Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Amd FX 8320 or i5 2500k?

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 25, 2013 7:01:46 AM

wich one should I get, for gaming youtube video editing, and general usage. The GPU would be the same (An MSI GTX 660 Twin Frozr III edition) and the mother board would be similarly priced (Around 100 dollars) would overclock just a bit (maybe 4-4.2 Ghz)

More about : amd 8320 2500k

a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:07:30 AM

take the fx 8320. its a really great cpu. it will definitly work better than the 2500 even without oc
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:08:45 AM

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ubisoft-releases-new-eve... here you can get your answer fx 8320 undoubtedly, as games are getting heavily threaded there is no room for any i5, so unless you can afford to buy an i7, go fx 8320...Fx 8320 is much better for current and future games for example crysis 3...and if you are multi tasking with you computer as well, so it figures, since fx 8350 is 2% faster than i7 4770k multi threaded
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:10:18 AM

nonnzz98 said:
wich one should I get, for gaming youtube video editing, and general usage. The GPU would be the same (An MSI GTX 660 Twin Frozr III edition) and the mother board would be similarly priced (Around 100 dollars) would overclock just a bit (maybe 4-4.2 Ghz)


The FX has twice the PCIe 2.0 lanes, USB 3.0 support, and sata 6GB/s support.

In addition to this, it is cheaper and more powerful. Definately get FX!

CPU from weakest to strongest: 2500k < FX-83x0 = 3570K < 4670 < i7's
m
0
l
October 25, 2013 7:15:06 AM

amd fx or amd apu
m
0
l
October 25, 2013 7:15:38 AM

asus or gigabyte mobo
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:24:49 AM

rolli59 said:
The I5 is the better CPU especially if you take gaming into consideration http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=698 Why not go with a newer one like 3570K or 4670K?
Here BF4 CPU benchmark with the same GPU http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...
Toms recommended gaming CPU's http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Dont lie through your teeth...fanboyism huh!? look here ( i chose them from tech spot, since it favors Intel and you cant nag about them)
1: http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...
2: http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...
3.http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=382066 battlefield 4 beta
and mor examples, these guys cant cope with this fact that they have payed more and get less in return, that;s a shame really, in older games i5 performs better but for new and future games 8320 beats the daylight out of any i5


m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:27:15 AM

hytecgowthaman said:
asus or gigabyte mobo

FX Asus.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:27:16 AM

I''m surprised people still consider buying the i5-2500k today. In most places its either out of stock or you can get an i7-4770 (non k) for the same price.

Check your local prices of i7-4770, i7-3770k, i5-4670k, i5-3570k, as well as Ivy and Haswell Xeons. Because any of those would be better than the 2500k, and definitely better than the FX 8320.

Link us to where you will be buying from, or country. So we can look for better options.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:30:18 AM

rolli59 said:
The I5 is the better CPU especially if you take gaming into consideration http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=698 Why not go with a newer one like 3570K or 4670K?
Here BF4 CPU benchmark with the same GPU http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...
Toms recommended gaming CPU's http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

those games are old like your words, toms is biased, since it's the only site+pclab.pl, even a 6 year old child knows in poland that this website is the biggest intel fanboy in the world, which shows i5 2500k better than fx 8350, and it figures since tomshardware is intel's advertiser, go to any other site and see the real result...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:34:14 AM

huilun02 said:
I''m surprised people still consider buying the i5-2500k today. In most places its either out of stock or you can get an i7-4770 (non k) for the same price.

Check your local prices of i7-4770, i7-3770k, i5-4670k, i5-3570k, as well as Ivy and Haswell Xeons. Because any of those would be better than the 2500k, and definitely better than the FX 8320.

Link us to where you will be buying from, or country. So we can look for better options.

If you wanna go for i7, he is right about it, i7 is better...but if you are stuck between i5 2500k i5 3570k etc and fx 8320 go fx 8320, specially if you don't want to upgrade in two years
m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:34:43 AM

Darkresurrection said:
rolli59 said:
The I5 is the better CPU especially if you take gaming into consideration http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=698 Why not go with a newer one like 3570K or 4670K?
Here BF4 CPU benchmark with the same GPU http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...
Toms recommended gaming CPU's http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Dont lie through your teeth...fanboyism huh!? look here ( i chose them from tech spot, since it favors Intel and you cant nag about them)
1: http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...
2: http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...
3.http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=382066 battlefield 4 beta
and mor examples, these guys cant cope with this fact that they have payed more and get less in return, that;s a shame really, in older games i5 performs better but for new and future games 8320 beats the daylight out of any i5



I have seen all of those; Tech spot I5 3470 (it is not 2500K, let alone 3570K or 4670K) is one frame away from FX8350, GameGPU.ru is the only site that I have seen with those results in BF4.
Sorry but I trust Tom's better.
I have both FX8350 and I5 3570K both with HD7950 so I have my own comparison.
m
0
l
October 25, 2013 7:36:53 AM

why the 2500k?? Go for the 3570k and save money in the long term
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:40:30 AM

how about this one, why is tom's so different have you ever asked yourself!? http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/T... Toms is an intel advertiser, my uncle has 3570k and I have my fx 8350, we both benched our systems, we both play games ultra and we haven't noticed any difference, don't tell lies please
m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:47:41 AM

Darkresurrection said:
how about this one, why is tom's so different have you ever asked yourself!? http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/T... Toms is an intel advertiser, my uncle has 3570k and I have my fx 8350, we both benched our systems, we both play games ultra and we haven't noticed any difference, don't tell lies please

Tom is different because they are using high resolution and actually using the power of the GPU's by having game details high with AA enabled. This German one is done at 1280x720 (3570K higher than the 8350), Game GPU is 1680x1050 no AA enabled.

And remember OP asked about the 8320 which is 0.5GHz slower.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:54:02 AM

Different reviewers may test with different hardware and game settings, thus results can be different. I wouldn't go around calling reviewers biased just because I didn't like their results...
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 99 à CPUs
October 25, 2013 7:54:19 AM

CaptainTom said:
nonnzz98 said:
wich one should I get, for gaming youtube video editing, and general usage. The GPU would be the same (An MSI GTX 660 Twin Frozr III edition) and the mother board would be similarly priced (Around 100 dollars) would overclock just a bit (maybe 4-4.2 Ghz)


The FX has twice the PCIe 2.0 lanes, USB 3.0 support, and sata 6GB/s support.

In addition to this, it is cheaper and more powerful. Definately get FX!

CPU from weakest to strongest: 2500k < FX-83x0 = 3570K < 4670 < i7's


This is a pretty good reference overall. Depending on how many threads/cores the title can use, the new vishera core FX series compete well against current i5's and i7s in gaming. But the difference is so small and many new titles are better optimized for 4+ cores that it isn't going to matter as much as it did with Bulldozer.
Share
October 26, 2013 9:03:42 AM

maddogfargo said:
CaptainTom said:
nonnzz98 said:
wich one should I get, for gaming youtube video editing, and general usage. The GPU would be the same (An MSI GTX 660 Twin Frozr III edition) and the mother board would be similarly priced (Around 100 dollars) would overclock just a bit (maybe 4-4.2 Ghz)


The FX has twice the PCIe 2.0 lanes, USB 3.0 support, and sata 6GB/s support.

In addition to this, it is cheaper and more powerful. Definately get FX!

CPU from weakest to strongest: 2500k < FX-83x0 = 3570K < 4670 < i7's


This is a pretty good reference overall. Depending on how many threads/cores the title can use, the new vishera core FX series compete well against current i5's and i7s in gaming. But the difference is so small and many new titles are better optimized for 4+ cores that it isn't going to matter as much as it did with Bulldozer.


but what about the i7 980x, found a deal on that one used for like 100 dollars, is that a good cpu?
m
0
l
a c 913 à CPUs
October 26, 2013 9:11:09 AM

Yes that is a very good CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2013 12:24:58 PM

huilun02 said:
Different reviewers may test with different hardware and game settings, thus results can be different. I wouldn't go around calling reviewers biased just because I didn't like their results...


maddogfargo said:
CaptainTom said:
nonnzz98 said:
wich one should I get, for gaming youtube video editing, and general usage. The GPU would be the same (An MSI GTX 660 Twin Frozr III edition) and the mother board would be similarly priced (Around 100 dollars) would overclock just a bit (maybe 4-4.2 Ghz)


The FX has twice the PCIe 2.0 lanes, USB 3.0 support, and sata 6GB/s support.

In addition to this, it is cheaper and more powerful. Definately get FX!

CPU from weakest to strongest: 2500k < FX-83x0 = 3570K < 4670 < i7's


This is a pretty good reference overall. Depending on how many threads/cores the title can use, the new vishera core FX series compete well against current i5's and i7s in gaming. But the difference is so small and many new titles are better optimized for 4+ cores that it isn't going to matter as much as it did with Bulldozer.

FX is much much better than any i5, it takes time to tell you that 8 cores matter, or on the intel side 4 cores and 4 threads matters, those who criticize single threaded performance of FX series lack provisional visions, yet in single threaded apps fx does an ok job, just play any game on ultra and yet when more processing is needed it provides you with that like crysis 3 that fx outperforms i7 3770k...some guys say in rome tottal wars 2 fx cpus give 44 fps average
and 18minimum, but they never say that i7 3770k gives 19fps minimum and 46fps maximum, 2 frame really!? and yet they consider this as a victory...or they say in this single threaded game fx gives 65 fps, i5 gives 90 fps...in real world terms can you really say the difference!? :heink: 
m
0
l
!