AMD FX-8350 vs Intel i5 4670k/4690k any arguments for and against both?

[Morgan MLGman]

I have used many CPUs in my life, with the latest four being two Intels and two AMDs respectively, First was Pentium 4 3.0gHz, then it was an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2,33gHz, after that AMD Athlon II X4 750k and currently I'm using an FX-8350 @4,5gHz, voltage offset +0.050V. My flatmates both have intels, one of them has i5-4670k @4,4 and the other one has an i5-4690k also at 4,4.

Note: I am not a fanboy, I believe both of the sides have their advantages in certain fields. With the winner crown going to Intel cause their CPUs are overall better besides budget builds where FX-6 and FX-8 series are worth considering.
 

They bought their CPUs for equivalent of 250-260 US $. I bought mine for around 155$ (got a good deal at a local seller) since I just didn't have enough for the same i5 as they own. But it got me thinking.
Let's talk benchmarks, in terms of raw performance my CPU was better than the 4670k and even better than the 4690k, but that's not that suprising for an eight core.

Gaming: I've got an MSi GTX 970 Gaming 100ME Edition, my friend with an i5-4690k also has a 970, but from Gigabyte G1 gaming, the other one has a GTX 770 from Gigabyte.

In The Witcher 3, which uses all of the cores/threads of the CPU, my CPU usage is from 35-50%, and I get slightly lower FPS (5-7 FPS difference perhaps) than my friend with 4690k & 970, that might be cause his mobo is a better quality one and his RAM is 2400mhz CL10 while mine is @1866mhz cl10.
 

I do not have any detailed benchmarks, I'm showing you how it looks in everyday use for us.

And then again, in terms of gaming, with DirectX12 coming out, which is said to utilize all threads of CPUs and lower its overall usage in the games that are made for it (coming out in a few months probably)
the AMD started to seem like a good choice... I'm no expert so what I said might not be entirely true, but that's why I post this - to straighten my opinion from a reliable source.

Pros for the FX-8350:

- Better multitasking

- Higher raw performance

- Lower price (100$ difference in my case)

- Good overclocking capabilities

Pros to the i5-4690k:
- Much better single-core performance
- Lower TDP
- Lower power consumption
- Better technology process

Verdict: I would say that the i5-4690k is a better CPU and if I could freely choose between both I would take the i5... HOWEVER, I wouldn't buy it. I would buy the FX-8350 and buy a better GPU/RAM/Mobo instead. Why you might ask? It is a decent CPU in terms of future-proofness for gaming cause of DX12's multi-threaded optimization, it's a powerful CPU, its single core performance after a decent OC is definitely enough and it's much cheaper. It's also easier to find good deals for it cause it's a bit older (just like I did).
Unlike the common misconception the AMD's don't run that hot, at 4,5 ghz I've got max temp 64 degrees celsius after 2 hours of stresstest. My CPU cooler: SilentiumPC Grandis.

I'd like some insight from you guys and I wanna hear your opinions and thoughts! I might be wrong in my judgement, I'm just curious how it really is cause I love tech stuff ^^
 

[Majestic]

Pros for the FX-8350:

- Better multitasking

- Higher raw performance

- Lower price (100$ difference in my case)

- Good overclocking capabilities

 

-Nope, 4690K wins in multithreading or at the worst case scenario ties with the 8350.

-Nope, see 1.

-Nope, you weren't using the correct parts then.

-Not if you're going cheap, overclocking requires beefy VRM's on the board and a decent cooler.

[paprikman]

There can not be any choice between fx and i5.

AMD: powerful cars on square wheels. Intel: balanced cars on smooth circle wheels.

Get 4690k, asrock anniversary and stay happy for a long time towards.

[TheMissxu]

-Nope, 4690K wins in multithreading or at the worst case scenario ties with the 8350.

lol nope, 8350 wins in multithreaded applications

 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-3.html

[Oshino Shinobu]

We have this pretty much everyday. 

 

The 8350 is a slightly faster 8320, with essentially 4 cores split into pairs (making it an 8 core, technically) on a dead socket. It's old and bad for games when paired with a high end GPU. DX12 doesn't mean anything until game developers start supporting it, so we have no idea how it will actually effect the performance of lots of cores. #

 

i5 is better for gaming, no arguments, and does well for other tasks too. It's on a recent socket with current features and has some room for an upgrade path. 

[Morgan MLGman]

@Majestic 4670k wins in multithreading? Not according to cpu-world.com http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
- "In multi-threaded programs, the FX-8350 processor has 2% higher performance." RIP

[Oshino Shinobu]

lol nope, 8350 wins in multithreaded applications

True, but it's not by a large amount. They're pretty much even in applications that use all the cores when the 4690K is overclocked a little. 

[Morgan MLGman]

@Oshino Shinobu yeah in a much cheaper CPU performance being even to i5 4670k isn't even worth considering? What do you even mean by saying "i5 is better for gaming" both CPUs are used in 30-50% in The Witcher 3, this isn't even near to the CPUs being the bottleneck, so it doesn't matter.

[Sam Z Man]

The 8350 is absolute shit in every situation, even where it has a best case scenario it will lose.

[Majestic]

lol nope, 8350 wins in multithreaded applications

 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-3.html

 

That's the 4670K, and that depends on the motherboard (with regards to turbo). 

 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6223/18/intel-core-i7-6700k--core-i5-6600k-skylake-review-6de-generatie-core-cpus-getest-benchmarks-igpu-cinebench-115

 

6.61 vs 6.89. I call that a marginal win. Especially considering the gap in any other scenario.

[TheMissxu]

True, but it's not by a large amount. They're pretty much even in applications that use all the cores when the 4690K is overclocked a little.

I'll concede to that point. pcper, in their most recent podcast, did mention that "if you aren't benchmarking while maxed out overclocked, you are a fool" (Paraphrased a little).

 

They basically have the same base clock and overclock potential though. Would you disagree?

 

That's the 4670K, and that depends on the motherboard (with regards to turbo).

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6223/18/intel-core-i7-6700k--core-i5-6600k-skylake-review-6de-generatie-core-cpus-getest-benchmarks-igpu-cinebench-115

6.61 vs 6.89. I call that a marginal win. Especially considering the gap in any other scenario.

According to HardwareCunucks, it's 6.21 vs 6.98. idk why you selected a random netherlands review

[Morgan MLGman]

@Sam Z Man I do not understand why, in games it's even or slightly worse, which doesn't matter much or at all, it's cheaper, and it runs everything you throw at it.

[Oshino Shinobu]

@Oshino Shinobu yeah in a much cheaper CPU performance being even to i5 4670k isn't even worth considering? What do you even mean by saying "i5 is better for gaming" both CPUs are used in 30-50% in The Witcher 3, this isn't even near to the CPUs being the bottleneck, so it doesn't matter.

The 8350 has been proved to bottleneck high end GPUs again and again. 

 

CPU usage doesn't show the bottleneck. If a game is using, let's say, 4 cores, how is an 8 core going to get to 100% usage? It would be using 100% of those 4 cores it has access to, whereas with an i5, it would be using 50% of the 4 cores it has available. 

[pjm0925]

I've owned both and unless you're doing something heavily multithreaded the I5 will stomp all over the 8350s face.

[Morgan MLGman]

@Oshino Shinobu that is why I mentioned The Witcher 3 as the sample, cause it uses all of the threads the CPU have, and that's what DX12 optimized games will do in the near future. I own a GTX970, this is a GPU that's maybe not high-end but nobody would buy anything better for an FX-8350 in the first place. The points people point out here are illogical. Would you buy a 980 with 8350? or 980Ti? No. If you can afford this GPU then you can afford a better CPU. This is a scenario where your budget allows the i5 or a worse GPU, or the FX and a better one.

[Oshino Shinobu]

I'll concede to that point. pcper, in their most recent podcast, did mention that "if you aren't benchmarking while maxed out overclocked, you are a fool" (Paraphrased a little).

 

They basically have the same base clock and overclock potential though. Would you disagree?

Pretty much. The 8350 is not a bad CPU for multi threaded workloads. It actually offers good value. However, it offers virtually no upgrade path at all when compared to what's available above a 4690K. For around the same price, you could go for a Xeon E3 1231v3 which would beat out the 8350 in every way, including multi threaded applications. 

[Morgan MLGman]

I've owned both and unless you're doing something heavily multithreaded the I5 will stomp all over the 8350s face.

I completely agree, but you cannot compare them as equals, you'd have to compare the i5-4430 vs the FX-8350. And I'd never pick that i5 over the AMD.

[Sam Z Man]

@Sam Z Man I do not understand why, in games it's even or slightly worse, which doesn't matter much or at all, it's cheaper, and it runs everything you throw at it.

It will bottleneck any decent GPU and CPU bottlenecks have the worst stuturing.

[TheMissxu]

 For around the same price

$227 vs $150 hrmmm

 

I payed that much for my 8350 3 years ago, I suppose...

[Morgan MLGman]

@Oshino Shinobu, so again, obviously the FX-8350 is a worse CPU and as I mentioned, if I could freely pick one of them, I'd go for the i5, but obviously when you're on a tight budget, it's better to buy the FX-8350 and spend additional money left for a better GPU/RAM/Mobo... Cause even if it's worse, it's definitely ENOUGH for 98% of games to run smoothly.

[Zoomv]

I completely agree, but you cannot compare them as equals, you'd have to compare the i5-4430 vs the FX-8350. And I'd never pick that i5 over the AMD.

the fx 8350 at 4.7 is as fast in gaming as the 3770k at stock but over clocking the 3770k to 4.7 it destroys the fx 8350 it simply wrecks it.

[Oshino Shinobu]

@Oshino Shinobu that is why I mentioned The Witcher 3 as the sample, cause it uses all of the threads the CPU have, and that's what DX12 optimized games will do in the near future. I own a GTX970, this is a GPU that's maybe not high-end but nobody would buy anything better for an FX-8350 in the first place. The points people point out here are illogical. Would you buy a 980 with 8350? or 980Ti? No. If you can afford this GPU then you can afford a better CPU. This is a scenario where your budget allows the i5 or a worse GPU, or the FX and a better one.

That doesn't work out. If you can afford a 980, you can afford an i5? Is there a mysterious gap where people don't have just have a enough for an 8350 and 980? Besides, you could go for a 4460/4440 and H97 board for around the same price as a 8350 and decent board and not be bottlenecked at all by a 980. 

 

The Witcher 3 is a good example for the support of the FX 8350, much like BF4, as they're well made and well optimised. If you look at other games that aren't as well optimised, the 8350 can hold back anything 970 or over, even less than that if you start looking at fairly poorly optimised games. It's widely accepted and proven that the 8350 is not a good choice for gaming anymore. It used to be, back when it was still somewhat recent, but now it's on an old and dead socket with no upgrade path and poor performance in an awful lot of programs.

[Morgan MLGman]

@Sam Z Man Do you consider this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127850&cm_re=970_100_ME-_-14-127-850-_-Product "a decent GPU?"
Cause I can tell you, the CPU does not bottleneck it in any way on any game I've ran, including TW3, Dragon Age Inquisition, CS:GO, LoL, The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Tomb Raider and Batman: Arkham Knight, ArcheAge. Some of the titles are pretty demanding.

 

@Oshino Shinobu, my point is, would you buy FX-8350 if you could build a new rig that includes a GTX 980? I do not know a sane person who would...

[Oshino Shinobu]

$227 vs $150 hrmmm

 

I payed that much for my 8350 3 years ago, I suppose...

No, no. For around the same price as the 4690K

[Oshino Shinobu]

@Oshino Shinobu, my point is, would you buy FX-8350 if you could build a new rig that includes a GTX 980? I do not know a sane person who would...

Well no. But I also wouldn't buy an 8350 with a 970 or even 960, as it kills your path for upgrading in the future.