Best Mobo, Cpu for 290X

This thread has become a useless e-peen contest from the looks of things.

Based on the first benchmark chart posted by Pill, a Core i3 4130 clocked at 3.4ghz has little trouble "keeping up" with an FX-8350 clocked at 4ghz. That's a dual core processor that's able to "keep up" with an Octo-core processor that's clocked 600mhz higher. Personally, if Watch Dogs was all I played I'd probably be looking to buy that i3 4130 or an i3 4360 and save some money on my power bill....

Watchdogs is actually perfect proof that AMD isn't the best option for gaming. When a dual-core processor can "keep up" with an Octo-core processor that's clocked 600mhz higher, it's pretty sad.

 

Pill's charts just show that a 3570k is faster than a 8350, even at a lower clock speed. Intel pulls ahead slightly more when overclocked. I miss your point.

Edit: my 4.5ghz grandad cpu beats a 5ghz 9590. Says it all. No sudden multi threaded madness. Intel still wins, even with less cores. 8320/50 nowadays is a bad way to go, it's a dead platform.

 

I doubt that considering the AMD fx 8xxx or 9xxx is just a quad-core with hyperthreading. I'll also be gaming just fine once I get my shiny new i7 for the next 5+ years. As others have mentioned the Fx 8320/50 and the AM3+ socket is dead.

 

FX-8000 and FX-9000 series aren't quad-cores with HyperThreading.... They actually have 8 physical ALUs. They're true Octo-core processors. A quad core with HyperThreading only has 4 physical ALUs. That's why the performance of the FX-8000 and FX-9000 series scales better as thread count increases (beyond 4 threads) than the i7's do. Intel processors are more efficient, so they really don't need the additional ALU's to compete.

 

Woah slow down guys, lets not start the Intel vs AMD thing all over again.....I thought we were past that.

My point with the benches was that Vishera is an improvement if the intention is to run engines developed for Jaguar consoles. Anything older and no, it's not worth upgrading from the i5 760.

It just depends on what the workload will be....

I'm helping my mate who is an iRacing nut with a tight budget upgrade his P4 system.Since iRacing loads 2 cores I decided on the i7 920.
It has good performance in lightly threaded workloads and it's OK performance in multithreading should help prolong it's working life.
If he was upgrading primarily for new games Vishera would have been my first choice or else i7 without a budget cap.



Half the problem with Piledriver is the shared L3. Run a single threaded bench on 83xx with just one module enabled and you'll see what I mean. It's much much faster. (I'll put one up myself actually..)


Games tested in AT are WOW and Starcraft, older MMO engines which everyone knows thread on 1-2 cores and for that Vishera is garbage. No argument there.
In fact Athlon X2, Phenom, Phenom II, and Athlon II are all garbage.




But.....for multi threading the situation is reversed.




Btw calling AM3+ a dead socket is a case of pot and kettle considering Intel sockets aren't usually backward compatible.........just thought I'd mention that...

 

That's a fanboy comment through and through, I'm surprised to see that coming from you.
In that same benchmark you referenced the 4130 also has little trouble keeping up with every i5 and i7 above it including the 4960x. There is less than 6 fps between all of them.
Yep, that's pretty sad alright....but realistic if you don't have SLI/CFX.

TR benches never seems to show a complete picture (testing CPU scaling with a GPU limited rig? huh?) but I included it for variation and to avoid accusations of cherry picking.
In my view the results show min number of cores needed to run WD, not so much core scaling itself.

If we then look at the GameGPU bench you can see the 4300 is clearly being hammered by the both the i5, i7 and Vishera. Which one do you think paints a fuller picture in regards to core scaling?

I do agree with you on this part though:

If I was building for someone with lots of money yeah I'd go i7 hands down, but with price/performance in mind it's a no brainer.


Look at the prices below man, and you too Fender....this is a stark reality in many countries...

 

salaam, (peace)

if we may know you lcd, ssd sir? upgrading mobo, cpu may force you to up the ddr3 into 1866+ you already got good vga, i was in your position couple years ago and i up the lcd into dell 2711, then gpu, then hunt down good 2 more year warranty 2nd price mobo, cpu and ram.

 

Pill, my post wasn't fanboyish at all. TechnikL said games are becoming more and more multi threaded meaning AMD will have advantage in more and more games and that single core performance doesn't matter that much. Not true, Intel still has upper hand in gaming, even with half the cores. Like I said, 83xx isn't a bad cpu, but it's a dead platform, nowhere to go. I wouldn't upgrade to it now, no way. I stand by all of this.

 

Oh ok my bad. I stand corrected.

@Pill
Yeah I do realize the prices of Intel Cpus are more expensive even in different countries outside the US. And AMD is cheaper. The same thing goes with prices in the US.

 

That bit wasn't aimed at you bro. A mate came round while I was editing and I messed up the post while talking to him (I hate the formatting on this forum). It should have looked like this:

Calling AM3+ a dead socket is a case of pot and kettle considering Intel sockets aren't usually backward compatible.........just thought I'd mention that...

 

Not a fanboy comment in the least. Just an observation I made of the first chart. Another observation is that the first chart has quite different results from the second. The Haswell i3 processors are quite strong for being only dual core and the fact that they can keep up so well is just proof that Watch Dogs isn't a very heavily threaded game.

 

TechReport WD bench is flawed (same in BF4), others like that Russian are more accurate.



or this here

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch...s/Watch-Dogs-Test-GPU-CPU-Benchmarks-1122327/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Watch-Dogs-PC-249220/Specials/Mods-PC-Worse-Pure-Benchmarks-1127961/

 

Syk the fanboi. Whudda thunk it. :thumbup:

 

Yeah, I'm the Intel fanboy that just switched from a Core i7 2600K@4.5ghz w/ HT enabled to an AMD Athlon 5350@2.05ghz.... I'm a ****ty fanboy....

 

True, AMD sockets tend to have a longer life span, but in this case I'd still go Intel. Am3+ is dead now.

 

I agree, z97 got some life left in it. judging by op location he could get a 4690/mb combo for around the price of amd combo. with a chance to further upgrade the cpu.

 

Can you please stop.

 

Watch dogs is a POS, why anyone is basing anything off that game is beyond me.

 

Yeah I agree... WD is such a POS that I uninstalled it after only 2 days.

But being a POS doesn't stop it from scaling incredibly well with core count. In fact WD is so well optimized for multithreading it doesn't even support dual cores.
Min specs require at least a quad at least. Recommended requirements are either i7 4770 or 8350.

Also agree WD should not be the only game taken into account, good thing this thread has links posted to about 5 other benchmark results.....

 

Dream on..... In some games there are very substantial differences between i5s and high end FX cpus and going lower down the AMD line just gets worse and worse. You only think the cpu will work fine because you have a slow graphics card. As soon as you put anything with some steam in there your going to hit a brick wall.