I was wondering if it would be better to spend $300 on an intel 4770K or spend $229 on an AMD FX-9370. I don't know much about AMD stuff, but the specs are pretty nice. I like intel. For the price would it be better to go to AMD? What is the difference? Thanks!
AMD vs. Intel
- Thread starter bws678
- Start date
Solution
plasmastorm
Distinguished
- Oct 18, 2008
- 726
- 0
- 19,160
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
An FX 8370 is essentially an overclocked 8350, which is essentially an overclocked 8320.
An i7 4770k is essentially an i5 4670k with hyperthreading (virtual cores) which aren't utilised by most games.
In either case, the intel solution would be better than the AMD for gaming.
An i7 4770k is essentially an i5 4670k with hyperthreading (virtual cores) which aren't utilised by most games.
In either case, the intel solution would be better than the AMD for gaming.
jacob9hawkes
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 50
- 0
- 10,640
I would NOT recommend the FX-9370 - the TPD is around 220W, and you'll need watercooling to keep it at a reasonable temp. They're a waste of money. However, the FX-8320 or 8350 are a far better choice, with tdp at 120W - you'll still need good cooling, but nothing like water cooling. While neither of these FX chips can compete with an i7-4770K in many applications, the FX chips are better in some productivity tasks, and with AMD Mantle we should see a leveled playing field between the Quad-core hyper threaded i7s and true 8-core FX chips.
In my honest opinion, it truly depends on what you want to use the CPU for. If you could tell me, I'll be able to offer the full extent of my advice
Why would the intel i5 be better for gaming? Sorry if I sound stupid. I've never really built a computer before. Would the i7 be better for long term usage? I have a computer that I use for bad games that is going to be 12 years old (that is why I am upgrading). Would the i7 be able to play more games in the future? I am more than willing to pay the extra money for something that would work longer. Thanks for such detailed responses to my easy question everyone.
Honestly, the current generation of consoles (xbox1/ps4) is using lower end AMD 8 core processors (jaguars). What this means, is games will start to be made to optimize 8 cores ,and with mantle (supposedly), the 8 cores will be more utilized. I would honestly say go for the 8350/8320 and overclock the crap out of it. Unless something major happens in the next 2 years, those will hold you off for a long time. Take the money you save and apply it to a GPU and compare it.
edit: NOTE*, I am 100% aware, that stock vs stock, the intel smokes the amd.... Im simply saying, that kind of performance isn't required, and dollar for dollar, the AMD wins honestly.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
edit: NOTE*, I am 100% aware, that stock vs stock, the intel smokes the amd.... Im simply saying, that kind of performance isn't required, and dollar for dollar, the AMD wins honestly.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
jacob9hawkes
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 50
- 0
- 10,640
It wouldn't be 'better' for gaming, it's just the i7 would offer NO NOTICEABLE performance boosts whatsoever in any current games. In the future however, the i7 will actually offer better performance. Same goes for the FX 8 core chips. While games currently only use a max of 4 cores on a CPU, they will begin to use more in the future, meaning that the i7s and FX octo core chips will be a better option, especially as you want to keep it running for a while. I'm guessing you're not going to be upgrading regularly?
I personally own an Intel i5-4670K, and it runs very well. However I upgrade regularly so I have no need for a CPU with a higher core count. But as you want something to last... I'd go for the FX 8350. It's a cheap CPU for the performance you'll get both now and in the future. It will perform extremely well with new games due to AMD mantle increasing performance, and also due to the new consoles having AMD 8 core CPUs. It's the sensible option if you want to keep it a long time.
as an example, AMD showed a quad core APU (CPU with intergrated graphics) running Battlefield 4 at 1080P, 60FPS, medium settings. This was running mantle. without mantle, the performance of the game would probably be like, 5FPS. maybe not, but you see my point
jacob9hawkes
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 50
- 0
- 10,640
You're spot on with that, i've been an intel/nvidia guy for a while but honestly I'm swaying to AMD for my next build!
- Jul 26, 2008
- 3,871
- 516
- 23,840
For gaming depends on other things, like what GPU do you have. Both those Intel CPU's are priced higher then the fx8 and the fx9 is a poor decision period. Also there is very little difference between the fx8350 and the aforementioned i5 and i7's when actually playing games. This is from someone with fx8350 @4.7 and two GTX-780 hydro's. Finally, newer games are actually using more then two cores, significantly more. The problem is they are using them inside multiplayer mode and with dynamic environments, those things rarely get benchmarked because of how unpredictable and difficult to control / repeat they can be. So you'll get a timed demo run that has two cores being used, then a MP run where four to six end up being pushed giving you dramatically different performance characteristics. Or games like Skyrim that come, out of the box, configured like a console and benchmark using 1~2 cores and being heavily CPU restricted. Start loading up the mods for expanded gameplay and graphics and suddenly it's slamming both my 780's to 100% and using several cores.
So what you doing, how will you do it, and how much money are you spending for the entire package.
So what you doing, how will you do it, and how much money are you spending for the entire package.
McWelshie
Honorable
- Jul 13, 2013
- 193
- 0
- 10,710
i do agree with this as my current build has AMD cpu and gpu i always say with a budget build go with AMD they are just better bang for buck but im going to start recommending them for higher spec builds now especially after they announced there new 2014 products which will beat intel by the looks of it
Matt087_48
Distinguished
- Apr 9, 2012
- 79
- 0
- 18,660
I have an i5 2500k overclocked 4 GHZ with a hyper 212 evo and a 2GB EVGA ssc GTX 660 video card and i'm set for years to come , never gets above 44 degrees c , thats encoding videos , gaming everything.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 5
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram