Is it just me or are there no dGPUs in either build?
(TABLE)
+ R9 290
.... it's just you :)
Oh.
Well, I'm blind or this iPod touch needs a bigger screen.
I'm exactly getting the point, but it's bullshit saying it's not futureproof, everything is for a certain period of time.
As games are software lets stick it with it.
Compilers will be in constant update to make sure newer ISA will be in use (and something like that). (If the CPU doesn't support it, it wont utilize it)
Software wont suddenly increase the standard and certainly not game-software. Devs want a big playerbase. How do you do this? Make it playable by the most. Meaning they wouldn't jump the standard to an 8 core haswell processor to even launch the game(silly but whatever).
If the systems fails, it doesn't affect that the product would be future-proof, unless ofc it was a wider issue (Many people have been experience it). I could drop my computer to the floor laughing at it not been futureproof.
The point is, he is asking what is MORE future proof, and you would bring in your proffesinalisme and charm to tell him each and every point in how that processor might be able to hold another year over the other.
Something to be "proof" doesn't necessary means it is 100% secure.
Because by your understanding we should rename a bulletproof vest.
future proof by saving more money and waiting, till the future.
Im so divided that i cant make up my mind ... so for what see that you guys told me...
maybe just maybe the FX 8350 or the FX 9370 will be better in the long run but for now is weaker then the 4670k right ?
Because my question here is this :
Is the 4670k comparable to the FX 8350 or the 9370 ? in games ?
because the digital work im going to do (digital drawing) with photoshop mangastudios sketchbookpro is not in a professional way (i think). But i also would like the things to be fast of course.... sooo i really dont know what to choose ... shit my brain hurts ....
about the 780 its 52€ more expensive (the cheapest one that i could find) then the R9 290 ... and for what i have seen it gets the same performance OC ...so that's why im going with AMD on this one.
well i guess with the swiftech watercooler i could get good performance with the AMD 8350 ... this is so difficult to choose jesus
The difference in gaming is negligible IMO.....
not really any point in going with the FX 9370, just go with the FX8350 with the money you save with it get a better CPU cooler.
Performance delta between the 8350 and the 4570K isn't that strong for the 4570K even though it does preform generally better in 1 to 2 core performance, but with editing programs and such the 8350 keeps up with the i7s with a breeze and even competes with some of the LGA2011 chips in some situations. The 8350 will have a longer "lifetime" in terms of it preforming well in current and future applications, especially with having the core design that it does have. However, it will consume more power than the i5/i7 now and to come with the way Intel is going. In games, the 8350 does lag behing the 4570k a little bit, but not to a degree of difference for it to be noticeable. However, if you're streaming the game you're playing, the 8350 will do noticeably better than the 4570K. As well for possible future games actually using more than two cores, the 8350 will begin to shine a bit more, but by then will be lagging behind the 6cores that Intel may introduce by then.
With either CPU (FX-8320/50 or i5-4670) driving an R9-290, you will not notice any difference in gaming performance. The bottleneck will still be in the GPU for most games, especially the newer titles that put heavy demand on the graphics side. (Crysis 3 etc.).
Both will still be just as relevant in a couple years. Just because a program can make use of more than 4 cores, doesn't mean it'll run slower on a CPU with only 4 cores. There's a lot more to it than just the number of cores.
If you have 8 threads being processed, an i5 with 4 cores can chew through that just as fast as the FX 8-core because each of the 4 cores on the i5 are capable of processing roughly twice the data in the same amount of time as any single core of the FX. Thus, while the FX can run through all 8 threads at once, the i5 can still complete the same work in the same amount of time.
I realize it's not exactly that simple as there are other factors such as; cache, scheduling and how well the program/app is optimized (single or multi-threaded) etc. but that is the simplest way to explain why an i5 will not become slow or irrelevant just because games will be able to use more than 4 cores. Some programs/apps are better optimized for Intel and others for AMD's architecture. but all in all, these are both top-performers when it comes to gaming. Some games will hold an edge over the other, but at this level, the differences are splitting hairs, really.
So flip a coin, pick one and enjoy your new gaming rig. ;)
Half of this is wrong.
It's with rendering which have little loss when spread across more cores, editing the 4670k should be the uber CPU.
8350 doesn't compete with any 2011 CPU other than the 3820k/4820k (which are basically a 2700k and 3770k) etc etc etc.
How can it have a longer lifetime than a 4670k? The 4670k have MORE components, and are far better prepared with great ISA which can show true performance increase once utilized.
"In games, the 8350 does lag behing the 4570k a little bit, but not to a degree of difference for it to be noticeable"
In depends, and can actually vary very much.
"However, if you're streaming the game you're playing, the 8350 will do noticeably better than the 4570K"
This is a myth. Haswell had a major improvement over Ivy-bridge. Big things; Adding an extra ALU, MUCH better cache, and a MUCH better SIMD. The 4670k should very well be better at streaming, and it would be noticeable as is should have a significant (Might be 10-20FPS) higher lowest FPS (WHICH all can vary from different game and so on).
"As well for possible future games actually using more than two cores, the 8350 will begin to shine a bit more, but by then will be lagging behind the 6cores that Intel may introduce by then"
Look into the god damn architecture, the 8350 wont suddenly be better than the 4670k in gaming.
Intel have already realease many 6 cores processors for consumers.
This is part of what I was trying to say. The i5's are not going to suddenly become useless as games become optimized for more threads/cores.
If you look at IPC alone, between the i5/i7 and FX piledriver, you can see how 4 Intel cores can more or less rip through 8 threads just as fast as 8 piledriver cores can simultaneously. Especially with hyperthreading. Really, it's two different ways to do get the same job done.
CPU architecture as we know it is going to change very soon, so I would not be all that worried about future proofing. I recently switched from an FX-6100/Sabertooth 990FX (its older I know) to an ITX 4670k build and honestly the Z87 platform is far better than 990FX. Aside from the lack of PCIe slots due to being ITX, my motherboard has far more features and options (such as QuickSync, which cut my CPU usage in half while streaming and can be used for rendering). More USB3 ports, more SATA3 (Gen 3, not 3Gb/s) ports, etc.
Also, the per core performance of the i5 cannot be ignored. Not that many games are optimized for 8 or even 6 cores aside from the big AAA titles, and like MEC said, just because games are being optimized for more cores that does not mean that the performance on Intel chips is going to magically degrade.
Anyway, make your own decision. I am just giving you things to consider here.
It is true that the performance won't degrade.. no one is saying that. What people are saying is that both the i5-4670k and the 8350 are good chips for gaming. The FPS is in gaming its going to be much different. The 8350 has been proven to be faster at tasks using more than 4 threads. Why not save the money and just and sacrifice a little performance now for better performance later on. I have the i5, and looking at gaming benchmarks between the 8350. I made the choice, but this is because I plan to keep my build for probably another 3 years. I would have been better off with 8 cores. I play a lot of AAA titles. The other games run the same on either CPU really.
+1
http://es.pcpartpicker.com/user/deejeta/saved/4k6m - from Amazon Spain.
No, the 4670k can also be better than the 8350 in applications using more than 4 cores.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2
Here are some benchmarks man. The 4670k isnt there, but the 3570k is and its nearly the same. The 8350 also overclocks very well for better single core performance. But on all the 5+ thread tests, the 8350 beats the i5's. That included video trans-coding and similar tasks.
For games, the frames are far above 60 except the starcraft 2 benchmark, and with overclocking and the more powerful graphics card, it doesn't really matter. The difference in gaming doesn't really matter. Newer games will be using 5+cores and the 8350 will pull ahead of the i5 then without problems.
Your stupidity / ignorance is amazing me.
First haswell was a rather big upgrade from IV. Adding an extra ALU, improved SIMD, far faster cache. That is the short version.
For an 8350,to be even in intwger instructions, the process needs to be split to ALL cores. 4670k have 16 ALUs in total, 8350 have 16 ALU in total.
In SIMD performance the 8350 isn't even close to the 4670k, doesn't matter the thread count.
I would recommed you learn what a thread is as a statement like "8350 is better in everything using 5+ threads"
I can provide a far more informative post, but im currently om my phone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK4ip08auGg i am just gona leave this to you. And since you are so smart about everything and obviously can tell what the furute brings, you will understand what i mean.