- Sep 13, 2014
- 205
- 0
- 4,690
amd 8320 or i3 4150 or i3 4350
- Thread starter SpookyApple
- Start date
Solution
- Sep 13, 2014
- 205
- 0
- 4,690
Go for the FX one. In overall perfromance and in gaming the FX crushes the others as it can realese more FLOPs (112 GFLOPS for the FX and 28.8 GFLOPS for the I3 4350) he has LOT more cores which means much higher perfromance in CPU intesive tasks.
He has an EXTREME overclocability (9.5 on CPUBOSS) and Decent overall performance for its price (8 on CPUBOSS)
He is definitly the choice for you.
If i were you i would go for an 4430/4460 as it is low price and give better perfromance in SINGLE-threaded apps
BTW that guy (zeyuanfu) is CLAIRLY a die-hard Intel fanboy.
He has an EXTREME overclocability (9.5 on CPUBOSS) and Decent overall performance for its price (8 on CPUBOSS)
He is definitly the choice for you.
If i were you i would go for an 4430/4460 as it is low price and give better perfromance in SINGLE-threaded apps
BTW that guy (zeyuanfu) is CLAIRLY a die-hard Intel fanboy.
zeyuanfu
Splendid
- Jun 19, 2014
- 4,919
- 0
- 24,960
1, I wouldn't go that far (CRUSHING?)
2, CPUBoss isn't a trustworthy source for comparisons
3, I wonder why you are using ''he'' to talk about a CPU...
4, I like Intel as they make better CPUs than AMD
5, AMD cores are weak
6, The FX has a HORRIBLE upgrade path. the maximum is the FX 9590, which doesn't even come to half of the i7-4790K's performance, which is priced similarly.
The bottom line: If you want equal performance to the i3 and a bad upgrade path, go with the FX.
If not, the i3 would be the choice.
2, CPUBoss isn't a trustworthy source for comparisons
3, I wonder why you are using ''he'' to talk about a CPU...
4, I like Intel as they make better CPUs than AMD
5, AMD cores are weak
6, The FX has a HORRIBLE upgrade path. the maximum is the FX 9590, which doesn't even come to half of the i7-4790K's performance, which is priced similarly.
The bottom line: If you want equal performance to the i3 and a bad upgrade path, go with the FX.
If not, the i3 would be the choice.
Even against a 4460 the 8320 step over as it have more cache 8mb vs 6mb and in total the AMD one has 16mb of cache vs the 7mb of the 4460.
The great downside about AMD is that the manucfacturing process. While Intel uses 22nm and is planning 14nm AMD sits there with an old 32nm.
I would certainly go for an 8320.
The great downside about AMD is that the manucfacturing process. While Intel uses 22nm and is planning 14nm AMD sits there with an old 32nm.
I would certainly go for an 8320.
- Sep 13, 2014
- 205
- 0
- 4,690
,
zeyuanfu
Splendid
- Jun 19, 2014
- 4,919
- 0
- 24,960
Also, check this:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
The 8320 is on the same tier as the equivalent of the i3-4350, even though they should put it a semi-tier higher as it has a better upgrade path.
The 8320 is on the same tier as the equivalent of the i3-4350, even though they should put it a semi-tier higher as it has a better upgrade path.
In geekbench, the FX-8320 has 12034 points while the I5 4460 has around 10000 pts. BUT in single threaded apps , the I5 4460 wins.
BTW zeyuanfu, the upgrade path is upgarding because AMD is pushing toward new CPU to revalize with the 4790K. In multi-threaded app, AMD definitly wins the battle even against some Intel I7. AMD core may be weak but the are in larger quantities. BTW The FX 8320 is beating the 4460. The concurrent for this I3 is the Athlon X4 760K. Intel doesnt make better CPUs it is just that thier focus is not in multi-threading but in single-threaded, why do you think AMD is pushing developpers to use more cores.
bottom line: If you want good performance in multi-threaded apps go for the FX but if i were you i would get a decent I5 to be able to game pretty good.
If gaming is not the priority or if you want cheaper options or if you need/want badass multi-threaded performance go for the FX-8320
But in all cases the choice is between I5 an FX-8320 dont consider I3 even the G3258 beat them.
BTW zeyuanfu, the upgrade path is upgarding because AMD is pushing toward new CPU to revalize with the 4790K. In multi-threaded app, AMD definitly wins the battle even against some Intel I7. AMD core may be weak but the are in larger quantities. BTW The FX 8320 is beating the 4460. The concurrent for this I3 is the Athlon X4 760K. Intel doesnt make better CPUs it is just that thier focus is not in multi-threading but in single-threaded, why do you think AMD is pushing developpers to use more cores.
bottom line: If you want good performance in multi-threaded apps go for the FX but if i were you i would get a decent I5 to be able to game pretty good.
If gaming is not the priority or if you want cheaper options or if you need/want badass multi-threaded performance go for the FX-8320
But in all cases the choice is between I5 an FX-8320 dont consider I3 even the G3258 beat them.
zeyuanfu
Splendid
- Jun 19, 2014
- 4,919
- 0
- 24,960
Saw that on CPUBoss, right?
If AMD designed a new CPU to compete with the 4790K, why didn't they release it a month or two after the 4790K was released? There were some FX 8xxx CPUs released recently, but they don't even come to a third of the 4790K's performance.
Also, for ~250$, There are Xeon CPUs with 4 cores and Hyper-Threading, so 4 cores and 8 threads, which is better than AMD as their cores are weak.
Please, take a look at this again:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Why do you think the author put the G3258 a full TWO tiers below the i3? Yes, the FX beats that, but you get what you pay for (at least in the G3258's case)...
If AMD designed a new CPU to compete with the 4790K, why didn't they release it a month or two after the 4790K was released? There were some FX 8xxx CPUs released recently, but they don't even come to a third of the 4790K's performance.
Also, for ~250$, There are Xeon CPUs with 4 cores and Hyper-Threading, so 4 cores and 8 threads, which is better than AMD as their cores are weak.
Please, take a look at this again:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Why do you think the author put the G3258 a full TWO tiers below the i3? Yes, the FX beats that, but you get what you pay for (at least in the G3258's case)...
DubbleClick
Admirable
- Jun 16, 2014
- 2,116
- 1
- 6,460
Dat_Robot, you don't seem to have any clue how cpu's work. Amd's fx chips and intel core I? haswells are so different, you can't really compare them. Fx chips have 8mb cache, great, l2 cache connected by a completely other system than the 256kb l2 cache I3's have and even less comparable to 6mb of l3 cache. They are not even located similary.
Secondly, while intel cores feature a full 256bit fpu with high ipc, fx chips have 8 cores, each containing a 128bit fpu. Two together connect to one 'ehh' 256 bit one. Still, very low instructions per cycle.
Leading to the next point, you can't compare ghz. A 2.8ghz haswell I7 is about as strong as a 5.2ghz fx 9590. In multithreading.
The 8320fx has fairly low stock clocks, but it's strength is its price/performance ratio when oc'ed.
In rendering, it will burst the I3 down. However, in most games the I3 has an easy time laughing about the fx. Both have their advantages. With a 750ti, I'd choose the 8320fx. It won't limit its performance and perform better overall. If power consumption is something important to you, the I3 is definitely better though. It consumes 40w under full load compared to 120w of the 8320fx. At least after a yeah of ~10hrs on a day, you'll run into $100 difference on the yearly power bill.
By the way, an I5 4690k beats (mod edit here) fx chips on the same clock speeds (usually attainable) in everything. While still consuming less power and not needing any better cooler than the fx.
Secondly, while intel cores feature a full 256bit fpu with high ipc, fx chips have 8 cores, each containing a 128bit fpu. Two together connect to one 'ehh' 256 bit one. Still, very low instructions per cycle.
Leading to the next point, you can't compare ghz. A 2.8ghz haswell I7 is about as strong as a 5.2ghz fx 9590. In multithreading.
The 8320fx has fairly low stock clocks, but it's strength is its price/performance ratio when oc'ed.
In rendering, it will burst the I3 down. However, in most games the I3 has an easy time laughing about the fx. Both have their advantages. With a 750ti, I'd choose the 8320fx. It won't limit its performance and perform better overall. If power consumption is something important to you, the I3 is definitely better though. It consumes 40w under full load compared to 120w of the 8320fx. At least after a yeah of ~10hrs on a day, you'll run into $100 difference on the yearly power bill.
By the way, an I5 4690k beats (mod edit here) fx chips on the same clock speeds (usually attainable) in everything. While still consuming less power and not needing any better cooler than the fx.
DubbleClick
Admirable
- Jun 16, 2014
- 2,116
- 1
- 6,460
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k
Browse through the pages, an I5 4690k is in a whole different league than the 8350fx. But, doesn't that make sense anyway? One is a new cpu for $250, the other one almost 4 years old and going for $180.
Browse through the pages, an I5 4690k is in a whole different league than the 8350fx. But, doesn't that make sense anyway? One is a new cpu for $250, the other one almost 4 years old and going for $180.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram