Solved

AMD FX 8350 vs i5 4670k

I'm just curious as I'm building my new rig, could someone tell me and why? (:
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about amd 8350 4670k
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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/
  6. Best answer
    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.
  7. 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.
  8. Yeah, if you got cash, then sure - I7 is a safe bet for sure.
  9. I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz-8MB-LGA-1155-CPU-Processor-SR00C-/231074126681?pt=CPUs&hash=item35cd175b59

    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=N82E16813157293
    Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099
  10. The Q6660 Inside said:
    I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz-8MB-LGA-1155-CPU-Processor-SR00C-/231074126681?pt=CPUs&hash=item35cd175b59

    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=N82E16813157293
    Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099


    Hmm, I'll definitely have a think about that.
  11. RyanDavidson said:
    The Q6660 Inside said:
    I would go 2600K TBH- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-2600k-3-4GHz-8MB-LGA-1155-CPU-Processor-SR00C-/231074126681?pt=CPUs&hash=item35cd175b59

    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=N82E16813157293
    Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099


    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.
  12. 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-8MB-LGA-1155-CPU-Processor-SR00C-/231074126681?pt=CPUs&hash=item35cd175b59

    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=N82E16813157293
    Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099


    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 (:
  13. 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-8MB-LGA-1155-CPU-Processor-SR00C-/231074126681?pt=CPUs&hash=item35cd175b59

    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=N82E16813157293
    Good cooler (select the Hyper 212 EVO) to get it to 4.5GHz: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099


    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 ;)
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Intel i5 CPUs