Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Alternatives to i5-4670

Tags:
  • Performance
  • CPUs
  • Systems
  • Intel i5
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
April 18, 2014 2:36:02 PM

Like the title says, looking for the next best alternative that is cheaper without taking a severe hit on performance.
and If possible one that wont bottleneck a GTX 770.
thanks!!

More about : alternatives 4670

a b à CPUs
April 18, 2014 2:42:37 PM

You can find AMDs Fx8350 for I think $180ish on Amazon. It won't bottleneck your 770. The FX8320 is about $160 if you needed to step it down further.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2014 3:08:07 PM

Do you already own a motherboard? That will greatly affect which CPU you need to consider. Amazon did have a i5-4670k for $190 a week or so ago. But assuming your budget is lower than that, and you have a Haswell board, you could go with the i5-4570, 4440, or 4430.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2014 3:10:02 PM

Used 2500k?
m
0
l
April 18, 2014 4:09:02 PM

con635 said:
Used 2500k?


Any idea what the performance loss would be?
Thanks!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2014 4:17:07 PM

if you dont have a motherboard yet you could consider this, will provide very similar performance to the 4670 but is more future proof and will perform better in the long run, also much cheaper...this kit will allow overclocking on this cpu up to 4.6ghz...
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($151.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $326.94
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-18 19:16 EDT-0400)

very high quality motherboard...8+2 power phase, awesome cpu cooler...all you need for epic performance providing you pair it with a goodd high end gpu...like a 770 is a good choice wont bottleneck any high end gpus...

Here some trusty benchmarks that really shows just how good the 8 core FX chips are compared to intel high-end offerings:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-36-...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

These results are compilation of tests featuring single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks and the time are compiled for every CPU's on the market...you can't get any more significant results than this. You can see the FX-83xx (8320 and 8350 are the same chips only lower clock speed for the 8320 but those are all unlocked so this is not a problem) do really well even against the all mighty core i7 and if you look the 8350 for example is only a 4ghz CPU imagine the performance of these chips would reach at 4.6 or 4.8ghz as most of them can reach those speeds if you're a good overclocker, but conservatively 4.5ghz is reacheable by pretty much any normal user...
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 482 à CPUs
April 18, 2014 4:27:31 PM

paitjsu sadff said:
if you dont have a motherboard yet you could consider this, will provide very similar performance to the 4670 but is more future proof and will perform better in the long run, also much cheaper...this kit will allow overclocking on this cpu up to 4.6ghz...
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($151.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $326.94
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-18 19:16 EDT-0400)

very high quality motherboard...8+2 power phase, awesome cpu cooler...all you need for epic performance providing you pair it with a goodd high end gpu...like a 770 is a good choice wont bottleneck any high end gpus...

Here some trusty benchmarks that really shows just how good the 8 core FX chips are compared to intel high-end offerings:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-36-...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

These results are compilation of tests featuring single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks and the time are compiled for every CPU's on the market...you can't get any more significant results than this. You can see the FX-83xx (8320 and 8350 are the same chips only lower clock speed for the 8320 but those are all unlocked so this is not a problem) do really well even against the all mighty core i7 and if you look the 8350 for example is only a 4ghz CPU imagine the performance of these chips would reach at 4.6 or 4.8ghz as most of them can reach those speeds if you're a good overclocker, but conservatively 4.5ghz is reacheable by pretty much any normal user...


"similar performance to the 4670" If this is for gaming, incorrect. The 4670 will outperform it.

"more future proof" assumption.

"will perform better in the long run" assumption.

"also much cheaper" incorrect.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3uaZm
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3uaZm/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3uaZm/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($204.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B85M-E33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($62.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $332.96
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-18 19:21 EDT-0400)

"allow overclocking on this cpu up to 4.6ghz" if you get a very very good chip, possibly. 4.3-4.4 would be more likely on air, and a cheap air cooler at that.

"These results are compilation of tests featuring single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks" Synthetic benchmarks in quite a few instances. In the toms' tests the 8350 hardly beats the 4570, and this is in tasks that actually utilise all 8 threads of the 8350 - most programs won't and the 4570's stronger 4 threads will outperform it.
Share
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2014 5:38:33 PM

you are so totaly biaised your are blinded by your intel fanatism huh? you pair this 4 thread capable cpu with the cheapest micro atx board you can find and you dont even include an aftermarket cooler...and you know the intel stock cooler is loud and barely enough to cool that chip down...please build it including a good quality motherboard with an 8+2 power phase like the one i used and include a good cpu cooler please...

also a i said those benchmarks from toms feature real life day to day applicaitions using both single threaded and multithreaded task...
also yes 4.4 to 4.6 is very reasonable speeds that can be reached by most users with minimaleffortand tweaking its very simple to do, plenty of tutorials on that can be found on the net, its very simple...and the cpu you picked is locked and cant be overclocked...much less on such a cheap micro atx board...

and yes the more core the better for gaming in the long run as the games will get more and more optimisation to run better on those 8 core beast chips wheter you likeit or not this is the way the industry is going with the new consoles and pc games...
m
0
l
a c 482 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 1:39:38 AM

paitjsu sadff said:
you are so totaly biaised your are blinded by your intel fanatism huh? you pair this 4 thread capable cpu with the cheapest micro atx board you can find and you dont even include an aftermarket cooler...and you know the intel stock cooler is loud and barely enough to cool that chip down...please build it including a good quality motherboard with an 8+2 power phase like the one i used and include a good cpu cooler please...

also a i said those benchmarks from toms feature real life day to day applicaitions using both single threaded and multithreaded task...
also yes 4.4 to 4.6 is very reasonable speeds that can be reached by most users with minimaleffortand tweaking its very simple to do, plenty of tutorials on that can be found on the net, its very simple...and the cpu you picked is locked and cant be overclocked...much less on such a cheap micro atx board...

and yes the more core the better for gaming in the long run as the games will get more and more optimisation to run better on those 8 core beast chips wheter you likeit or not this is the way the industry is going with the new consoles and pc games...


An 8+2 power phase is not necessary. An aftermarket cooler is not necessary, the stock will be fine. Stock, multiplier locked intel chips will be fine in any board. The FX's on the other hand... All of that is necessary, and there's a reason for that.

4.4 to 4.6 overclock is not necessarily reasonable, and not with the heat output and power usage it brings.

But hey, even when those 8 threads are utilised the 4670 still outperforms the FX. Regardless of your speculation. Clearly you are in fact blinded by your 'AMD fanatism'.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2014 7:29:02 AM

ok enough, i explained to you 50 times already how those games like bf4 and crysis 3 ''takes advantage'' of up to 8 cores but are actualy 3 heavy threads while the rest of the load is spread to remaining cores and that they are not ''real next gen games'' the proof is that a PS3 version of both game is out...this is why a core i5 still does ''almost'' as good as the fx 8 cores, cause yes if you search multiplayer benmarks on that you will realise that FX-83xx is better for Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3...not by much, but still...and i posted those bencharks for you 10 times already and everytime you ignored them cause you are blinded...now on that i will let the OP take is decision and do his researches and draw is own conclusion...he asked for an alternative to the core i5 and i gave him and i really think that for gaming the TRUE next gen PC games that will be coded to run on PS4 and XBone ONLY, the FX 8 core is a superior chip that will be able to crunch much more data, that's it.

CPU intensive single-threaded games that use only 1 or 2 heavy threads where intel's architecture really shine are gonna be a thing of the past by the end of this year, and with mantle and directX12 and the way the games are going to be much more heavily multi-threaded i tell you this: the importance of a better IPC will be less and less of a factor in regard to gaming and intel incredible IPC will no longer garrant the core i5 the top spot for gaming..plain and simple, i think even the FX-6300 will be quite a challenge in next gen AAA titles against the haswell i5.

BENCHMARKS (BF4/CRYSIS 3):





http://splashurl.com/oo6ced5[/img]

m
0
l
a c 482 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 8:44:27 AM

I never ignored the benchmarks you sent. If you think I'm blinded, you're a hypocrite.

I also never mentioned next gen games. I'm saying, as I have always been saying, that currently even when 8 threads are loaded the 4670 will outperform the 8350. Whatever happens in the future is based on assumptions and speculation.

OP asked for an alternative chip without taking a severe hit on performance. The 8350 can cause a severe hit in performance in many titles. A 4570, 4440 or 4430 would be a better alternative to the 4670 if price is a concern.

You think a 6300 will challenge a 4670k? Ok, I think a Vauxhall Corsa will challenge a Bugatti Veyron. My god.

I have also provided you with benchmarks "10 times" and by your logic, you have also ignored them. Moreover, some of the benchmarks you posted use low resolutions and low graphics settings. You are ALWAYS whining about how this isn't representative, and then you go ahead and post those kinds of benchmarks yourself?


8350 is within margin of error performance to a last-gen Ivy Bridge i5.


Same situation here. Haswell's ~5-10% improvement would bring the i5 ahead.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2014 8:50:57 AM

Clearly we are on the same page, in current games that are optimised to ''TAKE ADVANTAGE'' of more cores both CPU's are pretty much the same and the difference between both solutions is minimal at best even your benchmarks confirms this...so the OP here looking at an alternative that would be ''without taking a severe hit on performance'' would be really well served with an FX-83xx CPU...even today in most games...

The only reason why i would not recommand the AMD cpu is if the OP is a big MMO and RPG fan playing elder scolls online, skyrim or planetside 2 all day long as those games are still heavy CPU dependant single-threaded games...but i honestly think they are the last games of a generation of games built on old game engines and i think you know that just too well...but yes the better IPC of any modern intel cpu's (core i3 included) will get better results in games that uses 2 heavy threads or less...no doubt about that...but for future games, more core the better.

...And even in those single-threaded games mentionned above the FX CPU's will still provide very acceptable performance and will allow for a great experience at a better pricepoint.

Also yes the hability of the FX-6300 to run 6 heavy threads in parallel will in the long run provide him the top spot over the 4 thread capable core i5, i'm 100% convinced on that, and this has nothing to do about cars...anyway i drive a honda civic if you care...with a 4 cylinder engine, and if it had a 6 cylinder engine it would perform better provided that all 6 cylinders are running...you get the big picture now?
m
0
l
a c 482 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 9:08:20 AM

The IPC of the intel will not be taken over by 2 extra threads of an FX, IMO.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2014 12:12:08 PM

It's really quite simple...in gaming 99% of the time the Intel will out perform the AMD and the AMD will outperform the Intel in a properly multi threaded workload like x.264 encoding in handbrake. 4.4-4.6 is reasonable with the newer batches of chips (my 8320 does 5.2 but with excessive heat and voltage...ie not worth it to me). So to me its easy, if you game and ONLY game then stick with intel but if you do properly multithreaded workloads more then gaming then get the FX. Just my .02
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2014 3:19:11 PM

JOOK-D said:
The IPC of the intel will not be taken over by 2 extra threads of an FX, IMO.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree.

The only reason the ipc of intel is needed in gaming at present is because of the bloatware that is dx9-10-11, look how mantle handles cpu useage vs dx, take a look and not at the half picture in review sites. I'm with paitjsu sadff on the 'future' and if you have an amd card, mantle beta driver, ss demo and afterburner you can see a little bit of the 'future' (mantle) for free, amd have played a blinder with the console wins and its win win for everyone who games.
m
0
l
a c 482 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 5:00:09 PM

con635 said:
JOOK-D said:
The IPC of the intel will not be taken over by 2 extra threads of an FX, IMO.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree.

The only reason the ipc of intel is needed in gaming at present is because of the bloatware that is dx9-10-11, look how mantle handles cpu useage vs dx, take a look and not at the half picture in review sites. I'm with paitjsu sadff on the 'future' and if you have an amd card, mantle beta driver, ss demo and afterburner you can see a little bit of the 'future' (mantle) for free, amd have played a blinder with the console wins and its win win for everyone who games.


I hope you're correct. But I refuse to base my ideas based off assumptions and speculation. When the time comes and the technology actually exists, then it's worth talking about. Even mantle implementation that had a huge hype behind it is only available sparsely.

There will almost always be a bottleneck when numerous potential combinations of components work together in a system like a PC. One component will outperform another. Mantle/DX12 will hopefully alleviate CPU workload but will shift a bottleneck elsewhere.

Anyway, I feel we've given the OP his answer.
m
0
l
a c 967 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 6:41:54 PM

ragkor, you never stated what motherboard you have. And also why are looking for an alternative for that i5 specifically?


Currently AMD does not make a cpu that is comparable to the i5 4670. Sure the 8 core FXs compare in a few titles but 80-90% of the time they don't come close. The 4670's biggest competitors come from it's own family. I already recommend the 4570 over it due to a better price/performance. A slightly overclocked 3570k will equal the 4670 and a seriously overclocked 3570k will outperform it. A +400mhz overclocked 3570, 3550, 3470 and maybe 3450 would be similar in performance. The Ivy Bridge e3-1230v2 and 1240v2 would be similar for about the same price. The Haswell e3-1230v3 would outperform it for just a bit more.
m
0
l
April 19, 2014 8:26:46 PM

CTurbo said:
ragkor, you never stated what motherboard you have. And also why are looking for an alternative for that i5 specifically?


Currently AMD does not make a cpu that is comparable to the i5 4670. Sure the 8 core FXs compare in a few titles but 80-90% of the time they don't come close. The 4670's biggest competitors come from it's own family. I already recommend the 4570 over it due to a better price/performance. A slightly overclocked 3570k will equal the 4670 and a seriously overclocked 3570k will outperform it. A +400mhz overclocked 3570, 3550, 3470 and maybe 3450 would be similar in performance. The Ivy Bridge e3-1230v2 and 1240v2 would be similar for about the same price. The Haswell e3-1230v3 would outperform it for just a bit more.



Yeah , all the benchmarks point to the same conclusion. i5 does have better performance on nearly all tests at least the gaming ones anyways.
the reason i ask is in Canada the 4670 is about ~260 kinda pushes the price of the build up actually in comparison to the 8350. But im gonna be going with the i5 and hopefully extend the longevity of the build.
thanks for the comment
m
0
l
April 19, 2014 8:30:16 PM

thanks for all the replies guys, i think i am gonna go with the i5 simply because the performance in games im gonna play (Skyrim and Planetside 2) run much better on the i5 then the AMD. paitjsu sadff and JOOK D thanks for the replies helped a lot and maybe my next build uses an AMD core instead:D 
Cheers!!!
m
0
l
a c 967 à CPUs
April 19, 2014 8:38:10 PM

According to ca.pcpartpicker.com

4570 = $ 214
4670 = $239
4670k = $238
1230v2 = $246
1230v3 = $267


I would get the 4570
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2014 10:37:24 PM

CTurbo said:
According to ca.pcpartpicker.com

4570 = $ 214
4670 = $239
4670k = $238
1230v2 = $246
1230v3 = $267


I would get the 4570


yeah, i agree, but if the budget allow for a good motherboard capable of overclocking i think the 4670k if it's like 25$ more like the price listed here is well worth it...these CPU's get a great boost when overclocked properly...would also require a 29$ aftermarket cooler (hyper 212) but all that i think is worth it for more future-proofing, just my tought on that !

Good choice OP, to run the games you stated yes defenetly the better IPC on the intel chip will give you great results, and in the future if you want to run more CPU intensive games that uses more cores you will always be able to get a good chunk of your money back and get a core i7 for example...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2014 7:38:25 AM

I would go with the 4670k, even if you cheap out on a motherboard for the time being it will still run just fine and you have the overclocking for the future if you drop the coin on a good motherboard down the road.
m
0
l