FX 8350 vs i5 4690k

[wiktor1800]

I am in the market for a new processor, my only question is; with the prices being -

FX 8350 - £125

i5 4690k - £165

Why is the i5 £40 more expensive, AND 14% slower? I do a lot of gaming, edit photos and edit youtube videos and I don't understand intels more premium price point.

Can someone explain? I can afford both of these but i'm just wondering if the i5 has some trick up it's sleeve that the benchmarks do not show?

[Rheinwasser]

get the i5.

motherboards for the am3+ platform just are not great.

[ilikemacandpc]

That's a useless benchmark. Look at gaming benchmarks, video rendering benchmarks, and other things. Passmark doesn't reflect real life performance. 

[themaniac]

actually the i5 is better for gaming

[-MOBIUS-]

I was convinced to get the i5, so yeah go for the i5. No idea how much games will benefit from multi-threaded cores on the FX. But if you're going to be frequent multi-tasking, the FX will probably be better.

[Enderman]

The i5 is better at everything that uses 4 threads or less, because it has much more powerful cores than the 8350.

The only time the 8350 will perform better is in video rendering, 3d rendering, or multi-core CPU benchmarks.

All the other 99.9% of games and applications that use 4 cores or less will all perform better with the i5.

You also have an upgrade path by going with socket 1150, where broadwell will be supported in the future, and you can always upgrade to an i7 if you need more threads.

[wiktor1800]

The thing is, if i get the 8350, I can invest 40 more pounds into a CPU cooler and a motherboard. Here are the 2 possibilities of my build. - 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/JC476h

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/vYKP6h

[Rheinwasser]

The thing is, if i get the 8350, I can invest 40 more pounds into a CPU cooler and a motherboard. Here are the 2 possibilities of my build. - 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/JC476h

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/vYKP6h

4690k build.

[SeanAngelo]

get the i5 and z97. booyah

[FellTheSky]

I am in the market for a new processor, my only question is; with the prices being -

FX 8350 - £125

i5 4790k - £165

Why is the i5 £40 more expensive, AND 14% slower? I do a lot of gaming, edit photos and edit youtube videos and I don't understand intels more premium price point.

Can someone explain? I can afford both of these but i'm just wondering if the i5 has some trick up it's sleeve that the benchmarks do not show?

 

thats an i7, not i5.

[DirkW]

thats an i7, not i5.

 

FYI: In the screenshot of that benchmark he has posted, he has outlined the i5 4690K.

[i_build_nanosuits]

core i5 is a vastly superior CPU for gaming than even the highest overclocked FX-9590...and you don't even need to overclock the i5 for it to run games flawlessly so you can even use the stock CPU cooler on it.

i'd suggest a core i5-4460 or core i5-4590 along with an H97 motherboard if you're on a budget...they will run all your games very well and cost less than the FX with a quality board required to overclock and a CPU cooler.

[harrynowl]

14% slower in multithreaded

 

if i5 is 14% slower and has half the cores and less clock speed imagine what that means for FX in lightly threaded scenarios (e.g. all but 3-4 games)

 

and FX has low floating point performance, e.g. superPI benchmark:

 

 

 

and for fun...

 

 

 

and then in multithreaded at the same clock:

 

[typographie]

I am in the market for a new processor, my only question is; with the prices being -

FX 8350 - £125

i5 4790k - £165

Why is the i5 £40 more expensive, AND 14% slower? I do a lot of gaming, edit photos and edit youtube videos and I don't understand intels more premium price point.

Can someone explain? I can afford both of these but i'm just wondering if the i5 has some trick up it's sleeve that the benchmarks do not show?

 

We have no idea what this "CPU Mark" is actually even testing. Its just some random synthetic benchmark that may or may not mean anything for real-world performance.

 

The FX-8350 often doesn't even compare favorably to current Core i3's in actual game benchmarks, let alone i5's.

[i_build_nanosuits]

We have no idea what this "CPU Mark" is actually even testing. Its just some random synthetic benchmark that may or may not mean anything for real-world performance.

 

The FX-8350 often doesn't even compare favorably to current Core i3's in actual game benchmarks, let alone i5's.

it test a lot of things but allow equaly important amount of points to everything...for example single-thread performance is just as a part of the result as all the other not important results...thats the problem with it.

[wiktor1800]

thats an i7, not i5.

Sorry, my mistake. I meant the i5 4690k

14% slower in multithreaded

if i5 is 14% slower and has half the cores and less clock speed imagine what that means for FX in lightly threaded scenarios (e.g. all but 3-4 games)

and FX has low floating point performance, e.g. superPI benchmark:

and for fun...

and then in multithreaded at the same clock:

What numbers should I be looking at? I'm new to benchmarking and I'm not too sure about numbers

[FellTheSky]

What numbers should I be looking at? I'm new to benchmarking and I'm not too sure about numbers

basically, the i5 is much more consistent. Lets say a game has incredible multicore support (there must be like a total of 4 or 5), then the 8350 is good, but the i5 OC is just as good.

Now lets say the game uses 3 or 4 cores or less (basically 95%+ of the games on the market), then the i5 is vastly superior to the 8350, because it doubles the single core performance.

So summing this up, is the 8350 bad? No, its a good CPU. Is the 4690k/4670k worth the extra $$, to me yes, because of its consistency

[Joshua Ondangan]

both processors are decent.

 

neither one of them will net you 10000000000000 more fps or 100000000000 less fps in whatever game you play.

 

gaming wise at least. but there are some cases where I favor the 8350 non gaming wise.

 

but pretty much it's up to the 2 of you.

 

you and your wallet to whichever you 2 want to go have threesome with

[Faa]

6 cores vs 8 cores -> 33% difference.
6000 vs 9000 -> 50% difference in Passmark.

Great benchmark though.
 

What numbers should I be looking at? I'm new to benchmarking and I'm not too sure about numbers

If you're not overclocking you could just get a 4670 (nonK) and a H81 board to save a bunch of money, motherboards for 8350's are more expensive so the price difference isn't there at all. Like most here already said, gaming isn't about multithreaded performance but about single threaded performance which i5's have a huge advantage in. 8350's having an average advantage of 10% in multithreaded performance just makes the i5 a better allrounder for people who game and do productivity.

8320/8350's only make sense if you are seeking the best multithreaded performance/price with no intention to overclock. If you want to overclock a 8320/8350 you need an expensive cooler/board that would just cost as much as a Xeon/H81 combo and still perform worse.

[wiktor1800]

6 cores vs 8 cores -> 33% difference.

6000 vs 9000 -> 50% difference in Passmark.

Great benchmark though.

 

If you're not overclocking you could just get a 4670 (nonK) and a H81 board to save a bunch of money, motherboards for 8350's are more expensive so the price difference isn't there at all. Like most here already said, gaming isn't about multithreaded performance but about single threaded performance which i5's have a huge advantage in. 8350's having an average advantage of 10% in multithreaded performance just makes the i5 a better allrounder for people who game and do productivity.

8320/8350's only make sense if you are seeking the best multithreaded performance/price with no intention to overclock. If you want to overclock a 8320/8350 you need an expensive cooler/board that would just cost as much as a Xeon/H81 combo and still perform worse.

I kind of want to overclock. It's a nice thing to know that when your CPU might be running a little short, you can boost the clock speeds a little bit, hence why i'm buying the phanteks cooler. I WILL be editing photos on photoshop/lightroom so maybe the 8350 will be better for that? Although both the 8350 and 4690k will beat my little phenom 840 by a landslide.

[Tedster]

I kind of want to overclock. It's a nice thing to know that when your CPU might be running a little short, you can boost the clock speeds a little bit, hence why i'm buying the phanteks cooler. I WILL be editing photos on photoshop/lightroom so maybe the 8350 will be better for that? Although both the 8350 and 4690k will beat my little phenom 840 by a landslide.

Yes, but your 8350 would never be close to just a little short of power, it would always be lacking.

Trust me, I've used the FX-6100. It's horrible.

 

I went through the thought processes you're going through now and I made the wrong decision by going AMD.

I'm upgrading to the 4690K soon.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yes, but your 8350 would never be close to just a little short of power, it would always be lacking.

Trust me, I've used the FX-6100. It's horrible.

 

I went through the thought processes you're going through now and I made the wrong decision by going AMD.

I'm upgrading to the 4690K soon.

same here...forget AMD. act like they've never existed (at least in the CPU department...GPU it's another story)

[wiktor1800]

I guess intel is more reliable and more powerful, I'm going with the 4690k. Cheers for the help guys.

 

p.s - How do I change this thread to "answered"?

[i_build_nanosuits]

I guess intel is more reliable and more powerful, I'm going with the 4690k. Cheers for the help guys.

 

p.s - How do I change this thread to "answered"?

you select ''solved''

[airdeano]

I guess intel is more reliable and more powerful, I'm going with the 4690k. Cheers for the help guys.

 

p.s - How do I change this thread to "answered"?

 

pick one of the posts that was informative to your thread and select "Mark Solved"