Will fx 8350 be equal to i5 4690K in gaming(DX12) and multitasking

[Faceman]

bro one last thing since i am playing only at 180p at 60fps should i get 4690K or 4690

If you have the budget, you should go for an i5-4690k.  If not, then an i5-4460 will be plenty.

[typographie]

Any purchases based on what DirectX 12 might do someday are equivalent to gambling. As others have said, even if DX12 does what everyone seems to hope it will, it could still be years down the line before it actually begins to matter in real games. An 8350 isn't even a very good gaming CPU today, it certainly won't be what we're comparing Core i5's to two years from now.

[Dabombinable]

i'll just quote faceman here, he resumed the situation very well in his first post:

 

That's all there is to say, it will not magically fix everything, a game is still a game there will always be CPU limitations with a chip that has the single-threaded performance of an 8+ years old CPU.

With my benchmarking and hypothesis from the results, the IPC is around that of a Celeron M380, which is just a heavily improved Pentium III.

[i_build_nanosuits]

With my benchmarking and hypothesis from the results, the IPC is around that of a Celeron M380, which is just a heavily improved Pentium III.

In terms of instructions per cycle PER CORE, maybe...i don't know.

But piledriver is a CPU architecture that is a fish in water at around 4 to 4.5ghz...easily...and you get 8 integer units on an FX-8350, with a lot more cache than those old intel CPU's...so relative performance of the chip overall is much greater with the AMD FX and you do have to get into the low-clocked locked sandy-bridge core i5 to find CPU's that offer similar gaming performance to those FX monster chip. But still, some users have been able to clock Q9650 to 4ghz+ and get similar performance to AMD FX...that's more the ''8 years old'' type of chips i was refering to.

[Dabombinable]

In terms of instructions per cycle PER CORE, maybe...i don't know.

But piledriver is a CPU architecture that is a fish in water at around 4 to 4.5ghz...easily...and you get 8 integer units on an FX-8350, with a lot more cache than those old intel CPU's...so relative performance of the chip overall is much greater with the AMD FX and you do have to get into the low-clocked locked sandy-bridge core i5 to find CPU's that offer similar gaming performance to those FX monster chip. But still, some users have been able to clock Q9650 to 4ghz+ and get similar performance to AMD FX...that's more the ''8 years old'' type of chips i was refering to.

I know about the similar performance, I had my Xeon X5450 at 4.5GHz 2 CB away from my i5 4440. That's flogging an AMD FX.

[samuel]

Fx 8350/20 is still a good enough CPU for gaming today. "Upgrading" to Intel, doesn't worth the money unless money is not that much of a problem for you. Yes, I woudn't buy it for a new rig and I woudnt upgrade and ease my wallets pain by making a thread like this either. I do hope DX12 gets me closer to i5 in gaming.