Solved

Intel vs AMD, which is better ?

Is AMD FX-8320 processor better than Intel Core i5 4570 ? Or are they same ? AMD is a little cheaper than the intel, so is it not that good compared to an I5 ?
9 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about intel amd
  1. Best answer
    On applications that are threaded properly to use more than four cores, and especially if you overclock it, the AMD will be better. (i5 4570 can't be overclocked)

    For use in other applications the i5 will do well, and it has less power draw.
  2. The i5 4570 would be vastly superior in gaming, and 90% of the rest of the time.
  3. if devs actually made use of all 8 cores the amd chips have to offer then i'd say amd. but considering 99% of applications utilize only up to 4 cores, i'd say Intel. I hate using this term BUT, the 8320 might be more "future-proof". in the future, applications will take advantage of more cores so thats pretty much why i said future-proof.
  4. CTurbo said:
    The i5 4570 would be vastly superior in gaming, and 90% of the rest of the time.


    This sounds biased and opinionated.
  5. It really depends on the use. We're not necessarily talking about games that are barely properly threaded to use two cores about half the time. Many production applications can take advantage of 16 cores or more.
  6. It's not biased and opinionated. It's a fact. That particular i5 is over 60% more powerful in single thread performance. That means that any time you're using 4 or less core, the i5 is WAY stronger, and that is 99% of the time. No amount of overclocking will overcome that deficit.
  7. 60% faster... are you sure you aren't comparing it to like an Athlon X2? :P

    http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4570-vs-AMD-FX-8320

    Like I said, it all depends on what you're doing with it.
  8. I see your one useless website and raise you with another- http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/367/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8320_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4570.html

    So in your cpuboss link, I see the i5 rates a 9.8 in single core performance compared to the FX's 8.1. That about sums it up.
  9. Yes the i5 as Cturbo said is faster by a bit with the single thread performance but wat application that still prefers fast cores that maybe run off a dual core or so suffer on the slower fx cpu? Theres a difference in a in general single thread performance to being specific for a application. If ur looking to get one or the other its not for the lower end games and programs that run better off single faster cores its probably for a wide variety of high threaded programs to web browsing to older games that most likely will run fine on both with minor fps difference. I can see the single thread performance being an issue in something that isnt a quad core or if it was the i5 vs the 4300 or something

    If something is written or coded for less cores and faster core performance wouldnt it run fine on both? with the intel just being a little bit better? Im looking at this as older games and basic stuff as not sure wat else exactly uses the faster cores to makes a huge difference other than a benchmark

    Intels single thread performance is wat makes a lower core count keep up with the higher core count of the fx cpus, for games and stuff that use 4+ cores, or its the fact that amd upped the clock speed and the core count to keep up to intel either way multi threaded wise there basically even and from what im thinking uses the lower core count and stuff as both will run it so whether or not its a 60% difference does it matter in normal use situations?
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Processors Intel AMD