Intel i5 3570K vs AMD FX-8350

for3v3r · May 4, 2013

I've decided it's time to build a decent PC gaming setup. But I'm new to this and don't know much. I've done some research and i don't know if either the Intel i5 3570K will be better than the AMD FX-8350 for gaming. If I go with the Intel i5 3570K I think i will use 650ti Boost to begin with and maybe buy a second 650ti Boost in the future and if im using the AMD FX-8350 i will buy a 660 Ti, so im not sure which configuration will run better and perform well in the future.

edogawa · May 4, 2013

Wait till June 4th(it releases around then IIRC) and buy Haswell if you can wait, otherwise go with the 3570k. The 3570k can overclock easily and handle any game for the next 4 years easily and much faster than the 8350 for gaming.

You should save up and just buy a single card such as a the 760ti from nvidias 700 series coming out soon.

If your on a real tight budget though the 8350 and the 660ti are a good option, and you can't really go wrong with that.

JD88 · May 4, 2013

Go with the 3570K for sure, but why such a big difference in graphics? The Intel chip isn't $70-80 more than the AMD chip.

for3v3r · May 4, 2013

JD88 :

What do you mean by ''such a big difference in graphics? '' ?

JD88 · May 4, 2013

I mean the difference in price between a 650TI boost and a 660ti is around $70-80, a lot more than the difference between the two CPUs.

awsomjgp · May 4, 2013

for3v3r :

"
Intel's are faster and are easily overclockable with a processor that has a "k" or "x" at the end (I.e. i7-3770k or 3960x).

edogawa · May 4, 2013

Yea, the 3570k isn't much more expensive, but a lot better.

As I recommended though the 700 series is out soon you should invest in the 760ti if you can afford it.

What's your budget for the entire new system?

icypyro · May 4, 2013

Here's the thing about your decision: The 8350 is in all honesty a wonderful CPU, don't be discouraged if others tell you it's not worth it. Logan over at teksyndicate did some benchmarks and found some really surprising results about the 8350.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-3570k-vs-3770k-vs-3820-gaming-and-xsplit-streaming-benchmarks

Also, if you're going for nvidia for the CUDA cores, okay. But if you're only going for nvidia for the sake of going nvidia, then don't. The radeon 7870 is about neck and neck with the 660 ti, even though it's 50-70 USD cheaper. The 7950 dances circles around the 660 ti, with it being in the same price range. The only viable reason to go mid-range nvidia is for CUDA cores for video editing, etc. Also, going for SLI on lower end cards is usually not the best idea in the world.

JD88 · May 4, 2013

icypyro :

All I see is the AMD chip barely keeping up in most of those benchmarks when it's running at significantly higher clock speeds. Go into the BIOS and press about 3 buttons to even up the clocks on those Intel chips and then watch them walk away in every game.

I don't understand all these comparisons of unlocked chips performed at stock clock speeds. AMD clocks their chips higher out of the box because that's the only way they can compete. That's why they use stupid amounts of power. Clock for clock the 3570K would win every time. It's not even close, even in threaded games.

Also, don't go with an AMD GPU if you have any intention of adding another one for Crossfire or SLI down the road, or if you play games that can take advantage of PhysX.

And dirtyferret, the reason it gets brought up so many times is because there is still debate going on from all the misinformation being spread around, primarily by AMD fanboys. There is a reason why Intel dominates Tom's "Best CPUs for the Money" month after month, they simply are better for gaming. At least in the $170+ price range.

AMD products are good and have their uses, but gaming at ~$200+ isn't one of them. This is coming from someone who owns many AMD products and hopes Steamroller will give me a reason to upgrade my 2500K as Haswell sure hasn't.

edogawa · May 4, 2013

AMD has it's place like JD88 said, but for the 200+ range no way. Intel is just better hands down.

I don't personally like AMD very much, but they do make some great budget processors and keep Intel from raising it's prices.

for3v3r · May 5, 2013

edogawa :

My budget is around £650. And if i go with 760ti how much more expencive would it be and will it outperform the 660ti by a significant amount?

edogawa · May 5, 2013

The 760ti will be the same price practically from what's been rumored so far, 300 dollars, and the refresh of Kepler will probably be 20-23% faster over a 660ti from what's been said.

If you can wait three weeks then I think it's well worth it, you can even use integrated graphics on 3570k temporarily or your older graphics card.

GTX 760 Ti: (said to be 300 dollars and based on the same die as the GTX 670)

GPU GK104-225
Cude Cores: 1,344
TMUs 112
ROPs 32
Memory 2 GB
Memory Interface 256-bit

The 660ti only has a 192-bit memory interface too.

It's up to you.

icypyro · May 5, 2013

JD88 :

I have no clue what you're talking about as far as 'barely' beating or keeping up with. In some games, it has a 30% higher fps than other processors. For example: In Metro 2033, the 8350 got an average of 36.44 fps. The 3570k recieved 21.2. That's a significant amount, making the game playable, to choppy on intel's part. Also, as far as overclocking goes, Logan made two follow-up videos about that.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-oc-vs-i5-3570k-oc-battle-continues

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

AMD keeps up with intel quite easily, even when Intel is overclocked. Also, Logan included a small tidbit about the 8350's power consumption. The main reason that the 8350 has a 125w TDP, is due to the fact it has a 32 nm die, as opposed to the 3570k's 22nm die.

icypyro · May 5, 2013

dirtyferret :

Hurray for contradicting reviews. Anyways, I find it somewhat reassuring that more than one review states that the 8350 is viable for a cpu, according to overclockers club. Nonetheless, it strengthens my argument that the 8350 isn't as bad as everyone makes out for it to be, and that it can definitely keep up with the competition.

jared426 · May 5, 2013

The FX 8350 is an incredible CPU for $189.99. It definitely trades blows with the 3570k, even out performs it in some multi threaded applications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVeN6WEGgg

There are some benchmarks from linus, another respectable reviewer.

His conclusion is that newer games seem to favor CPU's with multi threading.

So I don't know why one would spend the extra money on a 3570k, unless they're a serious skyrum or starcraft 2 player. Also Intel is not releasing anymore CPU's for their LGA1155 socket. While AMD still has steamroller in the works for the AM3+ platform, which they say is going to yield a 30% performance increase over, piledriver.

At the end of the day it truly comes down to preference, both products are great in their own ways. I personally chose a FX-8350, because I love the price.

edogawa · May 5, 2013

Amazon:

FX-8350 = 194 dollars
3570k = 209

People are so adamant on praising AMD. The 3570k comes at 3.4ghz and can overclock to 4.5ghz easily.

The FX-8350 is at 4.0ghz stock.

Sure maybe the FX-8350 is better on certain mulch-threaded applications, but we're talking gaming machine here, we won't see games use more than 4 cores for another 3-4 years probably, and by then it's upgrade time.

The 3570k is just more powerful. In some games the 3570k will make a big difference. The price difference is so small, why not grab the obviously better processor?

icypyro · May 5, 2013

edogawa :

Actually, cryengine 3 tends to like more threads. Benchmarks on Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 show that they tend to favor AMD, and that the 3770k destroys on them since both processors have 8 threads. Also, we might be seeing more multi-thread optimizations made since next-gen consoles will be built on x86 and they'll be using AMD 8 core processors. That answer is no longer acceptable since 3-4 years ago actually has become around 2 years since Bulldozer was released in late 2011.

jared426 · May 5, 2013

I think the 8350 is the more future proof decision. But neither of the CPU's are the difference between a game being playable and not playable. Like I said earlier, it all comes down to personal preference.

edogawa · May 5, 2013

I'm talking on a large scale of all games coming out using more than 4 cores, and not just a few triple A titles.

You're right about games using more threads since the PS3 will be the x86 platform and using AMD though.

For this point in time, and overclock 3570k is the better option.

Over the course of the next few years games will start to evolve from 2 cores to 4 cores and, and above. Intel will need to start being more competitive in their pricing, AMD is starting to get back on track.

Let's not forget the elephant in the room which I consider a huge deal.

Power consumption, the 8350 uses a ton of power compared to the 3570k...

Overall the 3570k is the better processor for a gaming PC. You can under-volt and overclock a 3570k and it won't use a ton of power.

icypyro · May 5, 2013

edogawa :

Honestly, the 8350 only ends up costing you a few dollars per year compared to the 3570k in the real world. People overestimate how much power it uses.

jared426 · May 5, 2013

edogawa :

There are real world tests comparing the power consumption for the i5 3570k vs FX 8350 both at stock speeds. With current electricity rates in the US it works out to be around $20 extra a year. The argument that you're spending much more in electrify costs is pretty laughable. Rather the real concern is that i5 is more efficient than the 8350 in terms of performance. I agree most games favor the intel platform because of better per core performance. (These usually tend to be older titles), but with with recent games benchmarks show they tend to favor the 8350 more. So whether the 3750k is in fact the better CPU for gaming, is up in the air. Right now it is sure, but what about in two years when games/software start to take full advantage of the extra cores?

edogawa · May 5, 2013

It's not about energy costs mostly, but more power = more heat is the concern.

(4.8GHZ can be almost 300 watts according to Andantech) At stock the 8350 is already at 4.0(4.2) too.

Overclocking a 8350 will cost you more technically depending on your build and setup.

3570k with hyper 212 evo at 4.5ghz will cost less then a 8350 at 4.8ghz and a high end air or all in one cooling solution.

Depending on your power supply too you will need more watts and higher quality components to keep it stable. No reason you should cheap out on a power supply if you overclock. A 3570k would technically allow you to pay less for a power supply, but it all depends on the build overall...

Right now for these next couple years a 3570k is a really good choice, but in a few years games will use more cores and who knows what Intel or AMD have out by then.

For gaming Intel is the best option in my opinion, but for budget builds I go with AMD. We can argue about what is better all day long, but we will recommend what we use...human nature.

icypyro · May 5, 2013

edogawa :

It's not about energy costs mostly, but more power = more heat is the concern.

(4.8GHZ can be almost 300 watts according to Andantech) At stock the 8350 is already at 4.0(4.2) too.

Overclocking a 8350 will cost you more technically depending on your build and setup.

3570k with hyper 212 evo at 4.5ghz will cost less then a 8350 at 4.8ghz and a high end air or all in one cooling solution.

Depending on your power supply too you will need more watts and higher quality components to keep it stable. No reason you should cheap out on a power supply if you overclock. A 3570k would technically allow you to pay less for a power supply, but it all depends on the build overall...

Right now for these next couple years a 3570k is a really good choice, but in a few years games will use more cores and who knows what Intel or AMD have out by then.

For gaming Intel is the best option in my opinion, but for budget builds I go with AMD. We can argue about what is better all day long, but we will recommend what we use...human nature.

Actually I use an i3 3220, and i plan on upgrading to a 3570k myself.

edogawa · May 5, 2013

Haswell is coming out rather soon, you should wait for it, June 4th I think it was.

It may not be a big improvement over Ivy, but it will use less power, and hopefully overclock well.

Eek, getting off topic here, sorry. Anyways, I've said my dues, I will leave it up to him to decide on what he wants now.

jared426 · May 6, 2013

edogawa :

Yes, I'm very interested to see what haswell has to offer!

Intel i5 3570K vs AMD FX-8350

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Share this page