Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

how much better is i5 4670k than fx 8350 for GAMING

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 5, 2014 4:32:39 PM

im hearing that even though i5 4670k beats the fx 8350 in every game, but only marginally. is this true? or is there a considerably more performance from the i5 when it comes to gaming? also, in the next 3-5 years is it possible that games will begin to use more cores and the 8 core perform alot better? im about to purchase either the amd or intel processor but im not completely convinced which i should go for yet.

More about : 4670k 8350 gaming

a c 649 4 Gaming
a c 594 à CPUs
April 5, 2014 5:22:24 PM

What you're not seeing is a realistic comparison, most BMs show the two at stock CPU speed, since both can OC to around 46.6 or better, look for BMs that have them OCed, or even both at 4.0, 4.1 the 4670K runs away from the 8350, though even at it's stock 3.4 it's the better CPU, the only thing where the 8350 really shines at is in rendering
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 82 à CPUs
April 5, 2014 5:24:14 PM

The I5 does not win only marginally. Even the 2500k still fights head on the 8350 and usually wins. Imagine what the 4670k would do.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

What people mostly notice is numbers of cores and numbers of threads and "when games start using X number of cores", but that is the smallest part of the picture. It is not only the CPU you should look at, it is the whole platform. Intel has superior performance when considering RAM and PCIe performance. Not to mention that a game can use 6 or 8 threads, but only 2 or 4 of them are heavy. The other ones are light. They are usually sub-threads. In the best possible scaling scenario, such as 3D rendering, the 8 cores of the FX 8350 go only 20% on top of the I5 in the best case scenario. But you will not see that kind of scaling in video games in the near 5-10 years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

In the Photoshop test, without OpenCL acceleration (using GPU) the FX 8350 arrives first. But once OpenCL is turned on, it falls behind even the I5s. This is what a gaming scenario look like. A game does not use only CPU, it needs the synergy between the CPU and video card.

Before someone starts criticizing me for my logic - productivity software tests out the real power of a PC component in way more solid way. And if those 8 cores lose to 4 cores even in productivity - then there is no way they can beat in gaming. Hope this was helpful. Cheers and good luck.
Share
Related resources
a c 649 4 Gaming
a c 594 à CPUs
April 5, 2014 5:30:50 PM

Shneiky said:
The I5 does not win only marginally. Even the 2500k still fights head on the 8350 and usually wins. Imagine what the 4670k would do.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

What people mostly notice is numbers of cores and numbers of threads and "when games start using X number of cores", but that is the smallest part of the picture. It is not only the CPU you should look at, it is the whole platform. Intel has superior performance when considering RAM and PCIe performance. Not to mention that a game can use 6 or 8 threads, but only 2 or 4 of them are heavy. The other ones are light. They are usually sub-threads. In the best possible scaling scenario, such as 3D rendering, the 8 cores of the FX 8350 go only 20% on top of the I5 in the best case scenario. But you will not see that kind of scaling in video games in the near 5-10 years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

In the Photoshop test, without OpenCL acceleration (using GPU) the FX 8350 arrives first. But once OpenCL is turned on, it falls behind even the I5s. This is what a gaming scenario look like. A game does not use only CPU, it needs the synergy between the CPU and video card.

Before someone starts criticizing me for my logic - productivity software tests out the real power of a PC component in way more solid way. And if those 8 cores lose to 4 cores even in productivity - then there is no way they can beat in gaming. Hope this was helpful. Cheers and good luck.

_______________________

+1
m
0
l
April 5, 2014 5:37:36 PM

Shneiky said:
The I5 does not win only marginally. Even the 2500k still fights head on the 8350 and usually wins. Imagine what the 4670k would do.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...

What people mostly notice is numbers of cores and numbers of threads and "when games start using X number of cores", but that is the smallest part of the picture. It is not only the CPU you should look at, it is the whole platform. Intel has superior performance when considering RAM and PCIe performance. Not to mention that a game can use 6 or 8 threads, but only 2 or 4 of them are heavy. The other ones are light. They are usually sub-threads. In the best possible scaling scenario, such as 3D rendering, the 8 cores of the FX 8350 go only 20% on top of the I5 in the best case scenario. But you will not see that kind of scaling in video games in the near 5-10 years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

In the Photoshop test, without OpenCL acceleration (using GPU) the FX 8350 arrives first. But once OpenCL is turned on, it falls behind even the I5s. This is what a gaming scenario look like. A game does not use only CPU, it needs the synergy between the CPU and video card.

Before someone starts criticizing me for my logic - productivity software tests out the real power of a PC component in way more solid way. And if those 8 cores lose to 4 cores even in productivity - then there is no way they can beat in gaming. Hope this was helpful. Cheers and good luck.

ok thanks that makes perfect sense. im swayed.
m
0
l
!