The 4670K (or 3570K) vs. 8350 Aggregate Comparison

[paulsterio]

There has been so much discussion around AMD vs. Intel lately, especially because there are so many people

recommending AMD builds to others as opposed to Intel. Most of the sources I have seen so far pitch Intel as

the better choice, but I've decided to do some investigation and put together this thread with as wide of a range

of benchmarks as I could find, so hopefully, we get an answer as to what is the better CPU. 

 

First of all, before any benchmarks, there are a few givens, the Intel 4670K IPC is much higher than the 8350

and the 8350 consumes much more power, so the focus of any discussion with these two chips is whether the

8350's increased core count can catch up to the higher IPC of the 4670K. 

 

I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel is better. I have

suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better

than the Pentium D. However, I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information,

especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. Thus, I have decided to conduct research.

I hope you all enjoy it. 

 

There is a conclusion at the end for all the lazy ones who don't want to read it all. 

 

Cheers Guys

 

Source 1 - LinusTechTips - 3570K vs. 8350

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTzThDLOVYT6e0WpVz_0-dRc

 

Linus goes into some pretty good detail, pitching the Ivy Bridge 3570K against the 8350 in mainstream AAA

gaming titles with different settings. The results (if you can't be bothered watching the videos), can be found here:

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2LKAgEko3SATlBMWjhqVUlZWlk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XSXFOMHFYTmNsRGs/edit

 

With no AA, the only games in which the 8350 (which is clocked higher) beats the 3570K are Crysis 3 and

Battlefield 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were very marginal

(i.e. less than 10%). With AA, the only games in which the 8350 beats the 3570K are Battlefield 3 and

Far Cry 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were again, marginal. 

 

What "counting" the number of benchmarks won alone doesn't show is that when the 3570K beat the 8350,

it tended to do so by a very large margin, as opposed to when the opposite occured. Using these results,

we can extrapolate to compare the 4670K which is said to be around 10% faster. Thus, testing by LinusTechTips

shows that the 4670K should be better than the 8350 in most tests, especially if pushed beyond the pretty low 4.20 GHz. 

 

Winner here is the 4670K, which leads 1-0 against AMD. 

 

Source 2 - AnandTech - 4670K vs. 8350 on Bench

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837 (vs. 4670K)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=701 (vs. 3570K)

 

I like AnandTech Bench, it's probably one of the most comprehensive benchmark databases available on the internet

and is usually my go-to site for comparing two products. Looking at the benchmarks that are available, the two processors

are pretty neck and neck, though the 4670K wins out on more often than the 8350 does, winning 11/19 benchmarks.

However, again, counting benchmarks is not good, it is looking at the individual benchmarks. 

 

The 8350 seems to be better at x264 encoding (marginal) and mathematical algorithms (7-zip benchmark). The most key

benchmarks here, though, aren't the ones that are close, but rather, the ones that differ by a fair margin. The key benchmarks

here which really put the 4670K ahead is the single-threaded Cinebench benchmarks. This shows the vast IPC improvement

over the 8350 that the Haswell chip has. 

 

Looking at the 3570K vs. 8350, there are more benchmarks to look at, this is also interesting because there are a few benchmarks

that are not present with the 4670K. 

 

There are a couple of games - Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age Origins, Dawn of War II, WOW and Starcraft 2 - the 3570K wins on 

all of these. This is a significant win here, backing up the LinusTechTips videos. 

 

The SYSMark 2012 benchmarks are also interesting, with the 3570K showing better all round performance compared to the 8350

apart from in 3D modelling and Data Analysis. 3D modelling seems split, however, as the Intel CPUs are better in the Blender benchmark. 

 

Yes, this is not a clean sweep, however, Intel wins the majority of the benchmark. It is important to note, however, that AMD did better

in the 7-zip benchmark and marginally better on the x264 encode, but that is a very small victory, we're talking a 1 fps difference,

which is nothing in the real world. 

 

All in all, the actual AnandTech write-up sums it up best. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

In order for AMD to become competitive, it needs to change its underlying architecture.

 

Winner here, again, seems to be the 4670K, not a clean sweep, but a win nonetheless, the i5 leads 2-0 against the 8350. 

 

Source 3 - Tom's Hardware - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

 

This was before Haswell, but of course, given that Haswell is 10% better than Ivy Bridge, we can sort of get a feel for what we are looking at. 

 

Tom's Hardware ran 11 benchmarks, most of them productivity, but a few games. I think the productivity ones are more interesting

just given that the 8350 is getting hammered at games. 

 

In PCMark 7, 3DMark 11, and the three games, it's pretty clear that the 3570K has the 8350 on the ropes. However, on SiSoftware

Sandra (calculation based) and productivity, the 8350 puts in a good showing, though fails to beat the 3570K across the board.

The results are tied for content creation and Adobe CS6. Where the 8350 does pull ahead, though, is the compression and encoding

where it sits flat in the middle of the 3770K and 3570K. 

 

In conclusion, this one is hard to call. However, it is difficult to award it to AMD. In general purpose benchmarks as well as in games,

the 3570K is just better. The 4670K will be even better. The areas where the 8350 is strong includes mathematical calculations and

encoding, however, these are very specific tasks. 

 

This is encapsulated by Tom's Hardware's conclusion in which the reviewer states that the FX 8350 would not be his first choice

because of how workload-dependent the 8350 is. 

 

Win to the 4670K here too, given by the test results and conclusion, 3-0 to Intel. 

 

Source 4 - Bit-Tech.net - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8

 

Nothing we haven't covered before. The only two benchmarks where the 8350 wins is the multi-threaded Cinebench (winning by a tiny 0.6

points) as well as WPrime. In games and most general purpose benchmarks, the 3570K wins by a healthy margin. Here, H264 encoding is

a win for Intel, showing even that Sandy Bridge is better than the 8350. 

 

Bit-Tech's conclusion says it all, that the "FX-8350 is still uncompetitive across a whole range of benchmarks" and that is true, where the

3570K beats the 8350, it sometimes does so by a huge margin. When the opposite occurs, the 8350 beats the 3570K, it is usually by a 

small margin. With Bit-Tech concluding that the 8350 is uncompetitive and that "there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in

comparison to the Intel competition", I think the 3570K walks away with the win here once again. 

 

4670K leads 4-0 against the 8350. 

 

Sources 5, 6 and 7

 

Around here is where things start to get really boring because it's just the same benchmarks again and again and again. If you want to see them,

here are the other sources that I looked at:

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/8.html

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fx-8350-8-core-black-edition-processor-review_2055/15

 

Out of these, TechPowerUp seems to favour the 8350, ExtremeTech leans towards Intel and the Legit Reviews Site seems to be pretty neutral,

agreeing that the 8350 has its place, however, that Intel is better across the board, especially for gaming. 

 

Leaving the neutral one out, 4670K leads 5 - 1 against the 8350. 

 

Source 8 - Tek Syndicate - 3570K vs 8350

 

- with GTX 670

- with 7870

 

I'm interested in this video, purely because it is generally the AMD fanboys' favourite video, they harp on about it again and again.

I think it's a perfectly valid video, despite having some pretty bad flaws. 

 

The first flaw is that the 8350 is overclocked to 5.0 GHz, I'm not sure how many of them can actually reach that far whereas most 3570Ks

that I have come across can reach 4.5 GHz pretty easily. 

 

Note - I did not watch the whole video in great detail, but I skimmed it and this was what I noticed. 

 

1) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins marginally

2) Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - 8350 wins by 100% 

3) Far Cry 3 - 8350 wins by more than 100%

4) Natural Selection 2 - 8350 wins by around 20 - 30%

5) Skyrim - 3570K wins marginally

6) Trine 2 - 3570K wins marginally

 

These benchmarks are a little funny in my eyes, especially when the 8350 beats the 3570K by more than 100%, especially given that

LinusTechTips' testing shows that Far Cry 3 was actually very close. I don't know if anyone has been able to replicate these results,

but even here, AMD didn't "wipe the floor" with Intel as a lot of people claimed, but simply just beat Intel on a few games. Intel won back

on a couple of games. 

 

Okay, the 7870 video is also quite interesting. 

 

1) Crysis 2 - 3570K wins 

2) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins

3) Black Mesa - Irrelevant (I have an issue with this, I'll address it in a second)

4) Metro 2033 - 8350 wins

5) Trine 2 - 8350 wins

 

Now, there are a few issues. Firstly, the Black Mesa benchmark is irrelevant. Nobody cares if a game runs at 196.320 fps or 262.600 fps.

You're not going to even be able to see that difference. 

 

Second issue is Trine 2, in which the 3570K wins with the GTX670 and the 8350 wins with the 7870. Strange. 

 

Anyway, conclusively, yes, Tek Syndicate gives the edge to the 8350, however, it is not the whitewash of Intel that many fanboys seem

to suggest. 

 

So to end it all up, awarding Tek Syndicate to the AMD side, we get 5-2 to Intel. 

 

Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers

 

EDIT - Fixed Formatting - Easier to read with Linebreaks

[TheFallOfTroy]

What are you talking about everyone here almost blindly recommends intel over amd. You consider AMD when price becomes a factor or depending on specific needs.

 

Regardless, more attention did not need to be brought to this subject. I hope this ends here.

[paulsterio]

What are you talking about everyone here almost blindly recommends intel over amd. You consider AMD when price becomes a factor or depending on specific needs.

 

Regardless, more attention did not need to be brought to this subject. I hope this ends here.

 

No, there are people who recommend AMD. Nobody should recommend AMD for gaming and the statistic shows that.

 

Yes, more attention needs to be brought to this topic because so many people watch ONE video (i.e. Tek Syndicate) and start recommending AMD based on that. 

 

Have you even read what I have written?

[needmorewood]

see this is what i dont get
i have an 8320 ( it was on sale for $120) and i dont get any performance drops in game ever ive tried every game i possibly couldve and i just font see it. 
the bottlenecks to me have always been the GPU although the highest end GPU ive tested with is a single 780 if that matters
i get GPU bottlenecks every single time 
i dont understand the point of the 4670k (except the platform features part in which they are far superior to AMD's current setup)

 

oh and btw i have owned 2 computers with one all AMD and one with intel/nvidia, BOTH of which i have loved

[Guest GRRigger]

Good research man.

Putting it short:

Gaming. All cores used. If not all cores used, then intel wins.

 

At all stock 8350 is slightly better than 3570, and roughly same as 4670.

At all overclocked 8350 is worse than 3570k / 4670k.

 

I would not recommend 8350, since the price is not good. 8320 on the other hand is great Bang /Buck. Also 6300 for low end.

 

 

No, there are people who recommend AMD. Nobody should recommend AMD for gaming and the statistic shows that.

 

Yes, more attention needs to be brought to this topic because so many people watch ONE video (i.e. Tek Syndicate) and start recommending AMD based on that. 

 

Have you even read what I have written?

AMD? Is this Intel vs AMD battle ? No. Its about certain processors.

 

I think you are going over the edge here. I didnt read all the article, but i know exactly whats up.

I will read whole article later and do my sup up. Cheers.

[DSD27]

I have 2 systems:

fx 6300 + 7870

4670k + gtx 770

 

honestly, I do not notice MUUCH difference. The bigger difference is because on the 4670k's system I have an ssd and a better monitor.

[Leonard]

 Nobody should recommend AMD for gaming and the statistic shows that.

This is something that should not be said. Some people can't afford a system with an Intel CPU + the relative motherboard + all the other parts that they may want and they too would like to have a good system and this is where AMD comes in the picture. Also, some people just prefer paying less for a system and don't mind which vendor is inside, Intel or AMD. However i would not recommend the 8350 as it is an 8320 OCed. So take it easy on the 'no one should recommend an AMD CPU'

[maximilian4o]

What are you talking about everyone here almost blindly recommends intel over amd. You consider AMD when price becomes a factor or depending on specific needs.

 

Regardless, more attention did not need to be brought to this subject. I hope this ends here.

He/She is right. The guy who created the topic is just trying to say that Intel is better. And he is pretty much calling BS on the Benchmarks favoring AMD. You go and buy an AMD CPU when price is a matter. Because if you're using the PC mainly for gaming, I think AMD is the best option because it pulls out pretty much the same FPS as Intel CPUs for a much lower price point. Yes, Intel is much more powerful, but at a cost. So it's up to the consumer. So please don't start another topic like this one, because when the Forum was made, Linus clearly said that this is a forum where we should be all friendly to each other. So please don't start any fanboy wars, ok ? Correct me if I'm wrong !

[Guest GRRigger]

 

First of all, before any benchmarks, there are a few givens, the Intel 4670K IPC is much higher than the 8350

and the 8350 consumes much more power, so the focus of any discussion with these two chips is whether the

8350's increased core count can catch up to the higher IPC of the 4670K. 

 

 

Source 1 - LinusTechTips - 3570K vs. 8350

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTzThDLOVYT6e0WpVz_0-dRc

 

With no AA, the only games in which the 8350 (which is clocked higher) beats the 3570K are Crysis 3 and

Battlefield 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were very marginal

(i.e. less than 10%). With AA, the only games in which the 8350 beats the 3570K are Battlefield 3 and

Far Cry 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were again, marginal. 

 

They win in those games, because those game are multi threaded. They use all 8 cores. Starcraft, Skyrim and other games dont.

 

Source 2 - AnandTech - 4670K vs. 8350 on Bench

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837 (vs. 4670K)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=701 (vs. 3570K)

 

I like AnandTech Bench, it's probably one of the most comprehensive benchmark databases available on the internet

and is usually my go-to site for comparing two products. Looking at the benchmarks that are available, the two processors

are pretty neck and neck, though the 4670K wins out on more often than the 8350 does, winning 11/19 benchmarks.

 

 

The 8350 seems to be better at x264 encoding (marginal) and mathematical algorithms (7-zip benchmark).  The key benchmarks

here which really put the 4670K ahead is the single-threaded Cinebench benchmarks. This shows the vast IPC improvement

over the 8350 that the Haswell chip has.  Yes, about two times better at turbo frequencies.

 

Looking at the 3570K vs. 8350, there are more benchmarks to look at, this is also interesting because there are a few benchmarks

that are not present with the 4670K. 

 

There are a couple of games - Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age Origins, Dawn of War II, WOW and Starcraft 2 - the 3570K wins on 

all of these. This is a significant win here, because much better single thread performance. Those games do not use all 8 cores.

 

The SYSMark 2012 benchmarks are also interesting, with the 3570K showing better all round performance compared to the 8350

apart from in 3D modelling and Data Analysis. 3D modelling seems split, however, as the Intel CPUs are better in the Blender benchmark. 

 

Yes, this is not a clean sweep, however, Intel wins the majority of the benchmark. It is important to note, however, that AMD did better

in the 7-zip benchmark and marginally better on the x264 encode, but that is a very small victory, we're talking a 1 fps difference,

which is nothing in the real world. 

 

Source 3 - Tom's Hardware - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

 

This was before Haswell, but of course, given that Haswell is 10% better than Ivy Bridge, we can sort of get a feel for what we are looking at. 

 

Tom's Hardware ran 11 benchmarks, most of them productivity, but a few games. I think the productivity ones are more interesting

just given that the 8350 is getting hammered at some games. 

 

In PCMark 7, 3DMark 11, and the three games, it's pretty clear that the 3570K has the 8350 on the ropes. However, on SiSoftware

Sandra (calculation based) and productivity, the 8350 puts in a good showing, though fails to beat the 3570K across the board.

The results are tied for content creation and Adobe CS6. Where the 8350 does pull ahead, though, is the compression and encoding

where it sits flat in the middle of the 3770K and 3570K. 

 

 The areas where the 8350 is strong includes mathematical calculations and

encoding, however, these are very specific tasks. 

Source 4 - Bit-Tech.net - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8

 

Nothing we haven't covered before. The only two benchmarks where the 8350 wins is the multi-threaded Cinebench (winning by a tiny 0.6

points) as well as WPrime. In games and most general purpose benchmarks, the 3570K wins by a healthy margin. Here, H264 encoding is

a win for Intel, showing even that Sandy Bridge is better than the 8350. 

 

Bit-Tech's conclusion says it all, that the "FX-8350 is still uncompetitive across a whole range of benchmarks" and that is true, where the

3570K beats the 8350, it sometimes does so by a huge margin. When the opposite occurs, the 8350 beats the 3570K, it is usually by a 

small margin. With Bit-Tech concluding that the 8350 is uncompetitive and that "there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in

comparison to the Intel competition", I think the 3570K walks away with the win here once again. 

 

What we are seeing here, and it is written on Bit Tech site also, and what you also observed, that 8350 is good at Simple calculations that are higly multithreaded and some specific calculations, whether 3570k is good at more complex ones.

 

 

Source 8 - Tek Syndicate - 3570K vs 8350

 

- with GTX 670

- with 7870

 

 

The first flaw is that the 8350 is overclocked to 5.0 GHz, I'm not sure how many of them can actually reach that far whereas most 3570Ks

that I have come across can reach 4.5 GHz pretty easily.  True, with 3570k latest stepping, it can go even higher. even 5ghz on air.

8350 shines in multithreaded tasks. 8350 at stock turbo ( 4.2 ) is slightly faster in some cases than 3570k at stock turbo ( 3.8 )

400 Mhz difference at stock speeds then.

Since logan 5ghz amd and 4.5 ght intel is difference 500mhz, difference is ofcourse bigger.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, who won is meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K performs well, and what type of use it will be for specific people and also with 8350, so we can determine the best cpu for budget / performance / use / overclocking or not / electricity consumption / etc.

 

 

 

fixed, and i deleted some stuff that doesnt really matter.

the choice of processor is higly dependant on a guy that is buying it. If he is an overclocker, id definitly not recommend 8350, unless he has low budget. Then i would recommend 8320.

 

If he runs PC 24/7, that means huge delta in power consumption and power bill. Id say go intel.

 

If he is on budget, then i would recommend cpu accordingly to that, and accordingly to the rest of the system.

 

And so on... it really depends.

The only time i would recommend 8350 over 8320 and 3570k/4670k is if a guy had limited budget, didnt want to overclock, and would use all 8 cores / stream / render. Currently it is 199$ on pcpartpicker. 3570k is around 17$ more and 4670k about 30$ more.

YOu know what i would like to see? Comparison between latest samples of 3570k and 4670k. Would be interesting. High clocks of IVY sample and improvement of Haswell ipc.

[themaniac]

i say i5 4670k because its newer 

[KayNine]

Intel and AMD are great for many games, but for some games like Shogun 2, Skyrim, Company of Heroes 2, and maybe even StarCraft II, Intel is clearly the better choice in my opinion.

[Expo]

My only gripe I have about AMD is there motherboad selection. There out-dated and need a refresh or a new cpu socket. 

[paulsterio]

This is something that should not be said. Some people can't afford a system with an Intel CPU + the relative motherboard + all the other parts that they may want and they too would like to have a good system and this is where AMD comes in the picture. Also, some people just prefer paying less for a system and don't mind which vendor is inside, Intel or AMD. However i would not recommend the 8350 as it is an 8320 OCed. So take it easy on the 'no one should recommend an AMD CPU'

 

I mistakenly said that no AMD processor should be recommended, what I meant was that the 8350 should never be recommended against the 4670K apart from the situations which I outlined previously. I still stand by this because the research shows it. I am not talking about budget processors. I am talking about two processors that are the same price - the 4670K and the 8350, so it is not logical to say "go AMD because it is cheaper" - no it's not, it's a similar price here and it fails to be competitive. 

 

 

He/She is right. The guy who created the topic is just trying to say that Intel is better. And he is pretty much calling BS on the Benchmarks favoring AMD. You go and buy an AMD CPU when price is a matter. Because if you're using the PC mainly for gaming, I think AMD is the best option because it pulls out pretty much the same FPS as Intel CPUs for a much lower price point. Yes, Intel is much more powerful, but at a cost. So it's up to the consumer. So please don't start another topic like this one, because when the Forum was made, Linus clearly said that this is a forum where we should be all friendly to each other. So please don't start any fanboy wars, ok ? Correct me if I'm wrong !

 

No, if I wanted to start a fanboy war, I could just simply go out and say that Intel is better and provide no evidence. Instead, this is what you are doing. I compiled almost ten sources, which tended to agree that the 4670K is the better choice for gaming over the 8350. This is not a thread about Intel or AMD, it is about two CPUs, the 4670K and the 8350, which are around the $200 price point. If you want to compare other price points, sure, make a thread, do the research and compare other price points, maybe the $100 price point and see how the FX-6300 stacks up against an i3. 

 

A good scientific experiment should keep variables constant, which is being done here, comparing two processors that are the same cost and should be based on evidence. I do not have the CPUs personally to test, but I have aggregated tests across the internet into one place and summarised what they have said. 

 

 

fixed, and i deleted some stuff that doesnt really matter.

the choice of processor is higly dependant on a guy that is buying it. If he is an overclocker, id definitly not recommend 8350, unless he has low budget. Then i would recommend 8320.

 

If he runs PC 24/7, that means huge delta in power consumption and power bill. Id say go intel.

 

If he is on budget, then i would recommend cpu accordingly to that, and accordingly to the rest of the system.

 

And so on... it really depends.

The only time i would recommend 8350 over 8320 and 3570k/4670k is if a guy had limited budget, didnt want to overclock, and would use all 8 cores / stream / render. Currently it is 199$ on pcpartpicker. 3570k is around 17$ more and 4670k about 30$ more.

YOu know what i would like to see? Comparison between latest samples of 3570k and 4670k. Would be interesting. High clocks of IVY sample and improvement of Haswell ipc.

 

I agree, that it depends on the use case scenario. I outlined the scenarios where I think the 8350 would be a good choice. However, for certain applications such as gaming, video editing and even just general day to day use, the Haswell chip wins because of its superior IPC. Yes, the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K in rendering, but given that the 4670K gives better all round performance, I would side with Intel for that. 

[Jumper118]

 

There has been so much discussion around AMD vs. Intel lately, especially because there are so many people

recommending AMD builds to others as opposed to Intel. Most of the sources I have seen so far pitch Intel as

the better choice, but I've decided to do some investigation and put together this thread with as wide of a range

of benchmarks as I could find, so hopefully, we get an answer as to what is the better CPU. 

 

First of all, before any benchmarks, there are a few givens, the Intel 4670K IPC is much higher than the 8350

and the 8350 consumes much more power, so the focus of any discussion with these two chips is whether the

8350's increased core count can catch up to the higher IPC of the 4670K. 

 

I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel is better. I have

suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better

than the Pentium D. However, I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information,

especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. Thus, I have decided to conduct research.

I hope you all enjoy it. 

 

There is a conclusion at the end for all the lazy ones who don't want to read it all. 

 

Cheers Guys

 

Source 1 - LinusTechTips - 3570K vs. 8350

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTzThDLOVYT6e0WpVz_0-dRc

 

Linus goes into some pretty good detail, pitching the Ivy Bridge 3570K against the 8350 in mainstream AAA

gaming titles with different settings. The results (if you can't be bothered watching the videos), can be found here:

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2LKAgEko3SATlBMWjhqVUlZWlk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XSXFOMHFYTmNsRGs/edit

 

With no AA, the only games in which the 8350 (which is clocked higher) beats the 3570K are Crysis 3 and

Battlefield 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were very marginal

(i.e. less than 10%). With AA, the only games in which the 8350 beats the 3570K are Battlefield 3 and

Far Cry 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were again, marginal. 

 

What "counting" the number of benchmarks won alone doesn't show is that when the 3570K beat the 8350,

it tended to do so by a very large margin, as opposed to when the opposite occured. Using these results,

we can extrapolate to compare the 4670K which is said to be around 10% faster. Thus, testing by LinusTechTips

shows that the 4670K should be better than the 8350 in most tests, especially if pushed beyond the pretty low 4.20 GHz. 

 

Winner here is the 4670K, which leads 1-0 against AMD. 

 

Source 2 - AnandTech - 4670K vs. 8350 on Bench

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837 (vs. 4670K)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=701 (vs. 3570K)

 

I like AnandTech Bench, it's probably one of the most comprehensive benchmark databases available on the internet

and is usually my go-to site for comparing two products. Looking at the benchmarks that are available, the two processors

are pretty neck and neck, though the 4670K wins out on more often than the 8350 does, winning 11/19 benchmarks.

However, again, counting benchmarks is not good, it is looking at the individual benchmarks. 

 

The 8350 seems to be better at x264 encoding (marginal) and mathematical algorithms (7-zip benchmark). The most key

benchmarks here, though, aren't the ones that are close, but rather, the ones that differ by a fair margin. The key benchmarks

here which really put the 4670K ahead is the single-threaded Cinebench benchmarks. This shows the vast IPC improvement

over the 8350 that the Haswell chip has. 

 

Looking at the 3570K vs. 8350, there are more benchmarks to look at, this is also interesting because there are a few benchmarks

that are not present with the 4670K. 

 

There are a couple of games - Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age Origins, Dawn of War II, WOW and Starcraft 2 - the 3570K wins on 

all of these. This is a significant win here, backing up the LinusTechTips videos. 

 

The SYSMark 2012 benchmarks are also interesting, with the 3570K showing better all round performance compared to the 8350

apart from in 3D modelling and Data Analysis. 3D modelling seems split, however, as the Intel CPUs are better in the Blender benchmark. 

 

Yes, this is not a clean sweep, however, Intel wins the majority of the benchmark. It is important to note, however, that AMD did better

in the 7-zip benchmark and marginally better on the x264 encode, but that is a very small victory, we're talking a 1 fps difference,

which is nothing in the real world. 

 

All in all, the actual AnandTech write-up sums it up best. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

In order for AMD to become competitive, it needs to change its underlying architecture.

 

Winner here, again, seems to be the 4670K, not a clean sweep, but a win nonetheless, the i5 leads 2-0 against the 8350. 

 

Source 3 - Tom's Hardware - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

 

This was before Haswell, but of course, given that Haswell is 10% better than Ivy Bridge, we can sort of get a feel for what we are looking at. 

 

Tom's Hardware ran 11 benchmarks, most of them productivity, but a few games. I think the productivity ones are more interesting

just given that the 8350 is getting hammered at games. 

 

In PCMark 7, 3DMark 11, and the three games, it's pretty clear that the 3570K has the 8350 on the ropes. However, on SiSoftware

Sandra (calculation based) and productivity, the 8350 puts in a good showing, though fails to beat the 3570K across the board.

The results are tied for content creation and Adobe CS6. Where the 8350 does pull ahead, though, is the compression and encoding

where it sits flat in the middle of the 3770K and 3570K. 

 

In conclusion, this one is hard to call. However, it is difficult to award it to AMD. In general purpose benchmarks as well as in games,

the 3570K is just better. The 4670K will be even better. The areas where the 8350 is strong includes mathematical calculations and

encoding, however, these are very specific tasks. 

 

This is encapsulated by Tom's Hardware's conclusion in which the reviewer states that the FX 8350 would not be his first choice

because of how workload-dependent the 8350 is. 

 

Win to the 4670K here too, given by the test results and conclusion, 3-0 to Intel. 

 

Source 4 - Bit-Tech.net - 3570K vs 8350

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8

 

Nothing we haven't covered before. The only two benchmarks where the 8350 wins is the multi-threaded Cinebench (winning by a tiny 0.6

points) as well as WPrime. In games and most general purpose benchmarks, the 3570K wins by a healthy margin. Here, H264 encoding is

a win for Intel, showing even that Sandy Bridge is better than the 8350. 

 

Bit-Tech's conclusion says it all, that the "FX-8350 is still uncompetitive across a whole range of benchmarks" and that is true, where the

3570K beats the 8350, it sometimes does so by a huge margin. When the opposite occurs, the 8350 beats the 3570K, it is usually by a 

small margin. With Bit-Tech concluding that the 8350 is uncompetitive and that "there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in

comparison to the Intel competition", I think the 3570K walks away with the win here once again. 

 

4670K leads 4-0 against the 8350. 

 

Sources 5, 6 and 7

 

Around here is where things start to get really boring because it's just the same benchmarks again and again and again. If you want to see them,

here are the other sources that I looked at:

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/8.html

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fx-8350-8-core-black-edition-processor-review_2055/15

 

Out of these, TechPowerUp seems to favour the 8350, ExtremeTech leans towards Intel and the Legit Reviews Site seems to be pretty neutral,

agreeing that the 8350 has its place, however, that Intel is better across the board, especially for gaming. 

 

Leaving the neutral one out, 4670K leads 5 - 1 against the 8350. 

 

Source 8 - Tek Syndicate - 3570K vs 8350

 

- with GTX 670

- with 7870

 

I'm interested in this video, purely because it is generally the AMD fanboys' favourite video, they harp on about it again and again.

I think it's a perfectly valid video, despite having some pretty bad flaws. 

 

The first flaw is that the 8350 is overclocked to 5.0 GHz, I'm not sure how many of them can actually reach that far whereas most 3570Ks

that I have come across can reach 4.5 GHz pretty easily. 

 

Note - I did not watch the whole video in great detail, but I skimmed it and this was what I noticed. 

 

1) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins marginally

2) Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - 8350 wins by 100% 

3) Far Cry 3 - 8350 wins by more than 100%

4) Natural Selection 2 - 8350 wins by around 20 - 30%

5) Skyrim - 3570K wins marginally

6) Trine 2 - 3570K wins marginally

 

These benchmarks are a little funny in my eyes, especially when the 8350 beats the 3570K by more than 100%, especially given that

LinusTechTips' testing shows that Far Cry 3 was actually very close. I don't know if anyone has been able to replicate these results,

but even here, AMD didn't "wipe the floor" with Intel as a lot of people claimed, but simply just beat Intel on a few games. Intel won back

on a couple of games. 

 

Okay, the 7870 video is also quite interesting. 

 

1) Crysis 2 - 3570K wins 

2) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins

3) Black Mesa - Irrelevant (I have an issue with this, I'll address it in a second)

4) Metro 2033 - 8350 wins

5) Trine 2 - 8350 wins

 

Now, there are a few issues. Firstly, the Black Mesa benchmark is irrelevant. Nobody cares if a game runs at 196.320 fps or 262.600 fps.

You're not going to even be able to see that difference. 

 

Second issue is Trine 2, in which the 3570K wins with the GTX670 and the 8350 wins with the 7870. Strange. 

 

Anyway, conclusively, yes, Tek Syndicate gives the edge to the 8350, however, it is not the whitewash of Intel that many fanboys seem

to suggest. 

 

So to end it all up, awarding Tek Syndicate to the AMD side, we get 5-2 to Intel. 

 

Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers

 

EDIT - Fixed Formatting - Easier to read with Linebreaks

 

 

Good bloody effort! Some serious time and research went into this. Definitely should be pinned. @LinusTech @Slick @anyothermods

[Sernyhough]

4670k due to chipset.

 

Also just my opinion but, AM3 boards are UGLAAAAAAAAAAY

[Faa]

Meh the tests Linus did with Crysis 3 etc the GPU is obviously the bottleneck, it would be like this one run intel wins with 0.01% and in the other run the AMD; that's just because of the gpu's performance variance. I don't see the point of testing cpu's when your gpu is the limiting factor, reversing that test method would turn out that a gtx 650 & gtx 780ti would perform exactly the same with an Intel pentium 3 (that bottlenecks obviously). Those tests dont say anything more than "this cpu will handle the game or it's gpu bound" that's it. 

Theyre just misleading and they don't apply for everyone, plenty of mmo/rts gamers that are mainly cpu bound.

Logans results are flatout wrong; he made the mistake to claim theres a 350% difference (3570K vs 8350 15 fps vs 45fps) when the gpu is the bottleneck >.< When the gpu is the bottleneck there can't be any drastic difference between 8350&i5 - When the CPU is the bottleneck there can't be any drastic difference between a 650/780ti. He's the only reviewer out of the 8 the OP gave saying that AMD is the better choice for gaming regardless of price, should say enough why he's wrong really. If you're interested in reading his errors -> http://lawlzawu1a.blogspot.be/2013/01/my-thoughts-on-tek-syndicates-fx-8350.html

It really depends on which games you play and which card(s) you are planning to use; a low-end card isn't hard to push it to its limit but 2 780ti's is a harder challenge, there are lightthreaded games that are GPU bound or CPU bound and atm you only have 2 games that are properly multithreaded.

Nowadays I don't look at cpu gaming benchmarks anymore other than just the single core performance like Cinebench or just to get an idea of if a game takes any advantage of extra cores. 

9590's are still performing 20% lower than a stock i5 IPC wise so i5's would be definitely the better choice than 8350's considering the price difference thats so minimal because you dont need a Z87 board or even exotic cooling. If someone would prefer a 8350 over a non K i5 just because of its overclocking options well you're wasting more money going with AMD. You're going to need something better than 100$ asrock boards and a better cooler to overclock that 8350.
 

 

4670k due to chipset.

 

Also just my opinion but, AM3 boards are UGLAAAAAAAAAAY

 

Isn't really constructive.. I would prefer AMD boards over lga1150/5 because they dont require a backplate which is my only argument. I dont have any reasons to prefer 1150/5 boards over AM3+. Chipset (southbridge) wise Intel doesnt bring anything useful other than rapid storage thing that allows you to use an ssd as cache drive for your HDD but it's useless imo. 

[Sernyhough]

Meh the tests Linus did with Crysis 3 etc the GPU is obviously the bottleneck, it would be like this one run intel wins with 0.01% and in the other run the AMD; that's just because of the gpu's performance variance. I don't see the point of testing cpu's when your gpu is the limiting factor, reversing that test method would turn out that a gtx 650 & gtx 780ti would perform exactly the same with an Intel pentium 3 (that bottlenecks obviously). Those tests dont say anything more than "this cpu will handle the game or it's gpu bound" that's it. 

Theyre just misleading and they don't apply for everyone, plenty of mmo/rts gamers that are mainly cpu bound.

Logans results are flatout wrong; he made the mistake to claim theres a 350% difference (3570K vs 8350 15 fps vs 45fps) when the gpu is the bottleneck >.< When the gpu is the bottleneck there can't be any drastic difference between 8350&i5 - When the CPU is the bottleneck there can't be any drastic difference between a 650/780ti. He's the only reviewer out of the 8 the OP gave saying that AMD is the better choice for gaming regardless of price, should say enough why he's wrong really. If you're interested in reading his errors -> http://lawlzawu1a.blogspot.be/2013/01/my-thoughts-on-tek-syndicates-fx-8350.html

It really depends on which games you play and which card(s) you are planning to use; a low-end card isn't hard to push it to its limit but 2 780ti's is a harder challenge, there are lightthreaded games that are GPU bound or CPU bound and atm you only have 2 games that are properly multithreaded.

Nowadays I don't look at cpu gaming benchmarks anymore other than just the single core performance like Cinebench or just to get an idea of if a game takes any advantage of extra cores. 

9590's are still performing 20% lower than a stock i5 IPC wise so i5's would be definitely the better choice than 8350's considering the price difference thats so minimal because you dont need a Z87 board or even exotic cooling. If someone would prefer a 8350 over a non K i5 just because of its overclocking options well you're wasting more money going with AMD. You're going to need something better than 100$ asrock boards and a better cooler to overclock that 8350.

 

 

 

Isn't really constructive.. I would prefer AMD boards over lga1150/5 because they dont require a backplate which is my only argument. I dont have any reasons to prefer 1150/5 boards over AM3+. Chipset (southbridge) wise Intel doesnt bring anything useful other than rapid storage thing that allows you to use an ssd as cache drive for your HDD but it's useless imo. 

It was constructive if you care about aesthetics, as many members of this forum do.

[maximilian4o]

What I said:

 

 

You go and buy an AMD CPU when price is a matter. Because if you're using the PC mainly for gaming, I think* AMD is the best option because it pulls out pretty much the same FPS as Intel CPUs for a much lower price point. Yes, Intel is much more powerful, but at a cost.

 Your answer:

No, if I wanted to start a fanboy war, I could just simply go out and say that Intel is better and provide no evidence. Instead, this is what you are doing. I compiled almost ten sources, which tended to agree that the 4670K is the better choice for gaming over the 8350. This is not a thread about Intel or AMD, it is about two CPUs, the 4670K and the 8350, which are around the $200 price point. If you want to compare other price points, sure, make a thread, do the research and compare other price points, maybe the $100 price point and see how the FX-6300 stacks up against an i3. 

* Meaning of "I think" : I think is mainly used when someone is expressing HIS OWN opinion.

So I don't think that I'm the one who's trying to start a fanboy war here, eh ? And next time PLEASE read CAREFULLY the comments. I'm not implying my opinion on somebody. I'm just saying what I think.

But still, good job on the post. It takes lotsa time to research all of that

[Faa]

It was constructive if you care about aesthetics, as many members of this forum do.

You said that you'd get a 4670K because of the chipset and you added another reason why you'd prefer intel boards. I just gave my opinion why the intel chipset isnt any special not about aesthetics thats not my problem.

[Leonard]

I mistakenly said that no AMD processor should be recommended, what I meant was that the 8350 should never be recommended against the 4670K apart from the situations which I outlined previously. I still stand by this because the research shows it. I am not talking about budget processors. I am talking about two processors that are the same price - the 4670K and the 8350, so it is not logical to say "go AMD because it is cheaper" - no it's not, it's a similar price here and it fails to be competitive. 

If i am not mistaken i said i would not recommend the 8350 either but only because it is the 8320 OCed, however i do recommend AMD systems for people who want to game on a mid-top tier system but can't or don't want to pay for the Intel equivalent or for the popular Intel CPUs. Have you ever considered that someone may want a beast CPU but might be afraid or doesn't want to OC an OCable CPU?.....Let them choose what he/she wants.I respect your view about the 8350 but telling someone that it should not be recommended is a bit harsh.

 

It is always good to be objective when giving an opinion as it shows you to be unbiased and on the internet that is a thing that is lacking.  

[Faa]

If i am not mistaken i said i would not recommend the 8350 either but only because it is the 8320 OCed, however i do recommend AMD systems for people who want to game on a mid-top tier system but can't or don't want to pay for the Intel equivalent or for the popular Intel CPUs. Have you ever considered that someone may want a beast CPU but might be afraid or doesn't want to OC an OCable CPU?.....Let them choose what he/she wants.I respect your view about the 8350 but telling someone that it should not be recommended is a bit harsh.

 

It is always good to be objective when giving an opinion as it shows you to be unbiased and on the internet that is a thing that is lacking.  

There arent enough games that take advantage of more than 4 cores except Crysis3/BF4. They just can't synthetically test games in a multiplayer scenario and if you pulled your conclusion from a single player test well you then you made a mistake.

RTS/MMO games are always cpu bound and there plenty FPS games like them as well (PS3/BL2/Dayz) where the only rule counts -> IPC. Intel is up to 100% faster: http://cdn.overclock.net/f/fa/900x900px-LL-fa844785_vp4Lspb.png

An 8350@5GHz doesnt come close to an i5's stock IPC, so we could move on to our next conclusion that 8350's overclocking option is pointless especially if you spend an extra 30$ you get much more for your money.

8320 with cheapest board that won't push any clocks:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($154.39 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard:  Biostar A960D+ Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($35.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Total: $190.38

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-06 23:31 EST-0500)

Intel with cheapest board:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard:  MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($42.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $222.97

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-06 23:32 EST-0500)

If you want to overclock that 8320 you're going to have to spend another 70$ for a board with better vrm and a better cooler so it's getting nowhere really. The 8320 would be only better for BF4/Crysis 3 if there are high-end gpu's being used, something like a gtx 660 don't expect a difference.

[paulsterio]

If i am not mistaken i said i would not recommend the 8350 either but only because it is the 8320 OCed, however i do recommend AMD systems for people who want to game on a mid-top tier system but can't or don't want to pay for the Intel equivalent or for the popular Intel CPUs. Have you ever considered that someone may want a beast CPU but might be afraid or doesn't want to OC an OCable CPU?.....Let them choose what he/she wants.I respect your view about the 8350 but telling someone that it should not be recommended is a bit harsh.

 

It is always good to be objective when giving an opinion as it shows you to be unbiased and on the internet that is a thing that is lacking.  

 

Yes, except this is wrong. This comparison was never about budget, because I took two CPUs which are of a similar price. Maybe AMD is better at the $100 price-point, maybe not, this is not a comparison at that price point. This is the $200 price point. 

If someone wants a beast CPU and doesn't want to overclock, then they should go with the 4670 non-K. At stock the 8350 is beaten. So is the 8320. It is not harsh, it should not be recommended. 

 

I agree with you, let's be objective. I have listed almost 10 sites and independent reviews which seem to agree that the 8350 is comprehensively beaten by the 3570K or the 4670K for day to day tasks including gaming. How is that not objective?

[Demonking]

This should be pinned please so no more FX 83** vs I5 4670 threads are posted 

[Rekx]

This should be pinned please so no more FX 83** vs I5 4670 threads are posted

Yes please stop the madness.

[Lord Pantaloons]

It's common knowledge that Intel chips are better, anyone that says/believes different has the same infantile grasp of CPU's that AMD themselves has or is just a fanboy. The only reason people suggest AMD CPU's in builds is because they are cheaper and "good enough" to beat out Intel's poor line of low end chips, once you hit a budget of $1100 USD or more you should only have an Intel chip as it will serve you far better than an AMD one ever will.