What i5/7 would you recommend then for streaming?
Lets say around... $600-700 for cpu and mobo
600 for just cpu and mobo?
option 1: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/QwdbCJ
option 2: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TmGkgs
option 3: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/LXQ923
option 4: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/f3dqBm
Personally, I like the z97 Extreme6 because of the 4x m.2 slot. With an ssd that can take advantage of that bandwidth, you will get insane speeds (so long as you aren't going to use SLI, in which case the pcie lanes are already spoken for).
EDIT: That might not be something that you care about, but I am really impressed myself, though I want to (ideally) go with x99 for the plethora of pcie lanes.
http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/asrock-z97-extreme6-tests-pcie-m2-and-sata-ssds/
Damm those speeds are indeed insane lol. those seq read / write, are 2x as fast as a normal SSD lol.
The Z97 Extreme 9 has a plx chip by the way, for the case you need more lanes.
It does, but afaik, the plx doesn't actually add more lanes, it just treats the lanes as pure bandwidth and maximizes what you can do with them (switches between them as needed). SLI requires 8x pcie lanes though, so if you had two nVidia cards and used the 4x m.2, then you are probably not going to be able to ctually get SLI to start. I haven't seen anyone try yet though, I don't think.
Well, you're option is to each is own. 8350 still works great for me, and is the better option if you you're steaming compared to the 4690k.
honeslty can't claim you're losing bang for buck if you have to purchase crosshair v for 4.8GHZ.
why? With the $70 increase over the FX 8350 and the fact that all mobo worth a damn are $170+ the ball price is equal or few dollars more then the 8350. Plus anyone that is a gamer knows a good cooling soution is part of the puzzle. It's a must have regardedless of the cpu.
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=35-181-034
$50 for a pre owened H80.
No I'm not a fanboy, but facts are facts.
4690k the better design chip? Yes
compare core to core is the 4690k faster? Yes
fraping or steaming while gaming 8350 faster? Yes
Productivity? 8350. Yes.
need a reference? This was made 3 weeks ago.
https://teksyndicate.com/forum/cpu/amd-8350-vs-intel-i5-4690k/183817
So before you start bashing on the "old cpu". just ask yourself what you need the cpu the most. Age of design is irravlant if the benchmarks are only handful of fps different. Imo
if you want to compare light years ahead 5820k or 5860k would be the best cpu for any purpose, but then say go bye to anything with the word low budget.
well, if you want to overclock, of course get either the i5-4690K or i7-4790K. Otherwise, look into Xeon E3s or something.
There are so many ways to stream out there now- shadowplay, GameDVR, Intel Quick Sync, H.264 - It really depends on what you plan to use.
Come on, man. There is not some sort of unspoken rule that all pc gamers need to have an aftermarket cpu cooler or anything like that. In fact, if you aren't overclocking, then the stock cooler on the Intel side (haven't had experience with AMD's stock cooler) is perfectly sufficient and completely silent.
For pure gaming, an i5 is going to be a better choice than the 8350. In most a lot of games, the 8350 gets lower frame rates than the i3. Top that off with more energy used, more heat put into your case, a more expensive mobo needed to handle the increased power delivery, the aging features on the AM3+ platform, and you are looking at an uphill batle trying to suggest the 8350 anymore. (benchmarks below to support my claim that they don't do too well in game).
As far as "productivity" goes, it is really going to depend on what exactly it is that he is attempting to do. On some occassions, when the workload is very well optimized for multiple cores, the 8370 (a slightly higher clocked 8350) will score slightly ahead of the 4690k. In other "productivity" applications it won't.
So here is what you have, the 8350, a decent mobo, and a good cooler vs a 4690k and whatever mobo (if you want to overclock, then you are going to end up spending at least $100 on the mobo vs ~$150 for a overclocking AM3+ mobo). Then on top of that, you have the power draw, heat output, and the fact that AM3+ is a dead platform with outdated features (I am sure that you will take problem with that, but it is true, the platform is old, all those features are old now too).
Honestly, you can get by with pretty much any cpu, we are just trying to properly inform the OP so that he can make an informed decision.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html
You really should go with a xeon i3... unless you got a massive overclock (like near or at 5ghz) then the xeon i3 would be better. After you buy a massive cooler ($60+) and a decent motherboard that will support a massive overclock ($150+) the savings on the actual processor becomes less and less.
here is a Build with similar performance:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/8kGdGX
If you really want to overclock... then the 8350 is great for video editing (mostly transcoding)... but AMD's processors are a couple years old and the intels perform much better.. AMD is just lowering their prices to compete.
Nothing wrong with AMD, but I would go for a devils canyon xeon with a cheaper motherboard ( $60 asrock b85m pro would be my board of choice if you dont mind doing the bios update when you get it.) and just use the stock cooler.
Based on my experiences with the chip for use with Maya and Mental Ray I would say an i5 4690k would be the better choice. The 10% faster render times(that are dependent on maintaining about a 500-600mhz lead) isn't worth over 50% single threaded performance.
Everyone makes great points.
But when you say go with a cheap mobo and what ever cooling solution it's like telling me. Purchase $5000 wheels with bad tires for a $2500 car. Makes no senses... If you're not overclocking just purchase a dell PC with ok GPU.(no point wasting time/money if you don't care about the benefits of doing of it imo)
like thread ask. My 8350 @ 4.8ghz and crossfire 7970's @1100 MHz blazes any game in 1440p. That's just facts.
Did you allready played BF4 multiplayer 64 people server on a big map like chaina?
And did you monitor your gpu ussage on the crossfire, while doing that?
I've played metro last light, skyrim, hitman, sleeping dogs, MW Ghost, and many others. BF4 I haven't played so for such a pacific question I can't share experience.
know I never vram capped, and 30fps was my lowest spike.
This is coming from someone who already switched to Intel from AMD. I semi-recently bought a 4670k and the same ASRock Extreme6 you seem to love. But I have built a few dozen computers using both platforms since SandyBridge for various freinds/customers/myself. So I am familiar with both.
If you are buying K Parts or FX parts, YOU SHOULD BE OVERCLOCKING. If you are not do not buy these high end parts. That being said, the AMD stock cooler SUCKS and so does the Intel one, but not as badly.
That being said I dont know what you are talking about when you say that you can buy a cheaper motherboard for an Intel syetem. The last I checked, the average price of a Z97 board is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than a 990FX board. the Z97 Extreme6 costs more than an 990FX Extreme9. The same goes for ASUS TUF boards and ROG boards. Unless you put a 4690k in an H81/H85 motherboard, and DONT overclock it (then why are you buying a K?) the motherboard is not going to be cheaper...and then there are other chipsets for AM3+ as well. The 785G for example.
Now, the rest of your points are wholly correct, I just think Der Kreiger is making more sense than you in this case. If OP wants AMD, then he wants AMD. The performance difference is not all that significant. The power usage cost difference spread out over a year is not that significant. The cost for each platform is about the same. Its all preference, period.
Why is this always the single most important thing to people?
Because FX cpu´s start to bottleneck highend gpu´s.
in cpu + gpu demending games. BF4 is a gpu demending game untill you are going multiplayer, then the game becomes cpu bound, and then you see the weakness of the slower FX cores. If you use a highend gpu like GTX780Ti GTX970 GTX980, R9-290 R9-290x and what not.
And then im not even gonne talk about dual gpu setups.
The fact is that games dont use more then 4 cores, since intel has a much better ipc on all its 4 cores. thats the reason, why intel haswell is much bettter in cpu + gpu demending games.
But this doesnt mean that a FX8350 is a bad cpu, because its totaly not, if you play allot gpu bound games, there isnt much of a diffrence between intel and amd. BF4 single player, bioshock, tombraider, batman, need for speed and such all work great
But there are still allot of indie and mmo games that just run better on intel. skyrim is definitely one of those. This does offcourse not mean that those cpu + gpu demending games run like shit on AMD, because they will run totaly fine, but intel 4690k / 4790k will just be better, and more capable to max out a highend gpu.
So it still highly depends on which games you play and how you play them. With a midrange gpu, there wont even be much of a diffrence. Because then the GPU becomes the limited factor sooner then the cpu.
About video rendering, a 4790K blows the FX8350 to the moon in most render applications.
I understand that. I purchased a 4670k for a reason vs the FX 8350, but for MOST people with MOST GPUs the differences are not that big of a deal. Sure, with CF/SLI we are introducing some additional CPU overhead, and if you check this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471-6.html
it justifies what you are saying. But in single GPU solutions when you are already running at 90 FPS average, does it really matter? I'm sure if I ran my GTX 760 in my friends rig w/ FX 8850 @ 4.5 there would be very little difference in most games vs my 4670k @ 4.6/4.7
The biggest diffrence you will notice in intel vs amd performance is on 1080p.
Even with a single gpu, as you can see, 3770k ivy scores 130.4 FPS. on which the FX8350 only 91.4Fps, Thats significant. However i agree if you game on a 60Hz monitor it doesnt make much of a diffrence.
However if you look at 1080p scores FX8350 single 7970 and dual 7970, then you see the bottleneck allready. the FX8350 isnt capable to scale well with 2 7970´s on 1080p.
Skyrim is a very good example.
But hey this still doesnt mean that a FX is bad buy, you see it can hit 60+ fps easaly. But it just cannot keep up with haswell.
i have a question
if you overclock an 8350 to 5ghz,
can it possibly generate 220 watts from overclocking and overvolting like a stock 9000 amd series cpu?
Thanks for the charts. Some games are design for AMD others are not.
feel as if we are spinning our wheels with this. Main object is which amd chip is better for the price, and performance.
4790k isnt even in the same price bracket, and 4690k is like a 8350 including h80(price wise).
so say what you believe is right your option is value just don't claim 4960k is omg light year ahead cause it's not when building a ATX rig.