i5-3570k vs AMD FX-8350

FX 8350

whats your budget for the mobo? a 990fx is the top end here are some for you to view



http://www.newegg.ca/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=990fx

I prefer the ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AM3+ actually, the Sabertooth will have better connectivity ie more Sata 6 and USB 3.0 ports.

IDK anyone with gaming in mind that's going to choose an FX8350 over a 3570k. Why get opinions on this anyways. Read some reviews. If you read the reviews on Tom's Hardware, this very site, they'll show you that a 3570k is better at MOST things, including gaming. Anyone who comes out and straight up recommends an 8350, has problems with reality.

And you very well know if you ask this question, your not going to get an honest answer. So do your own research. I can post benchmark after benchmark that'll show you a 3570k is better. Search Tom's Hardware you'll find something.

I'm not saying an FX8350 isn't good. It's a very good processor. It depends on what you do on your computer really. But for most tasks, including gaming, a 3570k will be the better choice. It's just a better all around computer.

Don't take my word on it, do some research, it's the only way you'll ever find out the truth.


edit:I didn't read the part where you said video editing. The 8350 is a little bit better in video editing. A little bit. But if your wanting the better overall computer. The answer is still the 3570k. Just read a Tom's Hardware review. The most trusted source in the world.

Of course, currently the 3570K is "theoretically" the best performing cpu for gaming. Currently. Theoretically, in the sense that each machine's and its sub components are factored into performance.

As he said his requirements for a system are : light gaming, GFX/Video Editing. An 8350 will serve him well, more than well and as it is will save him money as he said he does need the "best gaming system out there". 8350 is comparing well with the current games that have come out. Crysis 3/FarCry3. Sub components taken into factor.
Games, i infer, will are starting to use/ will soon be using 4+ cores.

Currently, intel's single threading is in the rule.

If you are only upgrading your motherboard and cpu, of course I suggest you go i5. It is currently in the lead.
Both cores are unlockable and therefore OC'able.
The difference in price of the i5 and the 8350 is only $20.

well yes i5 is ahead.but my choice would be fx 8350 as newer games started showing their likes to piledrive architexture in games like crysis 3 and far cry 3.and next year games can be use 4+ cores

Yeah they been saying that for years now. A 4670k will be four cores. And after that a 5670k will be 4 cores probably. So I can at least see it being 3-4 years till that actually happens. And Crysis 3 does run on more than 4 cores. But yet the 3570k STILL performs better than the 8350 and very comparable to a 3770k. Why is that? If this myth were true, wouldn't the FX8350 score better in Crysis 3 and especially the 3770k? But no it doesn't, it scores worse(8350)because a 3570k is the most powerful CPU, per core, on the market right now, and 4 3570k cores are more powerful than 8 FX cores.

Don't get me wrong. I'd buy an 8350. If I could get it for 180$ and I cared more about threaded performance than anything else. But that's not reality right now. Reality is, is that we have a whole lot of programs, including games, that use 4 cores or less. Way more programs use 4 cores or less than programs that use 5 cores or more. And since most normal users don't use 5 cores or more, how could people justify going with an 8350? Not to mention than my 3570k's Cinebench score for a single thread is a 2.05, an FX 8350 core is only 0.96. So one of my cores is more than twice as powerful as one of an FX 8350. Even stock I score a 1.60. Intel's per core performance doesn't just win, it destroys. I much, much rather have the most powerful CPU, per core, than have a weakly performing but well threaded CPU.

On Tom's Hardware, when they test these machines and there "Sub Components" all the "sub componets" are the same. No one runs benchmarks when one CPU has a difference GPU and one CPU has different RAM. They use all the exact same components. At least all the trust worthy sites. So wheres your argument coming from? It sounds like your making excuses.

BTW, as I've just said, if games like Far Cry 3, and Crysis 3 are indeed using more than 4 cores, and they are, then why does the 3570k STILL perform better than an 8350. And since the 3570k still performs better while using more than 4 cores, how can you then justify going with an 8350? Since the 3570k still performs better anyways?

i would pick the 3570k because the performances are pretty much the same and also the motherboard for the 3570k(z77)would be able to be upgraded to an i7!think about it!getting the 8350 you wont be able to upgrade it!

No is here is discrediting the "greatness" of intel. No one. I can't tell whether you're being aggressively defensive or just a fanboy.

Games today are very much optimized for using between 2-4 cores.
Yes, you're very correct in pointing out that a 3570k, a four core, is performing still better than an 8 core on games that say to use 4+ cores.

But are these games fully optimized on 6/8core cpu's, optimized to fully reap the benefits of using 8 full coresto its advantage like games that are using 4cores to its extreme advantage? Not at all. The best utilization I have seen while playing Crysis 3 is 6 cores being accessed that have 50-60+% usage. Maybe it'll hit a 7th core, but it won't even use 10%.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html
Describes why the i7 led.

I was speaking in terms of individual systems at each resident home, not in some benchmarking lab.
I did find this interesting bench also.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performance-benchmark,3379-7.html
As you can see a four core is on top. Tops an i7 3960 hexa-core and an octa-core. I wonder why.

We are still in a quad-core optimized time-frame, this is obvious, which is why i5 is better than 8350 in gaming.

I would go for fx8350 well i like intel alot more then amd and there is some tings why you should go for AMD.
1st. FX8350 i cheaper one more thing u can buy alot better Mobo coz amd socket is also cheaper other thing is that they worck perfect i have.
FX8350 and asus sabertooth 990fx r2.0 and they work realy nice and smooth also there is one thing in gaming and u can see it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EcXrgJLY0 i5 3570k and fx8350 are the same at gaming. so my opinion is to go with amd and asus formula-z. hope this will help you

Sorry if you felt I was aggressive. I just get a bit giddy when on threads like this when people come right out and recommend an 8350 simply because it's 20 dollars cheaper. And their number one argument is always "Future Proof". There's simply, no such thing as being "Future Proof". If you don't get a computer every 3 years you'll be left in the dust. Another argument is that Intel changes MoBo's. But with an Intel, you won't have to upgrade for 3 years. And by then you'll need a new MoBo anyways. So that argument goes out the window.

Another argument I hear is that an 8350 performs "Almost" as good as an i5. But how far behind is "Almost" though. In some things, that can be a ways behind. I do however, really like the FX8350 as it performs in the middle of an i5 3570k and an i7 3770k in rendering and things of that nature. Although I never do such activity's myself. But in single threaded performance, or anything using 4 cores or less, the FX8350 just gets destroyed. Which is why I have a hard time recommending it because most application still today, don't use 5+ cores. But if your editing all day, and always seem to be using those "8" cores, then it may be of good "Value" to go with an FX8350.

BTW, the reason a 4 core 3570k games better than a 3970x, or 3960x, or 3930k, is not because it has 4 cores and those have 12. It is that a 3570k is an Ivy Bridge processor, and the 3970x and others are only Sandy Bridge processors. Ivy Bridge is the newest processor that has improved IPC and power consumption, among other things. And games don't use those extra 8 cores those processors have. So that's why a 3570k, and probably even a 3470 or 3350P beats a 3970x in gaming. This is kind of why I don't understand why Tom's uses a 3970x for gaming benchmarks when they should be using a 3770k to take advantage of 5+ cores and the IPC improvements, which will make the 3770k the best processor for gaming. Although not even 1% better than an i5 because 99% of games don't use 5+ cores and like you say, even the games that do, don't use it well enough. So, in short, an i5 is better than an 8350 in gaming because it's cores are far more powerful and not because games are more well suited for 4 cores. Afterall, if you have 16 cores, and each core is as powerful as a 3570k, then that 16 core processor will be just as good as a 3570k. If not better, in optimized games.

I agree with you in that the games that are highly threaded, are probably far from well threaded. But think about this, if we are so far off from being "well threaded" then how can you argue that an 8350 is more future-proof being that it's 2013 and so far, not one game exists that is threaded efficiently enough to make use of 5+ cores and be able to surpass the performance of a quad core CPU. This is why I think that Intel will keep making 4 core i5's and this is why 4 core i5's will almost always give you the best bang for your buck as far as gaming and general computing. I love the fact that I have the most powerful 4 cores in existence, at least until Haswell. In which it'll be 6-8% faster. I don't think I'll have to upgrade my CPU until mid 2014 and even then it won't make much of a difference. My greatest argument for an Intel i5 over an FX8350 is that, personally I much rather have 4 of the most powerful cores in existence, than 8 weaker cores. Sometimes even 2 FX cores can't stand up to 1 Intel core.

^ good explaination and big too.you can create sticky also

Haha, thanks. You can tell I have some time on my hands huh?

I always seem to get caught up in these threads. God knows I know enough about this stuff and I can't stand when someone that's not as well educated about this stuff gets lead in the wrong direction by people who use AMD. I got nothing against AMD. They just aren't as good. Although, if I only had 130$ bucks, I think the FX6300 is THE way to go. I love that processor at that price point. But since an 8350 and a 3570k are only 20 bucks apart, I have a really hard time recommending it. If you can find a deal for like 169.99$, hell, go for it, you'll be able to spend 60-70 more dollars and get a 7870 over a 650 Ti and that'll make a huge difference. But to me, if your going to spend 800-1200 bucks on a system, you may as well spend that extra 20-50$ and get the best because an i5 3570k is where it's at. But maybe I don't have as tight a budget as some people do.

I find a lot of these people that recommend AMD always say, "Get an 8350, it's almost as good as an i5 and it's cheaper". And to me that's a piss poor argument. Especially because almost can be quite a ways behind sometimes.

i5 vs fx 8350 is really a mystery debate.actually it is a fight between intel and amd,but we common people get pissed in between them talking about 'which is good? ' 'which is future proof'? and blah blah

This is for the OP. Tom's doesn't have such easy comparisons so I chose to use another top/honest benchmarking website.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

The i5 wins 25 benchmarks and the 8350 wins 13. The i5 wins all 4-5 gaming benchmarks.

Granted, the 8350 does win 13 of the benchmarks that are well optimized for 5+ cores, but even then, an 8350 is already sporting 4.0Ghz. Meaning there is very little room left to overclock. Just imagine if the 3570k came stock at 4.0Ghz instead of 3.4Ghz. It would be an entire different story. I have my 3570k at 4.6Ghz so I know how well they perform overclocked. This is one thing hardly anyone thinks of, the 8350's already at 4.0Ghz so the most you can overclock it up to is probably 4.8Ghz, so you can up it .8Ghz. An i5 comes at 3.4 and you can get it to 4.8, so you can up it an entire 1.4Ghz. That's nearly twice as much overclocking room. Which mean the performance difference between these two processors overclocked is drastically different than if they aren't overclocked. I'd love to see a review of the 3570k at 4.8Ghz and the FX8350 at 4.8Ghz, then you'll really see the 3570k take the lead. It'll win all 25 benchmarks then.

Ok, man, listen:

PS4 and XBOX 720 are coming this year! THEY ARE USING AMD 8 CORE CPUs WITH AMD GRAPHICS.

They will both have lengthy lists of titles available at launch which, many of them, will port to PC shortly there after, or even simultaneously.

Want to make a serious wager as to where intel stands in terms of Gaming performance in the coming year?

All those games will be optimized for 8 integer cores, I assure you the developers of console games are EXTREMELY good at wringing every last drop of potential performance out of a set of hardware that they've been given.

You're fixing to see intel get the playing field stacked against them, because all these new games will be optimized for AMD architecture and protocols.

I, personally, do not care if you like it or not...if you sit back and try to say that intel is "drastically superior" for gaming...then you're just burying your head in the sand.

The newest benchmarks show that the AMD chips perform BETTER at high/ultra settings than they do at medium settings. Where intel chips lose performance as resolution increases, AMD chips have a performance decay that is FAR LESS drastic.

It's ok...you can get off of your "INTEL R RULERZ 4EVR" kick and realize the evolution taking place...(or revolution if you prefer).

Intel priced themselves out of gaming dominance for years to come...that's not your fault or anyone else's but their own. AMD getting the console hardware contracts just shifted the gaming balance in the world...you just need to recognize it.

I agree completely I would still go with the I5.

i think were getting lost here.. he's only saying that he'd use this for light gaming. will he be that concerned with the performance of his computer when gaming? i bet both these CPUs can give him an exceptional gaming experience given he has a beefed up GPU(w/c i believe he does). I'm inclined to suggest to get the 8350, don't get me wrong I'm getting a 3570k at the end of the month for my gaming build. But IMO, they 8350 will serve him well given his needs. I'm not against anyone/any brand.

Besides, this is not a debate w/c is the better CPU for "GAMING".

+1 Enough with the haterade in here...

Hey TeemoGeek you made some sense. I agree too. If his personal preference is to have a CPU that is good enough for gaming but better than an i5 for video editing. Yes get the 8350. It suits HIS needs. Even though I'm sure there are plenty programs that he'll use that'll run better on an i5, from what his description says, the 8350 is what he sounds like he wants.

AMD Fx 8350 will perform as good as an i7 3770 in thread heavy applications like rendering, but the difference is too low. i7 3990k on the other hand performs alot more better than these 2CPU's. I do not know the price tag for this CPU. i5 on the other hand falls far beyond in these kinfd of tests. So if you are looking for a render machine take 8350, get a decent graphics card. İf you do not bother to have SLI or connectivity you can get some 970 mobos as the main difference between a 970 and 990 is SLI capability as 970 mobo will probably have one x16 slot. I do not know the other connection slots like SATA6 or USB 3 however as I know these connections are not supported by 9xx chipset there fore mobo manufacturers add them in with implementing seperet chips.