Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD fx series vs intel i5 3570k?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 5, 2013 10:03:44 PM

Which one is better for gaming? AMD fx series or i5 3570k?

Which processor from the fx series would you say is equivalent to the 3570k? Would you recommend an AMD processor or i5 3570k?

Also, which motherboard out of these would you say is good enough for gaming and OC?

http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.as...

Also, does AMD have different architectures like intel's ivy bridge, sandy bridge and haswell? I'm not very familiar with AMD. Which architecture is AMD on right now?

More about : amd series intel 3570k

a c 89 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 5, 2013 11:06:17 PM

you do realize there are 1000 other threads and reviews on this exact topic. Time for people to start using google, sick of answering these now. All your questions can be answered with google and reading reviews and already existing threads.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2013 11:07:25 PM

AMD is on Piledriver right now, Bulldozer was the previous gen. 3570k is better than the FX 8350 in most games, but an average less than 5 FPS. It depends mostly on GPU. What is your budget?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 5, 2013 11:30:49 PM

If you do a lot of video rendering then the 8350 is a good choice, though if you do it for a living then the 3770K otherwise the 3570K is far superior to the 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2013 11:38:56 PM

They are all good choices, but there are reasons that the FX 8350 is $120 cheaper than the i7. The i5 3570k and FX 8350 are within 5 FPS of each other in most games though. Just go with your gut. If your gut says AMD, then go AMD. If your gut says Intel, then go Intel. If your gut says "I'm full" then stop eating Doritos or you'll end up barfing on your keyboard.
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 5, 2013 11:49:10 PM

Sort of depends on if you like the keyboard ;) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 5, 2013 11:56:21 PM

3570K > 8350 in gaming
8350 > 3570K multithreaded apps
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:54:07 PM

In a poll Eurogamer conducted where a number of game developers were asked to choose between the similarly priced AMD 8 core FX 8350 & Intel quad core i5 3570K for gaming purposes, all developers chose the AMD 8 core.




Quote

We approached a number of developers on and off the record, asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K




Linus Blomberg from Avalanche Studios,




Quote

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says.


"Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."



From another game developer who wished to remain anonymous



Quote

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did. So, I would probably go for the AMD as well, as this might better match a console port of a game... based on what we know so far."

Source : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future...
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 6, 2013 5:33:49 PM

And 8 core may be the way to go...once they get games out that can utilize the cores, but how soon will that be?
m
0
l
July 11, 2013 6:31:15 PM

I don't care about the cores really, I understand that games won't utilize all of them. But the fx series is cheaper than an i5 3570k. If it's got more cores and is better in gaming, than I don't see a reason why you would get an i5 3570k over the fx 8350.

However, in most benchmarks it's been mixed. Some games the i5 will win over a few FPS while the fx 8350 might win over a couple fps in other games.

I usually go by the saying "you get what you pay for". If the i5 3570k is pricier, it's probably a little better right?
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 11, 2013 6:38:25 PM

The 8350 is not better in gaming unless you read the rviews of the 3570K at stock, not OCed - those are the ones AMD wants you to read ;)  You are looking at $20 for a CPU that clocked the same leaves the AMD far behind in everything but rendering video, and if ALL you do is render video, the pros kick out the extra $100 for the i& which runs away from an 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2013 6:50:01 PM

4670K > 8350 in Gaming
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2013 8:12:18 PM

Now if you went with an FX 8320, which is $60 less than the 3570k, it would make sense. 8350 is overpriced.
m
0
l
July 14, 2013 12:48:02 AM

GrannySmith1 said:

I usually go by the saying "you get what you pay for". If the i5 3570k is pricier, it's probably a little better right?

Not at all, is an Austin Martin V8 Vantage better than a BMW M3 ? absolutely not, is it pricier ? absolutely yes .

Intel makes way more money than AMD because they make significantly higher margins on the CPUs they sell, an FX 8350 costs significantly more to make than a 3570K.
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 10:59:59 AM

Sorry but if that was true...then why wouldn't AMD even a half decent MC (memory controller), AMD skimps on R&D and where ever they can to keep prices down as that is their primary selling point, they know they can't compete performance wise
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 11:48:35 AM

Intel DOES have a lot more money, and therefore a much larger R&D department. Surprising AMD has been able to compete as well as they do.
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 11:58:04 AM

It is, but the statement above is ridiculous that it cost more to make a 8350, very little in R&D, even less in projected planning, keep trying to drag more out of an outdated design rather than moving ahead and spending towards the future
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 12:08:23 PM

I'm not sure about it costing more to make, but I do know they can't die harvest from 8xxx, but they can from 6xxx and 4xxx.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 3:46:14 PM

montosaurous said:
Intel DOES have a lot more money, and therefore a much larger R&D department. Surprising AMD has been able to compete as well as they do.


I wouldn't call having their flagship processor be slower then a 220 dollar 4670K mainstream processor "Competing". There's still the 6 core processors that they cant even get close too.

Amd needs to grow some balls and release a 12 core to lay waste to the 4770K in everything multithreaded
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 14, 2013 4:03:24 PM

Well, if we wanted to get nuts...we could go G34 socket Quad channel memory 16 Core opteron with clock speeds about where the 3570k is at stock. They could be overclocked, and you could even run 2 of those monster at once if you wanted on the same board, giving you access to something on the order of 256 GB RAM (on a 2 CPU MB, 128 GB on a single CPU board).

Then you would destroy anything Intel offers...by spending $1000 on an AMD solution.

Though, these would not necessarily make great gaming CPUs, they would certainly have more features and kill any passmark CPU benchmark you wanted to run by posting obscene numbers that any Intel desktop solution only wishes they could get into the same zipcode of...

However, for a budget situation like this...the 8350 makes a lot of sense if you want 3570k performance (there about) for $179.99 instead of $219.99. Plus comparable AMD MB's are typically a good $20-60 cheaper than the Intel variants as well.

@OP: I would tell you, if you are money conscious, and don't see the need for more than "enough" then get the 8350. It will do anything you ask of it pretty handily.



m
0
l
July 14, 2013 4:51:31 PM

if you like mmos and games like planetside 2 with a million players all doing stuff the i5 3570k is the best choice. amd procs unfortunately perform abysmally especially in ps2. in guild wars 2 there is as much as a 20 fps difference in high pop areas. in games like bf3 and crysis the differences are very small between the 2 cpus......but the i5 is still slightly faster. since i play alot of highly cpu dependent games i have gone with the i5
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 5:12:32 PM

But I think the question is "Which one is better for gaming? AMD fx series or i5 3570k?" and currently it's no match, it's simply the 3570K....no future, no past, no predictions of what steamroller will (or won't) bring , no futureproofing (as with DDR4 knocking on the door), simply GrannySmith1's question, whih is better and even the hard core AMD pndits will admit the 3570K is
m
0
l
July 14, 2013 5:26:03 PM

agreed tradesman, overall right now the i5 is the better cpu. i still love amd and am throwing my gpu cash at them to help them along =)
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 5:31:09 PM

I'm hoping SteamRoller will roll out better than Bull and Pile, but not holding my breath, guessing maybe on a par with the 3570K and behind the 4670K
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 5:32:00 PM

vrgadin said:
agreed tradesman, overall right now the i5 is the better cpu. i still love amd and am throwing my gpu cash at them to help them along =)


Why? Nvidia has the cards you want to buy :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:26:48 PM

Prior to the GTX 700 series release, AMD had faster video cards at all price ranges. Wouldn't surprise me if the Radeon 8000 series brought it back to that way, though they're about equal, within 5-10% of each other. Video cards have been personal preference for a long time, and will continue to be so. CPUs have been sorta the same, and won't change. I'm also pretty sure when people ask questions, it's because they can't make up their minds and need us to "help" them decide. Truth is, both CPUs will deliver, and neither will disappoint.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:28:16 PM

Tradesman1 said:
I'm hoping SteamRoller will roll out better than Bull and Pile, but not holding my breath, guessing maybe on a par with the 3570K and behind the 4670K


Piledriver needs to destroy a 4770K IMO not to be a failure. Amd claims 30% better IPC
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 8:29:02 PM

It will always be Intel fanboys vs AMD fanboys - thankfully it's not as apparent in GPUs........
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:34:18 PM

Intel God said:
Tradesman1 said:
I'm hoping SteamRoller will roll out better than Bull and Pile, but not holding my breath, guessing maybe on a par with the 3570K and behind the 4670K


Piledriver needs to destroy a 4770K IMO not to be a failure. Amd claims 30% better IPC


At the most I'm expecting Steamroller to be a 15% performance gain over PD. Maybe 30% better than Bulldozer, but not Piledriver.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:35:23 PM

montosaurous said:
Intel God said:
Tradesman1 said:
I'm hoping SteamRoller will roll out better than Bull and Pile, but not holding my breath, guessing maybe on a par with the 3570K and behind the 4670K


Piledriver needs to destroy a 4770K IMO not to be a failure. Amd claims 30% better IPC


At the most I'm expecting Steamroller to be a 15% performance gain over PD. Maybe 30% better than Bulldozer, but not Piledriver.


If it's 15% over PD it'll be a very sweet chip
m
0
l
a c 599 à CPUs
a c 289 À AMD
July 14, 2013 8:39:01 PM

Agreed, wish they'd invest into a new socket and better MC technology though
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:41:40 PM

Tradesman1 said:
Agreed, wish they'd invest into a new socket and better MC technology though


I hope the memory controller on SR is vastly improved
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:51:38 PM

No new socket from AMD until they unify the two. Excavator may be AM3+ also because of this. This also might mean Excavator will be AMD's last high performance desktop chip. It's all up in the air right now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 8:52:49 PM

montosaurous said:
No new socket from AMD until they unify the two. Excavator may be AM3+ also because of this. This also might mean Excavator will be AMD's last high performance desktop chip. It's all up in the air right now.


Amd giving up on the high end?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 14, 2013 9:11:09 PM

Unless they scale back on the cores or significantly reduce power consumption, I don't see how they could get an 8 core APU with a maintainable TPD and decent clock rate. It is also possible that they will not unify the sockets or find a way to solve these problems, which hopefully won't involve a 2M/4C/8T design.
m
0
l
!