Question: AMD FX-4350 vs. Intel Core i5-6500

[Joiner]

Hi guys,

I want to build my first PC so I started with choosing the CPU. But now I got to a problem where google can´t help me 

When I compared the AMD FX-4350 (or other AMD´s) with the Intel Core i5-6500 it seemed like the AMD was better than the intel but costs like 100$ less!

What am I missing here?

Looking forward to replies!

-Joiner

[EPPHO]

For what are you going to use your pc?

[Joiner]

Just now, frozeNNN said:

For what are you going to use your pc?

 

The main point is gaming, but also some prgramming.

[HoneyBooBoo]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6500/2880vs3513
I know it's confusing, you'd think since that AMD's chip has a better clockspeed and the same amount of cores it would be better, in actual fact though when compared in real life situations the outcome is vastly different. Anyway I would definitely go with the i5-6500.

[EPPHO]

Just now, Joiner said:

 

The main point is gaming, but also some prgramming.

Go with intel. Even i3 outperforms AMD in gaming.

[SLAYR]

The AMD one, is a five year old design, it is ancient, basically the same as comparing a q6600 to an i5 6500,

 

More GHz != better performance, the intel cpu has a lot better IPC making it a lot better.

[Garett1]

Intel for sure. Intel is more updated than AMD. AMD's architecture is way out of date. 

[Guest]

I just picked up a 6500 for $164 with a $55 motherboard. And it outperforms the FX-8320 I had paired with the MSI 970 Gaming board, which was a $200 investment last Black Friday. 

 

It's also cooler, smaller, and more pleasant in every way. 

 

Would sooner pick up an Athlon 860/880k than the FX-43XX. And I would sooner pick up a i3-6100 over either of those options. 

[ARikozuM]

Intel gets my vote.

 

Always

[Joiner]

Thanks guys for your quick replies. All this hidden obstacles when it comes to PC parts are very confusing for me as i´m building my first one. So if more GHz and more cores don´t mean better performance on what should I realy look when comparing CPU´s?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Joiner said:

Thanks guys for your quick replies. All this hidden obstacles when it comes to PC parts are very confusing for me as i´m building my first one. So if more GHz and more cores don´t mean better performance on what should I realy look when comparing CPU´s?

You can't just look at specs, unfortunately. 

 

Use this to build:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/

 

IPC - instruction per clock cycle - is why Intel is top dog. AMD performs ~40% less IPC than Intel. Meaning for an AMD to stand toe to toe with recent Intel CPU's they would have to be clocked 40% higher than their Intel counterparts. 

[typographie]

6 minutes ago, Joiner said:

Thanks guys for your quick replies. All this hidden obstacles when it comes to PC parts are very confusing for me as i´m building my first one. So if more GHz and more cores don´t mean better performance on what should I realy look when comparing CPU´s?

The trick is that not every product can do the same amount of work in a 1 Hz clock cycle, so comparing GHz against GHz across different architectures usually means very little. The best thing to do is focus your attention on benchmarks showing real application performance conducted by tech review sites. I know that's not exactly straight-forward for someone new to this, but talking with others on a tech forum is a great place to start.

 

Here are some benchmarks if they help: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1273?vs=1646

(That's actually the i5-6600 in the comparison, but it's very similar to the 6500)

[Joiner]

I saw Linus had the Intel Core i5-6500 in his recommendations for the 1000$ gaming PC. Can I just go for this CPU or are there better ones?

[Megah3rtz]

11 minutes ago, Joiner said:

I saw Linus had the Intel Core i5-6500 in his recommendations for the 1000$ gaming PC. Can I just go for this CPU or are there better ones?

there is the i5 6600k and the i7 6700k, but if its just your first time building a computer you'd be okay with an i5 6500 and a RX480/GTX 1060.

[ARikozuM]

13 minutes ago, Joiner said:

I saw Linus had the Intel Core i5-6500 in his recommendations for the 1000$ gaming PC. Can I just go for this CPU or are there better ones?

Get the best that you can afford.

[typographie]

17 minutes ago, Joiner said:

I saw Linus had the Intel Core i5-6500 in his recommendations for the 1000$ gaming PC. Can I just go for this CPU or are there better ones?

Sure, there are lots of better CPUs. But if you're looking for a good CPU for around $200 and you don't intend to overclock, the i5-6500 is probably the best choice.

 

There is the i5-6600, which boosts 300 MHz faster than the i5-6500 (and is otherwise entirely identical), but costs about $25 more. Up to you if you want to pay a little more for a little more performance. The 6500 is generally considered a better value, and so it gets the recommendations more often.

[Joiner]

The Intel Core i5-6500 has an integrated GPU. Don´t I pay at the end for something I will never use?

[Megah3rtz]

2 minutes ago, Joiner said:

The Intel Core i5-6500 has an integrated GPU. Don´t I pay at the end for something I will never use?

like, all intels i3-i5-i7's have integrated graphics. its just something that you won't be able to remove to save money.

 

Its useful for troubleshooting a dead graphics card anyway.

[Joiner]

Ok guys, thanks for all your help! You really helped me a lot!

[typographie]

33 minutes ago, Joiner said:

The Intel Core i5-6500 has an integrated GPU. Don´t I pay at the end for something I will never use?

It can be used in ways you might not expect. In my case, I have an i5-6600K and a GTX 1070, but one of my monitors has an old VGA connection. The 1070 doesn't have an ancient VGA output. Rather than find an awkward analog-digital display adapter, the simpler solution is just to connect that monitor to my integrated video. I'm not gaming on that display anyway.

 

Additionally, Intel CPUs have a feature called Quick Sync, which allows the integrated GPU to be used sort of like an "extra core" for encoding video. It's a pretty specialized workload, and you need to be using software that specifically leverages Quick Sync, but it can be quite useful. OBS, a popular game recording and streaming utility, can use Quick Sync.

 

You probably still won't use it. But you can't really avoid integrated video these days unless you buy a $400+ Core i7, an Intel Xeon, or one of AMD's older and less capable products.

[smokefest]

Eazy choice.... intel... lolz...

Just ignore the integrated GPU... its a + for people who needs it, but for gamer, its useless as we use dedicated GPU... but still the intel is wayyyy better than the amd...

go for the skylake oooooooobviusly

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, Joiner said:

Hi guys,

I want to build my first PC so I started with choosing the CPU. But now I got to a problem where google can´t help me 

When I compared the AMD FX-4350 (or other AMD´s) with the Intel Core i5-6500 it seemed like the AMD was better than the intel but costs like 100$ less!

What am I missing here?

Looking forward to replies!

-Joiner

i5-6500 is roughly 55% faster than the old FX-4350

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4350-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6500/2880vs3513

[incarnate]

3 hours ago, Joiner said:

 So if more GHz and more cores don´t mean better performance on what should I realy look when comparing CPU´s?

Benchmarks. Google (cpu name here) benchmarks. This will show you the performance compared to other cpus that were around at the time the cpu launched.

 

In this case it would show you intel second and maybe third gen cpus. That would be a huge clue right there