.



Its easier to cool the 750K given that its one module smaller, and the price difference is much bigger across the pond.


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 21, 2013)

test show that the FX6300 is like 1% faster than the 750k in single threaded tascks so unless you need the six cores there really is no point also most of the athlons will hit 4.4Ghz on stock cooling which is worse than the stock cooler for the FX6300 but the FX6300 needs aftermarket to get to that speed further inflating the price


----------



## RCoon (Oct 21, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits.
> 
> The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.
> 
> ...



My 750K is half the TDP, and overclocks to 4.4Ghz on stock cooling without touching or coming close to 50 degrees(it's around 44-48 degrees fully loaded in Prime95), and at a mere 1.4v.
750/60K's do 5Ghz easy on air cooling solutions. My previous 6350 and 8350 could only reach 4.8+ on AIO solutions(H100) and heat became a problem above that, due to voltages up to 1.5v.

Half the TDP, better overclocking potential, and only a 1% difference in single threaded applications. I know what I would pick(In fact I did pick it).


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 21, 2013)

Where did we get 1% from?


Even in single threaded applications the FX 6300 would still be snappier because the load is balanced across more cores. e.g. games like BF4 Beta can put a quad core @ 100% CPU usage, its very difficult to stress a hexacore like that. When CPUs are reviewed they are done in perfect test conditions fresh OS install, no background apps. But 9/10 gamers will have Skype or TeamSpeak or some other VOIP app running simultaneously which can use up to 20% CPU alone. 

Also its an investment. You may not benefit in the single threaded games much, but it will be outweighed in the multi threaded games and non gaming apps whilst having a longer shelf life.


It really comes to how much both CPUs are in your country and how much you're willing to spend. The 750k is still a good value for money, but in my country it makes no financial sense.


----------



## Mindweaver (Oct 21, 2013)

I just picked up the FX 6300 for my brother over the 750k, because he will be using it to play BF4.  I'd go with the FX 6300 over the 750k.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 21, 2013)

sure FX6300, almost %25 faster


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 21, 2013)

Is it smart for the long run to go for a socket that will be EOL sooner? I know that that is not important for everyone, but it may still be relevant for some.


----------



## na (Oct 21, 2013)

Thanks to all of you for the replies
Both processors are very good for the money-Here(Even with "old"750K,the processor is performing very well-70-80 fps on Bishock and 45-50 fps on Crisis 3-both on ultra settings)
Here750K is even equal with icor 5 ,when we use him up to medium class video cards.
Here(both processors are one of the best options as price/performance.
1)So if i understand correctly,at the current moment-there is no big difference(1-5 %) in the performance in the games in single threaded tasks ?
2)But in the games,which start to use the full potential of FX 6300(like Battlefield 4) ,there is a difference-is there a reviews that compare X4 750 and FX 6300 ?
3)Is Battlefiled 4 a exception or all games are starting to use more cores in the future games ?
4) I read your comments about temperatures-on the first look,fx 6300 is better 95 W against 100 W Here

P.S
And what about future socket-AM2 against AM 3-which will be develop in the future from AMD ?


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 21, 2013)

Inorder from old to new, the sockets are: AM2, AM3, FM1, FM2. So the Athlon II X4 750K is actually pretty new. But the FX 6300 is simply tailored to a higher market segment, if you look at the prices and also the fact that the FX 6300 has way more L2 cache makes this clear. A drawback is however the socket (AM3+) not being the latest wich may mean that replacement motherboards will be hard to get within a year or two (unfortunate, if needing "repairs").

So yes the FX 6300 runs a bit cooler mayhaps, and is defenitely faster in certain applications but I do not know how long the AM3+ socket wil be continued.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 21, 2013)

na said:


> Thanks to all of you for the replies
> Both processors are very good for the money-Here(Even with "old"750K,the processor is performing very well-70-80 fps on Bishock and 45-50 fps on Crisis 3-both on ultra settings)
> Here750K is even equal with icor 5 ,when we use him up to medium class video cards.
> Here(both processors are one of the best options as price/performance.
> ...



Games will slowly use more and more cores over the years, so in the extreme long run FX6300 will be the better purchase of the two. However, chances are you will be upgrading before that happens, so my personal opinion is that if you don't play multithreaded games now chances are pretty slim you will need all the cores the FX6300 by the time of your next upgrade. However, if you play multithreaded games now (eg. BF4) then you should get the FX6300. There is massive difference in terms of performance. 

As for FM2 against AM3+, FM2's future is confirmed with Kaveri(?), whereas AM3+ future support is still questionable. I personally wouldn't bother too much about upgrading, chances are you will be upgrading your CPU and motherboard (and Ram too, with DDR4) once this setup becomes old.


----------



## na (Oct 22, 2013)

1)At this moment only Battlefield 4 is using a multithreaded  cores-are there games(current) and future that are confirm/expect to use  multithreaded cores(using all cores of GPU) ?
2)So if i understand correctly,there is a big chance FX 6300 socket not to be supported in the future,instead of X4 750,who will have a full support ?

P.S
Here     http://gearnuke.com/battlefield-4-pc-beta-benchmarks-hint-at-brighter-prospects-amd-cpus-5682/                             FX6300 is performing very well.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 22, 2013)

na said:


> 1)At this moment only Battlefield 4 is using a multithreaded  cores-are there games(current) and future that are confirm/expect to use  multithreaded cores(using all cores of GPU) ?
> 2)So if i understand correctly,there is a big chance FX 6300 socket not to be supported in the future,instead of X4 750,who will have a full support ?
> 
> P.S
> Here     http://gearnuke.com/battlefield-4-pc-beta-benchmarks-hint-at-brighter-prospects-amd-cpus-5682/                             FX6300 is performing very well.



Who said only BF4 was multi-threaded? There is a huge library of multi-threaded games. Just to name a few. BF3, Crysis series, Civilisation 5, Far Cry 2/3,Skyrim etc


----------



## Jetster (Oct 22, 2013)

Is there a reason you not goin Intel?


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 22, 2013)

Price/performance ratio. The 750K costs like €80 and the FX 6300 like €100. Intel gives you a Gs eries Pentium for that, negating the "Intel-advantage". Financially it makes sense to go AMD.


----------



## na (Oct 22, 2013)

Chevalr1c is right-price/performance is the most important of me-i am not fan of intel/amd/nvidia/ati...................price/performance is the right formula of me-even i can spend 3000 euro...............but it is stupid-the computer(in the most cases) is a liability,not a asset.
It is wiser to put your money in real asset/investment than to liability
P.S
Are the majority of the games will be multi-threaded?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 22, 2013)

na said:


> Chevalr1c is right-price/performance is the most important of me-i am not fan of intel/amd/nvidia/ati...................price/performance is the right formula of me-even i can spend 3000 euro...............but it is stupid-the computer(in the most cases) is a liability,not a asset.
> It is wiser to put your money in real asset/investment than to liabilityP.S
> Are the majority of the games will be multi-threaded?



This is what I tell people when I see them upgrading from 2012s ultra high end GPU to 2013s newest high end GPU for a 10% boost.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 22, 2013)

It was just a question. Its not about being a fan.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 22, 2013)

If you are going for price/performance and your primary purpose is gaming then I would be looking at Intel.  There is no question that of the current chips on the market Intel excels at gaming and AMDs architecture falls behind pretty significantly.  The price so long as you don't pick the ultra high end is pretty competitive as a total system and you won't be sacrificing gaming performance.

The simple fact is this:  extra cores and to a large extent multi-threading is a waste when it comes to gaming.  There are almost no games on the market that even attempt to effectively use all 4 (or more) cores because of the difficulty in optimizing a gaming engine in that way when your engine needs to run on a wide array of platforms.  That won't ever change because of the nature of gaming on the PC platform, so until AMD changes their entire strategy they will be lackluster in gaming performance and aren't even significantly cheaper.  

Pick whatever you want, but you've stated gaming and performance as two things you are concerned with and by only considering AMD you're neglecting both of those things.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 22, 2013)

Aithos said:


> If you are going for price/performance and your primary purpose is gaming then I would be looking at Intel.  There is no question that of the current chips on the market Intel excels at gaming and AMDs architecture falls behind pretty significantly.  The price so long as you don't pick the ultra high end is pretty competitive as a total system and you won't be sacrificing gaming performance.




Tell me what price/performance CPU can be had from Intel for the same price as the FX 6300 




Aithos said:


> The simple fact is this:  extra cores and to a large extent multi-threading is a waste when it comes to gaming.  There are almost no games on the market that even attempt to effectively use all 4 (or more) cores because of the difficulty in optimizing a gaming engine in that way when your engine needs to run on a wide array of platforms.  That won't ever change because of the nature of gaming on the PC platform, so until AMD changes their entire strategy they will be lackluster in gaming performance and aren't even significantly cheaper.
> 
> Pick whatever you want, but you've stated gaming and performance as two things you are concerned with and by only considering AMD you're neglecting both of those things.



I strongly disagree. GTA IV, Crysis 1-3, BF3/BF4 just to name a few games have shown that core count does matter. It's becoming increasingly important. More-so now game engines are coming natively multi threaded like the CryEngine, The 4A Engine, Dunia Engine, Frostbite engine, Vision Engine 8 etc. AMD has a lot of fingers in the console pie with their Jaguar 8-core and are already whispering in developers ears for extra support from their console ports.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/18/amd...e-on-pc-due-to-its-ps4-xbox-one-partnerships/


----------



## CD2 Solutions (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Who said only BF4 was multi-threaded? There is a huge library of multi-threaded games. Just to name a few. BF3, Crysis series, Civilisation 5, Far Cry 2/3,Skyrim etc



it likely to become the norm, especially with console ports now, with the 2 new consoles having 8 core amd parts.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

CD2 Solutions said:


> it likely to become the norm, especially with console ports now, with the 2 new consoles having 8 core amd parts.



Indeed. I just touched upon the console port topic just above this one.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Tell me what price/performance CPU can be had from Intel for the same price as the FX 6300



I didn't say it would be the same price, the price on an Intel machine is generally going to be a little more.  However, they also perform better than AMD CPUs for gaming in particular.  An FX 6300 is $120 but the motherboards (for a decent one) aren't any less expensive than Intel.  So an i5-4670k at $220 is a total of $100 more but for gaming will outperform the AMD one.  There are obviously other options without going to Haswell, but the z87 improvements are pretty impressive for gaming.



> I strongly disagree. GTA IV, Crysis 1-3, BF3/BF4 just to name a few games have shown that core count does matter. It's becoming increasingly important. More-so now game engines are coming natively multi threaded like the CryEngine, The 4A Engine, Dunia Engine, Frostbite engine, Vision Engine 8 etc. AMD has a lot of fingers in the console pie with their Jaguar 8-core and are already whispering in developers ears for extra support from their console ports.
> 
> http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/18/amd...e-on-pc-due-to-its-ps4-xbox-one-partnerships/



I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.  I didn't mean that core count doesn't matter at all, it doesn't matter as much beyond 4.  If you do gaming performance benchmarks between 4 core and 6 core (or 8 core) the benefit beyond 4 is virtually non-existent.  In fact if you look at recent Intel offerings, the i7-4770k outperforms the Ivy-E 6 core CPUs at both basic computing and gaming.  It isn't until you look at stuff like encoding or heavily threaded applications where more than 4 cores is important.

Similarly, hyper threading isn't universally optimized for gaming.  An i5-4670k when overclocked performs nearly as well as an overclocked i7-4770k, the performance difference is negligable at best.  I'm getting the 4770k myself because I want hyper threading for encoding and software development, but if I was looking purely at gaming for the money I'd get the 4670k and call it a day.  I also don't care about a $100 dollar difference, that's nothing in even a $1000 system.  A 10% bump for a better processor for your intended function is well worth it considering you get at least that much value out of it.

I'm not saying you can't build a gaming system on AMD, I gamed on AMD processors for quite a long time because they were *significantly* less expensive at the time I built those computers and I was a lot more cash strapped than I am now.  These days AMD doesn't have a 2-300 dollar price advantage, the gap is almost nothing so I won't consider something that does the job less effectively for such a small amount of money.  If $100 dollars breaks your budget and means you can't build the system, maybe you should reconsider building it in the first place.  Or save up for one or two more paychecks and take advantage of price drops for the holiday.  

I just think it's funny when someone says they aren't brand loyal and that performance for the money is their only concern and then they turn around and only consider one brand.  I wasn't likely to choose AMD for my next build (ordering in Nov) but I still looked at reviews and benchmarks and checked out the current offerings.  It's all part of doing my diligence before a build.  

Here are some benchmarks I grabbed from google, the pricing isn't completely current and I don't agree with their price/performance value numbers.  But it shows how significantly the Intel chip beats the AMD one.  It's a pretty big difference.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/439/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Who said only BF4 was multi-threaded? There is a huge library of multi-threaded games. Just to name a few. BF3, Crysis series, Civilisation 5, Far Cry 2/3,Skyrim etc



Skyrim is not multi-threaded.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Skyrim is not multi-threaded.



Maybe not, but my comment is still valid. A lot of modern games are becoming multi threaded.



Aithos said:


> I didn't say it would be the same price, the price on an Intel machine is generally going to be a little more.  However, they also perform better than AMD CPUs for gaming in particular.  An FX 6300 is $120 but the motherboards (for a decent one) aren't any less expensive than Intel.  So an i5-4670k at $220 is a total of $100 more but for gaming will outperform the AMD one.  There are obviously other options without going to Haswell, but the z87 improvements are pretty impressive for gaming.



But now you're back tracking. You said Intel hold price to performance initially. Now you're saying Intel build would cost $100 more? I actually did my own research  on Newegg.com (I'm assuming you're from USA). And it turns out there is actually a wider price difference of $120.  I don't see how spending $120 more constitutes as "price to performance" for Intel? 


AMD FX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo) Socket A...
Intel Core i5-4670K Haswell 3.4GHz LGA 1150 84W Qu...



Aithos said:


> These days AMD doesn't have a 2-300 dollar price advantage



Huh? You already admitted yourself that AMD have a $100 price advantage.




Aithos said:


> also don't care about a $100 dollar difference, that's nothing in even a $1000 system



Not everyone has a budget of $1,000. Clearly there needs to be CPUs for people with lesser budget and the FX6300 solves that.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

you can also consider second hand cpu (oh well intel i7-2600/700K will not be cheap, people tend to go ballistic when they see intel on the box ...) 

for myself i got a 80chf i5-2400(no AMD FX can beat that price/perf ratio  believe me i had both brand) before finding a Xeon E3-1275v2 for 213chf (a i7-3770 with i7-3770K clock but no Oc capability) i think if lucky you can find some IvyBridge cheap (i5-i7) but if you go Haswell it will be a bit more hard 

i dont see the raw benefit of a i7-4770K over a i7-3770K since cpu perf doesnt evolve much, the 2 thing that bump up is IGP performance(interesting in a HTPC but not in a gaming pc) and heat (wich is a bit more annoying) ofc the Z87 chipset is neat but i rather keep to Z77 and wait till next gen (my own opinion ofc)


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Tell me what price/performance CPU can be had from Intel for the same price as the FX 6300
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Dent1 said:


> Maybe not, but my comment is still valid. A lot of modern games are becoming multi threaded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not backtracking.  I said price/performance is better, what that meant was that for the performance benefit the price difference is worth it.  A $100 dollar difference in TOTAL SYSTEM cost for a CPU that will outperform it's counterpart by 40-60% in most applications?  Yeah, I don't know what world you live in but that's well worth it.  I also think that without overclocking you can get a nicer motherboard for less with Intel AND Haswell has made significant improvements to memory management as well.  So when you combine all that the total system is SIGNIFICANTLY better for what amounts to almost nothing.

And you're wrong, games are not becoming significantly more multi-threaded.  As I stated before, the complexity involved in having to develop games for a wide range of system requirements means that by default you cannot optimize for the upper ends of core count and multi-threading because your average consumer will not have that kind of build.  Contrary to what hardcore gamers think, we are a minority, a vocal one, but game designers make games for average and not hardcore.  The engines that run todays games, even the latest ones will NOT perform significantly better on a 6 or 8 core CPU than on a 4.  

And as I said before, they actually perform worse in many cases (such as the intel IVY-E).  You have to buy the top IVY-E which costs more than three times as much just to beat the $220 dollar 4670k that I mentioned previously.

Edit:  That price on Newegg is a bad price, it was 20 dollar cheaper and had a mail in rebate a couple weeks ago.  If you watch the daily prices it will go back down again, just like I've seen the Corsair AX1200i fluctuate between $279 and $349.  I wouldn't buy it at $349, but $279 is a hell of a price for that PSU.  I was quoting the price I saw for the CPU within the last two weeks as I was researching prices for my own build.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 23, 2013)

Id go with the second hand route. used 2500 or 2600k on the cheap. with a decent z77 board.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Id go with the second hand route. used 2500 or 2600k on the cheap. with a decent z77 board.



indeed, if getting a combo E3-1275v2 + ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 at the price of a i7-4770K worked for me why not for you, be cautious for everything (good deals sometime end in worse deal ever) but you can find something interesting if you search carefully, not only SandyBridge but also IvyBridge can be cheap sometime.

i could also have kept the i5-2400 the perf improvement isn't particularly consequent between a i5-2400 and a E3-1275v2 but less watts and also the fact of running a Xeon and not a Core Cpu xD


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> I also don't care about a $100 dollar difference, that's nothing in even a $1000 system





Aithos said:


> Contrary to what hardcore gamers think, we are a minority, a vocal one, but game designers make games for average and not hardcore



Now you're contradicting yourself, earlier you was advocating builds of $1,000+. If game developers cater for the minority shouldn't you be advocating cheaper builds with cheaper more energy efficient processors. Maybe the i3 or FX 4xxx series or even a AMD Trinity. No need to spend $220 on an big expensive i5-4670K and $1000 builds if developers only care about the minority.



Aithos said:


> Here are some benchmarks I grabbed from google, the pricing isn't completely current and I don't agree with their price/performance value numbers. But it shows how significantly the Intel chip beats the AMD one. It's a pretty big difference. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/439/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html



Shouldn't you be comparing the i5-4670K with the FX 8350 since they are priced the same? (actually the FX 8350 is $20 cheaper. But heh).

If you are truly talking about price to performance then it should be i5-4670K v FX 8350. No? - since they are priced almost the same. 

Surely if you are talking price to performance you should be comparing the FX 6300 to the Intel Core i3-3240 Ivy Bridge - As they are the same price


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
indeed


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

cpu-world.com is becoming one of my favourite websites for a quick overview glance.

But one huge criticism of cpu-world.com is they only review synthetic applications which makes  which means any gaming correlations can't be concluded.



Edit: Anandtech is good for at a glance overviews too. They used to test games too but have recently stopped?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/677?vs=699


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> But one huge criticism of cpu-world.com is they only review synthetic applications which makes  which means any gaming correlations can't be concluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Anandtech is good for at a glance overviews too. They used to test games too but have recently stopped? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=697



well sometime you have a mini benchmark and another a bit more detailled wit 3Dmarks benchies ... still no real game to compare

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/422/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770_vs_Intel_Xeon_E3-1275_v2.html still its what i used to see that a 2nd hand Xeon was same but better in the end (price) than a i7-3770
but still factory sealed  the seller brought the wrong cpu for his socket and realized it after, sadely enough his etailer wasnt from the same country and it would have been waayyy more pricier to ask a refund than to sell it raw.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Now you're contradicting yourself, earlier you was advocating builds of $1,000+. If game developers cater for the minority shouldn't you be advocating cheaper builds with cheaper more energy efficient processors. Maybe the i3 or FX 4xxx series or even a AMD Trinity. No need to spend $220 on an big expensive i5-4670K and $1000 builds if developers only care about the minority.
> 
> Shouldn't you be comparing the i5-4670K with the FX 8350 since they are priced the same? (actually the FX 8350 is $20 cheaper. But heh).
> 
> ...



I'm not contradicting myself at all, you need to re-read what I said and make sure you understand the point I'm making because you clearly don't get it.  But here, I'll try to be even more clear:

1) I said AMD no longer holds a 2-300 dollar difference in price advantage.  TRUE, as I quoted, the i5-4670k (the top i5 btw, there are less expensive options) is only $100 dollars more.  Back when I was building AMD systems I would often pay $300 for a chip while the Intel equivalent was $600+.  The gap has narrowed in price while the gap in performance has widened.

2) A $1000 budget for a modern computer is pretty bare-bones if you are building a complete system and not re-using a significant number of parts.  In fact I'd go so far as to say it isn't even worthwhile building a computer if you don't have at least that much to spend.  So a $100 difference of a "normal" build is 10%, a pretty insignificant amount.  I consider a more appropriate number to build a computer to be $1500.  I realize not everyone can do that, but if you can't then you should be saving longer or buying smarter so your systems last longer.  If a system lasts you 3 years that means you need to save 500 per year or just over 40 dollars a month to have a budget of $1500.  If you can't do that then you need to re-evaluate your finances and how you spend your money.

3) A "serious" build is $2000-$3000 and a "hardcore" build would be more than that.  When I talk about Game developers and the types of systems they need to work with they go back several years.  That means that a $1000 computer build from several years ago needs to be able to run their game with reasonable settings (decent resolution, at least medium settings).  By having to do that, they cannot heavily optimize their engine to utilize more than the average amount of cores/threads from the previous couple years.

In other words, if you go back to when quad cores were brand new the games released for the next several years performed just as well on dual core as the best quad cores.  This is still somewhat true even today, I've seen fairly recent benchmarks where they overclocked a dual core in some modern games and it was nearly as good as most quad cores from just a generation or two ago.  The same is true now, 6 and 8 core do NOT perform better in current games by any significant margin and WILL NOT for several years at the LEAST.  It won't begin to happen until ALL systems from several years are running more than 4 cores, because it won't be until THAT point that your average household will be running a system like that.

Again, game makers are concerned with sales numbers, not extreme high end optimization.  It's the same reason you don't get double the performance from running SLI or Crossfire, because the drivers that handle the task splitting are not optimized in the code.  If everyone ran two graphics cards and the engines were optimized along with the drivers you'd see double the performance.  Instead you get a marginal increase that only really matters if you're running at extreme resolutions on ultra settings.  At 1080p with medium or high settings a single card will perform just as well from a real world perspective as the $2000 SLI Titans.

4) As for the 4670k vs 8350, I went with what people were talking about.  No one was telling him to get the 8350 so I didn't bother, but if you want the comparison here it is:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

What you should see there is that the AMD chip costs a lot more to operate, barely wins in multi-threaded tasks and gets crushed in single threaded applications (which by the way is the indicator for gaming performance since they ARE NOT heavily threaded).  So that AMD chip is still, for gaming significantly inferior to the Intel offering.

Now, if you don't mind I would appreciate if you stop replying to my posts if you don't understand what I'm saying.  You have twisted my words repeatedly in an attempt to make me sound like I'm contradicting myself when I've been excruciatingly clear in my explanations.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 23, 2013)

To OP, if you are going FM2 route get the 760K instead of 750K.

AM3+ go with 8320 for just few $ extra.  6300 is also a good option.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm posting this in a separate post because I'm not posting in the thread any longer, please do not edit it into my other post so that it gets lost at the bottom of a longer post.

OP - Please just buy an Intel CPU if your primary function is gaming.  I have worked with, played on and analyzed both in the past several years and in a real world capacity the Intel chipset destroys AMD for gaming.  Benchmarks show it, people who have used both can attest to it, conventional knowledge has said it for over 5 years.

If you would like advice on a complete build I would be more than happy to provide you with some recommendations according to whatever budget you have.  I have been in the planning stages of building a new machine myself so I am very up to date on current hardware (I'm ordering in Nov myself).  Just PM me and I'll be happy to provide info.  Good luck.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos, why do you feel the need to write an essay. If you're argument is that strong surely a few words could express it.




Aithos said:


> I'm posting this in a separate post because I'm not posting in the thread any longer, please do not edit it into my other post so that it gets lost at the bottom of a longer post.



OK bye



Aithos said:


> OP - Please just buy an Intel CPU if your primary function is gaming.  I have worked with, played on and analyzed both in the past several years and in a real world capacity the Intel chipset destroys AMD for gaming.  Benchmarks show it, people who have used both can attest to it, conventional knowledge has said it for over 5 years.
> 
> If you would like advice on a complete build I would be more than happy to provide you with some recommendations according to whatever budget you have.  I have been in the planning stages of building a new machine myself so I am very up to date on current hardware (I'm ordering in Nov myself).  Just PM me and I'll be happy to provide info.  Good luck.



Nobody wants your bias help. People want impartial advice which you seem incapable of delivering.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

no games are multithreaded eh? at last 2 to 4 core at max but having more (AMD style or HT intel) is not something wrong either, so to the OP i would say go with the best price/perf ratio you can find, be it AMD or Intel 

money saved can go in a better GPU even if its a little, its allways worth it... SINCE games arent multithreaded and more GPU bound ... oh wait ... nope

sidenote ... for the price of my 2 Matrix and my E3 i could afford a ivybridge E 6 core ... but without a motherboard and gpu to go with hehehe ...


----------



## Frick (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> 2) *A $1000 budget for a modern computer is pretty bare-bones if you are building a complete system and not re-using a significant number of parts.  In fact I'd go so far as to say it isn't even worthwhile building a computer if you don't have at least that much to spend.*  So a $100 difference of a "normal" build is 10%, a pretty insignificant amount.  I consider a more appropriate number to build a computer to be $1500.  I realize not everyone can do that, but if you can't then you should be saving longer or buying smarter so your systems last longer.  If a system lasts you 3 years that means you need to save 500 per year or just over 40 dollars a month to have a budget of $1500.  If you can't do that then you need to re-evaluate your finances and how you spend your money.




......

Ok. Yes.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Aithos, why do you feel the need to write an essay. If you're argument is that strong surely a few words could express it.
> 
> Nobody wants your bias help. People want impartial advice which you seem incapable of delivering.



Ok, since you're going to address me directly I'll answer.  I feel the need to write an essay because people like you don't seem to get the point unless I spell it out word for word.  You misunderstand what I'm saying and then twist my words into something they don't mean.  I posted several comparisons of the CPUs being discussed that clearly show IN BENCHMARKS that Intel CPUs outperform AMD in gaming.

It is a FACT that game engines are largely single-threaded.  Yes, there are games that use multi-threading and multi-cores.  However, most games are NOT optimized for them.  They instead rely on the OS to split the tasks amongst the additional cores/threads NOT the game engine.  If it were true that games were largely multi-threaded you wouldn't get reviews like this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5

If you're too lazy to read the charts here is what that review shows:  the i5-4670k and the i7-4770k (both 4 core) perform as good or better in every single game they tested.  Bioshock, Sleeping Dogs, Metro, Tomb Raider and others.  There was no significant different in even a SINGLE game going to the IVY-E Extreme processor.  Which by the way still CRUSHES AMD's equivalent offering.  In fact, the 8350 is on that list and performs HORRIBLY by comparison.

I'm sorry you don't understand anything about game engines and you have false perceptions about what they are/aren't optimized for, but the benchmarks don't lie.  They are as impartial as it gets, I didn't make them, it isn't opinion.  

Now scroll back up and read the damn links.  Thanks.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> Ok, since you're going to address me directly I'll answer.  I feel the need to write an essay because people like you don't seem to get the point unless I spell it out word for word.  You misunderstand what I'm saying and then twist my words into something they don't mean.  I posted several comparisons of the CPUs being discussed that clearly show IN BENCHMARKS that Intel CPUs outperform AMD in gaming.
> 
> It is a FACT that gaming is largely single-threaded.  Yes, there are games that use multi-threading and multi-cores.  However, most games are NOT optimized for them.  They instead rely on the OS to split the tasks amongst the additional cores/threads NOT the game engine.
> 
> ...



A.) There was no games in the CPU-World or Anandtech link initially posted. Just synthetic benchmarks.

B.) $100 saved on a CPU can amount to $100 placed on a better GPU. A better GPU will vastly improve single threaded gaming performance more than a CPU.

C.) I'm able to get my point across concisely. No wall of text needed.




Aithos said:


> amongst the additional cores/threads NOT the game engine. If it were true that games were largely multi-threaded you wouldn't get reviews like this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/i...dge-e-review/5



D.) If you are building around Titan SLI your budget would be more than $1000 you once advocated.

E.) That review showing Titan SLI GPU scaling. Not multi threading CPU performance. Again. If you can afford a Titan SLI you wouldn't be talking price/performance you'd be talking "performance/performance".


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

faster yes but a small %, now the true question : is it worth the price difference? 

games aren't actually massively multithreaded for now but will it be true for the next gen? 
4core 8 thread 8core 8 thread same fight even if outperformed by 10-50fps above 35fps a average user will not notify the difference between a i7-4960X and a FX-8350 but his wallet will.

not all gamer are hardcore bencher ... for instance my main rig can be outperformed (assembled from various 2nd hand component) but on the price/perf ratio its a winner (well i get it not everyone can be lucky as i am when it come to 2nd hand hardware  )


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

GreiverBlade said:


> faster yes but a small %, now the true question : is it worth the price difference?
> 
> games aren't actually massively multithreaded for now but will it be true for the next gen?
> 4core 8 thread 8core 8 thread same fight even if outperformed by 10-50fps above 35fps a average user will not notify the difference between a i7-4960X and a FX-8350 but his wallet will.
> ...



Here are the Anandtech numbers from the review link I posted for the three CPUs in question.  The rest of the data showed there was no significant difference between the 4670k, the 4770k and the 4960x:

4670k vs 6300 & 8350:

Grid (1080p, ultra)

4670 - 132fps
8350 - 92fps
6300 - 86fps

Total War (1080p, dx11 high)

4670 - 135fps
8350 - 79fps
6300 - 74fps

Tomb Raider (1080, ultimate)

4670 - 136fps
8350 - 134fps
6300 - 132fps

Sleeping Dogs (1080p, extreme)

4670 - 107fps
8350 - 78fps
6300 - 69 fps

Metro (1080p, dx11 very high)

4670 - 63fps
8350 - 57fps
6300 - 53fps

Bioshock Infinite (1080p, ultra)

4670 - 150fps
8350 - 105fps
6300 - 102fps

What those numbers show, and Dent1 fails to understand is that those games are all (with the exception of Tomb Raider) CPU limited.  They used Titans to eliminate any bottleneck from the GPU so you could get a real world comparison of the CPUs.  That is what a benchmark is Dent1, a way of proving categorically, without bias which part is better.

I never advocated using a Titan in a build, in fact I think it's idiotic to pay that much for a graphics card, especially for gaming.  You must be a special kind of clueless if you think I was advocating using a Titan in a build.  

Honestly, it isn't even worth responding to the rest of what Dent1 had to say, he clearly doesn't understand what I'm talking about.  Look at all of the links again and please try to comprehend what the POINT is.

The synthetic benchmarks show you general types of tasks and how the CPUs perform.  Single threaded is a correlation for gaming, Multi threaded is a correlation for encoding and other heavily threaded tasks.  The Anandtech links are a real world test with actual FPS numbers from games the OP might play.  Go ahead and tell me it isn't a significant amount of difference for 100 dollars.  

Are you saying you wouldn't take 40-80fps in nearly every game you want to play for $100?  LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.  That review was from the Ivy-E launch barely a month and a half ago, it's current and proves two things:

1) Intel crushes AMD in gaming.
2) For gaming multi-threading and extra cores are virtually meaningless.

If those things weren't true then the AMD CPUs would have performed better and the IVY-E six core $1000 dollar CPU would have beat the $220 dollar i5.  But it didn't, in fact in a couple of the games it LOST.  A $1000 brand new Ivy-E 6 core extreme CPU LOST to an i5 that costs 1/4 the price.


Edit:  I also don't appreciate being called biased for advocating using real performance numbers and not just price as the sole determining factor in making a purchase.  It's insulting.  I've stated several times now that I've built systems around AMD chips, I'm not a fanboy.  I extensively research hardware before I build a system and I've spent literally months now scouring Anandtech, Techpowerup and other review sites for benchmarks and reviews.  I advocate Intel *RIGHT NOW* because they are, for the money, CLEARLY the superior chipset.  You cannot point to a single review or benchmark that shows that for GAMING, AMD is better than Intel.  It has been a fact of their chip architecture for quite some time now.  

I'm sorry that you're a fan of AMD or you're super budget constrained and are still of the opinion that games are largely GPU oriented when a shift has been going on for the past 3 years to a world where games are actually CPU bottlenecked.  That didn't used to be the case, but as the games change so does the demands on the system (memory, CPU, GPU, etc).  Right now we are in a time where Haswell is the superior (stock) CPU.  Overclocking is a whole other can of worms, but Haswell as a platform (z87) is better for gaming.


Edit2:  Look, I'm sorry if the way I talk rubs people the wrong way.  I know sometimes I can be a little over-bearing, I swear I don't try to do it.  I get really frustrated when people don't understand what I'm saying or refuse to acknowledge data I've provided when trying to debate or argue with me.  If you think I'm wrong then give me some FACTS as to why I'm wrong or HOW I'm wrong.  Don't just attack me without a shred of proof to back yourself up.  I have gone to extreme lengths here to try to explain in detail WHY I'm right AND provide benchmarks with current numbers from several different resources to back that up.

I don't know any other way to be impartial than that.  If the OP wants to buy an AMD CPU:  FINE.  It's his money and he can choose whatever he wants, it doesn't affect me at all.  But the OP clearly came here looking for advice and I provided my opinion and a ton of information to back it up.  I was systematically insulted and attacked for posting it and I got a little heated in responding and for that I apologize.  It really gets me worked up when people give advice about how someone else should spend their money without considering the facts.  

If the OP buys the FX-6300 and ends up CPU bottlenecked in 1.5 years and can't afford to upgrade, what does he do then?  Do YOU care?  I do.  I know what it's like to not be able to afford new parts, I was poor for a LONG time.  Not so long ago I had to borrow money from a friend to complete a build because my computer died and I didn't quite have all my parts bought yet.  I got some bad advice on parts (back when I wasn't as knowledgable as I am now) and that machine ended up lasting me less than two years.  I ended up having to scrape together money when I wasn't really able to afford it to get "upgrades" to tide me over until my next build and I ended up with less than I should have for the next build too.  I'm just trying to make sure that whatever the OP decides it is fully informed so that *I* did what I could to make sure someone else doesn't have to repeat mistakes I've made myself.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

you missed the par of "not all gamer are hardcore bencher" 

intel crush AMD by a small %  i dont call that crunching, if a 4670 is 30-50fps faster and a 8350  does 57 to 134fps as i said above : the normal gamer will not notice it but his wallet will, initially the op choose AMD cpu not for perf but for price he asked about perf in a second time but as long as a game run above 35fps (okok everybody is 60fps min focused) so let say 49-60fps the lowest price is the best price. 

you want to claim intel supremacy ? do it ... its true, but dont hammer your opinion on everybody 
i had numerous AMD setup and some intel (AM3 AM3+ AM2+ 1156 1366 1155 and even 478/A 939)

my main rig isnt a choice of performance but a choice of lowest price on 2nd hand and unless i find a i7-4xxx IB E or even a Hotwell with the right price, i would allways choose the lowest price, but enough to play comfortably, cpu 

IE: i would take a 8350 over a i7-4770K or other "hardcore gamer"cpu from intel ofc i could also look for a i5 

but not only on CPU but on motherboard Intel is more expensive, you want OC you need a Z chipset (77/87 or X79) AMD every 970-990 does it some board like ASRock 970 ex3 dont have the powerphase to backup a OC but Gigabyte or other do and at a relatively good price, oh wait ... 9xx chipset dont have native pcieX 3.0 meh?



Aithos said:


> I never advocated using a Titan in a build, in fact I think it's idiotic to pay that much for a graphics card, especially for gaming. You must be a special kind of clueless if you think I was advocating using a Titan in a build.



same goes for cpu

and im neither a AMD or Intel fan (on the other hand ... ) i wouldn't had swaped from a AM3+ to my actual rig, if i didnt find the hardware i needed to assemble it under regular price (im a lil under 750chf and where i live for that price you have a bag of computational crap if you go brand pc and a little bit better but under what i have if you go self assembled rig)

you remind me that i missed a Intel DX79SI and a i7-3930K for 220chf (the price is for both ofc 70chf the board 150chf the cpu)


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> Contrary to what hardcore gamers think, we are a minority, a vocal one, but game *designers make games for average and not hardcore*. The engines that run todays games





Aithos said:


> What those numbers show, and Dent1 fails to understand is that those games are all (with the exception of Tomb Raider) CPU limited.  *They used Titans to eliminate any bottleneck from the GPU so you could get a real world comparison of the CPUs*.  That is what a benchmark is Dent1, a way of proving categorically, without bias which part is better.
> 
> I never advocated using a Titan in a build, in fact I think it's idiotic to pay that much for a graphics card, especially for gaming.  You must be a special kind of clueless if you think I was advocating using a Titan in a build.




Titan is in SLI mode. SLI in general will increase the CPU bottleneck in general. Having such a beefy GPU such as Titan in SLI will compound the CPU bottleneck.

Earlier you said that game developers catered for the minority or the "average" and not hardcore gamers? Because the average gamer doesn't own Titan SLI or know what it is and probably couldn't afford it if they did.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> GreiverBlade You accidentally quoted me in your last post.



fix'd ahahah sorry about that ...


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

GreiverBlade said:


> you missed the par of "not all gamer are hardcore bencher"
> 
> intel crush AMD by a small %  i dont call that crunching, if a 4670 is 30-50fps faster and a 8350  does 57 to 134fps as i said above : the normal gamer will not notice it but his wallet will, initially the op choose AMD cpu not for perf but for price he asked about perf in a second time but as long as a game run above 35fps (okok everybody is 60fps min focused) so let say 49-60fps the lowest price is the best price.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point too.  Those benchmarks are with a dual Titan GPU system.  That means that given a normal graphics card you won't get near to those numbers on those settings.  So it isn't like you can just buy the AMD chip and still get 60+ FPS at ultra on 1080p, you won't.

The point of those numbers is to show you how significantly the Intel CPU beats the AMD CPU.  That's it.  It isn't meant to give you a baseline of how many FPS to expect, that's a function of your entire system and not just the CPU.

As to your MB comments:  I've looked at the motherboards, they aren't any more expensive for Intel than AMD.  In fact some of the comparable boards from the same manufacturer the Intel version was less expensive.  I doubt the OP is overclocking, but if he wants to it will increase the price for BOTH CPUs.

Oh, and don't forget that the Intels use less power, so he will save money over the lifespan of his build.  I can't give you any numbers since it depends on how long he keeps it, how often he uses it, etc.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 23, 2013)

The question was pretty simple, 750K or 6300.  And as usual it was dragged to 3 page long discussion with most of the Intel pissing contest.  Yes agreed you can piss long, so what?

Better discussion would be ..what PSU you are planning on, GPU, SSD, budget, monitor resolution, form factor etc!


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> You're missing the point too.  Those benchmarks are with a dual Titan GPU system.  That means that given a normal graphics card you won't get near to those numbers on those settings.  So it isn't like you can just buy the AMD chip and still get 60+ FPS at ultra on 1080p, you won't.
> 
> The point of those numbers is to show you how significantly the Intel CPU beats the AMD CPU.  That's it.  It isn't meant to give you a baseline of how many FPS to expect, that's a function of your entire system and not just the CPU.
> 
> ...



But we know from experience that AMD CPUs are prone to inconsistent SLI or CF performance or "CPU bottlenecking" in SLI / CF. Had a normal single card been used, opposed to a Titian SLI GPU then the grap between Intel and AMD would be closer. 

In short you can't use the results of an SLI review to predict the results of an non-SLI review. Otherwise the results are contaminated.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

suraswami said:


> The question was pretty simple, 750K or 6300.  And as usual it was dragged to 3 page long discussion with most of the Intel pissing contest.  Yes agreed you can piss long, so what?
> 
> Better discussion would be ..what PSU you are planning on, GPU, SSD, budget, monitor resolution, form factor etc!



All I've been trying to say is the OP should be looking at other options specifically because he stated the primary function of this build will be gaming.  I also offered to give advice or recommendations for other hardware based on whatever budget the OP has.  

I'd be happy to take a number and build a system on pcpartpicker for the OP to look at and anyone advocating AMD can do the same.  Then the OP can compare and weight options and make an INFORMED decision.  As I said, I don't care what the OP does with his money, all I care about is that he make his choice knowing what the options are and the consequences.

From the OP it sounds like he is concerned about the longevity of the system and clearly doesn't have a ton of money to spend.  That's FINE.  We all get that not everyone can go out and drop $5k every year or two on PCs, hell, I'm a lot better off than I was a few years ago but I wouldn't dream of spending that kind of cash.



Dent1 said:


> But we know from experience that AMD CPUs are prone to inconsistent SLI or CF performance or "CPU bottlenecking" in SLI / CF. Had a normal single card been used, opposed to a Titian SLI GPU then the grap between Intel and AMD would be closer.
> 
> In short you can't use the results of an SLI review to predict the results of an non-SLI review. Otherwise the results are contaminated.



I have never in my life seen a review stating anything like that.  SO if "we know from experience" that AMD CPUs have issues with multi-gpu systems please link me some articles from a reputable source that I can read on the topic.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> All I've been trying to say is the OP should be looking at other options specifically because he stated the primary function of this build will be gaming.  I also offered to give advice or recommendations for other hardware based on whatever budget the OP has.



For this exact reason he should be spending less on CPU and more on GPU. No?


----------



## Aithos (Oct 23, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> For this exact reason he should be spending less on CPU and more on GPU. No?



No, as I replied to you before:  gaming has been shifting from being GPU limited to CPU limited for the past couple years.  GPUs have honestly been pretty stagnant for the past couple generations because they haven't made any significant jumps in their chipsets.  The fact that nearly all of nVidia and AMDs new GPUs are rebrands and not new chipsets can tell you that.

Again, for about the 5th time:  $100 for what amounts to a significant, real difference in framerate in current games is one of the best bang for the buck upgrades you can choose.  $100 is not going to push you into a framerate gap even CLOSE to that on a current GPU.  But without a budget and what the OP is looking at for other hardware I can't really make that call.

edit:  Ok, this has long since crossed the line into idiotic so I'll respond to others but I'm done talking to you Dent1.  You clearly have no information to back you up, you are obviously biased and you really don't understand any of the points I'm trying to get across because you've continuously posted statements with conclusions completely contrary to what I've actually said.


----------



## HammerON (Oct 23, 2013)

I think it is time you both move along. You have both made your points clear and there is no need to continue your debate. Please feel free to continue your discussion using PM.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Aithos said:


> I have never in my life seen a review stating anything like that.  SO if "we know from experience" that AMD CPUs have issues with multi-gpu systems please link me some articles from a reputable source that I can read on the topic.



OK. my pleasure 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html


Edit: OK Moderators. I'm willing to stop now.


Edit 2:



Aithos said:


> Also, it's using old Intel chips that cost in the $340 range and not the $220 I was quoting.  The Haswell chips I mentioned earlier beat the Ivy chip in those articles pretty easily.



The message to take away from the links wasn't the price or the processor architecture, but the fact that multiple GPUs can cause CPU bottleneck, especially for AMD.  Not sure why you are banging on about price and architecture still as it was irrelevant to the ethos of the link.

Moderators can you please lock this thread. The OP has his answer.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 24, 2013)

HammerON said:


> I think it is time you both move along. You have both made your points clear and there is no need to continue your debate. Please feel free to continue your discussion using PM.



NP, there isn't any debate anyway.  The articles he linked come to the same conclusion I've been arguing all along.  I strongly suggest everyone go read the two links Dent1 posted closely, it talks about single gpu, dual gpu and performance for the gaming dollar and comes to a pretty clear conclusion.

Also, it's using old Intel chips that cost in the $340 range and not the $220 I was quoting.  The Haswell chips I mentioned earlier beat the Ivy chip in those articles pretty easily.



> The message to take away from the links wasn't the price or the processor architecture, but the fact that multiple GPUs can cause CPU bottleneck, especially for AMD.  Not sure why you are banging on about price and architecture still as it was irrelevant to the ethos of the link.



I already responded to you in PM over this as the mods requested, please don't drag any more into this thread than you already have.  The point of that article was not that multiple GPUs can cause CPU bottleneck, it was showing whether or not nVidia graphics cards perform better on AMD CPUs than AMD graphics cards (the answer is yes).  There is no such thing as multiple GPUs causing a CPU bottleneck, the power of a CPU *can* determine how well multiple GPUs scale but that is the opposite of what you're saying.  The CPU causes the effect, not the GPUs.


----------



## na (Oct 24, 2013)

Very good discussion and very useful posts....................so if some is thinking that this can be "spam" and "not in the topic"-my answer is no-this is very useful discussion.
I don't have time now to write more(may be in the evening)-but i am sure that this discussion was not useful only to me,but to the majority of the forum members here.
P.S
Please moderators
As a author of the topic,i approve such discussion,because i learn a lot(and i am sure not only me) and give me a better viewpoint of which processor/s are better and why(in short/middle and long term).


----------



## Jetster (Oct 24, 2013)

na said:


> but i am sure that this discussion was not useful only to me,but to the majority of the forum members here.



Not really, Stating your opinion is one thing but arguing over stuff when clearly they disagree is pointless


----------



## GSG-9 (Oct 24, 2013)

I was so confused reading these comments, I read the title as "Choosing a projector" and was ready to read opinions on it, read the comments backwards and got more and more confused until I read the start of the thread.


----------



## Aithos (Oct 24, 2013)

na said:


> Very good discussion and very useful posts....................so if some is thinking that this can be "spam" and "not in the topic"-my answer is no-this is very useful discussion.
> I don't have time now to write more(may be in the evening)-but i am sure that this discussion was not useful only to me,but to the majority of the forum members here.
> P.S
> Please moderators
> As a author of the topic,i approve such discussion,because i learn a lot(and i am sure not only me) and give me a better viewpoint of which processor/s are better and why(in short/middle and long term).



Thank you OP, I really appreciate that you posted this.  I spent a lot of time yesterday writing those posts and trying to present information so that you can make an informed intelligent decision on how to spend your money.  I'm sorry that it took as long as it did and that it had to go back and forth like that, sometimes things devolve because people don't like to acknowledge what the information shows.

I hope that you got what you needed and if you do want help with the rest of your build I (and several others in this thread) are happy to look at it as a whole for you.  Best of luck!


----------

