Pentium G3258 vs FX 8320 (poll)

[7850OC]

i have free time   so i made this poll 

 

and yes, i know they are different prices, but they are not to far after all

some 8320 are really cheap and this question comes anyway 

people have mix feeling with this question, so is fun

 

 

Pentium G3258 vs FX 8320

[79wjd]

i5-4440/4460 (for gaming) 

 

The 8320 ends up being more in-line with i5-4440 pricing once you consider that you need an aftermarket cooler and a high end board. 

 

8320 for editing/rendering (or better yet, for just a bit better you can get a Xeon 1231v3)

[7850OC]

i5-4440/4460 

 

The 8320 ends up being more in-line with i5-4440 prices once you consider that you need an aftermarket cooler and a high end board. 

is not true that one need a "special" cooler for run a FX 8320, stock coolers run it "perfectly fine"

[79wjd]

is not true that one need a "special" cooler for run a FX x8, stock coolers run it "perfectly fine"

Except a non overclocked 8320 is terrible (and a sin).

[OnekillWalter]

i5-4440/4460 

you put the Fun in funeral don't you?

[7850OC]

Except a non overclocked 8320 is terrible (and a sin).

that is also not true

[79wjd]

that is also not true

It's very true. Also: 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($38.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $213.98

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $244.97

[7850OC]

It's very true. Also: 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($38.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $213.98

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $244.97

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 

[fx63007850]

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($124.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)

why not paid it with a 970a-ud3p which is just as good apart from 2 x16 lanes

[7850OC]

why not paid it with a 970a-ud3p which is just as good apart from 2 x16 lanes

 

 

why not pair it with a 970a-ud3p which is just as good apart from 2 x16 lanes

 

true true 

[79wjd]

why not paid it with a 970a-ud3p which is just as good apart from 2 x16 lanes

An i5 is still the better choice for gaming. 

 

@Faceman wall of text please 

[boboman342]

It's very true. Also: 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($38.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $213.98

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($19.99 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 

Total: $244.97

 

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.99 @ Newegg) 

Well there you go. Like @djdwosk97 said, the prices are on par with each other. One cpu is marginally better for creative applications, one is marginally better for gaming. Take your pick.

 

/Thread

[Legitsu]

Pentium without question simply because intel is the better planform

[Tr3vor]

Since when was this an i5 vs 8320 thread? good grief.

 

8320 vs g3258? 8320, no duh.

[79wjd]

Pentium without question simply because intel is the better planform

no.... just no

 

Since when was this an i5 vs 8320 thread? good grief.

 

8320 vs g3258? 8320, no duh.

the point is its a stupid comparison since they're not meant to compete with eachother in performance nor in price. The i5 on the other hand is a similar price and a better performer (in gaming).

[Tr3vor]

no.... just no

 

the point is its a stupid comparison since they're not meant to compete with eachother in performance nor price. 

 

So why is anyone posting in this thread anyway.

[boboman342]

So why is anyone posting in this thread anyway.

caus we luv each other on dis forum <3

[Tr3vor]

caus we luv each other on dis forum <3

 

<3

 

 

 

 

 

ok enuf with lovey dovey. someone derail nao.

[boboman342]

<3

 

 

 

 

 

ok enuf with lovey dovey. someone derail nao.

jk

[DigitalHermit]

8320 because multi-threaded performance is getting more important... (Someone tell me how a g3258 can catch up to an A8-500K or an 8320 in multi-threaded... please...)

[boboman342]

8320 because multi-threaded performance is getting more important... (Someone tell me how a g3258 can catch up to an A8-500K or an 8320 in multi-threaded... please...)

I don't really thing the question is which performs better, although the g3258 can really hold its own Here and here. The main reason to get the g3258 is you can buy a good cheap cpu, and upgrade later to an i5/i7...or i3 i guess.

[79wjd]

8320 because multi-threaded performance is getting more important... (Someone tell me how a g3258 can catch up to an A8-500K or an 8320 in multi-threaded... please...)

It's half the cost? 

[DigitalHermit]

It's half the cost? 

 

Of the 8320? Yes. Of the 5600K? not quite...

 

 

I don't really thing the question is which performs better, although the g3258 can really hold its own Here and here. The main reason to get the g3258 is you can buy a good cheap cpu, and upgrade later to an i5/i7...or i3 i guess.

 

Can it handle a 250+MB flash (which seems to use up to 70+% CPU utilization on my Pentium P6100) parallel to a AAA title (i.e. Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, GTA, etc.) running Ultra 720p?

 

I'm just weighing the differences here for my December build (which will not see an i3 or an i5 for the next 5 years)...

[boboman342]

I'm waiting for them deals too! Looking for a new monitor and gpu!

[Faceman]

An i5 is still the better choice for gaming. 

 

@Faceman wall of text please 

Most certainly good sir.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy FX, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 15-20fps is acceptable.

 

Then the other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V.

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

----

---

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"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 :)"

 

 

^2 man grouping result in Guild Wars2.  Raiding = not going to acceptable frame rates.

 

 

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($40.00 @ Amazon)

Total: $214.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-10 04:22 EST-0500