Solved

i5 4670k or FX 8320

Which from these two has better and powerful cores?
20 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 4670k 8320
  1. The 4670k is better in every way. The FX8320 is officially outdated, and needs to be replaced IMO. It's too bad AMD has given up.
  2. depends entirely how youll use it, ill save you sifting through hundreds of threads already like this

    for just gaming, the intel for now will wipe the floor with the FX and at considerably less power consumption.
    For light multitasking, and heavy single threaded programs, the i5 will run better.

    for streaming or recording gameplay, the extra cores in the FX will give it the edge over the i5
    for rendering 3d images or animation, or traditional video edits, the FX will decimate the i5.

    As a gamer 20% of the time and a 3d modeler/renderer 80% of the time, the FX 8320 was an obvious winner for me. And don't get me wrong, I play the AAA games and my FX 8320 has never had a problem holding 50-60 frames at high settings. MY HD 7870 GPU on the other hand tends to hold me back bit these days.

    Update: to specifically answer your question the i5 3670k will see about 50% performance per core over the FX. but the FX has twice as many cores, and that's why these chips tend to be neck and neck. the rest will boil down entirely to application/use.

    +CTrurbo is notoriously biased towards intel. I love both honestly.
  3. CTurbo said:
    The 4670k is better in every way. The FX8320 is officially outdated, and needs to be replaced IMO. It's too bad AMD has given up.


    http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/148246-update-2-amd-announces-from-scratch-next-generation-high-performance-x86-arm-cores/
  4. I know I'm a bit harsh on the FXs these days. They're really not THAT bad. I used to actually recommend them over the locked Sandy and Ivy i5s because they were actually competitive against them. They're just simply not very competitive with Haswell. They have been out for almost 3 years not and the AM3+ platform in general is in bad need of replacing. I really wish AMD would release some steamroller FXs or Phenoms. I don't want AMD to give up and go away.
  5. Quote:
    +CTrurbo is notoriously biased towards intel. I love both honestly.


    It's true. I am extremely biased these days, but I didn't use to be. The older I get, the less I care about overclocking, and the more I care about efficiency. If you didn't notice, I stopped recommending the "K" model Intels too. Overclocking just isn't a cost effective thing to do, and I feel like with the FXs, you pretty much HAVE to overclock to get the performance.


    I would like to point out though, that I have an i7 in one of my PCs, and an A10 6800k in my other, and I've been happy with the A10 so it's not like I'm against AMD at every cost. I really want them to be competitive.
  6. Best help got from Beezy but this paragraph confused me- ''. but the FXhas twice as many cores, and that's why these chips tend to be neck and neck. the rest will boil down entirely to application/
    use.''
  7. Ok it's simple.

    The FX 8320 has 8 cores but they are very weak in comparison to the i5.
    The i5 has 4 cores but they are very strong in comparison to the FX.


    So 8 weak cores roughly equal 4 strong cores.


    Anything that requires 4 cores or less, the Intel is WAY faster. Things that use as many cores as possible favor the FX.
  8. Best answer
    CTurbo said:
    Ok it's simple.

    The FX 8320 has 8 cores but they are very weak in comparison to the i5.
    The i5 has 4 cores but they are very strong in comparison to the FX.


    So 8 weak cores roughly equal 4 strong cores.


    yes this we agree on. As i said, for streaming/recording/rendering, the FX takes the cake. these applications can scale across all cores efficiently (to speed up the overall process of whatever task you are doing).

    Still a lot of programs, if not most, prefer and operate better on less threads. Game included generally use 2-4 cores, so intel wins here. Toms is mostly a gaming forum, so people generally say go intel.

    But for those that use programs that can use all the cores the FX makes perfect sense.

    Heres my FX 8320 running at stock, and while the others appear to be running at base (since it says for example i5 4670k@ 3.4 Ghz). Yet they too are running with stock "turbo" boosts enabled (so it really ran at 3.8Ghz)....misleading i know.

    http://imageshack.com/a/img855/5489/z3es.jpg

    right now i have it at 4.3Ghz with great thermals, and balanced C states so it isnt always eating 125W. (it will idle at 800Mhz, general use it hangs around 1500Mhz and any heavy under load it hits 4.1-4.3 and stays there depending on CPU load/task).
  9. If I buy 6300,would I regret lately for not buying a 8xxx? *quite* faster than 63OO? Frankly asking brother.
  10. AniAM said:
    If I buy 6300,would I regret lately for not buying a 8xxx? *quite* faster than 63OO? Frankly asking brother.


    well honestly the FX 8320 doesnt offer any better single core performance, its either you choosing your needs now. Do you render and use video editing software? go eight cores.
    An FX 6300, at 95W TDP, can be overclocked a bit higher with less voltages.(i.e your motherboard power phase, and what your cooler will cool). the higher single core performance will be better for most games.

    FX 8320 has 2 extra cores, so clearly more raw power but only gets lightly used in most games for now.

    If you need me to explain the higher OC on less voltage concept a bit better i can do that too (because it will depend on YOUR set up ultimately )
  11. I know it..you told me in other various threads posted by me. Very funny I would get now,dont be disturbed as you choose one for me from these two options. 1) Fx 6300 and 23 inch IPS or 2) Fx 8320 and 21.5 inch IPS. Which i would enjoy more? Tell me from your perspective brother...guide.
  12. My main purposes are heavy photo-editing and graphical works. Top most 7-8 tasks at a time too.
  13. AniAM said:
    My main purposes are heavy photo-editing and graphical works. Top most 7-8 tasks at a time too.


    assuming they are both 1080p, go with the FX 8320 + 21.5 inch monitor.

    For what you are planning, the FX 8320 is worth it over the FX 6300.
  14. Love you Beezy. Yeah,1.5 inch is nothing that bigger in size. 8 cores are must. Solved thread brother. Big thumb :) from me,Anirban
  15. Buddies,again I'm. Hey,does the 8320 cpu comes with a metal tin box or just paper one? Someone telling me paper,some tin. Which one is true? O-O even I saw some mixed packages on google. Confused!
  16. ive purchased many FX 6300's through different vendors, and one FX 8320 (amazon, newegg, microcenter). They all came in a paper (cardboard) box with some plastic for the chip.

    like this one
  17. One more thing,if I dont OC my cpu, will I be needing still buy an aftermarket cooler? What's the base wattage consumption of 8320?
  18. AniAM said:
    One more thing,if I dont OC my cpu, will I be needing still buy an aftermarket cooler? What's the base wattage consumption of 8320?


    If you're going with an AMD FX processor... I recommend you buy an aftermarket cooler since the stock cooler is pretty loud. You'll be reducing noise and you can overclock too. It's worth the extra cost.
  19. aylafan said:
    AniAM said:
    One more thing,if I dont OC my cpu, will I be needing still buy an aftermarket cooler? What's the base wattage consumption of 8320?


    If you're going with an AMD FX processor... I recommend you buy an aftermarket cooler since the stock cooler is pretty loud. You'll be reducing noise and you can overclock too. It's worth the extra cost.


    Agreed, the stock cooler is very noisy.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i5