Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Haswell vs. AMD Steamroller

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 29, 2013 4:11:43 PM

So I'm looking to build a new computer over the summer. I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure. I have most of the components decided on, but I'm undecided as to the CPU I want to get. I've never built a computer before, so I don't have too much experience with this. In terms of the AMD CPUs, I know they're cheaper, and also have 8 cores compared to Intel's 4. But the new Steamroller architecture doesn't come out until early October 2013, whereas Haswell is being released early June. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the i7-4770k, and for AMD I'm looking at the FX-8350 8 Core (waiting for Steamroller). Price is less of an issue; I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years. Which would you guys recommend?
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
April 29, 2013 4:20:08 PM

Haswell
Score
0
April 29, 2013 4:33:56 PM

"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.
Score
0
Related resources
April 29, 2013 4:42:16 PM

3ogdy said:
"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.


I like that analysis. I was planning on buying a dedicated GPU; a Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970, to be exact. The later release date does bug me a little bit; I was hoping to have the computer built before school started up again. In terms of the Intel chip, however, the Haswell integrated GPU on the 4770k is supposed to have a base clock of 1200 MHz, I believe. Obviously the dedicated GPU will be used for gaming, but it'd be nice to switch to the integrated GPU when I'm just coding, and for a little backup in case I mess up my GPU somehow. Ah, I can't decide!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2013 4:42:19 PM

To give a good answer I would need to pull my time machine out of storage. Wait until they're released and benchmarked, until then it's all speculation. If you want a wild guess, I'd probably say the Haswell I7.
Score
0
a c 218 à CPUs
a c 104 À AMD
a c 130 å Intel
April 29, 2013 4:51:45 PM

When deciding on a CPU you need to know all of the strengths and weaknesses of both and then look at what you'll be using it for. When it comes to the high end CPU of both brands they both will give high quality and fps in games while Intel's IPC will allow it to pull ahead in gameplay. You also have to know that while the 8350 has 8 cores the i7-3770K and i7-4770K are four cores with hyper threading so have a total of 8 cores also.
There is also the LGA 2011 socket CPU to consider if your budget allows and the i7-3930K is a six core with hyper threading that makes it a 12 core CPU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2013 4:54:04 PM

3ogdy said:
"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.


This isn't entirely accurate.

The 3770K has been left behind by the 8350 in multimedia? I don't even know where that came from but it's certainly not true. Show some benchmarks and I might agree with you.

Gaming wise, Intel chips still destroy AMD in CPU bound games. Starcraft, Skyrim, and Planetside 2 come to mind and there are a lot more. In the case of PS2, it's not even playable on an AMD chip due to frame rate drops. The only game where AMD is really that effective is Crysis 3 and while it keeps up with Intel in average frame rate, it has a much lower minimum frame rate which means it dips into unplayable levels at times.

We've seen Haswell and we know what it can do. It's another 5-10% on top of Intel's already 20% IPC lead. Everyone might think AMD is going to pull out 30% improvement, but AMD has a bad habit of talking big then letting everyone down. Piledriver was about a 15% improvement on Bulldozer, but a lot of that was clock speed increases and there's not a lot of headroom there.

It's also important to remember that AMD chips are clocked higher to begin with in order to keep up, thus using way more power. When clocked the same, an i7 beats an 8350 in just about anything and still uses less power doing it.

There's nothing wrong with the 8350 as it is $100 cheaper than the 3770K, but lets be realistic. It's a competitor to the i5 not the i7. I certainly wouldn't get one if budget isn't a concern, especially with Haswell around the corner. You can always wait to see what happens with Steamroller, but as much as I would like to I'm not getting my hopes up.

Score
3
April 29, 2013 5:09:51 PM

3770k losing to the FX-8350 in multimedia? Are you delusional?
Score
0
April 29, 2013 5:32:11 PM

JD88 said:
3ogdy said:
"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.


This isn't entirely accurate.

The 3770K has been left behind by the 8350 in multimedia? I don't even know where that came from but it's certainly not true. Show some benchmarks and I might agree with you.

Gaming wise, Intel chips still destroy AMD in CPU bound games. Starcraft, Skyrim, and Planetside 2 come to mind and there are a lot more. In the case of PS2, it's not even playable on an AMD chip due to frame rate drops. The only game where AMD is really that effective is Crysis 3 and while it keeps up with Intel in average frame rate, it has a much lower minimum frame rate which means it dips into unplayable levels at times.

We've seen Haswell and we know what it can do. It's another 5-10% on top of Intel's already 20% IPC lead. Everyone might think AMD is going to pull out 30% improvement, but AMD has a bad habit of talking big then letting everyone down. Piledriver was about a 15% improvement on Bulldozer, but a lot of that was clock speed increases and there's not a lot of headroom there.

It's also important to remember that AMD chips are clocked higher to begin with in order to keep up, thus using way more power. When clocked the same, an i7 beats an 8350 in just about anything and still uses less power doing it.

There's nothing wrong with the 8350 as it is $100 cheaper than the 3770K, but lets be realistic. It's a competitor to the i5 not the i7. I certainly wouldn't get one if budget isn't a concern, especially with Haswell around the corner. You can always wait to see what happens with Steamroller, but as much as I would like to I'm not getting my hopes up.




I remember I saw the FX-8350 beating the Core i7-3770K in various multimedia-oriented tasks:
http://thgtr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/3ds-max-oc....
That was the overclocked FX, my bad.

I stated that because I remember I saw benchmark results proving it -I know those are not the norm.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...
POV-Ray.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 29, 2013 5:57:08 PM

JD88 said:
3ogdy said:
"I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure"
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Your requirements:
-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.
-gaming-wise - you won't see any noticeable difference in terms of FPS between Intel's latest and greatest and AMD's latest and greatest.
That's because
A) both companies have chips capable of handling gaming at over 50-60FPS.
B) gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance).
Back to your statement:
" I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years"
Check the system requirements for the latest games and for the upcoming ones and you will see most of them will know how to take advantage of more than 2 cores, which should tell you games are going to become more multi-threaded than they are right now.
Moreover, games ported from consoles such as the PS4 WILL know how to deal with the AMD architecture since they will all be optimized to run mainly on AMD hardware(AMD designed and supplies the hardware inside the PS4 (and the XBOX360, to some extent).
I'd go with the top-of the line Steamroller FX CPU when it comes out.
And that's without even saying Intel isn't expecting big performance gains out of Haswell (around 10% more performance or so) while AMD is expecting around 30% performance gains out of Steamroller, but that's another story - if you need a future-proof configuration, you should go with the FX-8350.


This isn't entirely accurate.

The 3770K has been left behind by the 8350 in multimedia? I don't even know where that came from but it's certainly not true. Show some benchmarks and I might agree with you.

Gaming wise, Intel chips still destroy AMD in CPU bound games. Starcraft, Skyrim, and Planetside 2 come to mind and there are a lot more. In the case of PS2, it's not even playable on an AMD chip due to frame rate drops. The only game where AMD is really that effective is Crysis 3 and while it keeps up with Intel in average frame rate, it has a much lower minimum frame rate which means it dips into unplayable levels at times.

We've seen Haswell and we know what it can do. It's another 5-10% on top of Intel's already 20% IPC lead. Everyone might think AMD is going to pull out 30% improvement, but AMD has a bad habit of talking big then letting everyone down. Piledriver was about a 15% improvement on Bulldozer, but a lot of that was clock speed increases and there's not a lot of headroom there.

It's also important to remember that AMD chips are clocked higher to begin with in order to keep up, thus using way more power. When clocked the same, an i7 beats an 8350 in just about anything and still uses less power doing it.

There's nothing wrong with the 8350 as it is $100 cheaper than the 3770K, but lets be realistic. It's a competitor to the i5 not the i7. I certainly wouldn't get one if budget isn't a concern, especially with Haswell around the corner. You can always wait to see what happens with Steamroller, but as much as I would like to I'm not getting my hopes up.



The only time AMD hasn't been pretty much right on with the predictions was Bulldozer. Let's be totally honest here too, Bulldozer was completely uncharted territory for AMD, and the theoretical gains were really not achieved because the product was rushed. Piledriver should have been BD, and SR should have been PD, etc. However, we got what we got, and now that they understand the architecture and it's pros and cons, they can much better assess the real world gains. The rest of the time they've been pretty much accurate.

Also, outside of synthetic benchmarks, I have only seen haswell achieve 6-8% improvement over Ivy. I could be wrong here, and there may be some earth shattering real world applications that I have missed...but, I find that not all too likely.

Considering that Kaveri engineering prototypes will be coming out to developers soon, we will likely see some leaked benchmarks in the Q3 this year, and that improvement over trinity will give us a reasonable degree of insight into what the desktop FX series will gain in Q1 2014.

Also, there are more than just Crysis 3 where AMD runs a tight race:

Bioshock Infinite
Metro 2033
Tomb Raider
Far Cry 3
BF3 Multiplayer
Crysis Warhead

The only games where intel really shines at this point are SC2, Skyrim, Civ5...and I would even argue planetside 2 is nearly unplayable on intel as well because their optimization was just terrible to begin with. Minimum frame rates for any CPU are in the toilet on the benchmarks for that one.

Additionally, I don't consider an advantage to one side or the other that falls within the MoE for the benchmark to be a clear cut advantage either way. Consider 10% Margin for Error, most intel victories in games are not by more than that anyway. Hardware inconsistencies across an entire system (with the same make/model of components but different individual parts) can even generate greater difference than that margin anyway.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2013 7:48:05 PM

I certainly hope that AMD surprises me and gives me a reason to upgrade my 2500K this fall because Intel certainly hasn't with Haswell. Get the IPC up to Sandy Bridge levels, get multi threaded performance up to Ivy Bridge i7 levels and get the TDP down to around 85W and I'm sold at $200.

I would also buy an APU that has FX-6300 level CPU performance and 7790 level GPU performance for $200. That would be a game changer.

AMD has a chance here to catch Intel with their pants down in the gaming market, I doubt they will though.
Score
0
a c 218 à CPUs
a c 104 À AMD
a c 130 å Intel
April 30, 2013 9:21:32 AM

There's something that needs to be said with all this who's better, Intel or AMD debate. The fact of the matter is that when you have the high end CPUs and you benchmark them side by side, yes you do have a winner but what is that winning margin by? I've seen a benchmark where one will win by 1 FPS and while a win is a win to me that simply says that it doesn't matter which one yo get because both will do the job.

There is no set benchmarks that will sat that one brand is better than the other across the board and therefore is a clear choice to go with that one. Intel will win some and AMD will win some and just because one wins and one loses doesn't mean that the one that loses is so bad that it won't do the job, of course it will. In gaming once you go past 60-70 fps you do not notice a difference in game play, a game at 70 fps looks just as good as a game at 95 fps. In productivity if one CPU finishes a task 5 sec faster then the other then what's 5 sec , nothing.

It then is just a matter of what do you want to spend for a computer and how much of a budget do you have and some even go so far as to what do they feel comfortable with. There are so many models for so many different price levels that there is one that will fit your requirement.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 30, 2013 12:26:55 PM

inzone said:
There's something that needs to be said with all this who's better, Intel or AMD debate. The fact of the matter is that when you have the high end CPUs and you benchmark them side by side, yes you do have a winner but what is that winning margin by? I've seen a benchmark where one will win by 1 FPS and while a win is a win to me that simply says that it doesn't matter which one yo get because both will do the job.

There is no set benchmarks that will sat that one brand is better than the other across the board and therefore is a clear choice to go with that one. Intel will win some and AMD will win some and just because one wins and one loses doesn't mean that the one that loses is so bad that it won't do the job, of course it will. In gaming once you go past 60-70 fps you do not notice a difference in game play, a game at 70 fps looks just as good as a game at 95 fps. In productivity if one CPU finishes a task 5 sec faster then the other then what's 5 sec , nothing.

It then is just a matter of what do you want to spend for a computer and how much of a budget do you have and some even go so far as to what do they feel comfortable with. There are so many models for so many different price levels that there is one that will fit your requirement.


+1 That's essentially what I have been saying all along.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2013 1:31:03 PM

8350rocks said:
inzone said:
There's something that needs to be said with all this who's better, Intel or AMD debate. The fact of the matter is that when you have the high end CPUs and you benchmark them side by side, yes you do have a winner but what is that winning margin by? I've seen a benchmark where one will win by 1 FPS and while a win is a win to me that simply says that it doesn't matter which one yo get because both will do the job.

There is no set benchmarks that will sat that one brand is better than the other across the board and therefore is a clear choice to go with that one. Intel will win some and AMD will win some and just because one wins and one loses doesn't mean that the one that loses is so bad that it won't do the job, of course it will. In gaming once you go past 60-70 fps you do not notice a difference in game play, a game at 70 fps looks just as good as a game at 95 fps. In productivity if one CPU finishes a task 5 sec faster then the other then what's 5 sec , nothing.

It then is just a matter of what do you want to spend for a computer and how much of a budget do you have and some even go so far as to what do they feel comfortable with. There are so many models for so many different price levels that there is one that will fit your requirement.


+1 That's essentially what I have been saying all along.


I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.

Let me start out by mentioning I have no bias towards any company. I would buy whatever happens to be the best value at the time, and that's also how I recommend products on these forums. I'm a big fan of a lot of AMD products, and I personally use a lot of products from both companies.

Having said that, I wouldn't mind getting your opinions on the current pricing scheme of AMD's FX line. I personally think that it is very difficult to recommend anything from it at any price point except perhaps the 8320 at $170. I believe that a $30 price drop across the board would help that tremendously. Let me break it down.

At around $110-120 it is very hard to recommend the 4300 because it performs almost exactly the same as the $90 Phenom II x4 965.

At $135-140 it's very difficult to recommend the 6300 because it's performance benefit over the Phenom really isn't much at all other than in applications that can take advantage of many threads. Even there is it really $50 better? No. Better than the i3 at the same price price point? Probably, but the i3 3235 is overpriced as well. In addition, to get the best performance out of it, you need to invest say another $30 in an aftermarket cooler. That's putting it at the same price as the i5 3350P which destroys it in just about everything.

At $170 the 8320 competes with the 3350P and beats it slightly in highly threaded applications. So I would say it's a recommendation at this point for those using mainly productivity oriented applications. Gaming, definitely not because the clock speed is too low and overclocking requires dropping another $30 in aftermarket cooling.

At $200 the 8350 competes with the i5 3570K which beats it in everything other than the most heavily threaded applications and even there it's close. Especially when clock speeds are the same. At the very maximum this is a tie which means the recommendation could go either way.

Showing these examples, I just don't see where AMD pulls off any wins, even against their own Phenom line. I haven't even mentioned the power consumption differential either. A $30 price drop would go a long way toward fixing this though.

In any of the cases I mentioned, how would you justify AMD recommendations?

It's not about 1-2 FPS, it's about recommending the best possible value for the money. Aside from throwing AMD a bone because I like the company, I just don't see any reason to buy their FX products. Slash the price by $30 and it's a whole new ballgame.

4300 would be a clear winner at $80

6300 would be a no brainer at $110

8320 easy buy at $140

8350 bargain at $170

That's a winning lineup.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 30, 2013 1:41:50 PM

The FX8350 results against the i5-3570k all fall squarely within margin of error on most benchmarks. That's essentially a wash...and I mean that going both ways.

The only area where the individual CPUs shine is the i5-3570k wins in single core AAC encoding (see: itunes) and a few games like Skyrim. The FX8350 does win in a few heavily threaded benchmarks by more than margin of error, handbrake for example, and encryption is another that comes to mind as well as thread heavy rendering suites.

Now, the FX8350 is typically $30-50 cheaper than the i5-3570k, if that extra money puts you up a notch on your GPU, then the FX8350 is by default a better setup because the CPUs with equal cards are mostly a draw. So if you have a better GPU with one, it wins. Additionally, Z77 boards for intel tend to run a little pricier than 990FX chipset AMD boards, so you can save money there. If you don't intend to CF/SLI you can even drop down to a 970 series motherboard with good features for around $80-90.

The FX6300 with an aftermarket cooler can be cranked up to 4.5-4.6 GHz on air cooling, and at those clockspeeds, it will run a race with nearly anything out there. Most people these days spend money on an aftermarket cooler anyway, because the stock systems are mostly rubbish. If you compare the FX6300 to the i3's and low end i5's, for the money, it's a lot more CPU.

Additionally AMD announced today the FX4350 and FX6350 which will both have clockspeeds around 3.7-3.9 GHz without TC. These will be priced where the FX4300 and FX6300 are now. Which makes them higher binned and likely an even better buy for the same money.

Additionally, AMD is going to stop producing AM3 CPUs and motherboards as well as FM1 components also to support AM3+ and FM2 fully, meaning the higher end Phenom series CPUs will go away. Additionally, the higher binned Phenom chips cost as much as the FX8350 in many cases...(if you can find a 970/975/980BE or 1090/1100T).

So there is sound logic in it, plus AM3+ systems will have a direct upgrade path for steamroller, which is a nice perk.

FX4350 @ $119.99 (3.9 GHz/4.3 TC)
FX6350 @ $129.99 (3.8 GHz/4.2 TC)
FX8350 @ $179-189 is typical now (microcenter sells it for $169)
FX8320 @ $159-169 is typical now (microcenter sells it for $149/159)

(both new offerings are 125W TDP, so your board would be compatible with top end SR offerings as well)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2013 2:01:16 PM

I was referring to pricing and products available right now. What's happening soon is subject to change because AMD will launch these higher clocked Piledriver chips and Intel will launch Haswell. Also, lets leave out Microcenter because Intel chips are cheaper there as well.

I'm talking about what Newegg is charging right at this moment in time. I just looked and here it is:

8350: $199.99
8320: $179.99
6300: $139.99
4300: $129.99 (Especially overpriced)


Phenom II x4 965: $89.99

i5 3350P: $169.99

i5 3570k: $219.99

Not much logic there. The only real tie or debate would be 8350 vs 3570K because of the $20 price advantage for the AMD chip.

Intel motherboards are getting cheaper and now offer about the same bang for the buck so I call that a wash also.

I would disagree that aftermarket heatsinks are necessary for non-overclocked Intel CPUs as Ivy Bridge runs pretty cool at lower clock speeds.

Also, the 3350P still equals a 6300 at 4.5 and uses a lot less power doing it.

It remains to be seen if these new chips are binned higher as voltage could have just been added. I suspect this is the case with the 30W higher TDP.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 30, 2013 2:19:44 PM

You can buy the FX8350@ Amazon.com for $179.99/189.99 consistently...that's a $30-40 advantage.

Plus MSI 970A-G46 motherboard is $69, the same motherboard in Z77A-G45 format is $105. There's $35 difference there as well...that's typical of the difference between the 2 formats.
Score
0
April 30, 2013 2:35:58 PM

AMD offers more budget options, Intel has more high-end options.

AMD is good for people on a strict budget.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2013 3:11:42 PM

splinter007 said:
AMD offers more budget options, Intel has more high-end options.

AMD is good for people on a strict budget.

That's pretty much how I see it at the moment. With the APUs and FX6300 I haven't used a pentium or I3 in a quite a while. The I5 vs FX8 is a more difficult decision, could go either way.

Score
0
May 1, 2013 12:26:18 PM

I have only ever built one computer and its only really used for high end gaming, but I look a lot into the parts I buy and the way I see the argument between amd and intel is like Xbox and playstation wait till the new gen CPUs come out then decide which bests fits you I'm only upgrading my PC when I need a to start running sli. If the CPUs are anything like the predecessor I'm probably going to get haswell as I have never had a problem with the 3 Intels I've had and had to replace to amds. But that could just be me.
Score
0
May 5, 2013 1:19:11 PM

Graham Seyffert said:
So I'm looking to build a new computer over the summer. I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure. I have most of the components decided on, but I'm undecided as to the CPU I want to get. I've never built a computer before, so I don't have too much experience with this. In terms of the AMD CPUs, I know they're cheaper, and also have 8 cores compared to Intel's 4. But the new Steamroller architecture doesn't come out until early October 2013, whereas Haswell is being released early June. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the i7-4770k, and for AMD I'm looking at the FX-8350 8 Core (waiting for Steamroller). Price is less of an issue; I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years. Which would you guys recommend?


3ogdy said:

-multimedia capabilities - more threads/cores =better. It's been proven even the Core i7 3770K is left behind by the FX-8350 in this area.


CPU: well i suggest you to go with Intel if you got no money problem!get intel i7 4770K but i will promise you can't make use of all the 100% of it by gaming and CS...and NO AMD DID NOT BEAT Intel I7 3770K!that is wrong!read this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...
what really happened is that on benchmark,Intel performed 10 to 20% better but the price of i7 3770K is 340$ while AMD's FX-8350 is only 170-180$.so that means AMD's FX-8350 does a perfect job and comes really close to an I7 3770K but not beating it yet.
Mother Board : if you went with intel most of the stuff is good V formula is perfect Asus Sabertooth Z77 is also good(240$).but again those mother boards are cost more compared to an AMD mother board.another thing is,AMD doesn't have any PCIe 3.0 Motherboards except ASUS Sabertooth 990FX Gen3/R2.0 Military Grade.that is the 1st and only AMD PCIe 3.0 motherboard right now and it's about 190-200$ (don't get me wrong it's a good mother board but maybe you would like to buy a Gigabyte Motherboard)
Graphic : i think Radeon HD 7970 is good for everything but they over heat,Use more power and make a lot of noise so you might wanna get a water cooling for it as you want your parts last for a number of years good for gaming and good for software.Nvidia Graphics...expensive,Power friendly,not noisy,doesn't heat like ATI does,loads more detail in games but not so software friendly...
RAM : you would need atleast 8GB of ram but 16gb is much better.Corsair rams are the best.
SSD : Yes you need that too.it will skyrocket your performance speed.
Storage Drive: only if you need one
Power Suply : Atleast 700w.Cooler Master is good.
but with all this it all comes down to how much you wanna spend!if you are around 1200$ go with AMD cpu+Nvidia Graphic.if it's like 2000$ go with Intel+ATI graphic.

P.S: I'm a AMD user myself.I think their products are good and budget friendly and Intel haven't Beat their Price/Performance at all as their products are priced too high for what they offer...!but on the other hand i'm not a FANBOY of em.so i pretty much speak reality.AMD good Price/Performance but not as powerful as Intel they still have distance with Intel in that matter...
Score
0
May 8, 2013 4:11:09 PM

Graham Seyffert said:
So I'm looking to build a new computer over the summer. I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure. I have most of the components decided on, but I'm undecided as to the CPU I want to get. I've never built a computer before, so I don't have too much experience with this. In terms of the AMD CPUs, I know they're cheaper, and also have 8 cores compared to Intel's 4. But the new Steamroller architecture doesn't come out until early October 2013, whereas Haswell is being released early June. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the i7-4770k, and for AMD I'm looking at the FX-8350 8 Core (waiting for Steamroller). Price is less of an issue; I want a CPU that'll run fast for a number of years. Which would you guys recommend?


there a rumor that amd is packing with that steamroller with radeon graphics. if true, you could use amd's dual gpu technolgy. that will put both dedicat and intergate gpus to work.
Score
0
May 13, 2013 5:45:27 PM

" gaming is more GPU-dependent so for considerably /noticeably better results you should invest in a higher-end GPU(HD7970/HD7950, for instance)."
This is absolutely lie! It depends on what kind of game you want to play. Some games are srsly CPU bound (like MMO's -eg Guild Wars or RTS like StarCraft 2) where my HD 6870 or 7870 are srsly bored (like 10-30% used with not good FPS on highest) while on FPS's like BF3 or Tomb Rider they are working on 90+% maxed - CPU Phenom II X4 965 OC to 4GHz

I think combo intel CPU and AMD GPU is the cheapest way to achieve max performace in games
Score
0
May 13, 2013 6:20:56 PM

To get a view of all the Intel and AMD Vishera chips, Benchmark results, go to Th3 Guruin 3D.com, A dutch company which has Ivy bridge, Vishera and Sandy Bridge processors benchmarked side by side. The 6300 Vihera overall has performance equal to the Intel 2500K. The major Intel cpu advantages seem to be in memory bandwidth while AMD has a definite Hashing advantage. Aside from higher fps in Farcry 3, onceyou get into the higher resolutions, the CPUs are very ckosely matched. To make a long story short, and to get a more complete benchmark comparison, go to Guru in 3D , hardware review, processors, 8350,8320,6300, 4300 article and click on read more. This should give you an idea of what is happening at the moment. You can then add 10% to the 3770k and 20-39% to the 8350 to get an idea of where you will be when Steamroller comes out.
Score
0
May 14, 2013 12:31:13 PM

Disclaimer: I like AMD and their processors and I like the *idea* of their new architecture and future direction.

I am a software engineer and I also use my computer for gaming.

The only CPU taxing element of my work is building large projects and running multiple web servers for unit testing.

My next build will be an AM3+ build with a piledriver (fx-8350) CPU (along with SSDs, gobs of ram, and an AMD 7970). I plan on upgrading the CPU (since AMD does make relatively inexpensive CPUs) to a steamroller model when they arrive.

With the predicted single core performance improvements (and I believe they prove to be accurate) the steamroller chips will be moved well into the performance realm of the current intel offerings, WITH the remaining advantage of the high multi-thread performance that has soundly beaten current intel offerings.

I don't know if the next generations will support AM3+, but I imagine they might, even if they cannot be used to their maximum levels of performance.
Score
0
May 19, 2013 9:07:29 AM

Either chip will be plenty fast but as a CS major I would be more concerned with things like: machine virtualization, UEFI vs bios, multi OS compatibility so my preference would be 4770 non-K proc (K series cut out some aspects of hardware virtualization) with a high end mobo and cuda enabled video card.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 19, 2013 3:41:02 PM

Yoshi Shibata said:
Either chip will be plenty fast but as a CS major I would be more concerned with things like: machine virtualization, UEFI vs bios, multi OS compatibility so my preference would be 4770 non-K proc (K series cut out some aspects of hardware virtualization) with a high end mobo and cuda enabled video card.


OpenCL > CUDA...check Tom's reviews...CUDA is far less utilized than OpenCL.
Score
0
May 20, 2013 11:05:39 AM

8350rocks said:
Yoshi Shibata said:
Either chip will be plenty fast but as a CS major I would be more concerned with things like: machine virtualization, UEFI vs bios, multi OS compatibility so my preference would be 4770 non-K proc (K series cut out some aspects of hardware virtualization) with a high end mobo and cuda enabled video card.


OpenCL > CUDA...check Tom's reviews...CUDA is far less utilized than OpenCL.


Good point on the OpenCL, much of the stuff I've encountered in the scientific field is coded directly in cuda but openCL might get you further in other disciplines.
Score
0
May 23, 2013 2:50:22 PM

I would like to point out that while FX has a TDP of 125W, it's not pulling 125W all the time. The amount of extra power it pulls does not drive up the power bill as much as you think either. It's not the fastest but its most definitely not as bad as people portray it. Yes Intel is very powerful and efficient but their price/performance ratio is not as good as AMDs. An AMD system is just cheaper overall but offers performance that does challenge Intel to a degree. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy but its true.
Score
0
May 23, 2013 3:25:59 PM

AM2A said:
To give a good answer I would need to pull my time machine out of storage....


I don't know if I'm just having one of those days but I found myself laughing uncontrollably when I read that sentence. Not sure but it was either the idea of a time machine, or that somebody has one and it's currently unused and in storage. Thank you AM2A, I so needed that :D 
Score
0
May 23, 2013 4:58:18 PM

hafijur said:
What 8350 rocks doesn't understand is a 3770k takes like 50w while an fx8350 takes like 150w at stock cpu wise.


This is very far from reality and the rest of your posts is still more.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2013 5:00:01 PM

hafijur said:
What 8350 rocks doesn't understand is a 3770k takes like 50w while an fx8350 takes like 150w at stock cpu wise.

Intel could have released haswell with an 8 core cpu with 16 threads if they wanted to with a 95w tdp but intel are so far ahead they can release low end cpus in terms of the power envelope. Imagine nvidia maxwell lets say is miles ahead of amd at the time, its like nvidia originally were going to release a low end 50w part as a mid range end part but instead called it lets say a gtx880 and sell it for a ton of money while it costs them very little to make. Then when the competitor releases a new gpu on same process, nvidia release a gpu 3x faster then the competitors top end. Intel don't release cpus a lot faster then amd is due to maximising profit margin.

In simple terms intel haswell could have cpus that perform 100% faster if they wanted to at same price point but intel are so far ahead they don't need to. I fully expect 8 core 16 thread 95w cpu with 2x the performance of a 3770k to be coming out soon.


What hafijur doesn't understand is that he's trolling and talking about something he doesn't understand trying to fish for a flame war. Your statements are not supported by facts...so please come back when you have facts that support any of the nonsensical statements you make.
Score
0
May 28, 2013 8:06:45 AM

I just cant stop smiling when people compare cores with different base speed at the same speed... If the I5 3570k is 3.4-3.5ghz base it can OC to about 4ghz still being stable but the AMD FX-8350 that starts at 4ghz can be OC to 4.8 and still be stable... i dont see any points into comparing OCed I5 to an base clocked 8350...
OKAY i do understand AMD tend to be much hotter than Intel but with a good water cooling you can still get awesome performance with great OC from an AMD

I personaly OCed my 8350 to 4.8ghz on an Sabertooth 990fx and im using a Thermaltake bigwater 920 plus to cool all that and i get much bether performance that my friend that OCed his 3570k to 4ghx wich is 15-20% just like my AMD...

And for what is about the power consumption... today you can get a 850w plus bronze modular PSU for like 150$... so if we take an exemple that you buy a single high end card like a GTX680 from EVGA or even ASUS that takes 200w or so, i dont see how you would get to the maximum power output of your PSU. I know HDD also takes power but doing the maths you have 350w out of 850 take so you still have 500w free for all your other hardwares that require some.

When i bought my gaming build i opted for a 8350 especialy because i found that both AMD compatible Motherboards (sabertooth 990fx) and the CPU his-self were way cheaper than theyr competitors from Intel (sabertooth z77 is 30-50$ over the 990fx) and I still dont regret my choice after over 6 months of having my 8350 and my computer is able to run ALMOST every game in the maxe settings. There are some games i can't run to max but its not a CPU issue but definely a GPU issue(i only have a gtx 560 TI)

I say that useing my personal experiments as arguments.

Ty for reading and sorry for my bad English(im speaking french usualy so)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 8:25:39 AM

swordsguy470 said:
I just cant stop smiling when people compare cores with different base speed at the same speed... If the I5 3570k is 3.4-3.5ghz base it can OC to about 4ghz still being stable but the AMD FX-8350 that starts at 4ghz can be OC to 4.8 and still be stable... i dont see any points into comparing OCed I5 to an base clocked 8350...
OKAY i do understand AMD tend to be much hotter than Intel but with a good water cooling you can still get awesome performance with great OC from an AMD

I personaly OCed my 8350 to 4.8ghz on an Sabertooth 990fx and im using a Thermaltake bigwater 920 plus to cool all that and i get much bether performance that my friend that OCed his 3570k to 4ghx wich is 15-20% just like my AMD...

And for what is about the power consumption... today you can get a 850w plus bronze modular PSU for like 150$... so if we take an exemple that you buy a single high end card like a GTX680 from EVGA or even ASUS that takes 200w or so, i dont see how you would get to the maximum power output of your PSU. I know HDD also takes power but doing the maths you have 350w out of 850 take so you still have 500w free for all your other hardwares that require some.

When i bought my gaming build i opted for a 8350 especialy because i found that both AMD compatible Motherboards (sabertooth 990fx) and the CPU his-self were way cheaper than theyr competitors from Intel (sabertooth z77 is 30-50$ over the 990fx) and I still dont regret my choice after over 6 months of having my 8350 and my computer is able to run ALMOST every game in the maxe settings. There are some games i can't run to max but its not a CPU issue but definely a GPU issue(i only have a gtx 560 TI)

I say that useing my personal experiments as arguments.

Ty for reading and sorry for my bad English(im speaking french usualy so)


None of this makes much sense? Why is it unreasonable to compare CPU's at the same clock speed? That would only seem to make sense to me. Your argument that the i5 tops out at 4GHz while the AMD chip makes it to 4.8 is complete nonsense. They both overclock well with adequate cooling. In fact, the Intel chip doesn't even need aftermarket cooling to match the AMD chip's stock clock speeds. There are plenty of i5 3570K chips out there running at 4.8 GHz all day long perfectly stable. AMD simply clocks their chips higher out of the box because their IPC is bad and it's the only way to keep up. Clock for clock and core for core, the 4 year old Phenom II's are even slightly better than Piledriver.

Power consumption is a big deal. Not everyone wants to sink $150 into a power supply and even then you might want more headroom for SLI or Crossfire down the road.

The Sabertooth Z77 motherboard is a complete rip off. It offers virtually no advantages relative to a $150 dollar board. Comparing it to the AMD Sabertooth is irrelevant. Both are overpriced with the AMD unit possibly being justified by its offering of PCIe 3.0.


I'm not biased toward either company and both chips are good, but let's not spread misinformation.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2013 9:01:33 AM

The difference in power consumption at peak is 40W...if a 500W PSU would work in your intel...an extra $10 would get you a 550W PSU for the AMD rig.

Additionally...with an up front cost difference of $40 between the 2, based on my electricity costs...it takes 4.2 years and change to make up the difference in electric bills if you run your PC maxed out 6 hours per day for 365 days per year. Being as most people won't use near that level of performance from their PC, I expect to make up the cost difference going to intel you'd actually need to run closer to 8 years to recoup your $40 in electric savings
Score
0
May 28, 2013 9:08:10 AM

Graham Seyffert said:
So I'm looking to build a new computer over the summer. I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure.............the new Steamroller architecture doesn't come out until early October 2013, whereas Haswell is being released early June. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the i7-4770k, and for AMD I'm looking at the FX-8350 8 Core (waiting for Steamroller). Price is less of an issue........


To answer the OP's question straight forward (in which case he is asking about things that are not yet released) it's a bit tough to offer a suggestion that actually means anything...(wait til the CPU's are released and we'll talk).

Comparing Intel to AMD is as old as the day is long and it seems like we're at a point that there are so many different things to compare about them you really have to know what exactly you are using it for, where the majority of the time spent will be & how much will it cost. By this I mean what specific programs will you be running, what kinds of games will you be playing etc. This is a day and age that people benchmark just about everything and if you will be using widely used software for the work you will be doing I can promise you someone out there benchmarked it's performance (or in your case they will) with various CPU's..

So we'll make it easy:
Gaming:
What games do you play?
What resolution do you play at?

Work
What programs will you be using for work?

Once upon a time CPU's were much more straightforward and easier to compare. Today they do so much more that to do a real comparison you have to know what (as in exactly what) you are using it for to get the best comparison.

In the meantime I would research your preferred programs or games with the current AMD/Intel CPU offerings (as I said I bet there's plenty of benchies out there already) as a head start.

Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2013 9:19:07 AM

rreluzco said:
Graham Seyffert said:
So I'm looking to build a new computer over the summer. I like gaming, but I'm also a CS Major, so I'll be using the computer both for work and leisure.............the new Steamroller architecture doesn't come out until early October 2013, whereas Haswell is being released early June. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the i7-4770k, and for AMD I'm looking at the FX-8350 8 Core (waiting for Steamroller). Price is less of an issue........


To answer the OP's question straight forward (in which case he is asking about things that are not yet released) it's a bit tough to offer a suggestion that actually means anything...(wait til the CPU's are released and we'll talk).

Comparing Intel to AMD is as old as the day is long and it seems like we're at a point that there are so many different things to compare about them you really have to know what exactly you are using it for, where the majority of the time spent will be & how much will it cost. By this I mean what specific programs will you be running, what kinds of games will you be playing etc. This is a day and age that people benchmark just about everything and if you will be using widely used software for the work you will be doing I can promise you someone out there benchmarked it's performance (or in your case they will) with various CPU's..

So we'll make it easy:
Gaming:
What games do you play?
What resolution do you play at?

Work
What programs will you be using for work?

Once upon a time CPU's were much more straightforward and easier to compare. Today they do so much more that to do a real comparison you have to know what (as in exactly what) you are using it for to get the best comparison.

In the meantime I would research your preferred programs or games with the current AMD/Intel CPU offerings (as I said I bet there's plenty of benchies out there already) as a head start.



This, additionally though, be sure to look at benchmarks for that program in your preferred OS. If you run Linux the results are dramatically different than the results from Windows
Score
0
May 28, 2013 9:19:14 AM

Thats exactly why i came to the conclusion that there is no real big deal in that wattage difference... and 6 hours per day at 100%... is there realy anybody who can do that with normal use? and about that answer about that you would not want to buy a 150$ PSU for your build using a high end cpu.... it made me laugh dam lot... I think the most important thing in a computer is balance... there is no point in buying a 200$ cpu and placing it on a 50$ mobo so i think same goes for a psu... there is no point building a high end or even mid range computer whitout geting a good powersuply where you can be sure it is rly good so i think if people cant afford buying a 150$ psu they should more go on a 700-800$ prebuild computer instead of trying to build one theyrselves because it will just end beein inbalanced and it wont work to the top and will just be bottlenecked, i think using 10% of your budget on the psu for building a long lasting computer is a good deal.
Score
0
May 28, 2013 10:06:27 AM

You havent folowedr wath i said. I said when you use a good psu... 150w isnt much for a good psu and you probably could connect a titan or even a 690 on average cpu once the 8350 power is used... considering the most energivore video card dont even take 300w, you could go with a 8350, and a 650w psu you would still have 100-150w easly left after your done with your cpu and card. and i go again on the thing wich is called balance. you wont go put that 7850 connected to a power supply that barely have the minimum power left that would be rly dangerous... personaly i use a 650W plus bronze psu that i paid like 90-110$ a year ago and its way enought power for my gtx 580 plus my 8350 and my other hardwares. i understand i cant probably go on a SLI build but well when you got the money to afford a good sli build you, most of the time, have the money to afford at least a 3770k wich, NOW, would be a bether choice...Personaly i havent ever see a ''mid range gaming build'' with a SLI because its pretty useless especialy when you are building a brand new computer.
Score
0
May 28, 2013 11:14:40 AM

It's just such an insanely personal decision these days. To know what's the best set up for yourself you really have to be specific. "I'm using it for both games and work" just doesn't cut it anymore.

15 years ago "work" for the average person was spread sheets and email hence high end rigs were really made for hard core gamers. Today my 11 year old does video editing...

Nowadays both gaming and "work" computers are a whole different ball of wax. Even gaming has evolved from that neck and neck race of CPU vs GPU where they had to be close because one would bottleneck the the other. Although CPU's have (I think) surpassed anything that's needed for gaming as today's games are more GPU driven (I'll take the top processor of 4 yrs ago with a current GPU over the opposite any day to run current games)

For gaming:
Aside from the technological end of it (meaning fancy new lighting features, textures, physx, etc.) the most hardware demanding aspect about gaming seems to be resolution. Many gamers are using big 27" monitors and resolutions of 2560 x 1440 to dual and triple of these monitors bringing that number to 7680x1440. GPU is the most important aspect to consider for this by a long shot. Not saying the CPU doesn't count but I believe that by today's standards if you're all about gaming the order is definitely GPU first.

I myself am a gamer, I use a single monitor at 1920x1080 plus I record and edit a lot of gameplay for youtube.
My specs are
PhenomIIx6 1090T @3.9Ghz
Corsair H80i water cooler
GTX560TI 2GB x2 in SLI
16GB system ram.

I play the latest FPS games and I edit videos using Windows Live Movie Maker, Sony Vegas, Power Director. I record with Fraps and Dxtory.

My next upgrade (in about 4 months) will be video card/cards. In a year or so (from now) I will upgrade my motherboard/processor (mostly for the motherboard..not so much for the processor) and a solid state drive. My dumb motherboard is SATA II (but thats a long story) so I'm not getting an SSD til I get a new mobo/CPU

For me I can't justify the price difference between an Intel processor vs an AMD when compared to their performance. This of course is for me personally and for what I use it for.....My point is just that I am curious as to what programs will the OP be using for work and what will his gaming be like and then we can certainly look into what runs what the best and for the best price.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2013 12:04:22 PM

hafijur said:
Well a 3570k vs a fx8350 there is 100w difference, basically you can put a hd 7850 in there and take similar power and play games at 1080p at same power envelope. Most people keep there pc for 4 years so over that time it will have more then paid for itself.


The difference between the i7-3770k, and the FX8350 is 41W. The i5-3570k is the same CPU without HTT. The power consumption is not drastically different.

Look at Tom's reviews.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
May 28, 2013 1:08:08 PM

8350rocks said:
The difference in power consumption at peak is 40W...if a 500W PSU would work in your intel...an extra $10 would get you a 550W PSU for the AMD rig.

Additionally...with an up front cost difference of $40 between the 2, based on my electricity costs...it takes 4.2 years and change to make up the difference in electric bills if you run your PC maxed out 6 hours per day for 365 days per year. Being as most people won't use near that level of performance from their PC, I expect to make up the cost difference going to intel you'd actually need to run closer to 8 years to recoup your $40 in electric savings


The power consumption difference is much more than 40w between an i5-3570k and FX-8350. You need to learn how to do some research before posting such information. While the i5-3570k is not present in the below chart, the i7-3770k is and the difference against the FX-8350 is 107w according to the chart below.

Like I replied to your post in a different thread, the actual cost of electricity depends on how much you are paying per KWH.
Additionally, using the correct peak/maximum power consumption figures also help with calculating an estimate.

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...



Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
May 28, 2013 1:17:13 PM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
Well a 3570k vs a fx8350 there is 100w difference, basically you can put a hd 7850 in there and take similar power and play games at 1080p at same power envelope. Most people keep there pc for 4 years so over that time it will have more then paid for itself.


The difference between the i7-3770k, and the FX8350 is 41W. The i5-3570k is the same CPU without HTT. The power consumption is not drastically different.

Look at Tom's reviews.


If you are going to reference a source, then at least provide a link to the source. Posting the chart would be good too.

Tomhardware's review of the FX-8350 shows an average power consumption difference of about 63w between the i7-3770k and the FX-8350. However, that does not represent max/peak power; it is just average which includes idle and max/peak power in the overall average power consumption. The difference between 41w and 63w is relatively small small I suppose, but that means your 41w has a 34% margin of error vs. the average power consumption.

Source
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...




Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2013 4:04:31 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

That's an average difference of 46W against a CPU that's notably less efficient in average consumption as well...

Here's the 3570k
This review shows the difference in power consumption to be roughly 10W between the 2.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-3570-low-po...

That's going to make the difference give or take 53W in average consumption...

Now, hafijur where was I wrong again? Oh, that's right...I wasn't.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2013 4:18:47 PM

How many threads like this does the CPU forum need? I can't keep count anymore.
Score
3
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 28, 2013 4:23:04 PM

CooLWoLF said:
How many threads like this does the CPU forum need? I can't keep count anymore.


+1
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
a c 115 å Intel
May 28, 2013 7:25:41 PM

8350rocks said:
The difference in power consumption at peak is 40W...if a 500W PSU would work in your intel...an extra $10 would get you a 550W PSU for the AMD rig.



8350rocks said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

That's an average difference of 46W against a CPU that's notably less efficient in average consumption as well...



If you are going to give advice, then you need to understand the meaning of the words / phrase you are using. Peak means something very different from average.


I believe this topic has run it's course so it, therefore it is being locked to prevent any further flame bait.
Score
0
!