4670k vs amd fx 8350

[Air tree]

So with the upcoming amd cpu optimizations would you rather go with a amd 8350 or a 4670k? for gaming, editing, ect... and what do you have in your build? and do you think that amd cpu's are for more budget pcs only? i would like to hear all of opinions on what you think of amd cpus and if you think amd cpus are only something you should get if you are on a budget.

 

[CoolBeans]

8350 because when editing you will benefit from 8 cores when editing, and it has more or less performance when gaming.

[SSOB]

Gaming only : 8350

Editing , Gaming , etc : 4670K ( Quicksink and other features .)

[M-ursu]

For editing you need 8- cores.

[SSOB]

8350 because when editing you will benefit from 8 cores when editing, and it has more or less performance when gaming.

That is not true many aplications wont utilise all 8 cores , if they do i would love to see some comparisons.

[helping]

While the i5 isn't much more expensive, it destroys the AMD lineup in single threaded tasks, but the 8350 still remains competitive especially in heavily threaded applications.

 

When considering the price difference in the processor, it's important to also factor in the price differences in chipsets. Comparable motherboards that feature 1150 socket tend to be more expensive than AM3 socket.

 

If your budget is larger and can accommodate for the CPU and MB without having to compromise on other hardware, go for Intel.

[CoolBeans]

That is not true many aplications wont utilise all 8 cores , if they do i would love to see some comparisons.

Not all of them but some is what I was trying to say.

[WoodenMarker]

Gaming only : 8350

Editing , Gaming , etc : 4670K ( Quicksink and other features .)

It's a bit less clear cut than this. It depends on what you want to do. For some, quicksync can be awesome for quick encoding but a bit less so for professional work because it's a bit off from production quality.

A decent gpu accelerated solution would be better than quicksync in speed and quality though. Something like a 560 Ti already beats it out by quite a bit. 

 

If your program benefits with more cores, get a 8320/8350. If it benefits from faster, single cores, get the 4670k. 

Either way, get a dedicated gpu for either OpenCL or CUDA to suit your needs.  If it's a budget build only for editing, not going with a dedicated gpu and a 4670k for quick sync may be a plausible but a bit unorthodox way that works.

 

For gaming, both the 8350 and 4670k are great. The i5 should be a bit ahead.

 

What kind of editing programs are you using?

[TERAFLOP]

The same question was asked of the game developers, and they said they'd go with the FX 8350.
So I'd listen to the game devs because they sure as heck know their games better than anyone else.
http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/10522-game-developers-choose-amd-over-intel-for-gaming/

Also, consider getting an FX 8320, it overclocks just as well as the 8350 but it's 40$ cheaper, you can put that into a more powerful graphics card.

[PCBudgetSolutions]

Here is my personal take on the matter.  If I was doing this for myself I would lean towards an I5-4670K.  Reason being is, I am too new to AMD CPU's and their architecture design is kinda meh, and their temperature sensors on their boards are terrible.  However that is what I'd recommend for myself not for you.  The FX-8350 offers a better value, in most games except World of Warcraft, an FX-8350 should be able to perform VERY close to an i5-4670K while offering about 6 full cores of performance.  Meaning tasking and video editing should be a bit smoother.  Add in how much of a better value it is, I would go that route.

[Air tree]

While the i5 isn't much more expensive, it destroys the AMD lineup in single threaded tasks, but the 8350 still remains competitive especially in heavily threaded applications.

 

When considering the price difference in the processor, it's important to also factor in the price differences in chipsets. Comparable motherboards that feature 1150 socket tend to be more expensive than AM3 socket.

 

If your budget is larger and can accommodate for the CPU and MB without having to compromise on other hardware, go for Intel.

My budget is more than enough for intel i was just wondering what you guys thought of the 8350 vs the 4670k.

[serjizzalot]

I have both 4770k and 8350 and if you want to game, there is no reason to decide if you want a 4670 or 8350. they both do the job damn well. as for rendering, intel outperforms AMD. 

[Vitalius]

While the i5 isn't much more expensive, it destroys the AMD lineup in single threaded tasks, but the 8350 still remains competitive especially in heavily threaded applications.

 

When considering the price difference in the processor, it's important to also factor in the price differences in chipsets. Comparable motherboards that feature 1150 socket tend to be more expensive than AM3 socket.

 

If your budget is larger and can accommodate for the CPU and MB without having to compromise on other hardware, go for Intel.

QFT

[serjizzalot]

My budget is more than enough for intel i was just wondering what you guys thought of the 8350 vs the 4670k.

go 4770k

[Air tree]

go 4770k

The editing part was more of just intrest more than anything, i don't really edit too much. my upcoming build is going to be a gaming build for the most part.

[PCBudgetSolutions]

I personally have an I7-2600K and I love it because I task pretty hard core when gaming.

[Terminashunator]

I haven't used an AMD system since my Duron 950. I've been itching to try one out, see if things are different.

However, people who say "you NEED 8 cores" seem so petty and in the mindset "I want things NOW".

An i5 is more power efficient, better single-threaded performance, and puts out less heat, and that is why i chose one over an 8350.

[Vitalius]

An i5 is more power efficient, better single-threaded performance, and puts out less heat, and that is why i chose one over an 8350.

This, basically.

Although the AMD FX CPUs will gain on the 3570k, I do not personally believe they will surpass it simply because the 3570k will gain in performance too. Not as much, but some.

[Kuzma]

This, basically.

Although the AMD FX CPUs will gain on the 3570k, I do not personally believe they will surpass it simply because the 3570k will gain in performance too. Not as much, but some.

Well the 3570k will get a 400% increase of performance, the 8350 will get a 600% performance increase ^_^

[Vitalius]

Well the 3570k will get a 400% increase of performance, the 8350 will get a 600% performance increase ^_^

... In regards to games. And only games. And as I have said, there is only so much a CPU can do imo. Since the GPU is the more intensive piece of hardware for gaming, I think the 3570k and the 8350 would pretty much tie or be different in benchmarks within margin of error. Though the 8350 would be better for streaming, recording, etc due to more Cores. 

In other words, I am saying that neither CPU will be a bottleneck and will only be limited by the GPU now. Rather than how it was in Planetside 2, where the CPU decided the FPS and not the GPU.

[Kuzma]

... In regards to games. And only games. And as I have said, there is only so much a CPU can do imo. Since the GPU is the more intensive piece of hardware for gaming, I think the 3570k and the 8350 would pretty much tie or be different in benchmarks within margin of error. Though the 8350 would be better for streaming, recording, etc due to more Cores. 

In other words, I am saying that neither CPU will be a bottleneck and will only be limited by the GPU now. Rather than how it was in Planetside 2, where the CPU decided the FPS and not the GPU.

xD I know that CPU makes only so much of a difference but I'm just saying that the 3570k will bottleneck before the 8350 will

[Anubikai]

Well the 3570k will get a 400% increase of performance, the 8350 will get a 600% performance increase ^_^

 

so if a game was entirely cpu dependant and its engine got updated would this be the results with 100% scaling?

 

First engine - largely single threaded workload:

 

intel 3570k = 30fps

 

intel 4670k = 33fps

 

amd 8350 = 22 fps

 

second engine - now much more multithreaded/multicore workload:

 

intel 3570k = 120fps

 

intel 4670k = 132fps

 

amd 8350= 132fps

 

they will end up the same possibly.....i dont know if the 4670ks 10% performance improvement over the 3570k would help but with terms of 100% scaling that could be what shows.....im guessing when multithreading is fully implemented the 8350/8320 is gonna be a great cpu price/performance....seems like amd was planning for the future.....it might pay off and margin of error and other bvariables considered the 8350 will be on par if not better than the 3570k/4670k......then its just a question of how high everyone will be able to clock their chips to get the advantage over one another in cpu heavy games.......bf4 online springs to mind, i think i read somewhere bf3 online was quite taxing cpu wise...but until real hard numbers from newer games comes out from respected sites like anandtech or linustech i dont think anyone will care....

 

-Anubikai

[Vitalius]

xD I know that CPU makes only so much of a difference but I'm just saying that the 3570k will bottleneck before the 8350 will

I just personally doubt that. And I do not know why.

I own the 3570k, so I guess I am bias.

 

so if a game was entirely cpu dependant and its engine got updated would this be the results with 100% scaling?

 

First engine - largely single threaded workload:

 

intel 3570k = 30fps

 

intel 4670k = 33fps

 

amd 8350 = 23fps

 

second engine - now much more multithreaded/multicore workload:

 

intel 3570k = 120fps

 

intel 4670k = 132fps

 

amd 8350= 138fps

 

they will end up the same possibly.....i dont know if the 4670ks 10% performance improvement over the 3570k would help but with terms of 100% scaling that could be what shows.....im guessing when multithreading is fully implemented the 8350/8320 is gonna be a great cpu price/performance....seems like amd was planning for the future.....it might pay off. but until real hard numbers from newer games comes out from respected sites like anandtech or linustech i dont think anyone will care....

 

-Anubikai

This.

[Anubikai]

I just personally doubt that. And I do not know why.

I own the 3570k, so I guess I am bias.

 

This.

 

you quoted me in the middle of an edit, well played sir. I now rank you Ninja class for catching me offguard... XD

 

-Anubikai

[YellowDragon]

so if a game was entirely cpu dependant and its engine got updated would this be the results with 100% scaling?

 

First engine - largely single threaded workload:

 

intel 3570k = 30fps

 

intel 4670k = 33fps

 

amd 8350 = 22 fps

 

second engine - now much more multithreaded/multicore workload:

 

intel 3570k = 120fps

 

intel 4670k = 132fps

 

amd 8350= 132fps

 

they will end up the same possibly.....i dont know if the 4670ks 10% performance improvement over the 3570k would help but with terms of 100% scaling that could be what shows.....im guessing when multithreading is fully implemented the 8350/8320 is gonna be a great cpu price/performance....seems like amd was planning for the future.....it might pay off and margin of error and other bvariables considered the 8350 will be on par if not better than the 3570k/4670k......then its just a question of how high everyone will be able to clock their chips to get the advantage over one another in cpu heavy games.......bf4 online springs to mind, i think i read somewhere bf3 online was quite taxing cpu wise...but until real hard numbers from newer games comes out from respected sites like anandtech or linustech i dont think anyone will care....

 

-Anubikai

Most apps nowadays are coded for at least 2 cores, if they are still spinning on one core you have a bigger problem then just a CPU, that's just very poor judgement from developers, there should be no reason why a modern app cant use at least 2 cores.