FX 8320, or an i5 4690k for gaming? My budget's 1,200$ (canadian dollars).
>>51761282
install gentoo
>>51761282
>i5
Doesn't matter both are garbage op
>>51761471
What would you recommend, then?
>>51761494
Just get an FX8350
8320 for muh threads
i5 6500
>>51761282
8320 is a very very decent pu puf or puf or gaming puf or gaming puforgamingihad puforgamingihad puforgamingihaditin puforgamingihaditin puforgamingihaditinmyoriginal puforgamingihaditinmyoriginals
the i5 or a better amd processor with that budget. I personally have the 4690k and it was definitely worth it. Also what are the other specs?
>>51761572
Haven't decided completely yet, but I've got a R9 390 (394 CDN), 8GB of HyperX Fury RAM (59.75 CDN), a 750w EVGA PSU (149 CDN), and a 1TB Western Digital Caviar Blue HDD (59 CDN).
>>51761282
If the price is the same or i5 is a little higher, go for it.
Half of cores with double power, more energy efficiency....
>Buying deprecated hardware
Get a i5-6500 or wait until AMD delivers Zen.
>>51761282
You definitely want the i5. The AMD chip is far, far slower and locked into a long-dead socket. I actually went with an i3 due to my budget and never considered any of the AMD chips for a moment.
(Note to inevitable response: Yes I know Skylake also uses a different socket. But with a Haswell chip OP would have the option of an unlocked i7 later)
>>51762949
If I was locked at an i3 budget I'd probably settle on an fx 6300.
Actually outperforms an i5 2500(my current cpu) in well threaded applications and games.
Multithreading is the future, you'll only have a problem with old games, and even then it's plenty strong for the old shit.
>>51763275
I only see Sandy i3s there, got a chart with Haswell ones? I did do thorough research before I bought it and prioritised Intel because per-core performance was important to me.
Many real-world applications (including extremely recent video games) still prefer strong per-core horsepower rather than spreading across many threads, and I actually don't foresee this changing.
>>51761282
Just get the 6700k. Trust me it is worth it.
>>51761608
Get an ssd even if it is 128gb for os and programs. Fuckin essential in my opinion.
>>51763733
>128gb
>2015
Useless
i5 is the better buy since literally no game on the market uses 8 cores.
As someone who owns an 8320 and is happy with it, get the i5.
>>51763960
>no game on the market uses 8 cores
except for pretty much every triple A game this year
>>51764051
this, i have the fx8320 and i see literally no reason to jump ship, but id get the i5 if i were you just for power efficiency
unless you're getting skylake btw, k parts have crippled vt-d (virtualization features), can't do IOMMU. If you are doing a lot of virtualization or compute tasks go the FX83x0
>>51761555
are you okay bro
What prices are we talking about retard? Canadian PCpartpicker has the i5 priced at like $500; not exactly a fair comparison.
>>51761282
You might as well go with the 9350. It's a whole $50 more for much better performance.
4690k. unquestionably better performance for gay men.
>>51764693
those are just overclocked chips, the best piledriver CPU to buy is the 8320e as it's binned for leakage and usually reaches the same clocks with less voltage.
>>51761531
>>51761494
>>51761282
This
Why would you not buy the 8350 lol a few dollhairs more and i just got mine today and i like it alot
8350
I have an FX 8320 @ 4.2 ghz . It handles gaymens just fine at 1080p w my 7870. Mostly med/high settings for newer games.
With that said, if gaming is the most intensive task youll be doing, the i5 is the better choice.
For really heavy multitasking, streaming, or rendering of any kind, the FX spanks the i5...
I like to use 3D modeling software, and tend to run a lot of heavy programs side by side when im doing productive work. Gaming is a secondary priority.
>>51761282
$1200 budget?
Anything past this, spec-wise will give you diminishing returns: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/RwBbmG
If you want, since it's over $200 under budget, you could spend the rest on a slightly fancier case or a modular power supply.
If you want to swap with a modular PSU, get this:
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-power-supply-220gs0550v1
And if you want a fancier case, get this:
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-case-cc9011029ww
AMD is irrelevant (for gaymen) past the $70 range. i3 destroys 6300, i5 destroys 8350, etc. Maybe Zen will change that, but don't hold your breath.
>>51761363
Kek
>>51758045
>>51762523
I've got news for you bro
>>51766326
followup:
i5-4460 beats the FX-8350, even on Witcher 3, one of the most well-threaded games this year.
https://youtu.be/_Vtg5SJZNe4
The motherfucker was fanboying for AMD so hard, and the PC with the 8350 even had a newer version of Windows. Yet, the i5-4460 still won.
>>51761282
I'm assuming you'll add a good GPU to your rig, so you should go por the 8320. intel i5s waste power when joined with external gpus.
>>51761363
he's right
>>51766400
Witcher 3 wasn't as well threaded as battlefield 4 or crysis 3 though.
And how much difference was there?
Personally I'd take an fx 6300 over an i3 anyday because an fx6300 at 4.5ghz or higher would be very close to i5 performance in many games, beat it in some, and lose in others. While costing 100aud less.
With an i3 beating the fx 6350, I doubt witcher 3 could handle more than 2 cores easily.
>>51768264
>Personally I'd take an fx 6300 over an i3 anyday because an fx6300 at 4.5ghz or higher would be very close to i5 performance in many games, beat it in some, and lose in others. While costing 100aud less.
problem with that is you'd then just be spending all the 'saved' money into a better motherboard and cooling solution whereas an i3 only needs a bottom of the barrel mobo and stock cooling.
>>51768441
I just bought an a1 v10 black edition and gigabyte volar for $3 each, and an asrock 970 extreme 3 r2 (pic related) for $30. Australian dollars.
Would you say this board is decent enough to sustain an fx 6300 at 4.5ghz? It supports the fx 8xxx processors. The cooler might not be enough but I'm sure I can still get a decent overclock if I slap 2 fans on that aywun cooler for push/pull. Just nothing extreme.
All I need now is the cpu, which I'll be getting from a friend soon, he just upgraded to a 6600k.
>>51768591
If he upgraded to a 6600k, wouldn't you think it's wise to go with an Intel chip over an old amd processor? Unless money is a huge constraint, I don't see the point. Anyway, I doubt you'd be hitting 4.5 at all on that board. To reach those numbers you'd definitely need a 990fx chipset. Getting my 8320 to 4.5 stable was tough and I had to tweak a lot. I don't think the 970 boards can handle such an overclock. Try and get the best overclock you can though, my OC gets me 20 fps higher in Valley benchmark. I can only imagine what an i5 OC would get me.
>>51768642
For me, good enough is good enough.
Why spend $60 on a new mobo or less on used, and $170 on an 13 4170, when I can get the fx 6300 free and a mobo for $30?
Is the i3 worth spending $140 more over? Or $137 if you want to include the cooler.
My current psu is a 750w fractal so it's plenty powerful.
If I wanted the best I'd get a hex core Intel and fury x tri crossfire.
Is there any game an fx 6300 can't handle? Especially after an overclock?
It seems pretty even with an i3 if you want my opinion. Beats it when 6 threads are in use. Loses in single thread performance.
>>51768736
170 + 60 != 170.
The i3 would turn out even more expensive than initially expected.
>>51768736
Those synthetic benchmarks mean nothing if you're just gaming. You also didn't mention the 6300 was free. If that's the case than its good. With a good overclock you'll get better frames. Simple as that. Idk if my 8320 was bottlenecking my 2 gpus or if all amd chips have such great performance jumps like that. 20 fps is a lot man. Just to let you know it was Valley benchmark on the extreme preset. Stock gave me 60fps average and the overclock have me 80 fps average. Of course this doesn't mean a whole lot for me since my monitor is only 60hz BUT that means the frames one dip as much when vsync is on. Nothing bothers me more than frame dips, I like 60 fps constant with no hiccups or slowdowns
>>51768816
For dual gpu it might have been a bottleneck, but my friend says every component is a bottleneck. I can see where he's coming from too. Why else would you gain 20fps if your cpu wasn't under 100% load? Same as when he went from a q8300 to an i5 2500.
That's why I intend to overclock. Hopefully I can get 4.3 or above, I'll be happy with that.
>>51766400
You can't overclock that i5.
....and that's where the FX starts pulling ahead.
I prefer to get the cheapest 8 core fx chip (or if there is little price difference, the 8320e for the lower power draw) and simply clock them up. In my corner of the world its not much more to buy an 8320e and a 990fx mobo capable of taking 4.5ghz+ than it is to buy a i5 4690k on its own.
The saving is generally enough to go from the likes of a 380/960 to a 970/390 which will give far, far more performance in majority of vidya.
Plus as a rule buying a locked chip in general is falling for Intel's jewry.
If you want to remove IHS from haswell and void warranty then buy i5
Else buy FX-8320e and overclock it
>>51763960
epcsx2 uses 6.
>>51769228
Hello, I own an i5 4440 and before that I had a FX8350 clocked at 4.5Ghz and the i5 4440 is faster in 99% of the games.
I have the FX8350 boxed and I no longer use it and I would not recommend it anymore, maybe 2 or 3 years ago but nowadays? Not anymore , not to mention you are going to waste more money buying a good motherboard with 6+2phases to overclock it over 4.2Ghz and you will need good CLC to keep it cool, the FX8350 was good when Sandy Bridge was release, nowadays it's a waste of money.
i54690 non-k. everyone posting anything but this is retarded and you shouldn't listen to them
>>51769841
>good CLC to keep it cool
How to spot the idiot. I woin't even claim chill because that sort of idiocy does not get rewarded.
>>51769866
no one is retarded enough to buy this instead of a closed loop, right?
tell me you didnt bought this.
>>51769877
It outperforms every single 120mm clc and bests a reasonable number of 240mm units (as do other high end air coolers). The mere fact that you think you need a clc shows how retarded you are.
Pic is the D15.
>considering amd
Kill yourself, it's easier.
>>51769897
and faster too
>>51766400
I need a new processor. I5 6500 or i5 4690k? They seem to be quite on par with performance.
>>51770043
6500.
Because ram speed affects performance so you're better off with ddr4.
>>51761471
This kek has no idea what he's talking about
>>51761282
Get the i5-4690k unless you plan to game at 4k there is no reason for anything else
Is the i5 6500 really a good pick? How it is price/performance wise comparing to a 8320 or something?
>>51763478
>Consoles have 6-7 cores available to games
>Expecting dual cores to be relevant in the future
FX-6300 costs less than any i3 and yet if you overclock it (something no i3 can do) it easily competes with i5s.
>>51770282
6500 is ddr4 so it has that advantage. But raw cpu power the fx 8xxx chips win.
Especially when you consider that they're unlocked.
If you want it for games get the i5.
If you have other uses get the fx.
>>51761282
I got a 8320. Go with the i5.
>>51770300
>But raw cpu power the fx 8xxx chips win.
For some tasks they still compete against some of intel's mightiest chips.
>>51763275
>>51769799
where's 4790
>>51770328
Go ask putin.
>>51770309
I have an i5 4460 and I do not recommend it.
>>51761282
Get the fx 8320e and a good motherboard and cooler. Should cost around the same overall, but you'll get better performance out of the fx. After an overclock it'll be closer to an i7 than an i5.
I do like how people saying the i5 is better are not providing any evidence to backup their claim.
>>51770309
Intel shill
>>51770360
AMD shill
>>51770386
To be fair, Intel's high end does outperform the fx processors.
And there's too morons who don't understand the fx 8350 is an i5 competitor.
There are times when it does better than an i7 from the same gen it's competing against, and they're still performing competitively.
Only reason to have second thoughts now is ddr4.
>>51770417
Too many morons*
>>51770417
>To be fair, Intel's high end does outperform the fx processors
Absolutely no argument there - the enthusiast intel chips have zero competition.
>And there's too morons who don't understand the fx 8350 is an i5 competitor.
Usually their response is pic related.
>Only reason to have second thoughts now is ddr4.
Given until you hit mega densities fx chips support 2400mhz DDR3, DDR4's strengths aren't really worth it yet.
>>51770446
>that image
same goes for amd / nvidia
None of these benchmarks have 4790. Why is that? I wanted to buy myself one for hunnukah.
Is it [spoiler]shit[/spoiler]?
>>51770502
As a rule nobody cares about locked i7's. If you are spending that much a little bit more for a K chip is worth it as the sort of workloads i7's are designed for benefit from as much horsepower as you can throw at them, thus overclocking matters.
>>51770417
So is the fx6300 the best budget processor of this generation until zen comes out? If it's outperforming an Ivy i5 I have no doubt it can hold it's own against haswel.
>>51770446
There's also the power draw and heat consideration. AMDs are some thirsty, fiery beasts.
>>51770520
Since when you use OC in a general comparison benchmark instead of base clock?
fx8320 overclocked to match the fx8350 is a good bang for your buck CPU
>>51770601
If you can't find room in the budget for an i5, then grab an FX-6300 unless he's only gaming, in which case an i3 might suffice. Depends on if he wants to upgrade his CPU anytime soon.
>>51770601
As a rule the 6300 performs i3 tier - but overclocked it will do a good job against locked i5's.
>>51770611
In theory a 4790k can be underclocked to be a 4790.
>>51770629
You clock those chips as far as you can cool them.
is it worth overclocking?
>>51770652
In the case of AMD CPUs, generally yes. Typically with an i7 as well, since those tend to be used for heavy workloads so you want all the power you can get.
For gaming most Intel CPUs don't really need to be overclocked, except for something like a Pentium G3258.
>>51770608
>fx 8150
Fucking hell.
AMD may have fucked up, but they've done well going from that to vishera.
I bought a i5 6600 unlocked
but admittedly I don't know what the 6600 stands for or what unlocked means.
should I be in stupid Q thread ?
>>51770767
>i5 6600
>not the legendary q6600
>>>/out/
>>51770652
Depends. An i5-6600k with a decent cooler is easily 40% more expensive than a i5-6600 with a stock cooler. You are paying 40% more but you are not getting 40% more performance.
>>51770767
6600K, I assume?
That means you can easily overclock it if you want, there's no upper limit on the multiplier.
>>51770791
yes 6600k. I know nothing about overclocking.
it seems fine now, just playing games.
>>51770813
Just remember: not all intel motherboards support overclocking.
>>51770844
I have a msi Z170A gaming M5
>>51770862
That's a Z chipset, you're good to go if you want to OC.
>>51763275
>proprietary benchmarks
>meaningful in any way whatsoever
>>51770342
>>51770360
>>51770386
>>51770417
>>51770608
>gaymen
>Windows
>more proprietary benchmarks
Please.
>>51770887
what exactly are the benefits of OC'ing ?
would I be able to do it myself ?
I have limited experience
>>51770901
>>51770910
Given OP explicitly stated gaming they are relevant you shitposter.
>>51770916
If you've got a decent cooler on there, it's basically some extra performance at the cost of higher temperatures and power draw. Most games won't benefit too much from it, but CPU-based tasks will gain a nice boost.
>>51770916
You will need to spend $20 more money for an OCable CPU and $50 for a custom cooler so that you can (if you are a lucky with the silicon lottery) get a power boost equivalent to a CPU that costs $30 more.
running an amd phenom ii x4 965be here at 3.9ghz and it is still good for all the gaming i need
>>51770939
it didn't come with a cooler, I had to buy one.
I don't remember what exactly, but it has 4 copper tubes running thru a big aluminum wing type thing and a fan on top
>>51770939
>Intel
>>51761282
fx 8350 , youll save cash, its not worth blowing a shitload of cash on an intel cpu for a few extra frames and much less cores.
>>51761555
What the fuck
>>51761471
Go back to /b/
1231
>>51771412
i go back to fucking your mum
Just follow the steps. It's easy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=remove+Haswell+IHS&num=100
>>51768816
6300 CAN be even better for gaming than the FX 8320. Consider it only has a 95W TDP compared to the 8 core at 125W.
Its fewer cores can as a result, OC higher, with less voltage. You will get better single core performance at the cost of another module. Most games prefer the better single core performance to the more cores meme.
If the 6300 will be free, its a great deal. Once OCd to 4.5 GHz you will be matching a stock FX 8320 which is very close to i5 territory ay that point.
I had a 6300 before my 8320 and was very happy. Only upgraded because the 8 core was on sale for 99 bucks (30$ cheaper than what i paid for my 6300).
>>51772017
Do you have benchmarks to support this theory?
>>51772017
>Its fewer cores can as a result, OC higher, with less voltage.
In practical terms they overclock the same - 1 or 200 mhz more on a 6300 is not worth the loss of two modules compared to the 8 core chips.
I tried turning my 8320 into a 6300 to get more headroom for GTA V (since GTA only hits 4 threads) and despite getting another 100mhz out of the cpu I actually lost performance.
Remember: background tasks/OS are not cpu resource free, even if they primarily use ram.
>>51772030
I used to, but im on my phone now anyhow. Tests were ran using performance test 8.0 full version.
My FX 6300 at 4.5 GHz had an overall score that was really close to a stock fx 8320 from the baseline
>>51761555
Um you feeling alright mate?
>>51772072
Holding all else equal (same mobo psu and other peipherals) and only switching from an FX 6300 to an FX 8320, the 6 core (granted this mobo had 4 cpu power phases) could OC to 4.6 and the 8 core cpuld hardly get past 4.1.
Ive since upgraded to a 6 phase cpu power desogn board (went from an asus m5a97 to a asus m5a99fx) and can still only push that 8 core to 4.3 ghz MAX.
If anyone is interested, i dont think the cpu solicon was any sort of factor in this case. My limiting factor has always been socket temps, which are still hard to keep down w an 8 core FX modestly OCd.
That one extra module requires a lot more votlage to keep everything running smoothly.
>>51772142
Protip: take the stock cpu fan and tie it to the rear of the mobo. I did that and its let me squeeze 4.7ghz at 1.428v out of my 8320e.
>>51772182
How did you do that?
>>51772182
Yeah in my old case i had so may little hanging fans. One on the back of the mobo behind the socket. One hanging over ther socket directly tied up with twisty ties between my hyper 213 evo and back of case fan.
All too much work for minimal gains. Right now i just have a mostly pull (intake fans) config, all except the rear exhaust, and ive been getting good temps.
4.2 GHz is a good enough OC for me, considering it jumps down to 1.4 Ghz at idle/ light use and jumps up to 4.2 under load.
>>51772214
Just ran a cable tie through the mount points of the fan and duct taped the other end to various parts of the chassis. Fed the power cable through a gromit and plugged it into a mobo header.
Shaved 10c off board load temps and since said fan is pwm it spins up and down along with my cpu cooler.
It is worth noting I am putting nearly 200w under torture loads (I use IBT to stress test) through a board only rated for 140w.
>>51772269
Can you take a pic of it?
>>51772985
>>51773449
Thermalright cooler huh? I recognize that backplate.
>>51773606
Silver arrow yo. Cools the cpu really well (especially if I have the top vent open) but goddamn am I stressing my mobo.
>>51773624
Nice. True Spirit 140 Power here, the thing's dead quiet, even at full speed.
>>51770342
A 980ti sli bench at 1080 is irrelevant.
>>51773985
Do you not know how cpu tests work?
>>51773449
absolute madman
>>51761494
I've had the 8350 since 2012 and its an amazing processor. I suggest getting a Hyper 212 EVO for it.
>>51761282
eye fiev b0ss. The only thing from AMD worth a damn is their GPU's.
>$1,200
That's enough for at least an i5 6600
>>51775107
intel hates your freedom tho
>>51772142
I was able to get to 4.6ghz with that same board. It takes a looooot of tweaking to get there. 4.2 is like what some auto overclock software would give you and there is literally almost no performance gains at that range. It's not until you pass 4.3 and head onto 4.4+ ghz where you will see a massive difference. That's just my experience anyway. For the voltage, I had 2 notches(pressing + key twice) above 1.4v. So like 1.408 or something like that I guess. Temps stayed below 57-59c. Average would be 53 on intensive games and 45 on regular games. Idle is like 30-35.
Ive repasted so many times to get these temps using 2 different different pastes, Arctic silver 5 and gelid extreme. Gelid extreme was the best and Arctic silver 5 worked better at keeping my gpu temps low on water.
Anyway I'm glad to finally be getting rid of this chip, it's costed me too much over the years. Time to finally go Intel.
>>51763275
Looking at that chart I feel less bad about the decision to put off upgrading my old i7-920.
>>51761282
>buying 4 year old tech
come on man they're not even in the same price range
what kind of a retarded question is this
>>51761282
i5 4690k
personally use one, gets me 60fps
>>51775907
I'm waiting for zen with my trusty 8350
I will never sell my soul
>>51775907
Im under 1.4V still like 1.35 maybe. Pumping anymore into it overheats. What cooler?
AM3 is dead in the water
>>51761531
top kek. i mean, are you too poor?
>>51778334
i5
AMD is trash baka desu senpai
>>51778347
This anon gets it
>amd
>>51761282
AMD FX 8350
>>51778442
4690k > 8350
ITT
>>51778530
This neeeds to be updated with bending pcbs. Or just the half thickness pcbs in general.
>>51778530
It's always fun to watch nvidia/Intel trigger /g/
>>51773449
Is it directly behind the cpu or the phases?
>>51761604
>2015
>Still not working temp sensors
>>51768736
>Loses in single thread performance
Yes. by like 50%.
And what those graphs don't show is how it affects minimum framerate and such. On a lot of games, weak CPUs are going to struggle where you need them the most, when there's a lot of action/physics going on. If once a minute you drop from 60->30 for a second, your avg framerate is still going to be 59.5, but boy is it going to suck.
Single-thread perf is absolutely critical. This is why everybody is pushing for it. For example look at what Apple is doing with their ARM socs. It's great when you don't have to do bullshit "moar coars" marketing. (Yes, I'd gladly take more cores, but never at the cost of single-thread performance. And it's not only games, it's what makes everything feel fast. I notice it immediately while web browsing, for example)
Reminder that AMD is dead since sandy cunt
pic related are AMDrones
>>51778341
>he buys sup optimal parts for his rig
