Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

which is better for gaming amd fx 8350 or intel i5 4670k

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • AMD
  • Intel i5
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2014 8:36:48 PM

I am looking for buying a pc and I am confused in amd and intel for gaming purpose mostly
Plz help

More about : gaming amd 8350 intel 4670k

September 23, 2014 8:44:45 PM

The intel will always be better for gaming. Always.

There's a lot of reasons behind it, but if you can, always go with an Intel processor. They will outperform AMD in about every benchmark.

If your budget is heavily restricted, an AMD would be acceptable. But not recommended.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 23, 2014 8:49:20 PM

All the AMD haters lol. Yeah the i5 is better for Gaming and single core performance and a little bit more for heat and power consumption.. But the 8350 is much better in multi threaded task, Streaming, Rendering, Photoshop, Recording, etc etc.. if you're strictly gaming pick the Intel. But if you plan on doing all the other stuff mentioned above, get the 8350.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 8:49:49 PM

Can I have the reason how intel is better
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 8:52:16 PM

ohyes247 said:
All the AMD haters lol. Yeah the i5 is better for Gaming and single core performance and a little bit more for heat and power consumption.. But the 8350 is much better in multi threaded task, Streaming, Rendering, Photoshop, Recording, etc etc.. if you're strictly gaming pick the Intel. But if you plan on doing all the other stuff mentioned above, get the 8350.


That may be true, but only because the i5's arent threaded past the number of cores they have. This is for a build about gaming, of course Intel would be recommended. Has nothing to do with hating.

Compare the 8350 to an i7, and AMD gets blown out of the water. The i7's hyper-threading is far better optimized than AMD's multi threading capabilities in the Vishera cores.

m
0
l

Best solution

September 23, 2014 8:54:41 PM

abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.
Share
September 23, 2014 9:13:59 PM

Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
September 23, 2014 9:15:25 PM

The above answer is correct.

In a game like SKYRIM the Intel setup with a good graphics card can be as high as 45% better such as 58FPS vs 40FPS when comparing an i5-4670K and FX-8350.

In BF4 the difference might be nothing as the engine can use more of the FX-8350's cores.

It's also not true that the FX-8350 necessarily does better in heavily threaded programs. What I've observed is the FX-8350 at best roughly TIES the i5-4670K but usually is behind.

There's also the issue of POWER CONSUMPTION which also translates into noise as well.

GRAPHICS CARDS:
The best value absolutely for a good gaming card is the new GTX970, such as the Asus Strix version. You can read here and look at the benchmark summary: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_O...

*THIS is what I would recommend for a gaming build assuming you have the budget:

- i5-4690K CPU
- Noctua NH-U14S (or U14S) cooler
- Z97 motherboard (with good customer feedback)

- GTX970 (Asus Strix version) graphics card
- suitable case
- 8GB (2x4GB) 1600MHz CAS9 DDR3 memory

- Windows 8.1 64-bit (and get Start8)
- suitable Power Supply (quality 500W is sufficient)
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 9:16:21 PM

ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


And Intel will adapt to keep the gaming market in their hands.
They always have. (See: X99)

Dont get me wrong, I love AMD. I use their processors because I always build on tight budgets(Except this time...), and you get surprising performance for the price. But if the option and funding is available, I would go for Intel.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 9:18:51 PM

P.S. Also Get the 8320 OC it to 4.0Ghz (same speed as 8350 and can be achieved on stock volts) use the 100 or so dollars saved and get a better gpu.. which will in turn make up for the 4 or 5fps you lose just because you didn't get an Intel.. Oh and benefit from the fact that most if not all console ports in the near future are going to run better on the 6 and 8 core CPU's. Take BF4 as an example.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 9:21:04 PM

Tormidal said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


And Intel will adapt to keep the gaming market in their hands.
They always have. (See: X99)

Dont get me wrong, I love AMD. I use their processors because I always build on tight budgets(Except this time...), and you get surprising performance for the price. But if the option and funding is available, I would go for Intel.


Yeah an X99 based system would be nice.. But im not gonna shell out 600-700 or even 1000 dollars on just a cpu and motherboard combo.. when i could build a top of the line AMD machine for the same price and have more money put into a GPU than you could with the Intel.. Id say anyone who spends that much on just 2 things for one pc has more money than brains.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 9:29:32 PM

ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


And Intel will adapt to keep the gaming market in their hands.
They always have. (See: X99)

Dont get me wrong, I love AMD. I use their processors because I always build on tight budgets(Except this time...), and you get surprising performance for the price. But if the option and funding is available, I would go for Intel.


Yeah an X99 based system would be nice.. But im not gonna shell out 600-700 or even 1000 dollars on just a cpu and motherboard combo.. when i could build a top of the line AMD machine for the same price and have more money put into a GPU than you could with the Intel.. Id say anyone who spends that much on just 2 things for one pc has more money than brains.


What you fail to realize is that X99 isnt meant for mainstream consumption by gamers and the like.
Its a workstation system. Its meant for people doing tons of 3D work, AutoCAD, Maya, etc.

For a gamer, getting an X99 is out of the question, but for someone who makes a living off of doing video rendering, its the best you can get.

Not only that, picking up one top of the line Intel build, such as X99, is going to still rock out six years down the line.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 9:34:56 PM

Tormidal said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


And Intel will adapt to keep the gaming market in their hands.
They always have. (See: X99)

Dont get me wrong, I love AMD. I use their processors because I always build on tight budgets(Except this time...), and you get surprising performance for the price. But if the option and funding is available, I would go for Intel.


Yeah an X99 based system would be nice.. But im not gonna shell out 600-700 or even 1000 dollars on just a cpu and motherboard combo.. when i could build a top of the line AMD machine for the same price and have more money put into a GPU than you could with the Intel.. Id say anyone who spends that much on just 2 things for one pc has more money than brains.


What you fail to realize is that X99 isnt meant for mainstream consumption by gamers and the like.
Its a workstation system. Its meant for people doing tons of 3D work, AutoCAD, Maya, etc.

For a gamer, getting an X99 is out of the question, but for someone who makes a living off of doing video rendering, its the best you can get.

Not only that, picking up one top of the line Intel build, such as X99, is going to still rock out six years down the line.


Just like my 8320. Im happy with what i got.. I personally don't think im missing much and the Intel stuff is just overhyped.. Ohh yeeah put another 100 dollars down for 5 to 6% increase in gaming perfomance.
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 11:35:14 PM

ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


Not a year from Now, even not also most of the games are utilizing all the cores in our CPU (BF 4 is the best example). I am agreeing with you, Cz, im using Both i5 (one in pc and one il Lap top) and an 8320. My AMD is always a slep ahead.
And Physical cores are always better that logical threads.

Intel is good in manyways, bt defntly not for something related to graphics.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 12:27:34 AM

Nikhil Das said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


Not a year from Now, even not also most of the games are utilizing all the cores in our CPU (BF 4 is the best example). I am agreeing with you, Cz, im using Both i5 (one in pc and one il Lap top) and an 8320. My AMD is always a slep ahead.
And Physical cores are always better that logical threads.

Intel is good in manyways, bt defntly not for something related to graphics.


Finally, No intel bias, Thank you.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 2:11:15 AM

Nope, some AMD bias instead. Well a change is as good as a holiday.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 2:12:41 AM

Mac266 said:
Nope, some AMD bias instead. Well a change is as good as a holiday.


Not really bias, See we use facts and proven statistics, Not opinion and what everyone else says.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 3:27:48 AM

Go with i5, better build, quality CPU, only get AMD if your budget is restricted.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 6:54:24 AM

Nikhil Das said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


Not a year from Now, even not also most of the games are utilizing all the cores in our CPU (BF 4 is the best example). I am agreeing with you, Cz, im using Both i5 (one in pc and one il Lap top) and an 8320. My AMD is always a slep ahead.
And Physical cores are always better that logical threads.

Intel is good in manyways, bt defntly not for something related to graphics.


No idea where these numbers are coming from. Ive a desktop with an 8350 and a desktop with an i5(recently upgraded to i7), and the AMD loses out to both processors in gaming benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
September 24, 2014 6:42:57 PM

Future gaming:

1) While it's true that in the future games will use more cores effectively, that's not an overnight process. You aren't going to wake up one morning and suddenly discover every game runs better on an AMD CPU with 8 cores.

We'll get what we have NOW. A mix of performance. Each year that goes by will improve the FX-8350's performance in games (though no guarantee it will beat a good i5/i7).

2) Intel's per-core performance has been improving. Haswell gained about 10% over Ivy Bridge.

3) Intel can get price competitive. They have a Haswell-E CPU with SIX CORES currently for $385 which is impressive.

4) *Future games will also be more efficient on the CPU. That's already been discussed by AMD with Mantle. I've seen numbers suggesting a 40% reduction in the amount of CPU processing to run the same game once Mantle or DX12 are optimized better.

5) We'll also see tasks moved over to the GPU instead of the CPU, such as the extra processing needed for Multiplayer. Possibly even able to use a SECOND GPU to do that.

6) Example:
If I look at CPU usage there are a few that heavily stress an i5-4670K but I'd say most use 50% of the available resources at most. That's 50% untapped for future games to use. If we reduce that by 40% due to improved efficiency with Mantle or DX12 then we've got about 3X the CPU resources to play with.

7) Take all the above, especially #6, then consider that the new CONSOLES will heavily affect game design since they use an x86 AMD CPU. They use SIX of those cores for gaming and they run I believe 2GHz at the most (1.8GHz?). Consoles normally aren't comparable to a PC but that's changing especially with the upcoming DX12 and Mantle. We'll see a LOT of games run on the PC, PS4 and XBOX ONE so the core parts of the game will be designed towards the lowest common denominator.

Summary:
It's basically good news for EVERYONE, but these sort of changes do take years on average so anyone who has a superior setup now is not going to suddenly wake up and be "upset" about his rig's performance.

Plus, any game you currently own is not going to change how it performs. If it's bottlenecked on your AMD CPU it will remain so.

There's a LOT of evidence to suggest that a good CPU is going to last many years to come with the main upgrades being graphics and possibly System Memory (i.e. more than 8GB for resource streaming).
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:00:31 PM

photonboy said:
Future gaming:

1) While it's true that in the future games will use more cores effectively, that's not an overnight process. You aren't going to wake up one morning and suddenly discover every game runs better on an AMD CPU with 8 cores.

We'll get what we have NOW. A mix of performance. Each year that goes by will improve the FX-8350's performance in games (though no guarantee it will beat a good i5/i7).

2) Intel's per-core performance has been improving. Haswell gained about 10% over Ivy Bridge.

3) Intel can get price competitive. They have a Haswell-E CPU with SIX CORES currently for $385 which is impressive.

4) *Future games will also be more efficient on the CPU. That's already been discussed by AMD with Mantle. I've seen numbers suggesting a 40% reduction in the amount of CPU processing to run the same game once Mantle or DX12 are optimized better.

5) We'll also see tasks moved over to the GPU instead of the CPU, such as the extra processing needed for Multiplayer. Possibly even able to use a SECOND GPU to do that.

6) Example:
If I look at CPU usage there are a few that heavily stress an i5-4670K but I'd say most use 50% of the available resources at most. That's 50% untapped for future games to use. If we reduce that by 40% due to improved efficiency with Mantle or DX12 then we've got about 3X the CPU resources to play with.

7) Take all the above, especially #6, then consider that the new CONSOLES will heavily affect game design since they use an x86 AMD CPU. They use SIX of those cores for gaming and they run I believe 2GHz at the most (1.8GHz?). Consoles normally aren't comparable to a PC but that's changing especially with the upcoming DX12 and Mantle. We'll see a LOT of games run on the PC, PS4 and XBOX ONE so the core parts of the game will be designed towards the lowest common denominator.

Summary:
It's basically good news for EVERYONE, but these sort of changes do take years on average so anyone who has a superior setup now is not going to suddenly wake up and be "upset" about his rig's performance.

Plus, any game you currently own is not going to change how it performs. If it's bottlenecked on your AMD CPU it will remain so.

There's a LOT of evidence to suggest that a good CPU is going to last many years to come with the main upgrades being graphics and possibly System Memory (i.e. more than 8GB for resource streaming).


"good news for everyone" Exactly, unbiased, again, thank you. I know Intel is better right now, but im saying with the way things are heading if you take BF4, a next gen console game.. It runs better than a Last gen (i know its not the newest intel CPU) i5 like a 3470 or 3570 Non K and about On par (give or take 1 or 2 FPS) using the same gpu with a i5 and even i7.

So when games only utilize 1-2 cores then yes Skyrim for example will be smoother on an i5 even an i3.. But games like BF4.. the 83xx cpus really shine and are on par with i5's when properly optimized.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:09:27 PM

ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


Games can use 6 and more cores now. It's just that it doesn't result in increased performance because games are realtime workloads who's tasks are highly serialized, and thus require strong per core performance. Intel has this, and AMD does not. AMD CPU's are great if you want to run Handbrake benchmarks and open 84 tabs in Firefox. For realtime workloads like games, Intel's architecture is vastly superior.
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:09:47 PM

I play Battlefield 4 multiplayer on 64 player maps with an i3 4130 on medium settings and mesh quality=ultra, texture quality=high AO=Off, Texture Filtering=Ultra, FXAA=high at 1600x900(native res.) with an r7 260x. My frames are 60-90, 55 as the lowest. Dual core processors not good for gaming is a myth
m
0
l
September 26, 2014 10:37:39 PM

Tormidal said:
Nikhil Das said:
ohyes247 said:
Tormidal said:
abhayv said:
Can I have the reason how intel is better


Intel's have better core performance than AMDs, primarily.(No, not clock speed. Thats different.)
Intel has better heat management.

Especially in gaming, which typically aren't optimized to utilize very many threads(save for various high end strategy games: see Galactic Civilizations), a lot of the AMD's potential is wasted and unused. Meanwhile, the i5 is going to be fully utilized, giving better performance.



Says this. a year from now games will use 6 and up cores and the AMD's 8 cores will really start to shine and all the i5 users will be upset.


Not a year from Now, even not also most of the games are utilizing all the cores in our CPU (BF 4 is the best example). I am agreeing with you, Cz, im using Both i5 (one in pc and one il Lap top) and an 8320. My AMD is always a slep ahead.
And Physical cores are always better that logical threads.

Intel is good in manyways, bt defntly not for something related to graphics.


No idea where these numbers are coming from. Ive a desktop with an 8350 and a desktop with an i5(recently upgraded to i7), and the AMD loses out to both processors in gaming benchmarks.


Hahaha, you are right, a 250$ Intel can out perform a 100$AMD.. No doubt.
I started using with Intel Pentium 4 >> AMD Athlon 3800+ (I used it for 6+ years and was able to play FC3, BF3 and so) >> i5 (laptop version) Bought that laptop for coding, sold that laptop thinking like its giving me the same outup as my AMD >> i5 (official PC) >>8320 (latest build, still kicking ass.
Im not saying like one is better tha another. Bt If you want o build a PC, reasonable one, AMD is still the better choice.
Its like comparing with ios and android. Both have their own plus points, bt just for that paying a huge amount extra is jst wast of money.
And this is from my experience, Updgrading pc is one thing for gaming, bt gpu handles almost everything.
SO, if we buy an AMD CPU, we still have plenty to save for a better GPU.
And if someone is concerned about TDP, amd's new FX "E" series will help. Check for those if you have time.
ANd frankly said, im not a fanboy of intel or AMD, im someone who jst want to get my things done.
And one more thing to say, most powerful Gaming hardware, PS4 and XBOX one are using AMD. Cz they have much to offe.. ;) 
Consider that fact too. We can make mistakes, bt i dont think 2 electronic giants wont do it if its a mistake. ;) 
m
0
l
!