Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

i5-3570k vs AMD FX-8350

Tags:
  • AMD
  • Intel i5
  • Build
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 24, 2013 2:10:08 PM

I Am not Looking for fanboys or anything like that.

I Just need a path to take my build.

I am making this build for multitasking, light gaming, and GFX/Video Editing.

Should i go i5-3570k with ASRock Extreme 4

or AMD FX-8350 with Gigabyte GA-990fxa-ud3

OR

i5-3570k with ASUS Sabertooth Z77

or AMD FX-8350 with ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z

More about : 3570k amd 8350

a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 2:14:45 PM

FX 8350
m
0
l
March 24, 2013 2:37:48 PM

redeemer said:
FX 8350


With which Mobo?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 4:28:17 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 10:35:19 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 10:53:05 PM

ericjohn004 said:

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.



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.




m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2013 10:57:47 PM

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
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 5:23:15 AM

ASHISH65 said:
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.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 5:28:48 AM

biopolar said:
ericjohn004 said:

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.



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.






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?
m
0
l
March 25, 2013 5:59:29 AM

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!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 6:38:15 AM

ericjohn004 said:
biopolar said:
ericjohn004 said:

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.



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.






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?



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-performanc...
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-performan...
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.
m
0
l
March 25, 2013 7:06:23 AM

Uniqqu said:
I Am not Looking for fanboys or anything like that.

I Just need a path to take my build.

I am making this build for multitasking, light gaming, and GFX/Video Editing.

Should i go i5-3570k with ASRock Extreme 4

or AMD FX-8350 with Gigabyte GA-990fxa-ud3

OR

i5-3570k with ASUS Sabertooth Z77

or AMD FX-8350 with ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z


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 :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:13:04 AM

biopolar said:
ericjohn004 said:
biopolar said:
ericjohn004 said:

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.



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.






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?



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-performanc...
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-performan...
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.


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.



m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:20:03 AM

^ good explaination and big too.you can create sticky also
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:33:18 AM

ASHISH65 said:
^ 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.

m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:43:13 AM

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
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 9:03:47 AM

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.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:04:28 AM

ericjohn004 said:
ASHISH65 said:
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.



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.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 154 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:43:56 AM

ericjohn004 said:
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.


I agree completely I would still go with the I5.
m
0
l
March 25, 2013 10:54:17 AM

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".
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 11:19:25 AM

teemogeek said:
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...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 11:34:35 AM

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.
m
0
l
March 25, 2013 11:44:12 AM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:24:49 PM

@eric
I think we got a bit lost too. Lol, we're both on the same line of thought that for a mere 20$ difference, you should go for the i5, which is better performing. Both of those mobos cost the same, 20$ more for more stable path. Truly, we don't know where AMD is going.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 186 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:32:35 PM

Get an i5 and let the GPU do your GFX/Video editing work.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2013 1:59:55 AM

Basically:
i5 3570 has faster but fewer cores and consumes less power
FX8350 has slower but more cores and consumes more power

Note:
- Games nowadays tend to perform better on faster cores (i5 3570k) then on more cores (FX8350). I dunno however about future games tho'.
- The performance difference between those two is relative minimal. Get which one you want.
- Here where I live, I can get FX8350 about €20-30 cheaper than i5 3570k. That makes FX8350 more interesting.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 94 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 2:47:10 AM

8350rocks said:
ericjohn004 said:
ASHISH65 said:
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.



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.


OK man YOU listen. Those 8 core AMD's the consoles are sporting have about half the processing power of an i5, if that. They are not 8 piledriver cores, they are cut down low power Jaguar cores. So an i5 will cut through any console ports like a hot knife through butter. They havnt released the consoles yet so it will still take a while before those ports filter through to PC, so any games up to and including now will run better on the i5, and will still run well on the i5 once the consoles are released, it just may give the 8350 a chance to catch up. Except they wont be running a version of windows, so thread allocation will be done totally different depending on the OS they use for the consoles, so it will not be as well threaded once they are ported to windows anyway. But we will see when the consoles are released, i expect the 3570 and 8350 to be pretty much on par for newer ps4/xbox720 console ports, i wouldnt expect a major change. The bigger change may lie in GPU performance, although again, with direct x and windows, ported games still need to get through that, consoles will communicate more directly with hardware as they always have, so i dont think the change will be as big as everyone makes it out to be.
m
0
l
March 26, 2013 12:09:25 PM

taken from turkish web site http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_68398744/tm.htm.

As you can see an amd FX8350 performs close to an i7 3770, 1 sec slower, on stock speed, still faster than an o.c'ed i5 3570. THe main reason for this is the 8 cores are pure power for rendering operations as well as bigger l3 cache. i5 on the other hand heavily behind on stock speeds and even overlocked can not match a FX 8350. intel can be good in single core operations yet lacks the technology to be better in heavily threaded applications.

still intel fans claim amd to have half the processing power of an intel. It is ridiculus. Yes intel core cpu's are good cpu's working great with power efficiancy yet AMD choosed a different path. On single core operations intel is the best if you have enough money to afford them however on the other hand it performs close to an 400$ intel CPU with only 200$ FX CPU. You can purchase a mobo and FX8350 for the money you pay solely for an i7 3770. This a whole bunch of difference if you are only 1 secs behind in rendering. You can get an i5 machine for the same price you pay for AMD and you are around 30sec slower and only faster in games. What would you choose if you are up to rendering business? Yes I thought so.

İntel 2x xeon E5-2687W 3.10GHZ----84,3sn (csurer) (32 thread)
AMD 2x Opteron 6282 2.6 GHZ---- 91,3 sn ( daghan_34 ) (32 thread)
İntel 2x Xeon 5650 @2,66 ---- 121 Sn (uchiha) (2x 12 = 24 Thread)
İntel 2x Xeon 5650 @2,66 ---- 155 Sn (uchiha) (2x 6 = 12 Thread ( HT kapalı))
İntel 2x Xeon E5645 @2.40 --- 156,1 Sn (lordsoon) (2x 12 = 24 Thread)
İntel i7 -3930K 4,2 Ghz ----- 159,5 Sn ( ragnorak )(12 thread)
İntel i7 -990x 3,65 Ghz ----- 174 Sn ( autocadsemu )(12 thread)
İntel i7 -3930K 3,2 Ghz ----- 175,6 Sn ( CoDiE )(12 thread)
İntel i7 -970 3,2 Ghz ----- 199 Sn ( Tuna_ ) (12 thread)
AMD Fx 8350 4.87 oc---- 205 sn ( pCkOpAtuS ) (8 thread)
Intel I7 3770K 4.6 oc---- 208 sn ( zekierdek ) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8350 4.7 oc---- 208 sn ( pCkOpAtuS ) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8350 4.6 oc---- 213 sn ( Ontec ) (8 thread)
İntel I7 2600k 4,58 oc ---- 213 sn (alpout79) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8350 4.3 oc---- 225 sn ( Ontec ) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8320 4.25 oc---- 230 sn ( Xmms ) (8 thread)
İntel I7 2600k 4,0 oc ---- 240 sn (cagataykoroglu) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8320 4.0 oc---- 242sn ( marxx ) (8 thread)
Intel I7 3770K ---- 246 sn ( Xmms ) (8 thread)
AMD Fx 8350 ---- 247sn (8 thread)
Intel I7 3770 ---- 248 sn (8 thread)
İntel i5-2500@4.9 Ghz ---- 258 Sn (mugurgok) ( 4 Thread )
İntel i5-3570k@4.7 Ghz ---- 260 Sn (can-er) ( 4 Thread )
İntel I7 2600k ---- 261 sn (8 thread)
İntel i5-2500@4.4 Ghz ---- 286 Sn (mugurgok) ( 4 Thread )
Amd fx 8320 ---- 277 sn (marxx ) (8 thread)
İntel i5-3570k@4.5 Ghz ---- 273 Sn (can-er) ( 4 Thread )
İntel i5-2500@4.7 Ghz ---- 286 Sn (mugurgok) ( 4 Thread )
İntel i7-3630QM 2.4 Ghz ---- 294 sn (Galago) (8 Thread)
AMD Phe X6 1090T ---- 337 sn (3.75ghz OC) (6 thread)
Intel I7 2600s 2.8 Ghz ---- 345 sn ( Meimar ) (8 thread)
Intel I7 950 ---- 351 sn ( Ontec ) (8 thread)
İntel I5 2500k ( 4 Ghz OC)---- 360Sn (cagataykoroglu) (4 thread)
AMD x6 1070 T (3,1 Ghz) ---- 360 sn (metinolampx) (6 thread)
AMD x6 1090 T ---- 377 sn (arkitrom) (6 thread)
İntel i7-3610QM 2,3 Ghz ---- 384 sn (ahmetsen19) (8 Thread)
Intel Quad core q9500 ---- 413 sn (4 thread)
Intel i7 2630qm ----- 419 ( halka ) ( 8 Thread )
İntel i7-720QM ---- 500 Sn (mimhakan) ( 8 Thread )
Amd Athlon II x4 620 ---- 574 sn ( oc 2800 mhz) ( Ontec ) (4 thread)
AMD Phenom II x4 945 --- 652 Sn (slayer_hell) ( 4 thread ) ( 4 çekirdek en düşük hız rekoru :)  )
m
0
l
March 26, 2013 12:27:23 PM

guys why is that post still opened

related to the post the truth is

the fx 8350 does not have 8 physical cores-according to linus its core is half so its a 4 core and it does not even perform like an 8 core but way less!even the opteron 6272 performs very badly for its number of cores!amd has not even touched the new intels generation!

in real dude the fx series can only and only be compared with the i5 technology not the i7!the 3770 is way better in rendering etc...!so the 3770k!
m
0
l
March 26, 2013 12:29:11 PM

I recommend intel fans to do some research about FX8350. FX has 4 Piledriver modules which packs 2 Integer CPU and 1 FPU per module. This makes it 8 CPU cores 4 FPU cores. And they are optimized for guess what? Heavily threaded applications. 3D max uses how many threads at the same time? as much as possible so higher L3 Cache paired with 8 Integer cores and 4 FPU cores which is optimized for multithreading>4 single cores i7 which is optimized for single threaded operations and low power consuption. In fact the score i7 gets is because 3D max is also optimized for Hyperthreading. Which gives intel an advantage. The best thing is that AMD does it for half price.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:38:58 PM

FX-8350 OC'ed to 4.87?! They are certainly not messing around with the cooling setup on that PC, that's impressive though...very impressive.
m
0
l
March 30, 2013 12:36:18 PM

What im leaning to right now guys,

AMD:

Sabertooth 990fx
FX 8350

This is "Top-Notch" AMD Stuff. Nothing to Upgrad (CPU Wise)

Intel:

Sabertooth Z77
i5-3570k

Save up a Bit the Mabye upgrade to i7.

What woud u guys do?

AMD is about 100 dollars cheaper i could put into a GPU.
m
0
l
March 30, 2013 12:39:26 PM

redeemer said:
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.


I own that Mobbo. Its absolutely brilliant, and I have not found a single bad review about it either.
m
0
l
March 30, 2013 12:42:58 PM

Uniqqu said:
What im leaning to right now guys,

AMD:

Sabertooth 990fx
FX 8350

This is "Top-Notch" AMD Stuff. Nothing to Upgrad (CPU Wise)

Intel:

Sabertooth Z77
i5-3570k

Save up a Bit the Mabye upgrade to i7.

What woud u guys do?

AMD is about 100 dollars cheaper i could put into a GPU.


Experimenting with my 8320, if you overclock it you can easily make it on par with a standard clock 3770K (You can make them faster than an i7 if your willing to spend more money on cooling). I am no AMD fan boy, I have owned intel core 2 quad and i7 rigs, and the 8320/50 are absolutely bang on for the money, and at the fact you can overclock them pretty far as well (not saying you cant with 3750K/3770K) makes it better value for money.
m
0
l
March 30, 2013 12:46:20 PM

devastator39 said:
Uniqqu said:
What im leaning to right now guys,

AMD:

Sabertooth 990fx
FX 8350

This is "Top-Notch" AMD Stuff. Nothing to Upgrad (CPU Wise)

Intel:

Sabertooth Z77
i5-3570k

Save up a Bit the Mabye upgrade to i7.

What woud u guys do?

AMD is about 100 dollars cheaper i could put into a GPU.


Experimenting with my 8320, if you overclock it you can easily make it on par with a standard clock 3770K (You can make them faster than an i7 if your willing to spend more money on cooling). I am no AMD fan boy, I have owned intel core 2 quad and i7 rigs, and the 8320/50 are absolutely bang on for the money, and at the fact you can overclock them pretty far as well (not saying you cant with 3750K/3770K) makes it better value for money.


What would be the Best possible Mobo (Possibly Under 150-200) for the 8350? I Might Overclock.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 5:54:49 PM

Uniqqu said:
devastator39 said:
Uniqqu said:
What im leaning to right now guys,

AMD:

Sabertooth 990fx
FX 8350

This is "Top-Notch" AMD Stuff. Nothing to Upgrad (CPU Wise)

Intel:

Sabertooth Z77
i5-3570k

Save up a Bit the Mabye upgrade to i7.

What woud u guys do?

AMD is about 100 dollars cheaper i could put into a GPU.


Experimenting with my 8320, if you overclock it you can easily make it on par with a standard clock 3770K (You can make them faster than an i7 if your willing to spend more money on cooling). I am no AMD fan boy, I have owned intel core 2 quad and i7 rigs, and the 8320/50 are absolutely bang on for the money, and at the fact you can overclock them pretty far as well (not saying you cant with 3750K/3770K) makes it better value for money.


What would be the Best possible Mobo (Possibly Under 150-200) for the 8350? I Might Overclock.


Your Asus mobo choice is a good one, but my top 5:

Asus Crosshair V Formula Z 990FX or Sabertooth 990 FX
Asrock 990FX Extreme3 or 990FX Extreme9
Gigabyte 990FX ud3

Most bang for your buck is the Asrock 990FX Extreme3, they can be found here for about $120 USD.
m
0
l
March 31, 2013 9:44:02 AM

8350rocks said:
Uniqqu said:
devastator39 said:
Uniqqu said:
What im leaning to right now guys,

AMD:

Sabertooth 990fx
FX 8350

This is "Top-Notch" AMD Stuff. Nothing to Upgrad (CPU Wise)

Intel:

Sabertooth Z77
i5-3570k

Save up a Bit the Mabye upgrade to i7.

What woud u guys do?

AMD is about 100 dollars cheaper i could put into a GPU.


Experimenting with my 8320, if you overclock it you can easily make it on par with a standard clock 3770K (You can make them faster than an i7 if your willing to spend more money on cooling). I am no AMD fan boy, I have owned intel core 2 quad and i7 rigs, and the 8320/50 are absolutely bang on for the money, and at the fact you can overclock them pretty far as well (not saying you cant with 3750K/3770K) makes it better value for money.


What would be the Best possible Mobo (Possibly Under 150-200) for the 8350? I Might Overclock.


Your Asus mobo choice is a good one, but my top 5:

Asus Crosshair V Formula Z 990FX or Sabertooth 990 FX
Asrock 990FX Extreme3 or 990FX Extreme9
Gigabyte 990FX ud3

Most bang for your buck is the Asrock 990FX Extreme3, they can be found here for about $120 USD.


Sabertooth 990fx vs Gigabyte ud3 vs ASRock Extreme 3?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2013 9:44:49 AM

Sabertooth 990fx
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 31, 2013 9:50:57 AM

ASHISH65 said:
Sabertooth 990fx


+1 if you have the money, this one...if you don't have the money, I would buy the ASrock 990FX Extreme3 next (I actually did buy the ASrock board personally)
m
0
l
!