FX 8350+290x or 4670k+770

[sdfsadf1233]

For gaming at 1080p which would perform best and stay relevant longer? I know 290x>770 but processor wise I know 4670k>fx 8350

Building a new PC, I would love to do 4670k+780 but that exceeds my budget.

Thanks.

[sdfsadf1233]

pirate

[kenjitamura]

Satzle

For gaming at 1080p which would perform best and stay relevant longer? I know 290x>770 but processor wise I know 4670k>fx 8350

Building a new PC, I would love to do 4670k+780 but that exceeds my budget.

Thanks.

Intel and 770 is my vote.

[sdfsadf1233]

kenjitamura

Satzle

For gaming at 1080p which would perform best and stay relevant longer? I know 290x>770 but processor wise I know 4670k>fx 8350

Building a new PC, I would love to do 4670k+780 but that exceeds my budget.

Thanks.

Intel and 770 is my vote.

any specific reasons?

[sdfsadf1233]

pirate

[kenjitamura]

Satzle

kenjitamura

Satzle

For gaming at 1080p which would perform best and stay relevant longer? I know 290x>770 but processor wise I know 4670k>fx 8350

Building a new PC, I would love to do 4670k+780 but that exceeds my budget.

Thanks.

Intel and 770 is my vote.

any specific reasons?

The 770 is super strong right now despite not being top end of what's available and can handle any game on the market right now and probably will be able to for a couple/few years to come. However, in a few years when it's time to replace it, graphics cards will have yet again had a mind boggling increase in performance compared to present day cards making it attractive to upgrade the graphics card again.

Meanwhile the 4670k is near the highest end available as a processor and will probably still do very well even three years down the road against new competitors. Processor development hit a wall some years back and have not been seeing the same dramatic increases in power with new generations of hardware. But because of the parallel nature of graphics hardware the GPU's are still getting very dramatic increases with each new shrink in node size. So your GPU is more likely to lose relevance as "top end" equipment faster than your CPU.

Additionally, AMD processors just aren't in a very good spot right now so I'm always going to pull for Intel in performance machines. If you buy AMD, even with how slow processor development is going I imagine you'll want to replace it quicker than you would an Intel processor.

Though if I could make a suggestion, it might be worth it to throw out another $15 and skip over the 4670k for a Xeon E3-1230V3. Retailing at $250 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116906

The Xeon E3 is an i7 but without overclocking potential or integrated graphics. So the advantage it has over the i5-4670k from a gamers perspective is hyper-threading and the disadvantage is that it can't be overclocked. Just throwing it out there.

[sdfsadf1233]

kenjitamura

Satzle

kenjitamura

Satzle

For gaming at 1080p which would perform best and stay relevant longer? I know 290x>770 but processor wise I know 4670k>fx 8350

Building a new PC, I would love to do 4670k+780 but that exceeds my budget.

Thanks.

Intel and 770 is my vote.

any specific reasons?

The 770 is super strong right now despite not being top end of what's available and can handle any game on the market right now and probably will be able to for a couple/few years to come. However, in a few years when it's time to replace it, graphics cards will have yet again had a mind boggling increase in performance compared to present day cards making it attractive to upgrade the graphics card again.

Meanwhile the 4670k is near the highest end available as a processor and will probably still do very well even three years down the road against new competitors. Processor development hit a wall some years back and have not been seeing the same dramatic increases in power with new generations of hardware. But because of the parallel nature of graphics hardware the GPU's are still getting very dramatic increases with each new shrink in node size. So your GPU is more likely to lose relevance as "top end" equipment faster than your CPU.

Additionally, AMD processors just aren't in a very good spot right now so I'm always going to pull for Intel in performance machines. If you buy AMD, even with how slow processor development is going I imagine you'll want to replace it quicker than you would an Intel processor.

Though if I could make a suggestion, it might be worth it to throw out another $15 and skip over the 4670k for a Xeon E3-1230V3. Retailing at $250 on Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116906

The Xeon E3 is an i7 but without overclocking potential or integrated graphics. So the advantage it has over the i5-4670k from a gamers perspective is hyper-threading and the disadvantage is that it can't be overclocked. Just throwing it out there.

Hmm, I'm a fan of overclocking so I probably wouldn't go for that. My last build which had a 2600k had hyperthreading and it introduced micro-stutter. I had to disable hyperthreading for BF3.

I'm just building a new machine for the witcher 3. If 770 can max out witcher 3 at 1080p that's great, but I heard CDPR saying the 780 wouldn't get 60fps at max settings sad

[Skeltal]

Intel for CPU

AMD for graphics card.

Mantle is coming a long way, many games support it.

[sdfsadf1233]

SybarFire

Intel for CPU

AMD for graphics card.

Mantle is coming a long way, many games support it.

Mantle is a dream.

[Skeltal]

Satzle

SybarFire

Intel for CPU

AMD for graphics card.

Mantle is coming a long way, many games support it.

Mantle is a dream.

heart

[sdfsadf1233]

SybarFire

Satzle

SybarFire

Intel for CPU

AMD for graphics card.

Mantle is coming a long way, many games support it.

Mantle is a dream.

heart

Anyways, I could probably afford a 4670k+a 280x

How does the 280x compare to 770/780 and 290x?

I've looked at benchmarks but i've also seen real life tests where the 290x only performs 3-4fps better