FX-8350 vs i5 4670k with R9 290

Gam3Pwn3rz · Feb 11, 2014

I was just wondering if there would be much or any difference at all for gaming purposes when both CPU's have the R9 290. I might be using Photoshop and 3D editing, so that is why I am considering the FX-8350 against the i5 4670k.

EvgaLover · Feb 11, 2014

If you're video editing / 3d rendering then the fx 8350 would be your best choice because of the 8 cores. If you're gaming then the i5 4670k is a clear choice because intel uses digital cores and has much better single threaded performance

dannylivesforher · Feb 11, 2014

+1^
That's right. If it's gaming,no doubt it's Intel. But when it comes to multitasking,AMD has a slight advantage. Though,you get a cooler and better system with Intel.

JOOK-D · Feb 11, 2014

Your budget would allow for a i5 4670k + Z87 motherboard?

I'd take a Xeon 1230v3 (essentially the equivalent of an i7 4770) and pair it with a B or H series motherboard. You'll get the benefits of intels better per-core performance AND the extra hyperthreaded cores for any productivity apps.

logainofhades · Feb 11, 2014

JOOK-D :

I have to agree on this one unless you really want to overclock.

s4in7 · Feb 20, 2014

The i5 4670k has a 3DMark11 Physics score of 6820, whereas the FX-8350 has a physics score of 6870 so it's a tad faster in that respect.

That doesn't paint a whole picture though, and you should know that the i5 has fewer cores, but they are stronger, whereas the FX-8350 has more cores, but they are weaker. That means the i5 has better single-threaded performance and the FX-8350 has better multi-threaded performance.

In Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, and Battlefield 4 (which take advantage of as many cores you can throw at them) the FX-8350 comes out on top most of the time. However, in older games and applications that don't utilize multi-threading the i5 4670k wins out most of the time.

So there you go, both are fantastic processors and each has it's strong suits.

TL;DR go with the FX-8350 if you use a lot of multi-threaded applications, go with the i5 4670k if you use a lot of single-threaded applications.

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

s4in7 :

s4in7 is right on...the i5 is faster in single threaded application like the older games...FX-8350 is faster in well optimised multithread application like ALL the newer games and the games to be developped in a near future for the new consoles...so if you want the best for gaming the newest titles go for the 8350...or the 8320 it's the same chip only slower clock, but you can always overclock it its so easy...have fun!

JOOK-D · Feb 26, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

The 8350 is arguably faster in maybe 1 or 2 gaming titles - that's it. At stock speeds, the i5 4670k often matches or beats it, recommending an 8 series processor based on incorrect speculation of adoption of multithreading and 'better performance' that doesn't exist, is wrong. We've yet to see much multithreading being utilised so far, Crysis 3 and BF4 seem to be the best examples. Sure, it might pick up in future but even with half the number of cores the i5 4670k can match or beat it, especially when overclocked. The i5 4670k would be the better buy performance-wise. You also can't "always overclock", it depends highly on your motherboard and your cooling solution, as well as your specific chip.

BTW this is a somewhat old thread.

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

the i5 is good at the games that are out at the moment (old games)
therefore if you want a CPU to play the games that are on the shelf
at this present time, it's a good one...but the PS4 ans Xbox one both
have the 8core AMD architecture built in them so the NEXT games
(the one that are not out yet, the NEW games) are very very most likely
to be coded to use at least 6 or 8 threads...anyway i remember i had that
same discussion the last time i built a system it was between the Q6600 @ 2.4ghz quadcore
or the E6750 @2.66ghz dual core and ppl all over where saying the E6750 was a better buy
being faster in current games...(OF COURSE CAUSE THE GAME OUT AT THE TIME WHERE
ALL USING ONLY 1 CORE...the newer titles at the time used sometimes 2...)but hey i changed
my CPU about a month ago and that DAMN Q6600 chip played BF4 on HIGH SETTINGS...
something i would have never been able to do if i had listened to the closed minded ppl who advised
me to go with an e6750...sometimes you must think about the FUTURE

JOOK-D · Feb 26, 2014

Yes, and what is the future? Pure speculation. You can't just say "this has this = this will also have it". Sure, software devs are lazy and consoles lead the market - that does not however mean that games will suddenly become only playable on 8 cores. If devs want their games to sell on PC then they will make it accessible to the largest market, and most people have dual or quad cores (strong ones, not weak ones like AMD's FX).

Multithreading is a very complex thing and will take time to implement, if it does come about in the next few years. Regardless, it will still require strong single threaded performance, something which the FX series lack. Regardless of how many threads there are, some will still be required to do more work than others, it is not distributed evenly. Even with the games that utilise multithreading that have come out recently (Crysis 3, BF4) intels 4 core chips can match the FXs 8 cores, and intel often has higher minimum fps in multiplayer.

Currently, 4 strong threads > 8 weak threads. It's just the way it is, and it will not change overnight. The i5 4670k would still be the better choice, as it performs better in 99.9% of games.

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

wo wo wo jonny, check at some benchmarks man, at the same clock speed the i5 is faster by only about 30% in single thread...i would not say the FX as ''weak core'' cause if it has then so is the i5...so 4x100% or 8x70%??!...factor in
the price too it's now 4X100%/100%$ vs 8x70%/70%$...if you do the math you get 140% performance win for the FX-8350 and 200% price/performance ration again for the FX

vmN · Feb 26, 2014

You cannot calculate a cores performance like that.

s4in7 · Feb 26, 2014

The multithreaded future is not speculation, we've been slowly pushing our way in that direction and now that the new consoles have 8 x86 cores all the games that are cross-platform (which is almost all of them, when's the last time a AAA title wasn't on consoles and PC?) are going to be heavily multithreaded--it's insane to think they'll develop a game for consoles, but then axe the multithreaded codepath when they bring it to PC.

The future is most certainly multithreaded, and if someone doesn't believe that then they are clueless.

Here's a detailed article explaining why the PlayStation 4 and Xbox one will improve PC gaming by making multithreaded x86 games the norm.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W72efYJokUgJ:www.corsair.com/us/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

s4in7 :

Exactly...AMD pumped i don't know how many billions of dollars to make sure their hardware sit nicely in the PS4, XBOX one and Wii U...they old the future of gaming industry now and developpers will have no choice but to
code games so that it runs good on that architecture...and now they will also do the same with the new MANTLE
API...wich makes me sad since i went with a GTX780...

lol
Not to say that the games will not run good on an i7 for example, it is still a better CPU dans FX...but i5's are not, let alone the i3's...

Erman Yudhistira · Feb 26, 2014

just choose one. both CPU are very good. don't think to much about a few FPS or 2-3 second rendering. i fyou like the i5 than get the i5. if you like the FX then buy FX 8350.

vmN · Feb 26, 2014

s4in7 :

Stop with your clueless talk. The difference between jaguar and piledriver is huge. Take a look at the architecture please.

Why on earth would any developer only optimize their game for 5% of the playerbase?

Surely the future will require more threads, but piledriver or any successor to it won't be able to provide enough computing power.

Erman Yudhistira · Feb 26, 2014

and remember, intel can make 8 core processor too ( I think )

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

vmN :

You're right, they wouldn't...but now with ALL the consoles being able to handle 8 threads
and MOST pc players running eiter i7's or FX-8xxx CPU...that makes it like what ? 85-90%
of gaming machines being able to use MORE than 4 threads for gaming applications...
that is a bloody good reason to develop games so they will play best on 90% of the gaming
machinery available my friend isn't it?

Erman Yudhistira :

they certainly do and we are not discussing it the i7's are the best CPU in the world at the moment
the only thing is that they cost twice the price of the one's we are talking about right now wich do
the job just fine and allow us to put more money toward a powerfull GPU specially with the price
being soooo high on high end GPU's these days...

s4in7 · Feb 26, 2014

vmN :

What? It doesn't matter about the architecture--Jaguar, Piledriver, and Steamroller all use the same x86 architecture and share the same instruction sets. Games developed for the lowly Jaguar will scale with near-perfection to bigger, more powerful architectures like Steamroller--no one's getting alienated.

The fact you think AMD's desktop architecture is weak shows your level of understanding on the subject--sure Intel is better at single-threaded performance, but AMD is not SO far behind, and when you look at multi-threaded performance AMD is right there alongside Intel so stop with that line of BS.

The fact remains that the majority of hardcore PC gamers have 4 core/8 threads or 8 cores, and if you think developers won't take advantage of that fact when they bring their games coded for 8 core x86 consoles to PC then you are sadly mistaken.

Come on man, that's just crazy.

No one is saying AMD>Intel or any of that fanboy shit so just stop--i7's will always be the performance king, no one disputes that.

But to outright say developers won't take their multithreaded x86 codepath to PC is truly insane--it doesn't matter how shitty Jaguar is or not, it's the exact same thing that's in your computer right now just with more cores and dramatically less power.

s4in7 · Feb 26, 2014

To put to bed any BS about Intel spanking AMD in the performance department, I present to you: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x/3

The $300 FX-9590 is AS FAST and sometimes FASTER than the $1,049 i7-4960X. Tell me again how AMD can't "provide enough computing power"...

The future is multithreaded, AMD is as good as Intel, and these are facts.

vmN · Feb 26, 2014

s4in7 :

To be honest AMDs architecture ARE weak, the need to use modules to get the same amount of ALUs into their cores. AMD can only follow in highly threaded application with only predictive integer instructions. Anything else any FX gets blown away.

s4in7 :

They still don't optimize their game for "hardcore PC gamers".

s4in7 :

Didn't say that.

vmN · Feb 26, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

No, the console can only handle 6 threads, and most pc gamers still are using dual cores. So it is far from 85-90% where did you even get that number?

s4in7 · Feb 26, 2014

Just so I'm clear about your argument, you're saying when a game developed for multi-core consoles comes to PC that the developers will abandon that multi-core optimization and cater to the lowest common denominator of PC users?

You do realize that that's insane and that almost every hardware newsource disagrees with you right?

Please do yourself a favor and read the article and you'll understand: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W72efYJokUgJ:www.corsair.com/us/blog/ps4-xbone-pcgaming/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&

How can you sit there and say that a game that was developed for 8 core x86 architecture will be downgraded when brought to the PC? Yes, that same game will run fine on a quad core, but it will truly benefit from more cores because THAT'S WHAT IT WAS BUILT FOR.

AMD doesn't get blown away, they are frequently behind Intel, but never knocked down to the dirt and kicked like you imagine them to be.

paitjsu sadff · Feb 26, 2014

vmN :

6 threads? is this still 2 threads too many for an i5 to handle? yeah...it is right!

and dual cores man?! what are you still in 2005? how many quad core CPU have been sold since they are out?
im loosing my time with you fanboy, im out!

vmN · Feb 26, 2014

s4in7 :

not lowest, average.

s4in7 :

Almost all and you link to webcache?

s4in7 :

Because it's not a downgrade, it is simple marketing strategy. Get the biggest playerbase.

s4in7 :

We have different opinion on blown away, if you start reading into architecture you will understand.
AMD can only follow by integer instructions. Their cache management is bad, the branch predictor is bad their scheduler system is complicated and doesn't bring any performance increase whatsoever.
There are a huge different from a piledriver to a haswell.

FX-8350 vs i5 4670k with R9 290

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Dignified

Titan

Honorable

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Dignified

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Reputable

Honorable

Reputable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Honorable

Share this page