Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 3570K vs FX-8350 on the future

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 18, 2014 8:50:34 AM

I don't really care (much) for performance-per-core and very complex calculations, which the Intel is beast at. But since both the x86 (the keyword is exactly x86) consoles with 8 core APU's made by AMD, wouldn't we see a VERY giant (ok, maybe not giant, but significant at the barebone minimum) in on 8-core performance in games?

I would really like to get this done once and for all because I'm really having a bad time deciding between the two especially when the AMD option will have a leap in performance in the next years!

Price listings (cheapest I can get them here):
i5 3570K - 162,37£
i5 3570 - 155,00£ (7£ cheaper)
FX-8350 - 148,00£ (14£ cheaper)
FX-8320 - 107,92£ (54£ cheaper)

Overclock & Lifespan: I'm thinking of making my build last at least 5 years and maximum 10 years without any modifications with the exception of Cooler and RAM.
As for Overclock I really am not an extreme overclocker, so it really isn't a big deal for me...
But after 3-4 years I think I'll be overclocking the cpu & GPU (MSi Gaming R9 280X).

Hope this thread helps anyone else struggling to build his PC at this very competitive time :) 

More about : 3570k 8350 future

a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 8:54:09 AM

The golden rule with technology is to not try and predict the future. Even if the FX does well in 2 years if multi-threading takes off, there will be something newer and faster to replace it.

Even in BF4 the i5's can perform on par or better than the FX's many cores. The only thing I know that the FX's are currently certainly better at (in Windows) is video encoding.

Your build is unlikely to last 5-10 years, especially with DDR4 etc. right around the corner. Most of the FX line is a few years old already.
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 9:11:04 AM

JOOK-D said:
The golden rule with technology is to not try and predict the future. Even if the FX does well in 2 years if multi-threading takes off, there will be something newer and faster to replace it.

Even in BF4 the i5's can perform on par or better than the FX's many cores. The only thing I know that the FX's are currently certainly better at (in Windows) is video encoding.

Your build is unlikely to last 5-10 years, especially with DDR4 etc. right around the corner. Most of the FX line is a few years old already.


Cheaper tho and I don't really care much for high-end compute calculations, a few things to add in which AMD is better:
-Streaming performance (games streams at least)
-Rendering
-Core-count (just saying...)

And yeah I know it won't last 5-10 years, I think what I wanted to say by that was I don't intend to modify anything until at least 5 years have passed, I also won't be gaming above 1080p, and I am aware 3GB is overkill with the R9 280X but the GTX 770 option is still more expensive than the R9 280X (Bitcoin isn't really profitable where I live...).

As for golden rule, yea I know that too but... If I can save money in the long run I think I can take into account the possibility of AMD's FX-8350 8-cores being a monster. "What does the i5 3570K have in the future", you seem my point?

EDIT: When I say rendering I mean that last part when your video is being made onto a file, I don't know if that's what you meant by encoding tho.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 9:28:26 AM

Streaming performance and rendering - yes, hence why I mentioned video encoding. Core count - fair enough, but remember that they are weak cores. And I just saw your edit. :p 

It's not as if any modern CPU will become obsolete in 5 years, just that they won't be top end anymore. If you go with an FX (and games are getting more intensive as time goes on) you're hedging your bets that multithreading is the future (which I agree it probably is) but it's difficult to be certain. The thing I find is that the i5 is the best out of the two for gaming right now and the i5 matches it even in the games where multithreading is applied. That's what it has for the future, it matches it.

Here's my draft between FX/i5:

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 much 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).

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, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
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 [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.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These particular benchmarks however do not reflect what most benchmarks have shown for pure gaming performance, and they have been scrutinized many times. In addition the overclocking for intel scales much better than the FX.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. 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, others they are behind. You will get decent FPS with either, as with any modern CPU.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

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

So essentially, it's up to you. If it was me buying one right now for gaming/streaming, I'd go with a Xeon chip - similarly priced to the high end i5's, hyperthreading and performance of an i7 (in fact I'm looking into getting one). The fact of the matter is it seems like at least for the next few years single-core performance will still be the dominating factor in gaming performance, it won't change with the flick of a switch.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2014 9:33:40 AM

Buy whatever you want then, why the inquiry? You seem to be locked on AMD and that AMD CPU is fine.


If it would be me I'd go for Intel in this case, because in reality the fact that AMD has more cores is negated by their infamously atrocious single core performance and while I5's apparent lack of cores seems to not really matter in such a multithreaded and seemingly console optimized title as BF4, the lack of a single-threaded performance does drag you down in MANY games that depend on single core performance like for example Starcraft 2, Skyrim or WoW or just about any PC exclusive MMO game in existence right now, for that matter.

With all that said, it's not like FX8350 won't do you any good in those, so might just go on and get, although take a note that whatever difference you will save upfront with FX will be eaten by it's higher energy requirements and subsequential electric bill differences.


So for all intents and purposes - I5 is simply a smarter choice.
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 9:44:01 AM

JOOK-D said:
Streaming performance and rendering - yes, hence why I mentioned video encoding. Core count - fair enough, but remember that they are weak cores. And I just saw your edit. :p 

It's not as if any modern CPU will become obsolete in 5 years, just that they won't be top end anymore. If you go with an FX (and games are getting more intensive as time goes on) you're hedging your bets that multithreading is the future (which I agree it probably is) but it's difficult to be certain. The thing I find is that the i5 is the best out of the two for gaming right now and the i5 matches it even in the games where multithreading is applied. That's what it has for the future, it matches it.

Here's my draft between FX/i5:

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 much 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).

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, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
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 [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.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These particular benchmarks however do not reflect what most benchmarks have shown for pure gaming performance, and they have been scrutinized many times. In addition the overclocking for intel scales much better than the FX.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. 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, others they are behind. You will get decent FPS with either, as with any modern CPU.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

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

So essentially, it's up to you. If it was me buying one right now for gaming/streaming, I'd go with a Xeon chip - similarly priced to the high end i5's, hyperthreading and performance of an i7 (in fact I'm looking into getting one). The fact of the matter is it seems like at least for the next few years single-core performance will still be the dominating factor in gaming performance, it won't change with the flick of a switch.


My idea was buying a Custom cooler and the FX-8350/FX-8320.
AS for budget, I won't say I'm tight, but I am anxious after almost a year an a half saving for it (I'm 17 years, doesn't mean I'm lazy but good jobs aren't easy to find where I live especilly at my age :\ )

HOLY CRAP TEKSYNDICATE <3 +1 for you man! :D 
Most of my build is future considered, I'm buying the R9 280X for Mantle API :p 
I like my stakes high, as for the single-core performance, I think you're wrong there, especially with the mobile market, I see cores being a lot more important in the future, not saying single core will go away, but I also don't think I'll see anyone with a processor with only 2 cores in the future, and the consoles, etc. Games anyway :) 
Thank you for this healthy discussion, I was afraid I would start a war (if you see my threads, some are war-prone but fortunately no wars so far :D  man I really like tom's hardware)
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 9:45:11 AM

For an i5, definitely the K series. If you're not interested in overclocking then I'd say a Xeon (such as the 1230v2, which is LGA1155 though) would be an even better price/performance choice in case you ever have a multithreaded workload (streaming etc.). It sells for around the same price as an i5 but has hyperthreading like the i7s.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 435 à CPUs
a b å Intel
January 18, 2014 9:47:42 AM

devilgodspider said:
JOOK-D said:
Streaming performance and rendering - yes, hence why I mentioned video encoding. Core count - fair enough, but remember that they are weak cores. And I just saw your edit. :p 

It's not as if any modern CPU will become obsolete in 5 years, just that they won't be top end anymore. If you go with an FX (and games are getting more intensive as time goes on) you're hedging your bets that multithreading is the future (which I agree it probably is) but it's difficult to be certain. The thing I find is that the i5 is the best out of the two for gaming right now and the i5 matches it even in the games where multithreading is applied. That's what it has for the future, it matches it.

Here's my draft between FX/i5:

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 much 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).

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, see here: http://www.corsair.com/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/ ).
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 [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.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks for AMD FX 83xx vs i5/i7:
Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
Gaming and Streaming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
These particular benchmarks however do not reflect what most benchmarks have shown for pure gaming performance, and they have been scrutinized many times. In addition the overclocking for intel scales much better than the FX.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. 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, others they are behind. You will get decent FPS with either, as with any modern CPU.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

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

So essentially, it's up to you. If it was me buying one right now for gaming/streaming, I'd go with a Xeon chip - similarly priced to the high end i5's, hyperthreading and performance of an i7 (in fact I'm looking into getting one). The fact of the matter is it seems like at least for the next few years single-core performance will still be the dominating factor in gaming performance, it won't change with the flick of a switch.


My idea was buying a Custom cooler and the FX-8350/FX-8320.
AS for budget, I won't say I'm tight, but I am anxious after almost a year an a half saving for it (I'm 17 years, doesn't mean I'm lazy but good jobs aren't easy to find where I live especilly at my age :\ )

HOLY CRAP TEKSYNDICATE <3 +1 for you man! :D 
Most of my build is future considered, I'm buying the R9 280X for Mantle API :p 
I like my stakes high, as for the single-core performance, I think you're wrong there, especially with the mobile market, I see cores being a lot more important in the future, not saying single core will go away, but I also don't think I'll see anyone with a processor with only 2 cores in the future, and the consoles, etc. Games anyway :) 
Thank you for this healthy discussion, I was afraid I would start a war (if you see my threads, some are war-prone but fortunately no wars so far :D  man I really like tom's hardware)


Hehe, things do tend to get heated around here occasionally - it seems there is a lot of brand pride :lol:  . Alright, well it seems that you've made your mind up. The AMD will be a great choice. 280x is an awesome GPU too.
Share
January 18, 2014 9:51:37 AM

Gaidax said:
Buy whatever you want then, why the inquiry? You seem to be locked on AMD and that AMD CPU is fine.


If it would be me I'd go for Intel in this case, because in reality the fact that AMD has more cores is negated by their infamously atrocious single core performance and while I5's apparent lack of cores seems to not really matter in such a multithreaded and seemingly console optimized title as BF4, the lack of a single-threaded performance does drag you down in MANY games that depend on single core performance like for example Starcraft 2, Skyrim or WoW or just about any PC exclusive MMO game in existence right now, for that matter.

With all that said, it's not like FX8350 won't do you any good in those, so might just go on and get, although take a note that whatever difference you will save upfront with FX will be eaten by it's higher energy requirements and subsequential electric bill differences.


So for all intents and purposes - I5 is simply a smarter choice.


i5 is a smart choice now, but with consoles having 8 cores AMD APU's and my PC not being modified for a very long time, I'm very well focused on buying an AMD FX-8350 yeah.
This thread is just because I wanted to see if I had some points of mine wrong. I'm not a tech genie by any sort of form, but I do some research while I save for my computers in the meantime to keep my anxiety at low xD which in return makes me research a lot.

One more thing, I am NOT locked on the AMD-FX8350 by any means, I've been with the i5 3570K in my build since the start of August 2012, only in this November/December have I seen an interest on actually buying AMD, my points already explained for that matter. Same with the R9 280X, I was initially buying an GTX 760, but since the R9 280X is basically only a bit more expensive (50€ lol) and newer, it was no brainer to not buy it (GTX 770's are more expensive here than R9 280Xs, so yeah).

EDIT: I don't plan to even get near WoW, maybe try Starcraft 2 but not my kind of game, and I think I'm good with Skyrim dropping some frames if it happens lol, my gpu will take good care of it :)  Oh, and I forgot, another reason why I made this thread is for people dealing with the same problem :) 
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 10:26:22 AM

devilgodspider said:
another reason why I made this thread is for people dealing with the same problem :) 


Now I see why you said we shared opinions.
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 12:14:23 PM

Cryio said:
devilgodspider said:
another reason why I made this thread is for people dealing with the same problem :) 


Now I see why you said we shared opinions.


On what thread was it? :p 
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 3:20:47 PM



I didn't get your name lol sorry :( 
but yes ;)  you're right hehe

Cryio said:
(...)
PS: You said "for the next 1-1.5 years". In the next 1-2 years I think that parallel computing will gain heavy traction within the industry and seeing how the next-gen console already run on 8 core AMD cpus ... guess how's how going to affect your performance in the long run.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2014 3:28:20 PM

devilgodspider said:
Gaidax said:
Buy whatever you want then, why the inquiry? You seem to be locked on AMD and that AMD CPU is fine.


If it would be me I'd go for Intel in this case, because in reality the fact that AMD has more cores is negated by their infamously atrocious single core performance and while I5's apparent lack of cores seems to not really matter in such a multithreaded and seemingly console optimized title as BF4, the lack of a single-threaded performance does drag you down in MANY games that depend on single core performance like for example Starcraft 2, Skyrim or WoW or just about any PC exclusive MMO game in existence right now, for that matter.

With all that said, it's not like FX8350 won't do you any good in those, so might just go on and get, although take a note that whatever difference you will save upfront with FX will be eaten by it's higher energy requirements and subsequential electric bill differences.


So for all intents and purposes - I5 is simply a smarter choice.


i5 is a smart choice now, but with consoles having 8 cores AMD APU's and my PC not being modified for a very long time, I'm very well focused on buying an AMD FX-8350 yeah.
This thread is just because I wanted to see if I had some points of mine wrong. I'm not a tech genie by any sort of form, but I do some research while I save for my computers in the meantime to keep my anxiety at low xD which in return makes me research a lot.

One more thing, I am NOT locked on the AMD-FX8350 by any means, I've been with the i5 3570K in my build since the start of August 2012, only in this November/December have I seen an interest on actually buying AMD, my points already explained for that matter. Same with the R9 280X, I was initially buying an GTX 760, but since the R9 280X is basically only a bit more expensive (50€ lol) and newer, it was no brainer to not buy it (GTX 770's are more expensive here than R9 280Xs, so yeah).

EDIT: I don't plan to even get near WoW, maybe try Starcraft 2 but not my kind of game, and I think I'm good with Skyrim dropping some frames if it happens lol, my gpu will take good care of it :)  Oh, and I forgot, another reason why I made this thread is for people dealing with the same problem :) 


Then go on and see CPU performance charts for BF4 and you will have the right idea.

Point is simple - both those I5 and FX are about equal there and BF4 is as optimised for more cores and new consoles as it gets.

Thus it is logical that if I5 and FX are similar performers in next-gen console title, then why give up single-threaded performance of I5 for nothing?

Another point to consider is that as of now PC gamer rigs are mostly 2 and 4 cores, as a matter of fact Steam Census says that only like 2.8% of Steam players have machines with more than 4 cores, this means that PC games and ports will be first and foremost optimised for quad cores in the next couple of years, especially since AMD seems of late to only pull out new quad-core CPUs'. So with this in mind, I'd rather have a strong Quad Core CPU, since it is obvious that it is going to be the backbone of PC gaming for the next years to come.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2014 3:31:42 PM

Keep in mind that multitreaded games supporting up to 8 cores won't be as big as a benefit as you think. A game cannot have a lot of usage of multithreading (unlike video editing/encoding) because that would be a nightmare. In games, there are a lot of variables that change constantly and a lot of things rely on the output of another.
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 3:46:33 PM

Gaidax said:
devilgodspider said:
Gaidax said:
Buy whatever you want then, why the inquiry? You seem to be locked on AMD and that AMD CPU is fine.


If it would be me I'd go for Intel in this case, because in reality the fact that AMD has more cores is negated by their infamously atrocious single core performance and while I5's apparent lack of cores seems to not really matter in such a multithreaded and seemingly console optimized title as BF4, the lack of a single-threaded performance does drag you down in MANY games that depend on single core performance like for example Starcraft 2, Skyrim or WoW or just about any PC exclusive MMO game in existence right now, for that matter.

With all that said, it's not like FX8350 won't do you any good in those, so might just go on and get, although take a note that whatever difference you will save upfront with FX will be eaten by it's higher energy requirements and subsequential electric bill differences.


So for all intents and purposes - I5 is simply a smarter choice.


i5 is a smart choice now, but with consoles having 8 cores AMD APU's and my PC not being modified for a very long time, I'm very well focused on buying an AMD FX-8350 yeah.
This thread is just because I wanted to see if I had some points of mine wrong. I'm not a tech genie by any sort of form, but I do some research while I save for my computers in the meantime to keep my anxiety at low xD which in return makes me research a lot.

One more thing, I am NOT locked on the AMD-FX8350 by any means, I've been with the i5 3570K in my build since the start of August 2012, only in this November/December have I seen an interest on actually buying AMD, my points already explained for that matter. Same with the R9 280X, I was initially buying an GTX 760, but since the R9 280X is basically only a bit more expensive (50€ lol) and newer, it was no brainer to not buy it (GTX 770's are more expensive here than R9 280Xs, so yeah).

EDIT: I don't plan to even get near WoW, maybe try Starcraft 2 but not my kind of game, and I think I'm good with Skyrim dropping some frames if it happens lol, my gpu will take good care of it :)  Oh, and I forgot, another reason why I made this thread is for people dealing with the same problem :) 


Then go on and see CPU performance charts for BF4 and you will have the right idea.

Point is simple - both those I5 and FX are about equal there and BF4 is as optimised for more cores and new consoles as it gets.

Thus it is logical that if I5 and FX are similar performers in next-gen console title, then why give up single-threaded performance of I5 for nothing?

Another point to consider is that as of now PC gamer rigs are mostly 2 and 4 cores, as a matter of fact Steam Census says that only like 2.8% of Steam players have machines with more than 4 cores, this means that PC games and ports will be first and foremost optimised for quad cores in the next couple of years, especially since AMD seems of late to only pull out new quad-core CPUs'. So with this in mind, I'd rather have a strong Quad Core CPU, since it is obvious that it is going to be the backbone of PC gaming for the next years to come.


Lessthannil said:
Keep in mind that multitreaded games supporting up to 8 cores won't be as big as a benefit as you think. A game cannot have a lot of usage of multithreading (unlike video editing/encoding) because that would be a nightmare. In games, there are a lot of variables that change constantly and a lot of things rely on the output of another.


Here's my counter:

All you said is true, no way around that, however, what about future wise? All you said was now, What does the future i5 have over future FX with 8 cores that aren't being used properly at the time? What will happen after the (x86) PS4 and Xbox One start becoming outdated and Devs have to start using those 8 cores to get as much out of it? In, my opinion the FX-8350 seems more future proof even only being theory, it's there and it's a viable chance. And even if games won't support it, just like you said, both have similar performance!
Some more reasons btw:
Price!
Rendering/Encoding time
Streaming

Yes, I am aware i5 3570K also has it's own pros (duh), but those 3 things are the ones that will be most in use by me and also allow me to buy a cooler or save on my budget. So it can become something like this i5 3570K vs FX-8350+Cooler and then both are around the same price.
Another thing good about the i5 is overclocking scaling.
m
0
l
!