Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

i5 4570 or AMD FX-8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 1, 2013 9:38:05 PM

Which one will be better for gaming and just normal everyday use. Also which one will last longer as I don't plan to upgrade a whole lot. If you need any more information then I will provide some. Thanks.

More about : 4570 amd 8350

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 12:35:49 AM

davefowler said:
"AMD FX-8350 is massively better than the Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz when it comes to running the latest games."
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=...

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707031/4570-835...


This is so far incorrect that i don't even know where to start.....i5 will out perform an FX-8350 blow for blow, time after time, unless under these following conditions:

1. You have programs that run on 5+ cores (I do have 2, which is why I chose this processor)
2. You are editing video/music, and need the extra cores as a buffer.
3. You are on a budget.

Intel i5 will blow the FX-8350 out of the water 0 to 100 every time when it comes to gaming, the reason why this is true, is because the i5 is a quad core and usually (not always) has a higher base rate of GHz then the FX-8350. Also this is true because most games and 95% of applications have trouble utilizing all 4 cores much less 8. That being said the i5 is a quad core, and does not have to push around 4 extra cores. Yes it is true that the new argiculture in AMD technology processors (FX-8xxx series+) have the ability to use there extra cores to smooth out the performance of the other cores being used, however the i5 is standard for gaming and will be for a long time to come. Intel will always blow AMD in performance and gaming, AMD will only be better then Intel for applications (5+ cores) and video/music editing/rendering. Intel i7's while they may only have 4 real cores they are 4 (split) hyper-threaded cores, which means for every core it has 2 threads, thus giving the impression it is an 8-core but it really isn't. Same thing here i7's will dominate the FX series 10 to 1 on performance and gaming, but not multi-threaded (5+ core) programs. On any multi-threaded programs that utilize 1-4 cores the Intels will always have the upper hand. I really hope you learn from what I am saying. I hope this helps at least a little bit. Please feel free to contact me about any other questions/concerns you may have in the future. Also please remember to pick your best solution so other people may learn from your thread. Thank you for your time, and have a good day.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 3:27:20 AM

ddbtkd456 said:
davefowler said:
"AMD FX-8350 is massively better than the Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz when it comes to running the latest games."
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=...

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707031/4570-835...


This is so far incorrect that i don't even know where to start.....i5 will out perform an FX-8350 blow for blow, time after time, unless under these following conditions:

1. You have programs that run on 5+ cores (I do have 2, which is why I chose this processor)
2. You are editing video/music, and need the extra cores as a buffer.
3. You are on a budget.

Intel i5 will blow the FX-8350 out of the water 0 to 100 every time when it comes to gaming, the reason why this is true, is because the i5 is a quad core and usually (not always) has a higher base rate of GHz then the FX-8350. Also this is true because most games and 95% of applications have trouble utilizing all 4 cores much less 8. That being said the i5 is a quad core, and does not have to push around 4 extra cores. Yes it is true that the new argiculture in AMD technology processors (FX-8xxx series+) have the ability to use there extra cores to smooth out the performance of the other cores being used, however the i5 is standard for gaming and will be for a long time to come. Intel will always blow AMD in performance and gaming, AMD will only be better then Intel for applications (5+ cores) and video/music editing/rendering. Intel i7's while they may only have 4 real cores they are 4 (split) hyper-threaded cores, which means for every core it has 2 threads, thus giving the impression it is an 8-core but it really isn't. Same thing here i7's will dominate the FX series 10 to 1 on performance and gaming, but not multi-threaded (5+ core) programs. On any multi-threaded programs that utilize 1-4 cores the Intels will always have the upper hand. I really hope you learn from what I am saying. I hope this helps at least a little bit. Please feel free to contact me about any other questions/concerns you may have in the future. Also please remember to pick your best solution so other people may learn from your thread. Thank you for your time, and have a good day.


I agree. Intel is always best. (most of the time)

The 4570 is good. But i would say pay the extra 40$ and get the 4670k which is great in gaming. And also maybe a CM 212 Evo.
Score
0
October 2, 2013 4:36:26 AM

fruitcakehater said:
Which one will be better for gaming and just normal everyday use. Also which one will last longer as I don't plan to upgrade a whole lot. If you need any more information then I will provide some. Thanks.


ddbtkd456 said:
davefowler said:
"AMD FX-8350 is massively better than the Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz when it comes to running the latest games."
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=...

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707031/4570-835...


This is so far incorrect that i don't even know where to start.....i5 will out perform an FX-8350 blow for blow, time after time, unless under these following conditions:

1. You have programs that run on 5+ cores (I do have 2, which is why I chose this processor)
2. You are editing video/music, and need the extra cores as a buffer.
3. You are on a budget.

Intel i5 will blow the FX-8350 out of the water 0 to 100 every time when it comes to gaming, the reason why this is true, is because the i5 is a quad core and usually (not always) has a higher base rate of GHz then the FX-8350. Also this is true because most games and 95% of applications have trouble utilizing all 4 cores much less 8. That being said the i5 is a quad core, and does not have to push around 4 extra cores. Yes it is true that the new argiculture in AMD technology processors (FX-8xxx series+) have the ability to use there extra cores to smooth out the performance of the other cores being used, however the i5 is standard for gaming and will be for a long time to come. Intel will always blow AMD in performance and gaming, AMD will only be better then Intel for applications (5+ cores) and video/music editing/rendering. Intel i7's while they may only have 4 real cores they are 4 (split) hyper-threaded cores, which means for every core it has 2 threads, thus giving the impression it is an 8-core but it really isn't. Same thing here i7's will dominate the FX series 10 to 1 on performance and gaming, but not multi-threaded (5+ core) programs. On any multi-threaded programs that utilize 1-4 cores the Intels will always have the upper hand. I really hope you learn from what I am saying. I hope this helps at least a little bit. Please feel free to contact me about any other questions/concerns you may have in the future. Also please remember to pick your best solution so other people may learn from your thread. Thank you for your time, and have a good day.


Get the 6350 and invest in a GPU, which will almost completely decide your frame rate. You can even go lower with the 4350, no games use 6 or 8 cores. But hey, if you have one, or have a massively large budget, intel is always nice. Just remember that intel chipsets and CPUs are so much more expensive. So calculate your price and leave 150-250$ for a GPU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 8:29:45 AM

I have the 4570 and will continue to advocate for it. I can't speak for the 8350 as I've never had experience with it, supposedly it performs similar to the i5's in most games.

The 4570 is nearly as fast as the 4670k at stock and because I have no intentions of OCing, I saved about $50 between the CPU and mobo combo on my build. Money I spent more wisely on a stronger GPU.

If you're not planning to OC, stock for stock, go with the 4570 as it will out perform the 8350 in most applications and games. Not by a landslide, but it will.

If you're planning to OC, go with the 8350 as the 4570 cannot be OC'd, or go with the 4670K.

Don't let the 4-cores of the i5 worry you for future relevancy. They will still be plenty fast for many years to come.

Comparing number of cores and clock speeds is not the end of the story. What's more important is the architecture and efficiency of core performance. You must also take into account the specific application as it may be processed faster by one CPU type over another.

The truth is not always black and white. ;) 
Score
3
a c 555 4 Gaming
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 8:49:05 AM

Of the two, and for gaming in particular, here I'd go with the 8350 for longevity, it will OC and if so inclined to do so will prob keep you happier longer, though I would go along with others and suggest a few more dollars towards a 4670K or possibly even better (and costs less a 3570K which will outrun the 8350 clock for clock in everything but rendering, also with it, can pick up an outstanding mobo the Z77 Rock Extreme 4 for about $115 and spend the savings towards a better GPU or other components
Score
0
a c 555 4 Gaming
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 9:52:00 AM

When I mention longevity, I am trying to look forward to more CPU intensive games, more utilization of cores, the 4570 is a speed demon compared to the 8350 in single core apps, but the move in games is to utilize more cores, the 8350 (somewhat surprisingly) is also a little better when running memory intensive games, which I also expect to see more of....now if talking the 4670K, it would be no contest, the 4670K would be best hands down
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 10:31:08 AM

hafijur said:
Tradesman1 theres no reason to get the fx8350 for gaming, the i5 4570 will easily beat it and last longer for gaming in future.
i5 4570 at stock beats an fx8350 at 5ghz on bf4:
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/10/bf...

I have an i5 4430 and its superfast cpu with a gtx670 and most games run maxed out 60fps. Now an i5 4570 will be very close to the fx8350 multithreaded performance wise and per core performance being 2.1x better and the i5 4570 with turboboost for all 4 cores running at 3.4ghz will be equivalent performance to an amd piledriver 8 core cpu at around 3.8ghz. So theres barely any difference performance wise multithreaded, you will notice more the per core performance and memory bandwidth of the intel cpu for gaming.


Just a minor correction, the 4570 turbo clock is 3.6. ;)  (base clock is 3.2)

Tradesman1 said:
When I mention longevity, I am trying to look forward to more CPU intensive games, more utilization of cores, the 4570 is a speed demon compared to the 8350 in single core apps, but the move in games is to utilize more cores, the 8350 (somewhat surprisingly) is also a little better when running memory intensive games, which I also expect to see more of....now if talking the 4670K, it would be no contest, the 4670K would be best hands down


It's not as simple as "this app uses more cores and therefore an 8-core cpu will be faster and a 4 core will be slower and become obsolete."

You have to consider per-core performance. A CPU that has twice the per-core performance will not need as many cores to chew through the same amount of work in the same amount of time. So Intel's 4-core parts are VERY FAR from going extinct.

There are some exceptions where AMD's 8 core CPU's excel, however the performance gap between them and the i5's is marginal at best.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 10:33:47 AM

hafijur said:
Tradesman1 theres no reason to get the fx8350 for gaming, the i5 4570 will easily beat it and last longer for gaming in future.
i5 4570 at stock beats an fx8350 at 5ghz on bf4:
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/10/bf...

I have an i5 4430 and its superfast cpu with a gtx670 and most games run maxed out 60fps. Now an i5 4570 will be very close to the fx8350 multithreaded performance wise and per core performance being 2.1x better and the i5 4570 with turboboost for all 4 cores running at 3.4ghz will be equivalent performance to an amd piledriver 8 core cpu at around 3.8ghz. So theres barely any difference performance wise multithreaded, you will notice more the per core performance and memory bandwidth of the intel cpu for gaming.


BF4 Beta benchmarks confirm, AMD performs well in next gen games, even better than Intel i5s in many circumstances. Though, in all fairness, BF4 multiplayer is confirmed to run 7 threads.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 10:35:30 AM

TechAdvancment said:


Get the 6350 and invest in a GPU, which will almost completely decide your frame rate. You can even go lower with the 4350, no games use 6 or 8 cores. But hey, if you have one, or have a massively large budget, intel is always nice. Just remember that intel chipsets and CPUs are so much more expensive. So calculate your price and leave 150-250$ for a GPU.


FX 6300 would be a better option. FX 6350 is just a factory overclocked FX 6300. For i5 class performance though, FX 8320 is the way to go. FX 63xx, heavily overclocked, still is under a 3570k @ stock speed.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 10:39:32 AM

hafijur said:
ddbtkd456
An i5 haswell 4 core vs an amd fx 8 core piledrivr cpu both at same clock speed the haswell will beat it at multithreaded stuff most of the time so what you wrote is false. AMD need all 8 cores at a 10% higher clock speed to match intel 4 cores at a 10% lower clock speed. Look at user reviews of i5's you will see they are amazed by the performance. I even have an i5 4430 and its very fast.


Also please do not correct me without fully reading what I said, if you understand and fully read what i said then you may correct me, your statement however reflects that you did not fully read what i said. Multithreaded programs that utilize (5+ cores only) will beat the i5. This is proven since the i5 has to double load every core to run a program that can only use 5+ cores. Please do your homework before you correct someone that has been running both an i5, an i7, an FX-8350, and a AM A6 for a long time now. Thank you and have a nice day.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 10:52:47 AM

Multi-threaded yes, multi-cored no. There is a difference between thread and core, you know. The main difference is a thread is a fake core, and a core is a real core. Please pm me if you want to continue this discussion as I will not allow it to happen on someone else's thread due to respect issues, you should really think before you open an argument on someone else's thread, especially since he just wants a simple question answered. @Trademan I do agree with your statement however Intel would be the FX-8350 hands down, however both are great processor's in their own unique way.
Score
0
October 2, 2013 12:28:27 PM

ddbtkd456 said:
Multi-threaded yes, multi-cored no. There is a difference between thread and core, you know. The main difference is a thread is a fake core, and a core is a real core. Please pm me if you want to continue this discussion as I will not allow it to happen on someone else's thread due to respect issues, you should really think before you open an argument on someone else's thread, especially since he just wants a simple question answered. @Trademan I do agree with your statement however Intel would be the FX-8350 hands down, however both are great processor's in their own unique way.


True, but if hes on a strict budget, please don't waste all your money on a intel. Yes, I'm an AMD fanboy, and I will admit Intel is 20 times better, but a GPU is of much more concern than the CPU. By all means if you can buy 500 dollars in CPUs and GPUs go for it, but put a bit more money in a GPU. Sure, you don't want to bottleneck it, but a 100$ processor and a 250$ GPU beat out a 400$ CPU and integrated graphics. No need to argue, but you don't REALLY need intel for gaming, nor do you need AMD's overclocking/core abilities.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:05:51 PM

TechAdvancment said:
ddbtkd456 said:
Multi-threaded yes, multi-cored no. There is a difference between thread and core, you know. The main difference is a thread is a fake core, and a core is a real core. Please pm me if you want to continue this discussion as I will not allow it to happen on someone else's thread due to respect issues, you should really think before you open an argument on someone else's thread, especially since he just wants a simple question answered. @Trademan I do agree with your statement however Intel would be the FX-8350 hands down, however both are great processor's in their own unique way.


True, but if hes on a strict budget, please don't waste all your money on a intel. Yes, I'm an AMD fanboy, and I will admit Intel is 20 times better, but a GPU is of much more concern than the CPU. By all means if you can buy 500 dollars in CPUs and GPUs go for it, but put a bit more money in a GPU. Sure, you don't want to bottleneck it, but a 100$ processor and a 250$ GPU beat out a 400$ CPU and integrated graphics. No need to argue, but you don't REALLY need intel for gaming, nor do you need AMD's overclocking/core abilities.


+1 Very well said. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:10:55 PM

MEC-777 said:
TechAdvancment said:
ddbtkd456 said:
Multi-threaded yes, multi-cored no. There is a difference between thread and core, you know. The main difference is a thread is a fake core, and a core is a real core. Please pm me if you want to continue this discussion as I will not allow it to happen on someone else's thread due to respect issues, you should really think before you open an argument on someone else's thread, especially since he just wants a simple question answered. @Trademan I do agree with your statement however Intel would be the FX-8350 hands down, however both are great processor's in their own unique way.


True, but if hes on a strict budget, please don't waste all your money on a intel. Yes, I'm an AMD fanboy, and I will admit Intel is 20 times better, but a GPU is of much more concern than the CPU. By all means if you can buy 500 dollars in CPUs and GPUs go for it, but put a bit more money in a GPU. Sure, you don't want to bottleneck it, but a 100$ processor and a 250$ GPU beat out a 400$ CPU and integrated graphics. No need to argue, but you don't REALLY need intel for gaming, nor do you need AMD's overclocking/core abilities.


+1 Very well said. :) 


hey mec, Quick question. Would an i5 4670k Bottleneck a gigabyte 7950 or Vise Versa?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:13:20 PM

You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:27:57 PM

logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:30:56 PM

Mirakledba said:

hey mec, Quick question. Would an i5 4670k Bottleneck a gigabyte 7950 or Vise Versa?


Not at all. The 4570 even would run two 7950's easily.

Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:33:29 PM

Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


I would wait for AMD's next gen cards that are supposed to be out in like 2 weeks.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:34:40 PM

logainofhades said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


I would wait for AMD's next gen cards that are supposed to be out in like 2 weeks.


Nope. 6 days :)  I am waiting but i hope they arent pricey...http://www.techpowerup.com/191839/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270...

will ALL 3 of them be 300$ or is that the high end one?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:34:51 PM

Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:56:43 PM

MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...


So you say its better to get the 7950 and not the 7970? Well, In 6 days we will see, lets hope your speculations are wrong and they will be fast and cheap xD when they release ill talk to you about it.
Score
0
October 2, 2013 2:46:56 PM

Mirakledba said:
MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...


So you say its better to get the 7950 and not the 7970? Well, In 6 days we will see, lets hope your speculations are wrong and they will be fast and cheap xD when they release ill talk to you about it.

Whats your PSU?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 2:49:51 PM

TechAdvancment said:
Mirakledba said:
MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...


So you say its better to get the 7950 and not the 7970? Well, In 6 days we will see, lets hope your speculations are wrong and they will be fast and cheap xD when they release ill talk to you about it.

What is your PSU?


its an OZC fatality 750w http://pcpartpicker.com/part/zalman-cpu-cooler-cnps9900...
Its overkill so that its safe for future upgrades.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 8:44:56 PM

Mirakledba said:
MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...


So you say its better to get the 7950 and not the 7970? Well, In 6 days we will see, lets hope your speculations are wrong and they will be fast and cheap xD when they release ill talk to you about it.


No, I meant go for a 7970 if you can afford it. But if you can't, then the 7950 or GTX 760 would both be excellent choices.

Also, what I was trying to say is that one of the new AMD cards is a rebranded 7950 with a few updates and tweaks. But I'm not sure which model it is... R9-270 or 270X I believe it's one of those. They should be a bit faster than the 7950, but will probably cost as much as the current generation 7970, is what I was trying to say. ;) 

Confused yet? lol :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 9:06:27 PM

hafijur said:
MEC-777 i5 4570 with 4 cores turbos to 3.4ghz and 3.6ghz is I believe single core. Anyway as a fellow i5 owner I know that it will handle a high end gpu well.


Actually, it turbos beyond 3.6 on all 4 cores. Here's proof: ;) 



Just fired up Crysis 2 and took this screenshot. Note, my rig is totally stock. I have not tweaked anything. Temps are totally within safe limits using the stock Intel cooler as well.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2013 12:14:15 AM

MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
MEC-777 said:
Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


There are some 7970's out there in the $270 range which would be WELL worth it. Otherwise, go for a 7950 or GTX 760.

I have the Gigabyte windforce 7950 you have selected. Awesome card I must say. ;) 

I'm not sure which of the new AMD GPU's is the equivalent (rebranded) version of the 7950, but it will probably be more expensive and most likely not a whole lot faster. But that's just me speculating...


So you say its better to get the 7950 and not the 7970? Well, In 6 days we will see, lets hope your speculations are wrong and they will be fast and cheap xD when they release ill talk to you about it.


No, I meant go for a 7970 if you can afford it. But if you can't, then the 7950 or GTX 760 would both be excellent choices.

Also, what I was trying to say is that one of the new AMD cards is a rebranded 7950 with a few updates and tweaks. But I'm not sure which model it is... R9-270 or 270X I believe it's one of those. They should be a bit faster than the 7950, but will probably cost as much as the current generation 7970, is what I was trying to say. ;) 

Confused yet? lol :D 

Thanks
Score
0
December 7, 2013 8:50:35 AM

So many fanboys with what they believe to be better or not better than the other. Whoever the knucklehead was that said the Intel would blow the FX-8350 out of the water is no way a true factual statement. Put your *FANBOY MENTALITY* aside and educate yourself on the architect of both chips used in comparison as well as real world test/results. With that said, looking at these chips in debate the Intel will perform better with single core applications and the AMD will perform better in Multi threaded applications. Does not matter if its 2, 4 or 8 cores the 8350 will perform better most of the time. Intel has always focused on incredible single core performance, so when your running an app or game that only utilizes such a thing the Intel will perform better. Intel has just under 50% more performance in single threaded apps and the AMD has just under 10% better performance in multi threaded apps. There both about equal in price and offer a great experience. You really can't go wrong with either. Good luck and have a great day. ~Steve

P.S. Stop the fanboy shit people!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2013 12:35:16 AM

Wow thanks for the answers! I think the 4670k is better for gaming and the 8350 is better for editing....true?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2013 12:37:28 AM

8350rocks said:
hafijur said:
Tradesman1 theres no reason to get the fx8350 for gaming, the i5 4570 will easily beat it and last longer for gaming in future.
i5 4570 at stock beats an fx8350 at 5ghz on bf4:
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/10/bf...

I have an i5 4430 and its superfast cpu with a gtx670 and most games run maxed out 60fps. Now an i5 4570 will be very close to the fx8350 multithreaded performance wise and per core performance being 2.1x better and the i5 4570 with turboboost for all 4 cores running at 3.4ghz will be equivalent performance to an amd piledriver 8 core cpu at around 3.8ghz. So theres barely any difference performance wise multithreaded, you will notice more the per core performance and memory bandwidth of the intel cpu for gaming.


BF4 Beta benchmarks confirm, AMD performs well in next gen games, even better than Intel i5s in many circumstances. Though, in all fairness, BF4 multiplayer is confirmed to run 7 threads.


dude...your username..I am sorry but im not taking information with you because you are clearly a fanboy :/ 

Score
0
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2013 12:38:05 AM

BTW GUYS I BOUGHT THE I5 4670K like 2 WEEKS AGO....
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2013 1:43:13 AM

Mirakledba said:
BTW GUYS I BOUGHT THE I5 4670K like 2 WEEKS AGO....


That is no fanboyism, and that you should open your eyes, with new game engines out, fx 8350 will be superior to any i5 including i5 4670k, you know that if hyper-threading started, fx 8350 would edge with i7-3770k and probably edges with i7 4770k, I have got a question at hand
1- why does Ubisoft say its next engine needs i7-3770k or fx 8350 to run in ultra settings!? why don't we see any i5 for even recommended settings http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga...
2: When Capcom says its new engine ,which will be used in resident evil 5, next devil may cry and dozens of Capcom games for the next, uses the full potential of i7-3770k, perhaps is not kidding, which is altogether perfect news for fx owners and specially fx83-- http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132533/sponsored_...
3: When Epic talks about its new engine Unreal engine 4, and says it needs as many cores as possible, so you should stop to think, and elaborate the meanings of this sentence http://www.shacknews.com/article/70348/epic-talks-unrea...
So perhaps we should get used to seeing benchmarks as this one http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/...

Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2013 1:48:18 AM

I don't want to speak about doom and gloom, hands down if this happened as it has been said, fx 8350 will be better than any i5 no analogy here, and instead of calling people fanboys, some had better stop talking and read more...I have other news about Id Software's new engine and also Konami's next engine, I can't publish them, since confirmation is needed...There was also a guy who published PCLAB.PL's benchmarks!! dude I am polish my self, this web site, sells Nvidia and Intel parts in Poland, it wants to sell more, no one even in Poland cares for this web sites jokes, It is a pain people in England consider them as authentic :lol: 
Score
0
May 3, 2014 12:32:56 PM

davefowler said:
"AMD FX-8350 is massively better than the Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz when it comes to running the latest games."
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=...

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707031/4570-835...


Not sure where you are getting your information, but even the i3-4340 will out perform the 8350 in 1080p game play when paired with a 280X. Here are some actual benchmarks. I would personally go with a 4570 considering they are almost the same price and the socket 1150 upgrade path is so much better. But here is the review, http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/1...

Score
0
May 21, 2014 4:12:27 AM

Amen brother

Score
0
June 11, 2014 12:25:39 PM

Mirakledba said:
logainofhades said:
You would not bottleneck that GPU with that CPU. You could run 2 of them in CF and still be fine.

so what GPU would u suggest for a good balance for say 259$ or 265$ MAX?


Intel AND Nvidia Runs ok together, But AMD and AMD is a perfect match for gaming and editing ;) 
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
June 11, 2014 1:39:39 PM

:p 
Score
2
June 11, 2014 5:16:28 PM

ddbtkd456 said:
davefowler said:
"AMD FX-8350 is massively better than the Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz when it comes to running the latest games."
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1194&pid2=...

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707031/4570-835...


This is so far incorrect that i don't even know where to start.....i5 will out perform an FX-8350 blow for blow, time after time, unless under these following conditions:

1. You have programs that run on 5+ cores (I do have 2, which is why I chose this processor)
2. You are editing video/music, and need the extra cores as a buffer.
3. You are on a budget.

Intel i5 will blow the FX-8350 out of the water 0 to 100 every time when it comes to gaming, the reason why this is true, is because the i5 is a quad core and usually (not always) has a higher base rate of GHz then the FX-8350. Also this is true because most games and 95% of applications have trouble utilizing all 4 cores much less 8. That being said the i5 is a quad core, and does not have to push around 4 extra cores. Yes it is true that the new argiculture in AMD technology processors (FX-8xxx series+) have the ability to use there extra cores to smooth out the performance of the other cores being used, however the i5 is standard for gaming and will be for a long time to come. Intel will always blow AMD in performance and gaming, AMD will only be better then Intel for applications (5+ cores) and video/music editing/rendering. Intel i7's while they may only have 4 real cores they are 4 (split) hyper-threaded cores, which means for every core it has 2 threads, thus giving the impression it is an 8-core but it really isn't. Same thing here i7's will dominate the FX series 10 to 1 on performance and gaming, but not multi-threaded (5+ core) programs. On any multi-threaded programs that utilize 1-4 cores the Intels will always have the upper hand. I really hope you learn from what I am saying. I hope this helps at least a little bit. Please feel free to contact me about any other questions/concerns you may have in the future. Also please remember to pick your best solution so other people may learn from your thread. Thank you for your time, and have a good day.


I second that
Score
0
a c 555 4 Gaming
a c 250 À AMD
a c 535 à CPUs
June 11, 2014 5:28:59 PM

As Logainof Hades pointed out, this thread was solved about 6 months ago, therefore it is now closed

T
Score
0
!