Can an FX-8320@4.0Ghz beat an i3-4360@3.7Ghz in gaming?

[Alurit]

I was wondering, cause the 2 are at the same price here (apart from the fact that you need to buy a proper cooler for the amd, and it's only heavily recommended for the intel).  My first assumption would be that even today due to bad optimization the amd would came out weaker in most cases, because even overclocked it has much worse single-thread performance, but the i3's weakness is having only 2 physical cores, which makes it not optimal in games that rely on multicore performance such as bf4 multiplayer, or crysis 3. What's your thoughts?

[Katsu-K1L]

save a bit more money and get a locked i5.

Don't rush things.

[ZetZet]

fx is better than i3. i5 is better than both.

[aidenrelkoff]

I would go with the FX hands down. unless your playing single threaded old games like Half-Life (not HL2, that game will use 4 cores) but then again, the average phone could run that game at like 120hz. 

 

For most modern games get the FX. unless heat is a problem

[79wjd]

An i5 is pretty much the same cost once you factor in a suitable board and cooler for the 8320. 

 

So, just get an i5-4460 + h81 board. 

 

If, in whatever country you live in, the pricing is substantially more on an i5, then it really depends what games you play/intend to play.

 

For heavily threaded games, I'd say 8320, but for MMO type games an i3. Plus an i3 will also offer you an upgrade path to an i7. 

[s3ns3]

is most games yeah . but thats a high end i3 and its very close in price to the i5 4460. so get i5

[Aniallation]

I like how this thread was about FX8 vs i3, and everyone's talking about i5s.

[Alurit]

is most games yeah . but thats a high end i3 and its very close in price to the i5 4460. so get i5

the i3-4360 costs ~$150 here and the i5-4440 costs ~$200

[79wjd]

the i3-4360 costs ~$150 here and the i5-4440 costs ~$200

And how much is an 8320? 

[Sintezza]

FX8320 over the i3 any day of the week realy, especialy in the newer and upcomming AAA titles.

[Private_Ceg]

Me I would go with the FX because games are now starting use more cores and seriously its 2014 very few people only run the game. I usually have at least skype and youtube running. And on 2 cores even with hyperthreading you are going to struggle but then again if you can go for the i5.

[Faceman]

I was wondering, cause the 2 are at the same price here (apart from the fact that you need to buy a proper cooler for the amd, and it's only heavily recommended for the intel).  My first assumption would be that even today due to bad optimization the amd would came out weaker in most cases, because even overclocked it has much worse single-thread performance, but the i3's weakness is having only 2 physical cores, which makes it not optimal in games that rely on multicore performance such as bf4 multiplayer, or crysis 3. What's your thoughts?

The i3 has hyperthreading, so it performs very closely to an i5.  A locked i5 is the best option though as it will cost the same as an FX8 w/ proper motherboard and cooling.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy FX, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 15-20fps is acceptable.

 

Then the other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V.

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

----

---

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($40.00 @ Amazon)

Total: $214.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-10 04:22 EST-0500

[D3MON]

"If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 15-20fps is acceptable."

you're doing it again, maybe you just had s*** luck with amd? because i play those games great...unless you've never had an amd chip and you're just talking out your a***
 

op-depends, on games that pin a cpu core at 100% the intel chip will beat the amd, but a pentium-k will blow them both away so you'd be better off buying that.

unless you want to get work done then the fx8 any day.

unless you want to get work done 90% as fast as the fx8 AND game as fast as a $70 pentium-k in which case you're going to need to save allot more and buy a 4690k.
horses for courses.

[Alurit]

The i3 has hyperthreading, so it performs very closely to an i5.  A locked i5 is the best option though as it will cost the same as an FX8 w/ proper motherboard and cooling.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy FX, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 15-20fps is acceptable.

 

Then the other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V.

 

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening. 

 

----

---

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($124.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $229.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-19 22:28 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($40.00 @ Amazon)

Total: $214.99

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-10 04:22 EST-0500

Now given these benchmarks, and that the i3 draws 54 watts as oppose of the 125 watts of the amd (so I can go with cheaper psu) and less heat output, and the fact I don't buy games on release only on rare occasions (so the time newer games came to me I think I already upgrade to i5) and don't really play multiplayer games, and the better upgrade options of the lga-1150 I think I'll go with the i3. Going to a lower end i5 now just doesn't seam to give enough benefits, because I have to go with weaker gpu.

[EeveeTechTips]

I just got fx8310 for $85 and Asus m5a97 le r2.0 mono for $55. Not sure what can beat that value.

[thebennyboy]

 

- snip -

 

 

Sadly that's normal for him. He's just uninformed and has clearly never owned an 8320 or 8350. Let him spout bullshit, it's what he's best at.

[i_build_nanosuits]

any haswell i3 handily beat an overclocked fx 8 core cpu in pretty much every games from my experience on both.

Take it from an advanced micro device die hard fan, it hurts!

[Vrbas]

I recently owned an 8320 and I would advise going Intel. 8320 was the biggest CPU I regret purchasing to date. Even if it was cheaper at the time I was not happy at all with its performance in games.

[Faceman]

Sadly that's normal for him. He's just uninformed and has clearly never owned an 8320 or 8350. Let him spout bullshit, it's what he's best at.

Except I have owned AMD and I have used an FX8. Not just me, but many other people who have owned both. An i3 beats an FX8 in almost every game to date.

[Faceman]

Now given these benchmarks, and that the i3 draws 54 watts as oppose of the 125 watts of the amd (so I can go with cheaper psu) and less heat output, and the fact I don't buy games on release only on rare occasions (so the time newer games came to me I think I already upgrade to i5) and don't really play multiplayer games, and the better upgrade options of the lga-1150 I think I'll go with the i3. Going to a lower end i5 now just doesn't seam to give enough benefits, because I have to go with weaker gpu.

i'll agree with you that because you are using a mid range GPU,an i5 won't be of much benefit. An i3 is the best option given your situation. And if you ever do decide to upgrade, you're on the right chipset.

[XiaoPineApple]

the 8320 topic just keep coming up lol.
people still think 8320 or 8350 is on par with i5s.
if its like 50dollar cpu = bang for the  bucks, got nothing to say but go for it.

but the extra money u spent on mb,psu and cooler to overclock, could've been a simple i5+cheap h81mb and have a better experience overall.

[Mush Brain]

Intel hands down, I own multiple AMD platforms, more than Intel even, my 2500k now see's far more use than either of my AMD chips as it kills them in emulation, especially using AVX. Great museum pieces though.

[IMPERIUS]

I just got fx8310 for $85 and Asus m5a97 le r2.0 mono for $55. Not sure what can beat that value.

Nothing *.*