FX 8350 or i5 4440

[Faceman]

Fair enough , did you write it all by yourself?

Or did you had the help of forum menbers?

Pretty impressive write up.

I did write it all myself, but I would see links that others on the forum posted, and I would go read through that link and then make my own observations about it.  The areas that really weren't me at all are the FX4 to FX8 comparison done by Faa, who I credit, the iUpgraded from FX8 to i7 journal by Suika, and the FX8 to i5 aggregate comparison by paulsterio.

[zappian]

I did write it all myself, but I would see links that others on the forum posted, and I would go read through that link and then make my own observations about it.  The areas that really weren't me at all are the FX4 to FX8 comparison done by Faa, who I credit, the iUpgraded from FX8 to i7 journal by Suika, and the FX8 to i5 aggregate comparison by paulsterio.

 

Thats cool , i use that info you shared all the time when people say im a moron because i bought an i3.

[Faceman]

Thats cool , i use that info you shared all the time when people say im a moron because i bought an i3.

Just cite me, thats all I ask.

 

Nah dude, i3 is amazing.  It delivers roughly 80% the performance of an i5 when paired with a high end GPU, and 95% the performance when paired with a mid-range GPU.

 

The gaming benchmarks spoiler, of the 18 benchies that have an i3 and FX8 together, the i3 is winning in 16 of them.

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many 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.co...sor-reviewed/14

https://translate.go...v-test-gpu.html

https://translate.go...l/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."

 

Then there is also this Austin Evans video:

 

He does compare them stock to stock, so if you overclocked the i5, I'm confident that the difference would be more significant depending on the game, but case in point, the i3 is an amazing budget option that allows you to play every game, and gives you an upgrade path.

[Dabombinable]

i5 4440. I was originally going to choose an FX 8350, but the people building my rig said it wasn't a good idea as a more expensive motherboard and better cooling were needed. I only found out about its performance, and its 4 core 8 module design later (AMD's version of an 8 core CPU-which sucks IMO)

[kainobean]

go AMD. support the underdogs. dont let intel become the only cpu manufacture... >.> dear god i hope that wont happen but really more poeple should support the underdog. AMD chips are still good enough and we all dont need super fast i7's unless you want a few extra fps. and the i5 wont be much faster like marginaly faster. unless you love single threaded programs. anyways i stand by my support underdog statement ^.^

[Dabombinable]

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, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 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 because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  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.

 

For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.

 

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.

-snip-

You must be getting tired of posting this all the time.

 

 

go AMD. support the underdogs. dont let intel become the only cpu manufacture... >.> dear god i hope that wont happen but really more poeple should support the underdog. AMD chips are still good enough and we all dont need super fast i7's unless you want a few extra fps. and the i5 wont be much faster like marginaly faster. unless you love single threaded programs. anyways i stand by my support underdog statement ^.^

AMD is in trouble because they went with a similar CPU design to a Pentium4 (that very long pipeline) which Intel ditched. That and they haven't innovated in years.

[zappian]

Just cite me, thats all I ask.

 

Nah dude, i3 is amazing.  It delivers roughly 80% the performance of an i5 when paired with a high end GPU, and 95% the performance when paired with a mid-range GPU.

 

The gaming benchmarks spoiler, of the 18 benchies that have an i3 and FX8 together, the i3 is winning in 16 of them.

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many 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.co...sor-reviewed/14

https://translate.go...v-test-gpu.html

https://translate.go...l/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."

 

Then there is also this Austin Evans video:

 

He does compare them stock to stock, so if you overclocked the i5, I'm confident that the difference would be more significant depending on the game, but case in point, the i3 is an amazing budget option that allows you to play every game, and gives you an upgrade path.

 

Yeah

 

Just cite me, thats all I ask.

 

Nah dude, i3 is amazing.  It delivers roughly 80% the performance of an i5 when paired with a high end GPU, and 95% the performance when paired with a mid-range GPU.

 

The gaming benchmarks spoiler, of the 18 benchies that have an i3 and FX8 together, the i3 is winning in 16 of them.

 

 

Yeah i usually always mention you when i share it.

 

I have a 270x so im getting almost i5 level performance.

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many 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.co...sor-reviewed/14

https://translate.go...v-test-gpu.html

https://translate.go...l/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."

 

Then there is also this Austin Evans video:

 

He does compare them stock to stock, so if you overclocked the i5, I'm confident that the difference would be more significant depending on the game, but case in point, the i3 is an amazing budget option that allows you to play every game, and gives you an upgrade path.

[Fate]

and the i5 wont be much faster like marginaly faster. 

Please read Faceman's post, it is marginally faster. 

 

Just because you have an FX CPU, doesn't mean you should recommend it to people. I don't go around recommending my 3570k/960T all day because they're not good options at this point. Please don't be that guy who denies facts/benchmarks. 

[Faceman]

go AMD. support the underdogs. dont let intel become the only cpu manufacture... >.> dear god i hope that wont happen but really more poeple should support the underdog. AMD chips are still good enough and we all dont need super fast i7's unless you want a few extra fps. and the i5 wont be much faster like marginaly faster. unless you love single threaded programs. anyways i stand by my support underdog statement ^.^

This isn't sports.  We are all rooting for the underdog, we want AMD to put something out to market that is competitive and will drive the industry forward, but as of right now, no consumer desktop grade "high end" CPUs are being produced by AMD that are worthwhile.  Please read through my link above and it will explain why.  An i3 is outperforming FX8s.  You don't need an i7, an i5 is all you need to handily beat an FX8 in every single game, and an i3 is pretty much on par, slightly ahead of the FX8.  This is not a 5fps difference we are talking about, we're talking about as much as double the minimum FPS provided by i series chips over FX chips.

[kainobean]

AMD is in trouble because they went with a similar CPU design to a Pentium4 (that very long pipeline) which Intel ditched. That and they haven't innovated in years.

 ya i know its sad. but seeing the AMD net losses i can see why they havent innovated. they just dont have the cash to do highlevel rebuilds and seem to be just trying to improve what they have. hopefully keller can change that. so im holding hopes for them staying in the race but we wont find out till maybe next year. fine by me since i love my fx9590. its so warm and toasty i can cook dinner wiht my computer. saves money on needing an own and a home heating system .... i think i could ditch the dryer as well and use the exhuast from ym pc to dry all my cloths. dang AMD made a very versitile chip wiht this one >.< (please note these are jokes)

[Faceman]

You must be getting tired of posting this all the time.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

I don't get tired of helping someone who hasn't read it before be able to understand that the FX processor is not the right tool for the job when it comes to gaming.  I don't get tired of it getting marked as Solved.  What I do get tired of, is people not reading through it and discrediting it, calling it all cherrypicked and unhelpful data.  Or those who report me for spam, yes, I get reported for spam whenever I link this.  I just don't want to go through and argue every single point depending on the question, topic, or thread. It is much easier for me to just copy and paste this wealth of information and let the person who I am trying to help or educate make an informed decision.  If someone can post evidence contrary to what I have found, I am open to it.  I can use logic and reasoning to develop and informed decision based on the information available.  Its those people who are unable to do this that get on my nerves.

[vm'N]

ya i know its sad. but seeing the AMD net losses i can see why they havent innovated. they just dont have the cash to do highlevel rebuilds and seem to be just trying to improve what they have. hopefully keller can change that. s

AMD is working on changes. But a new architecture (not just a revision of an architecture) takes ~5 years to develop. (hence why zen will be out in 2016-17)

Until then, they are stuck with the bulldozer design.

[zappian]

The only use for FX cpus is budget video editing , other than that its a stupid move and objectivly a bad decision.

[holy-sock]

Hello

I'm building a PC soon and what I'm stuck on these two CPUs I don't know which one is better the AMD is slightly cheaper then the i5. What CPU do I use?

If you aren't editing and rendering videos regularly i'd suggest you spend the 20 bucks and go for the i5