Haswell i3-4150 vs FX 8320/e for budget gaming rig?

[2is]

8320 , loads of folk will post selective benchmarks of an i3 beating the fx

As opposed to posting your opinion with no benchmarks? Selective or otherwise?

 

[2is]

On future titles i5s stand no chance against a FX8, if anything it s the integer throughput that define the max theorical perf, to get an idea of where the things will converge look at multithreaded integer based banchmarks.

On the CPU itself the E versions are better than the regular siblings, they are actualy to their counterparts what Richland is to Trinity, if the 8320E is set to 8320 settings it will consume less, on the other side it will overclock better with much lower power drain, actualy it s at high frequencies that the E show their superiority.

As stated, we've heard all this before... Heck we have heard it since the original phenom was going up against Core 2 Quad. How it was only a matter of time before Phenom outpaces Core 2 Quad due to it's IMC and "native quad core" design. It never happened. 8 years later, and you're still singing the same tune

 

[Enigmoid]

I would go for the FX for a budget gaming rig. However, I would try and push for an i5 if possible.

 

[Abwx]

As stated, we've heard all this before... Heck we have heard it since the original phenom was going up against Core 2 Quad. How it was only a matter of time before Phenom outpaces Core 2 Quad due to it's IMC and "native quad core" design. It never happened. 8 years later, and you're still singing the same tune

The topic is about an FX8320, 8320E and a i3.


On hardware.fr tests the i3 hold the advantage on lowly threaded games like ARMA III where it get 37% advantage against the FX but to get those 37% you ll have to give up 45% advantage to the FX in Crysis 3, on Total War the i3 has 13% advantage while the FX does 7.3% better in Watchgdogs, boths the games where the i3 does better are still lightly threaded, now tell us that in future iterations there s more chance for the highly threaded games to become lowly threaded that for the lowly threaded games to get more threads, if the former option is the most probable then the i3 make sense, otherwise it s just a mediocre buy, moreover given that an i3 seems to cost as much as a FX8 while its perfs elsewhere than in games are about the ones of a FX4XXX.

 

[BSim500]

Nice work but you should have provided the 2012 or 2013 numbers to be compared with 2014 scores....

Considering many 2012-2013 AAA titles (Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored, ME3, Skyrim, etc) were even LESS threaded than 2014's engines (and fly along today at 60fps on a 2-thread Pentium G3258), that would actually make your "point" even worse. LOL. "You should compare 2012 data with today's hardware" - Sure - here's 2012 Skyrim running faster on a Pentium than an FX-8350. And this 'verifies' that the same FX-8350 will soon "destroy" i5's, how exactly?...

As for your other fallacies that need correcting:-

1. Quoting arbitrary benchmarks like "STARS Euler3d computational fluid dynamics" where the "core scaling" is almost 100% is pretty meaningless when AMD's problem is precisely that most games scale barely 10-35% (even on "designed for 8 core next-gen engines"). The question was about gaming not arbitrary synthetics.

2. The FX-8350 (4.0GHz) is clocked 11% higher than the FX-8150 (3.6GHz). Likewise the FX-8350 got 10% higher score in 1T Cinebench vs an FX-8150. So putting all of that FX performance improvements down to "better threading" is simply dishonest.

3. The Haswell's do have much better performance per clock per core than other Ivy / Sandy Bridge. This is most visible in the i3-4xxx vs i3-3xxx rather than the i5/i7. Why? Because the latter are already so fast they get GPU bottlenecked earlier. The fact that i7's aren't twice the speed of i3's or that FX-8xxx aren't twice the speed of FX-4xxx actually shows you the opposite of what you want to believe.

All those charts do not invalidate what i said

The only thing you've done is share a fantasy prediction based on a confused extrapolation of recent slightly increased threading due to next-gen consoles as if it were an unending perfectly linear curve year after year. In reality, even 2014 designed for 8-core "next gen" consoles are still below even the blue line below, as you can see for yourself in the many FX-8350 vs FX-6300 vs FX-4300 benchmarks where a 100% increase in core count (4C -> 8C) often results in barely a 5-30% increase in fps:-

The topic is about an FX8320, 8320E and a i3.

And yet you were the one who said quote : "On future titles i5s stand no chance against a FX8" :thumbsdown:

 

[2is]

The topic is about an FX8320, 8320E and a i3.


On hardware.fr tests the i3 hold the advantage on lowly threaded games like ARMA III where it get 37% advantage against the FX but to get those 37% you ll have to give up 45% advantage to the FX in Crysis 3, on Total War the i3 has 13% advantage while the FX does 7.3% better in Watchgdogs, boths the games where the i3 does better are still lightly threaded, now tell us that in future iterations there s more chance for the highly threaded games to become lowly threaded that for the lowly threaded games to get more threads, if the former option is the most probable then the i3 make sense, otherwise it s just a mediocre buy, moreover given that an i3 seems to cost as much as a FX8 while its perfs elsewhere than in games are about the ones of a FX4XXX.

I'm well aware of what the topic is about. I'm responding to your notion that the i5 stands no chance against an FX8 in the future and gave you a history lesson on how people like you have been saying it for 8 years and for 8 years, it's been a false statement.

 

[Abwx]

The only thing you've done is share a fantasy prediction based on a confused extrapolation of recent slightly increased threading due to next-gen consoles as if it were an unending perfectly linear curve year after year. In reality, even 2014 designed for 8-core "next gen" consoles are still below even the blue line below, as you can see for yourself in the many FX-8350 vs FX-6300 vs FX-4300 benchmarks where a 100% increase in core count (4C -> 8C) often results in barely a 5-30% increase in fps:-

I provided real numbers in the post above in respect of the OP, an i3 is no more a better buy than a FX8 for games, it could have been the case two years ago or last year but this is over, there are already games where the FX has more advantages than the i3 has in games that are still lowly threaded, overall this 2C/4T is not better than a FX8xxx in games and is of FX4xxx level in about everything else.

 

[Abwx]

I'm well aware of what the topic is about. I'm responding to your notion that the i5 stands no chance against an FX8 in the future and gave you a history lesson on how people like you have been saying it for 8 years and for 8 years, it's been a false statement.

Integer throughput of the FX can only be compared to i7s that s why i m assuming that the i5 stand no chance on the mid term, when it comes to the i3 it s a lost cause currently even in games, one has to be objective, the FX8 is as good in games, and vastly superior for all the rest, besides the i3 will inherently be degraded in games, in 2-3 years this will be a CPU that is inferior in both games and apps.

 

[2is]

Integer throughput of the FX can only be compared to i7s that s why i m assuming that the i5 stand no chance on the mid term, when it comes to the i3 it s a lost cause currently even in games, one has to be objective, the FX8 is as good in games, and vastly superior for all the rest, besides the i3 will inherently be degraded in games, in 2-3 years this will be a CPU that is inferior in both games and apps.

Like I sad, 8 years, the same nonsense. The fans will cherry pick some numbers that clearly aren't as important as they think they are or don't mean what they think they mean and for 8 years Intel has been trampling AMD and aren't even doing it with their highest end mainstream processor

 

[frozentundra123456]

On future titles i5s stand no chance against a FX8, if anything it s the integer throughput that define the max theorical perf, to get an idea of where the things will converge look at multithreaded integer based banchmarks.

On the CPU itself the E versions are better than the regular siblings, they are actualy to their counterparts what Richland is to Trinity, if the 8320E is set to 8320 settings it will consume less, on the other side it will overclock better with much lower power drain, actualy it s at high frequencies that the E show their superiority.

Well, the future is now, and in the vast majority of games, an i5 is faster. You can project all you want, but I would take the proven performance. You say this every time an i5 is mentioned, but it never seems to happen.

In regards to the OP, I would agree with the other poster, save up a bit longer and get an i5. It doesnt have the single threaded slowness of an FX or the lack of true cores of the i3. Really when the total cost of a gaming rig and buying games is considered, the additional cost is minimal.

 

[Abwx]

Like I sad, 8 years, the same nonsense. The fans will cherry pick some numbers that clearly aren't as important as they think they are or don't mean what they think they mean and for 8 years Intel has been trampling AMD and aren't even doing it with their highest end mainstream processor

Yes, you re sad, do you call this cherry picking :

On hardware.fr tests the i3 hold the advantage on lowly threaded games like ARMA III where it get 37% advantage against the FX but to get those 37% you ll have to give up 45% advantage to the FX in Crysis 3, on Total War the i3 has 13% advantage while the FX does 7.3% better in Watchgdogs, boths the games where the i3 does better are still lightly threaded, now tell us that in future iterations there s more chance for the highly threaded games to become lowly threaded that for the lowly threaded games to get more threads, if the former option is the most probable then the i3 make sense, otherwise it s just a mediocre buy, moreover given that an i3 seems to cost as much as a FX8 while its perfs elsewhere than in games are about the ones of a FX4XXX.

If only you were cherry picking the same way rather than relying on voluntarly wrong statements, theses are numbers while you re just posting hollow formulaes and straws.

 

[2is]

Yes, you re sad, do you call this cherry picking :



If only you were cherry picking the same way rather than relying on voluntarly wrong statements, theses are numbers while you re just posting hollow formulaes and straws.

What I'm posting is reality. What you're posting is 8 years worth of fantasy and conjecture...

Lets cut the bs. How many more years would you like before your prediction comes to fruition? Just curious

 

[Ventanni]

The Core i3 is going to have the majority of the advantages over the 8320 in gaming. Haswell cores are much faster than Sandy/Ivy Bridge at processing HT tasks; they perform more closely, although not equally, to their true quadcore counterparts, and given that most games are written in the 2-4 thread range, this is where the Core i3 is going to shine most. In extremely highly threaded situations where all cores are used, yes, you'll probably find the 8320 to come in handy. But in most situations? The Haswell chip will be a superior purchase. More fps, half the power usage, and potentially a better upgrade path. I mean, let's be honest here, both platforms are "dead" platforms, but at least with the Core i3 you can pick up a used Core i7 Haswell later on down the road used for super cheap. With the 8320, you're kinda already at the "top" of the AMD food chain.

 

[crashtech]

9-series LGA1150 is not dead until after Broadwell-K.

 

[Abwx]

What I'm posting is reality. What you're posting is 8 years worth of fantasy and conjecture...

Lets cut the bs. How many more years would you like before your prediction comes to fruition? Just curious

Lol, the numbers i posted where published two months ago, you call this predictions the same way you call realities your straws and forever hollow sentences with no numbers..?.

If you want to discuss then discuss about thoses numbers, prove that they are fake if you can but just stop saying "its not true" , "it s fantasy", 100 000 of such sentences are not worth a single number from the few i posted above, indeed when people have really nothing to say they usualy rely on such deflection, hence we ll see post with tons of sub par litterature but actualy no numbers...

But in most situations? The Haswell chip will be a superior purchase. More fps, half the power usage, and potentially a better upgrade path.

What are these situation if i may ask, moreover with a i3.?.

 

[N8Magic]

Well this sure escalated quickly.

I'm leaning towards the i3 due to the fact that I can drop a Haswell i5/i7 in there down the road, but also that it is 20 dollars less for the CPU and likely also less for the mobo as I wouldn't be overclocking.

Is there any benefit to getting a Z97 mobo for the i3, or should I stick with a full featured model with a lesser chipset? Recommendations?

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well this sure escalated quickly.

I'm leaning towards the i3 due to the fact that I can drop a Haswell i5/i7 in there down the road, but also that it is 20 dollars less for the CPU and likely also less for the mobo as I wouldn't be overclocking.

Is there any benefit to getting a Z97 mobo for the i3, or should I stick with a full featured model with a lesser chipset? Recommendations?

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

If you think you'd like to get a "K" model CPU down the line, then the Z97 makes sense. Otherwise, the lesser chipset with features that you need is probably your best bet.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I would get the 8320E if the OP is willing to do the work of picking the right kind of board to fit his budget, getting the right cooling to fit in his budget, and tuning the chip carefully to avoid blowing out the VRMs and/or overwhelming the HSF. The E chips are easier to deal with, but let's face it, Vishera is serious business when it comes to heat production.

If he just wants a fire-and-forget, the i3 is much easier to deal with and set up. Slap it into any old motherboard that will support it, use the stock HSF, and off you go. Most you'll ever be able to do to improve its performance is to up the bclk to 105 mhz. That's all folks. Kind of boring, really.

edit: Z97 will most likely support Broadwell. Z87, probably not. Dunno if any other chipset out there will support Broadwell. H97 I guess?

So uh if you want future-proofing then it's gotta be H97 or Z97.

 

[Abwx]

The E chips are easier to deal with, but let's face it, Vishera is serious business when it comes to heat production.

At stock and all 8 threads loaded at 100% the 8320E drain 63W, with half the cores active, wich is about an i3 throughput wise, power drain will be barely 35W, exactly the same as the i3 (32-33W actualy) when fully loaded.

That is with stock settings, if tweaked the power value can be reduced by 15-17%% down to 55W/8C.

That said i dont find logical to point simply that the FX consume more, yes, it consume more, and even 2x more (at stock) but it does so only when providing double the perfs of the i3, at equal throughput it will consume about the same.

Anyway it looks like a lot of people, i dont talk of you, are relying on urban legends with not the slightest care for technical datas, prove is that about no none here could point thoses numbers before i did it in this post, another evidence that some people are posting out of clulessness, no wonder that i m not answered to with numbers but with straws and usual ad hominems.

 

[SPBHM]

Well this sure escalated quickly.

I'm leaning towards the i3 due to the fact that I can drop a Haswell i5/i7 in there down the road, but also that it is 20 dollars less for the CPU and likely also less for the mobo as I wouldn't be overclocking.

Is there any benefit to getting a Z97 mobo for the i3, or should I stick with a full featured model with a lesser chipset? Recommendations?

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

a few small differences, not that relevant for gaming performance, i5 4440 + H81 would be better than i3 + z97.

 

[crashtech]

There might be a benefit to an H97 or Z97 board if upgrading in 2015 is anticipated. We don't know what the Broadwell-K is going to be like, but we do know the 9-series chipsets are compatible with it, and the 8-series are not.

 

[escrow4]

Well this sure escalated quickly.

I'm leaning towards the i3 due to the fact that I can drop a Haswell i5/i7 in there down the road, but also that it is 20 dollars less for the CPU and likely also less for the mobo as I wouldn't be overclocking.

Is there any benefit to getting a Z97 mobo for the i3, or should I stick with a full featured model with a lesser chipset? Recommendations?

Thanks to everyone who has responded.

This never makes sense. Buy a decent CPU now, not buy a slower one now, then upgrade to a better one down the track. Down the track is Skylake and Haswell will head into oblivion.

 

[2is]

Lol, the numbers i posted where published two months ago, you call this predictions the same way you call realities your straws and forever hollow sentences with no numbers..?.

If you want to discuss then discuss about thoses numbers, prove that they are fake if you can but just stop saying "its not true" , "it s fantasy", 100 000 of such sentences are not worth a single number from the few i posted above, indeed when people have really nothing to say they usualy rely on such deflection, hence we ll see post with tons of sub par litterature but actualy no numbers...

I'm not questioning your numbers because quite frankly, I don't care. I'm questioning the relevance you place on them. The reason i'm questioning them is because folks like you have been saying this for 8 years and it has NEVER happened.

So, again... How many more years do you want before an FX8 > i5? It hasn't happened yet, but you say it will, so please enlighten the rest of us and give us a window of opportunity. Is it going to happen in 2015? 2016 perhaps?

 

[Abwx]

I'm not questioning your numbers because quite frankly, I don't care. I'm questioning the relevance you place on them. The reason i'm questioning them is because folks like you have been saying this for 8 years and it has NEVER happened.

So, again... How many more years do you want before an FX8 > i5? It hasn't happened yet, but you say it will, so please enlighten the rest of us and give us a window of opportunity. Is it going to happen in 2015? 2016 perhaps?

Of course that you are not interested in real numbers, prove is that you keep on using hollow wording and straws, as for the FX it trounces the i5 in integer apps, wich tell us the potential for games, once use is made of all cores...

Where would be the i3 in comparison.??..

Funny that some people think that the i3 has his place in thoses charts...

 

[2is]

I didn't think you believed in your own BS enough to give me a time frame for when FX will over take i5's either.

Thanks for playing.