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

[escrow4]

That i5 isn't such a good choice. 3.3GHz max is pretty slow compared to a 4670 which via MCE can run @ 3.8GHz. 500MHz is a sizeable difference.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Just purchased the i5-4440.

Now to find a motherboard.

i5 > FX > i3
You did well OP

Personally, I'd still have trouble going with that i5 vs. the FX8320, but I like overclocking and tweaking the hardware. But that's just my preference. Nothing wrong with the i5, it should provide solid performance for a while yet. What video card are you pairing with it? Enjoy your new build OP. :thumbsup:

 

[Phynaz]

Apparently everyone except hardware.fr should stop doing reviews because they are the only correct review site.

 

[N8Magic]

Personally, I'd still have trouble going with that i5 vs. the FX8320, but I like overclocking and tweaking the hardware. But that's just my preference. Nothing wrong with the i5, it should provide solid performance for a while yet. What video card are you pairing with it? Enjoy your new build OP. :thumbsup:

Understood. I thought about that and figured that if I can get out of the box performance that is >= an FX8320, might as well do it.

As for video cards, the BF deals are coming about fast and furious up here now. I might grab an R9 290, R9 280X or GTX 770 that there are some good deals on.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Understood. I thought about that and figured that if I can get out of the box performance that is >= an FX8320, might as well do it.

As for video cards, the BF deals are coming about fast and furious up here now. I might grab an R9 290, R9 280X or GTX 770 that there are some good deals on.

Agreed, the i5 will give you good performance as-is. I think the FX could be tweaked to run quite well, also. But yea, you'd have to start looking into overclocking which isn't guaranteed.

I'd say get the R9 290, an i5 + R9 290 is a potent gaming combo, and great bang for the buck.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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.

Oh I don't doubt it. Even before the 8320E/8370E, you could do the same with a lucky 8320 or 8350. The 9370 is apparently great underclocked and undervolted (not that it counts as a budget chip). But it takes some research and work to get there.

If the OP is going to overclock, which he probably will if he wants to substantially whip the i3 in a broader selection of applications (read: games) while using an FX, the power numbers will be quite different. He can grab a cheap-ish 4+1 board, push vcore to ~1.33v and try for 4.4 - 4.5ghz which should result in a draw of maybe ~100W. I'm not sure if the stock HSF that comes with the 8320E will be adequate by that point.

If he has to go as high as 1.36v vcore, he's looking at ~125W power draw, and some of those 4+1 boards will give out under that kind of strain. If he picks the right one, he'll still be able to pull it off on a budget. He will definitely need an aftermarket cooler like the 212+/EVO by that point.

Anything faster than 4.5 ghz will probably require stepping up to an 8+2 board and better cooling, which can still (sort of) be done on a budget if he's okay with the 970 chipset or a used eBay miner board.

The i3 is simple, yet boring. It will require almost no learning and no investment of time for him to use one to its fullest potential.

edit: I see the OP got an i5 and is looking for a board. Here is my advice, if he cares to read it:

Get a low-end z97 board, like the ASRock Pro4. They aren't that expensive, and you'll have a full selection of overclocking features if/when you decide to go Broadwell-K (or whenever you grab a cheap 4790k when they get low enough for you to want to buy one). In the short term, you can use it to lock in the maximum turbo multiplier on all cores of your i5-4440 so you'll be running 3.3 ghz 100% of the time. With a bclk bump to 105 mhz (assuming you can get it that high), you're at 3465 mhz, which is better than 3.1 + 3.3 turbo. The stock HSF and stock voltage settings should be enough for your system to be stable under those conditions.

 

[AtenRa]

Your own cherry picked gaming charts show i5 > FX so why do I need to give you numbers? The rest of your nonsense is you trying to predict the future that FX will be faster than an i5 in 2015

It has just begun, im not saying every game will be like those bellow but the 8core FX CPUs at 4.4GHz is doing exceptionally good in the latest games using optimized Game Engines.

Now remember, OP got the Core i5 4440 (3.1GHz base), he cannot OC any more. The benchmarks bellow are with Core i5 4670K at 3.4GHz base, so lets see what happens.


BF4 Final Stand Mantle
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670 at half the price.

DragonAge Inquisition
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

RYSE : Son of Rome
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Metro Last Light Redux
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Evolve
Still on ALPHA but it uses Cryengine so it will be very optimized
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Im sure people will say im cherry picking, but even in many other games where the FX is not faster than Core i5, it does produce more than 60fps. Im not suggesting that the 8core FX is a better all around CPU, but its sure has a lot of performance for todays games.
But the OP made his choice, so no point continue with the debate

 

[SlowSpyder]

Thanks for the graphs, AtenRa. My FX is 10%+ higher clocked than their 4.7GHz FX9590. Assuming linear scaling with clockspeed in those games, I'd be around ~i7 4790 performance. Not bad considering the price of each CPU (though I should mention I am running water cooling, obviously my 5.2GHz FX isn't an everyday overclock compared to most. But I will recycle much of the parts for my next build, be it Intel or AMD). And my power draw has got to be a lot higher than the i5/i7.

 

[2is]

No one is saying an FX8 is a shit CPU with shit performance. But if anything, those charts just prove that it needs help to be competitive and more often than not, it's still below i5 performance. It needs games to be well optimized to make use of 8 threads and may also need Mantle to alleviate CPU load, and Mantle only works with certain AMD GPU's. That's just too many variables that need to go AMD's way for FX8 to start encroaching on an i5's gaming performance.

 

[AtenRa]

No one is saying an FX8 is a shit CPU with shit performance. But if anything, those charts just prove that it needs help to be competitive and more often than not, it's still below i5 performance. It needs games to be well optimized to make use of 8 threads and may also need Mantle to alleviate CPU load, and Mantle only works with certain AMD GPU's. That's just too many variables that need to go AMD's way for FX8 to start encroaching on an i5's gaming performance.

Mantle works with every GCN card produced since the end of 2011. And DX12 will also have almost the same affect, so we come back to what i have said earlier that CPU performance in gaming becomes less and less important every year.

Now, you can have the FX8320E + ASROCK 990FX Fatal1ty Killer for $205 total at newegg when Core i5 4670 (same base clock as 4670K) alone is sold at $219. Now i dont know about you but if i was on a low budget, I would definitely consider the FX8320E + ASROCK Fatal1ty for a gaming system and spend the savings for an M2 SSD or better GPU.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It has just begun, im not saying every game will be like those bellow but the 8core FX CPUs at 4.4GHz is doing exceptionally good in the latest games using optimized Game Engines.

Now remember, OP got the Core i5 4440 (3.1GHz base), he cannot OC any more. The benchmarks bellow are with Core i5 4670K at 3.4GHz base, so lets see what happens.


BF4 Final Stand Mantle
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670 at half the price.

DragonAge Inquisition
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

RYSE : Son of Rome
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Metro Last Light Redux
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Evolve
Still on ALPHA but it uses Cryengine so it will be very optimized
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Im sure people will say im cherry picking, but even in many other games where the FX is not faster than Core i5, it does produce more than 60fps. Im not suggesting that the 8core FX is a better all around CPU, but its sure has a lot of performance for todays games.
But the OP made his choice, so no point continue with the debate

Or you could pick AC Unity: i5 = 45% faster than 8350
or COD Adv Warfare = 41% faster
or Civ B:E = 66% faster
or Kingdom come = 32% faster
or Lords of the Fallen = 38% faster

All taken from very recent Game.gpu tests. These are recent games which are decently threaded. An i5 seems to me to be holding its lead quite well. In any case, that is the problem with the FX. In the most optimally threaded games it is at best nearly equal to an i5, while in other games it trails badly. And no matter how much certain posters try to manipulate the figures, stock out of the box the FX will use more power for at best equal and usually inferior performance for gaming.

 

[2is]

Mantle works with every GCN card produced since the end of 2011. And DX12 will also have almost the same affect, so we come back to what i have said earlier that CPU performance in gaming becomes less and less important every year.

Now, you can have the FX8320E + ASROCK 990FX Fatal1ty Killer for $205 total at newegg when Core i5 4670 (same base clock as 4670K) alone is sold at $219. Now i dont know about you but if i was on a low budget, I would definitely consider the FX8320E + ASROCK Fatal1ty for a gaming system and spend the savings for an M2 SSD or better GPU.

Doesn't matter if you substitute DX12 for Mantle. The end result is that an FX8 needs help to get close to i5 performance and more often than not still doesn't come out on top. "ever GCN card produced since the end of 2011" is still WELL under 50% of the gaming GPU's out there. Then you add the fact that the game needs to support it to begin with and the benefit is further reduced.

Or, you simply get an i5 and not have to make excuses for it because it will perform well in every situation and out perform FX8 in just about every situation.

Sorry but I just can't recommend buying a CPU where it CAN be CLOSE in a BEST case scenario

 

[rushmore]

I have a Dell 4150, 8gb and a GTX650 with replaced power supply. Great desktop for gaming at $560.

 

[DrMrLordX]

That deal on NewEgg for the 8320E is really nice. B-U-T the OP got an i5 so it's a moot point.

Any other advice on how he can get the most out of his i5? If he uses a Z97 board, will he be able to overclock the RAM, uncore, or anything else?

 

[Phynaz]

It has just begun, im not saying every game will be like those bellow but the 8core FX CPUs at 4.4GHz is doing exceptionally good in the latest games using optimized Game Engines.

Now remember, OP got the Core i5 4440 (3.1GHz base), he cannot OC any more. The benchmarks bellow are with Core i5 4670K at 3.4GHz base, so lets see what happens.


BF4 Final Stand Mantle
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670 at half the price.

DragonAge Inquisition
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

RYSE : Son of Rome
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Metro Last Light Redux
FX8320E at 4.4GHz equal to Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Evolve
Still on ALPHA but it uses Cryengine so it will be very optimized
FX8320E at 4.4GHz faster than Core i5 4670K at half the price.

Im sure people will say im cherry picking, but even in many other games where the FX is not faster than Core i5, it does produce more than 60fps. Im not suggesting that the 8core FX is a better all around CPU, but its sure has a lot of performance for todays games.
But the OP made his choice, so no point continue with the debate

I don't see an 8320e on those charts, and a 4.4ghz overclock is not guaranteed on an 8320e.

Your post says this is what you may possibly get with enough effort, not what you will get. On the other hand, the performance of the i5 is guaranteed.

 

[2is]

I don't see an 8320e on those charts, and a 4.4ghz overclock is not guaranteed on an 8320e.

Your post says this is what you may possibly get with enough effort, not what you will get. On the other hand, the performance of the i5 is guaranteed.

Worse than that. What you may possible get, with enough effort, if the game uses Mantle, assuming you have a supported GPU.

When the planets all have to align for an FX8 to simply approach i5 performance it becomes pretty clear which CPU to get and which to avoid if you factor out brand allegiance.

 

[AtenRa]

Everyone forgets or doesnt want to mention, that all those gamegpu CPU benchmarks are without any kind of AntiAliasing.


In real world, gamers will eneble AA filters making almost every new AAA game GPU limited at 1080p.

BF4 Final Stand, Ultra 4X MSAA. Even high end GPUs like 290X and 780/980 are GPU limited.

CPU benchmark Ultra no AA.

Even if you have a 4.7GHz Core i7 5960X you will be GPU limited when you will enable MSAA with any single Graphics Card.

Lets see Assasins Creed Unity,

1080p Ultra no AA

Enabling MSAA makes you completely GPU limited even with the GTX 980 and a 4.6GHz Core i7 5960X.

I dont believe anyone with a GTX980 SLI will not enable MSAA :whiste:

So to conclude my thesis, in real world gaming most of us will use the highest available Image Quality settings that will allow us to play the game at acceptable frame rates. Unless you have a high end CrossFire or SLI setup, almost every new game will be GPU limited and CPU performance will not matter if you have an adequate CPU.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't see an 8320e on those charts, and a 4.4ghz overclock is not guaranteed on an 8320e.

Your post says this is what you may possibly get with enough effort, not what you will get. On the other hand, the performance of the i5 is guaranteed.

A 4.4GHz is guaranteed on the FX8320E, every FX83xx can OC to 4.4GHz and that is a fact.

The only effort you need to put is to move your hand and press the button Del when in post to enter the bios, then you only raise CPU multiplier to 22 and you are done.

 

[AtenRa]

Worse than that. What you may possible get, with enough effort, if the game uses Mantle, assuming you have a supported GPU.

When the planets all have to align for an FX8 to simply approach i5 performance it becomes pretty clear which CPU to get and which to avoid if you factor out brand allegiance.

Metro Last Light Redux and RYSE son of ROme doesnt use Mantle and yet the FX is on par with the Core i5.

edit: Metro last light redux is with a GTX 780Ti SLI

 

[2is]

Of course CPU matters. Case in point, not a single AMD processor there can maintain a 60fps minimum but a 4 year old Sandy Bridge i5 is doing it.

You can pretend that the CPU matters less in newer games, reality dictates the opposite is true.

 

[2is]

Metro Last Light Redux and RYSE son of ROme doesnt use Mantle and yet the FX is on par with the Core i5.

edit: Metro last light redux is with a GTX 780Ti SLI

Congrats, 2 games AMD can compete in and dozens where it cannot. I could post them, but you've been around long enough to know they're out there. In fact, you saw them when you made your choice not to post them here along with the charts you did post.

 

[AtenRa]

Of course CPU matters. Case in point, not a single AMD processor there can maintain a 60fps minimum but a 4 year old Sandy Bridge i5 is doing it.

You can pretend that the CPU matters less in newer games, reality dictates the opposite is true.

Even a 4.6GHz Core i7 5960X cannot maintain 60fps minimum with a single GPU even without any AA. Only the 980 manage that, but again you are GPU limited not CPU limited so even a Core i3 4330 will produce the same fps(+/- 5-10%).

 

[AtenRa]

Congrats, 2 games AMD can compete in and dozens where it cannot. I could post them, but you've been around long enough to know they're out there. In fact, you saw them when you made your choice not to post them here along with the charts you did post.

Everyone forgets or doesnt want to mention, that all those gamegpu CPU benchmarks are without any kind of AntiAliasing.


In real world, gamers will eneble AA filters making almost every new AAA game GPU limited at 1080p.

have a look at all those games with AA filters and understand what you see with those CPU graphs is not what you get in real life. Unless you are one of few people that game with AA off using a high end GPU.

 

[Abwx]

Your own cherry picked gaming charts show i5 > FX so why do I need to give you numbers?

These are not cherry picked, this average can be seen here with all games used individualy on the bottom of the page, click on the link and check if all this is well threaded, i told you i rely to numbers not rethoric.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

The rest of your nonsense is you trying to predict the future that FX will be faster than an i5 in 2015

Caught lying here, that is how you re making points.?.
I expressely said 2 years for the 4670K and 1 year for the 4140, check the post history if you wants...

So lets summarize. You're suggesting someone by an FX over an i5 even though it's slower, based on a prediction that it will be faster in 2015. Fanboyish predictions that have been made for nearly a decade now and have never come to fruition.

And you think that's sound advise? lol

Like I said, if people giving bad advise bothers you, look in the mirror.

I also said, to the deaf, that the 4670K has 42% advantage last year in the game suite above and that currently it s 25%, i also asked how much next year, if you re unable to answer such a question then abstain from giving advices since you seems cluless, i gave timelines while you re just pulling ad hominems, lies as above and of course straws, that s all that is summarized in your post.

Not just cherry-picking game benchmarks, but picking benches that have little to no relevance for the average user, like chess engine benches.

All that hot air and tilting at windmills, and the OP still could see the best path.

Yet another numberless critic,, for more substancial infos i put the link above again, it may interest the ones who prefer objectivity over hollow sentences :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-19/indices-performance.html

It s all graphs, no need to translate if you re lazy, do not forget to click on the links at the bottom for individual scores in games, and eventualy in other applications if ever you use your PC for something else...

 

[2is]

Even a 4.6GHz Core i7 5960X cannot maintain 60fps minimum with a single GPU even without any AA. Only the 980 manage that, but again you are GPU limited not CPU limited so even a Core i3 4330 will produce the same fps(+/- 5-10%).

You're running thin on cherry picked charts... Just a single one this time? How about you post a link to the full review? It's funny than the couple instances when AMD can compete, the charts are gospel. And the majority of the time it can't, CPU isn't important.