AMD FX 8350 vs i5 4670k

[Faa]

You ran in SLI, i'm not even bothering to reply now, you have done nothing but post biased results. BYE!

I didn't, you scored 160 fps and benny 120 fps just a silly 33% gain with a 1500MHz higher clock on the cpu and a 290x overclocked to who knows what at water clearly points out that you were cpu bottlenecked. Dude ran his gpu at stock even. No denying that your cpu is a major bottleneck.

Frametimes in SLI are much higher than 4ms.

[Bloodkil933]

I didn't, you scored 160 fps and benny 120 fps just a silly 33% gain with a 1500MHz higher clock on the cpu and a 290x overclocked to who knows what at water clearly points out that you were cpu bottlenecked. Dude ran his gpu at stock even. No denying that your cpu is a major bottleneck.

Frametimes in SLI are much higher than 4ms.

Run that again with 4x MSAA and 16x AF

[Faa]

Run that again with 4x MSAA and 16x AF

I had 16x AF enabled, you didn't. Set the gpu to stock, cpu to stock and lets see how well your cpu performs. Disable 4 cores as well if you like so we could see how much of a gimmick your cpu is. Your 290x is even better than my 780, was overclocked by probs 300MHz, 1500MHz higher cpu clock, 4 more cores, consuming 3 times as much as my system does with one card, loud as fuck, case vibrating like a bulldozer. 

Your cpu is already a bottleneck for a single card, you won't gain advantage of a 2nd card. Starts out with this single card test where we the AMD sitting behind by 20% orsomething meaning it was bottlenecking slightly.

When they add a 2nd card, AMD gets no gain where as Intel is getting a 60-70% boost orsomething perfectly pointing out that with a single card the gpu was hitting its limit on Intel and AMD bottlenecking.

Same thing again;

Lets add a 3rd card again a massive boost.

Vr-zone showed the same thing, AMD filling gpu's to 50/50% where as Intel filled them to 99%/99% hence why we saw a double gain. I bet if I have 2 cores enabled & HT and a 5GHz overclock I'd make a mess of your 8350 in BF4..

 

[thebennyboy]

Anyone arguing with Faa now is just feeding the troll. Logic clearly doesn't exist in his dictionary.

[Faceman]

Anyone arguing with Faa now is just feeding the troll. Logic clearly doesn't exist in his dictionary.

Logic doesn't exist for you.  He provides many, independent reviews from all of the highest regarded websites for computer hardware and they all show roughly the same thing.

 

Here is another one for good measure, conducted by someone from LTT:

 

FX8350 Vs. i5-3570k Vs. i5-4670k

[Bloodkil933]

I had 16x AF enabled, you didn't. Set the gpu to stock, cpu to stock and lets see how well your cpu performs. Disable 4 cores as well if you like so we could see how much of a gimmick your cpu is. Your 290x is even better than my 780, was overclocked by probs 300MHz, 1500MHz higher cpu clock, 4 more cores, consuming 3 times as much as my system does with one card, loud as fuck, case vibrating like a bulldozer. 

Your cpu is already a bottleneck for a single card, you won't gain advantage of a 2nd card. Starts out with this single card test where we the AMD sitting behind by 20% orsomething meaning it was bottlenecking slightly.

When they add a 2nd card, AMD gets no gain where as Intel is getting a 60-70% boost orsomething perfectly pointing out that with a single card the gpu was hitting its limit on Intel and AMD bottlenecking.

Same thing again;

Lets add a 3rd card again a massive boost.

Vr-zone showed the same thing, AMD filling gpu's to 50/50% where as Intel filled them to 99%/99% hence why we saw a double gain. I bet if I have 2 cores enabled & HT and a 5GHz overclock I'd make a mess of your 8350 in BF4..

 

You know what, you win, I cannot be bothered arguing anymore. We're both PC Gamers and enjoy the same things, no point in arguing. It's now literally turning into a game of ping pong.

[Bloodkil933]

Logic doesn't exist for you.  He provides many, independent reviews from all of the highest regarded websites for computer hardware and they all show roughly the same thing.

 

Here is another one for good measure, conducted by someone from LTT:

 

FX8350 Vs. i5-3570k Vs. i5-4670k

Here is another very good one too:

 

And no he hasn't proving a thing, I shown him first hand that it didn't bottleneck, but apparently it still was.

 

He then fabricated benchmarks by running two 780's in SLI with a 3930k, then proceeded to say that mine was bottlenecked because he got a higher score with an Enthusiast grade CPU and a dual GPU setup.

 

I'm all for honest benchmarking, but if you're going to fabricate them, be my guest. Make yourself look like a fool.

 

I'm done with this argument now, enjoy your Intel CPU's and I'll enjoy my AMD CPU.

[Faceman]

You know what, you win, I cannot be bothered arguing anymore. We're both PC Gamers and enjoy the same things, no point in arguing. It's now literally turning into a game of ping pong.

Except he is serving aces all day and you can't even return.

[Faceman]

snip

Ya.. the TekSyndicate video is the biggest BS.  Even Linus said on the WAN show the week this video was released that TekSyndicate is wrong.

[thebennyboy]

Logic doesn't exist for you.  He provides many, independent reviews from all of the highest regarded websites for computer hardware and they all show roughly the same thing.

 

Here is another one for good measure, conducted by someone from LTT:

 

FX8350 Vs. i5-3570k Vs. i5-4670k

 

I even proved one of his "independent reviewers" was making up the results. So i can only imagine what the rest consists of. 

 

If you want to take another look: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/184204-amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-4670k/page-6#entry2505126

 

You can believe it is fabricated if you wish, because actually it isn't. It was only apparently "fabricated" due to it proving his "independent reviewer" wrong.

[Bloodkil933]

Ya.. the TekSyndicate video is the biggest BS.  Even Linus said on the WAN show the week this video was released that TekSyndicate is wrong.

I've seen that clip more times than I can count, he just doesn't say that. He effectively says that Logan's benchmark isn't wrong but the way he has done it is by Twitch streaming whilst playing the games, that he clearly says. So the threading on the 8350 allows the streaming to use the cores that aren't currently being used, as where the Intel is already having its cores used so it loses performance.

 

Also, what Linus says isn't gospel. He's very clearly an Intel fan and I would look at benchmarks and not listen to someone's opinion. Also, he hadn't even watched it or even understood what the two Windows updates were at this point. He even admitted that in a later video.

 

That's my final say, I have my AMD CPU, It performs very well for everything I want to do, and that's how it is, don't like it, leave.

 

Can a mod now please lock this thread.

[Faa]

That's my final say, I have my AMD CPU, It performs very well for everything I want to do, and that's how it is, don't like it, leave.

Yes twice as slow as mine. We posted our own results and you're still denying that Intel is much faster. Ive added you a bunch of sources proving you wrong as well but no you just dump that stupid teksyndicate video out that only AMD fanboys would post.

[Bloodkil933]

Yes twice as slow as mine. We posted our own results and you're still denying that Intel is much faster. Ive added you a bunch of sources proving you wrong as well but no you just dump that stupid teksyndicate video out that only AMD fanboys would post.

You haven't even said why he was wrong, and no you didn't.

 

END OF DISCUSSION

[Faa]

I even proved one of his "independent reviewers" was making up the results. So i can only imagine what the rest consists of. 

 

If you want to take another look: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/184204-amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-4670k/page-6#entry2505126

 

You can believe it is fabricated if you wish, because actually it isn't. It was only apparently "fabricated" due to it proving his "independent reviewer" wrong.

My result:

Your result 

My system performs twice as fast as yours, VR-zone was perfectly right as we replicated their results.

[Bloodkil933]

My result:

Your result 

My system performs twice as fast as yours, VR-zone was perfectly right as we replicated their results.

You used 2 780's, you are a passive liar. and also, read my last post.

[Faa]

You used 2 780's, you are a passive liar. and also, read my last post.

I didn't. I use a 550W psu atm, my supernova 1000 P2 died a few days ago and 550W with 2 780's is impossible. You cheated by using 1x AF instead of 16x, so shave a 30% off it so 130 fps vs 240 fps. Thats a 80% gain. Like I said drop your score with 16x AF, cpu/gpu at stock. Lets have a laugh with your best price/worst performance ratio.

[i_build_nanosuits]

holy fack guys call it a day come on! i'm out of popcorn...

 

Seriously ok, i have had both intel and FX CPU for my personal use, testing and work (office machines with xeon's, i5 and i7 chips) and FX overclocked in my OWN PERSONAL GAMING RIG with my GTX 780 in it for over 6 months...and in all honesty the FX chip has about the performance PER CORE (IPC) of an old nehalem i5...the CPU performs WORST than the PHENOM chips where doing YEARS before it...it's an old architecture that was meant for server grade CPU and the cores are atrociously slow by today's standard...so unless you compare the FX to an old lynnfield core i5 750 (and even then..) for gaming the FX is no match for just about ANY ''somewhat modern'' intel CPU's including core i3's in MANY scenarios...end of it, and EVERY trusted benchmarks and testing available on the internet and done by LTT community members SHOWS THE SAME RESULTS the FX line of CPU's FOR GAMING perform a lot worst than the intel, here i will name for you SOME of the intel chips that performs better than the FX for gaming:

 

Core i7 880

Core i7 860

Core i5-2320

Core i5-2500

Core i7-2600

Core i7-2700K

Core i3-3250

Core i5-3330

Core i5-3350

Core i5-3570

Core i7-3770

Core i3-4130

Core i5-4430

Core i5-4440

Core i5-4460

Core i5-4570

Core i5-4590

Core i5-4690

Core i5-4670K

Core i5-4690K

Core i7-4770K

Core i7-4790K

Every quad core Xeon's from 2008 and up

And every single socket 2011 CPU's. THAT'S it now stop arguing.

 

Phenom IPC is better than then FX-6300, here:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-Black-1100T-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/316/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T.html

 

OLD nehalem architecture having 18% faster single core performance AT LOWER CLOCK SPEED, here:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/318/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-750.html

 

FX CPU crushed by old sandy bridge core i5-2500k clocked 700mhz slower (look at the GAMES results it's a shame) here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

[Cloud92]

Am I the only one over here who doesn't give a fck about what's better?As long as my CPU can handle games without problems and without bottlenecking my GPU,I wouldn't give a damn what's better,lol. And my cheap as hell 8320 OC does the job perfectly,payed less than half of the price for a i7 and I can max out any game,why would I need more than this,lel.

[Razzaa]

holy fack guys call it a day come on! i'm out of popcorn...

Seriously ok, i have had both intel and FX CPU for my personal use, testing and work (office machines with xeon's, i5 and i7 chips) and FX overclocked in my OWN PERSONAL GAMING RIG with my GTX 780 in it for over 6 months...and in all honesty the FX chip has about the performance PER CORE (IPC) of an old nehalem i5...the CPU performs WORST than the PHENOM chips where doing YEARS before it...it's an old architecture that was meant for server grade CPU and the cores are atrociously slow by today's standard...so unless you compare the FX to an old lynnfield core i5 750 (and even then..) for gaming the FX is no match for just about ANY ''somewhat modern'' intel CPU's including core i3's in MANY scenarios...end of it, and EVERY trusted benchmarks and testing available on the internet and done by LTT community members SHOWS THE SAME RESULTS the FX line of CPU's FOR GAMING perform a lot worst than the intel, here i will name for you SOME of the intel chips that performs better than the FX for gaming:

Core i7 880

Core i7 860

Core i5-2320

Core i5-2500

Core i7-2600

Core i7-2700K

Core i3-3250

Core i5-3330

Core i5-3350

Core i5-3570

Core i7-3770

Core i3-4130

Core i5-4430

Core i5-4440

Core i5-4460

Core i5-4570

Core i5-4590

Core i5-4690

Core i5-4670K

Core i5-4690K

Core i7-4770K

Core i7-4790K

Every quad core Xeon's from 2008 and up

And every single socket 2011 CPU's. THAT'S it now stop arguing.

Phenom IPC is better than then FX-6300, here:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X6-Black-1100T-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/316/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T.html

OLD nehalem architecture having 18% faster single core performance AT LOWER CLOCK SPEED, here:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/318/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-750.html

FX CPU crushed by old sandy bridge core i5-2500k clocked 700mhz slower (look at the GAMES results it's a shame) here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

Thats it im throwing out my 8350 and getting a nehalem i5 to pair with my OC'D 290. Im going to destroy benches for BF4, watchdogs etc..............

[i_build_nanosuits]

Am I the only one over here who doesn't give a fck about what's better?As long as my CPU can handle games without problems and without bottlenecking my GPU,I wouldn't give a damn what's better,lol. And my cheap as hell 8320 OC does the job perfectly,payed less than half of the price for a i7 and I can max out any game,why would I need more than this,lel.

totally agree.

[Razzaa]

Am I the only one over here who doesn't give a fck about what's better?As long as my CPU can handle games without problems and without bottlenecking my GPU,I wouldn't give a damn what's better,lol. And my cheap as hell 8320 OC does the job perfectly,payed less than half of the price for a i7 and I can max out any game,why would I need more than this,lel.

According to Faa u are a liar and no way you can max games with a FX cpu.........

[i_build_nanosuits]

Thats it im throwing out my 8350 and getting a nehalem i5 to pair with my OC'D 290. Im going to destroy benches for BF4, watchdogs etc..............

for BF4 you will get same results as you would be GPU bound with both chips and for watch dogs you are indeed better with the FX but it is one of the RARE case where that would actually stand true.

[i_build_nanosuits]

According to Faa u are a liar and no way you can max games with a FX cpu.........

you can STILL max out most games with an FX chip except the CPU intensive ones wich are only a handfull of games to be honest. higher cost for an intel chip isnt justified for MOST users...for modern games, console ports, racing games, sports games, action games, FPS etc...you won't see any difference all those being GPU bound titles...for CPU INTENSIVE games (MMO's, RTS, indie games) like elder scoll online, guild wars 2, planet side 2, dayz, ARMA 3 (wich is attocious with an FX chip it's the main reason i upgraded to intel) you would be better with even sandy bridge core i3 cpu.

The thing is that there are some modern games that the FX can do surprisingly well for the price (crysis 3, BF4, watchdogs) but even in those a cheap locked core i5 with a cheap a$$ H81 motherboard is STILL a better choice and i've tested both first hand a lot of times.

Now this topic was about FX-8350 vs core i5-4670K...the 4670K being one of the 3 or 4 top gaming chips, the FX is simply no match. end of discussion. there is a reason why such a CPU cost that much more it is because it perform MARGINALLY better in MOST commonly executed tasks including GAMING while being a lot more power efficient.

 

On that, i think that topic should be LOCKED now..

[Sintezza]

Thats it im throwing out my 8350 and getting a nehalem i5 to pair with my OC'D 290. Im going to destroy benches for BF4, watchdogs etc..............

 

lol

 

Well i can tell you from now, that will not gonne happen, Watchdogs in particular realy suck on old nehmalems it realy does.

 

But some people overreacting abit, you can compair the FX8350 with the 3570k / 3770K right away in gaming

i have to agree the single core performance is not that great.

But still it plays all my games verry wel on 1080p.

The only bottleneck that i have is my 7870GHZ which is getting retared.

I do alot more then just gaming on my machine, tasks on which my FX8350 blows a 4790K out of the water.

[thebennyboy]

you can STILL max out most games with an FX chip except the CPU intensive ones wich are only a handfull of games to be honest. higher cost for an intel chip isnt justified for MOST users...for modern games, console ports, racing games, sports games, action games, FPS etc...you won't see any difference all those being GPU bound titles...for CPU INTENSIVE POORLY OPTIMISED games (MMO's, RTS, indie games) like elder scoll online, guild wars 2, planet side 2, dayz, ARMA 3 (wich is attocious with an FX chip it's the main reason i upgraded to intel) you would be better with even sandy bridge core i3 cpu.

The thing is that there are some modern games that the FX can do surprisingly well for the price (crysis 3, BF4, watchdogs) but even in those a cheap locked core i5 with a cheap a$$ H81 motherboard is STILL a better choice and i've tested both first hand a lot of times.

 

On that, i think that topic should be LOCKED now..

 

Added a correction which i think is appropriate.  Other than that, i agree.