Truth About The AMD FX 6300 CPU's

[Mush Brain]

I upgraded my AM3 Dragon to the 8320 and 990FX chipset, it was hardly an upgrade and bottlenecks the R9 290 I have, that being said... I think it's a good chip, just not near the basic 4 thread Intel chips.

[rtpb5642]

The socket is dead, why are you trying to argue that?

AMD has said they are not making any more AM3+ CPU's, dead socket.

 

8350 is already bottlenecking high end GPU's (maybe not yours at 5.2GHz, nice OC btw) but it won't last too much longer. 

sorry i may have misunderstood "dead" like i mean its not dead in the sense they r great CPUs when OC'd but yes they are dead in the sense no more are being made on that socket.

Thx btw, took many hours to reach 5.2 stable

 

 

As far as i can tell it doesent bottleneck my GTX 780 6GB, i can run every game in 60+fps in ultra

[Parkergk]

This forum is good, but you'll also find a lot of bias.. you just have to know who to listen to and who to ignore.

 

(Like anywhere on the internet..)

[Faceman]

sorry i may have misunderstood "dead" like i mean its not dead in the sense they r great CPUs when OC'd but yes they are dead in the sense no more are being made on that socket.

Thx btw, took many hours to reach 5.2 stable

 

 

As far as i can tell it doesent bottleneck my GTX 780 6GB, i can run every game in 60+fps in ultra

Check your GPU loads.

[rtpb5642]

Check your GPU loads.

When i play titanfall or stress test my gpu it goes to 100% TDP. There is no bottleneck.

 

Specifically pls refer to this article with TWO 780s paired with an 8350 http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

 

You can easily run two 780s in sli with the 8350, i only have 1. But honestly it depends on the game.

[rtpb5642]

This forum is good, but you'll also find a lot of bias.. you just have to know who to listen to and who to ignore.

 

(Like anywhere on the internet..)

Exactly, i am not an intel OR amd fanboy. I have both (FX-8350 and an i5 4670k) I merely look at bang for buck for what i need based on my budget. 

[christianled59]

I have one. Don't get it. For that matter, don't get any amd cpus. I'd go for intel until amd releases their next cpus.

[zappian]

The i3 destroys that cpu.

• http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/24pvu2/discussion_pclab_gaming_cpu_benchmarks_i34130_vs/
• http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html
• http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0
• http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/5
• http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/ (Clocked 5%/0.2 GHz higher than the 4130)
• http://pclab.pl/art57691.html (Pentium benchmarks but shows i3 and FX-6300 in the charts)
  
  People rated it highly because they dont know any better , the i3 is better for games , less heat , less power , better upgrade path , better in emulators , better performance in games.
   

[Faceman]

When i play titanfall or stress test my gpu it goes to 100% TDP. There is no bottleneck.

 

Specifically pls refer to this article with TWO 780s paired with an 8350 http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

 

You can easily run two 780s in sli with the 8350, i only have 1. But honestly it depends on the game.

100% TDP?  That is not what I'm asking.  I'm asking for GPU load, the percentage of your GPU being used.  Also, Titanfall is not a good game to test.  Try Crysis3, Assassin's Creed IV, or BF4.

 

I'm not sure if you're having problems reading the graph, but the Intel option is providing better results in everything Unigine Heaven.  I will also point out, that at above 1080p, you become GPU bound, which lessens the strain on the CPU.  Check 1080p benchmarks and the difference between Intel and AMD is intensified.  Not to mention, no matter what resolution, you are still not going to be able to play these CPU intensive games that demand strong cores.

[XiaoPineApple]

100% TDP? That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking for GPU load, the percentage of your GPU being used. Also, Titanfall is not a good game to test. Try Crysis3, Assassin's Creed IV, or BF4.

I'm not sure if you're having problems reading the graph, but the Intel option is providing better results in everything Unigine Heaven. I will also point out, that at above 1080p, you become GPU bound, which lessens the strain on the CPU. Check 1080p benchmarks and the difference between Intel and AMD is intensified. Not to mention, no matter what resolution, you are still not going to be able to play these CPU intensive games that demand strong cores.

games like arma 3, civil 5, shogun2 are examples.

[XiaoPineApple]

When i play titanfall or stress test my gpu it goes to 100% TDP. There is no bottleneck.

Specifically pls refer to this article with TWO 780s paired with an 8350 http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

You can easily run two 780s in sli with the 8350, i only have 1. But honestly it depends on the game.

Why they comparing a x79 cpu thats 600dollar and perform the same as i5 4670k vs 8350 in gaming.

329% cheaper lmao

[Razzaa]

Reminds me of when i had my 6300. I went with AMD to save money. It ran awesome!!! After i put it in a Sabertooth 990FX, put it under water and OC'd it to 5GHZ. The worst part was coming to the realization that i should have went with Intel from the start but I had already dumped all that money into my "Cheap" AMD build lol. That was a hard pill to swallow. Sold my Mobo and CPU, put the money towards Intel and never looked back.

[rtpb5642]

100% TDP?  That is not what I'm asking.  I'm asking for GPU load, the percentage of your GPU being used.  Also, Titanfall is not a good game to test.  Try Crysis3, Assassin's Creed IV, or BF4.

 

I'm not sure if you're having problems reading the graph, but the Intel option is providing better results in everything Unigine Heaven.  I will also point out, that at above 1080p, you become GPU bound, which lessens the strain on the CPU.  Check 1080p benchmarks and the difference between Intel and AMD is intensified.  Not to mention, no matter what resolution, you are still not going to be able to play these CPU intensive games that demand strong cores.

Sorry TDP was the wrong word to put there, i am utilizing 100% of my gpus power. I play crysis 3 and it runs well at around 60fps. Arma 3 is good around 60fps as well. I have a 144hz 1080p display from asus, i agree a 4790k performs better for example, but i use a single monitor and all the games i play look great. And "you are still not going to be able to play these CPU intensive games that demand strong cores" is incorrect. I can play ANY game money can buy, it just may not be at 70fps.

[rtpb5642]

Why they comparing a x79 cpu thats 600dollar and perform the same as i5 4670k vs 8350 in gaming.

329% cheaper lmao

ikr 329% cheaper lol, the cost wasnt what i was trying to show, thats up to the persons budget, the article just shows an 8350 does NOT bottleneck 2 gtx 780s let alone 1, as i have said before, i like my i5, and FX machines, i am not trying to sound like an amd fanboy, i am proving the point that my amd machine does not bottleneck a gtx 780. My i5 machine boots in like 3 seconds, my amd takes about 6, i know its older but i also know it is not a bottleneck either. 

[Faceman]

Sorry TDP was the wrong word to put there, i am utilizing 100% of my gpus power. I play crysis 3 and it runs well at around 60fps. Arma 3 is good around 60fps as well. I have a 144hz 1080p display from asus, i agree a 4790k performs better for example, but i use a single monitor and all the games i play look great. And "you are still not going to be able to play these CPU intensive games that demand strong cores" is incorrect. I can play ANY game money can buy, it just may not be at 70fps.

You aren't getting 60fps in ARMA.  You just aren't.  Maybe if you have line of sight, and graphics way way way down, but there is plenty of evidence on the net to show even single player with an FX8 at 4.8Ghz you are getting closer to 20fps in ARMA3.

 

How are you going to argue with me that it doesn't bottleneck, when in another thread you are saying it will bottleneck an R9 280X?

[rtpb5642]

You aren't getting 60fps in ARMA.  You just aren't.  Maybe if you have line of sight, and graphics way way way down, but there is plenty of evidence on the net to show even single player with an FX8 at 4.8Ghz you are getting closer to 20fps in ARMA3.

 

How are you going to argue with me that it doesn't bottleneck, when in another thread you are saying it will bottleneck an R9 280X?

im sorry when did i say it bottlenecks a 280x? i was refering to the 6300 bottlenecking it. I know people with 660s that can play arma 3 above 40fps, 20fps? are you kidding me

[Faceman]

im sorry when did i say it bottlenecks a 280x? i was refering to the 6300 bottlenecking it. I know people with 660s that can play arma 3 above 40fps, 20fps? are you kidding me

Provide evidence otherwise you are lying.  Nothing you have said comes with evidence, its all conjecture and hearsay.

[Faceman]

ARMA3 Videos:

 

Dude is on an FX paired with a 7970.  At 4.0 and 5.0Ghz.  He is walking in a straight line doing absolutely NOTHING, and he only gets 50fps on the 5.1Ghz.

 

[rtpb5642]

Here i am getting 41fps, this is at 4ghz. You can see my settings in the picture, i am using fraps, this is also on windows 10. Taking this into account, achieving 60fps is quite easy.

personally i dont play the game, i just have it but there are my fps.

See image below:

[rtpb5642]

ARMA3 Videos:

 

Dude is on an FX paired with a 7970.  At 4.0 and 5.0Ghz.  He is walking in a straight line doing absolutely NOTHING, and he only gets 50fps on the 5.1Ghz.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Uo678CnEk

That is with a 7970 you said, i have a 780. they are different gpus

[Faceman]

That is with a 7970 you said, i have a 780. they are different gpus

A 7970 is very close in performance to a 780, and this is a CPU bound game.  You are doing absolutely nothing in your screenshot, and I just showed you a video of a guy doing absolutely nothing, getting 50fps with a 5Ghz FX8.

 

Get into a firefight, play online.  You wont be getting good results.

[rtpb5642]

A 7970 is very close in performance to a 780, and this is a CPU bound game.  You are doing absolutely nothing in your screenshot, and I just showed you a video of a guy doing absolutely nothing, getting 50fps with a 5Ghz FX8.

 

Get into a firefight, play online.  You wont be getting good results.

 

i am quite busy as i have better things to do than prove an 8350 at stock speeds with a 600$ gtx 780 cant get above 60fps in arma 3 (released in september 2013)

I dont even know why i am talking about arma, i do not play it, i play titanfall, crysis 3, and battlefield 4 mainly, titanfall has NEVER in history ever gone below 60fps and crysis probably averages around 40-50

[Faceman]

i am quite busy as i have better things to do than prove an 8350 at stock speeds with a 600$ gtx 780 cant get above 60fps in arma 3 (released in september 2013)

I dont even know why i am talking about arma, i do not play it, i play titanfall and crysis 3 mainly, titanfall has NEVER in history ever gone below 60fps and crysis probably averages around 40-50

"How are you going to know that you're not bottlenecking unless you haven't tested it?" --- Everyone reading these silly posts by you.

[rtpb5642]

"How are you going to know that you're not bottlenecking unless you haven't tested it?" --- Everyone reading these silly posts by you.

If you can read, please refer to the article i posted on the previous page, it shows an 8350 handling two 980s only 10 ish fps less than an intel i7 realeased at the same time can. Maybe you call that a bottleneck? technically yes, but really, 10fps in the grand picture does not bother me, i also do not have an extra 500$ to spend to get 10fps.

 

The 8350 also scores only 500 points less on 3dmark.

[Faceman]

If you can read, please refer to the article i posted on the previous page, it shows an 8350 handling two 980s only 10 ish fps less than an intel i7 realeased at the same time can. Maybe you call that a bottleneck? technically yes, but really, 10fps in the grand picture does not bother me, i also do not have an extra 500$ to spend to get 10fps.

 

The 8350 also scores only 500 points less on 3dmark.

You. Are. Clueless.

 

That is a GPU bound scenario.  You can put a Celeron in there and it is going to perform the same.

 

An i5 at 3.0Ghz is all you need to outperform an FX processor.  It costs LESS than an FX8.  Because you have to factor in high end motherboard, cooling, and energy cost per year.  All while underperforming a locked i5.  Stop talking until you do the correct research.

 

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, 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 fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors making them unplayable(at least by my standards), sometimes even dropping to 15-20fps when the action starts.

 

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

 

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.

 

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

 

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 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

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"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."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"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."

 

"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 architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

 

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.

 

This is PCMark 7, it is a FutureMark benchmark that "is a complete PC benchmark that measures overall system performance during typical desktop usage across a range of activities such as handling images and video, web browsing and gaming. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system."

This shows that while the performance in daily workloads is similar, Intel is still ahead.  Also consider that these are older generation Intel processors that have since been improved upon, only further increasing the result in Intel's favor for daily tasks.  Think multi-tasking is better on the FX8 because of all those cores?  Nope.

 

Some more productivity benchmarks for your enjoyment:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The FX processors do have some strengths, just make sure that you are using a program that maximizes those strengths.  Also, in my opinion the gaming benefits of a locked i5, far outweigh the productivity(certain programs) benefits of the FX8.

 

Sources:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_6.html#sect0

http://pclab.pl/art57691-12.html

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5.  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year, and that is a conservative, no-overclock estimate.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E_(kWh/day) = P_(W) × t_(h/day) / 1000_(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost_($/day) = E_(kWh/day) × Cost_(cent/kWh) / 100_(cent/$)

 

Temperatures:

I hear the argument that AMD runs cooler than Intel, and this is a really silly misconception.  I can understand why someone would think that it does, but the temperatures from AMD processors are inaccurate.  They don't measure the cores, they measure the socket, cores tend to be hotter than the socket by a fair amount, and its an algorithm, not a direct measurement like with Intel. It is against the laws of physics for an FX processor to be less hot than an Intel one.  The FX draws much more power.  At stock, the FX8 draws 125W compared to 84/88W of an i5. The FX processor heats up the room much more as well.  I know in my friends' house who owns the FX, his room is sweltering after just an hour of gaming.

 

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO"

 

-Source

 

 

You should really read through the link above, it is a great and detailed read. 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 :)"

 

This video is the most meticulous head to head comparison of the FX8 and i5.  Its lengthy, but it is the most comprehensive and in-depth review of the FX8 and i5-4670k in a myriad of scenarios pitted against each other.  Single player, multiplayer, 1080p, 1440p, power consumption, min/max/avg framerates, daily tasks, rendering, editing, streaming, mid level GPUs, high level GPUs, multi-threaded games, single core games, this video covers it all.

 

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.  You can squeeze by on a 6+2, but you aren't going to get as consistent results as an 8+2, also overclocking results drop with the 6+2.  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.  I'm not arguing that the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, but the ancillary components needed end up making it cost the same as a locked i5.

 

 

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX.

 

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  ($132.98 @ OutletPC)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($26.75 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($75.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $235.72

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 20:17 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

 

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

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

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

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

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

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

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

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

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.

 

I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $200 equals $200 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.