Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Is fx 8350 better than i5 3450

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
Last response: in Systems
July 20, 2014 9:06:28 PM

i have an i5 3450@ 3.1 ghz turbo speed to 3.5 and i want to know if the amd fx 8350@ 4.0ghz is better than my cpu and why because the are very near in price and intel is not that idiot to make a cpu with 4 cores equal to price to 8 cores cpu for no reason and sorry form my bad english :D 

More about : 8350 3450

a b à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:09:51 PM

what do you plan on using computer for.
m
0
l
a c 352 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:15:08 PM

This 100% depends on the game/ application.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 352 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:18:26 PM



Sorry but that benchmark is SUPER limited in what it can tell. There are plenty of places the i5 will stomp the 8350. It is all situation dependent.

That also include things like value and overclocking ability which greatly skew the score, but really mean nothing when comparing the CPUs.
m
0
l
a c 370 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:19:52 PM

The cores of the i5 are faster as they can process more instructions per clock, which makes them a better choice for gaming as most games use 4 or less cores. Now with something that can use more than 4 cores the 8350 will start to pull away from that particular i5.
m
0
l
July 20, 2014 9:22:33 PM

tiny voices said:


Sorry but that benchmark is SUPER limited in what it can tell. There are plenty of places the i5 will stomp the 8350. It is all situation dependent.

That also include things like value and overclocking ability which greatly skew the score, but really mean nothing when comparing the CPUs.

i will not overclock and it's for pure gaming reason
m
0
l
July 20, 2014 9:23:31 PM

bignastyid said:
The cores of the i5 are faster as they can process more instructions per clock, which makes them a better choice for gaming as most games use 4 or less cores. Now with something that can use more than 4 cores the 8350 will start to pull away from that particular i5.

i will not overclock and it's for pure gaming reason which will be better?
m
0
l
July 20, 2014 9:24:27 PM

iceblitzed said:
what do you plan on using computer for.


Gaming nothing else and some programs light ones of course
m
0
l
a c 352 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:25:52 PM

For just games, the i5 will probably be superior. I would get a newer one though.
m
0
l
a c 370 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:25:55 PM

Tarek9988 said:
bignastyid said:
The cores of the i5 are faster as they can process more instructions per clock, which makes them a better choice for gaming as most games use 4 or less cores. Now with something that can use more than 4 cores the 8350 will start to pull away from that particular i5.

i will not overclock and it's for pure gaming reason which will be better?


The i5 would be better for current games. I'd estimate we are still 1 or more yrs away from having alot of games that will use more than 4 cores.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 85 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:31:55 PM

The FX-8350 outperforms the i5 3450 by 40% according to the Passmark benchmarks (9033 vs 6439 Passmark CPU Mark) ). The price is no surprise, Intel CPUs are generally more expensive. You will hear/read that Intel outperforms AMD and it does with higher end CPUs but you have to pay more for that difference, so dollar per dollar AMD wins... the Benchmarks don't lie.

This explains the FX-8350 cores thoroughly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd...

Intel Core i5 3450 vs AMD FX 8350
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3450-vs-AMD-FX-83...

AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i5-3450
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/366/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8...

AMD FX-8350Intel Core i5-3450 Quad 3.1GHz
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1140&pid2=...
Share
a c 352 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:40:32 PM

Chicano said:
The FX-8350 outperforms the i5 3450 by 40% according to the Passmark benchmarks (9033 vs 6439 Passmark CPU Mark) ). The price is no surprise, Intel CPUs are generally more expensive. You will hear/read that Intel outperforms AMD and it does with higher end CPUs but you have to pay more for that difference, so dollar per dollar AMD wins... the Benchmarks don't lie.

This explains the FX-8350 cores thoroughly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd...


There are plenty of games and applications where the i5 is vastly superior as well .Passmark doesn't really mean anything in terms of real world performance. It is more designed for comparing the same CPU with different clock speeds, or two different generations of the same CPU, not cross platform CPUs.
m
0
l
a c 370 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 9:48:13 PM

Chicano said:
The FX-8350 outperforms the i5 3450 by 40% according to the Passmark benchmarks (9033 vs 6439 Passmark CPU Mark) ). The price is no surprise, Intel CPUs are generally more expensive. You will hear/read that Intel outperforms AMD and it does with higher end CPUs but you have to pay more for that difference, so dollar per dollar AMD wins... the Benchmarks don't lie.

This explains the FX-8350 cores thoroughly.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd...


Currently for gaming you want the better performing cores. Having more than 4 cores isn't big help(unless you run alot of background apps). The I5 has superior core performance(even passmark shows that on the single threaded rating) which means in programs/games that use 4 or less threads the i5 will be superior.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 10:31:35 PM

tiny voices said:
Currently for gaming you want the better performing cores. Having more than 4 cores isn't big help(unless you run alot of background apps). The I5 has superior core performance(even passmark shows that on the single threaded rating) which means in programs/games that use 4 or less threads the i5 will be superior.


I don't doubt that, but which i5? I don't think you're speaking about the i5 3450

m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
July 20, 2014 11:00:13 PM

bignastyid said:
Currently for gaming you want the better performing cores. Having more than 4 cores isn't big help(unless you run alot of background apps). The I5 has superior core performance(even passmark shows that on the single threaded rating) which means in programs/games that use 4 or less threads the i5 will be superior.

I don't think last generation games fall among those you mention... besides "i5" is to imprecise.. I'm answering strictly about the FX-8350 vs the i5 3450. Besides one detail that's not been mentioned is that the FX-8350 is unlocked and can be overclocked much higher than the i5 3450 which is locked... so the FX-8350 probably has more performance ready to be unleached and with the right motherboard, I don't think there is a comparison.

I once viewed a video where the FX-6300 was compared to a i7 (don't recall exactly which model num) but it was a much superior CPU on the same game, two different computers and the i7 even had 16GB of RAM vs 8GB on the AMD computer, and they both performed the same, to me the AMD had even better video deffinition. This is another game video where the AMD FX 6300 is compared to the Intel i7 3770K... the FX-6300 is even inferior to the FX-8350 and the i7 3770k much superior than the i5 3450, but the FX-6300 seems to be keeping up.. it even looks slightly better to me at times.

Radeon R7 260X: Battlefield 4 - AMD FX 6300 vs. Intel i7 3770K Frame-Rate Tests
m
0
l
a c 352 à CPUs
July 21, 2014 9:33:13 AM

Again, it is 100% game based. If that benchmark were for watchdogs, the i7 would be more than TWO TIMES as powerful with the weaker GPU (260x). BF4 likes AMD just fine. Other games don't. FarCry3 is a GREAT example. An i3 outperforms an overclocked 8350 in that game.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
July 21, 2014 1:26:41 PM

I don't doubt that!.. the thing is this subject here is on a i5 3450 vs the FX-8350. An equally priced i3 with lower benchmarks, against the FX-8350 would be something to see... that's if you know of any video?

Again, the argument here is about a lower benchmarked and more expensive Core i5-3450 against the specific AMD CPU, not a known higher end and alot more expensive i7 with integrated graphics... that comparison would be unfair. It's dollar-per-dollar Intel vs AMD game performance, multitasking is clear enough.

You are the gaming expert.. so you must know that Watch Dogs is imperfect even with Intel i Core.
Take a peak at these videos (the previous and this one) and point out the flaws so I may understand exactly what you mean about FX defficiencies.

Watch Dogs - High Settings | AMD FX 6300 & R7 250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdD9RZcV-Ho
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
July 21, 2014 2:40:16 PM

tiny voices said:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/G/364516/original/CPU-sc...

OLD i3 beating an 8350 in farcry3.

That video you just posted BARELY runs at 30fps. That is not ideal or even playable really.

Your BF4 video is single player. In Multiplayer, the 6300 wouldn't do half that good.

The i3 stepping on the i7-3960X's heels?... The obvious here would be: Why bother buying a i7 if you can do about the same with a i3 for a 7 times lower price? Something doesn't add up!.

Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz 12757 rated 19th $1,058.49
Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz 6439 rated 183 $209.99
Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz 3620 rated 421 $150.00

m
0
l
a c 352 à CPUs
July 21, 2014 2:42:48 PM

That is my ENTIRE point I am making. The benchmark I showed proves it perfectly.

EVERY GAME IS DIFFERENT. You will NEVER have a single CPU that is the best across the board It is 100% situation dependent.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
July 21, 2014 2:57:44 PM

The same criteria would probably apply for a FX-8350 for a general use CPU... or even a Phenom 2 x4 965 for that matter. Thanks for the insight!.
m
0
l