Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

amd fx 8350 OR i5 4670k for BF4

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 22, 2013 3:44:04 PM

as the title says guys i need some help should i go for the i5 or the amd as people are saying that the more cores the better (BF4) btw i am pairing it with a 7970 ghz

More about : amd 8350 4670k bf4

a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 3:47:13 PM

My crystal ball will have an answer ready for you on October 29.
Score
3
a c 850 à CPUs
a c 330 À AMD
a c 140 å Intel
September 22, 2013 3:53:41 PM

I would go for the I5 since it will handle it fine and is pretty much better in all other games.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2013 4:03:58 PM

harinoorvirk28 said:
as the title says guys i need some help should i go for the i5 or the amd as people are saying that the more cores the better (BF4) btw i am pairing it with a 7970 ghz


I would go with the 8350, multiplayer in BF4 will use at least 6 threads, if not more.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 4:05:13 PM

http://www.overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark...

This seems to indicate Hyperthreading doesn't help with games, especially BF3. With gaming, the Intels just stomp the AMD's. Get a 4670K and a ASUS Hero motherboard. That motherboard will give you 100 to 200MHz more speed in overclocking. Of course you will need a good CPU cooler, like a Noctua NH-D14 or NH-C14.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2013 4:09:24 PM

babernet_1 said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark...

This seems to indicate Hyperthreading doesn't help with games, especially BF3. With gaming, the Intels just stomp the AMD's. Get a 4670K and a ASUS Hero motherboard. That motherboard will give you 100 to 200MHz more speed in overclocking. Of course you will need a good CPU cooler, like a Noctua NH-D14 or NH-C14.


Good thing that AMD CPUs have no hyper threading because they have real cores...unlike i7 Intel CPUs.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2013 5:06:28 PM

8350rocks said:
babernet_1 said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark...

This seems to indicate Hyperthreading doesn't help with games, especially BF3. With gaming, the Intels just stomp the AMD's. Get a 4670K and a ASUS Hero motherboard. That motherboard will give you 100 to 200MHz more speed in overclocking. Of course you will need a good CPU cooler, like a Noctua NH-D14 or NH-C14.


Good thing that AMD CPUs have no hyper threading because they have real cores...unlike i7 Intel CPUs.

if you call sharing 1 weak FPU core with 2 integer cores a real core.....
It seriously shouldn't even be a question anymore as to weather an i5 or 8350 is better at gaming, 95% of benchmarks are in favor of the i5, we have read all the reviews. Although i wouldn't go get a hero motherboard just for an extra 100mhz, money better spent elsewhere. As for bf4 specifically, i have heard bf3 runs well on the 8350, about equally as good as the i5 in most cases, so i expect bf4 to be similar.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 6:30:09 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
8350rocks said:
babernet_1 said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark...

This seems to indicate Hyperthreading doesn't help with games, especially BF3. With gaming, the Intels just stomp the AMD's. Get a 4670K and a ASUS Hero motherboard. That motherboard will give you 100 to 200MHz more speed in overclocking. Of course you will need a good CPU cooler, like a Noctua NH-D14 or NH-C14.


Good thing that AMD CPUs have no hyper threading because they have real cores...unlike i7 Intel CPUs.

if you call sharing 1 weak FPU core with 2 integer cores a real core.....
It seriously shouldn't even be a question anymore as to weather an i5 or 8350 is better at gaming, 95% of benchmarks are in favor of the i5, we have read all the reviews. Although i wouldn't go get a hero motherboard just for an extra 100mhz, money better spent elsewhere. As for bf4 specifically, i have heard bf3 runs well on the 8350, about equally as good as the i5 in most cases, so i expect bf4 to be similar.


hahha dont mind that fanboy with the fx avatar. you can read him at every intel vs amd thread and make a case for amd.

Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 6:31:02 PM

i think its better to go with amd cpu and gpu for bf4 because bf4 is going to be optimized for amd.
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 22, 2013 10:03:31 PM

vince232 said:
i think its better to go with amd cpu and gpu for bf4 because bf4 is going to be optimized for amd.


all that will do is bring AMD fx cpu's up to par with Intel i5 cpu's, instead of trailing further behind. the i5 has 4 physical cores and doesn't need any software tricks to make things work properly like the 8 core/4 module amd cpu's.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2013 10:46:20 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
vince232 said:
i think its better to go with amd cpu and gpu for bf4 because bf4 is going to be optimized for amd.


all that will do is bring AMD fx cpu's up to par with Intel i5 cpu's, instead of trailing further behind. the i5 has 4 physical cores and doesn't need any software tricks to make things work properly like the 8 core/4 module amd cpu's.


well thats just me. remember when arkham city got out and it is optimized for nvidia. nvidia gpu perform much much better than the amd counterpart for about 10-20 fps
Score
0
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 23, 2013 1:59:45 AM

vince232 said:
iam2thecrowe said:
vince232 said:
i think its better to go with amd cpu and gpu for bf4 because bf4 is going to be optimized for amd.


all that will do is bring AMD fx cpu's up to par with Intel i5 cpu's, instead of trailing further behind. the i5 has 4 physical cores and doesn't need any software tricks to make things work properly like the 8 core/4 module amd cpu's.


well thats just me. remember when arkham city got out and it is optimized for nvidia. nvidia gpu perform much much better than the amd counterpart for about 10-20 fps

same thing happened with the new Tomb Raider but AMD was optimized for it, but nvidia released a driver very quickly to fix the issue. Its more that amd gets to work closer with the game dev, so they will have better drivers on release day, an area AMD has long struggled with. I have heard for bf4 nvidia is also allowed early access to tweak their drivers, there was no restriction in place as with tomb raider.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2013 3:07:18 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
vince232 said:
iam2thecrowe said:
vince232 said:
i think its better to go with amd cpu and gpu for bf4 because bf4 is going to be optimized for amd.


all that will do is bring AMD fx cpu's up to par with Intel i5 cpu's, instead of trailing further behind. the i5 has 4 physical cores and doesn't need any software tricks to make things work properly like the 8 core/4 module amd cpu's.


well thats just me. remember when arkham city got out and it is optimized for nvidia. nvidia gpu perform much much better than the amd counterpart for about 10-20 fps

same thing happened with the new Tomb Raider but AMD was optimized for it, but nvidia released a driver very quickly to fix the issue. Its more that amd gets to work closer with the game dev, so they will have better drivers on release day, an area AMD has long struggled with. I have heard for bf4 nvidia is also allowed early access to tweak their drivers, there was no restriction in place as with tomb raider.


well i dont know the story about tomb raider. but isn't it logical and safer to go with amd since bf4 developers are the one who will optimize it for amd. than go with nvidia and w8 for driver updates and who knows if nvidia is going or not going to release driver updates for bf4.

so i think amd is the safer choice
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 23, 2013 6:33:32 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
8350rocks said:
babernet_1 said:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1151970/my-own-bf3-benchmark...

This seems to indicate Hyperthreading doesn't help with games, especially BF3. With gaming, the Intels just stomp the AMD's. Get a 4670K and a ASUS Hero motherboard. That motherboard will give you 100 to 200MHz more speed in overclocking. Of course you will need a good CPU cooler, like a Noctua NH-D14 or NH-C14.


Good thing that AMD CPUs have no hyper threading because they have real cores...unlike i7 Intel CPUs.

if you call sharing 1 weak FPU core with 2 integer cores a real core.....
It seriously shouldn't even be a question anymore as to weather an i5 or 8350 is better at gaming, 95% of benchmarks are in favor of the i5, we have read all the reviews. Although i wouldn't go get a hero motherboard just for an extra 100mhz, money better spent elsewhere. As for bf4 specifically, i have heard bf3 runs well on the 8350, about equally as good as the i5 in most cases, so i expect bf4 to be similar.


It's a 256 bit FMAC pipe...more or less same/same as Intel uses.

The difference being Intel has 20 years improving the decoder on the same architecture...where AMD has only 2-3 years tweaking this one.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 12:27:17 AM

8350rocks said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
as the title says guys i need some help should i go for the i5 or the amd as people are saying that the more cores the better (BF4) btw i am pairing it with a 7970 ghz


I would go with the 8350, multiplayer in BF4 will use at least 6 threads, if not more.


Incorrect.. battlefield posted the requirements and they said a quad core will be good enough (including online) and intel is much better at gaming that AMD
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 25, 2013 6:56:34 AM

Unknown-bjorn said:
8350rocks said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
as the title says guys i need some help should i go for the i5 or the amd as people are saying that the more cores the better (BF4) btw i am pairing it with a 7970 ghz


I would go with the 8350, multiplayer in BF4 will use at least 6 threads, if not more.


Incorrect.. battlefield posted the requirements and they said a quad core will be good enough (including online) and intel is much better at gaming that AMD


"enough" is not the same thing as optimal.

BF3 MP uses 6 threads, as it loads 6 cores on my 8350.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 25, 2013 7:27:10 AM

Well, I can see this thread is going to begin the same degeneration into a flame war that always follows hafijur.

I think it would be best if a moderator closes this thread before it turns into an all out flamewar.

The OP has his answer, and the conversation isn't going to remain civil anymore at this point...not with hafijur in the thread.
Score
0
a c 680 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a b å Intel
September 25, 2013 8:01:08 AM

I posted links in a thread yesterday in a debate of an i3 ivy vs an i5 sandy for BF4. The more cores in a given generation, the better fps in BF4. Even a 2600k to sandy-E saw a boost. BF4 will definitely be a game that takes advantage of more physical cores. Hyperthreading does help some, but not quite as much as physical cores.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 8:21:54 AM

Listen I have the i5 4670 and When i play Bf3 it uses all the cores but only like 50-60% of the cores so please... Bf4 will require abit more power but mainly a bigger GPU.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 25, 2013 8:44:36 AM

Unknown-bjorn said:
Listen I have the i5 4670 and When i play Bf3 it uses all the cores but only like 50-60% of the cores so please... Bf4 will require abit more power but mainly a bigger GPU.


It's an ENTIRELY NEW Frostbite engine...it will be more CPU demanding than BF3.

Mark. My. Words.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 8:55:56 AM

8350rocks said:
Unknown-bjorn said:
Listen I have the i5 4670 and When i play Bf3 it uses all the cores but only like 50-60% of the cores so please... Bf4 will require abit more power but mainly a bigger GPU.


It's an ENTIRELY NEW Frostbite engine...it will be more CPU demanding than BF3.

Mark. My. Words.


If it's more CPU demanding then that will favor Intel, since their CPU's are better/faster than AMD's. 4 fast cores are going to perform better than 8 slow cores. I gained a significant FPS boost going from an FX-6300 to an i5 4670k, despite the FX having "MOAR CORES!". The only reason the FX-8350 performs better than the FX-6300 is because of it's higher base clock rate, and not because of the 2 additional cores. AMD's architecture just doesn't hold a candle to Intel's, and review after review after review have confirmed that.
Score
0
a c 850 à CPUs
a c 330 À AMD
a c 140 å Intel
September 25, 2013 9:04:12 AM

8350rocks said:
Well, I can see this thread is going to begin the same degeneration into a flame war that always follows hafijur.

I think it would be best if a moderator closes this thread before it turns into an all out flamewar.

The OP has his answer, and the conversation isn't going to remain civil anymore at this point...not with hafijur in the thread.


It takes minimum two to have a flame war! The wise one quits!
Score
0
September 25, 2013 9:04:32 AM

VenBaja said:
8350rocks said:
Unknown-bjorn said:
Listen I have the i5 4670 and When i play Bf3 it uses all the cores but only like 50-60% of the cores so please... Bf4 will require abit more power but mainly a bigger GPU.


It's an ENTIRELY NEW Frostbite engine...it will be more CPU demanding than BF3.

Mark. My. Words.


If it's more CPU demanding then that will favor Intel, since their CPU's are better/faster than AMD's. 4 fast cores are going to perform better than 8 slow cores. I gained a significant FPS boost going from an FX-6300 to an i5 4670k, despite the FX having "MOAR CORES!". The onlay reason the FX-8350 performs better than the FX-6300 is because of it's higher base clock rate, and not because of the 2 additional cores. AMD's architecture just doesn't hold a candle to Intel's, and review after review after review have confirmed that.


Agreed ans for that sake is why I have bought the i5.. I'm not a fan boy. I'm a guy who wants good hardware... And reviews confirm it every time.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 9:49:31 AM

It will be optimized for more threads than BF3, go with the 8350, it will preform a bit better. The i5 and it are not radically different despite popular belief.

Oh, and BTW, the 8350 is really a 4 core CPU with 8 threads, 2 per core.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 9:35:07 PM

DukeOvilla said:
It will be optimized for more threads than BF3, go with the 8350, it will preform a bit better. The i5 and it are not radically different despite popular belief.

Oh, and BTW, the 8350 is really a 4 core CPU with 8 threads, 2 per core.


"popular belief" does popular belief inculde benchmarks? no it doesn't. In nearly EVERY SINGLE benchmarch the i5 wins because its........... BETTER!!! and no don't go crazy now lol, its 8 literal cores.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 26, 2013 7:52:19 AM

hafijur said:
VenBaja I remember you was in that dilemma so you got both amd and intel. I just want to ask you the question did you nitice even at high fps that the intel cpu made games feel moree responsive fluid motion feel while the amd cpu didn't provide that experience as thats what basically techreport benchmarks show.


Actually, the fluidity of games is not recorded in benchmarks...and anything over 50 FPS is indeterminable difference wise, unless you're talking about going up by double or more.

It's easy to see the difference between 30 and 50, near impossible to see the difference between 50 and 80
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 26, 2013 11:37:12 AM

hafijur said:
I can see the difference between 60fps on my 5930g laptop with 2ghz c2d 9600m gt vs my previous i5 3317u and gt 640m and now mu laptop in my sig playing rfactor driver san francisco etc and the physic caluclations are faster and easier due to per core performance. I find it strange experience but it made games feel real life like in racing games you feel you are in control vs before you can play it but its not feeling instant. On my p7350 it took like 40% of one core on my i5 3210m it take less then 10% cpu usage.

Also I just upgrdaed to a new deskyop pc and i feels sensational on project cars 60fps everything maxed out and car feels more fluid in response then my old q9300 6850 rig even if I lowered the settings to get 60fps on it it still coms nowhere close to this rig in terms of fluidity for gaming even both vsynced at 60fps.


Unless you had dropped frames on your old PC, you cannot distinguish one screen @ 60 FPS from another @ 60 FPS. This has been proven to be fact in several studies.

Now, maybe you had dropped frames because your laptop isn't really for gaming, and the NVidia GPU you had was WAY underpowered for most games, plus your dual core i5 is not a great choice for games either...
Score
0
September 26, 2013 12:07:46 PM

I definitely did notice a huge difference going from my FX-6300 to the i5 4670k. And the FX-6300 was OC'd at the time. People often mention that you won't notice a difference above around 60fps, which may or may not be true. But what they fail to realize is that while the FX-6300 I was running AVERAGED 60-70 fps, it had dips into the 40's. Which is waayyyy noticeable. With the 4670k (stock) I now average around 100+fps, and only dip down into the upper 60's. (This is on BF3 64-player multiplayer, which is what I upgraded for).

Minimum fps is really what people should be looking at. Be careful with claims of 60+ fps in certain games, because people often misrepresent their numbers. Is that 60+ fps an average? A high? The minimum over 30 minutes of gameplay? Was it in single player?
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 26, 2013 12:18:16 PM

hafijur said:
No I can tell from 60fps vs 60fps. I played rfactor on my old c2d laptop with a great 9600m gt gddr3 and it played a lot of games at 60fps but rfactor performance shocked me the most with the i5 it feels so fluid and life like, its like playing two different games as everything is instant. Also pes 2013 used to take like 90% cpu usage on my p7350 played it max 60fps but now with i5 it takes like 20% cpu usage and plays it fast motion again at 60fps. Anyway the reason for this is poor per core performance and slow memory speeds of my old c2d laptop. Same thing in all games like dirt 2 driver san francisco etc.

Also my i5 3210m is overkill for my gt 650m and you do realise my gpu scores 2400 3dmark11 so soon as I play at 720p resolution I will get similar fps to the xbox one does at 1080p with same settings.


VenBaja said:
I definitely did notice a huge difference going from my FX-6300 to the i5 4670k. And the FX-6300 was OC'd at the time. People often mention that you won't notice a difference above around 60fps, which may or may not be true. But what they fail to realize is that while the FX-6300 I was running AVERAGED 60-70 fps, it had dips into the 40's. Which is waayyyy noticeable. With the 4670k (stock) I now average around 100+fps, and only dip down into the upper 60's. (This is on BF3 64-player multiplayer, which is what I upgraded for).

Minimum fps is really what people should be looking at. Be careful with claims of 60+ fps in certain games, because people often misrepresent their numbers. Is that 60+ fps an average? A high? The minimum over 30 minutes of gameplay? Was it in single player?


As I stated above, dropped frames make otherwise equal average frame rates seem or feel different.

I am amazed that a CPU change contributed to fewer dropped frames though...did you also change out the GPU?
Score
0
September 26, 2013 12:30:18 PM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
No I can tell from 60fps vs 60fps. I played rfactor on my old c2d laptop with a great 9600m gt gddr3 and it played a lot of games at 60fps but rfactor performance shocked me the most with the i5 it feels so fluid and life like, its like playing two different games as everything is instant. Also pes 2013 used to take like 90% cpu usage on my p7350 played it max 60fps but now with i5 it takes like 20% cpu usage and plays it fast motion again at 60fps. Anyway the reason for this is poor per core performance and slow memory speeds of my old c2d laptop. Same thing in all games like dirt 2 driver san francisco etc.

Also my i5 3210m is overkill for my gt 650m and you do realise my gpu scores 2400 3dmark11 so soon as I play at 720p resolution I will get similar fps to the xbox one does at 1080p with same settings.


VenBaja said:
I definitely did notice a huge difference going from my FX-6300 to the i5 4670k. And the FX-6300 was OC'd at the time. People often mention that you won't notice a difference above around 60fps, which may or may not be true. But what they fail to realize is that while the FX-6300 I was running AVERAGED 60-70 fps, it had dips into the 40's. Which is waayyyy noticeable. With the 4670k (stock) I now average around 100+fps, and only dip down into the upper 60's. (This is on BF3 64-player multiplayer, which is what I upgraded for).

Minimum fps is really what people should be looking at. Be careful with claims of 60+ fps in certain games, because people often misrepresent their numbers. Is that 60+ fps an average? A high? The minimum over 30 minutes of gameplay? Was it in single player?


As I stated above, dropped frames make otherwise equal average frame rates seem or feel different.

I am amazed that a CPU change contributed to fewer dropped frames though...did you also change out the GPU?


Nope still rocking the 7870 LE. The thing is, your fps is going to drop when some huge explosion happens right next to you and 15 guys come onto your screen shooting. But now with a higher average fps, that drop of say, 30 fps, takes me from 90 to 60, instead of from 70 to 40. And that kind of stuff happens constantly in huge multiplayer games. So your fps is always dipping and raising, and it averages out somewhere in the middle. With the better CPU, those dips don't take my below 60 fps when I need to make that quick, accurate snap shot anymore, which makes a big difference in my gameplay. And on really CPU intensive maps, like the Back to Karkland expansion, My average fps is so much higher is makes for a much more fluid and enjoyable experience.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 26, 2013 1:14:58 PM

hafijur said:
Its not dropped frames, the games I play always were at 60fps as rfactor and pes are low demanding games. Even dirt 2 dirt 3 feel like different games on my new laptop. Its not just fps but its the cpu per core performance and memory performance overall bandwidth. Techreport mslag for frame latencies shows it.

http://techreport.com/review/24879/intel-core-i7-4770k-...


I doubt you understand what dropped frames are...
Score
0
September 27, 2013 1:34:24 AM

Both will do fine in BF4 from info which is available for now.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2013 4:34:16 AM

Go with Intel, really, AMD simply has nothing on Intel at this point, especially not fx8350.

It does not matter that AMD has "eight coarrzz" it's single core performance is abysmal and all these stupid stories about console games optimized for whatever it is are not realizing simple fact that they are optimized for console CPU's which are a different architecture than FX8350 to begin with, despite being from the same vendor.

New gen console CPU's are weak 8 cores running at sub 2GHZ with architecture focused on power efficiency (since you can't stick 600w PSU in a damn console!), so desktop I5 will easily pass whatever BF4 requires CPU-wise and I5 is a CPU which is tested and reviewed endlessly to be superior to FX8350 in just about anything and equal in multi-threading just because every core of I5 is much more powerful than that of FX8350 and the architecture is superior as well.

So in the end, what I say is - I5 will be better in 95% of the cases and then MAYBE FX8350 will be better in 5% remaining and even that by laughable margin.

Heck, all the AMD crusaders should go on and show us a benchmark where FX8350 is superior to I5-4670k, let numbers talk, right? All I see so far is just them saying some hypothetical things based on thin air.

And then there is another consideration - I5 Haswells use a new LGA1150 socket which will also be used for the next gen Broadwell CPU's, so you will be able to upgrade your CPU in the long run without switching MB, memory and power supply.

Conclusion - get I5.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 6:42:38 AM

Gaidax said:
Go with Intel, really, AMD simply has nothing on Intel at this point, especially not fx8350.

It does not matter that AMD has "eight coarrzz" it's single core performance is abysmal and all these stupid stories about console games optimized for whatever it is are not realizing simple fact that they are optimized for console CPU's which are a different architecture than FX8350 to begin with, despite being from the same vendor.

New gen console CPU's are weak 8 cores running at sub 2GHZ with architecture focused on power efficiency (since you can't stick 600w PSU in a damn console!), so desktop I5 will easily pass whatever BF4 requires CPU-wise and I5 is a CPU which is tested and reviewed endlessly to be superior to FX8350 in just about anything and equal in multi-threading just because every core of I5 is much more powerful than that of FX8350 and the architecture is superior as well.

So in the end, what I say is - I5 will be better in 95% of the cases and then MAYBE FX8350 will be better in 5% remaining and even that by laughable margin.

Heck, all the AMD crusaders should go on and show us a benchmark where FX8350 is superior to I5-4670k, let numbers talk, right? All I see so far is just them saying some hypothetical things based on thin air.

And then there is another consideration - I5 Haswells use a new LGA1150 socket which will also be used for the next gen Broadwell CPU's, so you will be able to upgrade your CPU in the long run without switching MB, memory and power supply.

Conclusion - get I5.


Actually, they're 8 cores running ~2.0-2.4 GHz.

XBone is expected to be about 2.0 GHz, and PS4 is expected to be clocked slightly higher.

Also, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am a game developer, and you couldn't give me an Intel CPU at this point. Games are ALL being developed toward AMD architecture now. You may not like it, but the status quo is going to change...
Score
0
September 27, 2013 7:13:12 AM

8350rocks said:
Gaidax said:
Go with Intel, really, AMD simply has nothing on Intel at this point, especially not fx8350.

It does not matter that AMD has "eight coarrzz" it's single core performance is abysmal and all these stupid stories about console games optimized for whatever it is are not realizing simple fact that they are optimized for console CPU's which are a different architecture than FX8350 to begin with, despite being from the same vendor.

New gen console CPU's are weak 8 cores running at sub 2GHZ with architecture focused on power efficiency (since you can't stick 600w PSU in a damn console!), so desktop I5 will easily pass whatever BF4 requires CPU-wise and I5 is a CPU which is tested and reviewed endlessly to be superior to FX8350 in just about anything and equal in multi-threading just because every core of I5 is much more powerful than that of FX8350 and the architecture is superior as well.

So in the end, what I say is - I5 will be better in 95% of the cases and then MAYBE FX8350 will be better in 5% remaining and even that by laughable margin.

Heck, all the AMD crusaders should go on and show us a benchmark where FX8350 is superior to I5-4670k, let numbers talk, right? All I see so far is just them saying some hypothetical things based on thin air.

And then there is another consideration - I5 Haswells use a new LGA1150 socket which will also be used for the next gen Broadwell CPU's, so you will be able to upgrade your CPU in the long run without switching MB, memory and power supply.

Conclusion - get I5.


Actually, they're 8 cores running ~2.0-2.4 GHz.

XBone is expected to be about 2.0 GHz, and PS4 is expected to be clocked slightly higher.

Also, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am a game developer, and you couldn't give me an Intel CPU at this point. Games are ALL being developed toward AMD architecture now. You may not like it, but the status quo is going to change...


You may be a game developer but not all games are good for the fact that some developers dont know what they are doing. So go on GOOGLE and look are comparisons between the two CPUS and tell me when your done that you finally saw how even the older 3570k beats it EVERY TIME. And the 4670k is even newer so its even better!
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 7:30:29 AM

Unknown-bjorn said:
8350rocks said:
Gaidax said:
Go with Intel, really, AMD simply has nothing on Intel at this point, especially not fx8350.

It does not matter that AMD has "eight coarrzz" it's single core performance is abysmal and all these stupid stories about console games optimized for whatever it is are not realizing simple fact that they are optimized for console CPU's which are a different architecture than FX8350 to begin with, despite being from the same vendor.

New gen console CPU's are weak 8 cores running at sub 2GHZ with architecture focused on power efficiency (since you can't stick 600w PSU in a damn console!), so desktop I5 will easily pass whatever BF4 requires CPU-wise and I5 is a CPU which is tested and reviewed endlessly to be superior to FX8350 in just about anything and equal in multi-threading just because every core of I5 is much more powerful than that of FX8350 and the architecture is superior as well.

So in the end, what I say is - I5 will be better in 95% of the cases and then MAYBE FX8350 will be better in 5% remaining and even that by laughable margin.

Heck, all the AMD crusaders should go on and show us a benchmark where FX8350 is superior to I5-4670k, let numbers talk, right? All I see so far is just them saying some hypothetical things based on thin air.

And then there is another consideration - I5 Haswells use a new LGA1150 socket which will also be used for the next gen Broadwell CPU's, so you will be able to upgrade your CPU in the long run without switching MB, memory and power supply.

Conclusion - get I5.


Actually, they're 8 cores running ~2.0-2.4 GHz.

XBone is expected to be about 2.0 GHz, and PS4 is expected to be clocked slightly higher.

Also, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am a game developer, and you couldn't give me an Intel CPU at this point. Games are ALL being developed toward AMD architecture now. You may not like it, but the status quo is going to change...


You may be a game developer but not all games are good for the fact that some developers dont know what they are doing. So go on GOOGLE and look are comparisons between the two CPUS and tell me when your done that you finally saw how even the older 3570k beats it EVERY TIME. And the 4670k is even newer so its even better!


You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.

EDIT: In fact, let me help you with that...









































What was that about AMD doesn't do WoW or Skyrim well again? 2 FPS difference? Hmm...did you see a trend yet?

Gosh, I just don't know how on earth that 8350 would hold up compared to the 3570k...since you say it's *SO* superior and all. What on earth is AMD going to do with such a superior chip to compete with? I guess they can't win a benchmark at all huh? /sarcasm

You should thank your lucky stars I am not in the mood to chase down Linux benchmarks...want to see the 8350 make the 3930k look stupid? Try looking at some of those...

Here's one to give you an idea though...

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLA...

Point made yet? I hope so...

DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT???
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 7:43:46 AM

hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.


Lol the troll speaks again. You do realise dont you the fx8350 needs all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match an i5 haswell in multithreaded applications. Your BS of more then 4 or more threads is embarrassing.

To put this into perspective:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=700


Listen Troll...see above...your precious 3570k is a joke, and the 4670k would only be *MARGINALLY* better than the 3570k at it's *BEST*.

EDIT: Here's CPUMark for the 8350 vs the 4670k:

http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4670K...

Take a peek there, then head back under your bridge...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2013 8:03:07 AM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.


Lol the troll speaks again. You do realise dont you the fx8350 needs all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match an i5 haswell in multithreaded applications. Your BS of more then 4 or more threads is embarrassing.

To put this into perspective:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=700


Listen Troll...see above...your precious 3570k is a joke, and the 4670k would only be *MARGINALLY* better than the 3570k at it's *BEST*.


So. basically just as we were saying, even 10% extra on 4670 and it's better than FX8350 all the way.

Thanks for helping decide on I5, mate!

I'm not even so sure why you are stiff about FX-8350? It's barely keeping up with I5 in any real benchmarks and is totally blown out water by just about any I7... What's the point?

I mean being excited with next gen AMD CPU would be reasonable, but Vishera line, which is widely considered to be a joke? Huh?
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:07:18 AM

Gaidax said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.


Lol the troll speaks again. You do realise dont you the fx8350 needs all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match an i5 haswell in multithreaded applications. Your BS of more then 4 or more threads is embarrassing.

To put this into perspective:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=700


Listen Troll...see above...your precious 3570k is a joke, and the 4670k would only be *MARGINALLY* better than the 3570k at it's *BEST*.


So. basically just as we were saying, even 10% extra on 4670 and it's better than FX8350 all the way.

Thanks for helping decide on I5, mate!


The 4670k isn't 10% better...it's barely 5% better at some things over the 3570k closer to 2-3% at most things (which makes it STILL fall behind the 8350).

As I said, there isn't an i5 on the planet that beats the 8350 at most things.

The i7's can...but then, they're 2x the cost of the 8350.

Waste your money if you want, it's your money after all. Though the 8350 > 4670k.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:10:01 AM

hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You should thank your lucky stars I am not in the mood to chase down Linux benchmarks...want to see the 8350 make the 3930k look stupid? Try looking at some of those...

Here's one to give you an idea though...

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLA...

Point made yet? I hope so...

DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT???


This is how biased 8350rocks is. He is a complete amd fanboy who thinks amd 8 cores are so fast that anything that takes more then 4 cores it beats the i5's. He thinks amd are 15% behind single threaded performance when its 110%. To top it all off an ssd that is 8x faster he uses to show the fx8350 being superior in linux when its just storage drive speed based. I could get the fastest ssd and score like 6000 on an i3 3217u then I can troll an fx9590 scoring 300 with a hdd on same benchmark.


Erm, no it's not storage drive speed based. At all...that's a DB benchmark...DBs don't use many read/writes...it's mostly integer calculations...

EDIT: You don't have the knowledge of how that works enough to sit back and try to discredit it. If you knew how DBs work, you'd know it has *nothing* to do with storage drive speed.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2013 8:17:15 AM

8350rocks said:
Gaidax said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.


Lol the troll speaks again. You do realise dont you the fx8350 needs all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match an i5 haswell in multithreaded applications. Your BS of more then 4 or more threads is embarrassing.

To put this into perspective:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=700


Listen Troll...see above...your precious 3570k is a joke, and the 4670k would only be *MARGINALLY* better than the 3570k at it's *BEST*.


So. basically just as we were saying, even 10% extra on 4670 and it's better than FX8350 all the way.

Thanks for helping decide on I5, mate!


The 4670k isn't 10% better...it's barely 5% better at some things.

As I said, there isn't an i5 on the planet that beats the 8350 at most things.

The i7's can...but then, they're 2x the cost of the 8350.

Waste your money if you want, it's your money after all. Though the 8350 > 4670k.


Well, it's not my problem really, I got I7-4770 so I don't care, really.

I'm going with what is best and most reasonably priced and at the moment I7-4770 non-K tray is pretty cheap.

But in the end - I5-4670 is simply superior to FX-8350. It is evident from the CPU marks on just about every I5-4670 review out there.

This thread is pointless, why would someone chose a year old CPU from a failed line instead of the latest from greatest.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:21:10 AM

Gaidax said:
8350rocks said:
Gaidax said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
8350rocks said:

You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Get your facts straight.


Lol the troll speaks again. You do realise dont you the fx8350 needs all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match an i5 haswell in multithreaded applications. Your BS of more then 4 or more threads is embarrassing.

To put this into perspective:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=700


Listen Troll...see above...your precious 3570k is a joke, and the 4670k would only be *MARGINALLY* better than the 3570k at it's *BEST*.


So. basically just as we were saying, even 10% extra on 4670 and it's better than FX8350 all the way.

Thanks for helping decide on I5, mate!


The 4670k isn't 10% better...it's barely 5% better at some things.

As I said, there isn't an i5 on the planet that beats the 8350 at most things.

The i7's can...but then, they're 2x the cost of the 8350.

Waste your money if you want, it's your money after all. Though the 8350 > 4670k.


Well, it's not my problem really, I got I7-4770 so I don't care, really.

I'm going with what is best and most reasonably priced and at the moment I7-4770 non-K tray is pretty cheap.

But in the end - I5-4670 is simply superior to FX-8350. It is evident from the CPU marks on just about every I5-4670 review out there.

This thread is pointless, why would someone chose a year old CPU from a failed line instead of the latest from greatest.


Because the latest isn't "greatest"...and FX is not a failed line. I suppose there's no reasoning with fanboys though...think what you want. When all the new PC Ports are using 8 cores and your 4 core Intel can't keep up...I will be there to say "I told you so..." I'll make sure of that.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:23:19 AM

hafijur said:
I already proved this to you. If you did the same bvenchmark I doubt it would use more then 30% of the cpu power. ocz vertex one vs 2 is like 8x the speed thats why the fx8350 wins by 8x.
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG...
If I wanted to I could fine even a new basic single core celeron beat the fx8350 by a bigger margin on the same thing.


No, the difference between those 2 SSDs isn't 8x...in fact the improvement was about 30% over the older model in read speed, the write speeds are the same too, by the way. How do you account for that?

That means that if you extrapolate that your logic is accurate, then the 8350 is *ONLY* 3x better at that same benchmark.

It's got nothing to do with SSD speed.
Score
0
September 27, 2013 8:30:05 AM

8350rocks said:
Unknown-bjorn said:
8350rocks said:
Gaidax said:
Go with Intel, really, AMD simply has nothing on Intel at this point, especially not fx8350.

It does not matter that AMD has "eight coarrzz" it's single core performance is abysmal and all these stupid stories about console games optimized for whatever it is are not realizing simple fact that they are optimized for console CPU's which are a different architecture than FX8350 to begin with, despite being from the same vendor.

New gen console CPU's are weak 8 cores running at sub 2GHZ with architecture focused on power efficiency (since you can't stick 600w PSU in a damn console!), so desktop I5 will easily pass whatever BF4 requires CPU-wise and I5 is a CPU which is tested and reviewed endlessly to be superior to FX8350 in just about anything and equal in multi-threading just because every core of I5 is much more powerful than that of FX8350 and the architecture is superior as well.

So in the end, what I say is - I5 will be better in 95% of the cases and then MAYBE FX8350 will be better in 5% remaining and even that by laughable margin.

Heck, all the AMD crusaders should go on and show us a benchmark where FX8350 is superior to I5-4670k, let numbers talk, right? All I see so far is just them saying some hypothetical things based on thin air.

And then there is another consideration - I5 Haswells use a new LGA1150 socket which will also be used for the next gen Broadwell CPU's, so you will be able to upgrade your CPU in the long run without switching MB, memory and power supply.

Conclusion - get I5.


Actually, they're 8 cores running ~2.0-2.4 GHz.

XBone is expected to be about 2.0 GHz, and PS4 is expected to be clocked slightly higher.

Also, you have no clue what you're talking about. I am a game developer, and you couldn't give me an Intel CPU at this point. Games are ALL being developed toward AMD architecture now. You may not like it, but the status quo is going to change...


You may be a game developer but not all games are good for the fact that some developers dont know what they are doing. So go on GOOGLE and look are comparisons between the two CPUS and tell me when your done that you finally saw how even the older 3570k beats it EVERY TIME. And the 4670k is even newer so its even better!


You're wrong...the 3570k doesn't beat it EVERY TIME. In fact it loses in anything that uses 4 or more threads...REGULARLY.

Maybe you should use Google more often.

Look at encoding, encryption, rendering, compression, streaming, editing. As you go through, you can spot the programs that use 4 or more threads easily...the 8350 ALWAYS wins on those.

Gosh, I just don't know how on earth that 8350 would hold up compared to the 3570k...since you say it's *SO* superior and all. What on earth is AMD going to do with such a superior chip to compete with? I guess they can't win a benchmark at all huh? /sarcasm

You should thank your lucky stars I am not in the mood to chase down Linux benchmarks...want to see the 8350 make the 3930k look stupid? Try looking at some of those...

Here's one to give you an idea though...

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLA...

Point made yet? I hope so...

DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT???


No i dont see the light as this subjetc is about games not ur damn encoding and weird stuff. In the games it barely wins and when it does it by 1 or half an fps. DAMN ITS SO AMAZING EVERYONE PLEASE BUY THE AMD FOR GAMING because its barely ever 1 fps up!!!!!! wow arent we impressed. Not to mention that the 8350 NEEDS 8 cores to BARELY beat the i5 with 4 CORES!!! Can u imagine if the i5 was overclocked to the 8350? would be even better! AND OH YES the 8350 ALSO has a higher clock and more cores.. yet it barely ever beats the i5.... how shame that ur such a fan boy. I Just want the best i can get.. screw the brand i want preformance.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:33:10 AM

hafijur said:
But if the 4 cores are as fast why would they not keep up. AMD cpus can't even keep up now hence many websites have i3's ahead of an fx8350 at gaming performance. To be honest most games nowadays hyoerthreaded dual cores are enough. Only reason for i5's are high end gpu setup in extremely cpu demanding games and stioll the i5 copes.


No, Intel cores aren't that much faster than AMD cores that Intel makes up for the core count advantage. It doesn't happen.

Even the 4670k doesn't beat the 8350 at highly threaded workloads. The FX line has *less* single threaded performance, but it isn't terrible. They really make it up in heavily threaded workloads though.

Also, any website that rates an i3, of any kind, ahead of the 8350 in gaming is basing that off Tetris benchmarks or some other ridiculous game that doesn't take any resources to run.

Look at all the newest titles...the 8350 outpaces *NEARLY* any i5 in almost any game. The top end k series from IB and "hasfail" line are *BARELY* better typically, if they're not actually worse. In Crysis 3, the 8350 runs better average FPS than the 3570k, for example.

So, if the i3 is better than the 8350, and the 8350 beats the 3570k in Crysis 3...is the i3 better than the 3570k? Clearly not...

Additionally, if you look at benchmarks for BF3 and Crysis 3 and many other games, the i3 lags behind the i5 line, and the 8350 is usually right at the top of the i5s and running with the k series i5s and i7s in games.

EDIT: AMD is a *LOT* better than you give them credit for man...
Score
0
September 27, 2013 8:43:42 AM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
But if the 4 cores are as fast why would they not keep up. AMD cpus can't even keep up now hence many websites have i3's ahead of an fx8350 at gaming performance. To be honest most games nowadays hyoerthreaded dual cores are enough. Only reason for i5's are high end gpu setup in extremely cpu demanding games and stioll the i5 copes.


No, Intel cores aren't that much faster than AMD cores that Intel makes up for the core count advantage. It doesn't happen.

Even the 4670k doesn't beat the 8350 at highly threaded workloads. The FX line has *less* single threaded performance, but it isn't terrible. They really make it up in heavily threaded workloads though.

Also, any website that rates an i3, of any kind, ahead of the 8350 in gaming is basing that off Tetris benchmarks or some other ridiculous game that doesn't take any resources to run.

Look at all the newest titles...the 8350 outpaces *NEARLY* any i5 in almost any game. The top end k series from IB and "hasfail" line are *BARELY* better typically, if they're not actually worse. In Crysis 3, the 8350 runs better average FPS than the 3570k, for example.

So, if the i3 is better than the 8350, and the 8350 beats the 3570k in Crysis 3...is the i3 better than the 3570k? Clearly not...

Additionally, if you look at benchmarks for BF3 and Crysis 3 and many other games, the i3 lags behind the i5 line, and the 8350 is usually right at the top of the i5s and running with the k series i5s and i7s in games.

EDIT: AMD is a *LOT* better than you give them credit for man...


U tell us that its impossible to reason with a fan boy? OMW look at ur own name?????!!!!! 8350rocks... wow who's the fan boy here? and it says on ur profile that ur an AMD advocate.. and then give more credit to i5s for what u do because they are better and YOU are the only 1 here defending the 8350. Give it up bro and open ur eyes to the knew future. I know AMD is good I never said they are shiz. I have my respects for it and i understand it handles multithreaded work loads better. But in gaming the i5 wins.. thats just how it is.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:44:12 AM

hafijur said:
Its no suprise that intel cpus are twice as fast per core and with haswell 2.1x faster per core at same clock speed compared to piledriver. Gimp, superpi all shows this. Anyway AMD went the wrong route that requires high ghz high core count cpu to basically sabotage the cpu in all round performance due to modular design. To be honest virtually everyone would be buying an fx8320 or fx8350 if intel were really that slow with 4 cores but the reality is its similar multithreaded but per core performance means its a better all round cpu.

I remember lavcopricetech showing 12000mb's for fx8350 vs 22000mb's for intel cpu which shows intels double memory bandwidth with new memory controller.

BF4 will work fine on both fx8350 and 4670k it should be neck and neck average fps but there will be less fluidity in gameplay with fx8350.


Not in heavily threaded workloads. In BF4 multiplayer...you'll see the differences come out. Watch and see...
Score
0
a c 680 à CPUs
a c 122 À AMD
a b å Intel
September 27, 2013 8:45:38 AM

Intel was winning Super Pi even when Athlon 64's were kicking crapburst P4's ass all over the place. It is a horrible benchmark for AMD and always will be.
Score
0
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 27, 2013 8:48:42 AM

Unknown-bjorn said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
But if the 4 cores are as fast why would they not keep up. AMD cpus can't even keep up now hence many websites have i3's ahead of an fx8350 at gaming performance. To be honest most games nowadays hyoerthreaded dual cores are enough. Only reason for i5's are high end gpu setup in extremely cpu demanding games and stioll the i5 copes.


No, Intel cores aren't that much faster than AMD cores that Intel makes up for the core count advantage. It doesn't happen.

Even the 4670k doesn't beat the 8350 at highly threaded workloads. The FX line has *less* single threaded performance, but it isn't terrible. They really make it up in heavily threaded workloads though.

Also, any website that rates an i3, of any kind, ahead of the 8350 in gaming is basing that off Tetris benchmarks or some other ridiculous game that doesn't take any resources to run.

Look at all the newest titles...the 8350 outpaces *NEARLY* any i5 in almost any game. The top end k series from IB and "hasfail" line are *BARELY* better typically, if they're not actually worse. In Crysis 3, the 8350 runs better average FPS than the 3570k, for example.

So, if the i3 is better than the 8350, and the 8350 beats the 3570k in Crysis 3...is the i3 better than the 3570k? Clearly not...

Additionally, if you look at benchmarks for BF3 and Crysis 3 and many other games, the i3 lags behind the i5 line, and the 8350 is usually right at the top of the i5s and running with the k series i5s and i7s in games.

EDIT: AMD is a *LOT* better than you give them credit for man...


U tell us that its impossible to reason with a fan boy? OMW look at ur own name?????!!!!! 8350rocks... wow who's the fan boy here? and it says on ur profile that ur an AMD advocate.. and then give more credit to i5s for what u do because they are better and YOU are the only 1 here defending the 8350. Give it up bro and open ur eyes to the knew future. I know AMD is good I never said they are shiz. I have my respects for it and i understand it handles multithreaded work loads better. But in gaming the i5 wins.. thats just how it is.


Screen names have nothing to do with the price of goats in Africa.

Also, the AMD advocate badge is for answering AMD related questions on this forum.

I also am only 1 shy of answering Intel questions too for that badge.

I give the i5 credit where it is due. However, the i5 is not "best"...far from it in fact.

Also, for gaming, the i5 doesn't always beat the 8350. Even the 4670k can't match the 8350 in workloads that exceed 4 threads. I proved that handily on the last page.
Score
0
September 27, 2013 8:55:01 AM

8350rocks said:
Unknown-bjorn said:
8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
But if the 4 cores are as fast why would they not keep up. AMD cpus can't even keep up now hence many websites have i3's ahead of an fx8350 at gaming performance. To be honest most games nowadays hyoerthreaded dual cores are enough. Only reason for i5's are high end gpu setup in extremely cpu demanding games and stioll the i5 copes.


No, Intel cores aren't that much faster than AMD cores that Intel makes up for the core count advantage. It doesn't happen.

Even the 4670k doesn't beat the 8350 at highly threaded workloads. The FX line has *less* single threaded performance, but it isn't terrible. They really make it up in heavily threaded workloads though.

Also, any website that rates an i3, of any kind, ahead of the 8350 in gaming is basing that off Tetris benchmarks or some other ridiculous game that doesn't take any resources to run.

Look at all the newest titles...the 8350 outpaces *NEARLY* any i5 in almost any game. The top end k series from IB and "hasfail" line are *BARELY* better typically, if they're not actually worse. In Crysis 3, the 8350 runs better average FPS than the 3570k, for example.

So, if the i3 is better than the 8350, and the 8350 beats the 3570k in Crysis 3...is the i3 better than the 3570k? Clearly not...

Additionally, if you look at benchmarks for BF3 and Crysis 3 and many other games, the i3 lags behind the i5 line, and the 8350 is usually right at the top of the i5s and running with the k series i5s and i7s in games.

EDIT: AMD is a *LOT* better than you give them credit for man...


U tell us that its impossible to reason with a fan boy? OMW look at ur own name?????!!!!! 8350rocks... wow who's the fan boy here? and it says on ur profile that ur an AMD advocate.. and then give more credit to i5s for what u do because they are better and YOU are the only 1 here defending the 8350. Give it up bro and open ur eyes to the knew future. I know AMD is good I never said they are shiz. I have my respects for it and i understand it handles multithreaded work loads better. But in gaming the i5 wins.. thats just how it is.


Screen names have nothing to do with the price of goats in Africa.

Also, the AMD advocate badge is for answering AMD related questions on this forum.

I also am only 1 shy of answering Intel questions too for that badge.

I give the i5 credit where it is due. However, the i5 is not "best"...far from it in fact.

Also, for gaming, the i5 doesn't always beat the 8350. Even the 4670k can't match the 8350 in workloads that exceed 4 threads. I proved that handily on the last page.


I love how you think ur so smart. We dont deal with goats here in South Afica /: I know ur primitive brain likes to think such useless things but anyway thats you. Just like u dont give up about ur 8350 when its quite "handily" beaten 10 times over and u fail to see this. I just went looking through other posts about AMD 8350 vs 3570 or 4670 and noticed how every1 just wanted to use the i5 and recommend the i5 and how many times it got voted higher. like i said in my other post, The amd has 8 cores and a higher frequency yet it barely keeps up? imagine i overclock my i5 to the amd's how much better it will be. BRAIN STORM
Score
0
!