New gaming PC - CPU choices....

T

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
Well, I have been scarce lately around here, namely due to kidney cancer...recovery...Ironman training....and now...I have taken on and completed my first two triathlons, a 70.3 (half distance Ironman) and then the full deal 140.6 Ironman Texas in April and May 2014 respectively...but I digress.

But now, it's time to get back to some gaming, I am going to reward myself with a new "mid range" pc.

The only choices I am not sure on is which cpu to roll with. AMD FX-8350 or the I5-3570k.

Both will be water cooled and overclocked. It sure looks like spending the extra 100 bucks to go Intel will be the right choice (especially if I take that 3.4ghz up to 3.8ghz or more).

Opinions? 16gb ram and a GTX780 are the other important bits. Oh yeah, and I will be gaming at 1080p res on my new 27" display.
 
usually, i would say go intel, but if you are dead set on these choices i would go with the AMD since it actually benchmarks faster than the intel in almost all cases.

however, with that said... why are you looking to buy a ivy bridge intel instead of spending 10$ more and buying a hasewell (4670k) that has better performance?
 
EXACTLY why I am asking here! :) I have been out of the loop for a bit obviously.

So the 4670K overclclocked to 3.6-3.8 should be more than a match for the FX-8350....

OR does the 4670K not overclock well?

This forum ROCKS...I don't even visit other pc forums on any regular basis...my first and best love has been here.


EDIT: for only 10 bucks it is obvious that I should go with the newer chip....and it looks like a 4ghz overclock is probably a slam dunk with the 4670k.
 
Last edited:
If you really want fast get the new 4790k it's stock at 4Ghz with turbo of 4.4Ghz but also 340$ (and not out till the 25th), if you want to save some money and time and don't need or want something that fast go AMD, AMD is almost always a better value but slower while Intel is almost always faster but more costly.
 
the thing is cvar, is the i5's are great for people who want to game, like he said, the i7's only become better when you are recording or encoding your gameplay so there is really no need to spend the extra money on the hyper threading.

the nice thing about the current generation of CPU's is this, they already outperform 100% of the games that are developed since almost 100% of the games on the market seem to be developed for consoles which are much slower by comparison. that said, getting the extra Horsepower out of your computer is always nice :p.

now a comparison between the 4670k and the fx-8350? the 4670k benchmarks better (at stock clocks) than the AMD in almost every category. Cores =/= everything.
 
SolitaryOne said:
the thing is cvar, is the i5's are great for people who want to game, like he said, the i7's only become better when you are recording or encoding your gameplay so there is really no need to spend the extra money on the hyper threading.

the nice thing about the current generation of CPU's is this, they already outperform 100% of the games that are developed since almost 100% of the games on the market seem to be developed for consoles which are much slower by comparison. that said, getting the extra Horsepower out of your computer is always nice :p.

now a comparison between the 4670k and the fx-8350? the 4670k benchmarks better (at stock clocks) than the AMD in almost every category. Cores =/= everything.
Click to expand...

Well in real life benchmarks both cpu's are going to be performing virtually identically unless you like running cpu intensive emulators. If you like to heavily multi-task AMD might be slightly better but not by much. Overall If I was going to be spending 200-400$ on a cpu I'd probably go Intel where if I was going to spend less then 200$ I'd go AMD.
 
Hop on over to general hardware and the pros over there will help you a lot more than here. You haven't given a budget, what parts you'll be buying, what parts you'll be wanting to reuse or what OS you're using. All of that plays a huge part in what to recommend and the guys in the general hardware section really really know how to get you the best bang for your buck.
 
16GB is useless for gaming. With the prices of RAM as of late you can save $70-75 buying only 8GB. Put the money towards a faster CPU or GPU and you'll benefit more in games.
 
Flogger23m said:
16GB is useless for gaming. With the prices of RAM as of late you can save $70-75 buying only 8GB. Put the money towards a faster CPU or GPU and you'll benefit more in games.
Click to expand...

We've already got Watch_Dogs recommending 8gb, and it's, realistically, the first of the fallout from the next-gen console transition. Once the really poorly-optimized ports of next-gen titles start flooding out, I'd expect anything less than 12gb to be uncomfortable.
 
ive had a 2500K sandybridge for ages it seems (3 years) and it's still more than enough for the toughest games. Feeds my crossfire 290's just fine.
 
Flogger23m said:
16GB is useless for gaming. With the prices of RAM as of late you can save $70-75 buying only 8GB. Put the money towards a faster CPU or GPU and you'll benefit more in games.
Click to expand...

With more and more games going 64 bit.. I can't disagree with you more. 8GB is still fine but future proofing by going 12-16GB is the wiser choice.. The page file isn't your friend..
 
XenIneX said:
We've already got Watch_Dogs recommending 8gb, and it's, realistically, the first of the fallout from the next-gen console transition. Once the really poorly-optimized ports of next-gen titles start flooding out, I'd expect anything less than 12gb to be uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

That is due to poor optimization. Just like how it requires more than 2GB of VRAM even though the textures look average. Even Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light doesn't come near to using 8GB of RAM. By the time games start using 8GB of RAM it will be time for another big upgrade.

You can even develop in UE4 with 8GB of RAM, although 16 is recommended for that. :p
 
I dont agree with some of what I am seeing in this thread. First off even the 3570k is faster than 8350 for nearly all gaming cases not the other way around. 16gb is most certainly not useless if you like to keep lots of things running while gaming. I am using over 8gb of ram right now with nothing but Chorme with a bunch of tabs and Steam running. Windows will make use of more ram if you have it so no such thing as too much. I would call 8gb the bare minimum for a gaming pc but would recommend 16gb if you like to multi task in addition to just game.

And although an i7 only makes a difference over an i5 in a few cases its worth it IMO as again it helps with overall performance too and more upcoming games. My 2500k was pegged or nearly pegged at times in some games when trying to push my 780. Having the 4770k gave me headroom for gaming if something else needed the cpu. Plus you NEED an i7 for Crysis 3 if you want to get full use out of the 780. Even Watch Dogs needs an i7 depending on where you are testing at in the game and whats happening.

A cpu is something that most people keep for at least 2 or 3 years so no point in being gimped from day one if you want to fully push high gpus especially future gpu upgrades. If I were building a gaming pc and wanting to use a 780 then I would go for Devils Canyon 4790k in a couple weeks and 16gb of ram.
 
Flogger23m said:
That is due to poor optimization. Just like how it requires more than 2GB of VRAM even though the textures look average. Even Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light doesn't come near to using 8GB of RAM. By the time games start using 8GB of RAM it will be time for another big upgrade.

You can even develop in UE4 with 8GB of RAM, although 16 is recommended for that. :p
Click to expand...

Watchdogs is an open world game.

And faster CPU's are in fact not obsolete, I have plenty of games where I would like to push my 2500k farther or upgrade.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'd take an unlocked i5, even with 4 cores, and crank up the MHZ.
Click to expand...
You can oc all you want but it will still limit a 780 in Crysis 3 and parts of Watch Dogs compared to an i7. Maybe some other games too but certainly those. Its a very noticeable and playable difference if trying to use vsync. And again I dont see the point in not going i7 in high end pc that he will likely not upgrade the cpu in for at least a few years.
 
UnclePauly09 said:
Watchdogs is an open world game.
Click to expand...

And? Still no reason for the lack of optimization.

And if you're pushing over 8GB of RAM with just Steam and Chrome something must be up with your PC. I am under 3GB with more programs open.
 
Flogger23m said:
And? Still no reason for the lack of optimization.

And if you're pushing over 8GB of RAM with just Steam and Chrome something must be up with your PC. I am under 3GB with more programs open.
Click to expand...
There is nothing up with my pc. The more ram you have the more that will get used and its perfectly common to use 8gb of ram with what I have open. I have crapload of tabs open but its no more than usual.
 
I'll be using Win7 Pro x64. I use a 128gb ssd as my OS drive and I have a 1TB data drive as well as an older 250gb.

I will be water cooled as well and planning on 4ghz with the 4670k and I can always add an I7 in a year or two.

Resolution is 1920x1080 with some AA as mentioned earlier, and there is no reason to go with less than 16gb of ram.
 
I've had 16gb of ram for years, anything less would be uncivilized. And sadly, no reason to upgrade my cpu... i5 ivy bridge @ 4.4ghz easily handles gaming and light video work.
 
4790k, 16gig ram, GTX 780Ti.

I would not waste any money trying to save $10 here $50 there. Spend a bit more, get a whole lot more and be worry free for a long time.

As an example, when I built my current pc almost 3 years ago, people told me the same thing that they are telling you right now. Back then 4gb on ram was enough 8 gb was overkill, I've got 16, 2500k,2600k was overkill, getting a sandy bridge I5 was the norm and only stupid people who wants to show off overclock numbers bought the I7'. I've got the 2600k and overclocked it to 4.7 gHz, getting a 500 series Nvidia card was enough for gaming, there was no difference between a Radeon 6950 and 6970, I've got the 6970 and 6 months later upgraded to Gtx680.

In the end, I did not listened to the budget PC advisors who think I7's, latest video cards, lots of ram is un necassary. People think you can take a cheap silicon based chip and overclock the living crap out of it and just because it shows you some good numbers benchmarks it is just as good and believe me it is not. Intel, Nvidia, AMD, these companies are not as stupid or foolish as a lot of hardware enthusiast think. Binned chips are better, better silicon yileds lower temperatures, more stable frame rates, less stutter, more longevity and even more over clock potential. How do I know? I have a K2100m on my work laptop which is supposedly the equivalent of a GT750m when it comes to benchmarks, only 5 times more expensive. However K2100m is a binned chip and it outperforms my friends similar GT750m laptop by 10fps, keeping everything else the same.

I am very happy that I did what I did. I have spent $1200 on my pc + $300 for a second GTX 680. My total cost for the last 3 years - $150 for the Radeon that I sold.
So $1350 got me one of the fastest PC I could ever have for the last two years and even now, although there are better setups out there, my 4.7ghz 2600k with the GTX680 SLI and 16 gig ram is still a beast and maxes out %90 of all games that are out there.

If I would have gone with the "budget" advice, I would have spent more money over the last 3 years and some of that time would have spent trying to turn down resolution, AA, texture quality etc..and not the the max pleasure I could get out of these games.

I am probably still not going to upgrade until 800 Nvidia chips and broadwell come out. Meaning, I have spent $300-$400 more than the average budget pc prices but i had the fastest latest stuff and managed to skip 3-4 generations of video cards and CPU's without buying anything or losing out on the gaming quality.
 
I ended up with a 4670K @4.5ghz...the MSI Gaming R9 290 @1007/1350...and yeah, 16gb of ram. All wrapped onto a Asrock Z97 board that runs flawlessly.

Man these newer rigs are fast.
 
collegeboy69us said:
ive had a 2500K sandybridge for ages it seems (3 years) and it's still more than enough for the toughest games. Feeds my crossfire 290's just fine.
Click to expand...

Same here except my trusty GTX690 is still going strong. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top