Solved Closed

FX-8350 vs i5 4670k

this is the computer im planning to build:
.AMD FX-8350 eight core
.Sapphire Dual-X AMD Radeon R9 280X OC 3GB GDDR5 Graphics Card
.Western Digital 1TB internal Hard Drive
.8GB Ram (1x8)
.ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3 Motherboard

Is their a big difference between the i5 4670K and the FX-8350? cause next gen consoles are running at 8 cores(minus at least 1 for the OS) and im trying to future proof my computer for as long as possible.
13 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 8350 4670k
  1. Best answer
    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: Worse for games that are single-threaded, great for multi-threaded games (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 a little less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will generally run them well.

    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 a few new games that can utilise it, and heavy work, can be 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. I do however find it hard to recommend FX, since AM3+ is essentially a dead socket.

    As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
    - FX 4300/4320/4350 = below or equal to i3
    - FX 6300/6350 = i3 or low i5
    - FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming, same for 8xxx/9xxx).


    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 (i.e real-world) 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.
  2. Theoretically BF4 is the only game that can utilize the FX8350 but the I5 is still better http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
    Go for the 4670K it is just as future proof!
  3. We'll have to wait and see whether multithreading is well utilised or not.
  4. Crysis 3 uses all 8 threads on my 2600k betwen 40 and 60%.
  5. Go with 2 X 4GB RAM, it will perform better than one 8GB stick of RAM.
  6. Hi,

    For gaming the i5 4670K has a little edge over the FX-8350, but it comes down to witch games you want to play (case per case)

    For multicore application the fx should have the edge over the i5.

    CPU maker are hitting a wall right now and we don't know what we will get on the long run ? more core or more speed or more memory. It's had to future proof builds right now.
    But I guess more core the better.
  7. Z1NONLY said:
    Crysis 3 uses all 8 threads on my 2600k betwen 40 and 60%.

    Another game where the FX 8350 beats I5 3470 by1 fps but a faster I5 which the 4670K is would beat both http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
  8. If you are running on a tight budget go for the FX 8350 but if you have some extra money to spend go for i5-4670k as it is a bit better than Fx 8350.. Let me tell you their wont be much difference in performance if you buy a decent graphics card..

    Also let me tell you that the price of Fx-9370 is also same to the price of Fx 8350 , though you will need to get a better mobo for it...

    other Suggestions :
    1. Get a mobo with atleast 970 chipset, preferably 990 , this one will not support 8350 with ease may cause a lot of problems...
    2. Get 2x4GB Ram, they will have better performance !
  9. tough, the fx 8350 comes at 4.1 gz stock or 4? and turn the tables and clock the 3.4ghz i5 4670k that at stock is comparable to fx 8350, crank it up to 4.1 or 4. ghz and you will se a major difference, also intel does have better ipc, wich will benefit your clocking, also there is not alot of room to overclock your 8350 for further performance since its so high stock, so in the long run i5 is saver since its more room for overclocking thus more power
  10. maxiboden said:
    tough, the fx 8350 comes at 4.1 gz stock or 4? and turn the tables and clock the 3.4ghz i5 4670k that at stock is comparable to fx 8350, crank it up to 4.1 or 4. ghz and you will se a major difference, also intel does have better ipc, wich will benefit your clocking, also there is not alot of room to overclock your 8350 for further performance since its so high stock, so in the long run i5 is saver since its more room for overclocking thus more power


    you can overclock FX8350 upto 5ghz with just a evo 212 or any liquid cooler i guess.
  11. your not getting 5ghz without big air or a good water cooler, i just barely get 5 with the h100i push/pull. I got 4.5 with my chip on 212 and just at 61c core/70c socket temps.
  12. Hi, thank you for a good explanation of the pros and cons of AMD vs Intel. However I feel that you left out one vital piece of information and that is the power. The AMD FX-8320 and FX-8350 uses 125W of power, the FX-9370 and FX-9590 uses 220W of power. In comparison the Intel i5-4690K uses 88W and the i7-4790K also only 88W. This is very important for a gaming PC's where temperatures (and thus noise) are always a concern. Also it doesn't really help to buy a cheaper AMD CPU and then having to fork out more for a stronger Power Supply. This is however less of an issue for me and I think the temperature and cooling issues are more important.

    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: Worse for games that are single-threaded, great for multi-threaded games (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 a little less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will generally run them well.

    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 a few new games that can utilise it, and heavy work, can be 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. I do however find it hard to recommend FX, since AM3+ is essentially a dead socket.

    As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
    - FX 4300/4320/4350 = below or equal to i3
    - FX 6300/6350 = i3 or low i5
    - FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming, same for 8xxx/9xxx).


    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 (i.e real-world) 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.
  13. Hi, thank you for a good explanation of the pros and cons of AMD vs Intel. However I feel that you left out one vital piece of information and that is the power. The AMD FX-8320 and FX-8350 uses 125W of power, the FX-9370 and FX-9590 uses 220W of power. In comparison the Intel i5-4690K uses 88W and the i7-4790K also only 88W. This is very important for a gaming PC's where temperatures (and thus noise) are always a concern. Also it doesn't really help to buy a cheaper AMD CPU and then having to fork out more for a stronger Power Supply. This is however less of an issue for me and I think the temperature and cooling issues are more important.

    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: Worse for games that are single-threaded, great for multi-threaded games (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 a little less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will generally run them well.

    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 a few new games that can utilise it, and heavy work, can be 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. I do however find it hard to recommend FX, since AM3+ is essentially a dead socket.

    As a general guide for gaming: (FX's piledriver, intel's sandy/ivy/haswell)
    - FX 4300/4320/4350 = below or equal to i3
    - FX 6300/6350 = i3 or low i5
    - FX 8320/8350/9xxx = i5 (k) / i7 (well-threaded games, streaming, same for 8xxx/9xxx).


    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 (i.e real-world) 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.



    Hi, it's been almost a year since I made that post and my opinions have definitely changed, they're far more similar to your own. Having owned several of the FX's and now an i5 and Xeon, I can see from personal experience that the intels definitely have the upper hand in most tasks.
Ask a new question

Read More

cpus