Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

FX 8350 vs. 4670 i5 for ultimate future lasting?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 25, 2013 3:19:45 PM

im tired of these to @$&)^! bloody CPU's and i can not make up my mind...which of them will last the longest into the future? i will use also a great fan of 23 euro's... i wont overclock in the next two years maybe...so which will last the longest with the 770 on gaming? help me! i am only going for gaming!
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2013 3:46:53 PM

If we are talking future proofing, then the amd wins hands down. Although im not a fan of AMD, But that amd cpu has 8 cores while the intel has 4. Future generation games are going to start utilizing all the cores it can. Both can of course be overclocked, but the 4670 doesn't OC as good as the 4570k.

Either way, your going to need a cpu cooler, the amd for sure as their chips seem to run a bit warmer than intel's.
The CM 212EVO will do the job and only run you for about another 30-35$ depending where you live!
Hope this helps
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 407 à CPUs
July 25, 2013 3:49:49 PM

Get a 4670k it would be better than an fx 8350 anyday haswell is the latest chip
Amds 8350 just comes under 4670
Get an i5 its always good to have an intel than amd in high end computing
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2013 3:53:35 PM

Why give up the extra 4 cores? I myself am an intel fan too and i agree it's more high-end.
But for the future of the games that will be untilizing 6+ cores if they can, i myself would go for the amd.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 25, 2013 8:31:49 PM

morgilroka said:
Why give up the extra 4 cores? I myself am an intel fan too and i agree it's more high-end.
But for the future of the games that will be untilizing 6+ cores if they can, i myself would go for the amd.


There's nothing saying gaming will start utilizing that much more cores. Yea the consoles are more than 4 cores and that'll cause game developers to start utilizing more cores, BUT what a console does on all of its cores a modern day i5 can do on its 4 so much easier. There is a huge difference in computing power between the two that people fail to recognize.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 26, 2013 12:46:39 AM

fatboytyler said:
morgilroka said:
Why give up the extra 4 cores? I myself am an intel fan too and i agree it's more high-end.
But for the future of the games that will be untilizing 6+ cores if they can, i myself would go for the amd.


There's nothing saying gaming will start utilizing that much more cores. Yea the consoles are more than 4 cores and that'll cause game developers to start utilizing more cores, BUT what a console does on all of its cores a modern day i5 can do on its 4 so much easier. There is a huge difference in computing power between the two that people fail to recognize.


BF3 for example, utilizes all available cores. Down the road games will be more CPU dependant than they are now, with most games only really using 2cores anyways. Nothing to be concerned about, this won't be introduced in all games for a while.
Source: Simple google search.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 88 à CPUs
July 26, 2013 1:24:47 AM

morgilroka said:
fatboytyler said:
morgilroka said:
Why give up the extra 4 cores? I myself am an intel fan too and i agree it's more high-end.
But for the future of the games that will be untilizing 6+ cores if they can, i myself would go for the amd.


There's nothing saying gaming will start utilizing that much more cores. Yea the consoles are more than 4 cores and that'll cause game developers to start utilizing more cores, BUT what a console does on all of its cores a modern day i5 can do on its 4 so much easier. There is a huge difference in computing power between the two that people fail to recognize.


BF3 for example, utilizes all available cores. Down the road games will be more CPU dependant than they are now, with most games only really using 2cores anyways. Nothing to be concerned about, this won't be introduced in all games for a while.
Source: Simple google search.


the i5's cores are more powerful, and the FX "8 core" cpu is a 4 module with only 4 fpu's, which is more important for games. Its more like a 4 core with hyper threading for FPU intensive tasks. there is still no game out to date that runs better on the FX 8 core cpu's than an i5 ivy bridge or haswell of similar price. There are a couple benchmarks that show otherwise, but a couple benchmarks is not convincing in the grand scheme of things. As others have said the new consoles use very weak 8 core cpu's, a dual core i3 would have comparable cpu power. The consoles have the advantage where devs will likely use the GPU for some compute tasks to make up for the lack of cpu power, and the OS on the consoles will have more direct ecces to this functionality than a windows pc.
m
0
l
August 10, 2013 9:31:46 AM

I did a lot of research now and finally found a few great things out. The AMD will definitely last longer in the future but it runs a lot hotter. Well the i5 runs cooler and has 4 stronger cores then the 8 cores of AMD... i also saw results that most games run better on the i5 but newer games that are able to use more then 4 cores work better with the FX 8350.. and even most games run better on the i5 the AMD still gets a great amount of FPS out there! so ill suggest myself to get the AMD.
m
0
l
November 8, 2013 2:15:23 AM

Id invest more towards the i7 for future proofing. Keyword: hyperthreading. I feel future titles will start utilizing the i7's 8 logical cores alot more efficiantly than any amd 8 core. I have no proof for my opinion, but just basic gaming instinct. Anyone feel free to back me up, because i would love to learn more.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2013 2:41:53 AM

hafijur said:
The fx8350 is already outdated, it may get to or surpass intel i5 4670 levels in future but that needs all 8 cores to be running at 100% to do so. An fx8350 running at 90% cpu load in games will get worse fps then an i5 4670 at 100% cpu usage in games most of the time. AMD cpus are already outdated, theres a reason why people pay slightly more money for intel cpus as theres the most futureproof and next gen design cpus with better memory speed support. AMD systems are like still on 5 year old designs with old sockets.

Look here the ivy bridge cpu with slightly slower memory doubles that of the fx8350 with slightly faster memory as amd have old gen technology.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_vi...

AMD piledriver based cpu systems are as far away to future proof as you get low ram performance slow single threaded performance least efficient cpus you can get today, theres a reason why they are price less then intel as they are basically selling ancient tech and trying to overpower intel. To be honest the only people who buy amd systems now piledriver based cpus are people who like amd or people who support stagnation not innovation. If people were poor intel still provide great competitive prices and the electricity costs are cheaper in the long run. Most games will run better then i5 amd may come close to i5 levels in future with the fx8350 but if they do beat it the fps margins will be so small it won't be even worth noting while intel systems currently in cpu intensive games or memory intensive games destroy amd like for example f1 2012.

Look here f1 2012 runs 71fps on amd fx8350:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

A q9550 at 3.4ghz runs it at 72.8fps average with old ddr2 1066mhz memory vs the ddr3 2200mhz ram the amd system had but because amd can't support it as well the fx8350 still lost:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkf...

AMD is the king, don't listen to these intel fanboys: watch this instead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE4H5-kbOls ....oh no fx 8350 is outdated? shut up dude, see how the out-dated beats intel's ass in bf3, call of duty black ops2, bf4, crysis 3...see fx 8350> i5 4670k in bf4 http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben... in multiplayer fx 6350 outperforms i7-4770k....now you can continue with old single threaded benchmarks, while i enjoy my bf4 ultra settings :lol: 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2013 2:46:26 AM

ABOUT 100% CORE USAGE CRAP... fx 8350 is equal to i5 4670k on the 6th core, that's why in bf4 they are so close, because it was optimized for 6 cores, if 7th and 8th cores started working properly it is the same crysis 3 example where fx 8350 nukes i7 3770k....
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 159 à CPUs
November 8, 2013 3:23:59 AM

I opted for AMDs 8 core (8320) rather than intels quad. Why? Because I believe 8 core consoles will have a huge impact on games and how they operate in tandem with core count. Mantle also helped my decision, basically a newer and improved version of "Glide" but not just for the GPU, also the CPU. Also because I like to do full 1080p gameplay recording and streaming without suffering from any performance drops while doing so.

Of course, none of that is set in stone - I don't have my crystal ball anywhere so your guess is as good as mine.
All I know is that it was cheap, performs like a champ and I didn't have to pay extra for an unlocked version as all FX processors are unlocked for easy overclocking.


Edit; Ahh just spotted the date of the thread, probably already built a new rig by now.
Share
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2013 10:29:57 AM

@Darkresurrection the link you posted is not a reliable source by any means. Every bench I have seen shows the i5 and 8350 being neck and neck. Thing is though, the i5 is still hands down better for 90% of games out there.

Also in no world will the FX6350 out perform the i7 4770k. My 3570k beats the FX6000 series in every program including multithreaded rendering applications.

And please don't select a best answer just because he agrees with your thinking. That is pure ignorance.

Bouncedk did put it best by saying "your guess is as good as mine" Truth is we don't know. We will have to wait until at least summer time to be able to tell.
m
0
l
!