Intel i5 4570 or AMD 8350 or i5 4670k for gaming

Hi,
I'm trying to build this gaming pc around 650$ and I'm in a fix which build will do the best within this price range.

I already have a Sapphire Radeon HD 7750 gpu that I've decided to keep and use in the new build, so 650$ is without the gpu price.

I was thinking of going straight for i5 4570 hashwell but a friend of mine told due to PS4 and Xbox One is made with AMD 8 core processors, it is safer to build a gaming pc using fx8350 but another person who claims to know well these matters told me not to. He advised me to go for 4670k which will allow me to overclock the CPU so it will be futureproof for at least 4-5 years.

I also plan to buy a AMD 7870 later.

I am not sure I can afford water coolers now. So with decent aircoolers, can I overclock the 4670k to somewhat 4200-4800mhz? I also heard that fx8350 can be overclocked from 4ghz to 4.8ghz with stock cooler.

Can you guys suggest something?
15 answers Last reply
More about intel 4570 amd 8350 4670k gaming
  1. The 4670k if you want to future proof it. As you said, you can OC it to keep up with future games. But IMHO, I also don't believe all the hype with the multi threaded games next year or next 3 years. I still honestly and firmly believe that for the next 3 years, quad cores are still optimal for gaming.

    About the 8350 @ 4.8Ghz, and 4670k @ 4.8Ghz: They are not equal. Clock speed doesn't equate with intel and amd. If they have both the same clock speed, the intel chip wins.
  2. I5-4670k is the best for gaming.
  3. Yeah, the 4670k is currently the best, and the 'safest' bet.

    If you want to save a little go with the FX6300/FX 8320, still very good. With the GPU you have they're wasted anyway, honestly. But since you're upgrading to a 7870 in future you'll be fine.

    If you want to overclock either you'll need a decent motherboard and a decent cooler, the stock coolers are a bit crap.
  4. The 8350's just barely faster than a 2500K in gaming. The 4670k would definitely be a better choice.

    They're kinda crap for serious OCing though compared to Sandy and Ivy Bridge unless you have a decent cooling setup or delid it.

    The 4570 board could save you a bit of cash if you don't really plan on overclocking ever. It's still pretty fast and more than enough for most any game. The new consoles may have 8-core CPUs, but they're weak as all hell. Weaker than some laptops, even.

    Though to be honest, an 8320 would be the most cost effective choice, since it's just an 8350 with a slightly lower clockspeed and can be found for fairly cheap.
  5. sartorius said:
    The 8350's just barely faster than a 2500K in gaming. The 4670k would definitely be a better choice.

    They're kinda crap for serious OCing though compared to Sandy and Ivy Bridge unless you have a decent cooling setup or delid it.

    The 4570 board could save you a bit of cash if you don't really plan on overclocking ever. It's still pretty fast and more than enough for most any game. The new consoles may have 8-core CPUs, but they're weak as all hell. Weaker than some laptops, even.

    Though to be honest, an 8320 would be the most cost effective choice, since it's just an 8350 with a slightly lower clockspeed and can be found for fairly cheap.


    The 8350 matches newer gen i5's and some i7's (albeit they perform similarly to the i5's) in newer games. But older 1-2 core games, you're spot on. Having said that, it's not as if a 2500k performs badly in games, it's extremely capable and probably still has a few years left too. The OCing things is true too.

    I'm really interested about what these new consoles bring - 8 cores are 8 cores, regardless of the technicality. If there are some lazy console ports to PC they might perform better on 8 cores, since they'll be able to distribute workload more evenly than on a 4 core - potentially. But we'll see, it could make absolutely no difference at all. And yes, the cores are very slow however games are specifically designed for them so they'll act as being much stronger than 1.6 GHz cores.

    And to your last statement, agreed. 8320 > 8350, there's no reason not to, it's just cheaper. I reached the 8350's turbo speed with minimal temp increases and no voltage bumps.

    Still the 4670k is the champ for gaming, I just can't justify spending that much on a CPU.
  6. The 8320 is the best chip ever in terns of value. Feel free to donate around $40 to AMD by getting the 8350.
  7. Lessthannil said:
    The 8320 is the best chip ever in terns of value. Feel free to donate around $40 to AMD by getting the 8350.


    :lol: True
  8. in old or single threaded games yeah i5 4670k>fx 8350 currently and for moderately threaded games i5 4670=fx 8350, and in the near future fx 8350> i5 4670k, let's review these benchmarks here
    http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
    http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performance/page5.html (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
    http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/ (crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
    http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html (bf3 fx 8350>i5 3570k)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchmark/8/ (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/ ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/ ( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
    http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html (Tomb raider 2013)
    a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%
    in the future fx 8350> i5 4670k, wanna bet!? just look at these links
    * where is the i5 in UBISOFT's system requirements!? http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&game=Watch%20Dogs Ubisoft has confrimed that this game is heavily threaded, and has promised i5 owners can hit ultra sttings!! NO ULTRA SETTINGS
    * When Capcom says its new engine takes full advantage of i7, which is good news for Capcom it really means it http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132533/sponsored_feature_resident_evil_5_.php?print=1
    * Epic says the more cores the better http://www.shacknews.com/article/70348/epic-talks-unreal-engine-4
    if i were you I would go with fx 8320, I personally went with fx 8350...
  9. Darkresurrection said:
    in old or single threaded games yeah i5 4670k>fx 8350 currently and for moderately threaded games i5 4670=fx 8350, and in the near future fx 8350> i5 4670k, let's review these benchmarks here
    http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html (MOH warfighter fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
    http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performance/page5.html (call of duty black ops 2 fx 8350 performs as well as i7-3960x)
    http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/ (crysis 3- fx 8350 better than i7 3770k and just below i7-3950x)
    http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html (bf3 fx 8350>i5 3570k)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/batman-arkham-origins-benchmark/8/ (batman Arkham Origins fx 8350= i7 4770k after AMD's catalyst release)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/ ( battlefield 4 ultra HD FX 8350 equal to i7-4770k)
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/ ( battlefield4 full HD the same scenario)
    http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html (Tomb raider 2013)
    a lot of more incidents which shows these CPUs enjoy actually the same performance, in one game one beats the other, in the other game there is another scenario, but something is for sure, in crysis 3 for example i5-3570k uses 80% percent of it resources AMD fx 8350 just uses 60% in COD ghost i5 4670k uses 44% of its resources fx 8350 only uses 25%
    in the future fx 8350> i5 4670k, wanna bet!? just look at these links
    * where is the i5 in UBISOFT's system requirements!? http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&game=Watch%20Dogs Ubisoft has confrimed that this game is heavily threaded, and has promised i5 owners can hit ultra sttings!! NO ULTRA SETTINGS
    * When Capcom says its new engine takes full advantage of i7, which is good news for Capcom it really means it http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132533/sponsored_feature_resident_evil_5_.php?print=1
    * Epic says the more cores the better http://www.shacknews.com/article/70348/epic-talks-unreal-engine-4
    if i were you I would go with fx 8320, I personally went with fx 8350...


    ^^^
    I hope you are not trolling because I don't know if I screw up by buying an AMD fx8350 I might not be able to get another gaming pc due to no extra budget.


    EVERYONE, is this true that i5 4670k>fx 8350 currently and for moderately threaded games i5 4670=fx 8350, and in the near future fx 8350> i5 4670k ???
  10. The near future is speculation, it seems as though many companies are moving towards multi-core optimisation which would benefit AMD FX, yes.

    Older games: i5
    Newer games: i5/FX
    Future games: Either.

    Honestly, if they're within the same price range I'd go for the i5 4670k. I personally went with the 8320 because it's dirt cheap and has such great performance with a low price tag. If you went with the 4670k you'd have a future upgrade path to the new intel CPU gen coming out next year since they will be on the same motherboard socket, whereas the AM3+ socket doesn't seem to be getting any more updates. However, which will perform better is yet to be seen - neither would be bad choices by any means.
  11. AMD just confirmed that there will be an upgrade path for the AM3+ socket. The FX lineup is not dead! http://www.hardwarepal.com/amd-fx-series-processors-willnotbe-discontinued/
  12. adimeister said:
    AMD just confirmed that there will be an upgrade path for the AM3+ socket. The FX lineup is not dead! http://www.hardwarepal.com/amd-fx-series-processors-willnotbe-discontinued/


    Haven't seen that yet! Thanks! :D
  13. I was actually thinking on upgrading to an i5 4670k, but when I saw this. I might upgrade to an am3+ mobo.
  14. So, I'd rather go for an AMD 8320/8350 rather than i5 4570/4670k for future proofing and playing lazy console ports at good fps? I'm going for sapphire radeon 7870 or msi nVidia 760
  15. Excellent choice, and I would go for r9-270x over gtx760 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127761
Ask a new question

Read More

Build Gaming CPUs Intel i5 AMD