I5 4690k vs AMD FX8350
Tags:
-
AMD
-
Motherboards
- Intel i5
Last response: in Components
jujar14
September 17, 2014 6:50:00 AM
TheFluffyDog
September 17, 2014 7:09:22 AM
Go with the FX platform, your gonna miss out on a more premium product, but you can do more with the FX, like the FX helps alleviate bottlenecks from multitasking, so streaming while gaming, running a program in the background, things like that, but the intel will provide a much more rocksolid platform with lower temps and more consistent results. I always recommend i5's for systems running 1 powerful GPU (400+ USD ) or a system designed around High end gaming where you want refresh rates of 120+ and are running GPU's capable of pushing that out.
However the FX wont have a problem running almost every game at 60+hz so as long as you dont have a crazy screen you will never know the difference, and the FX will perform much better when you have multiple programs eating up interger calcs.
However the FX wont have a problem running almost every game at 60+hz so as long as you dont have a crazy screen you will never know the difference, and the FX will perform much better when you have multiple programs eating up interger calcs.
-
Reply to TheFluffyDog
m
0
l
Jdogz427
September 17, 2014 7:22:49 AM
TheFluffyDog is right. I have the fx-8350 and it performs very well. I can run 10 different programs, including recording and streaming programs and only take fps hits of like 2 or 3 at the max. sometimes i take hits of 1 or less. but that is my build in my system, but either way, the 8350 is very good at multitasking and will beat out the i5 in multitasking while the i5 will beat out the 8350 in gaming by itself while running no other programs.
-
Reply to Jdogz427
m
1
l
Related resources
- AMD FX-8350 vs AMD A10 7850k vs i5 4690k - Forum
- amd fx-8350 vs i5 4690k with a gtx 780 3gb - Forum
- amd 8350 vs intel i5 4690k - Forum
- Amd fx 8350 vs Intel i5 4690k for 3d rendering. - Forum
- Amd FX 8350 vs i5 4690k (Poll) (Can Decide) - Forum
jujar14
September 17, 2014 8:38:21 AM
I recommend to get the intel Xeon e3-1230 V3 with H97 MB like MSI H97 PC MATE. Because it is equal to i7 like i7 4770, and for overtime you can get much lower annual commercial energy cost too, check the link: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E3-1230-v3-vs-AMD-FX...
Also I add the link for the e3 1230V3 review, it is better than fx8350, but you pay more than the fx8350 build (please note you need the aftermarket cooler for fx8350 too).
http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
Also I add the link for the e3 1230V3 review, it is better than fx8350, but you pay more than the fx8350 build (please note you need the aftermarket cooler for fx8350 too).
http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
-
Reply to cin19
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 9:05:49 AM
jujar14
September 17, 2014 9:16:43 AM
You can see the performance from the review I post by click each sub tilte, for example, I don't understand that language, but you can see the number.
games http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
some software http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
games http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
some software http://www.computerbase.de/2013-10/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v...
-
Reply to cin19
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 9:46:59 AM
You will get better performance with the i5 on gaming and with AutoCAD.
4 strong cores are still better than 8 weak cores on gaming, because games don't use more than 4 cores right now. Better to be strong.
I really don't know how AutoCAD scales in performance with more cores, but for work Intel is usually better.
But then comes the price... If you can afford it go with Intel, if not go with AMD, is by no way bad, but Intel is better.
4 strong cores are still better than 8 weak cores on gaming, because games don't use more than 4 cores right now. Better to be strong.
I really don't know how AutoCAD scales in performance with more cores, but for work Intel is usually better.
But then comes the price... If you can afford it go with Intel, if not go with AMD, is by no way bad, but Intel is better.
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:10:40 AM
For games the cpu does not use more than 4 cores, but AutoCAD need more cores, and here you can see the Xeon is in the system requirements but not the fx8350. http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troublesh...
Yes, the price may over your budget, and you can get the E3 1230 V2 and the H77 I think it will be in your range, and you will have better performance than the fx8350, and similar the E3 1230 V3, but v2 is old model. And that is your call, either fx8350 or e3 Xeon.
Yes, the price may over your budget, and you can get the E3 1230 V2 and the H77 I think it will be in your range, and you will have better performance than the fx8350, and similar the E3 1230 V3, but v2 is old model. And that is your call, either fx8350 or e3 Xeon.
-
Reply to cin19
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:12:00 AM
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:16:54 AM
Actually, a LGA1155 platform build would be very adequate.
The performance increase from 3rd gen to 4th gen core is quite insignificant, it was more about power consumption and some new instructions than raw performance.
If you manage to get a 3rd gen i5, i7 or Xeon for "cheap", you're good to go. And the MoBos should be very cheap now, a H77 should be enough.
Even 2nd gen still delivers good performance.
The performance increase from 3rd gen to 4th gen core is quite insignificant, it was more about power consumption and some new instructions than raw performance.
If you manage to get a 3rd gen i5, i7 or Xeon for "cheap", you're good to go. And the MoBos should be very cheap now, a H77 should be enough.
Even 2nd gen still delivers good performance.
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:31:09 AM
That's correct.
But server CPUs are not always better than consumer CPUs. Don't miss any other option just because is not a Xeon.
Server CPUs are made to resist more punishment from the user and have some unique instructions for server kind of tasks. But (in raw performance) a 3rd gen Xeon with 4 cores/8 threads, 3.5 GHz base/ 4.1GHz turbo will perform the same as a 3rd gen i7 with 4 cores/8 threads, 3.5 GHz base/ 4.1GHz turbo because they are from the same architecture.
But server CPUs are not always better than consumer CPUs. Don't miss any other option just because is not a Xeon.
Server CPUs are made to resist more punishment from the user and have some unique instructions for server kind of tasks. But (in raw performance) a 3rd gen Xeon with 4 cores/8 threads, 3.5 GHz base/ 4.1GHz turbo will perform the same as a 3rd gen i7 with 4 cores/8 threads, 3.5 GHz base/ 4.1GHz turbo because they are from the same architecture.
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:51:20 AM
i want this pc to last me like 7 years untill i will have saved £20 for 84 months for my next pc. i will punish it.
aren't i7s better than i5s?
i wont really overclock because i dont know how. but i will want turbo.
is there even that much of a noticeable difference between the i54690k @ 4.5ghz and the e3 at 3.7ghz difference?
aren't i7s better than i5s?
i wont really overclock because i dont know how. but i will want turbo.
is there even that much of a noticeable difference between the i54690k @ 4.5ghz and the e3 at 3.7ghz difference?
-
Reply to jujar14
m
0
l
Jdogz427
September 17, 2014 10:54:36 AM
jujar14
September 17, 2014 10:57:42 AM
Yes, i7 are better than i5, but for very few reasons.
The main difference is Hyper Threading (HT), i7 (and Xeon) have it, i5 don't. This allows each core to manage 2 processing threads, so a 4 core CPU work as a 8 core (lower performance than if it really had 8 cores, between Intel CPUs only). I don't know is there's any other significant difference, like more cache or other instructions.
Both i7 and i5 (and Xeon) have turbo mode enabled, only i3 and lower don't have it.
In multi threaded tasks, the Xeon will win near always. Only in single threaded or not well threaded tasks the i5-4590K will win because, clock for clock, Haswell (4th gen) is faster than Ivy Bridge (3rd gen).
The main difference is Hyper Threading (HT), i7 (and Xeon) have it, i5 don't. This allows each core to manage 2 processing threads, so a 4 core CPU work as a 8 core (lower performance than if it really had 8 cores, between Intel CPUs only). I don't know is there's any other significant difference, like more cache or other instructions.
Both i7 and i5 (and Xeon) have turbo mode enabled, only i3 and lower don't have it.
In multi threaded tasks, the Xeon will win near always. Only in single threaded or not well threaded tasks the i5-4590K will win because, clock for clock, Haswell (4th gen) is faster than Ivy Bridge (3rd gen).
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
Jdogz427
September 17, 2014 11:00:50 AM
jujar14
September 17, 2014 11:07:51 AM
Hi jujar14,
The summary for the CPU is
1) For games only, i5 is more than enough.
2) For multi tasker, i7 (Xeon) is better than fx8350, and for the price Xeon e3 is cheaper than the i7.
3) For both games and Multitasker/AutoCAD, i7 ( or Xeon ) is better than the fx8350.
I recommend to buy the Xeon E3 1230V2 with H77 MB or V3 with H87 or H97 MB.
The summary for the CPU is
1) For games only, i5 is more than enough.
2) For multi tasker, i7 (Xeon) is better than fx8350, and for the price Xeon e3 is cheaper than the i7.
3) For both games and Multitasker/AutoCAD, i7 ( or Xeon ) is better than the fx8350.
I recommend to buy the Xeon E3 1230V2 with H77 MB or V3 with H87 or H97 MB.
-
Reply to cin19
m
0
l
jujar14
September 17, 2014 11:22:05 AM
jujar14
September 17, 2014 11:34:09 AM
For V3 version like
[PCPartPicker part list](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rt7Jt6) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rt7Jt6/by_merchant/)
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646e31230...) | £183.54 @ Aria PC
**Motherboard** | [ASRock Fatal1ty H97 Killer ATX LGA1150 Motherboard](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-fata...) | £55.99 @ Amazon UK
| | **Total**
| Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | £239.53
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-17 19:40 BST+0100 |
For V2 like
[PCPartPicker part list](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/hVcK8d) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/hVcK8d/by_merchant/)
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637e31230...) | £168.79 @ CCL Computers
**Motherboard** | [ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP ATX LGA1155 Motherboard](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-h77p...) | £58.52 @ Ebuyer
| | **Total**
| Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | £227.31
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-17 19:41 BST+0100 |
[PCPartPicker part list](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rt7Jt6) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/rt7Jt6/by_merchant/)
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646e31230...) | £183.54 @ Aria PC
**Motherboard** | [ASRock Fatal1ty H97 Killer ATX LGA1150 Motherboard](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-fata...) | £55.99 @ Amazon UK
| | **Total**
| Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | £239.53
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-17 19:40 BST+0100 |
For V2 like
[PCPartPicker part list](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/hVcK8d) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/hVcK8d/by_merchant/)
Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637e31230...) | £168.79 @ CCL Computers
**Motherboard** | [ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP ATX LGA1155 Motherboard](http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-h77p...) | £58.52 @ Ebuyer
| | **Total**
| Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available | £227.31
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-09-17 19:41 BST+0100 |
-
Reply to cin19
m
0
l
Best solution
I think this one will be enough: Asrock Z77 Extreme3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
-
Reply to Brunostako
Share
TheFluffyDog
September 17, 2014 7:57:10 PM
Brunostako said:
You will get better performance with the i5 on gaming and with AutoCAD.4 strong cores are still better than 8 weak cores on gaming, because games don't use more than 4 cores right now. Better to be strong.
I really don't know how AutoCAD scales in performance with more cores, but for work Intel is usually better.
But then comes the price... If you can afford it go with Intel, if not go with AMD, is by no way bad, but Intel is better.
It is a known fact that even a hyper threaded i7 has trouble keeping up with an FX because the amd has 8interger units not just 8 virtual cores. So amd will be better. Intel becomes better when you consider the most high end systems running more intensive calculations and instructions. For instance professional real world simulations. But for what this guy is doing he will benefit from amd. Intel shower can dominate the rendering game when you move to 2011 sockets, not even because of 12 threads. Even the 4 cores perform better on 2011, and that's because of quad channel memory. So if your running a dual channel platform and your not a hardcore gamer Intel is pretty much a money blender.
-
Reply to TheFluffyDog
m
0
l
TheFluffyDog said:
Brunostako said:
You will get better performance with the i5 on gaming and with AutoCAD.4 strong cores are still better than 8 weak cores on gaming, because games don't use more than 4 cores right now. Better to be strong.
I really don't know how AutoCAD scales in performance with more cores, but for work Intel is usually better.
But then comes the price... If you can afford it go with Intel, if not go with AMD, is by no way bad, but Intel is better.
It is a known fact that even a hyper threaded i7 has trouble keeping up with an FX because the amd has 8interger units not just 8 virtual cores. So amd will be better. Intel becomes better when you consider the most high end systems running more intensive calculations and instructions. For instance professional real world simulations. But for what this guy is doing he will benefit from amd. Intel shower can dominate the rendering game when you move to 2011 sockets, not even because of 12 threads. Even the 4 cores perform better on 2011, and that's because of quad channel memory. So if your running a dual channel platform and your not a hardcore gamer Intel is pretty much a money blender.
That's nowhere near to be true. I won't say more.
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
jujar14
September 18, 2014 1:10:13 AM
im pretty confused now again. the point is amd costs me about £20 less. not much difference. so im trying to go for the best i can. this was my summary on e3 vs i5:
same amount of core as i5 but 2x threads
lower power consumption
longer life
whereas the i5 can only be overclocked
so in this regard its an i5 @ 4.6 ghz vs e3 @ 3.7 with lower power, temperature and more threads.
so that takes it to e3 @3.7 vs 8350 @ 5ghz (if im lucky)
so thats 4 cores and 4 threads vs 8 physical cores (but much weaker)
so the drop in performance could but what 25% in amds favour?
with a higher clock speed
but
how long will amd be able to keep this performance up with 220w a high temperature (using evo 212).
and how long will it last as i need it to last 7 years (minimum)?
if i have somthing that can last that long i will be able to go all out on it then. im only 17 and i'm fairly skint i have about 6k in the savings and im useing 900 on a full system (screen and everything) i've got just about enough for
the stuff.
granted amd costs less but if i want to overclock the amd i must go for a good mobo (sabertooth) where as the mobo for the e3 will only require turbo and i wont need a massive amount of power supplied there (more full proof) so its neither here nor there.
some more insight mabey as you seen to be quite adamant that i7 is trailing fx 8350 (benchmarks dont say so just on multi core and with i7 not very often) so stats you could provide?
same amount of core as i5 but 2x threads
lower power consumption
longer life
whereas the i5 can only be overclocked
so in this regard its an i5 @ 4.6 ghz vs e3 @ 3.7 with lower power, temperature and more threads.
so that takes it to e3 @3.7 vs 8350 @ 5ghz (if im lucky)
so thats 4 cores and 4 threads vs 8 physical cores (but much weaker)
so the drop in performance could but what 25% in amds favour?
with a higher clock speed
but
how long will amd be able to keep this performance up with 220w a high temperature (using evo 212).
and how long will it last as i need it to last 7 years (minimum)?
if i have somthing that can last that long i will be able to go all out on it then. im only 17 and i'm fairly skint i have about 6k in the savings and im useing 900 on a full system (screen and everything) i've got just about enough for
the stuff.
granted amd costs less but if i want to overclock the amd i must go for a good mobo (sabertooth) where as the mobo for the e3 will only require turbo and i wont need a massive amount of power supplied there (more full proof) so its neither here nor there.
some more insight mabey as you seen to be quite adamant that i7 is trailing fx 8350 (benchmarks dont say so just on multi core and with i7 not very often) so stats you could provide?
-
Reply to jujar14
m
0
l
Even when I on the AMD side, i'm not a fanboy.
Don't think it much, this time you need a Intel based platform. Forget anything about the FX-8350, unless you want to save some money in your build.
In some benchmarks, the FX-8350 manages to beat all the Core i5 on heavy MULTI threaded tasks, but this scenario is very limited in real life and on not well threaded tasks (like 1 or 2 threads) even Pentiums can beat it. But it have been never near to beat an i7 3rd gen (this time Xeon) on heavy multi threaded tasks.
Don't think it much, this time you need a Intel based platform. Forget anything about the FX-8350, unless you want to save some money in your build.
In some benchmarks, the FX-8350 manages to beat all the Core i5 on heavy MULTI threaded tasks, but this scenario is very limited in real life and on not well threaded tasks (like 1 or 2 threads) even Pentiums can beat it. But it have been never near to beat an i7 3rd gen (this time Xeon) on heavy multi threaded tasks.
-
Reply to Brunostako
m
0
l
Ace Dynamo
September 29, 2014 5:41:30 AM
I am in the exact position you are, I am not a fanboy of any kind and after a week of research, I have decided on the i5-4790k.
Performance: These cpu's are close enough that an average gamer will not notice a difference, however the 4790k edges out the FX8350 by a very small margin in many (but not all) gaming benchmarks.
Price: AMD is slightly cheaper for the same gaming experience, I hear a lot of advice on using the savings for a better GPU/Mobo. But let's be honest. Currently (in CDN $) the 4790k is just $50.00 more, that's not enough to make much of an improvement imo.
Futureproofing: This is was what helped me make my decision. Socket AM3+ is at the end of it's lifetime. Socket 1150 is alive and well, with the new Devil’s Canyon cpu's you'll be set, and could even drop in an i7 a few years down the road if you want, with AM3+ the end is near.
Cheers
Performance: These cpu's are close enough that an average gamer will not notice a difference, however the 4790k edges out the FX8350 by a very small margin in many (but not all) gaming benchmarks.
Price: AMD is slightly cheaper for the same gaming experience, I hear a lot of advice on using the savings for a better GPU/Mobo. But let's be honest. Currently (in CDN $) the 4790k is just $50.00 more, that's not enough to make much of an improvement imo.
Futureproofing: This is was what helped me make my decision. Socket AM3+ is at the end of it's lifetime. Socket 1150 is alive and well, with the new Devil’s Canyon cpu's you'll be set, and could even drop in an i7 a few years down the road if you want, with AM3+ the end is near.
Cheers
-
Reply to Ace Dynamo
m
0
l
Related resources
- Solvedi5 4690k or the FX-8350 4GHz edition Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8350 vs. Intel i5 4590 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX8350 vs I5 4670k Forum
- Solvedi5 4670k VS AMD FX-8350 for Multitasking Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8350 vs Intel i5 4670K Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8350 vs Intel i5 4670K Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8350 + R7 260X vs Intel i5 4670k + GTX 660 Forum
- SolvedIntel i5 4670K vs AMD FX-8350 Forum
- SolvedFX-8320 vs i5 4690k Forum
- Solvedi5 4690k vs i5 4690 Forum
- SolvedAround 1000€ August 2013 System: AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i5 - First Time Builder Forum
- Amd fx-8350 vs intel i5 4460 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-8350 vs i5 4670K with Radeon Vapor-X HD 7950 Forum
- Solvedi5 4690 vs i5 4690k Forum
- Solvedi5 4460 vs i5 4690k Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Components categories
!