Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4Ghz vs AMD FX-6300 6-Core 3.5Ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 5, 2014 12:52:02 AM

Why is the intel's cpu much better?
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 12:57:04 AM

More IPC, a CPU with a IPC of 1 running at 3.5 has a apparent clock rate of 3.5 if we increase that to 2 it becomes 7, 3 and it's 10.5 etc
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 1:03:37 AM

Could you explain it more deeply please?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 1:23:28 AM

Basically IPC is the amount of thing it can do and clock speed is how often it can do it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 1:45:02 AM

Without getting too technical, here are the reasons why the Intel processor is the better one:

1. Lower TDP, meaning less heat and fan noise.
2. Better upgradeability for the LGA1150 socket.
3. Much stronger single and multi-threaded performance.

Don't believe that the FX is a six-core processor, as this isn't strictly true. Yes, it has six cores, but with only three FPUs (floating point units), it can only utilise a maximum of three cores simultaneously. The so-called six-core processor is, in practice, a tri-core.

In its favour, the FX is much cheaper, but that's because it can't match the i5 at all.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 1:47:18 AM

K6-II said:
Check this link your answer is there http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-vs-AMD-FX-6...

I had done a search in google and read some of those comparatives but it's just a bunch of numbers that I don't know how to interpret.

Also, apparently it doesn't make any sense that for an improvement of the 11% (according to cpuboss) the price increases a 150% (according to amazon)
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 1:50:16 AM

bicycle_repair_man said:
Without getting too technical, here are the reasons why the Intel processor is the better one:

1. Lower TDP, meaning less heat and fan noise.
2. Better upgradeability for the LGA1150 socket.
3. Much stronger single and multi-threaded performance.

Don't believe that the FX is a six-core processor, as this isn't strictly true. Yes, it has six cores, but with only three FPUs (floating point units), it can only utilise a maximum of three cores simultaneously. The so-called six-core processor is, in practice, a tri-core.

In its favour, the FX is much cheaper, but that's because it can't match the i5 at all.

So, in fact, the FX has only 1.75 Ghz?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 1:56:06 AM

Corprive said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Without getting too technical, here are the reasons why the Intel processor is the better one:

1. Lower TDP, meaning less heat and fan noise.
2. Better upgradeability for the LGA1150 socket.
3. Much stronger single and multi-threaded performance.

Don't believe that the FX is a six-core processor, as this isn't strictly true. Yes, it has six cores, but with only three FPUs (floating point units), it can only utilise a maximum of three cores simultaneously. The so-called six-core processor is, in practice, a tri-core.

In its favour, the FX is much cheaper, but that's because it can't match the i5 at all.

So, in fact, the FX has only 1.75 Ghz?


The clock speed is the same for each core, it's just that only three of them work at the same time, rather than the six that AMD claim.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 1:57:25 AM

Corprive said:

I had done a search in google and read some of those comparatives but it's just a bunch of numbers that I don't know how to interpret.

Also, apparently it doesn't make any sense that for an improvement of the 11% (according to cpuboss) the price increases a 150% (according to amazon)


If you take in consideration the up-front cost for Intel CPU then yes, it doesn't make sense, especially if you just browse the web or do some light word editing. But soon as you do gaming or some intensive audio/video/image processing you will see the difference (gaming: more FPS, processing: much less time spent while also less power consumed). Also, for that FX to work properly you will need a solid motherboard, while even an i7 can work flawlessly with the lower-spec motherboards (again, the lower power consumption is the reason).

Of course, you cannot compare an i5 with an FX-6xxx; i5 compares with FX-8xxx.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 2:11:14 AM

Cristi72 said:
Corprive said:

I had done a search in google and read some of those comparatives but it's just a bunch of numbers that I don't know how to interpret.

Also, apparently it doesn't make any sense that for an improvement of the 11% (according to cpuboss) the price increases a 150% (according to amazon)


If you take in consideration the up-front cost for Intel CPU then yes, it doesn't make sense, especially if you just browse the web or do some light word editing. But soon as you do gaming or some intensive audio/video/image processing you will see the difference (gaming: more FPS, processing: much less time spent while also less power consumed). Also, for that FX to work properly you will need a solid motherboard, while even an i7 can work flawlessly with the lower-spec motherboards (again, the lower power consumption is the reason).

Of course, you cannot compare an i5 with an FX-6xxx; i5 compares with FX-8xxx.

Comparing it to a FX-8xxx is the same more or less.
The FX-8320 has 3.5Ghz (more than the i5) and it costs barely the same as the FX-6300 thus the Intel costing 150% more.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 2:12:23 AM

bicycle_repair_man said:
Corprive said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Without getting too technical, here are the reasons why the Intel processor is the better one:

1. Lower TDP, meaning less heat and fan noise.
2. Better upgradeability for the LGA1150 socket.
3. Much stronger single and multi-threaded performance.

Don't believe that the FX is a six-core processor, as this isn't strictly true. Yes, it has six cores, but with only three FPUs (floating point units), it can only utilise a maximum of three cores simultaneously. The so-called six-core processor is, in practice, a tri-core.

In its favour, the FX is much cheaper, but that's because it can't match the i5 at all.

So, in fact, the FX has only 1.75 Ghz?


The clock speed is the same for each core, it's just that only three of them work at the same time, rather than the six that AMD claim.

Each core has a clock speed of 3.5 Ghz?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 2:30:05 AM

Corprive said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Corprive said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Without getting too technical, here are the reasons why the Intel processor is the better one:

1. Lower TDP, meaning less heat and fan noise.
2. Better upgradeability for the LGA1150 socket.
3. Much stronger single and multi-threaded performance.

Don't believe that the FX is a six-core processor, as this isn't strictly true. Yes, it has six cores, but with only three FPUs (floating point units), it can only utilise a maximum of three cores simultaneously. The so-called six-core processor is, in practice, a tri-core.

In its favour, the FX is much cheaper, but that's because it can't match the i5 at all.

So, in fact, the FX has only 1.75 Ghz?


The clock speed is the same for each core, it's just that only three of them work at the same time, rather than the six that AMD claim.

Each core has a clock speed of 3.5 Ghz?


Yes, each core has a clock speed of 3.5Ghz. Just remember that only three out of the six cores can be used simultaneously.

It's also important to remember that clock speed isn't the only factor that determines processor performance. Intel and AMD build their processors using entirely separate manufacturing processes, so making a comparison based solely on clock speed is a big mistake.

A higher clock speed doesn't translate to better performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 3:37:59 AM

I was doing so well.

BTW, Deleting some quotes would help reduce length a little.

Even the FX 8350 cant compare to i5s in gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 3:45:27 AM

Generally the FX 8350 would be a better value over 4670k. Unless in your area the cost of electricity is sky high, like 30C+ per kilowatt or so, then no. So the power usage argument is usually invalid :p  Especially in my country (Brunei) Where electricity cost 6cents per KW 6 Brunei cents. So FX 8350 would be a much better value for money here.

Generally the I5 is much faster than the 6300/8350 at applications that require less cores. Also generally it's better if you're a heavy gamer.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 4:23:26 AM

If the FX 8350 is a better value over the 4670k and is cheaper, why do people buy the 4670k?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 4:48:16 AM

Corprive said:

Comparing it to a FX-8xxx is the same more or less.
The FX-8320 has 3.5Ghz (more than the i5) and it costs barely the same as the FX-6300 thus the Intel costing 150% more.


By no means it is the same; FX-8xxx trade blows with the standard i5 (without K) performance-wise and is just a little less expensive than the i5 (of course if you don't have some unbelievable good deals in your country).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 4:51:39 AM

Corprive said:
If the FX 8350 is a better value over the 4670k and is cheaper, why do people buy the 4670k?


The "K" version for Intel CPUs are meant for overclocking and usually they can pass 4.5 GHz, so it will give you a lot more performance than the stock CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 5:08:19 AM

Corprive said:
If the FX 8350 is a better value over the 4670k and is cheaper, why do people buy the 4670k?


People buy the i5 for the reasons stated in my first post.

Cristi72 said:
The "K" version for Intel CPUs are meant for overclocking and usually they can pass 4.5 GHz, so it will give you a lot more performance than the stock CPU.


Overclocking is never an exact science so there's no guarantee that any processor, whether it's Intel or AMD, will reach 4.5Ghz. Haswell is well know for having more stringent overclocking capability than previous generations.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 5:32:13 AM

FX-8350 -> 4 GHz -> 152$
i5-4670k -> 3.4 GHz ->195$
If you can overclock the i5 to 4.5 you can also overclock the AMD beyond 4.5 GHz, no?
So the AMD has a higher clock speed and is cheaper... this makes no sense
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 6:12:58 AM

Corprive said:
FX-8350 -> 4 GHz -> 152$
i5-4670k -> 3.4 GHz ->195$
If you can overclock the i5 to 4.5 you can also overclock the AMD beyond 4.5 GHz, no?
So the AMD has a higher clock speed and is cheaper... this makes no sense


Like I said, overclocking with ANY processor is NEVER an exact science. Some just do it better than others and it's all down to luck of the draw.

The AMD has a higher clock speed, but that only tells part of the story. Like I said before, clock speed isn't the only factor in determining processor performance, and because Intel and AMD use different manufacturing processes, clock speed between the two isn't comparable.

Intel processors don't have big clock speeds because they don't need it. The better performance comes from more efficient manufacturing and better underlying technology. AMD can't match Intel in these areas, so they boast about clock speed, hoping that consumers will believe the old mantra of "more is better".

Imagine having two cars; one is big and heavy and therefore needs a big engine and uses a lot of fuel; this is AMD. The other car is small and light, so it doesn't need such a big engine yet it can achieve the same top speed and use less fuel; this is Intel.
Share
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 6:30:09 AM

Corprive said:
FX-8350 -> 4 GHz -> 152$
i5-4670k -> 3.4 GHz ->195$
If you can overclock the i5 to 4.5 you can also overclock the AMD beyond 4.5 GHz, no?
So the AMD has a higher clock speed and is cheaper... this makes no sense


The point everyone has been trying to explain is that you cannot compare clock frequency 1:1 between two completely different processor architectures, its a meaningless number. The Core i5 could be at its stock speed and still be faster in most tasks than an overclocked FX-6300. A Haswell chip (like an i5) just gets way more done in a clock cycle than a Piledriver chip (like the FX-6300).

To use a much more extreme example, there were 3.4 GHz Pentium 4's over ten years ago, yet if you compared one clock-for-clock to a Core i5 today, you'd see they are universes apart.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 6:34:20 AM

A 8350fx at 5ghz is still slower than a stock i5 4690k on anything but 8 thread optimized applications.
To give you another example, an i7 4960x with a clock speed of 4ghz and 6 cores is roughly 50% faster than a 9590fx with 5ghz and 8 'cores'.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 7:15:21 AM

On a desktop or laptop, I'd always go for the CPU with better performance for single threaded applications (so better IPS). There are so many things that are still sequential rather than parallel. With i5's four cores, you still have plenty of juice for multi-threaded applications. AMD went a bit overboard thinking a typical workload will easily use 6-8 cores when it came up with its architecture.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2014 5:42:51 PM

Most parallel (use more cores) workloads are handled by the GPU anyway.
m
0
l
!