FX-8350 or I5 4670K

[warmmilk]

The i7 4770K is anywhere from 5-10% faster than the 3770K.

Rendering performance :

 

The 8350 is equal or even slightly faster than the i7 3770K and costs 100$ less, 4770K is roughly 5-8% faster than the 8350 but costs 68% more.

 

your original post stated the 8350 was "much better".  thats what I took issue with

 

and for the record, the vid in post 29 had the i5 come out on top in similar tests as you posted.  and in gaming they were either equal or the i5 was better.  basically I agree with the guy from the vid.  if you're on a budget, the 8350/20 is a great value, but if you can afford it, the i5 and i7 (talking current gen, so haswell) is better.  the OP had a simple question, whats better for gaming between the 2.  and the answer is the i5.

[Faa]

Honnestly i saw alot of his movies, and alot turned out to be just bullshit.

 

GTX780 lightning will probably draw arround 300W / 325W max.

The Lighning has 2x8 pin power connector, this means, 300W of power + 75W from the pci-e slot, would make a maximum total of 375W, but the card will never maxout that. Otherwise it wouldn't be safe to use.

That 780 would most likely run at 70-80% tdp in the games he tested so that would make a load of ~200W. Anyways he measured whats being pulled from the wall, not whats going to your components. With a cheap Antec eartwatts 650W you're not going to have proper efficiency so the actual power consumption would be around who knows 400W orsomething. Also don't ever forget the efficiency of the vrm.

[MilkyWhite]

qoute

Again, you can disagree just fine but calling other people's efforts laughable and labeling their results as "lies" purely because you happen to disagree is simply invalid.

All I took from your quote was utter baseless ridicule to any person, source or website that contradicts your extremely skewed views of the CPU market.

I have no intent to initiate a discussion with anyone who's so ill-minded as to completely drown the voices of others only to hear theirs.

 

your original post stated the 8350 was "much better".  thats what I took issue with

 

and for the record, the vid in post 29 had the i5 come out on top in similar tests as you posted.  and in gaming they were either equal or the i5 was better.  basically I agree with the guy from the vid.  if you're on a budget, the 8350/20 is a great value, but if you can afford it, the i5 and i7 (talking current gen, so haswell) is better.  the OP had a simple question, whats better for gaming between the 2.  and the answer is the i5.

The 8350 consistently outpaced the 3770K and distinctly outran the 3570K. The 4670K is not as fast as 3770K which clearly makes the 8350 & 8320 better processors for your money.

They're less expensive and more powerful.

There is no doubt that you will face games that can't take advantage of all eight threads but that trend is at its end.

Games are becoming extraordinarily more complex and developers keep adding more elements not only with each new engine iteration but with each new game, simply relying on the 10% improvements every 15 months is not viable anymore, the use of more cores is the only way to go as is evident by the PS4's and XBOXONE's eight core CPUs.

Game designers will get used to making games on eight CPU cores, it will become their new template and each new game will based on that same template.

[warmmilk]

In the last few "next gen" games the 8350 is faster, even though it's only running at 65% load.

 

The 8350 is a native octa core, similar to the one in the PS4 & XBOX ONE.

So as more games come out the better the 8350 will perform because developers will go crazy optimizing their code for eight cores since all platforms now have 8 core CPUs, PC, PS4 & XBONE.

If you have an intel processor you will lose out on most of these optimizations.

Because of two reasons, the first is that the Intel CPUs typically perform better because applications including games are coded using Intel's compilers which are extremely biased and literally feeds poisonous code into "AuthenticAMD" CPUs and only feeds proper code to "GenuineIntel" processors.

http://linustechtips...d-cpus-surface/

Developers will be forced to give up these dirty compilers to get the performance that they want.

The second reason is that AMD processors in the consoles and on the desktop have AMD specific instruction sets which Intel have not implemented in any of their processors because of pride like the AMD-V and XOP instruction sets.

The 8350 is also 30-40% faster than the i5 in productivity, editing, compression & decompression, encoding and streaming.

 

so 2 fps better for the 4670k and 6 fps better for the 2500k in 2 games, but the i5 gets better performance (sometimes but the same small margin, sometimes but a big margin) in most other games.  to me the i5 is still the better cpu

 

personally I'm an i7 kinda guy, and thats better in BF4 (which I don't play) and considering the 2600k is only 4 fps off, and haswell is 20% better IPC than sandy, its prolly a hair better in crysis 3 also (although I don't have crysis either)

[warmmilk]

The 8350 consistently outpaced the 3770K and distinctly outran the 3570K. The 4670K is not as fast as 3770K which clearly makes the 8350 & 8320 better processors for your money.

They're less expensive and more powerful.

There is no doubt that you will face games that can't take advantage of all eight threads but that trend is at its end.

Games are becoming extraordinarily more complex and developers keep adding more elements not only with each new engine iteration but with each new game, simply relying on the 10% improvements every 15 months is not viable anymore, the use of more cores is the only way to go as is evident by the PS4's and XBOXONE's eight core CPUs.

Game designers will get used to making games on eight CPU cores, it will become their new template and each new game will based on that same template.

 

again, bang for the buck/budget build, yes, goes to the 8350.  but the OP was asking for gaming.  not bang for the buck/budget gaming, just which is better for gaming.

 

and for the record, the 3770 was better in most of the toms hardware graphs you posted.  but non of the results showed either cpu being "much better".  all the results are close

[MetroP]

again, bang for the buck, yes, goes to the 8350.  but the OP was asking for gaming.  not bang for the buck gaming, just which is better for gaming.

 

and for the record, the 3770 was better in most of the toms hardware graphs you posted.  but non of the results showed either cpu being "much better".  all the results are close

Haswell is not 20% faster than Sandy, not even close.

The big difference you see in the benchmarks is mainly due to the auto overclocking that almost all Z87 motherboards do called multi-core enhancement , which forces the 4770K to operate at maximum turbo clocks which are supposed to only apply to a single core on all cores.

So in most benchmarks you see the 4770K actually running at 3.9Ghz while the 2600K only running at 3.5Ghz.

Officially Haswell is only 6% faster than Ivy Bridge which in turn was only 4% faster than Sandy Bridge.

 

Haswell ompared to Ivy Bridge:

Up to 6% faster single-threaded performance.

Ivy Bridge ompared to Sandy Bridge:

3% to 6% increase in CPU performance when compared clock for clock

[Faa]

 

In the last few "next gen" games the 8350 is faster, even though it's only running at 65% load.

 

And its hitting its limit.. And the cpu load numbers are complety not making sense. Use some logic before you believe a graph. And they're not faster at all; a 9590 is 50% slower than an i5 in Crysis 3 which is atm the only game thats taking advantage of 8 cores -> They're not. Crysis 3 is atm the only game thats taking advantage of 8 cores and the i5 outperforms the 9590 by atleast 50% -> http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5135/26/amd-fx-9590-and-fx-9370-review-amds-return-to-the-high-end-market-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-medium
 

The 8350 is a native octa core, similar to the one in the PS4 & XBOX ONE.

 

Which would translate to Intels architecture a quadcore.. It's not a fully native octacore, the 3930K (2cores lasercut) or the xeons are. 
 

So as more games come out the better the 8350 will perform because developers will go crazy optimizing their code for eight cores since all platforms now have 8 core CPUs, PC, PS4 & XBONE.

We've seen plenty of games lately being ported from the consoles but only one was properly multithreaded and thats BF4 that only takes advantage of max 6 cores. Thief, Titanfall, AC4 whatever you seen are anything except taking advantage of more than 4 cores.

 

If you have an intel processor you will lose out on most of these optimizations.

 

Joke of the year?
 

Because of two reasons, the first is that the Intel CPUs typically perform better because applications including games are coded using Intel's compilers which are extremely biased and literally feeds poisonous code into "AuthenticAMD" CPUs and only feeds proper code to "GenuineIntel" processors.

Which you definitely pulled from the Teksyndicate video who misread that article and there has been a court but there was complety no evidence that Intel did that. Intels compiler works even better on AMD's cpu than their own compilers. Cinebench is just a benchmark based of their 3D programs and theyre not going to "nerf" amds performance at all, that would cost them a lot.

 

The second reason is that AMD processors in the consoles and on the desktop have AMD specific instruction sets which Intel have not implemented in any of their processors because of pride like the AMD-V and XOP instruction sets.

AMD-V is just a virtualization thing for Virtual machines. Intel supports a lot of virtualizations things as well like VT-x/VT-D and so on. XOP is mainly about integer calcs, which is useless for gaming since its mostly about FP cals.

 

The 8350 is also 30-40% faster than the i5 in productivity, editing, compression & decompression, encoding and streaming.

 

That 8350 is hardly able to handle an MMO, if you're going to stream a slideshow have fun. An i5 is much faster without Quicksync and with Quicksync the difference is huge.

 

Haswell is not 20% faster than Sandy, not even close.

Then you're wrong. Haswell has up to 40% IPC -> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/05/Test-Haswell-4770K-4670K-4570-SC2-HotS-v2.png

Who ever wrote that on wiki, he pulled his conclusions from cpu benchmarks which you cant compare with performance in games.

[The Doctor]

Which is faster?

4670K

Which is a better value?

8350

What performs nearly as good as the 8350 but has a value advantage over both?

8320

What should you buy?

8320 or 4670K

[warmmilk]

Haswell is not 20% faster than Sandy, not even close.

The big difference you see in the benchmarks is mainly due to the auto overclocking that almost all Z87 motherboards do called multi-core enhancement , which forces the 4770K to operate at maximum turbo clocks which are supposed to only apply to a single core on all cores.

So in most benchmarks you see the 4770K actually running at 3.9Ghz while the 2600K only running at 3.5Ghz.

Officially Haswell is only 6% faster than Ivy Bridge which in turn was only 4% faster than Sandy Bridge.

 

ok, lets just go with the 6% number, the difference in fps at that point will be within margin of error (it already as just as the graphs show IMHO) in those 2 specific games, while being a little faster in most other games, and even much faster a some heavy cpu games.

[NewHopeTech]

Lots of things are becoming multithreaded. I have an 8350 and I have exactly zero bad things to say about it. I love it. I have no experince with the 4670k so I can't help you there.

[deathjester]

In the last few "next gen" games the 8350 is faster, even though it's only running at 65% load.

 

 

 

The 8350 is a native octa core, similar to the one in the PS4 & XBOX ONE.

So as more games come out the better the 8350 will perform because developers will go crazy optimizing their code for eight cores since all platforms now have 8 core CPUs, PC, PS4 & XBONE.

If you have an intel processor you will lose out on most of these optimizations.

Because of two reasons, the first is that the Intel CPUs typically perform better because applications including games are coded using Intel's compilers which are extremely biased and literally feeds poisonous code into "AuthenticAMD" CPUs and only feeds proper code to "GenuineIntel" processors.

http://linustechtips...d-cpus-surface/

Developers will be forced to give up these dirty compilers to get the performance that they want.

The second reason is that AMD processors in the consoles and on the desktop have AMD specific instruction sets which Intel have not implemented in any of their processors because of pride like the AMD-V and XOP instruction sets.

The 8350 is also 30-40% faster than the i5 in productivity, editing, compression & decompression, encoding and streaming.

 

Too bad anyone with an I7 can tell you that graph is BS. The difference is like 1-2 FPS with hyperthreading off on my I5.

 

RussianGPU is an astroturfing site. Those benchmarks are fantasy. Want to know where the I5 is? 2 fps below the I7. It performed like a 5ghz 8350 BEFORE Mantle, while at 3.4ghz. That is why they made Mantle...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

 

Hmm you think there might be Astroturfing on Tech sites, when the college professors will tell you many of these people are fakes? Do you wonder why they link the same dumb fallacious benchmarks over and over? They are either naive or astroturfers.

 

I have an I7. I have benchmarked it in cinebench threads here that I linked, where I pointed out that the AMD gets throttled even in rendering. I have never recommended an I7 for gaming. Why? Because the I5 is fantastic for GAMING. Almost all of the legit techs on this site ALWAYS recommend the I5 and a bigger GPU. We aren't lying to you. If we worked for, or were astroturfing for Intel, we would be telling you to buy the I7 which costs way more. 

 

The 8350 is not faster then an I5 in any game. If it is? The game is not cpu bound and you are seeing a variance on a gpu benchmark which could happen on any cpu. Single player FPS "benchmarks" on a scene where nothing is going on is a GPU benchmark. Tek Syndicate ran multiple GPU benchmarks.

 

Go to any game forum like Guild Wars 2, Rust, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Arma, Rome Total War etc and you will see people complaining about their AMD performance. The less cores used the worse they perform.

 

Let me sum this up.

 

You will never have a game where you wished you had bought another CPU with an I5. The AMD will at best equal the I5. 

 

You will run into MANY multiplayer games where the AMD can get up to half the FPS of the I5.

 

Now which one would you rather have for gaming?

 

If you want to render AND game AND stream? Get an I7. They cost a lot. I recommend trying to price match Microcenter as everywhere else they are stupidly expensive. IF you play single player games only and render more? 8320 is a great value. Multiplayer? I would not touch AMD.

[Dim]

It astounds me that no one has posted any of the three extremely in-depth benchmarks Linus did, detailing the difference between the FX 8350 and the i5 3570K in several areas.

 

Sure, that is the 3570K, but what we know for a fact is that the 4670K is faster (generally by ~5-10%) than the 3570K.

 

Linus' three-part series can be found here, here, and here.

[Faa]

It astounds me that no one has posted any of the three extremely in-depth benchmarks Linus did, detailing the difference between the FX 8350 and the i5 3570K in several areas.

 

Sure, that is the 3570K, but what we know for a fact is that the 4670K is faster (generally by ~5-10%) than the 3570K.

 

Linus' three-part series can be found here, here, and here.

Linus his benchmarks were pretty much basic, gpu bound scenario's dont say anything else than "it plays the game fine like any other"

[Dim]

Linus his benchmarks were pretty much basic, gpu bound scenario's dont say anything else than "it plays the game fine like any other"

 

If you don't use a GPU-based scenario, you aren't looking at the situation realistically. Benchmarks are great as a general rule, and we can see that clearly the 4670K is superior per thread versus the FX-8350; no one is disputing that. However, the FX-8350, and the FX-8320 also, are very legitimate choices for gaming platforms in a situation where the difference between the two is only going to be a few frames.

 

You will find this situation often. The fact remains that at a budget level, you really aren't missing out on much at all when going with the FX-8350. At a performance level, yes you are going to find that the 4670K performs better in most scenarios, however not by much. Further to this, the difference between them can be so negligible that going one or the other is irrelevant.

 

I don't know of any game that would see a tangible real-world difference between the 8350 and the 4670K that isn't a "GPU-bound scenario".

[Dim]

I have a 3960X and I am a huge Intel advocate. Here are the facts: in almost any game, you will not see a huge bottleneck by either the 4670K or the 8350.

 

If you want a bang-for-buck chip, the FX-8320 is indisputably one of the best.

If you want a high-performance per-thread quad-core chip, the 4670K is the way to go.

If you want a high-performance per-thread hexa-core chip, pick yourself up a 4930K.

 

Where I live, in Australia, the difference in price between the FX-8320 and the 4670K is about $100 (about 35% cost). This price difference can be the difference between two graphics cards, and I can guarantee you that an 8320 with a $100 more expensive graphics card will beat out a 4670K.

 

It just depends on where your priorities are.

[warmmilk]

If you don't use a GPU-based scenario, you aren't looking at the situation realistically. Benchmarks are great as a general rule, and we can see that clearly the 4670K is superior per thread versus the FX-8350; no one is disputing that. However, the FX-8350, and the FX-8320 also, are very legitimate choices for gaming platforms in a situation where the difference between the two is only going to be a few frames.

 

You will find this situation often. The fact remains that at a budget level, you really aren't missing out on much at all when going with the FX-8350. At a performance level, yes you are going to find that the 4670K performs better in most scenarios, however not by much. Further to this, the difference between them can be so negligible that going one or the other is irrelevant.

 

I don't know of any game that would see a tangible real-world difference between the 8350 and the 4670K that isn't a "GPU-bound scenario".

 

nobody said gaming doesnt work or is a bad experience with the amd choice.  the original question was which is better? and in most games the i5 is better

[Dim]

nobody said gaming doesnt work or is a bad experience with the amd choice.  the original question was which is better? and in most games the i5 is better

 

I agree, in most games the i5 is better. But to what degree?

 

If I had to recommend an i5, I would say a 4440 - but then you're losing out on the potential to overclock your CPU (which is something I personally value highly). Whether or not the OP cares about overclocking is another story.

At the initial question - for gaming only - I would recommend the 8320 over the 4670K purely to save money. He's only gaming, so the only benchmarks that are even logical to display are gaming benchmarks, in which the difference between the two is (while in the 4670K favour) not large enough to warrant a $100 premium.

[Priller]

One the always keep in mind is that unless you compare systems that are very similar then getting a true test is not possible.

 

I have seen benchmarks that use different ram speeds and timings, different rated power supplies, and even tested games after several patches have been done.

 

Why does that matter? 

 

In order to remove the variations in memory performance then I believe the same exact kit of ram should be used between both systems. Comparing power draw between two different systems where one uses an 80+Gold and the other an 80+Silver doesnt give you an accurate picture since one PSU will have to pull more current from the socket to feed the same power. 

 

As with BF4 a simple patch can raise frame rates as does drivers. 

 

So any benchmark that you may see needs to be put into context on when it was done and with what supporting hardware to compare the differences. I would be willing to bet that after the latest BF4 patch all prior results and benchmarks are now null and void.

[warmmilk]

I agree, in most games the i5 is better. But to what degree?

 

If I had to recommend an i5, I would say a 4440 - but then you're losing out on the potential to overclock your CPU (which is something I personally value highly). Whether or not the OP cares about overclocking is another story.

At the initial question - for gaming only - I would recommend the 8320 over the 4670K purely to save money. He's only gaming, so the only benchmarks that are even logical to display are gaming benchmarks, in which the difference between the two is (while in the 4670K favour) not large enough to warrant a $100 premium.

 

I answered the question the way it was asked, he never came back to this thread to elaborate.

 

if you watch the vid in post 29, some online multiplayer games the cpu made quite a significant difference. and even in single player games while average fps was close, min fps was pretty consistantly a decent amount higher with the i5.  and thats more important than average fps imho.

 

another thing to consider is the graphics card its paired with.  personally I wouldn't use an amd cpu with a 770/280 card or better.  however, if getting an 8320 instead of an i5 will allow to step up to the next tier of graphics card (eg.from a 760 to a 770), then thats obviously the better choice.

[warmmilk]

One the always keep in mind is that unless you compare systems that are very similar then getting a true test is not possible.

 

I have seen benchmarks that use different ram speeds and timings, different rated power supplies, and even tested games after several patches have been done.

 

Why does that matter? 

 

In order to remove the variations in memory performance then I believe the same exact kit of ram should be used between both systems. Comparing power draw between two different systems where one uses an 80+Gold and the other an 80+Silver doesnt give you an accurate picture since one PSU will have to pull more current from the socket to feed the same power. 

 

As with BF4 a simple patch can raise frame rates as does drivers. 

 

So any benchmark that you may see needs to be put into context on when it was done and with what supporting hardware to compare the differences. I would be willing to bet that after the latest BF4 patch all prior results and benchmarks are now null and void.

 

everything you said is valid.  but overall majority of games will perform better with an i5 than an 8350 all else being equal.

[Dim]

another thing to consider is the graphics card its paired with.  personally I wouldn't use an amd cpu with a 770/280 card or better.  however, if getting an 8320 instead of an i5 will allow to step up to the next tier of graphics card (eg.from a 760 to a 770), then thats obviously the better choice.

 

I agree; it's hard to add $100 onto a 770 to get anything much better. There's a D CU II Asus R9 290 for ~420 euros, so I would probably get that with an FX-8320. But that's more like $150-160 difference, unfortunately.

[Lord Pantaloons]

i5, reason being is that you need a good board to get a decent OC with an 8320/8350 while you can easily get 4.5Ghz with pretty much any Z87 board.

 

 

Intel beats AMD, there's no arguing unless you're on a budget that only allows around $120 for a CPU

[NJM1112]

Go to this link:

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

 

They are quite accurate for their details.

except it's not, and they show synthetic benchmarks. those mean very little for gaming. It may perform better on paper but only actual in-game tests are relevant.

[Sintezza]

Like i said earlier, in todays games it realy does not matter much if you go AMD or intel.

Games will just perform realy well on both cpu´s, there is not much of a diffrence anymore.

"older games" or games with a realy bad optimized gaming engine for multiple core usage, like ARMA DayZ lol. Thease games just have a realy bad codded gaming engine, This games in particular favour intels per core performance, thats just a fact. But this does not mean that AMD is bad, because its not the cpu which is bad, its just the software "game" which is bad optimized for multiple core ussage. Both intel an AMD suffer this, bottleneck, but since the per core performance of intel is better, you won't notice it as much, as on the AMD. But you would get the same bottleneck if you would use an i7 in thease games basicly..cause it will perform just as fast as an i3..

 

If i look at todays games, like skyrim, BF4, tombraider, bathman, bioshock, Crysis 3, COD Ghosts, etc etc.. all thease games perform realy well on both intel or amd cpu´s, there isn´t realy much of a diffrence anymore.

 

Also i not gonne make statements about which cpu is better, because like i said  ""todays newest games"" perform realy well on both cpu´s.

[Faa]

 

If you don't use a GPU-based scenario, you aren't looking at the situation realistically. Benchmarks are great as a general rule, and we can see that clearly the 4670K is superior per thread versus the FX-8350; no one is disputing that. However, the FX-8350, and the FX-8320 also, are very legitimate choices for gaming platforms in a situation where the difference between the two is only going to be a few frames.

GPU based scenario's are anything except showing the difference between those cpu's so I'm not seeing the reason why they are comparing cpu's or are you going to say that benchmarking a 290x vs 780ti with a pentium 3 is realistic? Theyre definitely not telling anything of the cpu bound games so theyre irrelevant. I can do those reviews as well, run some Furmark on every cpu and post 50 fps for each of them.

Google some Crysis 3 benchmarks you see all cpu's performing exactly the same, a complete gpu bound scenario but they don't cover the cpu bottleneck that starts to kick in when you're using 2 or 3 high-end graphics cards so it's far from being realistic -> youtube.com/watch?v=_hcuYiqib9I 2 GPU's 99% both easily with a 3rd you easily see the 3770K@4.8GHz bottlenecking in Crysis 3 as you see his gpu loads 70/70/70%.
 

 

Where I live, in Australia, the difference in price between the FX-8320 and the 4670K is about $100 (about 35% cost). This price difference can be the difference between two graphics cards, and I can guarantee you that an 8320 with a $100 more expensive graphics card will beat out a 4670K.

There are plenty of games that cant even maximize a gtx 650 because of a massive cpu bottleneck, if you would go with amd for such games and spend that 100$ to a better gpu thats a waste. World of warcraft is a perfect example, an i5 + a gtx 650 will outperform a 8320@5GHz with a 660ti orsomething with a 100% performance difference. So no cheaping out on the CPU to buy a better gpu isn't always the best choice.
 

 

So any benchmark that you may see needs to be put into context on when it was done and with what supporting hardware to compare the differences. I would be willing to bet that after the latest BF4 patch all prior results and benchmarks are now null and void.

It's kinda about what gpu they use, with a single 770 there would be zero difference but with 3 780ti's it could turn complety different out but sadly every reviewer is retarded. The GPU the OP would use would be somewhat in the range of a 770 so theres practically zero difference between an i5/8350 and if he wants to get more frames he should get a better gpu or more. For BF4 the difference is minimal, but if we move on to cpu bound games the difference is clear.

And power consumption is bullshit imo, if I would consider power consumption a valid factor then it would be related to heat/noise not about the freaking bills that nobody cares about.