8320 vs 8350 vs 4670k

[Hunter259]

For what? I am not Intel fanboy.

 

And even if I was... you people would ban me for preffering Intel overally across the board?

 

Laughing so hard.

No your just argueing and calling people stupid about every post. Time to grow up and learn the facts.

[Dravic]

No your just argueing and calling people stupid about every post. Time to grow up and learn the facts.

 

Show me where i called somebody stupid, please?

 

Learn the facts? But its you who doesnt want to accept well performed benchmarks. I already said i agree that FX 83xx is faster in the heavily (7-8 threads) multi-threaded tasks than i5. I insist on my opinion that i5 is faster across the board.

[JujuShinobi]

For what? I am not Intel fanboy.

 

And even if I was... you people would ban me for preffering Intel overally across the board?

 

Laughing so hard.

If a 15 year old can be more civilised and mature than you, you know something is wrong. The world has people and people have varying opinions. If someone does not agree with you, shooting their opinion down is totally unnecessary.

[slasher0161]

For what? I am not Intel fanboy.

 

And even if I was... you people would ban me for preffering Intel overally across the board?

 

Laughing so hard.

 

Please tell me once where you have been helpful. I find it funny you have missed that biggest golden egg intel chips have for those of us who like to overclock. However i'll let you stew on that and why assume if the OP is asking between 3 overclockable chips that he won't be overclocking and running on a stock fan?

 

OP the 8320 will most likely fulfil your needs, however if you don't mind dropping the extra money for an 8350 it will clock higher overall if the extra 2-300 mhz is worth the money I can't decide for you.

[Dravic]

Your gaming performance will suffer by approximately 50% in CPU-bound games.

 

Overclocked 8320 might hit anything from 4GHz to 5GHz, depends on how lucky you are. However you will need huge voltage increase.

 

And you will be drawing 3 times the wattage of Intel CPU after OCing, and still will be slower than stock clocked i5. We are talking about 200w and more vs 80w i5.

 

Consider this when picking CPU by price. unless you have energy for free and dont need to pay bills, you might actually save money by going with Intel (in the long run).

 

Also remember to count cost of a mobo for OCing FX processors. And the better PSU (unless you are buying good one anyway). And the cooling.

 

What mobo are you considering? Will you SLI/Crossfire in the future?

 

Sorry that i havent stressed it enough. let's rewrite one sentence:

 

And you will be drawing 3 times the wattage of Intel CPU after OCing, and still will be slower on average EXCEPT for heavily multi-threaded tasks than stock clocked i5. 

[Dravic]

Please tell me once where you have been helpful. I find it funny you have missed that biggest golden egg intel chips have for those of us who like to overclock. However i'll let you stew on that and why assume if the OP is asking between 3 overclockable chips that he won't be overclocking and running on a stock fan?

 

OP the 8320 will most likely fulfil your needs, however if you don't mind dropping the extra money for an 8350 it will clock higher overall if the extra 2-300 mhz is worth the money I can't decide for you.

[slasher0161]

Show me where i called somebody stupid, please?

 

Learn the facts? But its you who doesnt want to accept well performed benchmarks. I already said i agree that FX 83xx is faster in the heavily (7-8 threads) multi-threaded tasks than i5. I insist on my opinion that i5 is faster across the board.

 

You have a ford focus and a bugatti veyron driving on a highway with a speed limit of 100km/h and both drivers are law abiding citizens. Which one is faster?

[Dravic]

You have a ford focus and a bugatti veyron driving on a highway with a speed limit of 100km/h and both drivers are law abiding citizens. Which one is faster?

 

Although the annalogy is weak in this case:

 

Neither will be faster but I can tell you which is better for this task:

 

the one that will consume less fuel (energy).

[slasher0161]

Sorry that i havent stressed it enough. let's rewrite one sentence:

 

And you will be drawing 3 times the wattage of Intel CPU after OCing, and still will be slower on average EXCEPT for heavily multi-threaded tasks than stock clocked i5. 

 

Now lets crunch some numbers you like them, would you prefer them in line algorithms or tables?

 

I'll give you a hint and I have crunched numbers with gpu's comparing sli to single card and you won't like the results but anyway, i'll add the numbers here and the formula's that way you can just substitute in your own cost of electricity to work it out for yourself. All formula's will assume cpu's are cranking their 100% max load 24/7 with 0 downtime and 0 dips (completely unrealistic but I want to give you a fighting chance).

 

Editing numbers in here in a moment.

 

Alrighty so we are going to work on my cost of electricity of 29.403 cents/kWh.

 

Now we have the contenders lining up with their peak power draw.

 

- FX 8350 packing in at 210w

- FX 8320 packing in at what we will assume is the same as the 8350 because toms hardware doesn't have it listed.

- I5-4670k (now this chart from toms is old so I will take the 3570k (119w) and shave some off making it 100w)

 

Now we need to look at the initial cost of the chips, so we will use pcpartpicker (USA this also gives your argument the best chance because if I used AU pricings the jump from 8320 to 4670k is huge).

We aren't including microcentre prices because even in the USA not everyone is near one so the next cheapest price will be used.

 

- FX 8350 ($190)

- FX 8320 ($145)

- I5 - 4670k ($240)

 

Alrighty now that we have the boring part out of the way lets get to the numbers part.

 

Now the difference in power draw between the FX series and the i5 is 110w.

110w charged at a rate of $0.29403/kWh = $0.0323433/h

At that rate to close the $50 cost difference between the i5 and 8350 the systems would both have to be cranking balls to walls at 100% load for... 

1545.915228192547 hours

64.41313450802278 days

~ 2 months

 

Now that is the easier scenario but what about compared to the fx 8320.

2937.238933565839 hours

122.3849555652433 days

17.48356508074904 weeks

~ 4 months

 

Now I am no expert but i'm fairly sure if you had a chip cranking 100% load for that length of time straight with 0 downtime you are going to have bigger issues than a slightly higher electricity bill.

 

[JujuShinobi]

Although the annalogy is weak in this case:

 

Neither will be faster but I can tell you which is better for this task:

 

the one that will consume less fuel (energy).

I don't see how the analogy is weak. Also I would choose the one with better interior and air conditioning. A good sound system to blast J-pop and J-Rock is a bonus. If I need to spend an extra $7/litre for fuel, so be it.

[Dravic]

Now lets crunch some numbers you like them, would you prefer them in line algorithms or tables?

 

I'll give you a hint and I have crunched numbers with gpu's comparing sli to single card and you won't like the results but anyway, i'll add the numbers here and the formula's that way you can just substitute in your own cost of electricity to work it out for yourself. All formula's will assume cpu's are cranking their 100% max load 24/7 with 0 downtime and 0 dips (completely unrealistic but I want to give you a fighting chance).

 

Editing numbers in here in a moment.

 

Hmm but i thought you are comparing stock i5 to OC-ed FX 8320/8350 (I did that, you can reread).

[Joshyy]

 

 

And you will be drawing 3 times the wattage of Intel CPU after OCing, and still will be slower on average EXCEPT for heavily multi-threaded tasks than stock clocked i5. 

 

Wo,wo,wo hang on there, earlier in the thread you were claiming Intel could just through more cores at it if they need be, I'm not expert, but that would surely increase the TDP to even higher than AMD seeing as AMD cores run at LESS power draw per module

[Dravic]

Wo,wo,wo hang on there, earlier in the thread you were claiming Intel could just through more cores at it if they need be, I'm not expert, but that would surely increase the TDP to even higher than AMD seeing as AMD cores run at LESS power draw per module

 

Reread, maybe you misunderstood. Should I analyse the sentence you quoted for you?

 

 

And you will be drawing 3 times the wattage of Intel CPU after OCing, and still will be slower on average EXCEPT for heavily multi-threaded tasks than stock clocked i5. 

 

i5 - quad core for now.

 

I was talking about 8-core 4-module FX 8320/FX-8350 after OCing.

 

I said it will be slower in up to 4-thread tasks than i5 at stock.

 

I meant will be faster than i5 in more than 4-thread tasks.

 

I said that FX-8320/8350 will draw significantly more power.

[chikozz]

I am unfollowing .. 5 pages of arguing with Dravic Just don't reply to him guys. He is under mind-control ^^.

[Hunter259]

As i had posted with the benchmarks the 3570/4670k are the best all around in games, although if you start to stream your games the 8320 will be much better.

[pooh00018]

As i had posted with the benchmarks the 3570/4670k are the best all around in games, although if you start to stream your games the 8320 will be much better.

what about in the future? 

[Hunter259]

what about in the future? 

As much as people want to think that the 8 core consoles will make 4 core cpus bad its not going to happen. The apus in consoles are only jaguar cores, they are less than half the speed of the 8350. Basically nothing will change. 

[Dravic]

As i had posted with the benchmarks the 3570/4670k are the best all around in games, although if you start to stream your games the 8320 will be much better.

 

As much as people want to think that the 8 core consoles will make 4 core cpus bad its not going to happen. The apus in consoles are only jaguar cores, they are less than half the speed of the 8350. Basically nothing will change. 

 

Finally somebody came to his mind in this thread, wow. Nicely said.

 

Good Linus, thank you for sending into this thread one of the people on this forums who isn't an AMD fanboy.

[slasher0161]

Finally somebody came to his mind in this thread, wow. Nicely said.

 

Good Linus, thank you for sending into this thread one of the people on this forums who isn't an AMD fanboy.

 

The numbers are up above for you now, have fun.

[KaareKanin]

Flame wars and whatnot aside. Given that the fx9*** series are just a higher level binned cpu otherwise the same as the 83**s, the 8320 might not overclock as good as it used to, same with the 8350. I have no experience with these though, but i guess what I'm saying is that people who have experience with these CPUs from a couple of months ago might not be too relevant either

 

And one of the most important teachings: Look at the feature set of each platform, it might be more important than the few frames here and there that would otherwise separate the platforms...

[slasher0161]

Flame wars and whatnot aside. Given that the fx9*** series are just a higher level binned cpu otherwise the same as the 83**s, the 8320 might not overclock as good as it used to, same with the 8350. I have no experience with these though, but i guess what I'm saying is that people who have experience with these CPUs from a couple of months ago might not too relevant either

 

And one of the most important teachings: Look at the feature set of each platform, it might be more important than the few frames here and there that would otherwise separate the platforms...

Then don't invest in any platform, intel has alluded broadwell won't be 1150. AM3+ has no certain future either.

[Immort]

Wo,wo,wo hang on there, earlier in the thread you were claiming Intel could just through more cores at it if they need be, I'm not expert, but that would surely increase the TDP to even higher than AMD seeing as AMD cores run at LESS power draw per module

That's completely false, multi-core support relies on the number of cores not the speed.

Consoles will definitely give AMD CPUs the advantage, game developers working on next-gen games have stated this several times.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/42309-console-optimizations-will-boost-amd-cpu-performance-on-pc-according-to-john-carmack/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/43230-console-optimizations-already-boosting-the-performance-of-cpus-on-the-pc/

[Opsilon]

what about in the future? 

Future is unknown man, they are right they all have a few valid points there ( some more, some less, but all in all there is no best cpu if you are on a budget, only the one you can afford ), but listen, future games can leverage more cores, that is true, even crysis 2 when played on a i7 or an 8350 can use almost all cores, but only 4 will be dominant other 4 will never use more than 25%, so right there you can see that games are evolving, crysis 3 on the other hand can use all cores but 6 are dominant, so we have progress. See the trend?

 

I would suggest if you want an all around build get the 8350 ( i honestly believe that after the fx 9000 cpu launch they took better chips to bin them over 4.5 ghz, and the lower quality ones will go as 8350/8320 ), get a nice asus or gigabyte 990fx board with all bells and whistles, the rest of the money add to your new gpu and you will be able to buy a monster gpu with the extra cash.

 

i5 + a high end ATX z87 board is more expensive vs an 8350 + a high end 990fx mobo is much more expensive. So with AMD you can get a good gpu and/or a nice SSD, like i said think about what you need.

One more thing in 1080p a lot of the time intel has an advantage, but once the GPU takes over with higher resolutions, it will not matter, keep that in mind!!

[pooh00018]

Future is unknown man, they are right they all have a few valid points there ( some more, some less, but all in all there is no best cpu if you are on a budget, only the one you can afford ), but listen, future games can leverage more cores, that is true, even crysis 2 when played on a i7 or an 8350 can use almost all cores, but only 4 will be dominant other 4 will never use more than 25%, so right there you can see that games are evolving, crysis 3 on the other hand can use all cores but 6 are dominant, so we have progress. See the trend?

 

I would suggest if you want an all around build get the 8350 ( i honestly believe that after the fx 9000 cpu launch they took better chips to bin them over 4.5 ghz, and the lower quality ones will go as 8350/8320 ), get a nice asus or gigabyte 990fx board with all bells and whistles, the rest of the money add to your new gpu and you will be able to buy a monster gpu with the extra cash.

 

i5 + a high end ATX z87 board is more expensive vs an 8350 + a high end 990fx mobo is much more expensive. So with AMD you can get a good gpu and/or a nice SSD, like i said think about what you need.

One more thing in 1080p a lot of the time intel has an advantage, but once the GPU takes over with higher resolutions, it will not matter, keep that in mind!!

Thanks a bunch! 

 

 

 

Also thanks for all the input from the others...I'll build my rig when the 9000 series come out  

[Dravic]

Future is unknown man, they are right they all have a few valid points there ( some more, some less, but all in all there is no best cpu if you are on a budget, only the one you can afford ), but listen, future games can leverage more cores, that is true, even crysis 2 when played on a i7 or an 8350 can use almost all cores, but only 4 will be dominant other 4 will never use more than 25%, so right there you can see that games are evolving, crysis 3 on the other hand can use all cores but 6 are dominant, so we have progress. See the trend?

I would suggest if you want an all around build get the 8350 ( i honestly believe that after the fx 9000 cpu launch they took better chips to bin them over 4.5 ghz, and the lower quality ones will go as 8350/8320 ), get a nice asus or gigabyte 990fx board with all bells and whistles, the rest of the money add to your new gpu and you will be able to buy a monster gpu with the extra cash.

i5 + a high end ATX z87 board is more expensive vs an 8350 + a high end 990fx mobo is much more expensive. So with AMD you can get a good gpu and/or a nice SSD, like i said think about what you need.

One more thing in 1080p a lot of the time intel has an advantage, but once the GPU takes over with higher resolutions, it will not matter, keep that in mind!!

Funny because Radeon can't use more than 2 cores I think for the GPU drivers while nvidia GeForce runs on multiple cores for years now. Thus Radeon vs GeForce equivalent with amd FX, GeForce will always win.

So it seems that even GPU section of amd doesn't give shit about multi core support.

also... More than one GPU on amd FX cpu is very ineffective even in GPU driven games.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html