i5 3570K vs FX-8350 Showdown Part 1 - 1080p & no AA

[vrb747]

Wish Logan would get those productivity benchmarks done and post the video he has promised for the last few months.

[prankstare]

Okay people. Everybody is quite aware Intel processors are often more efficient per thread/core than AMD, but let's get realistic here; when you are gaming, you probably have more than a few other processes/programs going on simultaneously in the background taking up resources from the CPU (could be antivirus, firewall, messenger, download manager app, torrents, many-tabbed browser, etc). Now I am not necessarily saying the FX-8350 will beat the i5 3570k in all situations, but maybe CPU benchmarks like this should be more carefully analysed in terms of what "synthetic" and "real-world" usage performance should be like. With all those other processes going on there will be performance penalty, no doubt about it, but I am not one who is freaking dying for say a 5-10FPS difference if game itself is already being rendered perfectly @60FPS (I will most definitely turn on Vsync in this case if system can handle it). From a gaming perspective, you're better off with lower framerate dips than higher averages.

 

Plus I think we are being kind of "unfair" to AMD products overall I mean, of course Intel is clearly better at manufacturing processes and stuff but AMD is not that far behind. For one thing, AMD's hexa-octacore processors could be just as fast (if not faster) if game/software developers would give the right attention to things like multicore and multitasking performance rather than just single-threaded sheer speed (this is completely non-sense since we, as well as computers I'd say lol, do more than just one task at a time nowadays). You cannot deny the fact that the future of computing technology is all about parallel processing (APU's and SoC's) and heavy multitasking, and for this sole reason I think AMD has a little bit of an edge -- although the FX8350 might be "slower" than all i7's in general terms, it is certainly more future-proof.

[DeViLzzz]

I got the FX-6300 cheap and it performs extremely well so I don't need either of these.

[LAwLz]

This is a common misconception , the FX 8350 actually runs cooler than the 3570K not hotter. The 3570K runs especially hotter than the AMD 8 core and the 2500K because of it's larger GPU die size.

That does not really many any sense since the GPU will be completely turned off if you use a dedicated GPU. Can you please post a few links that proves that the AMD CPU runs cooler?

It's worth noting that AMD chips often show quite a bit lower temperature than the chip is really running at, resulting in a lot of users reporting idle temps BELOW ambient. For example

[ALXAndy]

That does not really many any sense since the GPU will be completely turned off if you use a dedicated GPU. Can you please post a few links that proves that the AMD CPU runs cooler?

It's worth noting that AMD chips often show quite a bit lower temperature than the chip is really running at, resulting in a lot of users reporting idle temps BELOW ambient. For example

 

It runs cooler. I have a 8320 and it has a TJmax of 68c at which point it will throttle. Idle temps are 14-16c depending on which core.

 

I also have a Xeon E3 1220 (Sandybridge) and its TJmax is over 90c. My Xeon does not have a GPU on it.

 

I have used lots of AMD CPUs over the years and they are much cooler than the Intel counterparts. They tap out much earlier. IE - my Phenom 2 940 used to BSOD at 47c no matter what voltage or clocks you gave it. Kept under 47c ? (on a Noctua D-14) I could get to to 3900mhz completely stable in LinX.

[hadesjoy]

[/url=http://i.imgur.com/HMFzurK.png]

Sorry, couldn't resist :(

Wow...what happened to natoftw...used to be a member before he accused Linus of taking pay offs from Intel.....lol

[hadesjoy]

The 660Ti is popular if your on a budget. The test clearly shows an "average gamers" build. Both the Intel and AMD are similarly price. Why would you use a Titan for a average gamers build? Make no sense. 

Thats ok...just re-run the tests using the 7990 and the Titan...

[T345]

I agree with Techfan@ic as well. The 8320 is a lot cheaper than the 3570K and it can often be overclocked just as much as a 8350.. The price difference between the 3570K and the 8320 is 25% where I live. Combined with the fact that quality AM3+ boards are much cheaper than quality LGA1155 boards (€152 vs €209 for the ASUS Sabertooth, €154 vs €208 for the Gigabyte UD5, and many others) and that the most modern games don't really show a noticeable difference, it seems like a clear win for AMD. The extra power consumption by the 8320/50 is negligible. Logan showed that you'd need to have your pc a full load for something like 3 years to break even with a 3570K, or something along those lines. The only downside with AMD stuff is that board choice is limited (no really good MicroATX or ITX boards) and small stuff like that. Also the choice of GPU is weird. A GTX660TI is not a high end card in my eyes. Re run it with at least a 7970/680 to eliminate GPU bottleneck because that's what has seemed to create the similar results with Crysis 3 and some other stuff

The 8320 is £70 cheaper than the 4670k in the UK

[Alex Dimitri]

Synthetic benchmarks are not the best tool to see real CPU value, likewise games (good code ones) generally relly much more on GPU......so any review we get we should take with a grain of salt !

I use i5 2500k and i am very pleased with it, it`s great CPU and many charts show how Haswell is much better but in a REAL world scenario and everyday tasks you cannot make a difference between the two !

Same goes for AMD FX 8350, it`s not the greatest CPU ever but is far from what people want to show him for.

 

My good friend made new rig with this CPU and FX990 board, now not only that it was much cheaper combo but performance of this rig is trully awesome, everything works nicely video editing,photoshop,games......

Sure Intel CPU`s are lower TDP made in smaller process but at the end of the day they are just a fraction faster (couple of seconds, or couple of frames) nothing really visible for normal usage, but this all comes at not such a tiny price difference !!!

 

It all boils to this, they do same thing for different price, check your budget and make purchase, either way you can`t go wrong !!!

[LAwLz]

It runs cooler. I have a 8320 and it has a TJmax of 68c at which point it will throttle. Idle temps are 14-16c depending on which core.

 

I also have a Xeon E3 1220 (Sandybridge) and its TJmax is over 90c. My Xeon does not have a GPU on it.

 

I have used lots of AMD CPUs over the years and they are much cooler than the Intel counterparts. They tap out much earlier. IE - my Phenom 2 940 used to BSOD at 47c no matter what voltage or clocks you gave it. Kept under 47c ? (on a Noctua D-14) I could get to to 3900mhz completely stable in LinX.

No, your CPU does not idle at 14 degrees... Either the sensor is wrong, you are lying, or you're living in a freezer (since normal ambient is about 20 degrees). TJmax does not indicate how hot they get by the way, just how much they can handle (and no it's not an indicator of when they will throttle).

Also, just because AMD processors gets stability issues (in your case) faster than Intel does not mean they will run cooler. It just means that they might throttle faster to keep them below the temperature they become unstable at.

Throttling fast != runs cool.

[dukin29]

here is my 2 cents  the fx 8350 at stock 4.0 ghz at stock runes at  35c- 40c idel  ok warm  under a load 50c 70c with stock cooler   ok now u have a i5 3570K 3.5 ghz stock yes runs cooler 25c-35c idel 45c 60c load stock cooler

for intel to get to the 4.0ghz clock spead u have to over clock it so u have to upgrade cooler to water  and have 35c-40c idel 50c-70c load so what over clockers u scream heat with and look at you heat with intel wile over clock  hot just as much as amd at stock and stock cooler