AMD FX-8350 Vs. Intel Core i5-4460

[ConiferousJelly]

Hi Everyone,

 

On a previous post I have made in new builds and planning, I included in my build an AMD FX-8350, but within minutes people were suggesting an i5-4460. So my question is what does the i5-4460 have to offer over the FX-8350. The reason I picked it was the value for my budget.

 

My original post that brings this up is here.

 

Thanks in Advance,

ConiferousJelly

[paulsterio]

The i5 4460 has much better single-threaded performance, which is what most of computing still is. If you spend a lot of time crunching numbers or doing rendering, then the 8350 might have a benefit if you OC it a bit, but the i5 4460 is the better and more solid all-round chip. 

 

Personally, I would try and stretch a little and get the Xeon E3 1231 V3, it's like $50 more than the 4460 or something but features a higher clock and HT, it'll cream the 8350 for sure. If you want to OC, you can try and get a 4690K. 

[connorpiper]

Better IPC, the FX 8350 has terrible core performance, which is what games need.

Also, the Intel platform can support up to a 4790K, while the 8350 is really the end of the road.

[ApolloX75]

Hi Everyone,

 

On a previous post I have made in new builds and planning, I included in my build an AMD FX-8350, but within minutes people were suggesting an i5-4460. So my question is what does the i5-4460 have to offer over the FX-8350. The reason I picked it was the value for my budget.

 

My original post that brings this up is here.

 

Thanks in Advance,

ConiferousJelly

Stronger cores, much higher efficiency, doesn't require an aftermarket cooler to keep it comfortable and doesn't require an expensive motherboard to handle it. No VRM throttling issues and no GPU "bottlenecking" issues even when using SLI or CrossFire.

 

It's a no-brainer until AMD releases Zen.

[Dabombinable]

Hi Everyone,

 

On a previous post I have made in new builds and planning, I included in my build an AMD FX-8350, but within minutes people were suggesting an i5-4460. So my question is what does the i5-4460 have to offer over the FX-8350. The reason I picked it was the value for my budget.

 

My original post that brings this up is here.

 

Thanks in Advance,

ConiferousJelly

Look when this article was written, the FX 8350 is nearing 4 years old:

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

[ApolloX75]

Look when this article was written, the FX 8350 is nearing 4 years old:

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

Ha! That's the exact one that I read that first convinced me to upgrade from my Phenom II... to a 2500K.

 

Good times.

[Atomicnerd64]

Hi Everyone,

 

On a previous post I have made in new builds and planning, I included in my build an AMD FX-8350, but within minutes people were suggesting an i5-4460. So my question is what does the i5-4460 have to offer over the FX-8350. The reason I picked it was the value for my budget.

 

My original post that brings this up is here.

 

Thanks in Advance,

ConiferousJelly

get the 4460. it's a no-brainer. you can later upgrade to an i7 which is known to hand the 8350 it's ass after it has run circles around it. 

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Take it from a 8320 owner who has had it since 2011. I'm already upgrading while the i5 at the time would have still lasted another few years.

[Crowcore]

Yes, for gaming, the i5 4460 is much better. The FX 8350 (or even FX 9370) will already bottleneck high-end GPUs today.

There are alomst no games that can handle more then 4 threads, but single core performance is crucial to play games.

 

If you are on a budget, you could even get an i3 4370 and gaming performance will not suffer much (-3.5 FPS on average on 1080p, but you more than make up for it with the following suggestion). Still has 4 threads and is even higher clocked (3.8 GHz). It's a gret value. Especially bundled with a H97 micro-ATX mainboard (unless you plan to use three graphics cards at the same time it's a perfect format).

 

Use the saved money for a better GPU like a R9 380 4GB or GTX 960 4GB.

 

Also, you don't need more than a 400W PSU, or 450W if you're gonna overclock like crazy (the Cooler Master G450M is good). So you save a few box there for an even more balanced build.

 

The i5 is of course more future-proof. Maybe the savings on mainboard & PSU are enough to get the better GPU ?

[ConiferousJelly]

The i5 4460 has much better single-threaded performance, which is what most of computing still is. If you spend a lot of time crunching numbers or doing rendering, then the 8350 might have a benefit if you OC it a bit, but the i5 4460 is the better and more solid all-round chip. 

 

Personally, I would try and stretch a little and get the Xeon E3 1231 V3, it's like $50 more than the 4460 or something but features a higher clock and HT, it'll cream the 8350 for sure. If you want to OC, you can try and get a 4690K. 

The main thing I wanted the 8350 was because of the 8 cores but if they cant perform like a quad core intel I would rather go that route.

 

get the 4460. it's a no-brainer. you can later upgrade to an i7 which is known to hand the 8350 it's ass after it has run circles around it. 

Thats another point, when I upgrade I wont have to get another mother board, which was a big concern of mine with this budget.

 

Take it from a 8320 owner who has had it since 2011. I'm already upgrading while the i5 at the time would have still lasted another few years.

That pushes me even further to an i5, while I am fine with upgrading id rather go with an i5 so that as I mentioned before I dont have to replace the motherboard.

 

Yes, for gaming, the i5 4460 is much better. The FX 8350 (or even FX 9370) will already bottleneck high-end GPUs today.

There are alomst no games that can handle more then 4 threads, but single core performance is crucial to play games.

 

If you are on a budget, you could even get an i3 4370 and gaming performance will not suffer much (-3.5 FPS on average on 1080p, but you more than make up for it with the following suggestion). Still has 4 threads and is even higher clocked (3.8 GHz). It's a gret value. Especially bundled with a H97 micro-ATX mainboard (unless you plan to use three graphics cards at the same time it's a perfect format).

 

Use the saved money for a better GPU like a R9 380 4GB or GTX 960 4GB.

 

Also, you don't need more than a 400W PSU, or 450W if you're gonna overclock like crazy (the Cooler Master G450M is good). So you save a few box there for an even more balanced build.

 

The i5 is of course more future-proof. Maybe the savings on mainboard & PSU are enough to get the better GPU ?

I think I have ruled out an i3, and I will for sure have enough for an i5. In my other thread, I mentioned that I will be going to Micro center to pick out all of my parts. There is when ill decide my parts, and see if there are any out of box products. That is when ill put the rest of my savings towards a GTX 960, as I have had my eye on that.

 

Thanks everyone for letting me in on your opinions and knowledge. I appreciate it even if I didnt reply, as all of what ive said applies to it all.

-ConiferousJelly

[Nena Trinity]

In some games the FX will do better but in most the i5 wins.

 

My main advice is if you play Arma, DayZ or Dying Light avoid any AMD product...

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

In some games the FX will do better but in most the i5 wins.

 

My main advice is if you play Arma, DayZ or Dying Light avoid any AMD product...

 

This is not true. The i5 completely wipes any FX series CPU across the board. This is true for an i3 processor which kills any FX series CPU in MOST games.

[Nena Trinity]

This is not true. The i5 completely wipes any FX series CPU across the board. This is true for an i3 processor which kills any FX series CPU in MOST games.

In more modern games it seems to favor more cores/treads!  (but for the sake of compatibility the i5 is still safer)

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

In more modern games it seems to favor more cores/treads!

 

Something seems fishy about that benchmark, and look at that resolution!

[Prysin]

Something seems fishy about that benchmark, and look at that resolution!

that resolution means its 100% CPU bound.

 

a 980TI would NEVER struggle at 720p. no matter what. Its impossible for a 980TI to struggle at 720p.

So those numbers are ACTUAL CPU PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

 

 

in Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Battlefront "3"...FX performs very well, because the games themselves uses 6-8 cores/threads.

 

in say WoW, FX would get wrecked by ANY intel CPU, as WoW uses primarily 2 cores/threads, with the ability to use a third core/thread, however a Blizzard Dev himself has stated "that third core/thread wont really help you performance wise"...

[Nena Trinity]

that resolution means its 100% CPU bound.

 

a 980TI would NEVER struggle at 720p. no matter what. Its impossible for a 980TI to struggle at 720p.

So those numbers are ACTUAL CPU PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

 

 

in Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Battlefront "3"...FX performs very well, because the games themselves uses 6-8 cores/threads.

 

in say WoW, FX would get wrecked by ANY intel CPU, as WoW uses primarily 2 cores/threads, with the ability to use a third core/thread, however a Blizzard Dev himself has stated "that third core/thread wont really help you performance wise"...

World of Warcraft ran fine on my FX never went below 60 FPS while I tried it on my free user but it only reached level 20 is there somewhere over there I can expect CPU overloads?

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

that resolution means its 100% CPU bound.

 

a 980TI would NEVER struggle at 720p. no matter what. Its impossible for a 980TI to struggle at 720p.

So those numbers are ACTUAL CPU PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

 

 

in Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Battlefront "3"...FX performs very well, because the games themselves uses 6-8 cores/threads.

 

in say WoW, FX would get wrecked by ANY intel CPU, as WoW uses primarily 2 cores/threads, with the ability to use a third core/thread, however a Blizzard Dev himself has stated "that third core/thread wont really help you performance wise"...

 

Here is a reputable benchmark.

 

 

[Nena Trinity]

Here is a reputable benchmark.

((photos))

Two major issues with it...

1. What GPU?

2. Still much GPU bound over CPU...

3. Russian > English... (( If you disagree you are a Russophobe! >:c ))

[Prysin]

Here is a reputable benchmark.

 

 

and well, if you watch their youtube videos, you realize that they admitt to having some GPU bottlenecking. meaning they played the game at "too high res" to eliminate GPU bottleneck

 

you see. a CPU DOES NOT IMPACT RESOLUTION. however if GPU cannot pull all the load, there may or may not be CPU overhead. the only way to ensure there is never a GPU bottleneck, when testing CPUs, is to make sure the game is running at a resolution where the GPU CAN NOT STRUGGLE.

 

480p, 720p.... a 980Ti will not struggle there.

1080p -> yes, it will eventually

1440p -> yes it WILL.

 

that "reputable" benchmark you posted, is only reputable because it backs up your own agenda. This test is NOT proving CPU power. it is proving CPU + GPU power. which is NOT the same. If any graphics setting in the game, when the game is maxed out, can cause ANY reduction in FPS. Then whatever performance numbers you got, is NOT valid as a CPU benchmark.

 

FX 6300 + R9 380... a much much much weaker setup then "Game Nexus"... yet, somehow... 60FPS max... whilst the minimums are much less impressive.

 

 

 

Intel Core i5 4460 + GTX 960

 

 

 

Intel Core i5 4460 vs 4690k + R9 380 (to keep things fair, as the R9 380 is a bit stronger then the 960)

https://youtu.be/t7wBle5AbhI?t=269

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

and well, if you watch their youtube videos, you realize that they admitt to having some GPU bottlenecking. meaning they played the game at "too high res" to eliminate GPU bottleneck

 

you see. a CPU DOES NOT IMPACT RESOLUTION. however if GPU cannot pull all the load, there may or may not be CPU overhead. the only way to ensure there is never a GPU bottleneck, when testing CPUs, is to make sure the game is running at a resolution where the GPU CAN NOT STRUGGLE.

 

480p, 720p.... a 980Ti will not struggle there.

1080p -> yes, it will eventually

1440p -> yes it WILL.

 

that "reputable" benchmark you posted, is only reputable because it backs up your own agenda. This test is NOT proving CPU power. it is proving CPU + GPU power. which is NOT the same. If any graphics setting in the game, when the game is maxed out, can cause ANY reduction in FPS. Then whatever performance numbers you got, is NOT valid as a CPU benchmark.

 

FX 6300 + R9 380... a much much much weaker setup then "Game Nexus"... yet, somehow... 60FPS max... whilst the minimums are much less impressive.

 

 

 

Intel Core i5 4460 + GTX 960

 

 

You seem slightly confused, but since I am an owner of an 8320 + two GTX 760s; I will perform my own benchmark on multiple resolutions to disprove this then explain later how it actually works.

 

Note: I'm not disproving the lower resolution CPU bottleneck, but the FX series vs an i5 at a lower resolution.

[Prysin]

@Reece Leu

 

enjoy... now please do go find some better cherry picked results. will you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following video is not really a CPU benchmark, but does show the difference between a system setup with a i3 and a FX 6300

 

[Prysin]

You seem slightly confused, but since I am an owner of an 8320 + two GTX 760s; I will perform my own benchmark on multiple resolutions to disprove this then explain later how it actually works.

 

Note: I'm not disproving the lower resolution CPU bottleneck, but the FX series vs an i5 at a lower resolution.

i used to own a FX 8320 mate... Sabertooth R.2 board, 16GB Kingston DDR3 1866MHz with 2x HD 7950s in CF.... i ran that setup for 3 years before buying an i7 4790k....

 

 

 

here is some more:

 

 

 

 

you see, the fallacy of your "theory" is that "FX is shit no matter what".

it is not..

 

Take video rendering, which uses ALL 8 cores/threads of the FX. no pre-skylake i5 will beat a 8350 at rendering. 2500k, 3500k, 4690k... doesnt matter, unless you OC, you WONT beat a FX 8350 in rendering.

But why is this? because it uses MORE cores... they are weaker but all pull a decent load. So they do more, at the same time. So while Intels core may be working faster, they have a limit...

Some games uses more cores better. among them is:

Crysis 3 (8 cores/threads) -> Crytek Engine (game is poorly optimized, so intel generally wins)

Battlefield 3 (4 cores/threads) -> Frostbite 3 (game optimizations holding FX back. cores are simply too weak)

Battlefield 4 (8 cores/threads) -> Frostbite 3

GTA V (6 cores/threads?)

Fallout 4 (8 cores/threads)

Witcher 3 (8 cores/threads)

Far Cry 4 (6 cores/threads?)

Battlefront "3" (8+ cores/threads) -> Frostbite 3

Tomb Raider 2013 (4 cores/threads)

 

in these games, FX will never win:

99.9% of ALL Games made before 2011

 

there is no doubt intel has better CPUs, core vs core.

however this does not mean AMD cannot "fight back" when the conditions are right...

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

@Reece Leu

 

enjoy... now please do go find some better cherry picked results. will you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following video is not really a CPU benchmark, but does show the difference between a system setup with a i3 and a FX 6300

 

 

I like how the intel line-up still beat the FX series in the end in basically every video you have posted. Not to mention a few of the AMD CPUs were overclocked. I never said the FX series was "shit", yet I stated the i5 series will always kill the FX series; which it has done. Did I mention anything about price/performance? No. Look at the amount of limitations the FX series has compared to the intel series overall.

 

I don't understand why you're becoming so angry.

[Morgan MLGman]

Something seems fishy about that benchmark, and look at that resolution!

You clearly have NO IDEA how checking CPU performance in games should look like. The smaller resolution, the higher impact on the CPU the game has.

Your knowledge is fishy.

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

You clearly have NO IDEA how checking CPU performance in games should look like. The smaller resolution, the higher impact on the CPU the game has.

Your knowledge is fishy.

 

No I completely do understand how it works. I didn't say the benchmark was fishy due to the resolution; not sure where you're getting that from. It's also a lot more that a static "HIGHER RESOLUTION = CPU IMPACT".