FX 8350 vs i5 3570k futureproofing

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680
As the title describes, I'm having a bit of trouble deciding between the fx8350 vs i5 3570k.

For the most part, benchmarking shows that i5 beats fx in terms of overall gaming performance and fx beats i5 in video-based stuff and multitasking.

As a normal consumer, I doubt I'll see a huge difference depending on which of the two I get since I doubt I'll be gaming/multitasking enough to "max" out each cpu. For the most part I'll probably be running programs and number crunching, streaming/watching videos, and doing some gaming. I think if I had to prioritize, gaming would come a close second to work/functionality.

What I'm wondering is which of the two would be a better pick for down-the-line? From what I've researched, it seems like the current Intel chips generation is coming to an end, with certain sockets and stuff being discontinued in favor of something else to support the new generation (after Haswell that is). Also, the fx 8core design seems to be more popular with current ps4 console games that implement 8core hyperthreading.

In deciding for a chip for long term use/function, would the fx 8350 be a better choice i5 3570k then? Since currently there's seems to be little difference between the two unless you're extremely concerned with maxing out the processors.
 
Solution

syrup - well you won't have to replace anything unless you feel it starts to get slow (which for work on an i5 is virtually never). In...
G

Guest

Guest
There is no such thing as futureproofing other than simply buying things in the future.

Before people say that the 8350 will destroy in the future, hold your horses. Each module only has 1 FPU which will greatly hold back how good the multicore strength the FX processors will posess. We also have diminishing returns when it comes to the # of cores, and would be very hard to keep 8 "cores" syncronized.

I think at best when we get the hypothetical "optimization" for the FX series that is supposed to come from consoles, it will only catch up to the i5s.

But back to the thread, I would get an 3570k personally. Sure, the FX can overclock to the i5, but overclocking the FX processors to that degree produces a ton of power draw and heat evidenced by the FX-9000 line. You can also overclock the i5 itself if you really, really need that extra CPU power. The 3570k also draws less power, is a cooler chip, has superior IPC and has 4 "real" cores.

I know this is a cliche answer but you really can't go wrong with either.
 

Zero_

Distinguished


Exactly. If it's gaming, I'd go for the i5 over any AMD.
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


I thought the Haswell stuff is the one running into an "end of line" problem? I could be wrong, I'm very new to the computer hardware scene.
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


I agree, with the rate of technology produced these days, "future proofing" isn't really viable. But I'd like to see if there's any heavy skewing of opinion to one chip vs the other in terms of thinking how each chip will perform 3-4 years down the line
 
G

Guest

Guest
We can only find out for sure through the future. I think that people are blowing up the FX's potential performance waaaay too much, but that's just me.
 

BSim500

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
269
0
10,960

The FX8350 is about 15% faster in video encoding and one or two things like 7-zip, but the i5-3570k faster in most everything else:-
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3

Including many games:-
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

Difference in power consumption is huge - FX 8350 uses almost 90w more under load:-
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51142.png

PS: Don't bother with "future proofing". Even Broadwell is rumoured to not use the same motherboards as Haswell (just as socket 1156 was a "one generation board"). Buy what you need when you need it, then make it last as long as you can.
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


Exactly, but that's why I'm wondering if going i5, even with their superior performance, would run into hardware based trouble when I plan on upgrading/changing stuff around in the future.

It seems like the AMD stuff, in terms of sockets/mobos, are set for a good while.

Like I said, I recognize that there's no "futureproofing." I'm just a little concerned with intel right now since they're changing things up quite a bit with the new generation and I don't know if that'll translate to problems in the future
 

BSim500

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
269
0
10,960

Well there's been no shortage of change there either:-

2006 = Socket AM2 & Socket F
2007 = Socket AM2+
2009 = socket AM3
2010 = Socket G34 & Socket C32
2011 = Socket FM1 & AM3+
2012 = Socket FM2
Next = Socket FM2+

Some of the + boards are mostly compatible with their name-sake, but even excluding them, there's been plenty of 12-18 month socket changes for AMD too.

It's also only a "loss" if you upgrade each generation. Socket 1156's had only one generation lifespan - I had one of those with an i3-530, but I didn't feel I lost out, because I skipped Sandy Bridge and upgraded straight to Ivy Bridge, so the board still lasted 2 generations. Given the slowdown in annual CPU speed boosts, even a lot of heavy gamers are beginning to "cool down" previous 12-18 monthly upgrades into 24-36 month upgrades, and at 3 year upgrade cycles, you'll need a new motherboard no matter what.
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


Oh, so regardless if I go AMD or Intel, given my time frame I'll have to replace everything anyway? (4+ years) I guess in that case it doesn't matter which I go in terms of hardware changes.

On a side note, IF I choose to go intel, would it be better to stay IB 3570k or think about spending a bit more for haswell 4670k? I'm not planning on overclocking immediately, but I may in the future to help performance (2-3+ years). I'm worried that overclocking reduces the lifespan of the PSU since I want to keep it around for quite some time
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


Oh, so regardless if I go AMD or Intel, given my time frame I'll have to replace everything anyway? (4+ years) I guess in that case it doesn't matter which I go in terms of hardware changes.

On a side note, IF I choose to go intel, would it be better to stay IB 3570k or think about spending a bit more for haswell 4670k? I'm not planning on overclocking immediately, but I may in the future to help performance (2-3+ years). I'm worried that overclocking reduces the lifespan of the PSU since I want to keep it around for quite some time
 

Ags1

Honorable
Apr 26, 2012
255
0
10,790
CPUs are being optimized for lower power draw these days, not for extra performance. So a chip that performs well today will still be competitive in three years time - just relatively less energy efficient.
 

BSim500

Honorable
Apr 6, 2013
269
0
10,960

syrup - well you won't have to replace anything unless you feel it starts to get slow (which for work on an i5 is virtually never). In the past people upgraded every year because +20-30% gains were made in a year. These days, gains have dropped to just 5-10% and since computers don't subjectively feel faster until about 20-30% speed increases are involved (I mean how a computer "feels" rather than benchmark statistics), people are naturally upgrading less often. If it runs all your games fine in 3-4 years, no reason why you can't make it last longer. Anything over 2.5-3 years though generally involves a motherboard replacement. That's why unless you upgrade almost every generation, it's impossible to plan for the future. You don't save money as it's no more expensive to buy 1x motherboard & CPU every 2-3 years than 1x CPU per year + 1x motherboard every 2 years and reuse the motherboard between every other CPU for just 10% difference.

As for overclocking lifespan, Intel's use such little power anyway that overclocking won't necessarily reduce your PSU's lifespan at all, as unless you're running multiple graphics cards, even fully loaded they typically suck less than 50% of a 400w PSU's rated output. And there's no rule that says any future overclocks must be extreme involving +4.6GHz clocks & high voltages - nearly all 3570's can do 4.0-4.2GHz on stock voltage (it's the extra high voltages over 1.35v that shortens life more than frequency at say 1.1v). But even then, you're still talking several years. "Electro-migration" is not really an issue on most systems.

As for 3570k vs 4670k, the latter is about 5-10% faster than the former, but runs a little hotter and overclocks less. There's otherwise very little difference in them (which as mentioned above is a good example of precisely why people don't upgrade every year now). I had an Athlon 64, then skipped Core2Duo and bought an i3-530, then skipped Sandy Bridge and got an i5-3570 and am now skipping Haswell and looking 1-2 generations down the line. Either 3570k / 4670k CPU will be perfectly fine for the next few years. Even today many "quad-core optimized" games don't come close to maxing all cores out, and after the new consoles come out, that will be fairly static for the next 7 years too, so you'll see the same thing we see today - games engines aren't pushing PC's anywhere near to the max due to consoles being stagnant during the second half of their lifespans.

Whichever chip you pick, you're "good to go" for a few years for gaming, and more than enough for a "work box".
 
Solution

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680
thanks! this helps greatly. I think I'll choose the more affordable 3570k out of all 3 since I think i'll actually be gaming less and working more, so the 3570k seems to be a good pick compared to fx8300? I doubt im going to work enough to load all 8 cores anyway (basic number crunching, not much video editing)

...unlesss the fx8300 is better for work-related functions than 3570k
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


That depends entirely on what you're doing...

If you're encoding video/audio, streaming video online or rendering, or using productivity software that can use multiple cores...then the 8350 is honestly faster than the i5's from Intel in a great many of those applications. The 8350 typically trades blows with the 3570k in games...though in productivity, it's much closer to the 3770k in terms of performance.

I equate it to near i7 performance for less than i5 money. Though, as I said, that depends on what programs you use (or how many you use at once, as if you multitask quite a bit the 8350 is great for that as well).
 

syrup

Honorable
Sep 5, 2013
102
0
10,680


As I see it:
1) mostly programming work. might run into some intensive number-crunching problems with large data sets
2) light to moderate gaming. not sure how much i'll be gaming, but would like a rig that can support high quality gaming
3) i would like to get into video editing/streaming/etc, but i doubt i'll be invested enough to make 8 cores productive? light video editing/etc probably wont be load-intensive enough to need 8 cores?
4) budget-wise yes, amd would be a cheaper solution, but honestly, i'd be willing to invest in a little more so the parts/pieces can last longer (both in hardware lifespan and accommodating whatever I'll be doing in the future)
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


1.) If you're coding/compiling frequently...the 8350 will be quite a bit faster at that.

2.) The 8350 is fine for gaming...like running Crysis 3 on maxed settings better than a 3570k for example.

3.) Any video streaming/editing can often make use of all 8 cores...especially adobe products. They've all been optimized for AMD (they even proclaim such on their website "Now optimized for AMD").

4.) As far as life spans go...if you're going to see a CPU fail, it will likely be an Intel. I have seen 3 Intel CPUs fail, never had an AMD fail. I saw a guy fry a Phenom II one time, he was trying to get 5 GHz on a P2X4 980 and it didn't work out like he wanted...next time he stopped @ a stable 4.3 and left it.
 

MajinCry

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2011
958
0
19,010
Don't listen to Hafijur. He's a complete troll; renowned for using biased benchmarks and lying.


However, with 8350rocks and Hafijur's claims about CPUs wearing out, their experiences are far too miniscule to be worth even considering.

In my family, we've had computers since the ol' Amstrad (Dunno 'bout the proccies that far back). Personally, I've used Pentium I-IV, Athlon 64, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo, Some AMD E-series thingy, AMD Phenom II x4, i3 350m. All the intels were hand-me-downs from my father's cheapo OEM computers.

Ain't had any problems with any of them, at least problems concerning the CPU. I currently use the Phenom II x4 965 BE for World Machine 2, Photoshop, 3DS Max, Blender, Cubase and gaming. Considering how it only cost me £80, I'm chuffed with it.

So in this case Hafijur, go somewhere else. 8350Rocks, try to avoid passing off personal experience as fact. Ain't good.

@OP If you're going to be doing things that require multithreading (modern games, emulators, rendering, encoding, etc.), or just doing multiple things at once (Like streaming whilst playing a game, por ejemplo), the 8350 will be perfect. The proccy is cheaper than the i5 and the equivalent motherboards are also cheaper when buying AMD.

Though, if you're using programs that have been compiled using intel's software compiler, you'd be best served by an intel processor.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


This is why you're the Master of Misinformation!!! :rofl: