Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd fx-8350 vs intel i5 4460

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • AMD
  • Intel i5
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
September 10, 2014 5:34:02 PM

I have been told that the i5 is much better if you dont overclock, on paper the 8350 is far superior with a 4.0clock speed and double the cores amd threads. Why would people be saying that I should go with the 4460 for non overclocked play.

More about : amd 8350 intel 4460

a b K Overclocking
a b À AMD
September 10, 2014 5:40:11 PM

Because many games don't use more than four cores and Intel has superior single core performance.
m
0
l
September 10, 2014 6:05:23 PM

Intel beats AMD in Instructions Per Clock. And games rarely make use of more than 4 threads.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 10, 2014 6:06:24 PM

RazerZ said:
Because many games don't use more than four cores and Intel has superior single core performance.

So amd proccessors are designed for overclocking were as intel proccesors have less cores but the individual cores are more efficient. A thereotical example would be one intel core = 1.3 amd cores
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b À AMD
September 10, 2014 6:07:02 PM

Intel and AMD cores are not the same thing .[ too long for me to explain ] Individually the AMD cores are weaker .

In gaming , with new games that can use all the cores available usually run as well on the AMD as they do on an i5 . Sometimes they run better .
Older games dont use multicore processors well . Skyrim and Starcraft two popular older games that run better on intel for instance .
BUT the difference seldom matters . In the test of the FX I have linked below if you check the page for Skyrim at 1080p the FX looks completely outclassed but in reality the user experience is identical . A monitor can only refresh at 60 Hz which is the same as 60 fps . If one computer produces 95 fps and another produces 65 fps in both cases the monitor will still only ever display 60 fps because that is its maximum refresh rate .

If you are streaming the AMD is often better than the i5 because the extra cores pay off

If you are encoding video then the AMD will almost always outperform the i5 , and sometimes intel i7's that cost over $100 more .

The AMD FX uses more power . But not much . Probably less than $10 a year

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b À AMD
September 10, 2014 6:12:16 PM

Do you think a 1960's american V8 will be as fast as a current model Japanese 4 cylindar turbo?
Your comparing 8 slow inefficient AMD cores (old v8) to 4 fast efficent intel cores (4cyl turbo)
The intel cpu is faster for most games out there even without overclocking, it can process more information per core and per clock cycle, so looking at core count and GHZ is an inaccurate way to measure cpu performance.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b À AMD
September 10, 2014 6:20:37 PM

Liebo said:
RazerZ said:
Because many games don't use more than four cores and Intel has superior single core performance.

So amd proccessors are designed for overclocking were as intel proccesors have less cores but the individual cores are more efficient. A thereotical example would be one intel core = 1.3 amd cores


iam2thecrowe said:
Do you think a 1960's american V8 will be as fast as a current model Japanese 4 cylindar turbo?
Your comparing 8 slow inefficient AMD cores (old v8) to 4 fast efficent intel cores (4cyl turbo)
The intel cpu is faster for most games out there even without overclocking, it can process more information per core and per clock cycle, so looking at core count and GHZ is an inaccurate way to measure cpu performance.


Terrible analogy BTW.
The AMD "cores"are not less efficient . They are just smaller
The question is do two medium size "cores" beat one larger one , and the answer is yes they often do
m
0
l
!