Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

best processor intel i5 or AMD FX 8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 1, 2013 8:59:39 PM

please suggest me the best processor from this two
July 1, 2013 9:01:45 PM

i5 4670k
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:09:11 PM

Gaming performance, i5.
Multi-threaded workloads, 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:12:25 PM

For the price of the FX8350 , the best you can get is a i5-3350P or i5-4430. Both of these get defeated by the FX8350 in multithreaded uses in general. If you were eying on a i5-4670K or something like that , STOP. Instead get a FX8350 with some good Air cooler or a FX8320 with a beastly water cooler ( My choice would be a Swiftech H220 ) and OC if you want to. Else get a FX 8350 with something like the D14. Slightly above a i5-4670K but you probably will forget a cooler then. But a couple of years later , you would find the LGA 1150 in Intel's Trash List. But the AM3+ socket will still have CPU's. Intel means expect the stuff to be outdated soon. So the choice is yours.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:27:55 PM

robnof said:
Gaming performance, i5.


This depends on the game...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:32:17 PM

slomo4sho said:
robnof said:
Gaming performance, i5.


This depends on the game...


Edit:
Overall gaming performance for what's currently on the market.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:44:22 PM

slomo4sho said:
It depends on you what you plan on using it for and your budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY


:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.

Right now the 4670K > 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:53:26 PM

Intel God said:
slomo4sho said:
It depends on you what you plan on using it for and your budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY


:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.

Right now the 4670K > 8350


In gaming and power-consumption, not in multi-threaded work loads or pricing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:57:44 PM

robnof said:
Intel God said:
slomo4sho said:
It depends on you what you plan on using it for and your budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY


:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.

Right now the 4670K > 8350


In gaming and power-consumption, not in multi-threaded work loads or pricing.


If all you're going to do is encode buy the 8350 but if you game as well you want the 4670K.

Think of it this way. 8350 is 10 percent faster in encoding while being clocked 14% faster. What do you think will happen when they're both clocked at 4.6? Or 4.8?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 9:58:32 PM

Intel God said:
:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.


I am sure every balanced reviewer is a joke in your book :)  Anyone that overclocks understands that there is virtually no difference between the 4670k and the 3570k since any innate performance boost is negated by the lower overclock potential of the chip.

Intel God said:
If all you're going to do is encode buy the 8350 but if you game as well you want the 4670K.


Think of it this way. 8350 is 10 percent faster in encoding while being clocked 14% faster. What do you think will happen when they're both clocked at 4.6? Or 4.8?


Wouldn't the 8350 provide the best of both worlds and be preferred over the 4670K if you plan on gaming and encoding?

On average the 8350 overclocks higher than the 4670k.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 10:03:24 PM

Intel God said:
robnof said:
Intel God said:
slomo4sho said:
It depends on you what you plan on using it for and your budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs25ZkAS-gY


:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.

Right now the 4670K > 8350


In gaming and power-consumption, not in multi-threaded work loads or pricing.


If all you're going to do is encode buy the 8350 but if you game as well you want the 4670K.

Think of it this way. 8350 is 10 percent faster in encoding while being clocked 14% faster. What do you think will happen when they're both clocked at 4.6? Or 4.8?


I would argue the opposite, if all you're going to do is game buy the i5 4670K. The FX 8350 is by no means, bad at gaming. It's just not as good as an i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2013 10:32:50 PM

slomo4sho said:
Intel God said:
:lol: 

Linus is a joke. Don't put faith in anything he has to say.


I am sure every balanced reviewer is a joke in your book :)  Anyone that overclocks understands that there is virtually no difference between the 4670k and the 3570k since any innate performance boost is negated by the lower overclock potential of the chip.

Intel God said:
If all you're going to do is encode buy the 8350 but if you game as well you want the 4670K.


Think of it this way. 8350 is 10 percent faster in encoding while being clocked 14% faster. What do you think will happen when they're both clocked at 4.6? Or 4.8?


Wouldn't the 8350 provide the best of both worlds and be preferred over the 4670K if you plan on gaming and encoding?

On average the 8350 overclocks higher than the 4670k.


Everyone states that Haswell overclocks lower yet my testing shows otherwise. Furthermore there are like 5 members with Haswell so where are all these Haswell experts coming from?

My 4770K maxed out at 4.6ghz on air just like my 3770K before it. Delidded they both run at 4.8ghz at the same voltage with the 4770K running a few C cooler. Now while its known that the 8350 overclocks higher you'll need a high end water setup and a 990fx board for over 5ghz. How many are going to shell out the money for that?

Just to elaborate alittle on ivy vs Haswell overclocking.

Settings for 4.8gh on ivy

1.42v vcore
48X multi

Settings for 4.8ghz on Haswell

1.42v vcore
1.35v cache voltage
1.9v vrin
1.2v system agent
48X multi
48X cache multi
Ddr3 2800


And that's all that's needed for overclocking Haswell. What the reviewers did wrong was assume they can just change the multi and voltage and have instant stability. I too thought the same thing when I first put together my rig. Now if I can figure out Haswell overclocking in 3 hours what does that say about those so called expert reviewers who couldn't even get 4.3ghz stable?
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 1, 2013 11:23:14 PM

The 4770K and the 3770K top the the 8350 with no problem even in video encoding and rendering (which is why pros go with the i7, an OCed 8350 might beat a stock i7-K but won't touch a OCed i7, same with the i5 (almost, OCed the 8350 will take the 3570K in rendering but that's it, the OCed 3570K runs away from the 8350 in everything else - even a 'good' OCed (4.9), 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 12:26:31 AM

Intel God said:
Everyone states that Haswell overclocks lower yet my testing shows otherwise. Furthermore there are like 5 members with Haswell so where are all these Haswell experts coming from?


The "expert" opinions are based mainly on a unilateral observation by all of the review sites that found the chip to be lacking in its capacity to overclock. You may have lucked out and gotten a good chip. I was supposed to build my Haswell rig this weekend but the GPUs just arrived today so I wont get around to building it until this weekend. I am using the Extreme6 so lets see what I end up with :) 
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 3:22:31 AM

Guys stop that war. Please , for the love of god , stop. Go ahead and PM each other , o body would mind that :p  Anyways , the FX8350 is the best CPU in price/performance ratio. Its for those guys running on a small budget ( 800-1500 ) and getting a PC for multi-threaded apps or if they using it to study or earning a living from it. The FX 8350 is great for gaming and beats anything on the same price. Intel is for those who have thousands of dollars and don't care for it. Thats why Intel doesn't remain on a single socket for more than 3 years. The Haswell has no sense in OCing. FX 8 cores on the other hand have world records breaking. Also note that since consoles have come out with 8 cores , games will pretty soon be optimised for them due to x86 architecture too. So basically the FX 8350 or FX 8320 are the best choices available right now. I say get a FX 8320 Black with a good 990FX mobo and watercooler. Thats the best you can buy. Like this -
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($144.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Swiftech H220 55.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($139.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($139.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $424.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-02 05:50 EDT-0400)

Oh , Hurry the Seidon 120M is for 30bucks which is extraordinary -
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($144.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Seidon 120M 86.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($139.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $314.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-02 05:50 EDT-0400)

You can swap up for a FX 8350 if your budget is high. If OCing isn't your choice get this -

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Microcenter)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Seidon 120M 86.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $294.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-02 05:56 EDT-0400)

Incase if you are gaming -

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3350P 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Seidon 120M 86.2 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Biostar B75MU3+ Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($75.66 @ Newegg)
Total: $272.64
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-02 06:03 EDT-0400)

Anyways , Thanks for posting. Have a nice day.
Share
July 2, 2013 5:18:42 AM

..you want to pay the extra and run with the iGPU.....OMG I think I'd rather pay the power bill :-) LOL
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:16:05 AM

slomo4sho said:
Intel God said:
Everyone states that Haswell overclocks lower yet my testing shows otherwise. Furthermore there are like 5 members with Haswell so where are all these Haswell experts coming from?


The "expert" opinions are based mainly on a unilateral observation by all of the review sites that found the chip to be lacking in its capacity to overclock. You may have lucked out and gotten a good chip. I was supposed to build my Haswell rig this weekend but the GPUs just arrived today so I wont get around to building it until this weekend. I am using the Extreme6 so lets see what I end up with :) 


I run an ASRock board so if you have questions let me know
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:29:41 AM

hafijur said:
CommentariesAnd More


Once you oc an fx8350 to lets say 4.8ghz it will consume about 120w+ more then an i7 3770k at 4.8ghz. Also at stock the 3770k will take 100w less then the fx8350 to run. Not only that intel have an igpu built in. Intel are green friendly chips for the environment. Also intel chips are quite cheap if you buy from resellers on ebay or even refurbished computers from outlet you can get computers for less then half the price when they come out.

People make it sound the cost difference is huge to go to intel but the small price difference is more then justified.




Its not exactly the case of power consumption here , is it ? And about green CPU's , The FX8350 , I am sure will not be OCed every time. And 30-50W aren't earthshattering , Did you know that every where electricity gets used on worst things. Also I suppose you forgot that the max TDP isn't consumed all the time , only under full load.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 10:20:58 AM

Just for reference my 4770K at 4.8 uses 187w
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 12:42:53 PM

CommentariesAnd More

Yes go with the AMDs, unless you want to run the games fast, then look at a 3570K....even hardcore AMD fanboys that know computers, give the edge to the 3570K
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:06:49 PM

Tradesman1 said:
CommentariesAnd More

Yes go with the AMDs, unless you want to run the games fast, then look at a 3570K....even hardcore AMD fanboys that know computers, give the edge to the 3570K


We've already established that the 8350 isn't the fastest cpu for gaming or most power efficient, but it's not that bad either. Also, for a jack of all trades processor (gaming, workloads, price) it's just fine. If you don't have something new to add to the discussion, abstain from trolling please.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:10:22 PM

Not trolling just stating facts
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:28:21 PM

Tradesman1 said:
Not trolling just stating facts

One sided rhetoric isn't stating facts.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 9:43:45 PM

Check any reviews where they took the OCed 8350 vs AN OCed 3570K, most all are OCed 8350 at 4.8 oor higher vs 3570K at stock 3.4....I've worked with maybe 20 8350's and none stand up to a similarly OCed 3570K (and generally the 3570K can OC higher)...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2013 10:04:21 PM

Yes, and we've already established the i5 is a faster gaming processor. This isn't adding anything new to the discussion. What's being debated now is which is the better processor in general.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 2, 2013 10:28:40 PM

That's easy in General AMD + 1 rendering vs Intel + a bunch, everything else. Also might look at 3570K has gone down what $10, while the 8350 has dropped what $30-40 trying to keep sales going and even with the lower prices the 3570K still outsells the 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 3:29:10 AM

Tradesman1 said:
(and generally the 3570K can OC higher)...


LOL WTF!!!!!!!!!! The FX8350 is the world's highest clocked CPU , which reached 8974.33. On the otherhand , the i5-3570K can't even go above 7GHz even if Nitro cooled ( averagely 5GHz ). The FX 8350 on the other hand on average can cross 6GHz. And every Intel fanboy , and Intel themselves know the fact that AMD is the best for the guys on budget. Intel is for high end gaming rigs and crazy enthusiasts who have a high budget.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 3, 2013 9:02:04 AM

And your 8350 is at what? How many have YOU taken even to 5? On a budget is fine, if you can't wait for another paycheck or two, the 3750K is what $20 more than an 8350, is $20 really high budget? As far as going nitrogen, doubt if that falls in a 'budget' for most, I like to stay in the real world
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 9:05:40 AM

robnof said:
What's being debated now is which is the better processor in general.


It takes 8 amd cores to match 4 intel cores so naturally intel :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 3, 2013 9:07:26 AM

Intel God said:
robnof said:
What's being debated now is which is the better processor in general.


It takes 8 amd cores to match 4 intel cores so naturally intel :lol: 


______________________________
Big +1
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 10:23:49 AM

Tradesman1 said:
And your 8350 is at what? How many have YOU taken even to 5? On a budget is fine, if you can't wait for another paycheck or two, the 3750K is what $20 more than an 8350, is $20 really high budget? As far as going nitrogen, doubt if that falls in a 'budget' for most, I like to stay in the real world


$20 savings with the CPU and another $20-50 on the motherboard and you can use the $40-70 on a better GPU which will yield better gaming performance at the same budget as an Intel build. Or is this too difficult to comprehend?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 11:38:28 AM

Intel God said:
robnof said:
What's being debated now is which is the better processor in general.


It takes 8 amd cores to match 4 intel cores so naturally intel :lol: 


But those 8 cores are cheaper than your " 4 cores " :p 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 11:42:05 AM

Not to mention, to get 8 threads with intel, you're paying 150 dollars more. Then there is the motherboard savings that slomo4sho mentioned. If you're working on a budget and looking for a workstation that can also play games decently, the fx is the more cost effective option.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 12:15:49 PM

CommentariesAnd More said:
Intel God said:
robnof said:
What's being debated now is which is the better processor in general.


It takes 8 amd cores to match 4 intel cores so naturally intel :lol: 


But those 8 cores are cheaper than your " 4 cores " :p 


I wish Amd would give us 12 cores of unlocked fury or 16. I'd ditch my 4770K for an unlocked 16 core in a heartbeat
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 3, 2013 12:21:36 PM

I'm with You, I wish they would come out with something good that would drive Intel prices down and provide some competition, but just don't see anything on the horizon
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2013 12:34:19 PM

Tradesman1 said:
I'm with You, I wish they would come out with something good that would drive Intel prices down and provide some competition, but just don't see anything on the horizon


AMD's main problems don't reside with their quality of cpus. Most of their issues are management related. They're a poorly run company, and they've been bleeding money for a number of years now.

Hopefully their deal with Sony and Microsoft to provide the APUs for the next gen consoles will help dig them out of the hole they've dug, or else you can look forward to paying a nice mark-up on all your future intel purchases.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
July 3, 2013 12:39:47 PM

We can keep fingers crossed ;) 
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 6:11:23 PM

Not sure that AMD V Intel is the reason Intel charges higher prices. Indeed they would do better if AMD were not around, but they are, and their CPU's and APU's a plenty enough competition for Intel.

However having said that, Intel owns the cooperate space, a market that AMD can't even fill if Intel fell over tomorrow. Since Intel have higher volume sales and better marketing they can maintain healthier margins.

If it was just left to the enthusiast market I'd wager that there would be greater price parity between the flagship processors. Perhaps the more important player for AMD is Nvidia, as they force AMD to keep the gaming platform open to Intel, otherwise they could exploit their graphics dominance and close that market to Intel by designing accelerators skewed to their own architecture.
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
September 16, 2013 6:52:17 PM

Exploit what graphics dominance? and what architecture? last I looked the FX CPUs runs under X86 (Intel)
m
0
l
September 16, 2013 7:38:25 PM

lol@ watching mainstream CPU plebs whale on each other

3930k master race
m
0
l
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
September 16, 2013 8:50:03 PM

Almost as funny as a 3930K on an Intel mobo with only 8GB of RAM
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2013 11:42:24 AM

Intel God said:
I run an ASRock board so if you have questions let me know


I killed my first 4770K :crazy:  but my current build (see signature) is running at 4.6Ghz at 1.195V. The chip is stable at 4.8 GHz at 1.285V and 4.9Ghz at 1.39V but the extra performance doesn't warrant the extra power consumption and heat so 4.6 is where I have settled.
m
0
l
September 22, 2013 8:37:07 PM

Tradesman1 said:
Almost as funny as a 3930K on an Intel mobo with only 8GB of RAM


It was from the intel EPP(super cheap). I would have gotten another board if i had gotten the chance, as it was a combo deal, plus I plan to pick up some more memory soon, but prices are too high>.>
m
0
l
a c 114 À AMD
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 8:57:36 PM

Ok, I see that this is turning into an AMD vs Intel flame war. I prefer AMD myself but here's the thing... What motherboard do you already have? You see, the Intel chips are better at gaming but only to a point. If you were to take the FX-8350 and a an Intel CPU at the same price-point and game with them side-by-side you wouldn't notice a gaming difference between the two because they would both be perfect. Most games are more affected by the video card than the CPU. The ones that are somewhat CPU-bound will not be slowed by a CPU as powerful as the FX-8350. In this case, for me, it would all come down to price. If you already have an Intel-based (LGA 1150) motherboard or if you can get an Intel-based motherboard for less than an AMD-based motherboard, get the Intel chip. If you already have an AMD-based (AM3+) or can get an AMD-based motherboard for less than an Intel-based motherboard, get the AMD chip. I can tell you that I have an FX-8350 and it games flawlessly. There is no reason to pay more money for an Intel-based platform if you don't have to and there's no reason to pay more for an AMD-based platform if you don't have to. Pick whatever costs less and buy it, assured of the fact that at the price point of the AMD-FX8350, there is no CPU that cannot game at perfect frame rates. As for everything else, you would notice that in heavily-threaded applications like video encoding and file compression/extraction, the AMD chip will be faster. For single-threaded apps like iTunes, the Intel chip will be faster. As far as running Windows itself, you wouldn't notice much of a difference one way or the other.
m
0
l
!