join with help building a 1000 dollar budget gaming pc

[Maxim]

Passmark, CPU Boss, 3DMark, all rank the 8350 much higher. I also did some actual benchmark testing on my girlfriends FX-8320, 8GB DDR3-1600, R9-280 machine, that compares it to other tests ran on various other machines, including the i5's. I have the results, 5 different benchmarks, testing 3D rendering, photo editing, and a few other specific applications. Even the 8320 walked all over the i5's and if someone could explain how in the hell I can upload photos to this topic, rather than use an image hosting service, I will be glad to show you. So really, the only testing done that showed the i5 being better in any way, is anandtech.

Benchmarks that compare multiple CPU's in controlled, gaming scenarios aren't that hard to come across. I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of Anandtech's findings but I'll see if I can dig up a few other comparisons for the sake of completeness.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

Here we have a whole slew of processors being benchmarked head-to-head (-to-head-to-head-to-head...). Included in the roundup are the AMD FX-8350 and Intel Core-i5 4670K (a 100 MHz downclock from a 4690K). Feel free to flip through the pages of the review. You'll find that the Core-i5 at stock speeds outperforms the FX-8350 in every single game tested, even when the AMD chip is overclocked to 4.5 GHz. That gap only widens when the i5 is also overclocked to 4.5 GHz. The author even includes value charts for each game comparing price/performance for each chip. Even when taking the lower price of the AMD chip into account the i5-4670K is still found to have a better overall price/performance value than the AMD chip.

More, you ask? Bit-Tech included some gaming benchmarks in their review of the Core-i5 4690K. They have a few charts showing the performance relative to other chips. It's a good thing that this wasn't a review of the FX-8350 because it shows up right near the bottom of the list for TES: Skyrim and Shogun 2: Total War - hanging out with a Core-i3 4130 and a $70 dual-core Pentium G3258. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/5

Let's take a look at Tom's Hardware's "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money" segment. This one is from September 2014: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

You'll see the i5-4690K as the best CPU in the $200-$300 price range. "But wait!", you say, "the FX-8350 is only $179 at Newegg!". Well then let's take a look at the $115-$200 price range where we find... the Intel Core i5-4430?! "That can't be right!", you exclaim, "puny Core i5's can't hold a candle to my monster 8350! And certainly not a locked, non-overclockable one!" Well according to Tom's Hardware, a fairly reputable site for PC news and hardware coverage, Intel's i5-4430 is a better performer and better value than AMD's high-end offerings.

Tom's also has a quick-and-dirty CPU hierarchy chart on the last page that roughly breaks down "tiers" of CPU's by their performance in gaming scenarios. You might be upset to see AMD's highest-end chips stacked up in Tier 2, right alongside Intel's 5-year old Core i7-870 and a whole bunch of Core i3 models. Meanwhile, all of Intel's Core i5 and i7 models from the last 3 years are up in Tier 1, alongside a few older chips including the Core-i7 965 from 2008.

You can also do your own research by checking out Futuremark's Results page for 3DMark, PCMark, and their other applications. They have a convenient search feature where you can type in the name of a CPU or GPU and it will pull all results for machines with matching hardware. It requires a little more work to do research this way but you get verified results from real users who are benchmarking their systems. http://www.3dmark.com/search

But we should probably just take your word for it that the AMD chip is faster. I look forward to seeing those screenshots if you can ever figure out how to post them.

[AstoSoup]

Passmark, CPU Boss, 3DMark, all rank the 8350 much higher. I also did some actual benchmark testing on my girlfriends FX-8320, 8GB DDR3-1600, R9-280 machine, that compares it to other tests ran on various other machines, including the i5's. I have the results, 5 different benchmarks, testing 3D rendering, photo editing, and a few other specific applications. Even the 8320 walked all over the i5's and if someone could explain how in the hell I can upload photos to this topic, rather than use an image hosting service, I will be glad to show you. So really, the only testing done that showed the i5 being better in any way, is anandtech.

Benchmarks that compare multiple CPU's in controlled, gaming scenarios aren't that hard to come across. I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of Anandtech's findings but I'll see if I can dig up a few other comparisons for the sake of completeness.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

Here we have a whole slew of processors being benchmarked head-to-head (-to-head-to-head-to-head...). Included in the roundup are the AMD FX-8350 and Intel Core-i5 4670K (a 100 MHz downclock from a 4690K). Feel free to flip through the pages of the review. You'll find that the Core-i5 at stock speeds outperforms the FX-8350 in every single game tested, even when the AMD chip is overclocked to 4.5 GHz. That gap only widens when the i5 is also overclocked to 4.5 GHz. The author even includes value charts for each game comparing price/performance for each chip. Even when taking the lower price of the AMD chip into account the i5-4670K is still found to have a better overall price/performance value than the AMD chip.

More, you ask? Bit-Tech included some gaming benchmarks in their review of the Core-i5 4690K. They have a few charts showing the performance relative to other chips. It's a good thing that this wasn't a review of the FX-8350 because it shows up right near the bottom of the list for TES: Skyrim and Shogun 2: Total War - hanging out with a Core-i3 4130 and a $70 dual-core Pentium G3258. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/5

Let's take a look at Tom's Hardware's "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money" segment. This one is from September 2014: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

You'll see the i5-4690K as the best CPU in the $200-$300 price range. "But wait!", you say, "the FX-8350 is only $179 at Newegg!". Well then let's take a look at the $115-$200 price range where we find... the Intel Core i5-4430?! "That can't be right!", you exclaim, "puny Core i5's can't hold a candle to my monster 8350! And certainly not a locked, non-overclockable one!" Well according to Tom's Hardware, a fairly reputable site for PC news and hardware coverage, Intel's i5-4430 is a better performer and better value than AMD's high-end offerings.

Tom's also has a quick-and-dirty CPU hierarchy chart on the last page that roughly breaks down "tiers" of CPU's by their performance in gaming scenarios. You might be upset to see AMD's highest-end chips stacked up in Tier 2, right alongside Intel's 5-year old Core i7-870 and a whole bunch of Core i3 models. Meanwhile, all of Intel's Core i5 and i7 models from the last 3 years are up in Tier 1, alongside a few older chips including the Core-i7 965 from 2008.

You can also do your own research by checking out Futuremark's Results page for 3DMark, PCMark, and their other applications. They have a convenient search feature where you can type in the name of a CPU or GPU and it will pull all results for machines with matching hardware. It requires a little more work to do research this way but you get verified results from real users who are benchmarking their systems. http://www.3dmark.com/search

But we should probably just take your word for it that the AMD chip is faster. I look forward to seeing those screenshots if you can ever figure out how to post them.

Not to be rude, but I do not credit posts from people who claim "SSD's have no benefit in gaming", "pairing manufacturers has no benefit" and "an i3 is comparable to an FX 8 core". Them three comments alone are enough for me to not even bother listening to what's being said, sorry, just my views on the situation here. I will skim through the benchmarks but as for my benchmarks, there's no figuring it out I don't think. There is just no way to directly upload a photo to an open thread. If I HAVE to show you ho badly the FX stomped the i5 in a number of tests, I will sign up for a damn online image hosting website.

[yurvalentine]

Photobucket that shit I'm curious.

[AstoSoup]

I build rigs with all of these CPU's and see the performance difference. A few benchmark tests done by Intel fanatics (which consist of 2/3 of the gaming community), in certain situations, just isn't enough to persuade me. Intel ARE better CPU's, in every way besides performance/cost ratio. This is why most gamers choose Intel and why my next rig will be Intel. My point from the start, was that an 8 core AMD rig would be CHEAPER to build than an Intel rig, better suiting the OP's $1000 budget. As for i5 vs. FX-83xx, that is a very opinionated subject, which goes against the "no vs. threads" rule on this website. I will be sure to get my benchmarks up when I get five minutes where I am not working.

[yurvalentine]

I just have such a hard time telling people to buy an 8 core when I know they won't be using more than 1 or 2 most of the time. An i3 or FX6300 would probably also do just as well as the 8350 in day to day situations, and at an even lower price point.

In fact now I'm curious what the comparison there is like...my old FX4300 was actually a damn good chip for what I paid.

EDIT: Gaming benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Basically the whole story right there.

[AstoSoup]

I just have such a hard time telling people to buy an 8 core when I know they won't be using more than 1 or 2 most of the time. An i3 or FX6300 would probably also do just as well as the 8350 in day to day situations, and at an even lower price point.

In fact now I'm curious what the comparison there is like...my old FX4300 was actually a damn good chip for what I paid.

EDIT: Gaming benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Basically the whole story right there.

I had a program once that actually gave detailed information on how much of which core was being used at any given time. At the time, I had an FX-6350 6 core and when gaming, I never seen it touch the last 2 cores. At the same time, PhotoShop, which I never thought of as a demanding application, would dip into the last 1 or 2 cores. I usually recommend more cores as a general suggestion because many people just do not clear the task manager before gaming. Many leave their browsers, iTunes, and other programs running in the background, then try to play Crysis 3 or BF4 lol. With more cores, there isn't as much worry about keeping resources free, plus 4 years down the road, 4 cores may be as obsolete as a single core is now. I like i5's, I hope no one thinks I am bashing them in any way but I have never visually seen one out perform an 8350. Some of the benchmarks do say the i5 is slightly faster, others say the 83xx is slightly faster. You have the right conception that Intel triumph in single threaded applications. The core of the Intels, while using less power, perform better than the core in an AMD. Haswell vs. Vishera is night and day, Haswell coming out on top everytime. 4 cores vs. 8 cores however, usually 8 cores will win unless it's indeed a single thread application. I use AMD to save money, while keeping sufficient processing power. If I was going to build for raw perfromance, i7 all day!

[RainStryke]

I just have such a hard time telling people to buy an 8 core when I know they won't be using more than 1 or 2 most of the time. An i3 or FX6300 would probably also do just as well as the 8350 in day to day situations, and at an even lower price point.

In fact now I'm curious what the comparison there is like...my old FX4300 was actually a damn good chip for what I paid.

EDIT: Gaming benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Basically the whole story right there.

They use a HD5870 for the GPU in that benchmark. It's not enough to really test the CPU.

Check out this review where they use a GTX 690 with a bunch of different CPU's in gaming benchmarks:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

The newer Intel 4000/5000 series is 6% to 12% faster at the same clock speeds than the Intel 3000 series.

[yurvalentine]

They say at the start the CPU bound games are the 5870 but the newer games were on a 680. Pretty sure a 5870 wouldn't be pushing 220fps on Skyrim, even at 1680x1050.

Also I was looking at the FX series, not comparing them to the Intel. Just showing the FX8350 vs the FX6300.

[RainStryke]

That 1100T in the review I posted represents a FX6300 pretty much. They overclocked that 1100T to 4.2GHz.

[Maxim]

Not to be rude, but I do not credit posts from people who claim "SSD's have no benefit in gaming", "pairing manufacturers has no benefit" and "an i3 is comparable to an FX 8 core". Them three comments alone are enough for me to not even bother listening to what's being said, sorry, just my views on the situation here. I will skim through the benchmarks but as for my benchmarks, there's no figuring it out I don't think. There is just no way to directly upload a photo to an open thread. If I HAVE to show you ho badly the FX stomped the i5 in a number of tests, I will sign up for a damn online image hosting website.

Also, TinyPic allows you to upload photos without creating an account. http://tinypic.com/