Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i5 4690k or the FX-8350 4GHz edition

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 23, 2014 7:34:24 AM

Hey guys! Finally upgrading my PC a little bit. I no longer desire to use my CPU that has a few bent/missing pins in it...

Currently using.
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.4GHz.
GPU: AMD HD6870
Mobo: MSI 970A-G46

CPU wise it stand between the i5 4690k and the FX-8350 4GHz edition. The FX-8350 is only $14 cheaper so price isn't really an issue between the two. The only thing that really matters right now is performance and price for a new motherboard because either way I'm gonna have to get a new motherboard.

I've looked though some posts on here but they never really state which one is better for what. So here's what I do. I play games, sometimes record, programming and designing (Illustrator and Photoshop). The games I regularly play are CS:GO, DayZ/Arma 2, BF4 and WoW.

The motherboard I was planning on getting for the i5 is the Gigabyte GA-Z97P-D3, it's a bit of a budget board but I think it would be ok. Note: I do not overclock but the price difference between the k version and the non-k version is like $3 and I might OC in the future.

So any thoughts on which one I should get based on my usage would be greatly appreciated! I assume the HD6870 will be a bottleneck so maybe someone could recommend a budget GPU that won't be much of a bottleneck.

Edit
I have Corsair TX850w PSU so no need to worry about that or anything.

More about : 4690k 8350 4ghz edition

a c 249 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 23, 2014 7:42:21 AM

Well, the i5 4690K vs FX 8350 both OCed, and the i5 wins hands down, particularily in gaming.

But, looking at the games you play and the designing you do, which looks like you do regularly, then the FX will be a better buy.

Gaming requires solid single core performanc, Intel wins there.

CPU intensive tasks, especially designing, like in your case, require good parallel processing, and the extra cores in FX will come into use there.

Also, both CPUs are great OCers and so you'll not face a problem when OCing the FX, its MoBos are cheaper for too.

But, a major difference is in RAM support, which is not so imp in gaming but crucial in terms of rendering. FX officially supports 1866MHz but more often than not supports 2133MHz too, but the i5 will support even 2400MHz RAMs w/o issues. But anyways its just a matter of enabling XMP so that should also not be a problem

Looking at the future, when games will be more multi-core optimized, then the FX may seem like a good decision/

Overall, I'd go with the FX here, it is better than i5 in terms of rendering.

For GPU, please specify your budget, but I'd say get nothing less than R9 280X or GTX 770 for upgrade, as anything less won't be worth over a HD 6870.
m
2
l
August 23, 2014 8:15:53 AM

I don't really have a budget for the GPU, I most likely won't upgrade the GPU right now. Probably in October or so. Just looking for some suggestions; I was however looking at the ASUS R9 280 3GB and the MSI Radeon R9 270X 2GB, the 280 is on sale so I could get either for the same price.

I've read that the *recommended motherboards are the 990FXA models for the FX-8350 which instantly bumps up the overall cost compared to the Gigabyte GA-Z97P-D3 I was planning on getting with the i5 (which shouldn't be a problem... right?).

I'm actually leaning towards the i5 for unknown reasons. The designing I do is mostly for the web, UI, logos and such. So there is usually not a lot of heavy rendering unless I'm working on a personal project and so far that has been working fine on the 965BE. Sometimes I gotta wait a few minutes but I'm sure the i5 and the 8350 would be about the same for what I do.

I might also add that I normally don't play on the highest settings. A combination of low and medium is what I run in almost every game, habit/curse from having played competitively. So I'd still get better frames going from the 965BE to either the i5 or the 8350.

But what about recording? Would the i5 or the 8350 shine when it is recording in-game? Depends a lot on the program/codec, HDD, etc but if we were just going based on the CPUs?

*http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/330572-30-970a-warn...
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a c 249 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 23, 2014 8:49:05 AM

A HD 6870 roughly equals R7 260X or 260 in terms of performance, and I'd wouldn't recommend getting a R9 270X or 280 over a R7 260/ 260X as an upgrade. Save up for now and upgrade some time later to atleast R9 280X, as anything lower will be only a 5-15 FPS gain and not worth $200 IMO. But if you do upgrade, the R9 280 from Asus will be a better buy.

Yes 990FX OC better than 970, and always will. Also, they cost more, so its a tough choice, but read more:

From what you explained about your rendering needs, even an i3 would be good enough, so the i5 or FX 8 makes no difference there. I'd recommend the FX only if you engage in heavy rendering (80%+ continous usage on all cores) and there you may see a time benefit of a couple of seconds in FX. But that's not the case here, your type of rendering will be a piece of cake for i5.

You'd get better FPS with the i5 than FX both on stock or both OCed, no doubt in that. Also, your current GPU will not really bottleneck your CPU until you go into Ultra mode where you'll see some kind of laziness from the GPU.

But since you're happy with low-medium, you'll be good to go with the i5.

Taking recording into consideration, if games are on Ultra and very CPU intensive (like BF4), then i5 will be behind the FX. But for recording, like on medium-high, the i5 will suffice.

I'm leaning towards the i5 now because of your needs.

Share
August 23, 2014 4:36:19 PM

Thank you so much for both your answers! I've decided to go with the i5, the CPU itself is a tiny bit more expensive but a new motherboard is slightly cheaper so overall it is the cheaper option and it seems like the i5 is the overall better choice for me.
m
0
l
!