AMD FX-8350 Vs. Intel Core i5-4460

[Morgan MLGman]

No I completely do understand how it works. I didn't say the benchmark was fishy due to the resolution; not sure where you're getting that from. It's also a lot more that a static "HIGHER RESOLUTION = CPU IMPACT".

What was "and look at that resolution!" part supposed to mean then?

You know I own a FX-8350, it's not like it's not capable of gaming, in fact there are CPU heavy games that the 8350 will outperform a low-end i5 like the 4460. The CPU choice in that bracket depends on the usage, it's not like the i5 is better at everything.

[Prysin]

I like how the intel line-up still beat the FX series in the end in basically every video you have posted. Not to mention a few of the AMD CPUs were overclocked. I never said the FX series was "shit", yet I stated the i5 series will always kill the FX series; which it has done. Did I mention anything about price/performance? No. Look at the amount of limitations the FX series has compared to the intel series overall.

 

I don't understand why you're becoming so angry.

im not even angry mate... gotta work harder if you want to piss me off.

 

but price to performance is the mantra of LTT....

 

FX 8350 costs the same as a 4460, so a 4460 is a better buy

a FX 8320 is cheaper, you need to OC it to 8350 levels, which with a after-market cooler puts you at 4460 levels, which means you should still buy the 4460.

 

FX is only really worth it when talkin about FX 6300 vs haswell i3.....

 

Even then, Skylake i3 is better.

 

I have no qualms admitting FX is worse.

I have qualms with people showing cherry picked benchmarks where FX loses by a fucking landslide because the test itself is set up to display the disparity.

 

Gamers Nexus lost all my respect when they diffused their test bench as badly as they did.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

 

They did not list a "standardized" AMD test bench... that means for all we know, they could have skewered the result with the 9590 by using it with the 970 Gaming board. The 970 Gaming is capable of running it, but not without throttling.

having two motherboards of extremely different quality for AMD simply makes the whole test scenario scetchy. BOTH AMD boards are capable of testing all of the AMD CPUs bar their 7870k. The 7870k mobo isnt even listed, and the 7870k itself uses a different socket from FX. We dont even know what board they used with the 7870k....

 

so why is it that Gamers Nexus show vastly different results then everyone else?

well, in that case, i recon Gamers Nexus may be doing something wrong....

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

 

 

im not even angry mate... gotta work harder if you want to piss me off.

 

but price to performance is the mantra of LTT....

 

FX 8350 costs the same as a 4460, so a 4460 is a better buy

a FX 8320 is cheaper, you need to OC it to 8350 levels, which with a after-market cooler puts you at 4460 levels, which means you should still buy the 4460.

 

FX is only really worth it when talkin about FX 6300 vs haswell i3.....

 

Even then, Skylake i3 is better.

 

I have no qualms admitting FX is worse.

I have qualms with people showing cherry picked benchmarks where FX loses by a fucking landslide because the test itself is set up to display the disparity.

 

Gamers Nexus lost all my respect when they diffused their test bench as badly as they did.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

 

They did not list a "singular" test bench... that means for all we know, they could have skewered the result with the 9590 by using it with the 970 Gaming board. The 970 Gaming is capable of running it, but not without throttling.

having two motherboards of extremely different quality for AMD simply makes the whole test scenario scetchy. BOTH AMD boards are capable of testing all of the AMD CPUs bar their 7870k. The 7870k mobo isnt even listed, and the 7870k itself uses a different socket from FX. We dont even know what board they used with the 7870k....

 

so why is it that Gamers Nexus show vastly different results then everyone else?

well, in that case, i recon Gamers Nexus may be doing something wrong....

 

Oh no, there are Toms hardware results that are very similar to gamersnexus. The FX series kills the intel series price to performance wise, I mean I paid $100 for this 8320 back in the day. It has also costed me more since I now have to purchase a new motherboard. There are so many variables too!

[Dabombinable]

In more modern games it seems to favor more cores/treads!  (but for the sake of compatibility the i5 is still safer)

That website's benchmarks aren't to be trusted.

[Dabombinable]

 

im not even angry mate... gotta work harder if you want to piss me off.

 

but price to performance is the mantra of LTT....

 

FX 8350 costs the same as a 4460, so a 4460 is a better buy

a FX 8320 is cheaper, you need to OC it to 8350 levels, which with a after-market cooler puts you at 4460 levels, which means you should still buy the 4460.

 

FX is only really worth it when talkin about FX 6300 vs haswell i3.....

 

Even then, Skylake i3 is better.

 

I have no qualms admitting FX is worse.

I have qualms with people showing cherry picked benchmarks where FX loses by a fucking landslide because the test itself is set up to display the disparity.

 

Gamers Nexus lost all my respect when they diffused their test bench as badly as they did.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

 

They did not list a "singular" test bench... that means for all we know, they could have skewered the result with the 9590 by using it with the 970 Gaming board. The 970 Gaming is capable of running it, but not without throttling.

having two motherboards of extremely different quality for AMD simply makes the whole test scenario scetchy. BOTH AMD boards are capable of testing all of the AMD CPUs bar their 7870k. The 7870k mobo isnt even listed, and the 7870k itself uses a different socket from FX. We dont even know what board they used with the 7870k....

 

so why is it that Gamers Nexus show vastly different results then everyone else?

well, in that case, i recon Gamers Nexus may be doing something wrong....

 

Oh no, there are Toms hardware results that are very similar to gamersnexus. The FX series kills the intel series price to performance wise, I mean I paid $100 for this 8320 back in the day. It has also costed me more since I now have to purchase a new motherboard. There are so many variables too!

 

Lmao, uuhhhh no:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

That website's benchmarks aren't to be trusted.

 

Your turn, I can't deal with typing on a Surface anymore. I give up.

[Dabombinable]

Your turn, I can't deal with typing on a Surface anymore. I give up.

The touch cover or the screen?

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

The touch cover or the screen?

 

The screen! Oh the pain.

[Dabombinable]

The screen! Oh the pain.

If you can get a touch cover, or just plug a keyboard in-typing on glass is never that pleasant.

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

If you can get a touch cover, or just plug a keyboard in-typing on glass is never that pleasant.

 

I actually have one, but I don't want to sit up. Today is my only day off, and I would like to lay down n' youtube + chill.

[Prysin]

Lmao, uuhhhh no:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

antiquated games. aside from BF3, all the games tested are well... not very representative of TODAYS performance

Go look at the YT vids i posted. they show you what you can expect. Whether you like it or not. FX does fine.

 

HOWEVER

the i5 4460 is still a better buy then any FX8 or FX9

[Coaxialgamer]

For rendering or any heavily multithreaded work , fx 8350 will be the be the better option.

For anyhting else , get the i5

[Morgan MLGman]

Yup, FX does more than fine for AAA title gaming. I did a video to prove that actually in the past with my old, mildly OC'd GTX 970, I'll do another one with my current R9 290X soon I suppose. I did it cause some people from what they say basically mean "you can't game on a FX, get an i3" for instance, while this is completely untrue.

link for curious people:

[don_svetlio]

Gaming? i5
Multitasking? 8350
Streaming? 8350
Video editing/rendering? 8350

[Dabombinable]

antiquated games. aside from BF3, all the games tested are well... not very representative of TODAYS performance

Go look at the YT vids i posted. they show you what you can expect. Whether you like it or not. FX does fine.

 

HOWEVER

the i5 4460 is still a better buy then any FX8 or FX9

Antiquated? Far from it. Those games still demonstrate the ever present problems with the FX series.

[Nena Trinity]

antiquated games. aside from BF3, all the games tested are well... not very representative of TODAYS performance

Go look at the YT vids i posted. they show you what you can expect. Whether you like it or not. FX does fine.

 

HOWEVER

the i5 4460 is still a better buy then any FX8 or FX9

I still would avoid the 9000 series... (its more risk than its worth and many screws it up somehow by buying wrong board...)

[Morgan MLGman]

I still would avoid the 9000 series... (its more risk than its worth and many screws it up somehow by buying wrong board...)

It's not worth getting simply put. Let me ask you a question, do you feel like your 8370 is not good enough for the games you play? Cause I'd say my 8350 @4,5 is more than enough, and the only reason that I'm looking to upgrade is just because I can, I'm looking into used i7's 3rd/4th gen, for example I can get a good price for a 3930k, it's about the same as a 4770k here and dayum those 12 threads look tempting.

[totjup5]

Look when this article was written, the FX 8350 is nearing 4 years old:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html

Check your math, it just passed 3 years in October.

[Morgan MLGman]

Check your math, it just passed 3 years in October.

The entire age argument is retarded to me. 290X is 2 years older than a 970 and still kicks ass.

[Dabombinable]

Check your math, it just passed 3 years in October.

Nearing 4 years old.

 

The entire age argument is retarded to me. 290X is 2 years older than a 970 and still kicks ass.

That was a good GPU to begin with.

[Morgan MLGman]

That was a good GPU to begin with.

The drivers held it back quite heavily back in the days though.

[Prysin]

The entire age argument is retarded to me. 290X is 2 years older than a 970 and still kicks ass.

yeah... its like the power drain argument.

 

why cannot people get it that:

PERFORMANCE IS ALL THAT MATTERS FOR GAMING!

 

Worst is a lot of people would gladly suggest a 2500k today. He wouldnt suggest a 8350 even if the games OP was gonna play was known to use all 8 cores. they'd go "intel intel intel".... because "intel".

[Dabombinable]

The drivers held it back quite heavily back in the days though.

Considering the fact that very few scenarios see the GPU even coming close to their advertised computational power (eg. Bitcoin mining), I have to agree that the drivers do seem to be holding them back. And after the problems with the Crimson drivers, I don't think AMD will be actually improving them any time soon. The FX series has just hurt AMD too badly.

[Nena Trinity]

It's not worth getting simply put. Let me ask you a question, do you feel like your 8370 is not good enough for the games you play? Cause I'd say my 8350 @4,5 is more than enough, and the only reason that I'm looking to upgrade is just because I can, I'm looking into used i7's 3rd/4th gen, for example I can get a good price for a 3930k, it's about the same as a 4770k here and dayum those 12 threads look tempting.

I would say unless you upgrade to a i7-4790K, X99 or a Skylake i7 then its not worth it for you!

[Morgan MLGman]

I would say unless you upgrade to a i7-4790K or a Skylake i7 then its not worth it for you!

@Prysin did upgrade to an i7-4790K and claims not a major difference (If I remember correctly)

I wouldn't get a Skylake i7, like ever, 5820k master race. My only concern with going 3930k over the 4770k is that it might lack some newer instructions and stuff like that, despite being much more powerful overall it could be behind in some scenarios (I'm not sure about the instructions stuff though)

Also, what is the real temperatures difference between 4790k and 4770k? does anyone know? Cause I know the Devil's Canyon was improved in terms of heat etc, but how much of that is marketing and how much of that is a real deal? @ maybe you know something about it