Agreeing with what Guy said, but I'd go a step further. He recommended waiting until the specs are released... forget that, wait until the game is almost out
Seriously, if you're looking to upgrade your hardware specifically for this game then just wait. And not just because the specs aren't released but also because whatever you want/can afford right now will be cheaper in a few months.
---
Now, on the whole AMD vs Intel vs Consoles issue, let me summarize this succinctly without hype for anyone confused. (Note that I am talking about mainstream chips - the ones people actually buy, not anything in the $1000 price range)
- With this generation of hardware the Intel i chips are faster on a per core same GHz basis. Lower clocked i3s can outrun an fx 9590 on most single threaded applications. That is Intel's big advantage.
- AMD's major advantage is number of cores. If a program can utilize multiple cores effectively the higher core count on the typical AMD processors comes into play.
Why do people regularly recommend Intel's chips? Well frankly most PC games do not effectively utilize multiple cores. Oh sure, they utilize two cores, but effectively utilizing even 4 (much less 6 or 8) you just don't see it that much. It's a harder problem to solve than most people realize...
Hence, with games not utilizing the 5/6/7/8th cores and Intel's chips being faster on a per core basis, that is why Intel chips have tended to dominate the gaming benchmarks despite the fact that AMD looks great on synthetics or other uses that fully utilize all cores (like video encoding).
If games start utilizing those extra cores that will greatly close the current gap between Intel/AMD. Will the new offerings from Sony/MS help that? I hope so, but I think we might be a little wishful. Remember that the CPU only matters if the GPU has enough horsepower that it is not the bottleneck... most friends that I have helped out with their hardware, I'd say that 95% had a *GPU* bottleneck, not a CPU one. As for the consoles, I don't know how much pressure they will really have to efficiently multicore since they have to power much less demanding GPUs. They just came out and are struggling to meet the demands of 1080p/60 fps. Lets be honest they're failing at it... why? GPU bottlenecks.
tldr1: Good grief, wait to buy new hardware for this game until you can almost play it, lol
tldr2: Don't buy new CPUs for a game with unknown multicore efficiency, especially when most people would be better off spending the $$$ on a new GPU.
Greetings again!
Gaming/ Graphics wise I can compete with the i7-4960x with 5-10% difference (my first choice originally was a i7-4960x.)
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x
Price was irrelevant to me, however being smart and cost effective can go a long way...so I chose to follow the advice of a very tech inclined friend who was beyond the "hype" produced by either company. He said, quite simply: "what do you want to do with this rig?" I said gaming. "Okay. Let me show you...."
While I won't disagree that the 9590 is good chip and sufficient to power a 780, I don't think this is a fair comparison. I think a more reasonable comparison would be an i7-4770. When the 9590 came out they tried to sell it for 800-900 bucks, hence the 4960x comparison, but now its priced within a few bucks of the 4770. The 4770 is within a percent or two of the 4960x for *gaming*. Same issue as above, games just don't use 6 cores, hence *for gaming* the 4960x just isnt a good recommendation for cost effectiveness. I starred for gaming because much like the 9590 the gap between the 4770 and 4960x is only going to be seen with tests that use all the cores. Games just don't yet.
i7-4770 vs the Fx-9590? For gaming its frankly a draw IMHO. Its certainly close enough that NOBODY should be considering a platform switch. Good grief. Save that money for a new GPU and an SSD - if you don't have an SSD go get one.
