FX 8320 (overclocked) vs i5 4460? Gaming/Editing/Recording/Fastest boot time?

Vindaloovians · Jul 13, 2014

Same prices, so which would you choose? Boot time and gaming is important, but so is editing/rendering!

abhisekzok · Jul 13, 2014

fx is better for the long run. Its 8 cores can multitask better and hence increase render speed. It is also very good for gaming and now since next gen games are more demanding those extra cores are necessary with a decent gpu. So i would go for amd. Buy a decent cooler if u want to overclock as they tend to get hot.

firo40 · Jul 13, 2014

Oh hell now the 4460 is way more powerful than the 8320. Amds am3+ socket is dead its not going anywhere has well is. In gaming the i5 wins hands down every game even vs 8 weak cores. Take the i5, anyone who would suggest an 8320 over an i5 4460 has no idea what they're talking about. BTW an 8320 is only 4 true cores the other 4 are just extra threads not logical cores so its a logical quadcore

Deus Gladiorum · Jul 13, 2014

Sorry abhisekzok, that's simply not true. It doesn't matter how well optimized a game is for the 8-"core" architecture of the PS4 and the Xbox One, the FX-8320 isn't going to outperform an i5-4460 in nearly any scenario. Let's look at the basics: that's not really 8 cores. It's 8 logical cores in 4 "modules", so it's really closer to 4 cores. Each AMD logical core sports 1 ALU. Within each module (or in other words, between any 2 cores) there is 1 shared FPU, so basically, every AMD core has only 1 ALU and 0.5 FPUs, for a total of 8 ALUs and 4 FPUs in a modern AMD CPU. This sharing of FPUs is one of the major reasons why in dual core games like Skyrim or Borderlands 2, there are major fps drops with AMD cores, because there's only 1 resource that both cores are trying to pull on. Now let's look as Haswell architecture. When you get 4 Intel cores, you get 4 physical cores. Within each physical core, there are no sharing of resources, and iirc, there's multiple FPUs and ALUs per core (I believe 2 FPUs and 3 ALUs per core?), so overall the i5 actually has more in the way of execution units than the FX-8320. Secondly, there are already next-gen games out on PC that have not broken the cycle that is Intel besting AMD completely. Watch Dogs, for example, runs far better on your typical i5 than on your typical FX-8xxx.

But why does it matter? Take a look at benchmarks:
AMD Benchmarks - http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/58826_2/Evoljuciya_processorov_AMD_v_igrah_ot_Deneb_Propus_do_Vishera_Richland.html
Intel Benchmarks - http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/59160_2/Evoljuciya_processorov_Intel_v_igrah_ot_Yorkfield_Wolfdale_do_Haswell.html

If you scroll down on the AMD page to the sections labeled "Разгон" those are overclocked values. If you look and compare side by side, an FX-8320 overclocked to a massive 4.6 GHz still cannot best a stock clock i5-4430 -- and the i5-4430 is merely a weaker version of the i5-4460 you're considering. So no, AMD will not beat Intel with current Piledriver based CPUs ever. The architecture just sucks. Until AMD comes out with something new, Haswell is hands down the better choice.

abhisekzok · Jul 13, 2014

Deus Gladiorum :

Sorry abhisekzok, that's simply not true. It doesn't matter how well optimized a game is for the 8-"core" architecture of the PS4 and the Xbox One, the FX-8320 isn't going to outperform an i5-4460 in nearly any scenario. Let's look at the basics: that's not really 8 cores. It's 8 logical cores in 4 "modules", so it's really closer to 4 cores. Each AMD logical core sports 1 ALU. Within each module (or in other words, between any 2 cores) there is 1 shared FPU, so basically, every AMD core has only 1 ALU and 0.5 FPUs, for a total of 8 ALUs and 4 FPUs in a modern AMD CPU. This sharing of FPUs is one of the major reasons why in dual core games like Skyrim or Borderlands 2, there are major fps drops with AMD cores, because there's only 1 resource that both cores are trying to pull on. Now let's look as Haswell architecture. When you get 4 Intel cores, you get 4 physical cores. Within each physical core, there are no sharing of resources, and iirc, there's multiple FPUs and ALUs per core (I believe 2 FPUs and 3 ALUs per core?), so overall the i5 actually has more in the way of execution units than the FX-8320. Secondly, there are already next-gen games out on PC that have not broken the cycle that is Intel besting AMD completely. Watch Dogs, for example, runs far better on your typical i5 than on your typical FX-8xxx.

But why does it matter? Take a look at benchmarks:
AMD Benchmarks - http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/58826_2/Evoljuciya_processorov_AMD_v_igrah_ot_Deneb_Propus_do_Vishera_Richland.html
Intel Benchmarks - http://www.overclockers.ru/lab/59160_2/Evoljuciya_processorov_Intel_v_igrah_ot_Yorkfield_Wolfdale_do_Haswell.html

If you scroll down on the AMD page to the sections labeled "Разгон" those are overclocked values. If you look and compare side by side, an FX-8320 overclocked to a massive 4.6 GHz still cannot best a stock clock i5-4430 -- and the i5-4430 is merely a weaker version of the i5-4460 you're considering. So no, AMD will not beat Intel with current Piledriver based CPUs ever. The architecture just sucks. Until AMD comes out with something new, Haswell is hands down the better choice.

internally i knew intel was the winner but some reviewers always praised amd was better so i changed. Thanks for clearing that.

Search

FX 8320 (overclocked) vs i5 4460? Gaming/Editing/Recording/Fastest boot time?

Vindaloovians

Honorable

abhisekzok

Distinguished

firo40

Splendid

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished

abhisekzok

Distinguished

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page