Solved

Is the AMD FX 8350 better for gaming than the i5 3570K?

So I'm looking to build a budget-ish gaming PC and I managed to grab a sweet deal on a R9 280x for around $180 and I'm looking at buying the FX 8350 for around the same price as the GPU. However, I wasn't sure if the 8350 was enough to handle all the latest games (as well as editing software and other non-gaming applications). After asking around I stumbled on this chart:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

My mate recommended his CPU (the 3570K) because he says it's really good for gaming. The issue is that around $50 more expensive. So my question is, is the 8350 as good as the 3570K and if not, is it worth paying the extra money for the i5?
11 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about amd 8350 gaming 3570k
  1. It's not as good and I would spend the extra $50 and I did. Although why not get the 4690k that would be the best option
  2. Best answer
    The FX 8350 will play all recent games just as well as any of the intel i5's . Its not as good in some older games that cant multithread well .

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

    Games like Starcraft or Skyrim it wont do as well but generally it wont make any difference to the users experience [ compared to an intel ] because of the limitations of most monitors .

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
    The "weaker" FX processor is still pulling more than 60 FPS , and since that is the maximum a 60 HZ monitor can ever display the intels "advantage" is theoretical , but in practical terms makes no difference at all

    Save the $50 , buy the FX and slap and idiot intel fanboy just because you can

    Oh yeah ... as the resolution increases the theoretical margins diminish , and if you want to stream , or multitask the FX is usually better than an i5
  3. The normal human eye can't see faster than 60FPS and you'll get way higher in every game to date.
  4. A perennial question.
    The answer is it depends...
    Mostly on what your budget is, and how multithread enabled most of the games you play will be.
    I liked this review of 9 current gaming cpu's.
    The review is relatively recent, and it shows both stock clocks and normal overclocks of those chips which have that capability.
    http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

    What may surprise you is that the FX-4300 with a 4.5 OC was the best value, based on the average performance vs the very low price.
    So much for the value of the 6 and 8 core chips.
    That makes sense since the 6300 and 8350 are essentially the same with more cores.
    It somewhat makes the case that more than 4 threads is over rated.

    Even the i3 chips do very well.
  5. Taafe said:
    The normal human eye can't see faster than 60FPS and you'll get way higher in every game to date.


    Its not just that . The monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second .or 60 FPS

    If you build an awesomely powerful computer that fraps is telling you is running at 90 fps , you still only ever see 60 fps on the monitor


    [ and it might even look awful because if the monitor is too cheap there will be screen tearing ]
  6. Outlander_04 said:
    Taafe said:
    The normal human eye can't see faster than 60FPS and you'll get way higher in every game to date.


    Its not just that . The monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second .or 60 FPS

    If you build an awesomely powerful computer that fraps is telling you is running at 90 fps , you still only ever see 60 fps on the monitor


    [ and it might even look awful because if the monitor is too cheap there will be screen tearing ]


    However, if you have a better monitor (say with a refresh rate of 120 or 144) and Fraps is telling you 80-120+ FPS then you will see a difference compared to 60. It's incredibly smooth, overkill, but awesome :D Also you're right about one thing. If you buy a super cheap monitor or TV then you might experience screen tearing and be restricted to 60 Hz (I haven't seen anything that's lower in recent years).
  7. OscarTheTitan said:
    Outlander_04 said:
    Taafe said:
    The normal human eye can't see faster than 60FPS and you'll get way higher in every game to date.


    Its not just that . The monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second .or 60 FPS

    If you build an awesomely powerful computer that fraps is telling you is running at 90 fps , you still only ever see 60 fps on the monitor


    [ and it might even look awful because if the monitor is too cheap there will be screen tearing ]


    However, if you have a better monitor (say with a refresh rate of 120 or 144) and Fraps is telling you 80-120+ FPS then you will see a difference compared to 60. It's incredibly smooth, overkill, but awesome :D Also you're right about one thing. If you buy a super cheap monitor or TV then you might experience screen tearing and be restricted to 60 Hz (I haven't seen anything that's lower in recent years).


    That wont matter, we can only see 60fps
  8. Taafe said:
    OscarTheTitan said:
    Outlander_04 said:
    Taafe said:
    The normal human eye can't see faster than 60FPS and you'll get way higher in every game to date.


    Its not just that . The monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second .or 60 FPS

    If you build an awesomely powerful computer that fraps is telling you is running at 90 fps , you still only ever see 60 fps on the monitor


    [ and it might even look awful because if the monitor is too cheap there will be screen tearing ]


    However, if you have a better monitor (say with a refresh rate of 120 or 144) and Fraps is telling you 80-120+ FPS then you will see a difference compared to 60. It's incredibly smooth, overkill, but awesome :D Also you're right about one thing. If you buy a super cheap monitor or TV then you might experience screen tearing and be restricted to 60 Hz (I haven't seen anything that's lower in recent years).


    That wont matter, we can only see 60fps


    Not true. Many people can see more than 60fps/hz.
  9. I beliee many people can see more than 60 FPS

    but given we live in the real world where few people have 144 Hz monitors and that there is almost no graphics hardware that could hit that kind of refresh rate in modern games ...........
    and certainly the OP's hardware cant .............

    Its still theoretical

    And the FX still costs $50 less and does the same job
  10. Why look at an ivy bridge chip when you can get Haswell now for a similar cost? I would just go with this.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

    CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($180.98 @ Newegg)
    Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($86.66 @ Newegg)
    Total: $267.64
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-23 16:19 EDT-0400
Ask a new question

Read More

8350 Gaming AMD Intel i5 3570K