Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 4570 or amd fx 6350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 15, 2013 4:34:11 PM

im upgrading from my old athlon ii x2 245..im confuse either go to intel or amd... is it worth to go for i5 4570..my graphic card is gtx 650 ti boost..

More about : 4570 amd 6350

a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 4:42:35 PM

Keep in mind you'll have to buy a new motherboard. Aside from that, odds are the i5 will be better, if somewhat more expensive. However, there is a chance that some games will run better on the 6350 due to the next gen consoles using 8 core APUs, and that you can overclock the 6350.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 4:42:46 PM

The 4570 is much better than the 6350 at stock for gaming, but costs more.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 4:45:40 PM

Both i5 4570 and FX 6350 are good choice for gaming.
If you're on budget we recommend going with FX 6350 as it performs very well with games and in return you save a lot of money.
The integrated HD 4600 graphics inside the i5 4570 will be wasted since you already have a graphics card.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 4:46:53 PM

4570 no doubt unless you have a really nice amd motherboard that supports the 6300
m
0
l
September 15, 2013 5:01:14 PM

4570>6350
m
0
l
September 15, 2013 5:21:14 PM

Anonymous said:
The 4570 is much better than the 6350 at stock for gaming, but costs more.


if i take the 4570 will it last for 1 or 2 years to support new game and not bottle neck new graphic card if im upgrading.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 5:23:58 PM

The 4570 won't bottleneck anything you can put a name to.
It will be great for the years to come. Don't buy into the "8 cores is the future" nonsense.
m
3
l
September 20, 2013 1:39:59 AM

Anonymous said:
The 4570 won't bottleneck anything you can put a name to.
It will be great for the years to come. Don't buy into the "8 cores is the future" nonsense.


thanks bro...i just bought the 4570 it was great..now i have 4gb ddr3 1333mhz..is it worth if i change to 4gb 1600mhz?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
September 20, 2013 1:03:12 PM

khazie said:
im upgrading from my old athlon ii x2 245..im confuse either go to intel or amd... is it worth to go for i5 4570..my graphic card is gtx 650 ti boost..


As a game developer...

I would personally recommend the 6350.
Share
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 5:07:13 AM


Anonymous said:
The 4570 won't bottleneck anything you can put a name to.
It will be great for the years to come. Don't buy into the "8 cores is the future" nonsense.


This isn't exactly true, 8-cores will become the standard in gaming here soon enough, the new xbox ones have 8-core AMD processors in them, and they are being released this year. Also i run an 8-core processor FX-8350, which (in a 4-core program/game) separates the load across 4 cores, then uses the extra 4 cores, to smooth out performance. Something I have never seen even from an i7. Believe that 8-cores is going to be the standard, then you will be wishing that you had bought an 8-core processor. True as of right now the i5 will stomp the FX-8350 in gaming, not to mention the i7, but the fact remains that if your multitasking 8 programs and each has its own core, its going to function better then on an i7 (2x quad core) which technically has to balance 8 programs on 4 cores, which is 2 programs on each core. The FX-8350 would win that battle. And besides some games are already being developed in 6-core, then the i5 will become obsolete, and everyone will have to buy new processors and motherboards again. I run an i7 with integrated graphics at work, and if i put my FX-8350 next to it, the benchmarks will agree with the i7, however in heavy overclocking, multitasking, and multi-core games (4+ cores) the AMD will stomp it silly. It depends on what your doing with it, i guess in the end.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 6:34:02 AM

hafijur said:
ddbtkd456 that is not true intel cpu with the latest platforms are much better at multitasking then amd cpus. AMD have ancient memory controller.What you have to understand is a haswell i5 quad at lets say 3.5ghz is equivalent to an amd piledriver 8 core at 3.85ghz on most stuff multithreaded wise. Also intel have low base clocks so have a bigger room to overclock more then an fx cpu while taking half the power consumption. You can have tons of stuff open even on dual cores without slowing down.



And your wrong on that subject, then tell me how can an AMD FX-8350 overclock from 4.0 GHz to 8.3 GHz and still be running stable? I have never ever seen an i5, or for that matter an i7 over clock well over 4 GHz, more headroom to overclock, please that is what AMD is known for is there enormous amount of headroom with overclocking. I'm tired of arguing and proving that AMD is better then Intel, some people just know how to work AMD a certain way to get better performance then an Intel, which I am one, if you have an opinion fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong when i watch AMD's site like a hawk.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 6:43:42 AM

Yes for gaming they are better, but what i am saying is for everyday use and future proofing a AMD is the better way to go, anyways i will believe what i believe, i am done arguing about what different opinions we have since it is a waste of my time.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 6:44:34 AM

Besides, AMD is being put into the xbox one, so tell me why they didn't use intel's since its Bill Gates company?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 6:52:06 AM

So for encoding music and movies (which i mostly do) it is better, which is why i was told to get one?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
September 26, 2013 7:54:35 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
So for encoding music and movies (which i mostly do) it is better, which is why i was told to get one?


He is showing you cherry picked benchmarks...

In general, the 8350 is better at encoding and streaming. If you look hard enough, you can always find a program that only uses 1-2 cores to do it...(typically in Mac software). However, most WINDOWS programs or LINUX programs use well more than that.

He is "pulling your leg" because he loves Intel more than his own life, and they probably pay him to post the things he does.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 7:56:46 AM

8350rocks said:
ddbtkd456 said:
So for encoding music and movies (which i mostly do) it is better, which is why i was told to get one?


He is showing you cherry picked benchmarks...

In general, the 8350 is better at encoding and streaming. If you look hard enough, you can always find a program that only uses 1-2 cores to do it...(typically in Mac software). However, most WINDOWS programs or LINUX programs use well more than that.

He is "pulling your leg" because he loves Intel more than his own life, and they probably pay him to post the things he does.


Well i run both and I've put both to the test side by side (work vs. home) and the AMD shredded the Intel for anything media related, however the Intel shredded the AMD for gaming. So its really what you are using it for.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 7:58:03 AM

8350rocks said:
ddbtkd456 said:
So for encoding music and movies (which i mostly do) it is better, which is why i was told to get one?


He is showing you cherry picked benchmarks...

In general, the 8350 is better at encoding and streaming. If you look hard enough, you can always find a program that only uses 1-2 cores to do it...(typically in Mac software). However, most WINDOWS programs or LINUX programs use well more than that.

He is "pulling your leg" because he loves Intel more than his own life, and they probably pay him to post the things he does.


Also Winamp and Mediamonkey (both of what i use) use anywhere between 2-6 cores when encoding files.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 8:04:13 AM

I have the i5-4570. Yes it's about $60 more than the 6350. But IMO, for gaming specifically, it's worth it if it's in your budget to do so.

When I say it's fast, I mean it! lol. If you're not planning to overclock but want a fast gaming CPU for a good price, go with this one.

When it comes to comparing CPU's, it's not as simple as considering the number of cores and frequency. There's so much more to it than that and bench marks only tell part of the story.

The multiple cores being the future is only applicable in specific situations/applications. If each core of a CPU can eat through more processes much faster, then the number of cores matters less. That's why Intel CPU's with 4 cores are still (in general) faster than AMD 6 core and equal to or faster than AMD 8 core CPU's. Even if applications are written to make use of 6+ cores at once, 4 faster cores will still process that same data just as fast (or faster) because it's getting more work done in less time, per core. So if you go the Intel route, don't worry about "more cores is the future". ;) 

Let me be clear; I'm not saying Intel or AMD is better than the other. Core i5's and FX-8350's will both be around for a long time yet. Each manufacturer just has a different method in how each processes data. Intel focus on efficient cores that run at slower clocks and AMD on more cores that are less efficient, but run at faster clocks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 8:10:12 AM

Yes i agree with those facts, however i do not believe that Intel dominates Amd in every possible way. I do believe that AMD has some advantages over Intel. That was my only point.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 8:39:47 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
Yes i agree with those facts, however i do not believe that Intel dominates Amd in every possible way. I do believe that AMD has some advantages over Intel. That was my only point.


That's correct and I agree. :)  It's very application-specific.

That's why you can't say one is "ultimately" superior to the other.

All the back and forth bickering is getting old. lol. :sarcastic: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2013 8:42:38 AM

Agreed, I'm retiring this thread lol.
m
0
l
!