I have two High-School juniors (twins) that love to game, and though I could get them into nice higher end gaming builds, let’s face it I wouldn’t see myself dropping the kind of money for i5 or i7 machines, as I can’t see setting them up with GPU like 290/980, when they are 1080p. The thing here is if you don’t see yourself running top enthusiast GPU’s why outlay cash for i7 and some OC Z97 mobo, when you’re at best going to be budgeted to hold mainstream graphics. While this review is great, it leaves out the range of one’s total budget. When you take these findings and plug a real budget around the rest of the parts the whole premise of such reviews start to unravel. You have to look at the final build as a whole. I’ve built two systems for guys they go to school with and game with. They both looked to hold to around $500, but one had a usable Win7 COA the other didn’t. I started with the FX6300 and 970 mobo’s, which together is $135 (Micro Center bundle), one went 270X ($140), while I just finished the other a week or so ago got a 280 ($160). Both CPU’s got OC’d to 4.2Ghz with tower coolers. I don’t see anyone working from a i3/i5 builds that can deliver a machine which provides near the gaming prowess within such budget constraints. And yes I’m collecting parts over a 2-3 week period, working every deal and rebate to hold to the best total budget. The first kid started wanting an i5/770 that he could OC. When I presented him a price work-up on a i5-3570K, Z87, GTX 770, more PSU… etc. it was quickly topping $900.

Nah, even then i5/i7 will be faster. Its sad.

Pretty much, my old 8320 clocked at 4.6 is on par with maybe 2600k. Low budget yeah, id say it is only disappointing when playing HOTS on a 4vs4 maxed food supply. Worse when too much creep owns the map.

You're not going to be building a mid-range gaming system using Intel for $500.... You'll be lucky to get an entry-level gaming system at that price. I go through that yearly with a friend of mine. Every gamer has a budget, and there's components to fit every budget. Having a bias as far as hardware manufacturers makes budget building a lot harder.

Pretty much, my old 8320 clocked at 4.6 is on par with maybe 2600k. Low budget yeah, id say it is only disappointing when playing HOTS on a 4vs4 maxed food supply. Worse when too much creep owns the map.

Tbh I don't think amd conquered socket 1366 yet, especially with both overclocked.

Nice review but I wish there were game tests showing multi-core/multi-thread support such as Metro, Crysis 2/3 and Battlefield 3/4 to show the impact of multiple core vs IPC. We know Intel rocks per IPC in UE (single threaded) games but what about those game engines that support more cores?

There are too few games that support more than 4 threads to make a difference. As pointed out in the review, most games (and software in general) are coded for 2-4 threads these days. If Hilbert replaced the games he used, with the very few that support more than 4 threads, he'd essentially be lying to readers.

The thing here is if you don’t see yourself running top enthusiast GPU’s why outlay cash for i7 and some OC Z97 mobo, when you’re at best going to be budgeted to hold mainstream graphics. While this review is great, it leaves out the range of one’s total budget. When you take these findings and plug a real budget around the rest of the parts the whole premise of such reviews start to unravel. You have to look at the final build as a whole.

Interesting you mention that, because you actually can easily use top enthusiast GPUs while running AMD, at least if you don't have a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 60Hz. Yes, according to these graphs, AMD has done notably worse than intel in gaming. However, note that most of those results had frame rates well over 100FPS. Realistically, you'll be be using vsync, so your CPU in most situations will not be the bottleneck. You'll find that even a low-end i5 or maybe an overclocked FX-4xxx could play most games at 60FPS, assuming you have a capable GPU. I chose AMD for a CPU because I haven't played a game in almost 10 years where the CPU was the bottleneck. When it comes to strictly gaming, the only reason intel is a better choice is power consumption, and maybe post-processing (I have a feeling HT really does magic there). Intel definitely has its purposes and if you can easily afford them without cutting any corners, then do it. But if you're looking to make the most cost effective gaming system, AMD is fine. @sykozis That may be true, but, AMD starts to show their worth in software that is properly coded for multi-threaded tasks. I'm not suggesting that AMD would come ahead of intel in any game tests but the gap would be closer.

There are too few games that support more than 4 threads to make a difference. As pointed out in the review, most games (and software in general) are coded for 2-4 threads these days. If Hilbert replaced the games he used, with the very few that support more than 4 threads, he'd essentially be lying to readers.

Nope, it's the opposite. How many AAA titles released in the last 2-3yrs do know of that don't support 8 threads? Not all will obviously, but I could name at least 10. DX11 titles are well threaded. Here's Far Cry 4 on my rig. Runs like poo, but look at how the CPU is loaded. Its a wet dream for FX owners. :P Edit, The review is published from a template, since the 2-4 cores thing seems a bit outdated it could be from the BD release, not sure. U'd have to ask Hilbert. I think I'd prob go Intel next upgrade if AMD don't get their shlt together. Mind u if nothing replaces Piledriver, what choice do we have? http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee426/pillmonsta/5190dc05-da97-472a-9036-f9f66b182dfd.png%7Eoriginal

amd is already a low budget choice for low budget customer ... every fx processor need 4.6ghz+ to beat a stock clock i7 4770k

Not everyone lives in high paying countries.. But you probably wouldn't know that..

@ Pill Monster Why not just wait for DX12 performance reviews with AMD FX cpus? I imagine you don't need to upgrade at all.

@ Pill Monster Why not just wait for DX12 performance reviews with AMD FX cpus? I imagine you don't need to upgrade at all.

I'm just speaking generally really.... not planning to upgrade anytime soon. Piledriver becomes more suited to it's surroundings with age, thanks to optimized software. And yeah who knows what DX12 will bring. Kinda like Benjamin Button. 😀 It'd be great to know what AMD are planning, this gen is now 3yrs old after all, we can't wait forever..... I'm not a big gamer these days, but looking forward to the next Mass Effect and Fallout 4, as long as Bethesda don't go anywhere near it.

There are too few games that support more than 4 threads to make a difference. As pointed out in the review, most games (and software in general) are coded for 2-4 threads these days. If Hilbert replaced the games he used, with the very few that support more than 4 threads, he'd essentially be lying to readers.

This is an absolute wrong statement to make considering EVERY 2014 GPU review has these 3 games benchmarked that DOES support multi-core/multithread and IS the target market that would consider greater than quad core cpus and multi gpus: GeForce GTX 980 2 and 3-way SLI review - Test Environment & Equipment "Processor Core i7 3960 Extreme (Sandy Bridge-E) @ 4.6 GHz on all six cores - Review" http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=12907 http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=12884http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=12886 The review can just ADD these 3 games, not replace the current ones, then users can at least compare if it makes any difference with more threads or IPC. With the current review, it is mainly an IPC review game wise and we already know Intel wins by miles here. Having these 3 games at least would present a more fair and unbiased review than it is. Note I am not saying the review is biased but it can be much more fair and transparent with the above.

Titles like Crysis 3 and Metro are VERY GPU bound, the differences would be very small. But I'll look into adding some new titles, they need to be time-demo based though, so the game must support that.

Hi Hilbert, Thanks for reading. I love your reviews hence comment on it. I understand these games may really be GPU bound but the engines that power these games are licensed out to other games in the future, such as Frostbite and CryEngine so it would be good to see core/thread scaling with future CPU reviews. Lots of folks are considering 6+ core upgrades and are gamers, so it would be fair to show them any future proof perceived gaming benefits or should stick to quad cores and OC to keep up. Its like the old Dual Core @ High GHZ vs triple (remember those) and quad cores before quad core became all mainstream for gamers. At least having those 3 games in cpu reviews can help gamers spend their money more wisely. Valken

Titles like Crysis 3 and Metro are VERY GPU bound, the differences would be very small. But I'll look into adding some new titles, they need to be time-demo based though, so the game must support that.

Yeah it's the same with Far Cry. Just look at my GPU vrm's, you could have a barbecue on them. :P Def no CPU bottleneck here, sir. http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee426/pillmonsta/f38a8f85-a198-4d47-aac6-e05642e90f28.png%7Eoriginal Btw in case you're wondering, I'm using AIDA64.....better than HWMonitor imo......

100c ? Is that reading correctly?

Yeah, and at 106c they start throttling. FarCry is the only game that cooks them like that. I have no idea why.

Can you access them enough to fit either bigger heatsinks or a small fan?

Can you access them enough to fit either bigger heatsinks or a small fan?

The vgpu could be a bit high. It only happens with Far Cry so I think it must be the trees. Normally the mosfets run at about 80c. I'm not too worried since FC3 was so boring I didn't bother to finish it, FC4 is even worse. Who needs an immersive storyline when you have graphics right? Bring on Mass Effect 4 baby....oh yeah. 😀 Anyway I'm off, got a family lunch this avo....Merry Christmas bud.. 🙂

Tbh I don't think amd conquered socket 1366 yet, especially with both overclocked.

yeah, still not bad for everything else that isnt cpu bound.