AMD fx 8350 or a intel 4770k

[obsoleteplumber]

which is better i will be playing games like watch dogs and gta v

and i also will be doing some video editing with sony vegas,

 

i know that the 8350 has 8 cores and intel has 4 but more threads 

i will be gameing most of the time.

 

the graphics card will be a gtx 760 

 

 

my budget is $1500 to $2000 or more depending 

my currency is new zealand dollar 

 

for usd it is $1200 to $1750 usd or more depending

Edited June 11, 2014 by obsoleteplumber

[DoubleY]

If you can afford the extra price of the 4770K, I'd say go for it. It's generally on par or faster than a FX 8350 in terms of gaming. When it comes to rendering it's about 15% faster. 

 

I also personally prefer Intel  

[dragoon20005]

which is better i will be playing games like watch dogs and gta v

and i also will be doing some video editing with sony vegas,

 

i know that the 8350 has 8 cores and intel has 4 but more threads 

i will be gameing most of the time.

 

the graphics card will be a gtx 760 

without knowing your budget

 

i will say neither

 

go for a i5 Core CPU and use the price difference for a better GPU 

 

but that is my opinion 

[Jvagle875]

If you can spring for a 4770k or even a 4790k, go for it. It isn't really in the same price bracket with the 8350 though...  And 8350 is a solid choice though.

[Analog]

This shouldn't even be a question. Between the two the obvious choice is the i7 4770K. And it is much faster than the 8350 in gaming. I would wait for the 4790K though. It's just around the corner. 

 

 

 

Enough said. 

[Recon-UK]

This shouldn't even be a question. Between the two the obvious choice is the i7 4770K. And it is much faster than the 8350 in gaming. I would wait for the 4790K though. It's just around the corner. 

 

 

 

Enough said. 

Do not post Beta benchmarks.

 

If anyone was to beleive this BS chart, then my 2500k would not be doing this framerate:

 

[dragoon20005]

even if he choose the 4770K

 

he mentioned that he will be getting a GTX760

 

that is kinda imbalanced

 

which is why I would suggest i5 Core and GTX770 or a R9 280X

[Analog]

Do not post Beta benchmarks.

 

If anyone was to beleive this BS chart, then my 2500k would not be doing this framerate:

 

 

Ok, my bad. Here you go:

 

I don't see how this changed after the optimizations, but fine...

Even the 2600k is faster than a 8350... It's so sad, considering that BF4 is an "AMD optimized game"...

 

[pbenologa]

which is better i will be playing games like watch dogs and gta v

and i also will be doing some video editing with sony vegas,

 

i know that the 8350 has 8 cores and intel has 4 but more threads 

i will be gameing most of the time.

 

the graphics card will be a gtx 760 

If you are tight on budget. Might as well pick the 8320. OC it. AFAIK, OC'd 8320 performs the same with an 8350. Then buy a much better GPU.

[Recon-UK]

The 8320 with any single GPU is beautiful, just do not go dual GPU.

[Recon-UK]

Ok, my bad. Here you go:

 

I don't see how this changed after the optimizations, but fine...

Even the 2600k is faster than a 8350... It's so sad.

The AMD CPU is above 60FPS, stop the fanboyism right now, we cannot have any proper discussion here on LTT if people like you disregard evidence like this.

[Analog]

The AMD CPU is above 60FPS, stop the fanboyism right now, we cannot have any proper discussion here on LTT if people like you disregard evidence like this.

 

So what if it is above 60FPS. This is a AMD optimized game with have multi-thread load. I have chosen it exactly for that. It should favor AMD as hell, but the 8350 still falls behind the i7 4770K at stock. I am neither lying about something, nor being dishonest, just presenting the truth here... The user was asking what to get between these two processors. I think that the choice is obvious really.I can show you other games with with heavy singe thread optimization, but I guess that would make me a fan-boy as well... 

 

And I am not a Intel fan-boy. I really love AMD and my 1090T was great when I used to have it in my first system. 

[Recon-UK]

So what if it is above 60FPS. This is a AMD optimized game with have multi-thread load. I have chosen it exactly for that. It should favor AMD as hell, but the 8350 still falls behind the i7 4770K at stock. I am neither lying about something, nor being dishonest, just presenting the truth here... The user was asking what to get between these two processors. I think that the choice is obvious really.I can show you other games with with heavy singe thread optimization, but I guess that would make me a fan-boy as well... 

 

And I am not a Intel fan-boy. I really love AMD and my 1090T was great when I used to have it in my first system. 

The 8350 costs less than the i5, yet is stomping the i5 in minimum frame rate according to your chart.

 

The FX blows the i5 out of the water in work loads.

 

The 4770k is the overall winner, but at a much higher cost.

 

You also used Beta benchmarks before i pulled you up hoping you could give a much more slanted representation of how BF4 really performs across the board.

 

The AMD has much closer framerate in the final build than it did in that unreliable Beta chart you posted.

 

Furthermore, the 8320 is even cheaper than the 8350 and will OC to 4.0ghz on stock volts (8350 standard mhz)

 

If you still do not get what you have done here, whether intentional or not, then you really need to revise how you do things here on LTT, i am one for fair comparison.

[Analog]

The 8350 costs less than the i5, yet is stomping the i5 in minimum frame rate according to your chart.

 

The FX blows the i5 out of the water in work loads.

 

The 4770k is the overall winner, but at a much higher cost.

 

You also used Beta benchmarks before i pulled you up hoping you could give a much more slanted representation of how BF4 really performs across the board.

 

The AMD has much closer framerate in the final build than it did in that unreliable Beta chart you posted.

 

Furthermore, the 8320 is even cheaper than the 8350 and will OC to 4.0ghz on stock volts (8350 standard mhz)

 

If you still do not get what you have done here, whether intentional or not, then you really need to revise how you do things here on LTT, i am one for fair comparison.

 

The beta benchmark, was my bad, I jsut pulled the first graph, which said BF4 on it and I did not read that it is a beta one. The price compared to the i5, however is not a good enough point, because it is constantly changing. Right now, the 8350 is actually a bit more expensive than the i5 4670K, while the 8320 is just under the price of the.

 

The user is asking for an argument to go with the i7 or the 8350/8320, he doesn't even mention the i5, because he wants to do video rendering in Sony Vegas. Therefore, as you said, the 4770K is the overall winner. 

[D3MON]

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
8320+r9-290
just thought id throw in my graphs since everyone else is adding thiers.

yeah because they benchmarked an fx9590 on that im sure...

[Recon-UK]

The beta benchmark, was my bad, I jsut pulled the first graph, which said BF4 on it and I did not read that it is a beta one. The price compared to the i5, however is not a good enough point, because it is constantly changing. Right now, the 8350 is actually a bit more expensive than the i5 4670K, while the 8320 is just under the price of the.

 

The user is asking for an argument to go with the i7 or the 8350/8320, he doesn't even mention the i5, because he wants to do video rendering in Sony Vegas. Therefore, as you said, the 4770K is the overall winner. 

Really?

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285&cm_re=8320-_-19-113-285-_-Product

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899&cm_re=4670k-_-19-116-899-_-Product

 

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-intel-core-i7-4770k-1150-haswell-quad-core-35ghz-39ghz-turbo-1250mhz-gpu-35x-ratio-84w-retail

 

Scan link due to no results on Newegg UK (i am British)

[Analog]

Really?

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285&cm_re=8320-_-19-113-285-_-Product

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/uk/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116899&cm_re=4670k-_-19-116-899-_-Product

 

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-intel-core-i7-4770k-1150-haswell-quad-core-35ghz-39ghz-turbo-1250mhz-gpu-35x-ratio-84w-retail

 

Scan link due to no results on Newegg UK (i am British)

 

Um, that's what I said, the 8320 is just under the i5's price and the 8350 is just above... here the i5 is 198e, the 8320 is around the 170e mark, the 8350 is out of stock

 

PS: I don't know why you continue arguing when the comparison is between teh i7 and the 8350/20 not the i5. No one is going to do rendering on a i5... 

 

Just a little something from Skyrim V so that we add an other, non AMD gaming evolved title in th comparison, so that it is fair. 

 

[Recon-UK]

Um, that's what I said, the 8320 is just under the i5's price and the 8350 is just above... here the i5 is 198e, the 8320 is around the 170e mark, the 8350 is out of stock

 

PS: I don't know why you continue arguing when the comparison is between teh i7 and the 8350/20 not the i5. No one is going to do rendering on a i5... 

I have rendered plently on my 2500k, it is fast, but i am not going to pretend it is better than an FX at this job, it simply is not.

 

And if you think 95 vs 145 is a small amount, re-check your head.

 

 

The 2500k was fine by the was fine at rendering, this is a Sony Vegas edit using the 2500k:

 

http://youtu.be/s9MbiobHUAM

 

 

Video would take around 9 minutes by CPU standard, and around 3 minutes via the GTX 480 through CUDA.

[Analog]

I have rendered plently on my 2500k, it is fast, but i am not going to pretend it is better than an FX at this job, it simply is not.

 

And if you think 95 vs 145 is a small amount, re-check your head.

 

 

The 2500k was fine by the was fine at rendering, this is a Sony Vegas edit using the 2500k:

 

 

 

Video would take around 9 minutes by CPU standard, and around 3 minutes via the GTX 480 through CUDA.

 

I see you have to systems. Try video rendering the same video once with the 8320/50 and once with your 4770K, both overclocked. Which one is going to win? 

 

PS: The 4790K is coming at 4GHz stock speed. How do you think that is going to perform? Also see the Skyrim benchmark, a non AMD Gaming Evolved title.

[Recon-UK]

I see you have to systems. Try video rendering the same video once with the 8320/50 and once with your 4770K, both overclocked. Which one is going to win? 

 

PS: The 4790K is coming at 4GHz stock speed. How do you think that is going to perform?

Hurrr durrr, i7 obviously, why are you not picking up the massive price difference?

 

And who cares if it 30 seconds faster?

 

The price alone makes the FX a real fighter.

[Analog]

Hurrr durrr, i7 obviously, why are you not picking up the massive price difference?

 

And who cares if it 30 seconds faster?

 

The price alone makes the FX a real fighter.

 

 

Yes, finally, just kidding...

 

Price, yes it is higher, but you get more, HOWEVER, if the one who created this topic doesn't have a specific budget he should go with the i7 4790K when that comes out. If there is a specific price limit, the 8320 with a better graphics card. The GTX760 is not enough in my opinion. The R9 280X is a great value right now and it comes with 3GB of VRAM, unlike the GTX770, which only has 2GB. I think this is something on which we both can agree.  

 

PS: What I am/was trying to say here all along is that the for sheer performance, the i7 4770K is the best mainstream processor. If you want this performance, well, you pay for it. If not there a re compromises which have to be made.  

[Recon-UK]

which is better i will be playing games like watch dogs and gta v

and i also will be doing some video editing with sony vegas,

 

i know that the 8350 has 8 cores and intel has 4 but more threads 

i will be gameing most of the time.

 

the graphics card will be a gtx 760 

 

 

my budget is $1500 to $2000 or more depending 

my currency is new zealand dollar 

 

for usd it is $1200 to $1750 usd or more depending

For that kind of budget...

 

 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU:  Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($339.99 @ Newegg)

CPU Cooler:  Noctua NH-U12P SE2 54.4 CFM CPU Cooler  ($49.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($149.99 @ Mwave)

Memory:  Patriot Viper 3 Low Profile Black 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-2133 Memory  ($167.99 @ Newegg)

Storage:  Crucial M500 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($69.99 @ Amazon)

Storage:  Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($79.97 @ OutletPC)

Video Card:  Sapphire Radeon R9 290 4GB Tri-X Video Card  ($424.99 @ Newegg)

Case:  NZXT Switch 810 (Gun Metal) ATX Full Tower Case  ($173.98 @ SuperBiiz)

Power Supply:  SeaSonic G-750 750W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($118.98 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $1575.87

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-11 05:31 EDT-0400)

 

 

 

Throw the 760 out or sell it, the 290 will rip it a new one with OpenCL.

[Recon-UK]

Yes, finally, just kidding...

 

Price, yes it is higher, but you get more, HOWEVER, if the one who created this topic doesn't have a specific budget he should go with the i7 4790K when that comes out. If there is a specific price limit, the 8320 with a better graphics card. The GTX760 is not enough in my opinion. The R9 280X is a great value right now and it comes with 3GB of VRMA, unlike the GTX770, which only has 2GB. I think this is something on which we both can agree. 

 

PS: What I am/was trying to say here all along is that the for sheer performance, the i7 4770K is the best mainstream processor. If you want this performance, well, you pay for it. If not there a re compromises which have to be made.  

There was no budget, so there was room for fight.

 

Now it is basically i7 only as his budget is ridiculous.

[Analog]

There was no budget, so there was room for fight.

 

Now it is basically i7 only as his budget is ridiculous.

 

With that budget I would even go with 2x R9 280X, rather than a single 290 and perhaps a  cheaper case.  

[Recon-UK]

With that budget I would even go with 2x R9 280X, rather than a single 290 and perhaps a  cheaper case.  

You would rather two low end GPU's in CFX with driver hassle and a tacky case?

 

Some strange thinking

 

If the 290 is not satisfactory, maybe a single 780Ti, you should always try to go single GPU, and i doubt he is gaming over 1080p, so 2 280x's is pretty stupid.