Lower CPU and better GPU or better CPU and lower GPU??? First time builder

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Forte123 (23 posts) -
Im looking at either a i5 3470/ fx 6300 with a hd 7870 for around 830-850 or a i5 3570k/fx 8350 with a 7850 for like 870-890 what would be the best way to go?
#2 Posted by gp19 (4247 posts) -
Intel, whichever processor you choose Ivy or Haswell, needs to have a K at the end. You'll thank us later. As for the GPU, since you're on a budget, wait a few weeks for the 760ti.
#3 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

 

Save some money, go AMD. 

 

You will not notice the differece betwen an AMD and intel processor.  I have an 8350 at home and a 3770 at work. I would suggest the 6300

#4 Posted by Forte123 (23 posts) -
thanks
#5 Posted by ionusX (25716 posts) -

thanksForte123
yep amd cpu in this case is the better buy

#6 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Intel, whichever processor you choose Ivy or Haswell, needs to have a K at the end. You'll thank us later. As for the GPU, since you're on a budget, wait a few weeks for the 760ti.gp19

 

I will probably be getting the 760 Ti, so I'm not bashing it... But it doesn't seem like it would be in TC's price range.  It's expected to be a $299-$329 GPU.  

#7 Posted by osirisx3 (2016 posts) -

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

#8 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

It is always better to spend more on a GPU than CPU.
http://anandtech.com/show/6985/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-at-1440p-adding-in-haswell-/5 

#9 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

osirisx3

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

#10 Posted by ionusX (25716 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

hartsickdiscipl

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

no you just need to spend noticeably more to get a good one

#11 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

hartsickdiscipl

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

I would say I got about the same upgrade going from a 955 to an 8350 as you going from a 955 to a 3570.

#12 Posted by pawq4 (448 posts) -

 

You will not notice the differece betwen an AMD and intel processor. 

GummiRaccoon

This is not true. While in most games the difference between processors is negligible, there are quite a few games where Intel just blows AMD out of the water, such as Starcraft 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Battlefield 3 Multiplayer, This might be different after next-gen consoles are released, but I doubt it. Also, [cough] emulators [/cough] run way better on intel.

#13 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

GummiRaccoon

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

I would say I got about the same upgrade going from a 955 to an 8350 as you going from a 955 to a 3570.

 

I would say that I got a superior gaming upgrade, and you got a better upgrade for some other tasks.  That's based on the majority of tests and benches out there.  

#14 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

hartsickdiscipl

I would say I got about the same upgrade going from a 955 to an 8350 as you going from a 955 to a 3570.

 

I would say that I got a superior gaming upgrade, and you got a better upgrade for some other tasks.  That's based on the majority of tests and benches out there.  

Also my cpu was a drop in replacement.

#15 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17199 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

GummiRaccoon

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

I would say I got about the same upgrade going from a 955 to an 8350 as you going from a 955 to a 3570.

I pondered the same choices recently because I wanted a beefier CPU to tide me over until next year. In my case, I had to buy both (micro-ATX) motherboard and CPU. On the AMD side, an FX-8350 and ASUS motherboard cost me $270. An Intel i5-3570k with ASUS motherboard would've cost $340. If I was assembling a whole new PC, I could've applied that $70 towards a better video card.

I wasn't planning to buy a new video card right now. But, I chose the AMD option anyway. I should have them here tomorrow.

#16 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I would say I got about the same upgrade going from a 955 to an 8350 as you going from a 955 to a 3570.

GummiRaccoon

 

I would say that I got a superior gaming upgrade, and you got a better upgrade for some other tasks.  That's based on the majority of tests and benches out there.  

Also my cpu was a drop in replacement.

 

True, but my wouldn't have been.  I had an AM3 motherboard, not AM3+.  

#17 Posted by dramaybaz (6020 posts) -
For Gaming, stronger GPU is better. However personally I like to buy a strong CPU if I am making a new build, because I will end up upgrading the GPU in a couple of years anyway. By the time I want to upgrade the CPU, mobo and RAM need to be upgraded as well.
#18 Posted by SalikSST (250 posts) -

As long as you play games at 1080p+all settings max cpu wont matter that much Intel or Amd only strong GPU will play important role but there are some games which rely on CPU processing power where Intel leads otherwise.

#19 Posted by Forte123 (23 posts) -
thanks everyone so many dif answers but are are helpful lol
#20 Posted by Forte123 (23 posts) -
thanks everyone so many dif answers but are are helpful lol
#21 Posted by imprezawrx500 (19187 posts) -
gpu is far far more important, any quad core cpu out there can pretty much max any games out there. Gimp on the gpu and your game might run horrible. A cheaper cpu and more expensive gpu will always give better gaming results.
#22 Posted by imprezawrx500 (19187 posts) -

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

hartsickdiscipl

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

And you probably won't even see the difference between that intel cpu that costs twice as much, the gpu on the other hand will make a big difference. AMD has more than enough juice for any game out there. Plus with next gen consoles using amd we my just see more optimization for amd. AMD chips are really good and unless you are doing video encoding you really don't need an i7.
#23 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

intel is a waste of money go amd and spend money on the real bread and butter of gaming and thats the gpu.

imprezawrx500

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

And you probably won't even see the difference between that intel cpu that costs twice as much, the gpu on the other hand will make a big difference. AMD has more than enough juice for any game out there. Plus with next gen consoles using amd we my just see more optimization for amd. AMD chips are really good and unless you are doing video encoding you really don't need an i7.

 

I guess you weren't paying attention.  My last CPU was a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I haven't upgraded my GPU, and yet a saw a big performance increase in quite a few of my games, just by getting an Ivy Bridge i5.  Higher average FPS in most games, and better minimum FPS in all.  This is not even a debate.  

#24 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I've owned CPUs from both companies.  AMD does make some decent products, no doubt.  However, the Sandy/Ivy Bridge and now Haswell are all better CPUs for most games than anything AMD has come out with recently.  You don't have to spend a fortune to get a good Intel chip.  

hartsickdiscipl

And you probably won't even see the difference between that intel cpu that costs twice as much, the gpu on the other hand will make a big difference. AMD has more than enough juice for any game out there. Plus with next gen consoles using amd we my just see more optimization for amd. AMD chips are really good and unless you are doing video encoding you really don't need an i7.

 

I guess you weren't paying attention.  My last CPU was a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I haven't upgraded my GPU, and yet a saw a big performance increase in quite a few of my games, just by getting an Ivy Bridge i5.  Higher average FPS in most games, and better minimum FPS in all.  This is not even a debate.  

But it is a debate captain kirk

#25 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] And you probably won't even see the difference between that intel cpu that costs twice as much, the gpu on the other hand will make a big difference. AMD has more than enough juice for any game out there. Plus with next gen consoles using amd we my just see more optimization for amd. AMD chips are really good and unless you are doing video encoding you really don't need an i7. GummiRaccoon

 

I guess you weren't paying attention.  My last CPU was a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I haven't upgraded my GPU, and yet a saw a big performance increase in quite a few of my games, just by getting an Ivy Bridge i5.  Higher average FPS in most games, and better minimum FPS in all.  This is not even a debate.  

But it is a debate captain kirk

 

No, it's not.  Having owned both products, I can tell you that there is no debate.  

#26 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6090 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I would say that I got a superior gaming upgrade, and you got a better upgrade for some other tasks.  That's based on the majority of tests and benches out there.  

hartsickdiscipl

Also my cpu was a drop in replacement.

 

True, but my wouldn't have been.  I had an AM3 motherboard, not AM3+.  

 

AMD is so dumb its not even funny.  The performance increase clock for clock over the old phenom II processors is very small if  anything.  They should have just released supped up phenom II octa cores on 32nm process and made it compatible with AM3. 

They shouldn't spend so much money on research if intel will destroy them either way.

The e-350 is a technical master piece, a cpu and a gpu strong enough to play alot of games at good settings into a piece of silicon the size of a penny.

#27 Posted by PTMags (783 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I guess you weren't paying attention.  My last CPU was a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I haven't upgraded my GPU, and yet a saw a big performance increase in quite a few of my games, just by getting an Ivy Bridge i5.  Higher average FPS in most games, and better minimum FPS in all.  This is not even a debate.  

hartsickdiscipl

But it is a debate captain kirk

 

No, it's not.  Having owned both products, I can tell you that there is no debate.  

Derp.  How are you gonna compare a 3.7 P2x4 to a 4.5 3570k?  Of course you're going to get higher FPS.

OP: For a better comparison-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

#28 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

But it is a debate captain kirk

PTMags

 

No, it's not.  Having owned both products, I can tell you that there is no debate.  

Derp.  How are you gonna compare a 3.7 P2x4 to a 4.5 3570k?  Of course you're going to get higher FPS.

OP: For a better comparison-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

 

He was talking about an AMD CPU that was roughly half the price.  When I bought my 3570k, a Phenom II X4 955 or better was about half the price.  I'm not the one making the comparison anyways.  I know that there is no comparison.  Some people here are clearly trying to argue that.  Derp yourself.  

I watched that absolutely retarded TekSyndicate review months ago.  It's no more valid today than it was then.  Terrible testing methodology, bad game selection, and a total toolbag of a reviewer.  They came up with results that are different from 95% of other tests and reviews done.  It's not trustworthy.  

#29 Posted by PTMags (783 posts) -

[QUOTE="PTMags"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

No, it's not.  Having owned both products, I can tell you that there is no debate.  

hartsickdiscipl

Derp.  How are you gonna compare a 3.7 P2x4 to a 4.5 3570k?  Of course you're going to get higher FPS.

OP: For a better comparison-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

 

He was talking about an AMD CPU that was roughly half the price.  When I bought my 3570k, a Phenom II X4 955 or better was about half the price.  I'm not the one making the comparison anyways.  I know that there is no comparison.  Some people here are clearly trying to argue that.  Derp yourself.  

I watched that absolutely retarded TekSyndicate review months ago.  It's no more valid today than it was then.  Terrible testing methodology, bad game selection, and a total toolbag of a reviewer.  They came up with results that are different from 95% of other tests and reviews done.  It's not trustworthy.  

First, I apologize for the derp, too much system wars.  Second, I don't think he was talking about your specific situation, as your post that he quoted didn't mention your upgrade from a 955 to a 3570.  I think he was making a general statement about buying a cheaper, modern cpu and better gpu versus a more expensive cpu but lesser gpu; and that, for example, you'd see a much more drastic improvement upgrading a gpu from 2009 versus a cpu from 2009.

As for the video, what's wrong with the game choice and methodology?  There's also this one using Crysis 3/FC3.  I know most benches give the 3570 a slight edge in most games, but I figured i'd post that because it's different.  If there really is something genuinely untrustworthy about it though then please let me know and by all means take it with a grain of salt.  In the end, the difference between the two is going to be marginal in the real world (with a single gpu setup at least), and for gaming, splurging on the gpu is going to make a much bigger difference than splurging on a cpu.

#30 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13647 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I guess you weren't paying attention.  My last CPU was a 3.7ghz Phenom II X4.  I haven't upgraded my GPU, and yet a saw a big performance increase in quite a few of my games, just by getting an Ivy Bridge i5.  Higher average FPS in most games, and better minimum FPS in all.  This is not even a debate.  

hartsickdiscipl

But it is a debate captain kirk

 

No, it's not.  Having owned both products, I can tell you that there is no debate.  

But captain, debate doesn't mean in my anecdote it is a difference.