i5 or FX 8320/8350?

Danzas4321 · Feb 23, 2014

Hey guys. i want to change my CPu in my PC as i get FPs drops in Bf4.

Current PC
AMD ATHLON X4 760K Oced@4.5Ghz
MSI R9 270X GAMING 2G
8GB RAM

So im wondering what would be the best path to go? AMD FX Or Intel Core i5? Im trying to keep the price as low as possible but still with a good OC potential. thanks

Danzas4321

ahmedkhalifa1999 · Feb 23, 2014

what is your budget for CPU and Motherboard

ewok93 · Feb 23, 2014

An 8320 just has a lower factory clock, so if you're going to overclock, definitely the 8320, because you'll get the same clock rate in the long run.

CooLWoLF · Feb 23, 2014

ewok93 :

That's not necessarily true, although it can be. Not all 8320s hit the OC numbers that the 8350 will. With an 8350 your basically guaranteed 4.6ghz+ if your using a good motherboard. I was running at 4.7ghz @ 1.44v for the last 6 months. I just bumped my multiplier and voltage up on a whim a few days ago and now I am at 4.8ghz @ 1.45v. Temps didn't change much either. A buddy of mine has the same numbers, although his cooler is better and could easily go higher if he wanted with a small volt bump again.

OP, how much OC potential do you want? If your looking for a mild OC, go with the i5. If your looking for something you can really push, get a 8350. But spend a little more ans get a decent 990x/990fx motherboard with good phase control (8+2) so you are assured a high OC.

ewok93 · Feb 23, 2014

Basically any 8320 will max out within 1-2 mhz of an 8350, some will go higher, some lower.

ahmedkhalifa1999 · Feb 23, 2014

ewok93 :

yes it differs from chip to chip (yours isn't like mine)

aqe040466 · Feb 23, 2014

All of you are correct but, at stock speed, FX 8350 will perform better, much more when overclocked.

Lessthannil · Feb 23, 2014

The FX 8320/50 may overclock higher quantively but the I5 is already faster than the FX 8350 in games at stock, even with the FX 8350 having a +.6GHz stock frequency advantage. The i5 also gains more speed than the FX clock for clock, too.

If you want to say you have a 5.0 GHz processor, get the FX 8350. If you want weight behind your numbers there is nothing wrong with the I5-4670k and the only thing that is "mild" about overclocking it is what you might top out at.

aqe040466 · Feb 23, 2014

FX 8350 have 8 cores that is future proof for future games which require multi-core cpu.

MFBLO96 · Feb 23, 2014

If you are building it for games, an i5 is a better choice. It has much better per core preformance, which will benefit you in day to day tasks such a surfing, and running simple programs.
Games that use up to 6 core will run better on the intel.
Games that will use 7/8 cores will see a slight advantage on the 8350 (and will be equal on the 8320)

People have been using the (consoles are 8 cores, so games will be) logic, but the only reason console went with an 1.8ghz 8 core over a 3.5ghz 4 core was that I would use less power, and would not require each core to be as perfect, increasing production rates.

I would go intel because I see no reason to sacrifice some general pc functionality for 4 more fps on a very select few titles

TechDude8 · Feb 23, 2014

If you are only using the computer for gaming and not video editing or rendering work then the i5-4670K http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CO8TBOW will give you better performance.

The 8320 has more cores/threads that are better for editing work than the i5 but for gaming the i5 is a better performer.

aqe040466 · Feb 23, 2014

Remember what the OP is asking between 8320 or 8350. Why would someone insist on Intel CPU here? I am not Intel or AMD fan, because I've built both platforms. Let us concentrate what is ask in this forum.

ewok93 · Feb 23, 2014

He actually specifically asked if an i5 would be good in the original post.

aqe040466 · Feb 23, 2014

ewok93 :

My bad.

jacobian · Feb 23, 2014

aqe040466 :

That's an unsubstantiated statement. No application ever requires or will require 8 cores. By the time a game developer knows how to take full advantage of 8 cores, he can write software that queries the OS for the number of cores available. If you have 4 cores it will start 4 threads, if you have 16 cores, it will start 16 threads. By the time you have games that do this, it will merely allow the FX 8350 at best to keep up with Haswell Core i5, which has fever but a lot faster cores.

aqe040466 · Feb 24, 2014

jacobian :

aqe040466 :

That's an unsubstantiated statement. No application ever requires or will require 8 cores. By the time a game developer knows how to take full advantage of 8 cores, he can write software that queries the OS for the number of cores available. If you have 4 cores it will start 4 threads, if you have 16 cores, it will start 16 threads. By the time you have games that do this, it will merely allow the FX 8350 at best to keep up with Haswell Core i5, which has fever but a lot faster cores.

That's an unsubstantiated statement from diehard Intel fanboys....

vmN · Feb 24, 2014

jacobian :

Ehm no. That would be stupid unless they give CPUs a new feature to minimize the huge latency it can give.
Games will still have "main threads", where they can spawn "sub-threads".

vmN · Feb 24, 2014

aqe040466 :

jacobian :

That's an unsubstantiated statement from diehard Intel fanboys....

Please stop yourself.

aqe040466 · Feb 24, 2014

Mr. Moderator can u please lock this thread. Were not going anywhere. Again this is another battle between AMD and Intel fanboys.

vmN · Feb 24, 2014

To answers OPs question:
Go with fx 8320. That is without doubt the best performance/per $, and have some of the best OC potential.

@aqe040466
You aren't helping much yourself.

boyagin · Feb 24, 2014

I would go for 8350. FYI

ewok93 · Feb 24, 2014

I do actually see this thread being helpful to the OP, whose question has not been answered. I suggest the 8320 if you are on a budget, and use the money saved from the 8350 to get a better cooler, considering an 8320 with a cooler is going to go way past an 8350 with stock.

aqe040466 · Feb 24, 2014

Mr. OP watch this video it might help.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoaAT5TkXc4

jacobian · Feb 25, 2014

vmN :

But the point is, there is no reason to spawn "too many" threads. By the time you know how to use 8 cores, you know how to control the number of threads that need to be running, so you don't start 10 worker threads on a quad-core machine. Some people mistakenly think that all PS4 games will come hardwired for 8 threads. People in high performance computing have solved this problem a long time ago, so their stuff can run on a 32 CPU or 64 CPU server without problems.

Another issue is having more active threads than CPU cores is actually not a problem. Some people think again by mistake that 8-threads will slaughter a 4-core CPU. In reality, the OS will switch the threads on the limited number of CPU cores. This is done relatively inexpensively in software. This is why "hardware thread switching" like in SMT does not buy you a whole lot.

Another issue is that a multithreaded application will not always spread the load uniformly between all the different threads. Prime example is multi-threaded games that spawn threads by the task, like say audio, network, game logic, graphics. In this case, the main thread will be sitting and waiting for the threads to synchronize because graphics and networking is already done but the single game logic thread is taking too long. In such cases single threaded performance will still be very important.

getochkn · Feb 25, 2014

If your current board supports the AMD, and you live near a microcenter, 8320 are $99 in store only right now. Can't beat that. My 8320 hits 8350 speeds with no voltage increase.

i5 or FX 8320/8350?

Honorable

Distinguished

Dignified

Distinguished

Dignified

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Reputable

Distinguished

Dignified

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Honorable

Dignified

Distinguished

Honorable

Polypheme

Share this page