Ok, I know that everyone is saying that the 4670k is better than the 8350, and overall it is. However, people say that for games that utilize many cores (bf4 uses 6 amd cores??) such as battlefield, would the 8350 have a slight edge? Also, since I have only had experience with crappy gateway laptops and ps3's , would i really tell a difference? the reason is that the 8350 with the asus 990fx pro is $100 cheaper than the 4670k w/ asus z78 pro on newegg.
What are your thoughts? Your help is much appreciated.:)
Last replyBest Answer
More about8320 4670k battlefield
I was in the same boat and took the 8350 for cost/performance ratio. In my opinion, the 8350 will suit you well. It is definitely cheaper, very overclockable and plays battlefield 3 very well. I dont know what BF4 will be like but BF4 will be new so I would imagine it would be coded better for multiple core processors. I currently get 60+ FPS in BF3 and expect the same for BF4 but wont really know until the game comes out how well it will do.
oooh, this helps a lot! if im not mistaken, on the chart, The 8350 would be actually one of the best processors for bf3? As for gpus,However, atm I'm DEFINITELY not getting the titan. a 770 would be lucky for me.
Glad to help, yea that was just used for a basis for all the processor tests.
Yes, the 8350 would be one of the best. Games will start using more cores soon probably due to the new consoles running multiple core AMD processors.
thats one great thing to hear.
Most important thing for bf4 is an amd card, with mantle the cpu matters less.
Just depends the 8350 is great for bf4 i usually get around a 100fps in multiplayer. Your gpu is way more important at this level. http://m.imgur.com/tyKOYWz
John Jorgensen said:
All you idiots saying 8350 when a 4670k is faster in MULTI THREAD with only 4 cores. Again with idiots posting about shit they know nothing about.
you signed up 2 weeks ago just to make comments like this in threads that are 8 months old and you're absolutely certain you are not the idiot?