AMD FX 8350 VS Intel 4670k, Whats better?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
TheGamingAlien

TheGamingAlien

Honorable
Mar 7, 2014
58
0
10,630
Hello folks, I'm in need of some help choosing a new CPU for my build.
I plan on going SLI 760s. I don't know much about CPU's and how to judge whats better, the 8350 seems to have much better specs since it has a higher cache and 8 cores, aswell as higher mhz.
The only upside *i* see in the intel is it doesn't use as much power.

I'd really appreciate if any of you could explain which one is better and why.
Any and all help is greatly appreciated!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
G

Guest

Guest
Yes, AMD's CPUs use a lot of power. But, by the last news, I would go with the AMD because of the release of MANTLE. After the release of a stable version, the games will run much smoother on a AMD than with a Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rationale

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,025
0
7,960
The i5 will perform better in games; there's a lot more to a CPU than just Ghz and cores.

That said, an FX-8320 would offer almost the same performance as an FX-8350 and it's way less expensive than the i5 if you need to save money.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rationale

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,025
0
7,960


That's graphics cards, not CPUs. The CPU doesn't have anything to do with Mantle.

Besides, Mantle is only used in like 2 games so far.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shneiky

Shneiky

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
2,323
1
20,960
Mantle is a feature for Graphics Cards and Graphics Cards only. CPU have nothing to do with that. Nothing at all. You can have Mantle with Intel CPU as well. Anyway, Mantle was made to make games easier on low end CPUs, such as Pentium Gs, I3s, low clocked, lower model laptop CPUs, A series AMD APUs, Athlon CPUs. It has ~1 FPS difference if you have I5/I7/FX 8320/8350. And back on the question. Intel I5 is better than 8350 if you consider gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160
You would need to look into the architecture to see the difference.

They have the same amount of ALUs.
Intel have far better SIMD.

Piledrivers pipeline are to long for it's branch predictor.

Piledriver cores are sharing the modules frontend, which can lead to slight performance decrease on higher load.

Intels smart cache are faster than AMDs.

and the list go on and on and on....





 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheGamingAlien

TheGamingAlien

Honorable
Mar 7, 2014
58
0
10,630


But wouldn't it be better to have more cores that way 4 can be dedicated to the game and the other 4 can run all the background programs?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rationale

Rationale

Admirable
Mar 21, 2014
3,025
0
7,960


Background programs don't take much processing power compared to games, so not really, no. Having 4 stronger cores dedicated to the game and grabbing background tasks in their spare time is still a lot better than having 4 weaker cores on the game and 4 on background tasks.

The FX-8350 overclocks like a beast though, and even without overclocking it's still fast enough for anything on ultra at 60 fps/1080p. If you don't want to spend so much on an Intel CPU, the 8350 wouldn't be noticeably worse most of the time unless you're trying to hold 120 fps (which is ridiculous, imo...).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160


That is not how it works.
Windows doesn't schedule its process that perfect for multi-core.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
vmN

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160


There is no logic behind this statement.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom