Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX 8350 vs i5 4670k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 19, 2013 1:15:37 PM

I'm just curious as I'm building my new rig, could someone tell me and why? (:

More about : amd 8350 4670k

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:18:24 PM

I5 gives you a more solid performance across the board, while FX compared to that is a more bumpy ride, it can be slightly better, but it can also be quite worse in different games/apps.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:20:36 PM

i5-4670k will be better in games and single-threaded apps. This is because it has better single-threaded performance (by a fair margin).

The 8350 will be better with multi-tasking. If you overclock the 8350 you can close the gap when it comes to single-thread but you'd likely never get all the way to the 4670k's performance.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 19, 2013 1:24:08 PM

Gaidax said:
I5 gives you a more solid performance across the board, while FX compared to that is a more bumpy ride, it can be slightly better, but it can also be quite worse in different games/apps.


I'm just unsure as the consoles have AMD hardware and an AMD 8 core cpu 8 weak cores they are but still 8 cores where as the intel is amazing now but I'm just hearing countless amount of people saying games will be optimised for 8 cores or I could overkill and go for an i7 but kinda don't want to do that. I'm just unsure :s
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:27:19 PM

AMD cpus are NOT true 8 cores, they are SHARED cores= why are so far behind in performance vs intel cpus. Just look at the benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:27:55 PM

RyanDavidson said:
I'm just unsure as the consoles have AMD hardware and an AMD 8 core cpu 8 weak cores they are but still 8 cores where as the intel is amazing now but I'm just hearing countless amount of people saying games will be optimised for 8 cores or I could overkill and go for an i7 but kinda don't want to do that. I'm just unsure :s

The 8 cores on consoles run at 1.75GHz (XBone) and 2.0GHZ (PS4). You're not missing out on anything going with an i5 (which has much higher clock speeds and efficiency per clock cycle):-
http://cdn.overclock.net/c/cc/ccbcb49f_1374264_518773038217357_1060742762__zps45d93a9d.jpeg
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-cpu-gpu-benchmarks/8/
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:30:55 PM

RyanDavidson said:
Gaidax said:
I5 gives you a more solid performance across the board, while FX compared to that is a more bumpy ride, it can be slightly better, but it can also be quite worse in different games/apps.


I'm just unsure as the consoles have AMD hardware and an AMD 8 core cpu 8 weak cores they are but still 8 cores where as the intel is amazing now but I'm just hearing countless amount of people saying games will be optimised for 8 cores or I could overkill and go for an i7 but kinda don't want to do that. I'm just unsure :s


There is no need to be intimidated by the consoles really - consoles have exactly what you said - extremely weak 8 core CPU - it is no match for I5 even in the synthetic multithreading.

The proof for that are the latest BF4 beta benchmarks where I5 is pretty much wiping the floor with FX in just about any mode except for the very extremes (like 64 players and such) and even then it's pretty equal.

I5 covers all the bases, while FX has it's Achilles heel in games which require good individual core performance. Problem for FX is that it's multithreading advantage seems to be a tough nut to crack for most game devs, so it tends to suffer.

In plain language - you won't find a game where I5 blows, you may find a game where FX blows, though.
Share
October 19, 2013 1:35:39 PM

Gaidax said:
RyanDavidson said:
Gaidax said:
I5 gives you a more solid performance across the board, while FX compared to that is a more bumpy ride, it can be slightly better, but it can also be quite worse in different games/apps.


I'm just unsure as the consoles have AMD hardware and an AMD 8 core cpu 8 weak cores they are but still 8 cores where as the intel is amazing now but I'm just hearing countless amount of people saying games will be optimised for 8 cores or I could overkill and go for an i7 but kinda don't want to do that. I'm just unsure :s


There is no need to be intimidated by the consoles really - consoles have exactly what you said - extremely weak 8 core CPU - it is no match for I5 even in the synthetic multithreading.

The proof for that are the latest BF4 beta benchmarks where I5 is pretty much wiping the floor with FX in just about any mode except for the very extremes (like 64 players and such) and even then it's pretty equal.

I5 covers all the bases, while FX has it's Achilles heel in games which require good individual core performance. Problem for FX is that it's multithreading advantage seems to be a tough nut to crack for most game devs, so it tends to suffer.

In plain language - you won't find a game where I5 blows, you may find a game where FX blows, though.


Alright, thanks (: To be honest I may just go with an i7 4770k then I wouldn't have to worry about choosing a cpu where the pros and cons differ in each one plus it's only around £70-£80 more so I may just go with that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 1:57:29 PM

Yeah, if you got cash, then sure - I7 is a safe bet for sure.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 2:04:10 PM

I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz...

The 4670K and 8350 are both good in their own ways (8350 multi-tasking, 4670K single-threaded\most games) but the 2600K is more of a jack of all trades, but give it an OC to 4.5GHz and it is king. There has been little (~10%) performance increase per clock from Intel since Sandy Bridge.

Good and cheap mobo for 2600K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
October 19, 2013 3:09:41 PM

The Q6660 Inside said:
I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz...

The 4670K and 8350 are both good in their own ways (8350 multi-tasking, 4670K single-threaded\most games) but the 2600K is more of a jack of all trades, but give it an OC to 4.5GHz and it is king. There has been little (~10%) performance increase per clock from Intel since Sandy Bridge.

Good and cheap mobo for 2600K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Hmm, I'll definitely have a think about that.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:22:14 PM

RyanDavidson said:
The Q6660 Inside said:
I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz...

The 4670K and 8350 are both good in their own ways (8350 multi-tasking, 4670K single-threaded\most games) but the 2600K is more of a jack of all trades, but give it an OC to 4.5GHz and it is king. There has been little (~10%) performance increase per clock from Intel since Sandy Bridge.

Good and cheap mobo for 2600K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Hmm, I'll definitely have a think about that.

Alright, but remember, don't underestimate the 8320 either, it is pretty damn good at multi-threading. The optimization from the 8-core will let the FX 83XX series quite a bit, but it will also help the 2600K.
m
0
l
October 19, 2013 3:28:31 PM

The Q6660 Inside said:
RyanDavidson said:
The Q6660 Inside said:
I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz...

The 4670K and 8350 are both good in their own ways (8350 multi-tasking, 4670K single-threaded\most games) but the 2600K is more of a jack of all trades, but give it an OC to 4.5GHz and it is king. There has been little (~10%) performance increase per clock from Intel since Sandy Bridge.

Good and cheap mobo for 2600K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Hmm, I'll definitely have a think about that.

Alright, but remember, don't underestimate the 8320 either, it is pretty damn good at multi-threading. The optimization from the 8-core will let the FX 83XX series quite a bit, but it will also help the 2600K.


Ah okay, thanks (:
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2013 3:31:30 PM

RyanDavidson said:
The Q6660 Inside said:
RyanDavidson said:
The Q6660 Inside said:
I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz...

The 4670K and 8350 are both good in their own ways (8350 multi-tasking, 4670K single-threaded\most games) but the 2600K is more of a jack of all trades, but give it an OC to 4.5GHz and it is king. There has been little (~10%) performance increase per clock from Intel since Sandy Bridge.

Good and cheap mobo for 2600K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Hmm, I'll definitely have a think about that.

Alright, but remember, don't underestimate the 8320 either, it is pretty damn good at multi-threading. The optimization from the 8-core will let the FX 83XX series quite a bit, but it will also help the 2600K.


Ah okay, thanks (:

No problem, keep us posted ;) 
m
0
l
!