🚀 go-pugleaf

Justisaur  <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm currently running an E6850 Dual Core @ 3.0 GHz.  I'm looking over 
>the info for CPUs and I see the CPU recommended for GTA V (similar 
>issues) includes an intel i5-3470, AMD FX-8350.  From what I can see the 
>AMD costs close to half the price ($159 w $59 gift card vs. 230  and 
>provides about 25% more power.  Am I missing something?

The Intel i5-3470 is a 4-core 3.2 GHz (3.6 GHz turbo) "Ivy Bridge"
processor, while the AMD FX-8350 is 8-core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz turbo)
"Piledriver" processor.  Those names in quotes, the microarchitecture
name, make a big difference, especially in gaming.  Gigahertz for
gigahertz an Ivy Bridge CPU has a much better single threaded performance
than a Piledriver CPU.  The extra 4 cores will probably sit idle
while running most games with one thread running on one CPU being the
bottleneck. (And if it's not the CPU, it'll be the GPU, and if it's not
the GPU, it'll be memory bandwith.)  So between the two, for gaming I'd
get the i5-3470 over the FX-8350, as you're probably going to get at least
25% better performance in games with the Intel processor over the AMD one.

I found a review online that compares the FX-8350 with the i5-3570K
(slightly faster than the i5-3470 at 3.4/3.8 GHz):

	http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-8350-1137704/review

Unfortunately AMD is only really competive with in Intel at the low end.
Unless you're doing a lot of video encoding or something else that can
make use of all 8 cores, AMD high end CPUs aren't a good value compared
to Intel's mid range CPUs.

I'd echo that Tim O said and save up for a good current Intel mid-range
($200) CPU with an appropriate motherboard.  Stick it in a good sized
case, even if you have to do it yourself.  CPU technology isn't advancing
the way it used to be and there are signs it's about to hit a wall.
With AMD failing to catch up I also suspect that Intel will start
jacking up their prices, so I expect to see Intel charging more for only
marginally better CPUs.  A good CPU should easily last 5 years, maybe 10
given how much things are slowing down.  As it is, I'm using an 7 year
old $200 Intel CPU without much pain, though I mostly play older games.

I think the only risk is that the 8-core AMD-based PlayStation 4 and
Xbox One consoles might cause a seismic shift in how games are designed,
some how changing the equation to prefer more cores over better single
threaded performance.  However after almost 3 years there's no sign of
this happening.  The PC is still the king of gaming performance.

>Or I could forget about buying a CPU to play badly ported console games 
>and just buy the game for about $12 on the XBOX 360.  That'd save me at 
>least $200.

Well, there aren't many new games these days for now discontinued Xbox
360, but if you're fine with its back catalog that should keep you
entertained for a while. 

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //