My Quest For CPU Truth!

[georgespamme]

The age old question... AMD or Intel?

 

My answer: I don't care!  Which processor is best for me?

 

Everywhere I look, there are two voices on the internet: one says "Intel is infinitely farther than AMD!  AMD can't even compete, their products are crap," while the other says "AMD gives you so much more for your money, the only people who buy Intel are rich fanboys who overpay for their stuff."

 

I'm tired of hearing from people who are close-minded and brand-loyal.  I just want some honesty!

 

As of right now, I've been researching the AMD FX-8350 (Black Edition) and the Intel Core i7 4770K.  The AMD crushes the Intel in terms of price (the Intel is double the price) and, seemingly, performance per dollar.  The Intel holds the upper hand in TDP, power consumption, and single-threaded performance.  But which one is actually worth the price?

 

These are just two examples of CPUs, but on paper to a novice like myself the FX-8350 seems great.  8 physical cores instead of 4 (yes, I understand that the 4 are hyperthreaded, but still, are not 8 physical cores better than 8 threaded?).  The FX-8350 has a faster stock clock speed over double the cores.  Also, the 4770K costs a butt-ton more, but every benchmark I find online seems biased!

 

Yet, as I understand it, there's a lot more to a CPU battle than what's on paper.  I just can't seem to find any honest or decisive comparison advice.

 

I read one article that says AMD is Satan and that Intel processors are sprinkled with magic dust, and I'm convinced to fork out the extra cash for the 4770K.  Then I read the customer reviews of the FX-8350 to find that the owners love their product and are so glad they didn't buy Intel.  Then I see a benchmark that shows the 4770K crushing the FX-8350, then I see another that compares performance per dollar and I'm convinced to buy AMD.

 

Any thoughts (besides Brand A rules Brand B sucks)?
 

(My main purpose for this system is video editing, this is why I stress multicore.  I understand that both are easily overclocked, but as I am a novice this would be my first time to do so.  Also, I fear the extreme heat that comes along with OC.)

[Guest]

IMO an i5 would perform better than that AMD except in specific programs that can utilize all of those cores. AMD stopped focusing on enthusiast CPUs like the FX series so that is a pretty old processor. 

[flibberdipper]

For video editing... Intel wins me over. My friend's i3 crushes my grandma's APU when it comes to this (his is a dual core at 2.4GHz?, hers is a quad core at 2.6GHz).

[Guest]

For video editing... Intel wins me over. My friend's i3 crushes my grandma's APU when it comes to this (his is a dual core at 2.4GHz?, hers is a quad core at 2.6GHz).

Congrats on 10,000. I was pretty late to notice

[Wtalk2]

Personally I am an Intel fanboy but I can put that all aside for the time being. 

 

When choosing a processor your should base it solely off your needs and your budget and not whether you want AMD or Intel. Both companies are better at different things. For example, AMD processors usually have much better price to performance and make great budget solutions while Intel has the high-end side of the processor spectrum locked down with their extreme editions. Intel also destroys AMD in power consumption and heat output if that matters for you.

 

Personally I would choose a i7 4770K/4790K for video editing but if your on a budget an overclocked FX 8350 would work almost as well.

 

PS: Also for video editing I suggest you get a decent GPU because video editing software such as Sony Vegas Pro can utilize your GPU to render videos now which is usually faster than rendering with your processor.

[flibberdipper]

Congrats on 10,000. I was pretty late to notice

I'm a little bit past 10K now.

[Mixzzz]

To simplify this... 8350 will do video editing pretty good + you can always OC it and it waay cheaper and so is the motherboard... On the other side 3770K/4770K will have better single core performance(although if youre editing you dont need it) and it will be a bit faster for video editing than 8350 but the CPU will cost a lot more and so will do the motherboard... I suggest you to take a look at Intel Xeon E3-1230v3 because its basically a 3770 (without iGPU and no options to OC) but you can use boards like H81, B85, H87 and theyre a lot cheaper than Z87/Z97 boards...

[ltguy]

Well first off, the fx 8350 is not 8 true cores. Its 4 cores with 2 integer units per core. So its great at integer math and sucks and floating point math. But back to gaming. A few games can use 4 cores... most use 2. Thats why a i5 and i7 perform about the same in games. So you want the fastest 4 cores for your money. To figure out the which cores is best you look something that tests IPC (instructions per cycle). You can look at the cinebench single core scores for the fx 8350 vs the 4770k. The 4770k scores 1.78 in cinebench 11.5 single thread and the fx 8350 scores 1.1. That is what you care about for gaming and why amd is so far behind. Intel haswell cores are about 70% more powerfull than amd cores. Its not a fanboy thing, its the numbers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6

So the best cpu for you more is the 4670k for $220. Its far better than the $180 dollar fx8350 because like i said the cores in haswell are 70% faster and gamers need super fast 4 or 2 cores only.

[Kryptyx]

Well first off, the fx 8350 is not 8 true cores. Its 4 cores with 2 integer units per core. So its great at integer math and sucks and floating point math. But back to gaming. A few games can use 4 cores... most use 2. Thats why a i5 and i7 perform about the same in games. So you want the fastest 4 cores money for your money. To figure out the which cores is best you look something that tests IPC. You can look at the cinebench single core scores for the fx 8350 vs the 4770k. The 4770k scores 1.78 in cinebench 11.5 single thread and the fx 8350 scores 1.1. That is what you care about for gaming and why amd is so far behind. Intel haswell cores are about 70% more powerfull than amd cores. Its not a fanboy things, its the numbers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6

 

QFT.

Also, if you live in the US and near a MicroCenter you can grab a 4790k for $280.

[Sauron]

The FX cpu is better bang for the buck, HOWEVER the i7 is faster in pretty much every respect. As with most high end hardware, improvements come at a cost, and even though it's not twice as powerful it's twice the price. The i7 is the second fastest desktop grade cpu (the first being the 4790k), if you want the best of the best, it's worth the money. If you are content with the performance of an 8350, and most people are, you should buy that instead.

[ltguy]

 

The FX cpu is better bang for the buck, HOWEVER the i7 is faster in pretty much every respect. As with most high end hardware, improvements come at a cost, and even though it's not twice as powerful it's twice the price. The i7 is the second fastest desktop grade cpu (the first being the 4790k), if you want the best of the best, it's worth the money. If you are content with the performance of an 8350, and most people are, you should buy that instead.

Please dont missinform people, its not helpful. The i5 has cores that are 70% more powerful than the fx8350 and is only $40 dollars more, it is the best bang for the buck. Gee maybe thats why tomshardware ranks the i5 4670k as the best bang for your buck month after month after month.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

[patrickjp93]

The age old question... AMD or Intel?

 

My answer: I don't care!  Which processor is best for me?

 

Everywhere I look, there are two voices on the internet: one says "Intel is infinitely farther than AMD!  AMD can't even compete, their products are crap," while the other says "AMD gives you so much more for your money, the only people who buy Intel are rich fanboys who overpay for their stuff."

 

I'm tired of hearing from people who are close-minded and brand-loyal.  I just want some honesty!

 

As of right now, I've been researching the AMD FX-8350 (Black Edition) and the Intel Core i7 4770K.  The AMD crushes the Intel in terms of price (the Intel is double the price) and, seemingly, performance per dollar.  The Intel holds the upper hand in TDP, power consumption, and single-threaded performance.  But which one is actually worth the price?

 

These are just two examples of CPUs, but on paper to a novice like myself the FX-8350 seems great.  8 physical cores instead of 4 (yes, I understand that the 4 are hyperthreaded, but still, are not 8 physical cores better than 8 threaded?).  The FX-8350 has a faster stock clock speed over double the cores.  Also, the 4770K costs a butt-ton more, but every benchmark I find online seems biased!

 

Yet, as I understand it, there's a lot more to a CPU battle than what's on paper.  I just can't seem to find any honest or decisive comparison advice.

 

I read one article that says AMD is Satan and that Intel processors are sprinkled with magic dust, and I'm convinced to fork out the extra cash for the 4770K.  Then I read the customer reviews of the FX-8350 to find that the owners love their product and are so glad they didn't buy Intel.  Then I see a benchmark that shows the 4770K crushing the FX-8350, then I see another that compares performance per dollar and I'm convinced to buy AMD.

 

Any thoughts (besides Brand A rules Brand B sucks)?

 

(My main purpose for this system is video editing, this is why I stress multicore.  I understand that both are easily overclocked, but as I am a novice this would be my first time to do so.  Also, I fear the extreme heat that comes along with OC.)

Okay, how long do you intend to have the chip/build? 

Do you game/need a discrete GPU/can't get away with Intel HD 4600 graphics?

How many hours (on average) do you spend per day doing gaming/rendering/video-music editting vs. menial work like web browse/word process?

 

EDIT: I got into the rant and stopped short of seeing the purpose, sorry.

 

AMD's FX chips are surprisingly good at video rendering, but how large are the videos you work on/how lossy is your file format? And again, how many hours a day do you generally spend doing this vs. menial tasks?

[Sauron]

 

Please dont missinform people, its not helpful. The i5 has cores that are 70% more powerful than the fx8350 and is only $40 dollars more, it is the best bang for the buck. Gee maybe thats why tomshardware ranks the i5 4670k as the best bang for your buck month after month after month.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-4.html

 

Excuse me, we're talking VIDEO EDITING here. Video editing programs make use of every core they can get. For that purpose, the 8350 is way better bang for the buck. Gaming isn't everything and tom's hardware isn't the Bible. Maybe you should be the one to stop misinforming people. Furthermore, the i5 is only 53% faster in single core and it's 60 bucks more expensive. So please, stop spreading the bs.

 

just for a general idea of the REAL numbers: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

[patrickjp93]

Excuse me, we're talking VIDEO EDITING here. Video editing programs make use of every core they can get. For that purpose, the 8350 is way better bang for the buck. Gaming isn't everything and tom's hardware isn't the Bible. Maybe you should be the one to stop misinforming people. Furthermore, the i5 is only 53% faster in single core and it's 60 bucks more expensive. So please, stop spreading the bs.

 

just for a general idea of the REAL numbers: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

CPU-world conveniently leaves out AMD's 53% lower efficiency in instructions per clock overall. I personally recommend the FX for video rendering because it's one place the FX line shines, but it's otherwise a wasteful chip for day to day stuff.

[georgespamme]

I work in 1080p and don't anticipate doing anything in 4k anytime soon.  I'm often exporting to an internet-friendly format, which means fairly lossy, but editing in native format files from a DSLR can be a heavy workload.  I will be using the system primarily for video editing on a weekly basis.  Gaming is not a priority, and if the processor can handle video editing I assume it will handle menial tasks well enough.

[Sauron]

CPU-world conveniently leaves out AMD's 53% lower efficiency in instructions per clock overall. I personally recommend the FX for video rendering because it's one place the FX line shines, but it's otherwise a wasteful chip for day to day stuff.

 

They don't, it clearly states single core performance is 53% faster for the i5. Check again.

[patrickjp93]

They don't, it clearly states single core performance is 53% faster for the i5. Check again.

But they don't tell you why and under what conditions. CPU-World is a beginner's resource on CPU research.

[Sauron]

I work in 1080p and don't anticipate doing anything in 4k anytime soon.  I'm often exporting to an internet-friendly format, which means fairly lossy, but editing in native format files from a DSLR can be a heavy workload.  I will be using the system primarily for video editing on a weekly basis.  Gaming is not a priority, and if the processor can handle video editing I assume it will handle menial tasks well enough.

 

Then the 8350 is for you, I have no doubt whatsoever. In fact, an 8320 is even cheaper and is basically a lower clocked version of the same chip, so if you're into overclocking that's the cpu to get.

[patrickjp93]

I work in 1080p and don't anticipate doing anything in 4k anytime soon.  I'm often exporting to an internet-friendly format, which means fairly lossy, but editing in native format files from a DSLR can be a heavy workload.  I will be using the system primarily for video editing on a weekly basis.  Gaming is not a priority, and if the processor can handle video editing I assume it will handle menial tasks well enough.

It can handle them fine, just wasting a ton of power all the while (AMD's FX line can be said to have 3 power states: off, on, balls to the wall). 

 

And again I ask how long you intend to have this machine. If it's 5+ years then amortized electrical costs added in show the prices converge and then cross in favor of intel assuming 4 hours of use a day 365 days a year.

[Sauron]

But they don't tell you why and under what conditions. CPU-World is a beginner's resource on CPU research.

 

Single core performance is single core performance, why doesn't matter to the final user, just to us for curiosity. In multithreaded tasks, the 8350 is equally fast or faster than the i5. Of course it's only a general idea of what performance will be, but for that price, the 8350 is the obvious choice for video editing.

[ltguy]

 

Excuse me, we're talking VIDEO EDITING here. Video editing programs make use of every core they can get. For that purpose, the 8350 is way better bang for the buck. Gaming isn't everything and tom's hardware isn't the Bible. Maybe you should be the one to stop misinforming people. Furthermore, the i5 is only 53% faster in single core and it's 60 bucks more expensive. So please, stop spreading the bs.

 

just for a general idea of the REAL numbers: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html

Sorry I'm kinda ADD and the only place the OP mentioned video rendering was the last sentence in tiny font (i'm not even sure that was there when i first read the post) All of my previous posts were for gaming, if this is about video rendering i apologize.

[patrickjp93]

Then the 8350 is for you, I have no doubt whatsoever. In fact, an 8320 is even cheaper and is basically a lower clocked version of the same chip, so if you're into overclocking that's the cpu to get.

I agree, just make sure you have a cooler strong enough to handle the FX line. It's not a 9590, but they all put out a lot of heat under load.

[patrickjp93]

Single core performance is single core performance, why doesn't matter to the final user, just to us for curiosity. In multithreaded tasks, the 8350 is equally fast or faster than the i5. Of course it's only a general idea of what performance will be, but for that price, the 8350 is the obvious choice for video editing.

"Why doesn't matter" --the mark of an amateur. Is it integer performance? Floats? Fast Fourier transforms? Pipelining issues? Caching inferiority (yes the FX line has more cache but the hardware algorithm for it is 20% slower than Intel's). If you don't know why then you aren't qualified to recommend a chip for a purpose nor pick one for yourself.

[georgespamme]

Is the FX-8350 (or 8320) really that much better than an Intel 4770k (or 4790k) in multithreaded applications?  It seems that the Intel crushes AMD in single threaded, but AMD only barely inches above Intel in multithreaded applications.  If the difference is that slim, I might appreciate having more single-threaded capability.

[ltguy]

 

Is the FX-8350 (or 8320) really that much better than an Intel 4770k (or 4790k) in multithreaded applications?  It seems that the Intel crushes AMD in single threaded, but AMD only barely inches above Intel in multithreaded applications.  If the difference is that slim, I might appreciate having more single-threaded capability.

Its not better at all, the fx is worse. Cinebench 11.5 multithread scores... 4770k 8.14, fx 8350 6.94

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350