Why would I rather have Intel Core i5-4590 than AMD FX-8320

cwb50

Reputable
May 22, 2014
205
0
4,680
Pretty simple.... why would i rather have:

Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core
than
AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core

Bare in mind that the main uses for my Rig will be:

Types of games: Minecraft, Sims 4, Elderscrolls (Skyrim, not online elderscrolls), Valve (half-life, portal), Real-Time Strategies (Age of Mythology, Anno, etc), some steam games, etc.

Streaming video, recording video, editing video

I already have both of these parts in a List... Just waiting to finally decide which CPU I want more, it's so hard and confusing :(

Intel: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/caleb50/saved/2rJtt6
AMD: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/caleb50/saved/VZ448d

I have also been reading stuff on this webpage:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/here-we-explain-the-basic-differences-between-intel-and-amd-cpus/#!6zSC5
 

cwb50

Reputable
May 22, 2014
205
0
4,680
would you guys agree with this statement

"Generally speaking, AMD’s chips are cheaper than their Intel counterparts. If your budget is tight, an AMD CPU is likely the best way for you to go. Once you’re above the $150 price point, Intel processors offer quicker and more powerful performance overall. Cost efficiency on AMD chips drops off when you’re in that area. Intel Core i5 CPUs have an entry level price point of roughly $200."
 

titanHUNTER

Reputable
BANNED
Jun 24, 2014
207
0
4,710
Absolutely not! It was pure opinion. Like most people that bash AMD and worship Intel (as if AMDs processors can barely run an OS, lol). For your needs, you will greatly benefit with the AMD CPU do to its multiple physical cores. If you do go AMD, get the 8350 instead, its like $7 more and factory overclocked.

Either way, they both are great CPUs. I cannot read your parts because the link is broken. It is really down to preference at this point. You will probably pay around the same either way (neither CPU is costly). The Intel chip should be snappier in that it just came out this year.

In the end however, I would recommend the Intel build. The LGA 1150 socket can be upgraded to the i7-4790k. Unless you wanted to upgrade to the FX-9000 series, the LGA 1150 will be around for at least a few more years.

I personally prefer the 8 physical integer cores of the FX series (I have an 8350 in my build). But honestly, the i5 quad core chip will multi-task just fine despite not being hyper-threaded. If you do not have a preference, I would go with the Intel build just because the processor came out this year.
 
Not sure why, but I can't access your build links. For games, intel will outperform AMD, especially in many of the games you've outlined.

Games don't tend to use more than 4 cores/threads. Intel has stronger per-core performance, and often less cores (i5's have 4 cores, FX have 4/6/8 cores). Therefore, the 4/4 stronger cores of the i5 can be utilised compared to 4/8 of the weaker FX 8320 cores being utilised, and 4 left unused for that specific application.

How are you recording? Software? Both will take a performance hit, I can't say which would perform better. If you're getting an external capture card either would be fine.

For editing I'd expect them to be similar. The FX would likely be a bit faster for rendering video though, if that concerns you at all.

Between the 2, I'd grab the i5 without question.
 


With a beefy and expensive CPU cooler, and expensive motherboard too. Price/performance just goes out the window from the 8350 up.
 

titanHUNTER

Reputable
BANNED
Jun 24, 2014
207
0
4,710
The Intel will NOT outperform the 8350 in many games. The GPU will determine the difference in the gaming experience. Some games are better optimized for Intel chips (Skyrim), while others for AMD (Battlefield).

For the record, your CPU will USE ALL CORES as you game and multi-task. BF3 uses 6 of my 8 cores, leaving my CPU ample resources to run other programs, even other games! I had two games running concurrently the other day and did not even realize it. Many people who do not have experience with 6/8 core processors generalize and repeat what others say or what they read. With an 8 core, your CPU will use spread/share the workload over multiple cores. So instead of 3 cores running at 100%, you will have 6 cores running at 60%. When I had my 4 core, BF3 used all cores and utilized around 95% of my entire CPU. With my FX-8350, the BF3 decreased to around 40% of entire CPU (leaving ample room for multi-tasking or performing other tasks).

He is right about cooling the 9370 though. However, I have read reviews where users were able to keep it under 50 with the CM Cooler Master Hyper Evo 212. At the same time, I have read of some who have temps with their 8350 in the 50's with water cooling. Mine does not past 44 while running Prime 95 with the Evo!

I still would recommend the i5 for you just because this is your first build and the 9370 is not for the faint of heart!

Happy Gaming!
 


Your initial statement overruled itself. It will not outperform AMD, but then you say it outperforms AMD? :lol: Have a look at some game benchmarks, there are certainly differences.

If an application is not coded to use all of the available cores, it will not use them. If it's coded well it will spread the load equally - in many instances this is not the case. Supposed "multithreaded" games often rely heavily on main threads and subthreads, and the CPU stress is not spread equally across each core. Some are left with less stressing smaller instructions, and others with the brunt of the work. Yes I've had personal experience with an 8320 @ 4.5 GHz. Leaving 2 games running by accident is not an effective measure.

My old 8320 @ 4.5 with a 212 EVO would go above the safe temp threshold. Take that as you will. I would absolutely expect a need for something like a Noctua NH-D14 with the 9370.
 

titanHUNTER

Reputable
BANNED
Jun 24, 2014
207
0
4,710


I refuted your claim that it will outperform in "many" games. Then I listed games where each CPU was strong. Please use your single-core prowess and read it again. LOL

Regarding application coding, what applications/programs are you referring that only use only one core? Do you write/develop applications? Do you even measure your CPU usage? Has there ever been a time while gaming or any other program running where only 1 core was utilized in your task manager?

Please provide this magical list of only single core applications! LOL That is such a scapegoat that people always use it against AMD, but never provide apps that use only one core. Maybe 10 years ago most apps used a single core! LOL Back when the Pentium reigned king! LMAO

Regarding gaming benchmarks, i benchmark myself. Most of the online benchmarks in gaming are for 90 seconds! I conduct 5 to 10 minute benchmarks and if you benchmark three different times, you will get three different averages, min and max FPS! You would have to conduct multiple samples, then use ANOVA to get real performance metrics regarding FPS. Not to mention the map of the game, loading sequences, etc.

So when I read these "objective benchmarks" where somehow the i7-3770k is somehow always just 3 to 5 fps faster than the FX-8350, i just smh.

And playing two games in windowed mode is a REAL LIFE measure of performance. My CPU was able to handle the load without so much as slowing down. Try doing that with a dual core i3 and tell me how it works out.

And I believe you with your temps of the 8320. You were at the max of overclocking that chip. So the temps would naturally rise.

In any rate, you will not notice the difference with either chip. After all I stated, for this guy who does not have a preference or motherboard, I would recommend that he go with the i5. He can always upgrade or build an AMD machine down the line if he likes.
 


Exactly: you listed that they outperform each other in games. There's nothing extra to read there. By the way intel i5's often match or beat AMD's offerings in BF.

I've never even mentioned single-core performance, nor have I said that applications only used one core. Yes I often measure CPU usage, no I don't develop applications. Regarding your next paragraph, again I never referred to any application using only a single core.

I honestly could not care less about your benchmarks unless you were to post results.

Unless you play in windowed mode regularly, it's not a real life measure in the slightest.

I can claim from personal experience that there is a vast difference in performance from my 8320 @ 4.5 to my Xeon 1230v3, even with hyperthreading disabled.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
My i5 2400 @ 3.5ghz does better than my FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz, with the same exact GPU, in WoW. WoW, like Skyrim, is poorly threaded. Put the two systems in the same raid, and the i5 runs smoother every time. The i5 is even playing at a higher resolution of 2048 x 1152, plus playing netflix on a 1366 x768 monitor at the same time. The FX rig only has one monitor at 1680 x 1050. The other games the OP mentioned, are in the same category of poorly threaded titles. My main rig is a poor comparison as the GPU is far better. Both my i5 2400 and FX 8320 are using matching HD 5850's that I used to run in CF in my main rig, before I bought my HD 7970.