Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX-8350 or Intel i7 4820k

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 29, 2013 3:29:47 PM

I am building a PC for the first time, and can't decide which processor to go with. I will be using this PC for gaming only, and will not be over clocking. Now, I know that generally Intel outperforms AMD, even though AMD has higher clock speed and more cores, but is the difference worth the extra 80-100 dollars? I have also heard that AMD is more likely to fluctuate in clock speed, is this true? And since I will most likely be upgrading my CPU, will it be smarter to go with Intel, or will AMD continue to release new CPU's that can compete with Intel or will I be stuck changing my motherboard and my CPU? In addition, does anyone have any other advice on my build?
Here it is:
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/zjuventus14/saved/3gHb

Note: the CPU and motherboard are not there since, obviously I'm undecided.

Thanks

More about : amd 8350 intel 4820k

December 29, 2013 3:33:23 PM

it's not worth it imho. a viable alternative will be an lga1150 setup.
m
0
l
December 29, 2013 3:35:06 PM

wh3resmycar said:
it's not worth it imho. a viable alternative will be an lga1150 setup.


This really does not answer my question.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 3:37:34 PM

if gaming go with fx 8350 , I7 is more likely rendering and other stuff
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 3:38:14 PM

it really depends on what resolution you plan to play at what your budget is and how important it is to you in terms of future playability of games in general. I would be more than happy to help you.
Share
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 3:41:50 PM

Well, get none of them... Get an i5 4670, it's your best option since you're only gaming and not overclocking
m
0
l
December 29, 2013 3:44:51 PM

goodguy713 said:
it really depends on what resolution you plan to play at what your budget is and how important it is to you in terms of future playability of games in general. I would be more than happy to help you.


I have a budget of $2000, but would prefer to stay below $1800. I want this to be a computer that lasts, and want to play games at high to ultra settings. Thank you.
m
0
l
December 29, 2013 3:58:58 PM

Completely forget about AMD. They have no roadmap for anything beyond the 8350. The AM3+ socket is dead. For the record my high end gaming rig is an FX8320 OC'ed to 4.2GHZ. The 2011 socket is also getting a little long in the tooth. I would go socket 1150 with an i7 4770K if building today. 3rd quarter of next year Intel will be upgrading the 2011 socket. Should be very interesting and probably expensive!!!!
m
0
l
December 29, 2013 4:06:08 PM

dude again, it's as simple as that, an lga1150 setup solves your cost issue (an i5 haswell vs an i7 ib-e). and most games are GPU bound anyway especially if you'll go 1440p or higher.

go lga1150 and an sli 760ti setup(you can get 2 for like $500). problem solved. gives you a wide upgrade path as well (broadwell) as opposed to lga2011.


m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 4:31:15 PM

8320 is better for gaming, a lot of newer games use 4 or 6 cores. For applications that still use 2 cores intel will perform better (usually programs for 3d and rendering animations editing etc). Keep in mind though that 8320 needs a good CPU cooler and overclocking to get half decent performance out of it (stock doesn't cut it IMO, and the chips are super easy to OC) and youll save a ton of money over the intel (mind the power consumption)
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 4:32:18 PM

plus if games start using AMD's mantle all cores will be used in a game and perform even better
m
0
l
a c 110 À AMD
a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 29, 2013 4:43:50 PM

Beezy said:
8320 is better for gaming, a lot of newer games use 4 or 6 cores. For applications that still use 2 cores intel will perform better (usually programs for 3d and rendering animations editing etc). Keep in mind though that 8320 needs a good CPU cooler and overclocking to get half decent performance out of it (stock doesn't cut it IMO, and the chips are super easy to OC) and youll save a ton of money over the intel (mind the power consumption)


Intel still wins in the newer games :lol:  Their per-core performance can't be beaten by any AMD offerings. Regardless, unfortunately most games aren't using more than 4 cores, many don't use more than 2. You're 100% correct in the money saving sector, though with the OPs budget it doesn't seem to be an issue.

Both AM3+ and LGA 1150 seem to be dead. However the i5 4670k is one of the best CPUs on the market and with the budget you have OP you should definitely throw in an i5 4670k or an i7 4770k. If the i5 allows you to be a better GPU then go with that, the FPS difference in most games is negligible.

And Mantle is complete speculation.
m
0
l
a c 110 À AMD
a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
December 29, 2013 4:46:14 PM

So my recommendation OP is this:

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/128cR
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/128cR/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/128cR/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($139.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $369.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-29 19:44 EST-0500)

Or this:

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1288S
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1288S/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1288S/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($299.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-A ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($139.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $439.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-29 19:45 EST-0500)

An i7 is essentially an i5 with hyperthreading (doubling the effective core/thread count, however the virtual hyperthreaded cores are weaker) but many games don't utilise it. Some apps for video editing / 3d modelling etc. may use the extra threads/cores.
m
0
l
December 29, 2013 4:46:46 PM

plus if games start using AMD's mantle all cores will be used in a game and perform even better said:
plus if games start using AMD's mantle all cores will be used in a game and perform even better


yeah that's nice but when will that happen? dice haven't delivered yet. no other triple A dev is voicing support for mantle.

this is reminiscent of the old physics acceleration of the past only this time it's more complicated for developers as you're rebuilding the entire engine code. the promise of openCL acceleration, havok etc. AMD NEVER delivered on them.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 5:45:07 PM

Well the performance increase going from a 770 to a 780 will be higher then going from a fx8x to a more expensive 4820K. You can get the 8320 @$160 USD, multiplier bump it to 4.0Ghz (8350 level) which it can easily do without risk, take the extra money and buy a GTX 780 (or equivalent 290 if you want). The only Intel CPU that really competes with it would be the i5-4670 (non-K) @$220 USD (newegg price). If your budget allows for it you can go with the i5-4670K @$240 USD with the GTX 780 or Radeon equivalent which will give you the most gaming Oomph.

Ohh and what kind of display are you talking about here? Cause the whole i5 vs fx6/8 argument goes moot unless your pushing insane settings.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 5:50:18 PM

palladin9479 said:
Well the performance increase going from a 770 to a 780 will be higher then going from a fx8x to a more expensive 4820K. You can get the 8320 @$160 USD, multiplier bump it to 4.0Ghz (8350 level) which it can easily do without risk, take the extra money and buy a GTX 780 (or equivalent 290 if you want). The only Intel CPU that really competes with it would be the i5-4670 (non-K) @$220 USD (newegg price). If your budget allows for it you can go with the i5-4670K @$240 USD with the GTX 780 or Radeon equivalent which will give you the most gaming Oomph.

Ohh and what kind of display are you talking about here? Cause the whole i5 vs fx6/8 argument goes moot unless your pushing insane settings.


I have an fx 6300 OC'd to 4.6ghz and an HD 7870 DCII. I don't plan on ever using more than one 1080p monitor for gaming. You think ill be ok for a while? or is this the limit of my setup with the newer games like BF4. Tomb raider still gets 60 solid fps on ultra.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 6:35:44 PM

Beezy said:
palladin9479 said:
Well the performance increase going from a 770 to a 780 will be higher then going from a fx8x to a more expensive 4820K. You can get the 8320 @$160 USD, multiplier bump it to 4.0Ghz (8350 level) which it can easily do without risk, take the extra money and buy a GTX 780 (or equivalent 290 if you want). The only Intel CPU that really competes with it would be the i5-4670 (non-K) @$220 USD (newegg price). If your budget allows for it you can go with the i5-4670K @$240 USD with the GTX 780 or Radeon equivalent which will give you the most gaming Oomph.

Ohh and what kind of display are you talking about here? Cause the whole i5 vs fx6/8 argument goes moot unless your pushing insane settings.


I have an fx 6300 OC'd to 4.6ghz and an HD 7870 DCII. I don't plan on ever using more than one 1080p monitor for gaming. You think ill be ok for a while? or is this the limit of my setup with the newer games like BF4. Tomb raider still gets 60 solid fps on ultra.


Your fine for the time being, shouldn't have to upgrade for another couple of years. The 2GB on your GPU is going to limit you more then anything else and even then it's only with insanely higher AA / AF settings.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 8:06:05 PM

palladin9479 said:
Beezy said:
palladin9479 said:
Well the performance increase going from a 770 to a 780 will be higher then going from a fx8x to a more expensive 4820K. You can get the 8320 @$160 USD, multiplier bump it to 4.0Ghz (8350 level) which it can easily do without risk, take the extra money and buy a GTX 780 (or equivalent 290 if you want). The only Intel CPU that really competes with it would be the i5-4670 (non-K) @$220 USD (newegg price). If your budget allows for it you can go with the i5-4670K @$240 USD with the GTX 780 or Radeon equivalent which will give you the most gaming Oomph.

Ohh and what kind of display are you talking about here? Cause the whole i5 vs fx6/8 argument goes moot unless your pushing insane settings.


I have an fx 6300 OC'd to 4.6ghz and an HD 7870 DCII. I don't plan on ever using more than one 1080p monitor for gaming. You think ill be ok for a while? or is this the limit of my setup with the newer games like BF4. Tomb raider still gets 60 solid fps on ultra.


Your fine for the time being, shouldn't have to upgrade for another couple of years. The 2GB on your GPU is going to limit you more then anything else and even then it's only with insanely higher AA / AF settings.


so when newer games give me problems, start with turning AA off. got it. Will a second HD 7870 at pcie 2.0 x4 even be worth it?..all my slots are pcie 2.0 im not sure if 3.0 matter yet but im sure it will soon
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 29, 2013 9:50:29 PM

Spoiler
Beezy said:
palladin9479 said:
Beezy said:
palladin9479 said:
Well the performance increase going from a 770 to a 780 will be higher then going from a fx8x to a more expensive 4820K. You can get the 8320 @$160 USD, multiplier bump it to 4.0Ghz (8350 level) which it can easily do without risk, take the extra money and buy a GTX 780 (or equivalent 290 if you want). The only Intel CPU that really competes with it would be the i5-4670 (non-K) @$220 USD (newegg price). If your budget allows for it you can go with the i5-4670K @$240 USD with the GTX 780 or Radeon equivalent which will give you the most gaming Oomph.

Ohh and what kind of display are you talking about here? Cause the whole i5 vs fx6/8 argument goes moot unless your pushing insane settings.


I have an fx 6300 OC'd to 4.6ghz and an HD 7870 DCII. I don't plan on ever using more than one 1080p monitor for gaming. You think ill be ok for a while? or is this the limit of my setup with the newer games like BF4. Tomb raider still gets 60 solid fps on ultra.


Your fine for the time being, shouldn't have to upgrade for another couple of years. The 2GB on your GPU is going to limit you more then anything else and even then it's only with insanely higher AA / AF settings.


so when newer games give me problems, start with turning AA off. got it. Will a second HD 7870 at pcie 2.0 x4 even be worth it?..all my slots are pcie 2.0 im not sure if 3.0 matter yet but im sure it will soon




PCIe 2.0 x16 is fine for the time being, we haven't been pushing enough data across the PCIe bus to cap it out. I don't expect PCIe 3.0 to be required except in 8/8 SLI mode in extreme cases. And it's more about turning AA down not off. Many of the benchmarks used on the web are done at 8~16x AA and 16x AF settings which is way beyond what most people will use. A more conservative 4 or 8x setting will yield better performance for what is visibly the same quality.
m
0
l
December 31, 2013 6:15:09 AM

Hi,
First of all A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Since i Saw your monitor i assume you will be gaming on Full HD.
Having said that, at that resolution the CPU does not matter that much . Its the graphics card that does the heavy lifting, and if the title is cpu dependent the FX 8350 is more than capable of handling such with 60 plus FPS.
I Did buy one of course (a FX 8350) and also a i5 3570K.
Let me say it and get it out of the way i love my FX. Basically you can save on both motherboard and CPU and put THAT money towards a powerful Graphic card.
i paired my FX with this motherboard:- http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-ga78l.... This MB has VRM cooling, Internal USB connector (this is particularly hard to find on many MB), the two reasons apart from value for money i choose this.

factor the cost in and see were you get the best value.

P.S. :- i overclocked to 4.4 GHz on air successfully on this MB, in an CM 690II Adv. With Four fans.

m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
December 31, 2013 10:17:56 AM

I paid $170 for my FX-8350, it was a nice deal at the time from Newegg. I play games just fine including BF3 and 4 at 1080 resolution. The vast majority of games on the market are limited by the GPU not the CPU. Any modern strong CPU can handle the most demanding games at wonderfully playable fluidity, the "which one gets more FPS" debate aside.

You don't need to consider an i7 at all if gaming is the primary goal of the system. Hyperthreading is the only difference between the i5 and i7, no game uses it, and no game likely will in the near future. Flip a coin between the i5 and FX-8350. You're not really going to go wrong either way.

Both AMD and Intel have finite life cycles on their CPU motherboard sockets, buy the CPU you want, forget upgrading it, buy a CPU that can last the life of the system unless you plan on doing something with that CPU you upgraded from, you'll just end up with a nice expensive paperweight.
m
0
l
January 1, 2014 5:02:03 AM

Hi mate, the 4820k is not a good choice for you so forget about that one altogether, it's great for gaming, but only has advantages when you are pushing resolutions into surround and eyefinity territory - ie 5760 x 1080 with settings up rediculously high and with multiple high end graphics cards to take advantage of the extra bandwidth available, and to get access to quad channel memory, which at present does little to no impact with gaming. It's also great at overclocking but as you don't want to do that, there is no point in getting it. It's also not a CPU for first time builders, it is a complex process to go about installing and setting one up, more complex than other CPU's due to most motherboards requiring a BIOS update to be able to use the CPU. You are also not using it for anything other than gaming so go something else. The AMD FX-8350 is a decent choice, BF4 for instance does support all 8 cores, however due to a range of factors the intel chips still out perform it in gaming, including BF4, it's still a decent CPU though (Keep in mind that clock speed of the two opposing groups does not determine the end speed of the CPU, there are many factors today, and the AMD CPU's physical configuration prevents all 8 cores from being able to function at 100% of potential performance when all are used). I'd recommend the i5 4670K or the i7 4770K, the 4770K is of course better, but only by a small margain, as others have commented, but both CPU's still perform very well, with most games currently, remember though that hyperthreading is not on the 4670K, so that may change in the future and you will notice a larger gap between the two processors when used in games that use the extra threads, such as BF 3 & 4, for this reason I would recommend the 4770K. With this setup, it is good to try to stick to a single GPU for a while to avoid micro stuttering that can happen with multiple GPU's. however Nvidia have done a good job at reducing it's occurance in multi GPU configurations.
m
0
l
January 1, 2014 10:51:04 PM

With Intel gearing up for the HASWELL-E Line of 8 core CPU's and the advent of the new Z97 and K97 Chipsets between Q3-14 and Q2-15 I don't know if I'd build a new system at all this year. As in the past, When the Intel speaks the End User listens. Most of your available Hi-Pro CPU's GPU's and in AMD's case APU's will very rapidly become obsolete. Take for example the Core i(x) lineup. Launched Q2-09 and here we are. If you don't mind the wait...build that system you're planning just as the new stuff starts to trickle in. In doing so you will find WAY better $$tag, and build a monster system that you can hold onto until you're ready to graduate to the new gen. chipsets / processors. In the previous remarks about AMD not having a roadmap and not delivering on their promised platform improvements....this is TRUE AND ACCURATE. I'm not a dedicated Intel fan but there's definately some history to look on over the last 5 years before deciding. If ya have to build it NOW...my money's on the i5 4670!
m
0
l
January 2, 2014 10:57:09 AM

the intel 48xx and 49xx are not for gaming take a look at the price and see the quad channel memmory support (you need 4 identical dimms of ram)
its menth for video and sound editing and CAD programs
the 115X platform is more for gaming its only support dual channel (but there is no game that takes advantage of quad channel) if you take a look at benchmark then you notice the results between the 2 platform is almost nothing while the prices differences are significant
you better use the money for extra ram, an SSD and/or a better GPU
and AMD manthle is only for GPU wat it is going to support for an AMD CPU its going to do for A intel CPU aswel as long it is paired with a AMD GPU
(manthle only support 7790 or higher number and RX XXX series)
m
0
l
January 2, 2014 9:55:42 PM

I would get the 8350 and spend the extra money on graphics card.It is true that Intel outperforms AMD,but that doesn't meant the FX-8350 isn't a beast.I'm running an FX-6100 with a Radeon HD7870 and I'm playing demanding games at ultra on 1920x1080.I also do design and rendering with this rig and everything works flawlessly.Once again,I'm on an FX-6100,which is Bulldozer,the 8350 is the more refined "Steamroller",so it'll easily do better than what I have.The point that was made about the socket AM3+ is possibly valid though,but I'd say by the time you go to buy a new processor,all relevant sockets will have changed.And by the way everyone,AMD's stock climbed 8 points today while every other tech company's fell by at least double.Also remember,AMD is probably making good friends with a lot of the gaming industry's finest because of their hardware being used in the PS4,XboxONE,and Wii U.Any games made for PC using AMD's "Mantle" application programing interface will most likely also favor their hardware.Your paying more for Intel,but it's more that you don't necessarily need.My rig outperforms my friend's i5 quad core all the time,but he has a GeForce 560.
m
0
l
January 2, 2014 10:05:27 PM

Jay Hopkins said:
I would get the 8350 and spend the extra money on graphics card.It is true that Intel outperforms AMD,but that doesn't meant the FX-8350 isn't a beast.I'm running an FX-6100 with a Radeon HD7870 and I'm playing demanding games at ultra on 1920x1080.I also do design and rendering with this rig and everything works flawlessly.Once again,I'm on an FX-6100,which is Bulldozer,the 8350 is the more refined "Steamroller",so it'll easily do better than what I have.The point that was made about the socket AM3+ is possibly valid though,but I'd say by the time you go to buy a new processor,all relevant sockets will have changed.And by the way everyone,AMD's stock climbed 8 points today while every other tech company's fell by at least double.Also remember,AMD is probably making good friends with a lot of the gaming industry's finest because of their hardware being used in the PS4,XboxONE,and Wii U.Any games made for PC using AMD's "Mantle" application programing interface will most likely also favor their hardware.Your paying more for Intel,but it's more that you don't necessarily need.My rig outperforms my friend's i5 quad core all the time,but he has a GeForce 560.

Like He said, AMD is making friends with alot of the companies, for instance, Battlefield 4 is optimized for AMD CPU and GPU.

m
0
l
January 2, 2014 10:31:33 PM

Given your budget and your statement of how long you want it to last, if it were me personally I'd cut the budget to only $1000 and then add/remove things sometime in 2015. That's when the more big changes are supposed to hit.
m
0
l
!