8350 or 4670k

i5-4670k all the way, it's way better in gaming
For liquid cooler look at Corsair H100i

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $89.99
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-25 04:08 EDT-0400)

in my opinion, neither of those, if the rumored new "devil's canyon" cpus from intel (possibly core i5 4690k and 4790k) turn out to be better overclockers than i5 4670k.

I just quit using a system with an FX-8350 and HD 7850 graphics. I am now running a system with the 4670K and GTX 770 OC. I realize that the GTX 770 is much better than the HD 7850, but games run great with the 4670K and my temps are much better. With the FX processor my temps were often in the low 60s C which is getting hot. The 4670K has not gotten over 55 C. and I believe that the Intel can perform at higher temperatures than the FX-8350.
I used this cooler for both chips: Agir
It is discontinued, but I believe that you could get good results at 4.0 ghz with a Hyper 212EVO.

The i5 4670k soundly beats the FX 8350 in all but the most heavily threaded of tasks, and even then - the lead by the FX proc is very slight. No to mention the AMD processor is very power hungry. WAY more so than the Intel CPU. The 8 cores of the FX make little difference when you only use them for video encoding or image rendering (unless that's your job). Plus the Intel processor has hyper-threading anyway. 4 Cores 8 threads.

If I had a choice between these two processors I would pick the i5 every time. Its on the order of ~15% faster than the FX 8350, enough that it will feel substantially zippier in day to day use.

Plus the AMD processor uses an older 32nm manufacturing process, and the i5 is cutting edge 22nm tech.

For your previous post (before update )

This.

I'd wait til the Z97 boards and Devil's Canyon chips with better TIM are out (which should be soon). You'll achieve a far higher overclock.

Midyear. Sometime soon.

Priced very similarly, likely a little higher, than the current gen chips.

Prices were released on most chips though I haven't personally seen anything on the k series.

Here's a link: http://techreport.com/news/26317/here-are-the-specs-and-prices-for-intel-haswell-refresh-cpus

Assumptions and speculation. I have said it before and will say it again.

The i5 is the better performer, it has been and will be. Benchmarks support this, speculation of the 'future' gets us nowhere.

I can link you many experts (game developpers, designers, programmers) and i will...they all agree that the future generation of games WILL HAVE to be way more multi-threaded to make good use of the 8 core jaguar CPU's and this, without any doubt possible, will reflect in PC gaming...every games that will be developped for those consoles to then be ported to PC will be heavily multi-threaded...that's a given. no one should ever argue that.

And by real next gen games i'm talking games that will be developped for new consoles and PC ONLY, with no intention to have the game running on old console like PS3 and XB360...so even the long awaited watch dogs won't fit in this category cause it will be out for PS3 as well...it will run better on an 8 core CPU that's for sure, but it's not even a TRUE next gen game yet...
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's an excellent arcticle about that (PC and future games, future proofing a PC today) Experts in gaming industry opinions :
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen


AMD has the potential to offer more performance at the same price-point - as Avalanche Studios' Chief Technical Office, Linus Blomberg, tells us.

"I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though," he says.

"Secondly, not every game engine is job-queue based, even though the Avalanche Engine is, some games are designed around an assumption of available hardware threads. The FX-8350 will clearly be much more powerful [than PS4] in raw processing power considering the superior clock speed, but in terms of architecture it can be a benefit to have the same number of cores so that an identical frame layout can be guaranteed."

"This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did. So, I would probably go for the AMD as well, as this might better match a console port of a game... based on what we know so far."
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, yes that's a digital foundry arcticle, they are the one producing the AMD chips, they are somewhat sold to AMD...but the interviewed expert is not, and when you think about it...doesn't all he says makes sence?...it really does isn't it?

FX-8320 is just as good, save your money those nowadays are all virtualy perfect chip and they pretty much all will reach upward of 4.6ghz...easily.
The FX-8320 and FX-8350 are EXACTLY the same chip, only the clockspeed is different but they are unlocked and you want to overclock so this is no big deal..here's what i would go with if i was to build the most future proof gaming PC as of today with still a somewhat ''budget'' oriented project in mind:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($151.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H80i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($74.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Kingston Blu 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($60.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($56.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 4GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($369.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Thermaltake Chaser A31 Snow White ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Antec HCG M 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1044.87
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-25 08:30 EDT-0400)

This setup will allow you to go SLI with another 770 4gb card in the future if you may desire to (for 4k resolution for example or 1600p), will allow monster overclocking of this CPU also...This should run games on highest settings for the entire PS4 era...as long as you keep the GPU up to date, as i said...i would start with that and find a used 770 4gb in a year time...

Of course the Case, storage and OS you choose what you want but i would highly recommand windows 8.1 for gaming...also i included a 120gb SSD for boot drive/programs and battlefield 4...it's always nice to have but not a must, if you want to save some more you could go with an hyper 212 CPU cooler instead it's basicaly just as good as watercooling for temps on these chips but cost only 29$...

Now, one thing you must be aware before you buy such a setup, the AMD single core performance is not as good as intel, so in games that rely a lot on single core performance (badly optimised games built on old engines that use only one or two heavy threads) the intel perform better...(elder scroll, planetside 2...) so if your a BIG fan of such games you want an intel system, but those type of games are fading out and are the last of a generation of games.

If you play modern games like BF4 or crysis 3 that are built on modern game engines that happily use 4 threads or more and take advantage of more cores, then this is a non-issue.

Also, the FX 8 core will never be as good as a core i7...even overclocked you will reach the core i7-3770 at stock speed...but the thing is the FX cost about half the price of the i7 and the motherboard also of equivalent quality for an intel will cost you about 45% more...this is the deal with going AMD...are you in?

Shame. Enjoy.

I don't get why and how this could be a bad decision, as i said UNLESS the OP is a BIG planetside 2 or elder scroll player or enjoys playing older games, there is no reason to go with intel...to have the same performance the OP is looking AT LEAST at an intel i5-4670k and this would perform a little better today yes, but not in the future...to get something as future proof as the FX 8 core he is looking at a 300$+ core i7 for the CPU alone...let alone the premium to pay to get an high-end intel board...crazy! ...and we have yet to see a game really supporting hyperthreading and in wich a core i7 would really be an advantage and the truth is we might never see one.

Even in todays modern games (BF4, crysis 3 for example) the FX 8 core performs at the same level and even better than the i5-4670k and you know it i pasted the trusted benchmarks 10 times already...you saw them and you know it...and it will only continue to do so and even better in the future with the way the games are going and with DirectX12 and all the optimisations that has been done to support multi-core CPU's better...windows 8 alone improved performance by about 15 to 20% on these chips, i know it i ran many benchmarks with windows 7 and now the same bench at same speed gigves me much better results in windows 8 (cinebench for example)...all the reviews that are available of the FX on the net are full of flaws and most of them date from the day those chips came out...but we've been a long way since, applications and operating system improvements have much improved on the performance of these chips and yet no newer unbiased reviews have been done since...

Now we are at the point where logainofhades usualy comes in and post his xeon build, wich is nice for the price but we don't know if future games will support hyperthreading or if this is gonna someday really helps in games...

And you will have VnM coming in to argue some vague theory on intel's architecture vs AMD to try to discreditate me...and as usual we will end-up agreeing that yes intel's per core performance is better and that for games that use 4 threads or less yes the intel does perform better but in anything that use 5 threads or more the FX catch up and at 6 heavy threads he's ahead...it's always the same.

Yes, every single review on the internet ever is flawed. Nice. And also, according to you, the only modern games are ones which use up to 8 threads - just how skewed is your view?

A 4440/4570 + B motherboard would perform better than an FX. No need for an i7 or high-end motherboard. I've also posted benchmarks showing the opposite of what yours are showing. What's your point? You say that if they're interested in playing older games intel would be the better choice - intel still outperforms AMD right now. Games are still highly dependent on IPC.

I don't know why you're mentioning other users. But they make valid points, and you know that. It bothers me that you post the same thing on every thread despite having been disproven several times. Then we end up with this conversation. As for logainofhades' Xeon build, that's because it's a better option. And vMN understands the architecture to a degree far superior than I do.

As I said before, it's a shame that the OP decided to go with FX when the intel provides more performance. Enjoy.

alright, you know what...OP go with a quad core intel, this guy is a genius...i'm silly, im out!
i don't care...i know my FX performs AWESOMLY great in games today and i have it paired with an highly overclocked GTX780 and IM CONVINCED it will continue to do so and even MORE in future games, it will not slow down and get overfed by games like the intel quad core will when it will be required to process 6 or 8 sets of instructions in parallel and FOR ME that is what's important...i couldn't care less of what you intel fanboys think, and i couldnt care less about OP's decision but at least i tried to change things...you guys saw as i said old benchmarks showing old games run under windows 7 at low resolution to highlight intel's better IPC and now you are lead to believe that AMD CPU's can't perform well in games...i tell oyu this, i'm 100% sure the future will proove you wrong, all of you...check this out when they will test watch dogs under windows 8 the real non-biaised site i will post the results in EVERY SINGLE THREADS where i recommanded the FX 8 core my man, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

Appreciated.

I EDITED WHIKE YOU WHERE TYPING YOUR STUFF, HERE I PASTE AGAIN:

i don't care...i know my FX performs AWESOMLY great in games today and i have it paired with an highly overclocked GTX780 and IM CONVINCED it will continue to do so and even MORE in future games, it will not slow down and get overfed by games like the intel quad core will when it will be required to process 6 or 8 sets of instructions in parallel and FOR ME that is what's important...i couldn't care less of what you intel fanboys think, and i couldnt care less about OP's decision but at least i tried to change things...you guys saw as i said old benchmarks showing old games run under windows 7 at low resolution to highlight intel's better IPC and now you are lead to believe that AMD CPU's can't perform well in games...i tell oyu this, i'm 100% sure the future will proove you wrong, all of you...check this out when they will test watch dogs under windows 8 the real non-biaised site i will post the results in EVERY SINGLE THREADS where i recommanded the FX 8 core my man, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
...and watch dogs will only be the beginning, the tip of the iceberg, as i said this game is developped in parallel on PS3 and XB360 and even wiiu...so it will still run somewhat great on a core i5...but the real next gen AAA titles will not...take my word.

Okay i'm tired og hearing about your fantasiens, let get some facts going.

If future games will be purely bases om the consoles it would be running multiple WEAK Threads, not any form og heavy.

The 8350 wouldn't be running labs around any haswell i5s that is for sure.

I could make a much more informative post, and i might do when i get home.

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, captain caps lock. Once again. It's still based on speculation.

I can't believe you complain about low resolution benchmarks when you post them yourself, like the one in Crysis 3. But hang on... that uses 8 threads? Which would benefit the FX if it were to run at a low resolution. Seems you're happy to complain about something but use the same technique yourself. Ha, cheers.

don't do we don't care we heard enough bullsh*t already...those PS4 games will be optimised to run on PS4 so for those the treads will seem ''weak'' like you say, but its a known fact that when a game is ported to PC it's much more demanding for the hardware that has to bruteforce the way through inneficient coding so those threads believe me will be heavy to run on even overclocked FX 8 core...we are talking here much more advanced physics than current gen games...they will push these consoles to run things we've never seen before as they do with EVERY generations of games, and as usual we will get MANY lazy PC port that will be unneficient and in wich an overclocked FX 8 core will do an awesome job at handling the core instruction sets in parallel.