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

[paulsterio]

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.

 

I completely agree with you. There might be other pricepoints at which AMD beats Intel. However, at this $200 CPU pricepoint, I think the 4670K is the winner over the 8350. Yet, I still see people suggesting the 8350 as competitive with or superior to a 4670K build all over the place. 

 

Maybe I should do another one of these aggregates for another price-point. I had a look on NewEgg and I think that two pricepoints are pretty interesting now. The first is the $120 price point - FX 6300 vs. i3 4130. The second price point is the super budget $70 pricepoint with the Athlon II X3 455 vs. Pentium G3220. Which one would you guys like to see first?

[Guest GRRigger]

I completely agree with you. There might be other pricepoints at which AMD beats Intel. However, at this $200 CPU pricepoint, I think the 4670K is the winner over the 8350. Yet, I still see people suggesting the 8350 as competitive with or superior to a 4670K build all over the place. 

 

Maybe I should do another one of these aggregates for another price-point. I had a look on NewEgg and I think that two pricepoints are pretty interesting now. The first is the $120 price point - FX 6300 vs. i3 4130. The second price point is the super budget $70 pricepoint with the Athlon II X3 455 vs. Pentium G3220. Which one would you guys like to see first?

6300 vs 4130 . it is interesting since we have hyperthreaded dual core and overclockable 6300. 6300 is kinda obvious choice to me, but lets see.

[Umeshwarnath]

I am no hater! i love Iogans beard! but he is either high while he makes these videos or he is just plain idiotic..... to say that the 8350 does better than a 3570/4670k,  then the 3770k,and now recently that the 9590 is better than the 4930k at streaming! what a noob!

i use an all amd machine......i love my computer and i love amd! BUT TO ALL YOU GUYS OUT THERE WANTING TO GO WITH THE 8350 JUST BECAUSE LOGAN SAID SO......DON'T........THERE A RE MANY ISSUES.......frequent frame drops for instance.....the experience with intel is much much better......if you got the money go for intel......if you dont then you have no choice.....or if you just like AMD .....yeah that too....like i do!

[maximilian4o]

 

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.

So everybody who believes that AMD chips are better, is infantile ? LOL. That is a really stupid statement. There are not a lot of games in which AMD beats Intel, but there is such. For example Crysis 3 and BF4 use all 8 cores, and and lots of games will use all of the cores in the near 1 year. Also, the 83XX are better for Streaming/Rendering. Please don't say that Intel is better at everything.

[paulsterio]

So everybody who believes that AMD chips are better, is infantile ? LOL. That is a really stupid statement. There are not a lot of games in which AMD beats Intel, but there is such. For example Crysis 3 and BF4 use all 8 cores, and and lots of games will use all of the cores in the near 1 year. Also, the 83XX are better for Streaming/Rendering. Please don't say that Intel is better at everything.

 

No they're not, the 8350 is neck and neck with the 4670K in video rendering, check out the benchmarks I posted above. This is because Intel's IPC is almost double AMD's. There are some benchmarks where AMD wins by 1 fps or so and some where Intel wins by 1 fps or so, they're all so close and they are pretty divided, so it's a tie between the two for rendering. 

 

Streaming is completely different. Yes, streaming will benefit from more cores, but let's wait until that is tested. Same with games using more cores in the next year, that's all speculation right now. 

[maximilian4o]

Streaming is completely different. Yes, streaming will benefit from more cores, but let's wait until that is tested. Same with games using more cores in the next year, that's all speculation right now. 

Yeah, but some of the most demanding NEW games (Crysis 3 and BF4) use all 8 cores. I'm not necessarily saying that AMD is better than Intel, but AMD has its strong sides. And if price is a matter, than it's not a bad decision to go for AMD. That is why I get mad at people who say "You shouldn't recommend an AMD CPU EVER".

[paulsterio]

Yeah, but some of the most demanding NEW games (Crysis 3 and BF4) use all 8 cores. I'm not necessarily saying that AMD is better than Intel, but AMD has its strong sides. And if price is a matter, than it's not a bad decision to go for AMD. That is why I get mad at people who say "You shouldn't recommend an AMD CPU EVER".

 

Whether they use all 8 cores is irrelevant. What is relevant, though, is that the 4670K still beats the 8350 in BF4 with both DirectX and Mantle. So no, for gaming, the 8350 makes no sense. Also, I am not saying that AMD CPUs should never be recommended. I am saying that a 4670K is better than an 8350, that's all. The truth is it is better. To say that the 8350 is better than the 4670K is just simply wrong, it just isn't. You can harp on about new games using all 8 cores you want, but where's the data?

 

Anyway, in the mean time, here's some benchmarks in BF4 for you.

 

 

That graph comes from AMD themselves. 

[maximilian4o]

Whether they use all 8 cores is irrelevant. What is relevant, though, is that the 4670K still beats the 8350 in BF4 with both DirectX and Mantle. So no, for gaming, the 8350 makes no sense. Also, I am not saying that AMD CPUs should never be recommended. I am saying that a 4670K is better than an 8350, that's all. The truth is it is better. To say that the 8350 is better than the 4670K is just simply wrong, it just isn't. You can harp on about new games using all 8 cores you want, but where's the data?

 

Anyway, in the mean time, here's some benchmarks in BF4 for you.

 

 

That graph comes from AMD themselves. 

You apparently don't get what I'm saying. I never said AMD is better. I said that AMD is better to go with when money is a concern and the user has a budget, when there is 1-2 FPS difference. To be honest, the 8350 is not worth buying. It's better to get a 8320 and OC. But AMD has its good sides. And the FPS difference is withing margin of error, and not every benchmark is the same, so...

[paulsterio]

You apparently don't get what I'm saying. I never said AMD is better. I said that AMD is better to go with when money is a concern and the user has a budget, when there is 1-2 FPS difference. To be honest, the 8350 is not worth buying. It's better to get a 8320 and OC. But AMD has its good sides. And the FPS difference is withing margin of error, and not every benchmark is the same, so...

 

But that's irrelevant. It's like saying I want to buy a $50,000 car and asking you what is best and you reply saying "oh, Toyota makes really good $30,000 cars". Okay, they make good $30,000 cars, but so what? I'm not looking to buy a $30,000 car. That information is not relevant to what I'm trying to buy. This thread is about the $200 price point. 

 

This thread was never AMD vs. Intel, that would be like saying Toyota is better than Honda or something to that regard, that comparison cannot be made because both Intel and AMD produce a wide range of processors over a wide range of costs. Yes, there might be price-points where AMD is better, but that is not the aim of this thread. 

 

The aim of this thread is to show that the 4670K is a better processor than the 8350, which it is. 

[maximilian4o]

But that's irrelevant. It's like saying I want to buy a $50,000 car and asking you what is best and you reply saying "oh, Toyota makes really good $30,000 cars". Okay, they make good $30,000 cars, but so what? I'm not looking to buy a $30,000 car. That information is not relevant to what I'm trying to buy. This thread is about the $200 price point. 

 

This thread was never AMD vs. Intel, that would be like saying Toyota is better than Honda or something to that regard, that comparison cannot be made because both Intel and AMD produce a wide range of processors over a wide range of costs. Yes, there might be price-points where AMD is better, but that is not the aim of this thread. 

 

The aim of this thread is to show that the 4670K is a better processor than the 8350, which it is. 

Yeah, the Intel outperforms the AMD within margin of error. 1-2 FPS, and that is not a big of a difference. And every benchmark is different. TEK Syndicate's video states that the 8350 wins. Linus' video shows that Intel wins. WHO THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO TRUST. And why is there such a big difference.

[Kamina]

The FX 8350 is not as bad as everyone is trying to make it to be. When it comes to multi-threaded games, they both pack a punch. Yes, Intel is ahead with their 22nm tri-gate tech, but do poorly in price/performance ratio, especially with their motherboards. If I had the money, I'd just skip onto the 3770k/4770k instead of the i5 if I needed those extra threads.

[maximilian4o]

The FX 8350 is not as bad as everyone is trying to make it to be. When it comes to multi-threaded games, they both pack a punch. Yes, Intel is ahead with their 22nm tri-gate tech, but do poorly in price/performance ratio, especially with their motherboards. If I had the money, I'd just skip onto the 3770k/4770k instead of the i5 if I needed those extra threads.

What I'm trying to say, in a nutshell. Thank you Kami

[paulsterio]

Yeah, the Intel outperforms the AMD within margin of error. 1-2 FPS, and that is not a big of a difference. And every benchmark is different. TEK Syndicate's video states that the 8350 wins. Linus' video shows that Intel wins. WHO THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO TRUST. And why is there such a big difference.

 

I answered that question for you. I listed a whole load of benchmarks from different places on the internet which say that the 4670K or 3570K is better than the 8350. It's not about trust, it's about getting a wide range of sources and research. 

 

 

The FX 8350 is not as bad as everyone is trying to make it to be. When it comes to multi-threaded games, they both pack a punch. Yes, Intel is ahead with their 22nm tri-gate tech, but do poorly in price/performance ratio, especially with their motherboards. If I had the money, I'd just skip onto the 3770k/4770k instead of the i5 if I needed those extra threads.

 

How can you say they do poorly in performance/price ratio when we are comparing two CPUs that are the same price. Yes, the 4670K is $20 more expensive, but look it's $20, sometimes you can get it for the same price as the 8350 at Microcenter. 

[maximilian4o]

How can you say they do poorly in performance/price ratio when we are comparing two CPUs that are the same price. Yes, the 4670K is $20 more expensive, but look it's $20, sometimes you can get it for the same price as the 8350 at Microcenter. 

Ok, why don't you compare the 4670K with the 8320. The 8320 costs 150$. And with some OCing it can be pretty much an 8350. So why don't you put the 8320 instead. So you get a processor that performs worse than the 4670K by 1-3 FPS for 70$ less. Here you go

 

So as @Kamina said, AMDs do better in price/performance. It's not a 20$ difference.

[paulsterio]

Ok, why don't you compare the 4670K with the 8320. The 8320 costs 150$. And with some OCing it can be pretty much an 8350. So why don't you put the 8320 instead. So you get a processor that performs worse than the 4670K by 1-3 FPS for 70$ less. Here you go

 

So as @Kamina said, AMDs do better in price/performance. It's not a 20$ difference.

 

Let us assume that you can overclock the 8320 to an 8350. 

 

The i5 3470 is better than it still. 

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=702

 

The i5 4440 is even better than the 3570, so Intel is still the better option, you can even get an extra 15% performance out of the Intel by always running it at Turbo. 

[deathjester]

An I3 is faster then a 8350 at stock in Mantle, clocked 500 mhz slower on 2 real cores.

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

1) you should not think about an AMD for GAMING unless pairing it with an AMD GPU. This absolutely sucks past a r9 270 (and even those went up in price), because a GTX 770 can be had for 330 and the 280x costs a metric @#%^ ton in the U.S. 

 

2) you are buying it on the HOPE that Mantle becomes mainstream. Also AMD's official benchmarks show that previous benchmarks showing the 8350 being as fast as an I5 in BF4 was complete and utter BS. You should never trust those sites again.

 

3) if Mantle does becomes mainstream? An I3 on a stock cooler and the cheapest board imaginable would be a better budget GAMING choice with an AMD card. The I3 will kill it in most older games and = it in new games. 

 

4) Logan from Tek Syndicate is the biggest snakeoil salesman I have ever seen. You might as well go to IGN for reviews on EA games and expect honesty.

 

5) The 8 "integer core" can't even beat a I5 in streaming BF4 on an Nvidia GPU. Like this guy (video below)? I hate both companies. You shouldn't recommend an AMD over an I5 for gaming EVER though. He also has a good video about being a fanboy. He has no sponsors. He could care less who is better. Intel is simply a much better gaming chip atm.

 

6) AMD cpu's have been good in the past but have been far worse for GAMING for awhile now. This may change, but they simply can't match Intel R&D costs. I hope AMD catches up on FPU. Until they do? You should never recommend them gaming based on one idiot "tech site" whom the entire tech world disagrees with.

 

 

To put it simply? Buy an I5 and call it a day for GAMING. It is faster when the AMD chip has optimization, can SLAUGHTER it without optimization and the AMD can't play some games well enough to stream them, making it a pointless feature, and it can still get beat streaming in an 8 thread game as well.

 

FPS isn't a fanboy. FPS says I5 all day long in every game, on every thread count. It is not even debatable, and people have to rely on deceptive GPU bound scenario's to push AMD as a gaming chip. 

[Guest GRRigger]

Let us assume that you can overclock the 8320 to an 8350. 

 

The i5 3470 is better than it still. 

 

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=702

 

The i5 4440 is even better than the 3570, so Intel is still the better option, you can even get an extra 15% performance out of the Intel by always running it at Turbo. 

For productivity, yes, intel migh be better choice. And it is, as this benchmark shows.

But for gaming, that benchmark is irrelevant. The games dont use 8 cores, hence you cant even compare 8350 vs i5. i5 just wins. Thats intel strong side. But if you go with 8320, new games support 8 cores. Overclock it to 4.2 and its slightly better than 3570k and very similar to 4670k. And you dont need aftermarket cooler for that. Not even ocing mobo. 970 mobo from asus or gigabyte. 70 bucks

If you compare 8320(150$) to 4670 (218$), there is 68$ difference. 4570 is currently 180$, that is 30$ difference, and is rival to 8320 that is running at stock speeds. Actually good price / perf.

 

Most of the times, going intel benefits you, if you have the money for it, but if not 8320 is great choice since it can be overclocked and you can put money in better gpu. For example, instead of gtx 760 for 240$, you buy 310$  gtx770$

[paulsterio]

For productivity, yes, intel migh be better choice. And it is, as this benchmark shows.

But for gaming, that benchmark is irrelevant. The games dont use 8 cores, hence you cant even compare 8350 vs i5. i5 just wins. Thats intel strong side. But if you go with 8320, new games support 8 cores. Overclock it to 4.2 and its slightly better than 3570k and very similar to 4670k. And you dont need aftermarket cooler for that. Not even ocing mobo. 970 mobo from asus or gigabyte. 70 bucks

If you compare 8320(150$) to 4670 (218$), there is 68$ difference. 4570 is currently 180$, that is 30$ difference, and is rival to 8320 that is running at stock speeds. Actually good price / perf.

 

Most of the times, going intel benefits you, if you have the money for it, but if not 8320 is great choice since it can be overclocked and you can put money in better gpu. For example, instead of gtx 760 for 240$, you buy 310$  gtx770$

 

A couple of things. 

 

Firstly, the Intel i5 4440 is actually pretty much the same price as the 8320, I think it's like $10 more or something like that, but similar enough. 

 

That chip performs better than the 3470, similar clock speed, newer architecture. 

 

Benchmarks show that the 3470 is better than the 8350 (i.e 8320 at 4.0 GHz) for productivity AND gaming. Don't use the whole "new games support 8 cores", that's irrelevant. Even in Battlefield 4, which is supposedly multi-threaded, Intel wins. The wins will even be bigger in most games. Also, that is all speculation, who knows when these "new games supporting 8 cores" will even arrive. At the moment, with the games on the market at the moment, the i5 4440 is a better choice than the 8320. 

 

They are the same price, so price has nothing to do with this. Yes, you can overclock the 8320, but I don't know how far it will go with a stock heatsink. It's already a chip which dissipates a huge amount of power. On the other hand, if we're talking about overclocking, you can also overclock the i5 4440 by having it run at turbo frequencies all the time. You can also get a 5% or so overclock with BClk and have things stable, so that's still a good 12% or so overclock over stock. 

 

I know you're trying to say that AMD is better at the $150 price point. But it's not, the 4440 is better than the 8350. 

[Guest GRRigger]

A couple of things. 

 

Firstly, the Intel i5 4440 is actually pretty much the same price as the 8320, I think it's like $10 more or something like that, but similar enough. 

its 189$ currently. Thats too much, must be anomaly. I guess its around  175$ - 180$

 

That chip performs better than the 3470, similar clock speed, newer architecture. It performs roughly the same. And its not similar clock speed. 300mhz is not similar. to put into a perspective about 300mhz is jump from ivy to haswell performance. I allways compare only turbo speeds. The maximum what cpu is capable of.

 

 

Benchmarks show that the 3470 is better than the 8350 (i.e 8320 at 4.2 GHz) for productivity AND gaming. No, 8350 is better even than 3570k. When all cores are used. but yes, most game out there dont support 8 cores, so intel IPC wins. thats true.

Don't use the whole "new games support 8 cores", that's irrelevant. Even in Battlefield 4, which is supposedly multi-threaded, Intel wins. .

8350 is very similar to 4670k in bf4. And definitly better than 4440. 4440 clock speed is 3.3 . On this graph 4670k has 3.4 and 8350 has 4.0 ( turbo is actually 4.2 )

Not only that 4670k should be downclocked 100mghz to meet 4440 3.3ghz TURBO, 8350 should be overclocked 200mhz. I think 4670k would win, but we are talking here very little diff. I will post benchmarks later.

 

with the games on the market at the moment, the i5 4440 is a better choice than the 8320.  True.

 

They are the same price, so price has nothing to do with this. Yes, you can overclock the 8320, but I don't know how far it will go with a stock heatsink. Well 4.2 is minimal, thats for sure. You can even downvolt. 

It's already a chip which dissipates a huge amount of power. True, you cant get past 4.5 without voltage adjustments and better cpu cooler like hyper 212 .

On the other hand, if we're talking about overclocking, you can also overclock the i5 4440 by having it run at turbo frequencies all the time. I allways only compare turbo to turbo. Thats not overclocking bro.

You can also get a 5% or so overclock with BClk and have things stable, so that's still a good 12% or so overclock over stock. Oh, the numbers. No, man, imaginary numbers dont belong here Its very little difference thats for sure.

 

I know you're trying to say that AMD is better at the $150 price point. But it's not, the 4440 is better than the 8350.  Nope. Look graph above. I can show you more benchmarks if you want. 4440 would be better than 8350 if it was running about.... 500mhz faster at turbo. And we allready know what processor do.

Infact i WILL post benchmarks, but not now. Later.

[Priller]

8350 Release date: 10-23-2012

 

4670/4770 Release date: 6-2-2013

 

32nm vs 22nm.

 

The fact the older AMD stuff has been compared to similar priced intel CPUs for the last 3 generations is the interesting part.

 

The advantage that a number of AMD owners have expressed to me is the ability to update or change CPUs over a large model base as needs change. So if I have a newer board(990 chipset) and upgrade later down the road then I can sell of the CPU or swap it out for something else that is very cheap and use it in a server etc. The frequent board change requirements is something I dont like. Alot of early FX owners simply just bought the CPU and put it into a motherboard they already had where Intel seems to like switching board every CPU change.

 

By in large unless it is a specific game or task the 8350 and 4670K will end up being a wash or atleast within the margin of error in a large part of game tests.

[paulsterio]

Infact i WILL post benchmarks, but not now. Later.

 

I'll reply in a sec. 

 

 

 

8350 Release date: 10-23-2012

 

4670/4770 Release date: 6-2-2013

 

32nm vs 22nm.

 

The fact the older AMD stuff has been compared to similar priced intel CPUs for the last 3 generations is the interesting part.

 

The advantage that a number of AMD owners have expressed to me is the ability to update or change CPUs over a large model base as needs change. So if I have a newer board(990 chipset) and upgrade later down the road then I can sell of the CPU or swap it out for something else that is very cheap and use it in a server etc. The frequent board change requirements is something I dont like. Alot of early FX owners simply just bought the CPU and put it into a motherboard they already had where Intel seems to like switching board every CPU change.

 

By in large unless it is a specific game or task the 8350 and 4670K will end up being a wash or atleast within the margin of error in a large part of game tests.

 

 

Yeah, but the fact that it's older shouldn't be an excuse. That's AMD's fault for not being able to come up with a newer/better architecture whilst Intel has been. 

If you have $200 in hand and want to buy a CPU, does it matter when it was released or what fabrication process it is on? Not really, all that matters is performance (and maybe power consumption, heat, that sort of stuff). 

 

I don't agree that the 8350 and 4670K are within the margin of error of each other. They are within the margin of error where the program can make use of all of the 8 cores, otherwise, the 8350 will get hammered by the 4670K simply because of its weak IPC. 

 

Intel switches boards every cycle of their tick-tock, so it's a board change every two years or so. Yes, AMD does have that advantage, however, being able to change the motherboard isn't Intel's fault, it's because of the changes they have made. Think about Nehalem and Lynnfield and then to Sandy Bridge and then to Haswell, each generational change had changes which forced Intel to change their chipsets. For example, Haswell moving the voltage regulators to the CPU. What has been lacking from AMD is a generational improvement. Intel achieved generational improvements with Conroe, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge. Yes, everything since has been incremental, but AMD is just so far behind in that department. 

[Priller]

I'll reply in a sec. 

 

 

 

Yeah, but the fact that it's older shouldn't be an excuse. That's AMD's fault for not being able to come up with a newer/better architecture whilst Intel has been. 

If you have $200 in hand and want to buy a CPU, does it matter when it was released or what fabrication process it is on? Not really, all that matters is performance (and maybe power consumption, heat, that sort of stuff). 

 

I don't agree that the 8350 and 4670K are within the margin of error of each other. They are within the margin of error where the program can make use of all of the 8 cores, otherwise, the 8350 will get hammered by the 4670K simply because of its weak IPC. 

 

Intel switches boards every cycle of their tick-tock, so it's a board change every two years or so. Yes, AMD does have that advantage, however, being able to change the motherboard isn't Intel's fault, it's because of the changes they have made. Think about Nehalem and Lynnfield and then to Sandy Bridge and then to Haswell, each generational change had changes which forced Intel to change their chipsets. For example, Haswell moving the voltage regulators to the CPU. What has been lacking from AMD is a generational improvement. Intel achieved generational improvements with Conroe, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge. Yes, everything since has been incremental, but AMD is just so far behind in that department. 

 

Older isn't an excuse? Really? So how far back do we want to push this age thing since it doesn't matter now. Also X79 is older then Haswell and still out performs it. Since haswell is newer it should outperform it then.

 

Hence why I said it depends on the game and specific task.

 

If you add up the so called "Generational Improvements" over the last 3 generations of Intel CPUs you will find about 15% improvement in IPC give or take? AMD did that 15% jump in 1 generation with the same die size, the same socket, and the same manufacturing process.

[Guest GRRigger]

Older isn't an excuse? Really? So how far back do we want to push this age thing since it doesn't matter now. Also X79 is older then Haswell and still out performs it. Since haswell is newer it should outperform it then.

 

Hence why I said it depends on the game and specific task.

 

If you add up the so called "Generational Improvements" over the last 3 generations of Intel CPUs you will find about 15% improvement in IPC give or take? AMD did that 15% jump in 1 generation with the same die size, the same socket, and the same manufacturing process.

This is true. AMD 2 integer cores per module is actually pretty smart idea. And it does and it is still competitor to haswell, even if its older. As you said 4670k is similar to 8350 when all cores are used ( sorry to use this term so often, but new games do use em ). Who cares if its old, in fact that makes it so haswell seems bad since is newer and not even so much faster. In some cases 4670k migh be for a small margin faster. But we are talking here a difference cuple tens and not hundrends of mhz in favor of haswell. So not so much.

Haswell is ok, not great but ok. The ipc is good, but the fact that it has on die voltage regulator and thermal paste instead of solder is what it makes it not so big improvement for overclockers.

Ok this is very, very general comparison. Please correct me if i am wrong.

on air with same cooler ( for example xigmatek dark knight ) average 3570k with latest stepping can be overclocked to 4.7 while 4670k hits wall at 4.3. Thats 400mhz difference. In favor of ivy. So i still consider unlocked IVY as good or even better as haswell for overclocking AND performance.

Please correct me if my estimates are wrong.

 

So no, haswell is not such a good deal and "obvious choice". However here are cuple processors that are tho. if you dont OC 4570 and xeon 1230v3 are amazing deal.

[maximilian4o]

For productivity, yes, intel migh be better choice. And it is, as this benchmark shows.

But for gaming, that benchmark is irrelevant. The games dont use 8 cores, hence you cant even compare 8350 vs i5. i5 just wins. Thats intel strong side. But if you go with 8320, new games support 8 cores. Overclock it to 4.2 and its slightly better than 3570k and very similar to 4670k. And you dont need aftermarket cooler for that. Not even ocing mobo. 970 mobo from asus or gigabyte. 70 bucks

If you compare 8320(150$) to 4670 (218$), there is 68$ difference. 4570 is currently 180$, that is 30$ difference, and is rival to 8320 that is running at stock speeds. Actually good price / perf.

 

Most of the times, going intel benefits you, if you have the money for it, but if not 8320 is great choice since it can be overclocked and you can put money in better gpu. For example, instead of gtx 760 for 240$, you buy 310$  gtx770$

Exactly. That is what I was trying to tell the guy the whole time, but he doesn't seem to understand, or he just doesn't want to agree I'd go with the 8320 so I can get a 770 instead of a 760 if I was in that situation, because for less money and a bit of time for a little OC, you can get the same performance for less money, or a better GPU. Plus you get a processor that is better a t streaming if you're into it.

[maximilian4o]

I'll reply in a sec. 

 

 

 

Yeah, but the fact that it's older shouldn't be an excuse. That's AMD's fault for not being able to come up with a newer/better architecture whilst Intel has been. 

If you have $200 in hand and want to buy a CPU, does it matter when it was released or what fabrication process it is on? Not really, all that matters is performance (and maybe power consumption, heat, that sort of stuff). 

 

I don't agree that the 8350 and 4670K are within the margin of error of each other. They are within the margin of error where the program can make use of all of the 8 cores, otherwise, the 8350 will get hammered by the 4670K simply because of its weak IPC. 

 

Intel switches boards every cycle of their tick-tock, so it's a board change every two years or so. Yes, AMD does have that advantage, however, being able to change the motherboard isn't Intel's fault, it's because of the changes they have made. Think about Nehalem and Lynnfield and then to Sandy Bridge and then to Haswell, each generational change had changes which forced Intel to change their chipsets. For example, Haswell moving the voltage regulators to the CPU. What has been lacking from AMD is a generational improvement. Intel achieved generational improvements with Conroe, Nehalem and Sandy Bridge. Yes, everything since has been incremental, but AMD is just so far behind in that department. 

Shit bro. Looks like fanboyism is a factor for you an OC'd 8320 to 4.2 GHz vs a 4670K are within margin of error. And it's 60-70$ cheaper. There is a couple games where 4670K beats the 8320 significantly. Example (Skyrim and some other ones). And there are also a couple of games where 8320-8350 beat the 4670K. Example: (BF4 and Crysis 3) So, yeah......

 

And sorry for double posting. Forgot to put them together.