Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Why is the Intel i7 4770k better than AMD FX8350?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 8, 2014 2:10:54 PM

I may sound like a noob asking this but why is the Intel i7 4770k better than AMD FX8350. If we compare the two AMD FX8350 has 4 more cores and runs at a higher clock speed. I want to know why people buy the i7 4770k when it has less performance.

More about : intel 4770k amd fx8350

a b À AMD
a c 101 à CPUs
May 8, 2014 2:13:46 PM

because more cores doesn't mean more performance.
you can google 4770k vs fx 8350
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 129 à CPUs
May 8, 2014 2:15:33 PM

The i7 can perform more instructions per clock.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 8, 2014 2:16:01 PM

Performance is a lot more than mhz and number of cores. It's all about the efficiency of the architecture http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8... Read the details at the bottom.

But that said the AMD chip has a lot of bang for the buck.
Share
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2014 2:18:17 PM

Core count isn't everything. The FX8350 uses sudo cores that simply aren't as fully fledged. The i7 has higher performance per core than the FX8350. Though in heavily multithreaded apps the FX8350 can get close to the i7.

Theres a reason its nearly a hundred dollars cheaper.
m
0
l
May 11, 2014 5:19:37 PM

MrAlaweey98 said:
I may sound like a noob asking this but why is the Intel i7 4770k better than AMD FX8350. If we compare the two AMD FX8350 has 4 more cores and runs at a higher clock speed. I want to know why people buy the i7 4770k when it has less performance.


m
0
l
May 11, 2014 5:20:47 PM

Because AMD FX 8350 is two hundred fifty dollars cheaper
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2014 5:47:20 PM

It's the same type of scenario as the PlayStation 4 vs the PlayStation 3. Nobody questions that the PS4 is way more powerful than the PS3, yet its clock speed is about half that of the PS3. Obviously there is more at stake than Gigahertz. With the 4770k's hyperthreading, it's basically the same as having 8 cores, and it runs much more efficiently than the FX8350. The benchmarks don't lie.
m
0
l
August 19, 2014 3:24:17 PM

WoodenSaucer said:
It's the same type of scenario as the PlayStation 4 vs the PlayStation 3. Nobody questions that the PS4 is way more powerful than the PS3, yet its clock speed is about half that of the PS3. Obviously there is more at stake than Gigahertz. With the 4770k's hyperthreading, it's basically the same as having 8 cores, and it runs much more efficiently than the FX8350. The benchmarks don't lie.


Somewhat true, but hyper threading is nowhere near the same thing as having 8 physical cores


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 3:27:20 PM

Jrlurl said:


Somewhat true, but hyper threading is nowhere near the same thing as having 8 physical cores




Also true, except that the 8350 doesn't really have 8 true cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 3:44:05 PM

mouse24 said:
Core count isn't everything. The FX8350 uses sudo cores that simply aren't as fully fledged. The i7 has higher performance per core than the FX8350. Though in heavily multithreaded apps the FX8350 can get close to the i7.

Theres a reason its nearly a hundred dollars cheaper.


You mean "pseudo"? Or are we talking "sudo" as in Linux or Unix?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 3:45:59 PM

Mac266 said:
Jrlurl said:


Somewhat true, but hyper threading is nowhere near the same thing as having 8 physical cores




Also true, except that the 8350 doesn't really have 8 true cores.


It is a true eight core cpu measured by any technical standard. There are eight integer cores that share resources.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 3:48:42 PM

Jrlurl said:
WoodenSaucer said:
It's the same type of scenario as the PlayStation 4 vs the PlayStation 3. Nobody questions that the PS4 is way more powerful than the PS3, yet its clock speed is about half that of the PS3. Obviously there is more at stake than Gigahertz. With the 4770k's hyperthreading, it's basically the same as having 8 cores, and it runs much more efficiently than the FX8350. The benchmarks don't lie.


Somewhat true, but hyper threading is nowhere near the same thing as having 8 physical cores




In some compute workloads the 8350 will come out on top. Not any compute workloads the average home user will ever encounter but they do exist. In poorly threaded workloads or lightly threaded ones the i7 will beat the 8350 no question.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 3:49:33 PM

notherdude said:

But that said the AMD chip has a lot of bang for the buck.


This.................
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2014 8:10:11 PM

bmacsys said:
mouse24 said:
Core count isn't everything. The FX8350 uses sudo cores that simply aren't as fully fledged. The i7 has higher performance per core than the FX8350. Though in heavily multithreaded apps the FX8350 can get close to the i7.

Theres a reason its nearly a hundred dollars cheaper.


You mean "pseudo"? Or are we talking "sudo" as in Linux or Unix?


I meant pseudo. But I would like to say that they are true cores but not in the sense of being completely separated from each other.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2014 6:30:18 PM

bmacsys said:
Mac266 said:
Jrlurl said:


Somewhat true, but hyper threading is nowhere near the same thing as having 8 physical cores




Also true, except that the 8350 doesn't really have 8 true cores.


It is a true eight core cpu measured by any technical standard. There are eight integer cores that share resources.


Integer cores yes. Floating point Cores no.

Just to be comparative:

An AMD core has one integer unit (not sure what it's meant to be called) and shares a Floating point unit in a module.
An Intel core has one integer unit and one floating point unit.
m
0
l
!