Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel i5 3570K vs AMD FX-8350

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 4, 2013 4:26:51 PM

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.

More about : intel 3570k amd 8350

a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 4:32:37 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 4:54:21 PM

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.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 4, 2013 5:00:47 PM

JD88 said:
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.

What do you mean by ''such a big difference in graphics? '' ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 5:08:27 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 4, 2013 5:09:41 PM

for3v3r said:
JD88 said:
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.

What do you mean by ''such a big difference in graphics? '' ?
"
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).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 5:11:27 PM

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?
m
0
l
May 4, 2013 7:26:17 PM

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-357...

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 7:38:37 PM

this topic is not discussed enough. if anything it should be constantly be brought up at least several times a day in multiple threads with the same title that are never searched for prior to posting the exact same question again
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 7:53:23 PM

icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2013 8:09:33 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 1:08:21 AM

edogawa said:
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?

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?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 12:58:13 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 4:50:30 PM

JD88 said:
icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.

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-i5-357...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-...

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 5:08:37 PM

icypyro said:

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


i'm sorry but where did you get that stat from? from legit review sites the FX-8350 trades with the 2500k in metro 2033.

tom's has the i5-2500k beating the FX-8350 in metro 2033


overclockers has the FX-8350 with a 10% increase at stock vs the i5-2500k
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/8.ht...




m
0
l
May 5, 2013 5:13:39 PM

dirtyferret said:
icypyro said:

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


i'm sorry but where did you get that stat from? from legit review sites the FX-8350 trades with the 2500k in metro 2033.

tom's has the i5-2500k beating the FX-8350 in metro 2033


overclockers has the FX-8350 with a 10% increase at stock vs the i5-2500k
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/8.ht...





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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 5:30:58 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 5:46:06 PM

icypyro said:
[
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.


i didn't post the reviews so I could raise one companies flag over another but to point out that the FX-8350 and i5-3570 are within a similar ballpark in metro 2033. I don't know where you got the FX-8350 showing a 50% increase (not 30% as then the FX would be at 28FPS) from the i5-3570 and would question any review with such a wide gap.

the FX-8350 itself is a solid CPU, capable at playing games at high levels, and competitively priced against the i5-3570 performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 5:53:46 PM

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?
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 6:20:11 PM

edogawa said:
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?

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 6:45:05 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 6:47:02 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 7:12:45 PM

edogawa said:
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.

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 7:19:38 PM

edogawa said:
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.


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?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 7:53:19 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 8:27:26 PM

edogawa said:
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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2013 8:31:54 PM

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.
m
0
l
May 5, 2013 9:39:25 PM

edogawa said:
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.


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

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2013 2:05:34 AM

JD88 said:
icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.


I've made this same argument Several times on other posts and get bashed for it. Clock-Clock there is no comparison. If Intel released the 3570k at 4ghz (which they EASILY could have) most benchmarks with 4 cores or less wouldn't even be close.

This is not implying the FX 8350 is a abd chip by any means and could definately be worth it if you are a power user focusing on heavily threaded applications. But if you just want a powerful gaming PC the 3570k in my opinion is the way to go.

I don't think the FX is more "future proof" just because it had 8 cores. I believe the 3570k is more "future proof" in the sense that the FX may very well start bottle necking next gen graphics cards to a noticeable degree unless overclocked to 5+ ghz. I could be wrong about this but bulldozer w/o a doubt showed bottlenecks and Pile driver is not that much faster.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2013 4:07:59 AM

jared426 said:
I think the 8350 is the more future proof decision.


highly unlikely as when the i5-3570 is no longer capable of playing modern games, the FX-8350 (itself not a true eight core CPU) will be in the exact same ball park. It's similar to the the phenom I as the time it took for quad core demand to catch up, the CPU was simply out dated.
m
0
l
May 6, 2013 8:58:39 AM

edogawa said:
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.


Thank you for your feedback ! It was informative ! :) 

m
0
l
May 6, 2013 10:46:09 AM

bigj1985 said:
JD88 said:
icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.


I've made this same argument Several times on other posts and get bashed for it. Clock-Clock there is no comparison. If Intel released the 3570k at 4ghz (which they EASILY could have) most benchmarks with 4 cores or less wouldn't even be close.

This is not implying the FX 8350 is a abd chip by any means and could definately be worth it if you are a power user focusing on heavily threaded applications. But if you just want a powerful gaming PC the 3570k in my opinion is the way to go.

I don't think the FX is more "future proof" just because it had 8 cores. I believe the 3570k is more "future proof" in the sense that the FX may very well start bottle necking next gen graphics cards to a noticeable degree unless overclocked to 5+ ghz. I could be wrong about this but bulldozer w/o a doubt showed bottlenecks and Pile driver is not that much faster.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...

Tests show zero bottleneck with quad 7970's 100% gpu utilization.

Its really hard to recommend one over the other, without sounding like a complete fanboy. Its all personal preference. Both are outstanding chips.
;) 
m
0
l
June 11, 2013 3:28:35 AM

dirtyferret said:
icypyro said:

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


i'm sorry but where did you get that stat from? from legit review sites the FX-8350 trades with the 2500k in metro 2033.

tom's has the i5-2500k beating the FX-8350 in metro 2033


overclockers has the FX-8350 with a 10% increase at stock vs the i5-2500k
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8350/8.ht...






I'm running an AMD Vishera FX-8350 oc to 4.4ghz on an Asus Formula V Crosshair MB with 3way 570 sli and average fps in Metro 2033 of 76fps in 1080p, (maxed out everything with dof off) just upgrading to x2 770 sc Phantoms today, but I can't really see any problem with my AMD I love it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 11, 2013 8:23:33 PM

icypyro said:
JD88 said:
icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.

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-i5-357...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-...

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.


jared426 said:
bigj1985 said:
JD88 said:
icypyro said:
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-357...

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.



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.


I've made this same argument Several times on other posts and get bashed for it. Clock-Clock there is no comparison. If Intel released the 3570k at 4ghz (which they EASILY could have) most benchmarks with 4 cores or less wouldn't even be close.

This is not implying the FX 8350 is a abd chip by any means and could definately be worth it if you are a power user focusing on heavily threaded applications. But if you just want a powerful gaming PC the 3570k in my opinion is the way to go.

I don't think the FX is more "future proof" just because it had 8 cores. I believe the 3570k is more "future proof" in the sense that the FX may very well start bottle necking next gen graphics cards to a noticeable degree unless overclocked to 5+ ghz. I could be wrong about this but bulldozer w/o a doubt showed bottlenecks and Pile driver is not that much faster.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...

Tests show zero bottleneck with quad 7970's 100% gpu utilization.

Its really hard to recommend one over the other, without sounding like a complete fanboy. Its all personal preference. Both are outstanding chips.
;) 


m
0
l
June 19, 2013 1:55:47 PM

FX 8350 has 8cores whick makes him great for the future and he beats the 3570k at games like crisis with 7fps!!!!!!!
m
0
l
!