Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why i5 3470 is better than amd fx 8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 9, 2013 1:56:42 AM

amd has 8 cores 8 threads 4 ghz good cache and still it is not better than i5 3470 why is it so?
intel i5 3470 has 4 cores 4 threads 3.2ghz
and still it is better than amd fx 8350?
gaming specially.

More about : 3470 amd 8350

a b À AMD
a c 93 à CPUs
April 9, 2013 2:04:43 AM

The 8350 IS better than the 3470, simply because it can overclock where that i5 cannot.

It's worse, for gaming than an i5-3570k, because both can overclock, and Intel's architecture is much faster and more efficient than AMD's.
m
0
l
April 9, 2013 2:05:55 AM

It can perform slightly better in some games, but not in all games. In my opinion, the FX-8350 has more potential. It allows for better multi-tasking and over clocks easier/better.

I kinda am an AMD fanboy, so this adds some weight to my opinion. I would never go intel in a build unless the customer specifically calls for intel. If you get an aftermarket cooler and overclock, you can easily beat 1st and 2nd gen i7's. Check out this comparison sheet: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

My 8350 is overclocked at 4.6 right now and is crushing most of the CPU's on the market under 300
m
0
l
Related resources
April 9, 2013 2:12:00 AM

Because clock for clock, intel processors have better single threaded performance (more instructions per cycle among other things), which is what games rely on. Besides, very few games use 6 cores, and none use 8. To my knowledge, mainstream is transitioning to 4.

At the bottom of the following link are some benchmarks comparing the FX 8350 and the i5 3470 in games. The i5 is clearly the winner:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=702

However overclocking the FX might get you the upperhand. But then you could just get an i5-3570k and OC it to get beyond a 8350's reach.
m
0
l
April 9, 2013 2:13:05 AM

This is a recent discussion we had (which is getting very off topic now...mostly just arguing, of course) because I was curious about a similar question. Many of the posts provide useful real-world benchmarks and one post even links to some great videos which really puts a spin on things. Check it out! http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1643324/intel-amd....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2013 3:12:34 AM

AZCompTech said:

I kinda am an AMD fanboy, so this adds some weight to my opinion. I would never go intel in a build unless the customer specifically calls for intel. If you get an aftermarket cooler and overclock, you can easily beat 1st and 2nd gen i7's. Check out this comparison sheet: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html


Well,you said that.You're kind of an AMD fanboy. So,you'll feel no different from others of your kind. And,I thought the thread was about 8350 and i5-3470. We're not talking about intel 2nd generation. It's about 3rd generation. It beat 2nd generation i7? Who cares? It doesn't beat 3rd gen i5-3470.
m
0
l
October 6, 2013 3:49:00 AM

anandtech are close results but not Real

get fx-8350 for more cpu bandwidth and beat's that cpu easily in multi treaded

3470 only beats 8350 in only single treaded and light stuff

fx-8350 scores 6.70 ill keep on Cinebench 11.5 - Multi-Threaded
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2013 3:51:30 AM

Well,I used to be an AMD fanboy,up till I came to realize what the truth really was.People say Intel is more pricey than AMD and yet doesn't deliver the performance expected. 8350 is beaten by Intel's Mid-end i5-3470 in every aspect except the Cinebenchmark. Another thing is power consumption. FX is a 125 TDP CPU,where as i5 is just 77W. So,it means less CPU temperatures,which would give your CPU better lifespan. People may say,that's what aftermarket coolers are for. Well,I must say,if you WANT TO compare 2 CPUs without aftermarket cooler,then what's the point in talking about them after installing aftermarket coolers?Okay,even if you place aftermarket coolers,Intel's gonna be the best in temperature side. Another thing they say is,overclocking.You're gonna overclock the FX? Okay,best you have an awesome cooler,or your CPU is damn done( forget about those 8 cores :p  ). Don't forget the extra price you'll pay on aftermarket cooler though.Well,if you're into overclocking,then you could get the i5-3570K,which would be the better choice,having almost similar price to 3470. And talking about the price of 3470 and FX-8350,that's just the same too. So,what's the point in being an AMD fanboy,believing in what should be called useless and pointless arguments? So I'll say,instead of wasting your time believing useless arguments from AMD fanboys,and being one,just try to realize the fact. Intel has got the upperhand as always. You may point out the price. But come on,you must pay money if you need to get good technology.
Want benchmarking proof? Here....

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-...
m
0
l
October 6, 2013 4:38:03 AM

simple answer
1)the four cores present in intel's 3470 is more powerful than the equal four cores present in 8350 seven 8350 is not a true 8 core cpu it's 4 modules splitted into 2 so total of 8 cores
2) there isn't much games which will utilize all the 8 cores but seeing how the games are built at present upcoming flagship games like crysis 4 even upcoming battlefield 4 might use all the 8 cores but the main disadvantage is if you are living in a country where power bill matters amd's 8350 sucks a lot of power but intel is very much energy efficient like 10x better than amd at idle and 3 times better than amd at full load
my vote will be "GO FOR INTEL"conserve electricity for better future as much you can:) 
m
0
l
October 6, 2013 4:46:48 AM

dannylivesforher said:
Well,I used to be an AMD fanboy,up till I came to realize what the truth really was.People say Intel is more pricey than AMD and yet doesn't deliver the performance expected. 8350 is beaten by Intel's Mid-end i5-3470 in every aspect except the Cinebenchmark. Another thing is power consumption. FX is a 125 TDP CPU,where as i5 is just 77W. So,it means less CPU temperatures,which would give your CPU better lifespan. People may say,that's what aftermarket coolers are for. Well,I must say,if you WANT TO compare 2 CPUs without aftermarket cooler,then what's the point in talking about them after installing aftermarket coolers?Okay,even if you place aftermarket coolers,Intel's gonna be the best in temperature side. Another thing they say is,overclocking.You're gonna overclock the FX? Okay,best you have an awesome cooler,or your CPU is damn done( forget about those 8 cores :p  ). Don't forget the extra price you'll pay on aftermarket cooler though.Well,if you're into overclocking,then you could get the i5-3570K,which would be the better choice,having almost similar price to 3470. And talking about the price of 3470 and FX-8350,that's just the same too. So,what's the point in being an AMD fanboy,believing in what should be called useless and pointless arguments? So I'll say,instead of wasting your time believing useless arguments from AMD fanboys,and being one,just try to realize the fact. Intel has got the upperhand as always. You may point out the price. But come on,you must pay money if you need to get good technology.
Want benchmarking proof? Here....

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/FX-8350-vs-Core-...

Hi,

First Thing CPU Bandwidth is also a Very Important Thing in a Computer

8350 is not beaten by 3470 all sides only in single treaded due to it is @4ghz x8c i know their weak

8350 has about 20% extra cpu over 3470

if you are going to play cpu intensive games like bf4 then 8350 will have the extra cpu that will have the advantage while 3470 will get stuck every second due to less cpu which you will run out quicker

Trust me i am Intel Fan we pay more in intel we get quality. If he wants slow cpu with more bandwidth with less price then that's where amd stands Today
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2013 7:06:14 AM

ad0 said:

Hi,

First Thing CPU Bandwidth is also a Very Important Thing in a Computer

8350 is not beaten by 3470 all sides only in single treaded due to it is @4ghz x8c i know their weak

8350 has about 20% extra cpu over 3470

if you are going to play cpu intensive games like bf4 then 8350 will have the extra cpu that will have the advantage while 3470 will get stuck every second due to less cpu which you will run out quicker

Trust me i am Intel Fan we pay more in intel we get quality. If he wants slow cpu with more bandwidth with less price then that's where amd stands Today


Hi,
If you mean CPU speed by CPU bandwidth,I wouldn't totally agree with you my friend,because CPU speed is not what matters when a CPU's performance is measured. What matters is how many Instructions Per Second (IPS) the CPU can perform. I'd say AMD can't boast the upperhand in that. For example,consider the AMD's old Phenom II X2 560 BE and Intel's i3 2100. Actually,both has same core count,and Phenom has a better CPU speed-3.3 GHz,while the i3 has only 3.1 GHz. Yet,you know the way the i3 performs better than the Phenom and I need speak nothing of it. So what I'd say is,it's not the core count or CPU speed that decides a CPU's performance. What does that is,the way the CPU performs per core.
And about the i5 getting stuck playing BF4 part,I doubt it bro. Coz,as far as I'm concerned,the i5 is capable of dealing with anything you throw at it. I'm not sure of the BF4 though,as it hasn't been released,or tested on the i5,yet. But I strongly believe it should perform better than the FX,since it does so even now; it performs better than the FX in gaming at the moment.
But I'm not denying the fact that 3470 hasn't totally beaten the 8350. What I'm trying to say is,Intel has the upper hand in this case.Also,I know it's not worth saying,but,just think like this,an AMD processor which used to be the high end processor from AMD,giving up before a mid-range processor from Intel like an i5! So,what would you want,one having a better name among the people,or some useless 8 cores to brag about?
And yes,the money. If he wants to spend less,and get less quality products,he can go with the AMD,that's in general. But not in this case,with the 3470 and 8350 being compared,since both have the same price tag.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2013 7:16:17 AM

Simply put, the 3470 is much better at pretty much anything other than heavily threaded parallel workloads.
The problem is taht the 3470 can't overclock where the 8350 can. You can overclock the 8350 to "i5 levels", but that means investing in a board and heatsink/fan that could do such, which would put you over the cost of the 3470 setup.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2013 7:31:29 AM

Anonymous said:
Simply put, the 3470 is much better at pretty much anything other than heavily threaded parallel workloads.
The problem is taht the 3470 can't overclock where the 8350 can. You can overclock the 8350 to "i5 levels", but that means investing in a board and heatsink/fan that could do such, which would put you over the cost of the 3470 setup.


That's affirmative bro. AMD could perform better at heavily threaded parallel workloads. Yet,I read somewhere that such heavily threaded parallel workloads almost don't exist outside Servers. So,is AMD worth buying if it's a non-server PC? And,if you need to talk about overclocking,you could get the 3570,which though would cost more. But anyway,you wanna overclock the FX,yeah,just like you said,it would take an awesome cooler to do the same. But,I think the 8350 anyway requires an aftermarket cooler,if you're to do gaming with your system.Am I not right? So,basically the i5 is the better go IMO.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 88 à CPUs
October 6, 2013 8:19:19 AM

kanishkdv7 said:
amd has 8 cores 8 threads 4 ghz good cache and still it is not better than i5 3470 why is it so?
intel i5 3470 has 4 cores 4 threads 3.2ghz
and still it is better than amd fx 8350?
gaming specially.


It can beat it but in order to beat it it has to preform a massive power boost and oc

it has very poor performance per watt

having to use over 100w to even surpass the i5 3570k

yet just as it is i5 3470 can play games comfortably without occing

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

which lets be real your going to have a high end gpu the last thing you need is a guzzling processor id rather have a higher end gpu guzzle

and personally i always suggest fx 6300 due to better performance per watt and decent gameplay.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/702?vs=699

m
0
l
October 28, 2013 4:31:14 AM

You are right dani ,, i was an intel fan,,, but now i am unbiased & confused,,, definitely intel has upper hand until today ,,, but now already games that utilize all 8 cores are on cards,,, for example,, take watchdogs uses 8 cores maybe in future many games will use 8 cores,,, i first created a test rig with intel 3470 in gamedebate and i was suprised to see that it can handle that game only in medium to high settings,,, 3470 uses lga 1155 socket where it leads to less upgradability since now intel moved to lga 1150 in 4th gen and lga 2011 ,, next year intel will launch broadwell chips which will also use different socket (but definitely not lga1155),, so considering all these data ,,, which is more future proofing? amd or intel? intel will definitely get 10-20 fps higher in many games ,,, but anything above 30 fps is good enough to enjoy the game,, but if game uses 8 cores/8 threads then definitely intel i5 3470 will get hit by huge dips in fps,,,
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2013 8:54:54 AM

Well,please don't forge the fact that CPUs are not intended only for gaming. I mean,games are more GPU centered rather than the CPU. Anyway,speaking about the games,I don't understand what you're saying mate..You say,about this particular thread,the 8350 is better than the 3470 in gaming? Come on..Please do remember to check out these benchmarks if you get the time to...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=697
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Q/357650/original/skyrim...
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/3/357663/original/world%...
I hope that's enough...And about the Watch Dogs using all the 8 cores...It recommends the Core i7-3770. It's actually a quad core CPU,but that's the recommended one for Watch Dogs. So,seeing that Intel's quad core is recommended while the AMD's 8 core is recommended as a counter-part,what's the point in needing an 8 core dude? So if Intel's quad core is enough for these games,which needs AMD's 8 cores,how do you think Intel's 8 cores would perform? Think about it dude...I think Intel doesn't even need an 8 core,since the quad cores are far better than the 8 cores of AMD... LOL :D 
And about the futureproof you say...? Come on mate...! The 3470 is LGA 1155. That doesn't mean the 3470 is the only one with that socket compatibility..There are i7s with LGA 1155. So,if the 3470 can perform better than the 8350,why do you think you need to upgrade anytime soon? Okay,say upgrade is needed. There is the i7 for you mate....You get the performance....Raw and true performance...Not the weak and sucking performance of the AMD...! And,I don't understand the point in having an 8 core,which performs not better than even a quad core. Besides,don't expect the AMD to stay with the AM3+ forever. Well,nothing to worry,the AM3+ CPUs which keep on coming ain't a match for Intel's CPUs...So there it is....! AMD dead before Intel.... :) 
m
0
l
October 28, 2013 2:51:01 PM

dannylivesforher said:
Well,please don't forge the fact that CPUs are not intended only for gaming. I mean,games are more GPU centered rather than the CPU.

Then y ppl says "YOUR GPU IS BOTTLENECKED BY YOUR CPU"?

dannylivesforher said:
Anyway,speaking about the games,I don't understand what you're saying mate..You say,about this particular thread,the 8350 is better than the 3470 in gaming?

imho, i have already seen those benchmarks,, i didnt say 8350 is better in gaming, those games taken for benchmarks doesnt use more than 4 cores, thats y if you compare i5 3570k with i7 3770k it will have almost same result in games
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/701?vs=551
note:3.4 ghz vs 3.5 ghz
But in future definitely games and applications can be developed to utilize more than 4 threads, also see the result for all multithreaded applications,, 8350 wins there.

dannylivesforher said:
Watch Dogs using all the 8 cores...It recommends the Core i7-3770. It's actually a quad core CPU,but that's the recommended one for Watch Dogs.
i7-3770 is quad core but uses HyperThreading (HT) technology i.e. 8 threads (2 threads on single core, 50% of a core used by each thread). This HT technology is not used in i5. So i5 3470 cannot handle 8 threaded applications, also added to fact i7 3770k is priced almost 75% more than 8350. 8350 is also recommended one for that game.
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga...

In some case, they do have a need for 8 core, play games with first 4 cores. Then screen record, rendering, downloading, uploading, copying files to other removeable disks everything is taken care by remaining cores.
When it comes to upgrade matter, I am sorry for my words :p  since next year amd is going to launch FM2+ chips (just now i came to know this). But one good thing about this FM2+ is, it is backward compatible with all FM2, Also when comes to upgradability i7 3770 is no better for gaming and also it is not a worthy even now from i5 3470. (also i dont know whether i7 3770 has that much long life, since intel is launching too much of good stuffs)
Finally i am totally agree with you intel performs lot lot lot better when comes to gaming with 4 cores, leaving AMD far behind. But once next gen games uses more than 4 cores (there is a greater probability to be so, since amd bought console markets and uses 8 cores there). When that type of games are ported for pc, then there is a chance for AMD to be considered as better performer in low budget market.
Thanks for reading.
Regards,
Balaji
m
0
l
!