Choosing a processor

[Dent1]

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

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]

GreiverBlade You accidentally quoted me in your last post.

fix'd ahahah sorry about that ...

 

[Aithos]

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?



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)

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!