Gaming CPU Needed

[Yoyohoneywasp]

I want to know which one is better for gaming i5 (anymodel) vs fx 8370, If either one is better can you please tell me by how much, Also this is for gaming, recording, and kinda editing purposes

[Electronics Wizardy]

better than what?

 

I5's are great for gaming.

[21rkosta]

i5 6600k is soooo much better

Edited July 6, 2016 by 21rkosta
didnt read the tag

[Yoyohoneywasp]

Electronic wizard Its on the dag also if you dont want to read the tag its fx 8370

[Knaj]

i5 will wreck it

[AresKrieger]

i5, fx line is crap

[21rkosta]

and to show how much better the i5 6600k is better then the amd fx 8370, the i5 6600k is 10th best cpu, the amd fx 8370 is 141st best cpu http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8370/3503vs2983

[Cracklingice]

The FX is only around 60 to 70 percent the single thread performance of an i5-6500 iirc.  The FX may have double the cores, but that will only have any effect if you're streaming or doing something CPU heavy in the background while gaming as most games don't really utilize more than 4 threads at this time.

[Yoyohoneywasp]

I see that this wasnt a hard question to answer thank you all

Also guys I do some pretty cpu intensive stuff to keep that in mind while answering

[glitchmaster0001]

57 minutes ago, Yoyohoneywasp said:

I want to know which one is better for gaming and also anymodel of the i5, If either one is better can you please tell me by how much, Also this is for gaming, recording, and kinda editing purposes

even the i5 2500k would beat the FX 8370 and 8370 is basically an 8350 with a higher stock clock frequency. if you OC an 8320 to 4.3ghz you basically got an 8370. FX lineup of CPUs are basically dead. the AM3+ socket is dead. wait for AMDs AM4 Zen socket and CPU microarchitecture 

 

i got a solution that is better than both the i5 6600k and the FX 8370. Buy a Xeon E3 1231v3 and get a cheap B85 motherboard and call it a day. you now basically got an i7 4770 for the price of an i5 chip and got 4 cores 8 threads. prefect for workstation and gaming. 

[Yoyohoneywasp]

i see you have become one with your inner quotes. Respect 

Can some one give me a estimate of what the oc would be if I were to oc the i5 6600k with the dark rock 3?

[glitchmaster0001]

1 minute ago, Yoyohoneywasp said:

Can some one give me a estimate of what the oc would be if I were to oc the i5 6600k with the dark rock 3?

quote people in your posts so they can reply if you dont then no one will know what you are saying. also i wouldnt recommend the i5 6600k for your purposes. id recommned a Xeon e3 1231v3 for you since you will be doing workstation applications and you'd benefit off having 8 threads. and the xeon costs the same as an i5 but preforms like an i7 

[manikyath]

10 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

quote people in your posts so they can reply if you dont then no one will know what you are saying. also i wouldnt recommend the i5 6600k for your purposes. id recommned a Xeon e3 1231v3 for you since you will be doing workstation applications and you'd benefit off having 8 threads. and the xeon costs the same as an i5 but preforms like an i7 

that xeon is pretty much the same speed as the i5 tho. 

[glitchmaster0001]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

that xeon is pretty much the same speed as the i5 tho. 

but has 8 threads which is useful for recording with OBS and gaming at the same time. also speeds up rending the videos that hes going to be editing so he can post gameplay on youtube. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

but has 8 threads which is useful for recording with OBS and gaming at the same time. also speeds up rending the videos that hes going to be editing so he can post gameplay on youtube. 

it doesnt speed it up if those 8 threads added up arent faster than the 4 threads in the i5

[glitchmaster0001]

21 minutes ago, manikyath said:

it doesnt speed it up if those 8 threads added up arent faster than the 4 threads in the i5

try rending with an i5 then an i7 and you will see a difference in speeds. rendering and video editing takes advantage of more threads or cores. since rending is very multi threaded.  but while the xeon has powerful multicore performance it also has strong single core to back it up and at the price of an i5 that is a no brainer if your in need of a budget CPU that can do multi threaded apps and gaming as well. plus the motherboards for the Xeon CPU are the consumer b85 chipset boards so they are $50 minimum 

[xGGAx]

i5 all the way. AMD does not stand a chance

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8370

[glitchmaster0001]

1 minute ago, xGGAx said:

i5 all the way. AMD does not stand a chance

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8370

id agree with you if OP didnt say that he was going to be rendering and recording gameplay. in his case a Xeon e3 1231v3 and a cheap b85 motherboard would benefit him more. since it has 8 threads and those extra "logical cores" can be used when recording with OBS since it is CPU intensive and multi threaded. also in rendering having 8 threads speeds up the process by alot. 

[alanz25]

3 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

try rending with an i5 then an i7 and you will see a difference in speeds. rendering and video editing takes advantage of more threads or cores. since rending is very multi threaded.  but while the xeon has powerful mulicore preformance it also has strong single core to back it up and at the price of an i5 that is a no brainer if your in need of a budget CPU that can do multi threaded apps  

This man speaks truth... however, although the e3 has hyper threading it may not justify the locked multiplyer and the .4 slower speed than the 6600k, so unless you edit like pretty much 24/7 and where you have like a tight schedule where time is literally money. get the 6600k and enjoy the fun of overclocking! (jk, overclocking is a absolute pain the the !@#; the sense of accomplishment is very satisfying though)

[Dabombinable]

I do know that one of the mods found that an i5 2500K (stock) was about as fast as an FX 8350 (which is factory overclocked to make the 8370) in tasks that could use more than 4 threads. The entire FX line up is best compared to the first generation 32nm Core i series, with similar if not better IPC with ULV parts and superior multi threading (when comparing 2 modules 4 threads at 1.8GHz to an i5 U470M at 1.8GHz), and worse IPC than a 45nm Xeon X5450 at around 4GHz, with higher frequencies lowering the IPC further (AKA they scale like shit when overclocking).

[Dabombinable]

9 minutes ago, xGGAx said:

i5 all the way. AMD does not stand a chance

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8370

Please....don't bring that inaccurate website up-its only good for comparing specs, and CPU world does a far better job of that.

[glitchmaster0001]

15 minutes ago, alanz25 said:

This man speaks truth... however, although the e3 has hyper threading it may not justify the locked multiplyer and the .4 slower speed than the 6600k, so unless you edit like pretty much 24/7 and where you have like a tight schedule where time is literally money. get the 6600k and enjoy the fun of overclocking! (jk, overclocking is a absolute pain the the !@#; the sense of accomplishment is very satisfying though)

personally i know OCing increases performance but today i dont see it as 100% need id say its more a luxury item. back then in the core 2 duos and quad days it was important to OC since it would greatly increase performance but nowadays OCing increases it by maybe a 10-20 FPS difference or a -10 -20 second in render time. after sandy bridge OCing was not a necessary but a luxary. anything sandy bridge and before would greatly benefit from OCing 

 

13 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I do know that one of the mods found that an i5 2500K (stock) was about as fast as an FX 8350 (which is factory overclocked to make the 8370) in tasks that could use more than 4 threads. The entire FX line up is best compared to the first generation 32nm Core i series, with similar if not better IPC with ULV parts and superior multi threading (when comparing 2 modules 4 threads at 1.8GHz to an i5 U470M at 1.8GHz), and worse IPC than a 45nm Xeon X5450 at around 4GHz, with higher frequencies lowering the IPC further (AKA they scale like shit when overclocking).

piledriver can be compared to intel's westmere CPU lineup which was the LGA 1366 CPUs i7 920s and xeons linups 

[xGGAx]

33 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Please....don't bring that inaccurate website up-its only good for comparing specs, and CPU world does a far better job of that.

Very well, is this good enough for you?
 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-6.html

 

even older i5s outperform the fx.

In the end it all comes down to gaming performance vs video editing. Id pick gaming performance any day.

[Dabombinable]

46 minutes ago, glitchmaster0001 said:

personally i know OCing increases performance but today i dont see it as 100% need id say its more a luxury item. back then in the core 2 duos and quad days it was important to OC since it would greatly increase performance but nowadays OCing increases it by maybe a 10-20 FPS difference or a -10 -20 second in render time. after sandy bridge OCing was not a necessary but a luxary. anything sandy bridge and before would greatly benefit from OCing 

 

piledriver can be compared to intel's westmere CPU lineup which was the LGA 1366 CPUs i7 920s and xeons linups 

Yep. Found that out when comparing the A8 4555M and i5 U470M. I'm probably one of the few people who thought about comparing Piledriver to its actual euivalent on the low end side of things (yes my keyboard has "dropped a key)

6 minutes ago, xGGAx said:

Very well, is this good enough for you?
 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-6.html

 

even older i5s outperform the fx.

In the end it all comes down to gaming performance vs video editing. Id pick gaming performance any day.

That's a reliable website, so yes. This is what I mean with CPU world BTW: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/438/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8370_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2500K.html

 

Pretty much choose between an extra 21% multi threaded performance with 8 weak threads or 34% better single threaded with lower power consumption.

 

Edit: That's with the i5 2500K running at 3.7GHz single threaded and 3.4GHz multi threaded, as opposed to 4-4.3GHz.

[?Snarky?]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

i5, fx line is crap

As an FX user, I highly agree to this.