i5 4670k vs AMD 8350

harinoorvirk28

Honorable
Mar 23, 2013
239
0
10,690
i know you guys already got this question a TON of times but i am about to order one of these but i dont know which one to get :( so what is your opinion (both are in the budget) i am leaning more towards the amd because watch dogs recommended a 8 core cpu :0,and is battlefield 4 running better on amd ATM? which is better overall? i know intel is alot faster on single threaded apps can you name some? thanks
 
Solution
Ok. Well BF4 is going to run significantly better on an AMD/AMD setup. First it takes advantage of all the cores and unlike BF3 it was targeted at Radeon not NVIDIA.
So the short answer: For BF4 the best solution would be a fx 8320 or 8350 with the new R9 280 or R9 280X. Take a 270(X) if your budget is tight

harinoorvirk28

Honorable
Mar 23, 2013
239
0
10,690


i am getting the r9 280x so no worries
 

Super Batman

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2013
410
0
18,960
Ok. Well BF4 is going to run significantly better on an AMD/AMD setup. First it takes advantage of all the cores and unlike BF3 it was targeted at Radeon not NVIDIA.
So the short answer: For BF4 the best solution would be a fx 8320 or 8350 with the new R9 280 or R9 280X. Take a 270(X) if your budget is tight
 
Solution

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Many games with poor multithreading support, Intel will win hands down when all other hardware is equal. Planetside 2, Guild Wars 2, WoW to name a few all work better under Intel. You can get playable FPS out of an FX 83xx in these titles though. Going forward, the 8 cores of the FX will give it a bit of an edge in titles that can make use of the cores. The 4670k will still do well in such titles, but even an i7 has shown to be an improvement over an i5 in BF4. There is roughly $75 difference in price between an FX 8320 and an i5 4670k. You could put that towards a better board, SSD, or even more ram.