FX-8350 or i5-4670k?

Well, I personally would prefer a system with a SSD to one without. Get one that is at least 120GB-128GB. How about an i5-3570K? In fact, unless you are interested in overclocking, get an i5-3350P or i5-3470.

SSD is more of a luxury item given their cost. Other than faster load times, if game is on SSD, an SSD does 0 for gaming. I would go with an 8320, clock it to match the 8350 by changing the multiplier, and use money saved for a better GPU.

U r comparing a ferrari(i5) to a honda(8350)


Go wirh the latest haswell 4670k

Have a look at the differences u would come to know how we choose
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

I am a FX-8350 owner and I am very happy with it. I am an average gamer and use the computer for CAD programs sometimes. This cpu can handle anything. But if you are interested in single core performance intel has the lead. Going AMD not only saves you money from the CPU it does also on the motherboard.
If you want the intel chip then go without the ssd and in the future buy it, and use the hard disk as storage which you would need eventually.

Not all of us can buy a ferrari

Too extreme, I think. I would rather compare them as a race car (i5) with a SUV (8350).

From a cpu processing point of view, the 4670K will generally be superior. Only is the specialized situation where you are running cpu bund multi threaded apps that can saturate all 8 cores might the 8350 be better. Games will mostly use 2-3 cores, so the faster 4670K cores are better there.

Ignore the amd favoring future games rumors as hooey. Game developers want the largest possible market, and will not shortchange half their potential market.

I very much like using a SSD for the os and some apps, and would hate to do a new build without one.

Perhaps you can list your proposed parts and your udget.
There might be some better trade-offs.

I am not a Fanboy of either chip. IMHO, for now, AMD offers a better long term value. They tend to keep there socket set the same, so switching cpu's is super easy. I will say the 8350 does run kinda hot, thats why I have a liquid cooler in my set up.

I have a SSD for my main drive. LOVE it.

Complete bull.

Go with an 8350 games now don't utilize 8 cores. In a few years seeing as the xbox one and ps4 will have 8 cores they should use the extra cores.

Go Ivy Bridge. The performance increase from IB to haswell is ~10-15% (found on a Toms review, look up CPU roundup or something) and most of this increase is in the intel 4600 integrated graphics processor, which will be completely un-utilized by a discrete graphics card. You can save about $50 with an i5 3570K and Z77 mobo vs the Hawell equivalents and put this towards an SSD (now or in the future). This processor will still blow by the AMD 8350 in gaming applications, as a previous post said, most games are dual threaded and the only quad threaded game I know of is Crysis, and the i5's dual and quadcore performance in these applications will far outpace the 8350.

I also agree that the whole "next-gen consoles using AMD processors will change everything" assumption is premature. Not to say that the shift to higher-threaded applications will not come, I fully expect it to, but that the change will take TIME, at least 1 or 2 cycles of releases, which would be around the time you'd want to be thinking about upgrades/replacements anyways.

My Two pennies:
Totally agree with Geofelt's comment "want the largest possible market, and will not shortchange half their potential market." OK minor exception, more like 20% vs 75% - LOLs Also the reason the vast majority of reviews for SSDs and GPUs are done on an Intel platform

On SSD: I have SSDs in ALL my systems and would NEVER go Back to a HDD for OS + Program drive.
That Said: However, I would NOT cut an initial build just to include an SSD.
.. The SSD ONLY cuts boot time and program load times, IT does NOT increase application runing performance.
.. The SSD will most likely be cheaper and better downstream. Would need to factor in the Time frame to save up to add the SSD at a later date.

.. Quote: They tend to keep there socket set the same, so switching cpu's is super easy. End Quote. While on the surface this is a true statement: However; In many cases the Need to Upgrade is driven more from the improved chipset/capacilities of the MB. All my upgrades in the past 5 years have been driven by improved capabilities of the MB, Not so much by increased CPU perfomance. NOTE:
.. The lower cost of AMD vs Intel CPU is Market driven and is for a reason. In the long run the increased power consumption would negate the initial cost diff.
.. On MB cost, You get what you pay for be it AMD or Intel, Personally I consider MB cost a wash between the two; However Intels Hard drive Chipset is superior to AMD. Before you say Hogwash - check out Samsung 840pro SSD performance on AMD using their latest driver vs Intel with their latest driver _ Have to be HONEST the difference is only in the benchmark, not real life. But on the other hand, Intel does update driver more frequently to improve performance.

In some encoding applications, the fact that the Intel CPU has a iGPU which can be used to decrease encoding time can offset any advantages of diff in cores.

Haswell adds HDMI in which may simplify using a Computer as a DVR.

Bottom Line go with the Haswell CPU and do NOT look back.

ADDED, Based on post's made while typing my long winded response:
Cpt Underpants is entirely correct about CPU performance (IB vs Haswell)
HOWEVER, as Ive elluded to also LOOK at MB, Summarized (from one of my earlier post using a low cost MSI Z77 vs Z87 MB:

I've compared the features of two Low cost MSI MBs (Z77 vs Z87).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submi...
SATA III Z77 = 4 Sata II ports + 2 SATA III ports Z87 = 6 Sata III ports.
NON issue if only using 1 or two HDDs NOTE Very little difference in using a SATA III HDD on sata II vs Sata III. HOWEVER, this could be Much more important in the near future as (A) SATA III SSDs become cheaper and (B) The Move to Hybred HDDs that utilize a internal SATA III SSD.
Added -
The Intel chipset (for hard drives) on the Z87 is improved over the Z77 chipset - Only effects SATA III SSD performance
End added.

USB support. Z77 = 4 USB2 + 2 USB3 vs Z87 with 2 USB2 + 4 USB3 ports.

PCI-e: Z77 = 2 x16 vsZ87 with 3 X16.
Caution generally with Z77 you DO NOT get to use 2 X 16, is it is really a X16 + x0 and when Both slots are used it often becomes a X8 + X8. Only reallly has an effect if you use more than one of the X16 slots - IE Downstream you want to improve gaming FPS by adding a 2nd GPU in xfire/sli configuration.

[/b]HDMI IN:[/b] Note while this has been added to Haswell, it is not incorporated on the cheaper MSI MB. ONLY would appeal to someone that would want to use their computer as a DVR

Two other diff, but probably not much effect:
Audio in: The Z77 uses a ALV 892 while the Z87 uses a ALC1150 - Unknown if that is a improvement in audio.
Lan In: Z77 uses a Realtek 8111E, Z87 a Qualcom Killer E2205.
Both have them same specs, Not real issue as Lan speed is going to be dictated By your Internet provider.

It really depends on what you're looking to use the system for. In terms of Video Transcoding/Encoding the FX-8350 turns up much faster than an i5-4670K:


In terms of Decrypting AES-128 the FX-8350 once again turns out to be the faster CPU:


Mediacoder? FX-8350


Single Threaded performance: i5 4670K is faster:


Now for gaming...

That depends on the title and how many Cores it can take advantage of:

Avoid AMD. they dont support PCIexpress 3.0 .

go for Haswell i5 + z87 motherboard. also , Z87 offers 6 Sata3 ports and extra pair of usb3 and most mobos come with better options (like sound and lan chips)

what is your budget?

The above stats are very useful for the OP to look at what exactly will benefit the types of activities he/she plans to use their pocessor for.

Regarding the TiredChiefs comment. All true points, and very informative. However, I would question whether the inclusion of more SATA III, PCIe x16 and USB 3 ports would actually be useful to the OP. Un;ess the OP plans to have more than 4-6 USB 3 devices plugged in at once (2-4 on mobo I/O and 2 front panel for most cases) or more than 2 SSDs (HDDs can barely saturate SATA II), than the benefit of those connectors will go unused. And unless you plan on having 3x graphics cards ie TRIPLE Xfire or SLI, you won't benefit from the added PCIe lanes. 2 PCIe x16 running at x8 each is sufficient bandwidth for 2 current graphics cards, but granted not enough to be split amongst 3. Keep in mind modern graphics cards are not capable of saturating PCIe x16.

Exactly. And if you want a mix of both you can go for either of the two. Usually the price ought to be the deciding factor.

EDIT: I've seen many people post that next Gen titles won't gain anything from more cores. Here's the deal, both Sony and Microsoft have gone with an x86 AMD Processor and Graphics chip for their new consoles. Now I understand that some people tend to be fans of nVIDIA and/or Intel and that they will, not unlike the marketing companies of those two organizations, feel the need to play down the fact that AMD is the programming platform for games for the next 5-6 years.

The truth is that with the AMD Jaguar Cores, used in the PS4 and Xbox One, devellopers will have access to 8, relatively weak, Serial Processing Cores as well as a slew of AMD parallel Processing Cores found in the GPU aspect of their APU chip design. This means that devellopers are expected to to extract every ounce of performance they can out of those 8 Jaguar Cores. AMD have made this easier for the devellopers by way of including Multi-core software optimizations as part of their Xbox One and PS4 SDK kit sent to devs.

So what is the conclusion? Rather simple. All new games will likely be heavily threaded and programmed to take advantage of many cores come PS4 and Xbox One. The PC version, of games, will likely be an improved (elite) version of its console counterparts. Therefore it will be programmed for many cores AND add more bell's and whistles in order to fully utilize said resources.

When people claim that this would lock out 60-70% of the market from games, they're being facetious. There is no reason an Intel CPU cannot run said games. One probable outcome is that Intel CPUs won't likely be getting the amount of Intel specific optimizations they now get in games seeing as the games will be compiled using the AMD compiler instead.

So at the end of the day... Sony and Microsoft going AMD... is a big deal for Gamers and people who care about pushing parallelism forward.

Don't feel obligated to go witht he current generation so you can have an "upgradeability". Do you plan on relpacing this CPU in the next 1-2 cycles anyways? It is generally advisable to replace after 2-3 generations (2 if something big happens, like SATA 4 ) and you need to recognize Intel is always changing their socket (some shady forced upgrades if you ask me) so it is likely that the next time you upgrade you'll be on the next socket after Haswell/Broadwell. I think it is ill advised to make your decision based on this whole upgrade path thing. If they're the same price than go for it (I missed a sale of 4670k+Asus Z87 for same price as 3570k+ASRock extreme4 ) but otherwise IB will do you just as fine if an i5 is what you want to go for. I am running a 3570k and am glad I didn't spend the extra $50 or so for haswell, I run BL 2 at 30% load & 33 celsius (~15 ambient). Plus you can ultimately squeeze more performance out of IB since it overclocks much cooler.

But besides the i5's I would suggest an 8350 for you since it will perform amazingly in rendering and will not bottlekneck any gaming you may do (you'd have to spend exorbitantly on GPU's for your bottleneck to be your CPU)

My 2 cents.

ok here is the system I would recommend (I put GTX770 , you can lower it to GTX 760 for $150 less)

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/sna/saved/1YJE

I chosen this motherboard for you because it has rich onboard components.

read about it here

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4482#ov

you can replace it with this Asus Gene Vi for same price

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/MAXIMUS_VI_GENE/

also rich onboard features.

the Thermaltake case looks awsome and is available in black and white

this

http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00001951

and if you like white

http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00001960

both at $65

you can get a lower PSU if you wish a 650 WATTS Bronze non modular. for like $30 less

but This is the PC I would recommend

you can buy SSD later on dont worry ... the most important now is the BASE Saystem. the unremovable things. SSD ? you can add later.

and for best SSD get the Samsung 840 pro