Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD 8350FX or i7 4770K

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 29, 2013 6:01:14 AM

HI All,

First post here!
Currently running a Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 ghz with 4 GB Ram, Intel DG33FB MoBo and an XFX Grafix card with 1 GB RAM. WIndows 8 licensed X86.

This is my office computer but I also use it for a lot of video encoding, Sonic Vegas home movies, and other stuff office stuff. Seldom gaming.

Need to know if AMD should suffice for an upgrade with 16GB Ram or is Intel better. Cost is a factor here.

Thanks

Sunny.

More about : amd 8350fx 4770k

Best solution

a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 6:09:28 AM

if you are rarely gaming and also have a tight budget, fx8350 is the way to go. There is for sure a performance difference between and Intel is ofcourse performing better but AMD is not bad either. Especially if you consider the price it is a good choice. For professional apps and multi-threaded applications AMD is even actually performing better where Intel has a better single core performance.

You shouldnt be worried about 8350 performance. It would be huge upgrade over what you got already.

here is a basic comparison of both cpu's by specifications
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8...

good luck.
Share
July 29, 2013 6:20:37 AM

Hey Thanks for the info.

As of now I am leaning toward the AMD. But again looking a the cost of a decent Mobo to pair with this I guess the cost would come to the same as an Intel 4770 and a Not-so-good Mobo.

Your thoughts...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 6:30:05 AM

If you are gaming and have the budget then the 4770k is the way to go. If you are only doing 'work' type tasks on it and have the budget then the 4770k is the way to go. For instance on Tom's own CPU charts the 4770k is faster in these tests:

Photoshop CS Photo 53.2%
Cinibench Video 17.3%
Blender 3D Render 28.8%
Lame Audio Encode 53.2%
Handbrake Video 13.0%
7-Zip Compression 6.3%
WinZip Compression 25.0%

All the while using slightly over 40% less power while working and then it's done the work faster and idles at just about 35% lower power at idle too.

The only time you would ever consider the 8350 in this case would be budgetary.

m
0
l
July 29, 2013 6:36:43 AM

Wow...Thanks Traciatim

Whats drawing me to the AMD is the Eight cores and what advantage I would derive from it for Video Encoding, many programs running in the background while a video is encoding or while editing/ creating videos with other stuff running in the back. As I said I play games on my office computer maybe once in 3 months :) 

Your thoughts please..
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 7:22:47 AM

Sunny Unni said:
Hey Thanks for the info.

As of now I am leaning toward the AMD. But again looking a the cost of a decent Mobo to pair with this I guess the cost would come to the same as an Intel 4770 and a Not-so-good Mobo.

Your thoughts...


Both of these CPUs are great preformers when overclocked, and they are designed for this. You do not want to pair them with a 'not so good mobo' if you want to get the most out of them. It would be a waste of money to buy a high end CPU but a low end motherboard.

If you cannot afford the 4770k + a good board for it, get the 8350 and put it with a 990 chipset board.

Also when looking at 'benchmarks' make sure you are looking at multithreaded benchmarks that will use all 8 cores on the fx8350. And check multiple sources, not just 1 site.
m
0
l
July 29, 2013 8:15:08 AM

maddogfargo said:
Sunny Unni said:
Hey Thanks for the info.

As of now I am leaning toward the AMD. But again looking a the cost of a decent Mobo to pair with this I guess the cost would come to the same as an Intel 4770 and a Not-so-good Mobo.

Your thoughts...


Both of these CPUs are great preformers when overclocked, and they are designed for this. You do not want to pair them with a 'not so good mobo' if you want to get the most out of them. It would be a waste of money to buy a high end CPU but a low end motherboard.

If you cannot afford the 4770k + a good board for it, get the 8350 and put it with a 990 chipset board.

Also when looking at 'benchmarks' make sure you are looking at multithreaded benchmarks that will use all 8 cores on the fx8350. And check multiple sources, not just 1 site.

Wow thanks a lot for these inputs. Is it worth waiting a while for amd's new chips or better to buy now?
m
0
l
July 29, 2013 8:19:00 AM

I don't think amd has any more plans for processor releases this year. I would say its best to buy now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 9:51:20 AM

Sunny Unni said:
Wow...Thanks Traciatim

Whats drawing me to the AMD is the Eight cores and what advantage I would derive from it for Video Encoding, many programs running in the background while a video is encoding or while editing/ creating videos with other stuff running in the back. As I said I play games on my office computer maybe once in 3 months :) 

Your thoughts please..


Like the quad core 4770K with it's quad core HT that lets it run 8 threads at once the AMD also advertises 8 cores but are actually 4 modules which process thinsg a little differently to be able to do 8 threads . . . it's a different design that like HT on the Intel side does well in certain circumstances and poorly in others. In either case they can both handle regular day to day usage (IE, running a video encode while you stream a video and brows the web style stuff). The Intel will just do it all faster and with less power usage.

As I said before, the only reason you would ever choose the 8350 is if you simply can't afford the 4770k. The 4770k is faster in pretty much everything. The 8350 is still slower even at heavily threaded tasks.

The real question I think you should be asking is if the 4770k is worth the extra cost to you. For a non-gaming rig the cost comparison processor would be more like the 4670k which the 8350 would generally beat in things like video/audio/data compression and processing if the software threads well. In games however the 4670k is generally the best choice between performance/cost of these 3 since games generally don't thread well so the module design and HT design of the 8350/4770k doesn't benefit you as much in gaming.

If you can afford it, the 4770k is easier to cool, so the system will be easier on noise, will be faster, and uses far less power. The only disadvantage is price . . . the 4770k wins on everything else. More money for more performance, or save money is the question, and value like that is too subjective to answer if it's going to be worth it for you.

m
0
l
July 30, 2013 12:33:01 AM

SUperb...thats sounding like wisdom. LIke the rule of thumb is more money on the processor. I will not upgrade for another year or two so this will have to be a momentous one. At the same time, I do not want to go overboard too. Another thought is to wait but I guess the i7 4770K is quite new. Will the next upgrade be far away or worth waiting?? Your thoughts...
m
0
l
July 30, 2013 12:42:20 AM

Ok Just another thing...i may sound silly here. From my present setup of Core2Quad 6600 2.4Ghz, 4gb DDR2 RAM, Intel DG33FB motherboard, XFX 1 GB Graphics card to a setup of Core i7 4770K, 16 GB RAM (Need suggestions), Intel Motherboard (need suggestions) Coolermaster Elite Cabinet with 600W Power supply retained...
...What would the performance boost be in terms of Video Encoding of HD files, Video Editing (HD home movies in Vegas Pro), Adobe lightroom editing, day to day multitasking like emails, spreadsheets etc.

Please comment
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2013 5:25:58 AM

You can infer some of your performance gains by Tom's own article over at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale... where they paired a couple of budget ivy bridge processors vs some older processors. They had a Q9550 instead of a Q6600, but you can get a reasonable comparison.

As an example in their Photoshop CS5 test the 3570k beat out a Q9550 by about 60% or so, and the 4770k will be both faster per cycle and faster in highly threaded things overall, especially in things that thread really well like Photoshop. Video compression is kind of mixed depending on how well the application threads, but the Q9550 did surprisingly well, the 3570k still beats it by 50% or so depending on the test.

In games, a good example of a notoriously CPU heavy game like SCII: Heart of the swarm the 3570k beat the Q9550 by 85% or so . . . yes, almost double the speed. Another, Skyrim the 3570k won by about 75%.

Also, keep in mind that all of these were compared at stock speeds, where the point of buying the 4770k is so you can get an aftermarket cooler, and set it to 4Ghz (at least) pretty reliably, which is about 15% faster than it's stock speeds . . . and the 4770k is probably 5-10% faster per clock already than the 3570k in the test. So I think you can safely say that your performance gains will hover somewhere in the 50%-100% range depending on the application, clock speed you set, and what else you are doing with the machine at the time.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
July 30, 2013 7:05:25 AM

hafijur said:
If you are going from a q6600, I would go to a 4770k or 3770k or 2600k before thinking about the fx8350. The fx8350 is not much more power efficient then the q6600 you have. Remember the amd fx line don't have an igpu while intels do on there cpus on most of them. The 4770k consumes around 100w less electricity less at stock and close to 200w less when overclocked then the fx8350. The 4770k wins virtually all productivity benchmarks to.


For reference: The 8350 uses about 70w more power than an i5 3570k stock, 120w more OCd. Over 2-3 years, the money ($30) you save on the 8350 pays for the extra power it uses.

When compared to an i7, the power gap is smaller and the cost savings larger.

The haswell chips may use less power, but it's still not enough when you factor in the cost difference. In the long run, it's a moot point.
m
0
l
a c 806 à CPUs
July 30, 2013 7:29:27 AM

Sunny Unni said:
SUperb...thats sounding like wisdom. LIke the rule of thumb is more money on the processor. I will not upgrade for another year or two so this will have to be a momentous one. At the same time, I do not want to go overboard too. Another thought is to wait but I guess the i7 4770K is quite new. Will the next upgrade be far away or worth waiting?? Your thoughts...


The only benefit of going 4770k is that it is new and the 1150 socket will have an upgrade path for at least one revision of chips. Otherwise, it isn't worth the added cost at all. Going FX offers the same kind of upgrade path as AMD has said AM3+ is getting one more line of chips yet. Most believe that will be steamroller. The FX is a far cheaper solution. Also, do you plan to overclock at all? If not, then a k series chips is pointless. If no overclocking is intended, then this would be a great choice that will save you some money over the 4770k rig.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
!