Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Intel i7 4790k vs FX 8350

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Quad Core
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • AMD
  • CPUs
  • 8 core
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 16, 2014 5:45:00 AM

Intel has it at 4.0 GhZ with 4 cores, while AND has it at 8 cores 4.0Ghz.
Why is the Intel CPU better from what I hear? I always hear the 8350 isn't actually 8 cores. Also what's the difference if both ran on a gtx 770?

More about : intel 4790k 8350

a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
a c 140 à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:53:14 AM

The Intel cpu is capable of processing more instructions per clock.
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 5:55:34 AM

Different architectures first of all , and AMD FX chip is not really an 8 core ... even BF4 reports cores 8, job threads 4. Inside an FX CPU there is no real 8 core, is sort of a hardware level hyperthreading version of AMD.

The better performer will clearly be the Intel here ... but the pricing is way off.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2014 6:00:38 AM

grimmjow660 said:
Why is the Intel CPU better from what I hear?


Processors are a lot more complicated than you're assuming. That 4 GHz is only directly comparable to another chip from the same architecture, and those cores don't perform the same. In the absolute best-case-scenario the two might perform similarly. Most cases, the i5 will be quite far ahead.

Benchmarks are the only way to know this stuff, the specs alone won't help you.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
June 16, 2014 6:20:41 AM

grimmjow660 said:
Intel has it at 4.0 GhZ with 4 cores, while AND has it at 8 cores 4.0Ghz.
Why is the Intel CPU better from what I hear? I always hear the 8350 isn't actually 8 cores. Also what's the difference if both ran on a gtx 770?


As pointed by Bignastyid, the biggest difference between those CPUs is instructions per clock. Frequency is only one of the many things you need to account for in order to understand CPU performance.

Imagine Intel and AMD CPUs were factories, producing cars for example. Now image both assembly lines work at the same pace. In the end, Intel's factory is producing more cars, but how? This happens because while AMD's factory can assemble, say, two cars at the same time, Intel managed to fit a third in it's assembly line. So at the end of every work cycle, Intel is one car ahead (more IPC). Also, Intel managed to better predict the use of parts (prefetch) and thus, store just the right amount of the right parts (caching) close to the workers. That means its assembly line will stop a lot less than AMD's.

Hope this was helpful and you don't find it too obvious.

As for your GPU, it is a powerful one, basically a GTX680 on steroids. The difference will only be seen in scenarios where the CPU may be holding up your GPU. I don't think that will happen much with either one, though the Intel is certainly more capable. In the end, if you have the money go for the Intel, but you'll be well served either way.

Share
June 16, 2014 4:38:12 PM

Murissokah said:
grimmjow660 said:
Intel has it at 4.0 GhZ with 4 cores, while AND has it at 8 cores 4.0Ghz.
Why is the Intel CPU better from what I hear? I always hear the 8350 isn't actually 8 cores. Also what's the difference if both ran on a gtx 770?


As pointed by Bignastyid, the biggest difference between those CPUs is instructions per clock. Frequency is only one of the many things you need to account for in order to understand CPU performance.

Imagine Intel and AMD CPUs were factories, producing cars for example. Now image both assembly lines work at the same pace. In the end, Intel's factory is producing more cars, but how? This happens because while AMD's factory can assemble, say, two cars at the same time, Intel managed to fit a third in it's assembly line. So at the end of every work cycle, Intel is one car ahead (more IPC). Also, Intel managed to better predict the use of parts (prefetch) and thus, store just the right amount of the right parts (caching) close to the workers. That means its assembly line will stop a lot less than AMD's.

Hope this was helpful and you don't find it too obvious.

As for your GPU, it is a powerful one, basically a GTX680 on steroids. The difference will only be seen in scenarios where the CPU may be holding up your GPU. I don't think that will happen much with either one, though the Intel is certainly more capable. In the end, if you have the money go for the Intel, but you'll be well served either way.



What exactly do you mean holding the GPU up?
Also is it correct to say the i7 4790k will last a long time, longer than the FX 8350?
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 4:54:02 PM

grimmjow660 said:
Murissokah said:
grimmjow660 said:
Intel has it at 4.0 GhZ with 4 cores, while AND has it at 8 cores 4.0Ghz.
Why is the Intel CPU better from what I hear? I always hear the 8350 isn't actually 8 cores. Also what's the difference if both ran on a gtx 770?


As pointed by Bignastyid, the biggest difference between those CPUs is instructions per clock. Frequency is only one of the many things you need to account for in order to understand CPU performance.

Imagine Intel and AMD CPUs were factories, producing cars for example. Now image both assembly lines work at the same pace. In the end, Intel's factory is producing more cars, but how? This happens because while AMD's factory can assemble, say, two cars at the same time, Intel managed to fit a third in it's assembly line. So at the end of every work cycle, Intel is one car ahead (more IPC). Also, Intel managed to better predict the use of parts (prefetch) and thus, store just the right amount of the right parts (caching) close to the workers. That means its assembly line will stop a lot less than AMD's.

Hope this was helpful and you don't find it too obvious.

As for your GPU, it is a powerful one, basically a GTX680 on steroids. The difference will only be seen in scenarios where the CPU may be holding up your GPU. I don't think that will happen much with either one, though the Intel is certainly more capable. In the end, if you have the money go for the Intel, but you'll be well served either way.



What exactly do you mean holding the GPU up?
Also is it correct to say the i7 4790k will last a long time, longer than the FX 8350?


When a processor holds your GPU back, it's regularly called «bottleneck», which means you're not taking advantage of all of the GPU power, because the CPU doesn't allow it. Neither the I7 nor the FX will make you bottleneck so you can just chill. I'll suggest you to go Intel because of the reasons listed above, but, as also mentioned above, you'll be well served with both!

I hope I helped!

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 3:55:05 AM

grimmjow660 said:
What exactly do you mean holding the GPU up?
Also is it correct to say the i7 4790k will last a long time, longer than the FX 8350?


As JP7PlaysMC mentioned, holding back, or bottlenecking, means a certain component of your computer is not keeping up with the rest. If your CPU cannot processes some aspect of a game or application fast enough, your GPU can't do anything because it has to wait for that information to continue. In this situation, you aren't getting your money's worth from your GPU because of some other component (most commonly the CPU).

Please keep in mind that this is a case-by-case analysis, meaning that even if it happens, it will be only under very specific circumstances. For example, you might be able to cruise through 90% of your game library with no issues, but one or two titles might have some taxing algorithms or bad coding (GTA4, anyone?) that demand a lot from the CPU, and in those circumstances your computer might perform below its overall capacity. A more powerful CPU means these situations, witch are rather rare these days, will be even rarer.
m
0
l
!