Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

amd fx 8350 OR i7 3770k

Tags:
  • Intel i7
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2013 2:32:25 PM

hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)

More about : amd 8350 3770k

a c 246 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 2:38:00 PM

harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


Yeah you got that part VERY wrong. more than 9 out of 10 games are NOT multithreaded...
m
0
l
October 15, 2013 2:41:44 PM

the i7 is 4 core too. i5 4670 is recommended for gaming, amd 8350 is a gamble if next gen games use more than 4 cores....
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 2:43:55 PM

harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


It doesn't matter that the i5-4670k has only 4 cores. It still performs a lot better in most games than the FX-8350 does. The FX-8350 doesn't truly have 8 cores by the way. Read up on the FX line. The older Zambezi architecture and the current Vishera architecture both actually have cores which share resources between one another, so they're more like threads and less like cores. Look at a few benchmarks. The i5-4670k is clearly the more suited CPU for everything, and if you can afford it there's little reason to choose otherwise.

UPDATE:
Check out the BF4 Beta benchmarks. All next gen titles are based off AMD 8 core processors running in consoles, and even after that the Intel i5-4670k is the better choice.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 2:48:17 PM

I agree, I think there is little to no reason to think the 8350 will outperform the 4770k like, ever. So, get the 4770k unless those $100 means you're getting a lower end GPU because GPU has far more impact in game performance than CPU.
m
0
l
a c 150 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 2:51:52 PM

If you are gaming, I agree that the i5-4670K or i5-3570K (may overclock higher) are almost certain to outperform the FX-8350 in [almost] all titles, but feel free to check benchmarks.
There are some non-gaming applications that favor the FX-8350, but you'd need to provide names, and/or check benchmarks on those too. You did mention next-generation games though, in which case Intel is likely your best choice. It will also use less power, and produce less heat.
m
0
l
October 15, 2013 3:08:51 PM

I recommend the core i5, i heard that the 3770k overclock more than the haswell one, the fx 8350 can reach the results that the intel perfoms, even in games that use multi cores, and the overclock potential is awesome, if you can make a effort to get the i7 do it, the benchmarks of latest games show a fps gain for the HT
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 3:56:11 PM

If you are strictly talking about whether to go with the FX-8350 or the i7-3770 the i7 is the clear winner hands down. If you want to compare Ivy bridge to Haswell. The Haswell has some nice advantages, I'd say get the newer technology. Whatever you do don't settle get what you really want. If you have to wait a little while so what. Be happy with your machine don't look at it and wonder "what if".
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 4:14:23 PM

Deus Gladiorum said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


It doesn't matter that the i5-4670k has only 4 cores. It still performs a lot better in most games than the FX-8350 does. The FX-8350 doesn't truly have 8 cores by the way. Read up on the FX line. The older Zambezi architecture and the current Vishera architecture both actually have cores which share resources between one another, so they're more like threads and less like cores. Look at a few benchmarks. The i5-4670k is clearly the more suited CPU for everything, and if you can afford it there's little reason to choose otherwise.

UPDATE:
Check out the BF4 Beta benchmarks. All next gen titles are based off AMD 8 core processors running in consoles, and even after that the Intel i5-4670k is the better choice.



Those cannot be 64 man conquest, that's 32 man or less domination. In 64 man Conquest the 8350 > 4670k, look at gamegpu.ru benchmarks, they're the only 64 man conquest benches out right now. Additionally, Tom's Hardware shows the 8350 has higher minimum FPS than the 4670k in BF4 beta, even in domination mode (no vehicles, less people).
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 4:15:14 PM

Deus Gladiorum said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


It doesn't matter that the i5-4670k has only 4 cores. It still performs a lot better in most games than the FX-8350 does. The FX-8350 doesn't truly have 8 cores by the way. Read up on the FX line. The older Zambezi architecture and the current Vishera architecture both actually have cores which share resources between one another, so they're more like threads and less like cores. Look at a few benchmarks. The i5-4670k is clearly the more suited CPU for everything, and if you can afford it there's little reason to choose otherwise.

UPDATE:
Check out the BF4 Beta benchmarks. All next gen titles are based off AMD 8 core processors running in consoles, and even after that the Intel i5-4670k is the better choice.



Those cannot be 64 man conquest, that's 32 man or less domination. In 64 man Conquest the 8350 > 4670k, look at gamegpu.ru benchmarks, they're the only 64 man conquest benches out right now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 4:37:57 PM

hafijur said:
You might as well get the i7 4770k if you got the budget as its on new platform and haswell has avx2 and better igpu and ht is being used in bf4 crysis 3.


8350rocks said:
Deus Gladiorum said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


It doesn't matter that the i5-4670k has only 4 cores. It still performs a lot better in most games than the FX-8350 does. The FX-8350 doesn't truly have 8 cores by the way. Read up on the FX line. The older Zambezi architecture and the current Vishera architecture both actually have cores which share resources between one another, so they're more like threads and less like cores. Look at a few benchmarks. The i5-4670k is clearly the more suited CPU for everything, and if you can afford it there's little reason to choose otherwise.

UPDATE:
Check out the BF4 Beta benchmarks. All next gen titles are based off AMD 8 core processors running in consoles, and even after that the Intel i5-4670k is the better choice.



Those cannot be 64 man conquest, that's 32 man or less domination. In 64 man Conquest the 8350 > 4670k, look at gamegpu.ru benchmarks, they're the only 64 man conquest benches out right now. Additionally, Tom's Hardware shows the 8350 has higher minimum FPS than the 4670k in BF4 beta, even in domination mode (no vehicles, less people).


I did look at gamegpu.ru's benchmarks, and the reason I didn't post them was because they didn't test the i5-4670k nor the i5-3570k. Furthermore, where does it say they're using 64 players? I sure didn't see that anywhere (though then again, it's not like I speak Russian, but I did search for the number 64).

And where does Tom's Hardware show that the 8350 has a higher minimum than the 4670k in the BF4 Beta? It doesn't show the i5-4670k at all! Nor does it show the i5-3570k. But please, be my guest and post some benchmarks. I'll go ahead post from both Tom's Hardware and GameGPU's CPU benchmark section.






Now, I don't know where you're looking but here at least it says nothing about an i5-4670k.
m
0
l
a c 150 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 7:33:28 PM

A point that the last chart makes quite well though, is that neither of these cpus "suck." If spending $100 less allows you to get a faster graphics card (although the OP says that everything else will be the same), you might end up with slightly better results. If everything else will be the same though, Intel is clearly the better choice from these charts. Be careful of cherry-picking from any sites though; do that enough and you could convince yourself of something that is simply not the case.
I agree with littleleo though; Get what you want. You'll be spending serious money, so be sure it's worthwhile to you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 10:32:24 PM

Plusthinking Iq said:
the i7 is 4 core too. i5 4670 is recommended for gaming, amd 8350 is a gamble if next gen games use more than 4 cores....


Onus said:
A point that the last chart makes quite well though, is that neither of these cpus "suck." If spending $100 less allows you to get a faster graphics card (although the OP says that everything else will be the same), you might end up with slightly better results. If everything else will be the same though, Intel is clearly the better choice from these charts. Be careful of cherry-picking from any sites though; do that enough and you could convince yourself of something that is simply not the case.
I agree with littleleo though; Get what you want. You'll be spending serious money, so be sure it's worthwhile to you.

It's true. I have the FX-8350 and when I play BF4, it's PERFECTLY fluid. A faster CPU couldn't make this game any smoother than it already is. The simple fact is that yes, the i7 is a faster CPU. Yes, it does outperform the FX-8350. However, will that extra performance be noticeable or make the gaming experience any better? Now that the guys have done throwing numbers around, I can tell you, quite honestly, that the answer is no. Frame rates in the high 40s-low 50s at Ultra Settings is what I'm getting with an FX-8350 and a Radeon HD 7970. That is already beyond what humans can perceive as perfectly smooth. The extra $100 you spend would be better spent on a GPU or saving up to upgrade later. There is a certain point beyond which you get diminishing returns on a CPU purchase. That number is about $200, right where the FX-8350 sits.
m
0
l
a c 94 à CPUs
October 15, 2013 10:52:03 PM

8350rocks said:
Deus Gladiorum said:
harinoorvirk28 said:
hi guys so i am stuck between these cpu's i want the i7 but its $100 more i will be getting the same everything with whichever cpu i go with but the mobo's will change OBVS. will HT be better for next gen games or physical cores I DON'T care about single core performance because everything out there is multi threaded . plz answer as i have to choose one by tomorrow :(  (didn't choose the 4670k because only 4 cores)


It doesn't matter that the i5-4670k has only 4 cores. It still performs a lot better in most games than the FX-8350 does. The FX-8350 doesn't truly have 8 cores by the way. Read up on the FX line. The older Zambezi architecture and the current Vishera architecture both actually have cores which share resources between one another, so they're more like threads and less like cores. Look at a few benchmarks. The i5-4670k is clearly the more suited CPU for everything, and if you can afford it there's little reason to choose otherwise.

UPDATE:
Check out the BF4 Beta benchmarks. All next gen titles are based off AMD 8 core processors running in consoles, and even after that the Intel i5-4670k is the better choice.



Those cannot be 64 man conquest, that's 32 man or less domination. In 64 man Conquest the 8350 > 4670k, look at gamegpu.ru benchmarks, they're the only 64 man conquest benches out right now. Additionally, Tom's Hardware shows the 8350 has higher minimum FPS than the 4670k in BF4 beta, even in domination mode (no vehicles, less people).


it could be that the other bench was done after the latest bf4 beta update, as i am seeing cpu usage at 75-85% now where as before it was 95% on a 64 player conquest map.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2013 11:26:59 PM

The last two posts sum it up perfectly. In a pure e-peen contest - I7 is better, no doubt about it. In reality - FX-8350 is perfectly capable of delivering awesome performance in whatever you will need, except for some rare older (yet popular) game like let's say Skyrim where single core performance is a king.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2013 4:10:57 AM

hafijur said:
Well if budget is an issue the op should get the i5 4670k as its one of the most desirable gaming cpus out now and at a decent price.

AvroArrow millisecond lag is why amd cpus are poor at gaming, lots of people say this in user reviews switching from a piledriver amd fx 8 core or phenom 2 x6 or x4 to intel core i5 and get blown away how much faster i5 is. When you have double the per core performance, double memory bandwidth its obvious why intel cpus destroy amd at multitasking and the biggest difference is usually in gaming where intel are way ahead.

All I can say is what I experience. My experience with my FX-8350 with BF4 is easily the best gaming experience I've ever had. Not necessarily speed-wise because when the Phenom II X4 was new it was a gaming demon, but a combination of seemingly perfect speed and mind-boggling visuals. As for the user reviews, I would be very interested to read about that. To hear how people describe the difference between the two. Do you have a link?

Oh wait, nevermind. I looked up what you were talking about and I've read some of your posts in threads. From now on, I take you with a grain of salt. LOL
hafijur said:
Don't listen to some of these amd fanboys you will notice big gains in cpu intensive games. Also check your gpu load in games with your fx8350 msi afterburner or gpuz will track this. 99% gpu load or as close to this is what you want. This will determine how much you can gain fps wise. Most intel i5 quads will load those two gpus in optimised games at 99%.
The reason why you noticed no real difference is because piledriver fx cpus and your older phenom 2 had similar ipc as in per clock the phenom probably is slightly faster and games love this. Intel have 2x ipc of amd now and 90% better memory bandwidth so games will run better. BTW just noticed you are getting an i5 4670k you will be blown away by the performance. Double memory bandwidth 2x better per core then fx8350 and great gaming and multitasking performance. Post your results, I reckon you will think it goes like a rocket.

You sound like an Intel fanboy to me. Then you get called out on your BS:
cmi86 said:
Do you just make up numbers ?? Really do U ?
AMD 21 GB/s http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...
Intel 25.6 http://ark.intel.com/products/75048/
So crunching the numbers the intel has 21.9% higher memory bandwidth, not 90%...
You know people would be much more inclined to take your advice if you werent always proven to be lying through your teeth.

And your response is:
hafijur said:
I meant memory controller or some cache thing in the cpu.

You meant memory controller or some cache thing in the CPU? How on earth did you get that CPU Authority badge? Did you log in under a different name and give yourself best answers or did you just hoodwink enough people? After reading your posts, your opinion bears no further weight in my mind. If the OP is smart, he won't listen to your Intel fanboy crap either.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
October 16, 2013 11:08:50 AM

Avro Arrow said:
hafijur said:
Well if budget is an issue the op should get the i5 4670k as its one of the most desirable gaming cpus out now and at a decent price.

AvroArrow millisecond lag is why amd cpus are poor at gaming, lots of people say this in user reviews switching from a piledriver amd fx 8 core or phenom 2 x6 or x4 to intel core i5 and get blown away how much faster i5 is. When you have double the per core performance, double memory bandwidth its obvious why intel cpus destroy amd at multitasking and the biggest difference is usually in gaming where intel are way ahead.

All I can say is what I experience. My experience with my FX-8350 with BF4 is easily the best gaming experience I've ever had. Not necessarily speed-wise because when the Phenom II X4 was new it was a gaming demon, but a combination of seemingly perfect speed and mind-boggling visuals. As for the user reviews, I would be very interested to read about that. To hear how people describe the difference between the two. Do you have a link?

Oh wait, nevermind. I looked up what you were talking about and I've read some of your posts in threads. From now on, I take you with a grain of salt. LOL
hafijur said:
Don't listen to some of these amd fanboys you will notice big gains in cpu intensive games. Also check your gpu load in games with your fx8350 msi afterburner or gpuz will track this. 99% gpu load or as close to this is what you want. This will determine how much you can gain fps wise. Most intel i5 quads will load those two gpus in optimised games at 99%.
The reason why you noticed no real difference is because piledriver fx cpus and your older phenom 2 had similar ipc as in per clock the phenom probably is slightly faster and games love this. Intel have 2x ipc of amd now and 90% better memory bandwidth so games will run better. BTW just noticed you are getting an i5 4670k you will be blown away by the performance. Double memory bandwidth 2x better per core then fx8350 and great gaming and multitasking performance. Post your results, I reckon you will think it goes like a rocket.

You sound like an Intel fanboy to me. Then you get called out on your BS:
cmi86 said:
Do you just make up numbers ?? Really do U ?
AMD 21 GB/s http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx...
Intel 25.6 http://ark.intel.com/products/75048/
So crunching the numbers the intel has 21.9% higher memory bandwidth, not 90%...
You know people would be much more inclined to take your advice if you werent always proven to be lying through your teeth.

And your response is:
hafijur said:
I meant memory controller or some cache thing in the cpu.

You meant memory controller or some cache thing in the CPU? How on earth did you get that CPU Authority badge? Did you log in under a different name and give yourself best answers or did you just hoodwink enough people? After reading your posts, your opinion bears no further weight in my mind. If the OP is smart, he won't listen to your Intel fanboy crap either.


+1

Still scratching my head about the CPUs badge too...
m
0
l
!