Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 4670k vs i5 3570k vs fx 8350 (vs i7 3820 on cbuboss it's like the 6th best gaming cpu)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 3, 2013 4:23:00 AM

hey guys
i am building a gaming pc and i saw like a million benchmarks and cpu comparisons and nothing gives that clear solution which is better of these cpus i am interested in the first three processors but the only reason i included the i7 3820 as it's like the 6th best gaming cpu on cbuboss i don't know if there tests are good or not but it seems to be done well
also everybody is like get an i5 3570k and then they say get the 8 cores fx-8350 it destroys the i5 (like tek syndicate video on youtube ) so i am really confused
plz answer with tests and stuff like that and only gaming forget about the gbu and everything i just want the best gaming cpu that will last for a while
thanks in advance
a b 4 Gaming
a c 448 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 4:33:47 AM

The i5 4670k and i5 3570k are essentially the same chip, except the 4670k has slightly better performance due to its newer architecture (probably about 5-10%).

The i7 is essentially an i5 with hyperthreading, which doesn't benefit games.

The current best gaming CPU is probably the 4670k, go with that. And it'll have an upgrade path in future since intel will probably tick to that future for their next generation.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 4:42:31 AM

JOOK-D said:
The i5 4670k and i5 3570k are essentially the same chip, except the 4670k has slightly better performance due to its newer architecture (probably about 5-10%).

The i7 is essentially an i5 with hyperthreading, which doesn't benefit games.

The current best gaming CPU is probably the 4670k, go with that. And it'll have an upgrade path in future since intel will probably tick to that future for their next generation.


i7 is an i5 and it DOES benefit games, 8350 destroy the i5 4670k in certain games but overall the 4670k still wins. The benefit of 8350 is the 8cores/threads and its price and that's very useful in the future, 4 cores wont be the standard anymore any time soon... Highend CPU are going to be 16 cores and 64 threads and im guessing the standard will be 8 cores 8 threads from intel... 4cores/threads doesn't seem ideal anymore and 8 cores definitely come in handy especially in BF4...
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a c 448 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 4:49:05 AM

Hey legendkiller,

For most benches I've seen, i7's tend to perform similarly to i5's as long as they're of the same generation and have the same clock speed. They may have a very slight performance benefit, not enough to warrant any extra cost.

Could you link me to some that show that hyperthreading does benefit gaming? I'm genuinely interested, cheers.
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 5:08:05 AM

hey JOOK-D
is your fx 8320 performing well and is it true that 8350 is just the 8320 overclocked and obviously the amd rig in every way is cheaper so does it worth the expensive i5 and it's expensive mobo or the 8350 or 8320 with OCing will give the same performance
and what is the cons of amd as all people are giving the same advice don't go for amd
thank you very much for helping
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 5:13:04 AM

legendkiller said:
JOOK-D said:
The i5 4670k and i5 3570k are essentially the same chip, except the 4670k has slightly better performance due to its newer architecture (probably about 5-10%).

The i7 is essentially an i5 with hyperthreading, which doesn't benefit games.

The current best gaming CPU is probably the 4670k, go with that. And it'll have an upgrade path in future since intel will probably tick to that future for their next generation.


i7 is an i5 and it DOES benefit games, 8350 destroy the i5 4670k in certain games but overall the 4670k still wins. The benefit of 8350 is the 8cores/threads and its price and that's very useful in the future, 4 cores wont be the standard anymore any time soon... Highend CPU are going to be 16 cores and 64 threads and im guessing the standard will be 8 cores 8 threads from intel... 4cores/threads doesn't seem ideal anymore and 8 cores definitely come in handy especially in BF4...


i heard many people saying that and that games will need more cores but still a few years until we see a game benefits from like 6 cores or more
what do you think of cbuboss are there tests are reliable when comparing gaming performances
thank you for helping
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 448 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 5:20:38 AM

Basically, any modern CPU will be great for gaming. You need to focus more on getting a good graphics card, and if getting a cheaper CPU means you can get a better graphics card its worth it.

My 8320 is performing great, and its currently overclock to 8350 speeds without any real change in heat production and I didn't even need to change my voltages. It plays everything I've tried very well, even with my graphics card that is weak (in comparison to some of the people on these forums lol). So yes, it is essentially an underclocked 8350 and overclocking it gives the same performance.

Here's my draft for the difference between intel and AMD for gaming:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading), which may continue into nextgen (unconfirmed).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 (might as well get the 8320, it's an 8350 clocked lower at stock which you can change) [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
- FX 4300/4320/4350 = i3
- FX 6300/6350 = i3 or mid i5
- FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming [i7 hyperthreading isn't very beneficial to gaming]).


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5/i7. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks between the FX 83xx series and the i5/i7's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

TL;DR - FX 6300/8320/8350 or intel i5/i7 k. Get the best GPU possible (save some $$$ from cheaper CPU), any will be fine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that clears some things up. The cons of AMD is that it sues more power (but like teksyndicate say it really doesn't amount to that much $$$) and that not all of the CPU is currently used. You generally have 4ish cores sitting idle (which can be used for streaming!).

For the most part when I see people saying that a certain high-end CPU DESTROYS another one its better to look at the benchmarks. Say if skyrim runs at 100 FPS on one of them and 120 on the other - on a 60Hz monitor which most people have, you will NOT see any difference. The only things that really matter is whether your minimum is above 60 and your average is too. And most of that is influence by your graphics card anyway.

But if you are concerned with number then currently, the 4670k is best. But we don't know about how future games will play (will they use more cores etc.).
Share
December 3, 2013 5:50:29 AM

JOOK-D you are great man u helped a lot

so do i get the 8320 or the 8350 it won't differ a lot in money or does it worth it to get the 8350

will fx 8350 OCed to like 4.8 ghz+msi MSI 990FXA-GD65 + SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X R9 280X 3GB GDDR5 OC
willl be a lot better than
i5 4670k OCed to like 4.5 ghz +Gigabyte GA-Z87X-D3H (or asrock z87 extreme 4) + EVGA GeForce GTX 760 SC w/ ACX Cooler 2GB GDDR5
and which is better if i plan on making a crossfire or sli
which is the better rig in overall performance and in gaming performance
sorry i ask a lot but i need the best rig as i am going to use it for a while
thanks man
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 448 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 6:00:11 AM

I'd say the AMD setup since that graphics card is a beast. If you're planning to OC to 4.8 (or 4.5 on the intel) then you'll need a nice CPU cooler. I recommend the Noctua NH-D14 although it is a little pricey; you could instead go with the Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO, very popular. Have one myself and it keeps things perfectly cool. You could even go with one of the corsair 'h' series options that are All-in-One liquid cooling kits, yet those are even more expensive.

Both would be fine for xfire/sli.
m
0
l
December 3, 2013 6:04:27 AM

JOOK-D said:
I'd say the AMD setup since that graphics card is a beast. If you're planning to OC to 4.8 (or 4.5 on the intel) then you'll need a nice CPU cooler. I recommend the Noctua NH-D14 although it is a little pricey; you could instead go with the Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO, very popular. Have one myself and it keeps things perfectly cool. You could even go with one of the corsair 'h' series options that are All-in-One liquid cooling kits, yet those are even more expensive.

Both would be fine for xfire/sli.


thanks man a lot :D 

m
0
l
December 3, 2013 2:32:43 PM

JOOK-D said:
Basically, any modern CPU will be great for gaming. You need to focus more on getting a good graphics card, and if getting a cheaper CPU means you can get a better graphics card its worth it.

My 8320 is performing great, and its currently overclock to 8350 speeds without any real change in heat production and I didn't even need to change my voltages. It plays everything I've tried very well, even with my graphics card that is weak (in comparison to some of the people on these forums lol). So yes, it is essentially an underclocked 8350 and overclocking it gives the same performance.

Here's my draft for the difference between intel and AMD for gaming:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading), which may continue into nextgen (unconfirmed).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 (might as well get the 8320, it's an 8350 clocked lower at stock which you can change) [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
- FX 4300/4320/4350 = i3
- FX 6300/6350 = i3 or mid i5
- FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming [i7 hyperthreading isn't very beneficial to gaming]).


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5/i7. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks between the FX 83xx series and the i5/i7's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

TL;DR - FX 6300/8320/8350 or intel i5/i7 k. Get the best GPU possible (save some $$$ from cheaper CPU), any will be fine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that clears some things up. The cons of AMD is that it sues more power (but like teksyndicate say it really doesn't amount to that much $$$) and that not all of the CPU is currently used. You generally have 4ish cores sitting idle (which can be used for streaming!).

For the most part when I see people saying that a certain high-end CPU DESTROYS another one its better to look at the benchmarks. Say if skyrim runs at 100 FPS on one of them and 120 on the other - on a 60Hz monitor which most people have, you will NOT see any difference. The only things that really matter is whether your minimum is above 60 and your average is too. And most of that is influence by your graphics card anyway.

But if you are concerned with number then currently, the 4670k is best. But we don't know about how future games will play (will they use more cores etc.).


Really great answer. Just replying to say that. Have a good day.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 448 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 2:59:56 PM

Pallimud said:
JOOK-D said:
Basically, any modern CPU will be great for gaming. You need to focus more on getting a good graphics card, and if getting a cheaper CPU means you can get a better graphics card its worth it.

My 8320 is performing great, and its currently overclock to 8350 speeds without any real change in heat production and I didn't even need to change my voltages. It plays everything I've tried very well, even with my graphics card that is weak (in comparison to some of the people on these forums lol). So yes, it is essentially an underclocked 8350 and overclocking it gives the same performance.

Here's my draft for the difference between intel and AMD for gaming:

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading), which may continue into nextgen (unconfirmed).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 (might as well get the 8320, it's an 8350 clocked lower at stock which you can change) [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
- FX 4300/4320/4350 = i3
- FX 6300/6350 = i3 or mid i5
- FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming [i7 hyperthreading isn't very beneficial to gaming]).


In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5/i7. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks between the FX 83xx series and the i5/i7's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

TL;DR - FX 6300/8320/8350 or intel i5/i7 k. Get the best GPU possible (save some $$$ from cheaper CPU), any will be fine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that clears some things up. The cons of AMD is that it sues more power (but like teksyndicate say it really doesn't amount to that much $$$) and that not all of the CPU is currently used. You generally have 4ish cores sitting idle (which can be used for streaming!).

For the most part when I see people saying that a certain high-end CPU DESTROYS another one its better to look at the benchmarks. Say if skyrim runs at 100 FPS on one of them and 120 on the other - on a 60Hz monitor which most people have, you will NOT see any difference. The only things that really matter is whether your minimum is above 60 and your average is too. And most of that is influence by your graphics card anyway.

But if you are concerned with number then currently, the 4670k is best. But we don't know about how future games will play (will they use more cores etc.).


Really great answer. Just replying to say that. Have a good day.


Ah, well thanks. :)  You too.
m
0
l
!