Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX-8320 vs Intel Core i5-4590

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 30, 2014 5:19:55 PM

Picking between these two CPU's is the biggest dilemma of my build. It is my missing link. Which ever I pick it is being paired with: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X

I am not going to show my parts list or anything else because every time I do people start talk about stuff that I don't want answers on, I just want to know which CPU I need, not which is better necessarily.... But which one is right for me. Link's would be appreciated! I want to see professional reasoning for myself, thanks!

The rig is being designed for this:

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

More about : amd 8320 intel core 4590

a b à CPUs
June 30, 2014 5:22:35 PM

4590. The FX series really can't mach i5s in gaming except in few highly threaded ones.
m
0
l
a c 121 à CPUs
June 30, 2014 5:24:34 PM

"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."

Definitely an i5 for those games, even an i3 would be better since those games favor brute force single threads over multi-core.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:25:30 PM

For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:25:46 PM

definantly the i5 4590.
m
0
l
June 30, 2014 5:27:39 PM

Alpha3031 said:
4590. The FX series really can't mach i5s in gaming except in few highly threaded ones.


What about for all thing video (editing, recording, etc) I have always heard 8 cores is beast for that
m
0
l
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:29:41 PM

cwb50 said:
Alpha3031 said:
4590. The FX series really can't mach i5s in gaming except in few highly threaded ones.


What about for all thing video (editing, recording, etc) I have always heard 8 cores is beast for that


For video editing, the extra cores of the 8320 will be of benefit. And probably be quicker.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:29:51 PM

cwb50 said:
Alpha3031 said:
4590. The FX series really can't mach i5s in gaming except in few highly threaded ones.


What about for all thing video (editing, recording, etc) I have always heard 8 cores is beast for that


Yeah the 8 cores would help, however the 8 cores for todays software is VERY WEAK.

Core i5 has 4 Stronger Cores, it will be equal to fx 8320 to faster than fx 8320.
Share
June 30, 2014 5:31:09 PM

clutchc said:
For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.


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."
m
0
l
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:33:07 PM

cwb50 said:
clutchc said:
For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.


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."


For the most part, yes.
m
0
l
June 30, 2014 5:34:17 PM

TechyInAZ said:
cwb50 said:
Alpha3031 said:
4590. The FX series really can't mach i5s in gaming except in few highly threaded ones.


What about for all thing video (editing, recording, etc) I have always heard 8 cores is beast for that


Yeah the 8 cores would help, however the 8 cores for todays software is VERY WEAK.

Core i5 has 4 Stronger Cores, it will be equal to fx 8320 to faster than fx 8320.


Ok, so maybe I am asking the wrong question... I currently do all my gaming on an Intel(R) Core i5-2540M CPU @ 2.6GHz

When I get this intel, will it be a world of change in terms of recording and video editing efficiency?
m
0
l
June 30, 2014 5:36:02 PM

clutchc said:
For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.


Can you point me to something like that?
m
0
l
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 5:40:38 PM

cwb50 said:
clutchc said:
For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.


Can you point me to something like that?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
June 30, 2014 5:49:12 PM

clutchc said:
cwb50 said:
clutchc said:
For gaming, the i5 is superior to the FX-8320. Neither is a slouch, however. The one benefit of the 8320 is that it has an unlocked multiplier. So OC'ing is practical. If you want to OC an Intel processor, get one with the "K" at the end of its designation.


Can you point me to something like that?


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Is there a huge difference? Because one is a bit cheaper at local stores than the other
m
0
l
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 6:06:57 PM

cwb50 said:

Is there a huge difference? Because one is a bit cheaper at local stores than the other


100 MHZ. Not enough to make a difference in gaming. In video work, a small difference, though.
m
0
l
June 30, 2014 6:10:17 PM

clutchc said:
cwb50 said:

Is there a huge difference? Because one is a bit cheaper at local stores than the other


100 MHZ. Not enough to make a difference in gaming. In video work, a small difference, though.


are they both better than: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54590
m
0
l
a c 395 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 30, 2014 7:02:20 PM

It's not a matter of better. The one that is 100MHZ faster will be slightly better at some tasks, but only on paper. You'd never see the difference in real time. If you OC, go for the 4570K or 4590K. If you don't plan to OC, stay with the 4590.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2014 7:38:46 PM

If you want to OC get the 4690K with the new TIM, it will run cooler.
m
0
l
!